Is it necessary to reply to a LEO's request during a traffic stop?

[All American Nightmare]

There is no charge for not providing information (5th Amendment, you can always remain silent). However, if you are being charged with a crime, not providing your personal information will result in a trip to jail (magistrates office) because you cannot be released on a summons (most misdemeanors or traffic offense). VA law (like most states) requires you to produce a driver's license if operating an automobile and to hand over the CHP upon request.

Usually if someone remains silent and refuses to speak, most officers will take a photo of them in cases where they are suspected of committing a crime but not enough to charge.

That is a given when driving a automobile or CCing. I was referring to the common law user brought up. Can a leo force someone to have their picture be taken for that? And if so what law gives them the power to do so ? Everyone knows that you may be charged with anything leos or a DA wants to charge you with.

 

[ProShooter]

ProShooter-

When a LEO runs your vehicle tag in VA for a VA tag, it returns with the vehicle's information along with the registered owner's driver's license number. Most computers will then automatically run that driver's license number and return with the detailed information for the owner. That information includes name, d.o.b, address, social, driving record, height/weight, eyes/hair, and if the license is valid. It does not provide race or ethnicity.

Also, a separate box will pop up with a warning tone stating you have a CHP (if you do) or if you are wanted/missing person/sex offender/gang member. I always thought it was weird to have a warning tone as if someone was wanted if they legally have a CHP (thus confirming they have a clean criminal history).

On a side note, when you run an out of state tag, the return comes back formatted for that state. Some states provide a lot of detailed information, while others don't. I can recall some states indicating the person has a CCW/CHP, but I can't recall those states.

That's a change from the last time I saw an MDT screen. Like I said, its been a while. It used to require the officer to initiate a secondary step and request the DL info. Thanks for the update! Its good to see that technology has moved along some!

 

[NovaCop]

I once heard a LEO say If you flex your rights expect to be arrested for it. now thats pretty damm sad in my eyes. Leos can ask anything they want just as you can ask a leo anything you want. There is no law that makes you answer the question. If you feel the question has no bearing on the matter answer with a question. Which way were you heading? The same way you were office. The only power they have is threat of arrest to get the answers they want. If that fear is not a factor to you then they have no edge. The officer saftey arguement has everything to with a traffic stop. I might be wrong on this but I belive a leo can do a limited search (wingspan) of the car under officer safety as well as taking the gun. While I do not have a great understanding of the law that some do on this site. I have a very good understanding of the practical application of the law

We have had this discussion during previous debates on this site. I will give my quick and not detailed perspective of the gun seizure during a traffic stop. I will only touch upon two case laws- Terry v Ohio and Michigan v Long.

Terry v Ohio- If you are stopped for a traffic offense, you are seized legally because you are reasonably suspected to be committing a crime (traffic offense). Therefore, Terry allows an officer to seize a weapon legally during the detainment. It does not say the weapon has to be illegal.

Michigan v Long will allow a LEO to search you or your car for weapons if they can articulate dangerousness and belief you may have access to a weapon. Obviously the LEO doesn't know you and courts have ruled that traffic stops are inherently dangerous. It would be easy to articulate that if you have a gun in the car (even if legally) that is a situation is dangerous enough to temporarily seize that weapon.

Now I will say that I don't think it's always necessary or appropriate to disarm everyone during a traffic stop. Personally, I usually just have a backup officer make small talk with the driver who is carrying if I believe it's legal while I go back to my car and do what I gotta do.

XDM-

I see a conflict in what you said about a LEO saying if you flex your rights, then you will be arrested. That would mean the LEO and magistrate would illegally charge someone or the LEO lets criminals go who don't flex their rights?

I understand your perspective being that a LEOs questions seem somewhat intrusive. I think you gotta remember that LEOs do arrest criminals, and in order to do so, they must interact with them. You would be surprised how many crimes are solved during traffic stops. Some LEOs can be good at making small talk with occupants in a car, unfolding something suspicious into solving a big crime. Unfortunately, it would also mean speaking to law abiding citizens as well.

Just my 2.

 

[wylde007]

And you may recall what Chairman Mao said, "power is a flower that blossoms from the muzzle of a gun." Their guns are bigger, and they'll come in at 2 am and shoot your dog.

I didn't say I had the force of arms to defend my position, merely it was the one I held, however feebly.

Remember Waco, remember Ruby Ridge.

I do. With extreme prejudice.

Oh, and by the way, there's a Virginia statute that says that FBI agents are "law enforcement officers" in Virginia.

Acknowledgment of an illegal agency by a state statute doesn't legitimize the agency.

If anything it delegitimizes the state. And, since the states are no more than satellites of the federal government since 1865, there is little separation in any case.

