Stopped by CHP-Had my 9mm Handgun inspected

[mjones]

imported post

I think we all understand each other's points, its more a question of what we do about it when the rubber meets the road.

I've been on both sides of nearly this exact scenario. I think what it comes down to for me in this particular instance is that the likelyhood of being arrested for operating a motor vehicle without physical possesion of a valid CDL, but yet actually having been issued a currently valid CDL is incredibly slim.

I fully admit that if the circumstances where right, I might be willing to consent to a search. But for me, its incredibly unlikely.

I once consented to a search of my car precisely to clear myself and a friend from going to jail (incidently while I was a LEO in an adjoining county) Mostly because although I knew that I would weather the trip fine my buddy would have lost his job over it. But in that particular incident I knew that anything that might happen as a result of a search had far lower consequences then why I was wearing bracelets in the back of an LAPD car...namely booked on armed robbery and a potential homicide.

The reality is, they already had PC anyway and I clearly knew. Signing a consent search gave everyone an opportunity to calm down a bit.

 

[PavePusher]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Ninja_Commando wrote:

Needless to say, I still have 4 pending speeding tickets and a lawyer working on them right now. I need to stop speeding, and I think Im doing a good job so far. It just feels so natural to be going 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Perfectly safe.. etc. At least thats how I feel.[/quote

I could see from your avatar that you are obviously a rider. Me too,well I don't much lately because I am married and have a 6 1/2 month old daughter. My responsibilities changed once I took on greater responsibility obviously...

I too am/was like you. Man,I averaged being stopped/ticketed on average 3-5 times a year,not much,considering that there are plenty of more fools out there more reckless than I. I kept riding even after being in a motorcycle accident almost 5 years ago. Be careful out there man,it's no joke. When you take on more responsibility and mature a bit more you'll see what I'm talking about.

BTW I'm 26. I ride a 2006 ZX-10R Ninja. Fastest I've gone is 170mph. Really stupid considering my wife was pregnant at the time. My wife is selling her 2007 ZX-6R if anyone is interested.

I don't mean to go off topic,just trying to relate to my fellow riders and firearm enthusiast.

Yah I have owned 3 bikes in my life, I have already wrecked one. I have been riding since I was 17. I do get crazy. I've gone about 170-180 at least 10 times now. I know I should take my antics to a track but I really don't want to wreck my beautiful 2005 1000RR. I used to zig zag between traffic on the freeway going 80-90 but now I don't do that. I am not sure if it is my fear or wrecking or my fear of speeding tickets that holds me back now. You are right, some day I will mature on the road. For now I don't have much family ties or a girlfriend so it does not seem selfish of me. None of my rider friends have died but they have all gone down.

Oh and have you ever wondered what it may look like going 170-180 by a car from the other drivers point of view? I just found this video the other day. Note the drivers speedo is in KPH, so hes going about 100 mph, the vette prolly 200.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQ7HF67I8s&feature=related

As a driver of cars trucks and bikes, I can say you are being incredibly selfish.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/crash%20causation/speed_swedish-motorcycle-crash_2005.htm

Having ridden on both the street and closed tracks, why do you think you will go down on a track, but not the road?

As one of the rider mentors for my AFB, I have to say you are taking actions that, unfortunately, get all motorcyclists tarred with the same brush.



And, to get back on topic, if you are willing to be this irresponsible on a motorcycle, how do we know you won't do similarly irresponsible things with firearms? Occasionalminor mistakes are one thing, but an admitted pattern ofdangerous behavior is a sign for concern.

 

[Hawaii FiveO]

imported post

Poblacht32 wrote:

I only got a fix-it ticket for my license. Just have to show it to any officer and have it signed off.

SJ Merc ran a story about the increase in fines for traffic tickets. So looks like your fix-it ticket will cost you.No longer be able to "sign off."

"Even fix-it tickets that once cost nothing to resolve, like a broken headlight, now run $25"

http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_14821297?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

PavePusher wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Ninja_Commando wrote:

Needless to say, I still have 4 pending speeding tickets and a lawyer working on them right now. I need to stop speeding, and I think Im doing a good job so far. It just feels so natural to be going 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Perfectly safe.. etc. At least thats how I feel.[/quote

I could see from your avatar that you are obviously a rider. Me too,well I don't much lately because I am married and have a 6 1/2 month old daughter. My responsibilities changed once I took on greater responsibility obviously...

