OC in my car...

swinokur said:

Would a case using the 2 conditions I mentioned be thrown out of court if weapons or drugs be found based on fruit of the poisonous tree?

Probably not IMO.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with your contention that those 2 conditions justified a frisk for weapons.

Well to conclude, I believe it would.

Moving on..

swinokur said:

I'm not insisting it does. But I also think it does not either. That's my point.

Click to expand...

Huh? Then when you kept stating that those 2 conditions justified a frisk for weapons, you didn't really mean it, or that 'it does not either?'


You are all over the place here.

swinokur said:

Are the 2 circumstances enough to satisfy Terry?. I don't know. Guess a Judge will decide. Your answer is no more correct than mine IMO

Click to expand...

Huh? Again? How is my answer no more correct?

swinokur said:

What would be grounds for a Terry Stop in your mind?

IANAL

Click to expand...

Once again, you seem to be confusing two separate items. A Terry stop is one thing. A 'frisk for weapons' is a separate item. You keep merging them as if they were one item.

swinokur said:

Well to conclude, I believe it would.

Moving on..

Click to expand...

So, you believe it would, but just above, you attempted to claim you weren't insisting it would, and that you did believe it would, or would not.....


In no spot have you articulated how you feel either of your two items create either RAS or suspicion of armed and dangerous. Given that, 'moving on' is a reasonable choice.

swinokur said:

I agree but what I meant was that while I agree a traffic stop is and of itself not reason for a pat down or stop and frisk the other 2 things I listed would be.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

How do you feel 'the other 2 things' fulfill the "RAS" and the 'armed and dangerous' metrics?

Specifically, 'subject was acting in a strange fashion' or 'I smelled marijuana' do not seem to fulfill either "RAS" or "armed and dangerous."

Click to expand...

Well?

I rolled through a DUI checkpoint, officers approached my car from both sides, the one on my side saw that I was still in my work uniform and the other one told him their was a firearm in the car, attached to the center console. The officer on the driver's side shined his light on it and directed me to a parking space near by and asked me to wait for him. Now I'm thinking, wtf, if they were going to hassle me, they certainly wouldn't give me the opportunity to get away; but I parked as instructed. The officer then made a radio call, and soon another officer relieved him. He walked over to my car on the passenger side, I rolled down my window and he apologized if he made me think I was being questioned, but he just had to know how I attached the holster to the console. We both smoked a cigarette and talked guns ( let him handle my firearm to see how the system worked) for a few minutes then thanked me for my time and went back to work.





PS. the firearm in this photo has been upgraded to a 1911.

That is beautiful... I've been thinking of something along those lines myself. I might have to copy you.

Nevada carrier said:

I rolled through a DUI checkpoint, officers approached my car from both sides, the one on my side saw that I was still in my work uniform and the other one told him their was a firearm in the car, attached to the center console. The officer on the driver's side shined his light on it and directed me to a parking space near by and asked me to wait for him. Now I'm thinking, wtf, if they were going to hassle me, they certainly wouldn't give me the opportunity to get away; but I parked as instructed. The officer then made a radio call, and soon another officer relieved him. He walked over to my car on the passenger side, I rolled down my window and he apologized if he made me think I was being questioned, but he just had to know how I attached the holster to the console. We both smoked a cigarette and talked guns ( let him handle my firearm to see how the system worked) for a few minutes then thanked me for my time and went back to work...

Click to expand...

You were detained.

While afterward, a different cop (who likely knew the first one was in the wrong) was able to make friends with you over it, this is not supposed to happen and was illegal. Had what they told you been true (and I doubt it), this is no different (legally) than a cop pulling over a good-looking woman to "check her out."

Did you get to handle his firearm while he was handling yours? Or were you just disarmed by the nice officer? Or did you offer?

Considering a radio call was made, and a relief officer then "handled" you, how long did this illegal detainment take?

When I first read your story, I thought it neat, but then realized more and more how wrong it was. NOT saying you were wrong, mind you. In fact, I'd have probably done the exact same thing as you. I'm just pointing out how illegal they were, with impunity, as usual.

And yes, I LOVE the holster.

Curious: Let's say the detainment was going to now make you late for work. Could you ask the officer for a note for your boss? Ask him to write down how long you were "engaged in conversation," and since you don't want your boss to think you are a bad person, make sure to ask that he specify you did nothing wrong. Don't forget to have him sign it!

I think Mac702 is correct. The bright side is that maybe some cop got an education over it by the other officer for pulling you over. Maybe just chalk this one up to no harm no foul. If this begins to be a pattern then it is a problem.

TBG

I should correct a few things, The officer did ask me if I had some place to be, when I told him I was in no rush, he didn't really "order" me, rather he asked "if you don't mind, Would you please pull in to that parking area." Nothing about the event was a non-consensual stop. The choice to allow him to remove my firearm himself was mine to make and I allowed it for good reason, I never handle a firearm in the presence of police. Under any circumstance it's asking for a "misunderstanding." When I say "he handled my firearm," He did nothing other than remove it from the holster and place it on the dash so he could get a view of the parts needed.

Had I been going to work, and told the officer that I was pressed for time, I have no doubt that I would have been on my way. His partner who first noticed the firearm, did not panic or over react to it, he simply passed the information to his partner. This was not a police confrontation, rather it was more like an interaction, and I did not feel as though I was being interrogated. I was never even asked to identify myself.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20120220...led-weapon-pot-charges-following-traffic-stop

The trooper said that the driver of the vehicle, Ryan Phillip White, 22, of Sparks, appeared ‘excessively nervous,’ and two occupants in the car also appeared to be nervous, Allen said. The trooper had White exit the vehicle, and during a routine pat-down the officer allegedly found a loaded semi-automatic pistol

Click to expand...