 

[peter nap]

That's a change from the last time I saw an MDT screen. Like I said, its been a while. It used to require the officer to initiate a secondary step and request the DL info. Thanks for the update! Its good to see that technology has moved along some!

Hey Jim, when you get your buddy to run your tags, run mine too and see what comes up. They are "FARM USE". Got them on three vehicles now.:lol::lol::lol:

 

[MadMaxZ06]

Well, the officer safety issue (and your safety too) is always a concern.

Here's an example:

You are the officer. You observe someone making a simple illegal turn and you effect a traffic stop. The citizen who you stopped is normally a law abiding person. 2 weeks before, that citizen bounced a check at his local dry cleaners and the dry cleaner went and obtained a warrant for a bad check charge, unbeknowst to the citizen.

You run their info, and the warrant pops up. Now, you have to go and arrest the person. You tell the citizen that there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest and you have to take him in. He starts screaming and yelling about that damn dry cleaner.

Don't you as the officer want to know if there's a gun here somewhere, and don't you want to secure that gun before things get ugly? Its a simple matter of putting yourself in the other person's shoes. The fact is that the vast majority of officers appreciate when someone tells them about the gun ahead of time, and they quite often repay that by issuing a warning on a traffic stop, rather than an admission ticket to the General District Court.

What I always tell my students is that just like you, the officer just wants to go home at the end of the day to see his family. If you make the gun a big issue, it becomes the focus of the stop, not the traffic infraction. The other thing I tell people is this: Virginia doesnt require you to notify an officer that you are carrying. Your Virginia permit is valid in 28 other states, and some of those states DO require you to immediately tell the officer that you have a firearm and/or the law orders you to relinquish your firearm to the officer. Everything that we do physically with a gun is based on muscle memory, i.e. doing things the same way each time until it becomes second nature. Your interaction with LE should be handled the same way, and in a manner that covers you no matter what state you happen to be in.

I understand and appreciate these points, truly I do. However, I feel the following:
- For-what-it's-worth, in my specific case, the Officer's first interaction with me, was to say, "I see you have a CHP, are you armed?" There was absolutely no opportunity to volunteer my CHP status. Curiously, he never even asked for my vehicle registration which I found odd.

- Additionally, I truly believe that many constitutionally protected/guaranteed rights windup being collateral damage from an officer trying to gain some psychological comfort in the name of "officer-safety". Let me explain.
Might anyone/everyone that an officer pulls over be carrying a weapon, either legally or illegally? Yes, of course. Might anyone/everyone that an officer pulls over use that weapon against said officer. Yes, of course.
Can an officer treat each and every stop like they're pulling over a would-be criminal or a crime waiting to happen. I believe NO, they cannot. I believe that a LEO is in the wrong line of work, or has simply become too jaded from too many years on the "force" if this is how they conduct themselves. The baby will be thrown out with the bath water. The baby being the constitutionally protected/guaranteed rights of citizens. I'm sure being a LEO is dangerous work. So is a soldier, but we expect them to maintain professionalism and a code of morals too. Just as an extreme example. I'm sure if we told all our soldiers to shoot first and ask questions later, fewer of them would be killed. But can we do that? Many, not all, but many LEO's simply violate civil liberties FIRST and then justify it later.

- Max

 

[peter nap]

I understand and appreciate these points, truly I do. However, I feel the following:
- For-what-it's-worth, in my specific case, the Officer's first interaction with me, was to say, "I see you have a CHP, are you armed?" There was absolutely no opportunity to volunteer my CHP status. Curiously, he never even asked for my vehicle registration which I found odd.

- Additionally, I truly believe that many constitutionally protected/guaranteed rights windup being collateral damage from an officer trying to gain some psychological comfort in the name of "officer-safety". Let me explain.
Might anyone/everyone that an officer pulls over be carrying a weapon, either legally or illegally? Yes, of course. Might anyone/everyone that an officer pulls over use that weapon against said officer. Yes, of course.
Can an officer treat each and every stop like they're pulling over a would-be criminal or a crime waiting to happen. I believe NO, they cannot. I believe that a LEO is in the wrong line of work, or has simply become too jaded from too many years on the "force" if this is how they conduct themselves. The baby will be thrown out with the bath water. The baby being the constitutionally protected/guaranteed rights of citizens. I'm sure being a LEO is dangerous work. So is a soldier, but we expect them to maintain professionalism and a code of morals too. Just as an extreme example. I'm sure if we told all our soldiers to shoot first and ask questions later, fewer of them would be killed. But can we do that? Many, not all, but many LEO's simply violate civil liberties FIRST and then justify it later.