I too am/was like you. Man,I averaged being stopped/ticketed on average 3-5 times a year,not much,considering that there are plenty of more fools out there more reckless than I. I kept riding even after being in a motorcycle accident almost 5 years ago. Be careful out there man,it's no joke. When you take on more responsibility and mature a bit more you'll see what I'm talking about.

BTW I'm 26. I ride a 2006 ZX-10R Ninja. Fastest I've gone is 170mph. Really stupid considering my wife was pregnant at the time. My wife is selling her 2007 ZX-6R if anyone is interested.

I don't mean to go off topic,just trying to relate to my fellow riders and firearm enthusiast.

Yah I have owned 3 bikes in my life, I have already wrecked one. I have been riding since I was 17. I do get crazy. I've gone about 170-180 at least 10 times now. I know I should take my antics to a track but I really don't want to wreck my beautiful 2005 1000RR. I used to zig zag between traffic on the freeway going 80-90 but now I don't do that. I am not sure if it is my fear or wrecking or my fear of speeding tickets that holds me back now. You are right, some day I will mature on the road. For now I don't have much family ties or a girlfriend so it does not seem selfish of me. None of my rider friends have died but they have all gone down.

Oh and have you ever wondered what it may look like going 170-180 by a car from the other drivers point of view? I just found this video the other day. Note the drivers speedo is in KPH, so hes going about 100 mph, the vette prolly 200.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQ7HF67I8s&feature=related

As a driver of cars trucks and bikes, I can say you are being incredibly selfish.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/crash%20causation/speed_swedish-motorcycle-crash_2005.htm

Having ridden on both the street and closed tracks, why do you think you will go down on a track, but not the road? 

As one of the rider mentors for my AFB, I have to say you are taking actions that, unfortunately, get all motorcyclists tarred with the same brush. 

 

And, to get back on topic, if you are willing to be this irresponsible on a motorcycle, how do we know you won't do similarly irresponsible things with firearms?  Occasional minor mistakes are one thing, but an admitted pattern of dangerous behavior is a sign for concern. 

The track is not made for top speed. It is made for cornering and turning. The odds of low siding or high siding are much higher than going 180 mph down the free way with no cars in front of me. By the way you probably missed the part where I said, that is in my past.

Also, there are no intersections at the freeway. If I go down, I am going down alone. So take your garbage elsewhere. If you want to attack a fellow member, don't try to relate their adrenaline drive to their handling of a firearm. You are just as irrational and foolish as every liberal when they say "Well if someone gets cut off, they will pull their open carry weapon and shoot someone. It will be the wild wild west." It simply does not happen. Take your liberal claims elsewhere. It doesn't fly here.

If you still think people who speed on motorcycles mean they are murderers with guns.. you can see my topic here. OMG I didnt go and shoot a bunch of people? But how can that be, I used to speed on motorcycles!. Spare us. Keep your posts in Arizona for a while.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/35460.html

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

He could have said no to the search and the officer would have arrested him because she had no idea who he was, no idea if he was a felon.. etc. And if he is saying no to a consent to search, why would they believe his identity if he told her. Instant arrest, instant search.

You sound so sure of yourself. Is there a citation I should be aware of where officers are known to arrest people for not having their driver's license on them?

To find out the identity of the OP, the officer could have asked the OP for his driver's license number, then compared the returned name with the name registered to the car.

mjones makes a good point regarding searches. Are you absolutely 100% sure that nothing in your car is illegal? I'm not. Maybe having a map of California is illegal now. Or maybe a friend accidentally dropped his stash in your car. Sure, the officer could search your car if she wanted to arrest you and go through all that hassle. But I'm willing to bet that she wouldn't. I am willing to bet that if she stumbled upon some weed during her search that was consented to that she'd happily arrest you or at least give you a much larger ticket to worry about.

I'm really not trying to be a wiseguy here. I'm trying to save all of our butts from future pain. I've personally never heard of a person being arrested for not having their license and asserting their rights. I know that doesn't mean anything, but I can't exactly find information saying that that is expected behavior.

