First test of the new law

peter nap · Jul 4, 2010

Yesterday I had to get something. Where I live...getting something involves a 20 to 40 mile trip if t's more than gas. Then I can get away with 16 miles.

Anyway...I drove through Nottoway and got to a checkpoint run by VSP.

I had a 44 in a holster hanging from the gun rack and another one in the glove compartment and the 45/70 in the rack.

Conversation as I handed him my license.
/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Good morning sir.

Good morning.

What happened to your windshield.

Rock hit it.

That happens a lot. I bought a new truck and one hit the windshield the next day.

By the way, I have a gun.

I saw them when you drove up.

I have another one in the glove compartment.

That's fine, have a nice day.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

At least VSP is up on the new laws!

gis · Jul 4, 2010

I had very good interaction with VSP last year, just after I moved here. It was in the Leesburg area. I was headed home and realized that I missed my turn-off. Just as I did, I noticed a check point about a half mile ahead on the road I was on, with about 10-12 cars waiting to be talked to. Not wanting to waste time, I immediately pulled a U-turn (legal one as far as I could tell) and went the opposite way. Sure enough, I had one of the VSP guys catch up to me. I gave him my DL, informed him that I was armed, explained why I did the U-turn and said that it might look suspicious. The guy gave me back my license and told me to have a nice day. No other questions or chit chat.

My impression is that VSP generally maintains a high level of professionalism, so I would expect them to be current on the law.

conhntr · Jul 4, 2010

His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?

curtiswr · Jul 4, 2010

conhntr said:
His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?

He said it was a checkpoint setup by VSP.

peter nap · Jul 4, 2010

conhntr said:
His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?

Road block...First one I've been through for years.

gis · Jul 4, 2010

conhntr said:
His what was the reason he gave for pullig you over? Where you speeding?

When someone is attempting to avoid a checkpoint, that's enough reasonable suspicion to for a traffic stop. Had I waited to clear the checkpoint, I would have to turn around on the other side and go through it again on the way back. But he didn't know that before he pulled me over. That was a good stop.

ODA 226 · Jul 4, 2010

peter nap said:
Road block...First one I've been through for years.

I still say that checkpoints are unconstitutional.

conhntr · Jul 4, 2010

Ok wasntnsure from the op if it was something in addition or just for making a u-turn in the vicinity of a checkpoint. This is exactly why I'm against checkpoints it's a slippery slope.
Checkpoint ok
u-turn that would be ok is Noe cause for stop because of vicinity to checkpoint
whAt if I open my front door,see a checkpoint and go back inside- search my house?

It's not a huge step we already acknowledged it's ok to stop someone where it otherwise wouldn't be because a checkpoint is nearby why not slide all the way down the slope and search my house and bank records?

gis · Jul 4, 2010

conhntr said:
Ok wasntnsure from the op if it was something in addition or just for making a u-turn in the vicinity of a checkpoint. This is exactly why I'm against checkpoints it's a slippery slope.
Checkpoint ok
u-turn that would be ok is Noe cause for stop because of vicinity to checkpoint
whAt if I open my front door,see a checkpoint and go back inside- search my house?

It's not a huge step we already acknowledged it's ok to stop someone where it otherwise wouldn't be because a checkpoint is nearby why not slide all the way down the slope and search my house and bank records?

Having been a cop in the Midwest, I find checkpoints a little uncomfortable myself. We did details (drunks, drugs, etc.), had spotters, but always had RS to stop someone and never stopped everyone. If he had asked to search my vehicle on the basis of a U-turn, I would of course turn him down (nothing but guns in the vehicle anyway), and follow it up the chain if I had to. However his RS (avoiding police contact) couldn't be developed into PC based on what I said, so he correctly wished me a good day. No harm no foul.

Neplusultra · Jul 4, 2010

ODA 226 said:
I still say that checkpoints are unconstitutional.

+1 times 20. I do not understand the reasoning behind their supposed legality. It's a fishing expedition where they stop you and fish for something illegal while you wait there patiently for them to do so. But of course you have nothing to fear, right?