- Max

Max, I generally don't take threads like this too seriousely because they can get a little silly.
The simple fact is, when you ask for permission to carry a gun, you give up some rights. Not by law but by simple human nature. If there is a way, they will abuse their authority.

I had to chuckle at one of John's reprimands the other day. He said something like we didn't want to offend our LEO friends.

Now I have friends that are police officers but I don't have any police officers that are friends. When they put the uniform on and go to work, they become the enemy. Not the kind you want to harm, just the kind you want to avoid and refuse to give information to.

If an officer asked me if I'm armed, I don't mind answering. "Sure am stupid, see the gun in the holster"....but if I'm pulled over for something, nothing comes up on the license check that would indicate I am.

That's just one disadvantage of getting permission to hide your gun.

 

[MadMaxZ06]

Max, I generally don't take threads like this too seriousely because they can get a little silly.
The simple fact is, when you ask for permission to carry a gun, you give up some rights. Not by law but by simple human nature. If there is a way, they will abuse their authority.

I had to chuckle at one of John's reprimands the other day. He said something like we didn't want to offend our LEO friends.

Now I have friends that are police officers but I don't have any police officers that are friends. When they put the uniform on and go to work, they become the enemy. Not the kind you want to harm, just the kind you want to avoid and refuse to give information to.

If an officer asked me if I'm armed, I don't mind answering. "Sure am stupid, see the gun in the holster"....but if I'm pulled over for something, nothing comes up on the license check that would indicate I am.

That's just one disadvantage of getting permission to hide your gun.

Great points. I had to re-read the comment about the friends as police officers four times LOL! Then when I read the next sentence I finally got your point. Great way to put it.
- Max

 

[Grapeshot]

I was caught up in a traffic check point one night near home.

The officer asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle - Yes sir five.

What and where?!! Had to point out the shotgun in the rear window rack. After a brief explanation of what, where and why, he waved me through, shaking his head.

He never did see my CHP, operator's license or registration. It was a fun night. :lol:

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Might anyone/everyone that an officer pulls over be carrying a weapon, either legally or illegally? Yes, of course.

+1

Police are trained to assume the vehicle occupants might be armed. We have had more than one cop on this forum say they assume everybody is armed. Even if you have a CHP and remind the cop that you have been backround-checked, you have every chance to hear in reply that you might be having a bad day. The presence or absence of a CHP has no bearing, and any indication of less-dangerousness will be minimized or ignored.

Being asked whether you are carrying is pointless from an officer safety viewpoint. The simple fact is good guys are not going to shoot the cop no matter how they answer the question, no matter whether the question is asked; bad guys are not going to announce they are armed. Being asked is all about cop peace of mind--at best. Or, its a chance to run a serial number in what already may be a fishing expedition.

Also, don't forget we have a number of reports from traffic-stopped OCers that the cop was not interested in the gun, or didn't seize it, and a few even got into a discussion about the merits of the OCers gun from a gun-guy viewpoint. This is proof-positive that mere possession is not automatically dangerous in and of itself. If guns were so dangerous to officer safety, every cop would temporarily seize every gun.

This next is a little off-point, but I'll heave it in for any readers who find it useful. One of the more revealing is the cop who takes your license and registration back to the patrol car, runs them, discovers the CHP, and then comes back to your car to ask about it. Uh-huh. Suuuuure, its an officer safety issue. He only has to approach your car one more time--to get the ticket signed or give you a warning. So, right in the middle of the traffic stop, he exposes himself unnecessarily to this supposed danger by approaching your car before its necessary.

 

[tag]

FYI- If you are stopped and you attempt to remain in your vehicle when told to step out by a LEO, that is a violation of law (obstruction 18.2-460). Powers given in PA v Mimms and I have seen people get ripped out of cars and found guilty for exactly what was mentioned above (during traffic stops for traffic offenses). Also, a LEO can order passengers out of a vehicle as well (MD v Wilson).

What about if they ask, instead of telling (which I see as being ordering). "Would you mind stepping out of the car" vs "Get out of the car" or "Please step out of the vehicle"

Or do cops just never phrase it as a request?

 

[Citizen]

I was caught up in a traffic check point one night near home.

Road block. Road block. Road block.

No point in going along with the government's attempt to spin it into something nice to avoid upsetting the proletariat.

Not too unlike the "pat-down" being given by the TSA. Cops are coming forward and pointing out that a pat-down is cursory search for weapons, that what the TSA is doing is much more like a custodial search.

But, "pat-down" doesn't sound so bad, does it? "Its not much of an intrusion, just a little pat-down. No big deal. Hardly merits the word intrusion."