 

[PincheOgro1]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

PavePusher wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Ninja_Commando wrote:

Needless to say, I still have 4 pending speeding tickets and a lawyer working on them right now. I need to stop speeding, and I think Im doing a good job so far. It just feels so natural to be going 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Perfectly safe.. etc. At least thats how I feel.[/quote

I could see from your avatar that you are obviously a rider. Me too,well I don't much lately because I am married and have a 6 1/2 month old daughter. My responsibilities changed once I took on greater responsibility obviously...

I too am/was like you. Man,I averaged being stopped/ticketed on average 3-5 times a year,not much,considering that there are plenty of more fools out there more reckless than I. I kept riding even after being in a motorcycle accident almost 5 years ago. Be careful out there man,it's no joke. When you take on more responsibility and mature a bit more you'll see what I'm talking about.

BTW I'm 26. I ride a 2006 ZX-10R Ninja. Fastest I've gone is 170mph. Really stupid considering my wife was pregnant at the time. My wife is selling her 2007 ZX-6R if anyone is interested.

I don't mean to go off topic,just trying to relate to my fellow riders and firearm enthusiast.

Yah I have owned 3 bikes in my life, I have already wrecked one. I have been riding since I was 17. I do get crazy. I've gone about 170-180 at least 10 times now. I know I should take my antics to a track but I really don't want to wreck my beautiful 2005 1000RR. I used to zig zag between traffic on the freeway going 80-90 but now I don't do that. I am not sure if it is my fear or wrecking or my fear of speeding tickets that holds me back now. You are right, some day I will mature on the road. For now I don't have much family ties or a girlfriend so it does not seem selfish of me. None of my rider friends have died but they have all gone down.

Oh and have you ever wondered what it may look like going 170-180 by a car from the other drivers point of view? I just found this video the other day. Note the drivers speedo is in KPH, so hes going about 100 mph, the vette prolly 200.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQ7HF67I8s&feature=related

As a driver of cars trucks and bikes, I can say you are being incredibly selfish.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/crash%20causation/speed_swedish-motorcycle-crash_2005.htm

Having ridden on both the street and closed tracks, why do you think you will go down on a track, but not the road?

As one of the rider mentors for my AFB, I have to say you are taking actions that, unfortunately, get all motorcyclists tarred with the same brush.



And, to get back on topic, if you are willing to be this irresponsible on a motorcycle, how do we know you won't do similarly irresponsible things with firearms? Occasionalminor mistakes are one thing, but an admitted pattern ofdangerous behavior is a sign for concern.

The track is not made for top speed. It is made for cornering and turning. The odds of low siding or high siding are much higher than going 180 mph down the free way with no cars in front of me. By the way you probably missed the part where I said, that is in my past.

Also, there are no intersections at the freeway. If I go down, I am going down alone. So take your garbage elsewhere. If you want to attack a fellow member, don't try to relate their adrenaline drive to their handling of a firearm. You are just as irrational and foolish as every liberal when they say "Well if someone gets cut off, they will pull their open carry weapon and shoot someone. It will be the wild wild west." It simply does not happen. Take your liberal claims elsewhere. It doesn't fly here.

If you still think people who speed on motorcycles mean they are murderers with guns.. you can see my topic here. OMG I didnt go and shoot a bunch of people? But how can that be, I used to speed on motorcycles!. Spare us. Keep your posts in Arizona for a while.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/35460.html

driving that fast on a bike anywhere is just plain stupid. maybe an inch of each tire would be touching the road at that speed jeapordizing your life and the lives of others. You do not have the reaction time to compensate for anything at that speed or someone elses errors. If you are ever in an accident, you had better hope that my family is not involved. AND I am NOT a LIBERAL.

 

[Streetbikerr6]

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

He could have said no to the search and the officer would have arrested him because she had no idea who he was, no idea if he was a felon.. etc. And if he is saying no to a consent to search, why would they believe his identity if he told her. Instant arrest, instant search.

You sound so sure of yourself. Is there a citation I should be aware of where officers are known to arrest people for not having their driver's license on them?

To find out the identity of the OP, the officer could have asked the OP for his driver's license number, then compared the returned name with the name registered to the car.

mjones makes a good point regarding searches. Are you absolutely 100% sure that nothing in your car is illegal? I'm not. Maybe having a map of California is illegal now. Or maybe a friend accidentally dropped his stash in your car. Sure, the officer could search your car if she wanted to arrest you and go through all that hassle. But I'm willing to bet that she wouldn't. I am willing to bet that if she stumbled upon some weed during her search that was consented to that she'd happily arrest you or at least give you a much larger ticket to worry about.