Neplusultra · Jul 4, 2010

conhntr said:
Ok wasntnsure from the op if it was something in addition or just for making a u-turn in the vicinity of a checkpoint. This is exactly why I'm against checkpoints it's a slippery slope.
Checkpoint ok
u-turn that would be ok is Noe cause for stop because of vicinity to checkpoint
whAt if I open my front door,see a checkpoint and go back inside- search my house?

It's not a huge step we already acknowledged it's ok to stop someone where it otherwise wouldn't be because a checkpoint is nearby why not slide all the way down the slope and search my house and bank records?

Dood, you don't have anything to hide do you? The mere fact you don't like checkpoints makes me reasonably suspicious that you are hiding something :^).

TFred · Jul 5, 2010

Locked vs. Secured

It's good to hear that this went OK for you.

After the thread about the VSP website not catching the last minute change in the final version of the law, I got to thinking about how easy it would be for a zealous LEO and CA to argue that "secured" does require "locked". The word "secure" does have multiple meanings. Especially for military folks, who use it to describe the action of locking up a safe, a room or a space on a ship.

I think it would be important for us to always remember the details of this law, especially that final change. Any judge or jury, presented with the fact that the bill did indeed go through an explicit change from "locked" to "secured", should be able to see that the intent of the General Assembly (which did pass the final version) was to not require a locked container.

TFred

All American Nightmare · Jul 5, 2010

gis said:
I had very good interaction with VSP last year, just after I moved here. It was in the Leesburg area. I was headed home and realized that I missed my turn-off. Just as I did, I noticed a check point about a half mile ahead on the road I was on, with about 10-12 cars waiting to be talked to. Not wanting to waste time, I immediately pulled a U-turn (legal one as far as I could tell) and went the opposite way. Sure enough, I had one of the VSP guys catch up to me. I gave him my DL, informed him that I was armed, explained why I did the U-turn and said that it might look suspicious. The guy gave me back my license and told me to have a nice day. No other questions or chit chat.

My impression is that VSP generally maintains a high level of professionalism, so I would expect them to be current on the law.

I manage to find all the rookies in every PD.

Citizen · Jul 5, 2010

ODA 226 said:
I still say that checkpoints are unconstitutional.

+1

The first give-away is the cheesy little word "checkpoint". For what is in reality a roadblock.

But, hey. If we massage the terminology a little, we can make it seem less intrusive, and tie it to public safety. Then, fewer people will care.

I try to avoid using the government's word--checkpoint. No sense in conceding to them the initiative to change the language to their advantage.

Regarding changing words, I recently read a blog post. Apparently someone did a little research. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the term for the bust-phase of the boom-bust economic cycle was "panic". "The Panic of 1908" etc." Then, in the 1930's the term "depression" was used. Then later, "recession". Now, it has gone a step further. The new term is "recovery" or "recovering economy." Uh-huh. The proper term is "government-central bank eff-up."

The lesson is to be alert for word games in the terminology.

TFred · Jul 5, 2010

gis said:
When someone is attempting to avoid a checkpoint, that's enough reasonable suspicion to for a traffic stop. Had I waited to clear the checkpoint, I would have to turn around on the other side and go through it again on the way back. But he didn't know that before he pulled me over. That was a good stop.

Maybe in the midwest, but apparently not in Virginia. Here is a web page which provides statute and case cites for checkpoints for all 50 states. Very interesting!

http://www.iihs.org/laws/checkpoints.html

Here is the entry for Virginia, I colored the summaries for easy seeing:

Upheld under state and federal Constitution. Lowe v. Commonwealth, 337 S.E.2d 273 (Va. 1985), cert. den., 475 U.S. 1084 (1986). See also, Crandol v. City of Newport News, 386 S.E.2d 113 (Va. 1989); Simmons v. Commonwealth, 380 S.E.2d 656 (Va. 1989); Hall v. Commonwealth, 406 S.E.2d 674 (Va. App. 1991); Thomas v. Commonwealth, 473 S.E.2d 87 (Va. App. 1996). Deviation in checkpoint location, as stated in plan, will not invalidate the checkpoint. Sheppard v. Commonwealth, 489 S.E.2d 714 (Va. App. 1997). Legal driving maneuvers that reverse a driver's course toward a checkpoint do not justify a stop, Bass v. Commonwealth, 525 S.E.2d 921 (Va. 2000). See also, Murphy v. Commonwealth, 384 S.E. 2d 125 (Va. App. 1989). Certain avoidance maneuvers do justify a stop, Commonwealth v. Eaves, 408 S.E. 2d 925 (Va. App. 1991); Stroud v. Commonwealth, 370 S.E. 2d 721 (Va. App. 1988); Brown v. Commonwealth, 440 S.E, 2d 619 (Va. App. 1994).