So, the NHP, as a matter of policy, routinely deprives seized persons of their right to be free from unreasonable searches? Because the article didn't say anything that would lead the trooper to believe the driver was armed and dangerous.

If you are "armed and Dangerous" to me, that fits the requirements af Probable Cause. The fact that someone is in, or about to be in immenent danger due to you being armed and the facts and circumstances surrounding the event.

Their are some pretty savvy Dudes on here so I am sure we can come up with an exception to that rule or two, but looking at it backwards like I just did, in the eyes of Terry it appears that Terry reinforces the Ideal that you are not to be disarmed with out a crime present and you are suspected of committing it. Proable Cause.

Can someone think of a situation, where being Dangerous with a firearm is not a crime?

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

If you are "armed and Dangerous" to me, that fits the requirements af Probable Cause. The fact that someone is in, or about to be in immenent danger due to you being armed and the facts and circumstances surrounding the event.

Their are some pretty savvy Dudes on here so I am sure we can come up with an exception to that rule or two, but looking at it backwards like I just did, in the eyes of Terry it appears that Terry reinforces the Ideal that you are not to be disarmed with out a crime present and you are suspected of committing it. Proable Cause.

Can someone think of a situation, where being Dangerous with a firearm is not a crime?

Click to expand...

Yes, without even wasting time.

Self-Defense.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

If you are "armed and Dangerous" to me, that fits the requirements af Probable Cause. The fact that someone is in, or about to be in immenent danger due to you being armed and the facts and circumstances surrounding the event.

Their are some pretty savvy Dudes on here so I am sure we can come up with an exception to that rule or two, but looking at it backwards like I just did, in the eyes of Terry it appears that Terry reinforces the Ideal that you are not to be disarmed with out a crime present and you are suspected of committing it. Proable Cause.

Can someone think of a situation, where being Dangerous with a firearm is not a crime?

Click to expand...

And, being armed in and of itself is not 'being dangerous with a firearm.'


And, as for Terry, not simply 'without a crime present and you are suspected of committing it, (or are suspected of being about to commit one), it also requires 'reasonable suspicion that the subject IS "armed AND dangerous,"' not just that the subject is viewed as a suspect of the crime, and happens to be armed.

wrightme said:

Yes, without even wasting time.

Self-Defense.

Click to expand...

If an officer is there, its quite likely that the self defense is over, if you are still dangerous the officer should be helping. If you see a need to pull your firearm in front of a officer to shoot a bad guy. The officer will most likely shake your hand, and in the event that you find yourself shooting at an officer, Terry is out the window in my honest opinion.

Like I said in my post I knew there would be exceptions, my objective was to reverse engineer the two parts and start with the armed and dangerous. it gave me a littele different prospective, sorry if it didn't wortk for you.

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

If an officer is there, its quite likely that the self defense is over, if you are still dangerous the officer should be helping.

Click to expand...

Huh?

DTOM said:

If you see a need to pull your firearm in front of a officer to shoot a bad guy. The officer will most likely shake your hand, and in the event that you find yourself shooting at an officer, Terry is out the window in my honest opinion.

Click to expand...

Say what? Who said there was an officer there when the need for sd was apparent?

DTOM said:

Like I said in my post I knew there would be exceptions, my objective was to reverse engineer the two parts and start with the armed and dangerous. it gave me a littele different prospective, sorry if it didn't wortk for you.

Click to expand...

Starting with 'armed and dangerous' is kind of odd, like trying to stuff the oats underneath the tail instead of underneath the nostrils.

wrightme said:

That is quite an 'open' statement. Can you clarify as to what you feel would indicate such during a traffic stop?


To flesh out the example, LE pulls over a citizen for a 'rolling stop' in a city in Nevada, other than NLV. Lets stipulate it is in Reno, where there is no regulation regarding the open carry of firearms at all. What "PC or RAS" are you expecting would be present to trigger the 'RAS' and 'armed and dangerous' metrics of Terry v Ohio?


In other words, we can 'what if' it to death, but an LE does not have RAS, or 'armed and dangerous' from simply observing a sidearm upon the waist of a person during a stop for a traffic violation.

Click to expand...

Hello... I only visit Nevada a few times per year.. you singled out North Las Vegas... Is it a different entity than Las Vegas? Are OC laws different? I am staying on "the Strip" at the end of March, but also going to check out a gun store in NLV... I wouldn't want to unknowingly break any laws. Can I not OC anywhere in Nevada? (other than the federal places, schools, etc)

NLV is very picky on OC. They think their city ordinance can overrule state preemption. Technically you can but you'll probably be jumped for it. Luckily I've not been jumped by NLVPD at all. Still crossing my fingers.

"North Las Vegas" is the only direction that is its own bankrupt city, with a corrupt mayor, corrupt city council, corrupt police chief, and everything! Oh yeah, and its own court of non-record!

East Las Vegas, West Las Vegas, and South Las Vegas, are just general directions, usually describing what are technically various townships of unincorporated Clark County.

NLV has a history of hassling legal gun owners in violation of state law.

Here's a map showing Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and the northwest corner of Boulder City (which is actually larger than the others in area.):


NLV is easy to know when you are in because the street signs are blue instead of green.

So, as I leave my hotel on "The Strip" (which i think is fine to OC, correct?) and head to New Frontier Armory to make some purchases, can I just put my pistol in a case in the trunk of my rental car? Is that allowed?

Also, any tips on gun shops to purchase accessories such as 10 round magazines, a small pistol safe, and other toys?