 

[Citizen]

What about if they ask, instead of telling (which I see as being ordering). "Would you mind stepping out of the car" vs "Get out of the car" or "Please step out of the vehicle"

A distinction without a difference, from a practical standpoint. If he wants you out, and you fail to cooperate, the next time he 'asks' there is a good chance its going to come across as an order, anyway. Plus, he might be easily angered.

I'm thinking generally you're better off complying cheerfully. "Oh, certainly, sir." Your cheerful compliance gives the cop what he wants without telegraphing you know your rights thoroughly and intend to formally complain or sue over the least mis-step. No sense letting a potential opponent know your strengths until it is necessary. Sun Tzu. Art of War. That sort of thing.

 

[Grapeshot]

Not too unlike the "pat-down" being given by the TSA. Cops are coming forward and pointing out that a pat-down is cursory search for weapons, that what the TSA is doing is much more like a custodial search.

The electronic version of the strip search - are BC searches next? And do they ever change those gloves? :uhoh:

The Israelis seem much more effective then we are - but then they actually profile and read body language. So old fashioned.

 

[All American Nightmare]

We have had this discussion during previous debates on this site. I will give my quick and not detailed perspective of the gun seizure during a traffic stop. I will only touch upon two case laws- Terry v Ohio and Michigan v Long.

Terry v Ohio- If you are stopped for a traffic offense, you are seized legally because you are reasonably suspected to be committing a crime (traffic offense). Therefore, Terry allows an officer to seize a weapon legally during the detainment. It does not say the weapon has to be illegal.

Michigan v Long will allow a LEO to search you or your car for weapons if they can articulate dangerousness and belief you may have access to a weapon. Obviously the LEO doesn't know you and courts have ruled that traffic stops are inherently dangerous. It would be easy to articulate that if you have a gun in the car (even if legally) that is a situation is dangerous enough to temporarily seize that weapon.

Now I will say that I don't think it's always necessary or appropriate to disarm everyone during a traffic stop. Personally, I usually just have a backup officer make small talk with the driver who is carrying if I believe it's legal while I go back to my car and do what I gotta do.

XDM-

I see a conflict in what you said about a LEO saying if you flex your rights, then you will be arrested. That would mean the LEO and magistrate would illegally charge someone or the LEO lets criminals go who don't flex their rights?

I understand your perspective being that a LEOs questions seem somewhat intrusive. I think you gotta remember that LEOs do arrest criminals, and in order to do so, they must interact with them. You would be surprised how many crimes are solved during traffic stops. Some LEOs can be good at making small talk with occupants in a car, unfolding something suspicious into solving a big crime. Unfortunately, it would also mean speaking to law abiding citizens as well.

Just my 2.

Yes that is what im saying when a leo ask a question and you refuse to answer how does that give PC or RAS? What do they have to base it on? A hunch will not work. Sounds like your playing word games with me. Bottom line no matter what the law is I will never win a debate during a traffic stop or any other encounter with a leo no matter how right you are. The only recourse we have is to drag them through the coals with their own department. Maybe we are unable to see the other persons view because we have never had to look at through the others eyes.

 

[ProShooter]

Maybe we are unable to see the other persons view because we have never had to look at through the others eyes.

and that is perhaps the most intelligent thing that can be said. After reading some of the comments here, I think that this thread has officially run its course (like, oh so many others).

 

[All American Nightmare]

and that is perhaps the most intelligent thing that can be said. After reading some of the comments here, I think that this thread has officially run its course (like, oh so many others).

+1

 

[streetdoc]

Check this site out for additional information: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

 

[user]

FYI- If you are stopped and you attempt to remain in your vehicle when told to step out by a LEO, that is a violation of law (obstruction 18.2-460). Powers given in PA v Mimms and I have seen people get ripped out of cars and found guilty for exactly what was mentioned above (during traffic stops for traffic offenses). Also, a LEO can order passengers out of a vehicle as well (MD v Wilson).

Maybe in Pennsylvania or Maryland, the laws of which were in question in the cases you cite. Not in Virginia. You cited the code section for obstruction of justice which in Virginia requires at least one positive act interfering with law enforcement. Inactivity, failure to get out of the car when ordered to do so, or failure to speak when spoken to do not constitute obstruction of justice in Virginia. If you're a cop, you're charged with that knowledge, and you can get yourself into a civil suit and wind up turning the keys of your house over to the sheriff to pay for the damages if you behave in a way such as you describe in Virginia.

Oh, and by the way, I'm assuming the person being ordered out of his car has not been told that he is under arrest. If he is under arrest and fails to move when ordered to do so, that's resisting arrest.

 

[ed]

This thread reminds me of this:
[video=youtube;tYjI138u1z0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYjI138u1z0[/video]