From reading some of the case summaries, it would appear that if you avoid the stop by driving legally, and before you reach the line of cars that are stopped, they don't have sufficient RAS to stop you, but if you engage in "certain avoidance maneuvers" then they do.

I did hunt down Bass vs. Commonwealth. Worth the read. The Commonwealth was digging out every nook and cranny of the code they could think of to try to get this to stick on the guy. Here's one, there were several others, all shot down, as well:

Initially, the Commonwealth argues that Officer Wickham's observation of Bass' driving maneuvers supports the officer's reasonable conclusion that Bass “was evading the traffic checkpoint and, consequently, was violating the law.” Although there is no specific statutory prohibition against the avoidance or evasion of a traffic checkpoint, the Commonwealth refers to Code § 46.2-817, which makes it unlawful for citizens to refuse to stop their vehicles when commanded to do so by the police, and contends that a traffic checkpoint is a command by the police for all those approaching to stop their vehicles. There is no merit to this contention.

Very interesting indeed.

TFred

Citizen · Jul 5, 2010

TFred said:
Initially, the Commonwealth argues that Officer Wickham's observation of Bass' driving maneuvers supports the officer's reasonable conclusion that Bass “was evading the traffic checkpoint and, consequently, was violating the law.” Although there is no specific statutory prohibition against the avoidance or evasion of a traffic checkpoint, the Commonwealth refers to Code § 46.2-817, which makes it unlawful for citizens to refuse to stop their vehicles when commanded to do so by the police, and contends that a traffic checkpoint is a command by the police for all those approaching to stop their vehicles. There is no merit to this contention.

Very interesting indeed.

TFred

You might like this blog post, TFred: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
The first post dated 7-4-10. For some reason the author did not include a perma-link so you might have to hunt backwards to find it. Just look for his July 4th post on the 4th Amendment.

TFred · Jul 5, 2010

Citizen said:
You might like this blog post, TFred: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
The first post dated 7-4-10. For some reason the author did not include a perma-link so you might have to hunt backwards to find it. Just look for his July 4th post on the 4th Amendment.

Interesting. I don't know whether I should feel good, bad, or neutral that there is another amendment (the fourth) support group that appears to be in worse shape than we (the second) are.

I guess we should all support them all!

TFred

Citizen · Jul 5, 2010

TFred said:
Interesting. I don't know whether I should feel good, bad, or neutral that there is another amendment (the fourth) support group that appears to be in worse shape than we (the second) are.

I guess we should all support them all!

TFred

You should feel proud that OCers are the main gun-world support group for the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. (search and seizure, silence, right to an attorney)

How many other gun-rights groups get so much practice writing complaints or suing for violations of the 4th Amendment? (St. John, Banks, Syzmecki)

Yes, support them all!!

PS: I'm not too thrilled about repelling a violation of the 3rd Amendment (quartering troops in homes).

conhntr · Jul 5, 2010

Neplusultra said:
Dood, you don't have anything to hide do you? The mere fact you don't like checkpoints makes me reasonably suspicious that you are hiding something :^).

One of my grandmothers was Jewish... I'm afraid the police may figure this out at the ROADBLOCK. most of the Leo don't support the roadblocks (they are just following orders) but next time you go through one mutter something about "your papers please!"

I know alot of peoe think I'm blowing it out o proportion but it. Is a really big deal

Old Virginia Joe · Jul 5, 2010

"may I see your papers?"

{{{One of my grandmothers was Jewish... I'm afraid the police may figure this out at the ROADBLOCK. most of the Leo don't support the roadblocks (they are just following orders) but next time you go through one mutter something about "your papers please!" }}}

I love this guy's suggestion!! I hope I can remember to do this next time I meet a ROADBLOCK! We need to plant these seeds in the minds of LEO everywhere. This sounds like a OATHKEEPERS.ORG concept, doesn't it ?

Let's spread this idea to our friends.

First test of the new law

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member