I'm really not trying to be a wiseguy here. I'm trying to save all of our butts from future pain. I've personally never heard of a person being arrested for not having their license and asserting their rights. I know that doesn't mean anything, but I can't exactly find information saying that that is expected behavior.

I dont have time to look up the penal code for the DL arrest but I know it definitely can happen. Would it? Probably not if you are respectful. If the cop thinks you have something to hide and you wont let them search, sure as shit they are going to search your vehicles.. because they have the authority to do so. I understand where your coming from, but in this certain case.. he made the right move. In any other case.. tell them 'no' in whatever shape/form/language you feel like telling them. I guess the main point here is know your rights and know the law. If you feel compliance will get you out of jail, use your own discretion.. but be sure to know what rights you are giving up.

In the OP's case though, (and this is a legitimate question), did he really give up any rights though, knowing full well the cop had the authority to search? How can you waive a right to a search when it never existed. Of course you have the right if you broke no law.. but in his case.. he didn't have the right to begin with, did he?

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

I dont have time to look up the penal code for the DL arrest but I know it definitely can happen.

The vehicle code is 12951(b). Dunno if there is an associated penal code.

Would it? Probably not if you are respectful.

I agree, which is what my point was.

If the cop thinks you have something to hide and you wont let them search, sure as @#$% they are going to search your vehicles.. because they have the authority to do so.

Right, we're in agreement that they have the ability to do so. But why would they think anybody had something to hide?

In the OP's case though, (and this is a legitimate question), did he really give up any rights though, knowing full well the cop had the authority to search? How can you waive a right to a search when it never existed. Of course you have the right if you broke no law.. but in his case.. he didn't have the right to begin with, did he?

This is an interesting question. Of course, he had the right to begin with, we all have inalienable rights. Did he give up his rights even if the cop had the ability to search? I contend that the answer is yes. There's a practical answer here and a ideological answer.

The practical answer is that the person being searched has a much better position in court if he didn't allow a search to be conducted. Now the prosecutor has to show that the search was valid. In this case, we're in agreement that it would have been, although we're not lawyers, so we could be wrong. But lets say the officer pulls over the OP because she is racially profiling him and she hadn't seen him run the stop sign, but she says that she saw him run a stop sign. Now is the search legal? Nope, it isn't. She can't even legally ask for his license because she isn't investigating a legitimate violation of the vehicle code. But the OP thinks she saw him run the stop sign, so he allows his car to be searched. Now he's letting a cop who racially profiled him inside his car to snoop around. Definitely not good. Sure, that story is unlikely, but it isn't entirely impossible.

The ideological answer is that if we allow officers to sidestep our rights, then they merely have to reach the point where we are convinced they have authority. That's a much lower bar to reach. I'd rather be arrested than to willingly give up any of my rights. Keep government agents in check by asserting your rights and they will be less interested in violating them all the time.

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

wewd wrote:

You don't have to answer any police questions about your guns. Your answer to the CHP officer should have been, "I don't have anything illegal in the vehicle", or answer with another question: "Am I legally required to answer that?" If she says yes, ask for the penal code (there isn't one). If she tries to pull a PC 148 (obstructing an officer) on you, then you can shut up right then and there and say nothing more except "Am I under arrest?", "Am I being detained?", "Am I free to go?"... If the officer goes any further from that point, and searches your vehicle without a warrant or arrests you, you should be on the phone to the Calguns Foundation and the ACLU. She didn't seem like that type of a cop from your description, but there are far too many who do not know or respect the legal boundaries they operate under.

Rich Keagy wrote:

I read somewhere here that it's okay to place an unloaded pistol (and magazine if it has one) in plain view on, say, the passenger seat. It's just like Open Carry, but you're in your car.
Am I wrong on this?

Plain view is plain view, concealed is concealed.

If it's unloaded in a locked case, you can put it anywhere.

I heard so many conflicting stories today and wasn't sure what to believe. One friend told me that you always have to let LEO's know that you have a weapon in your vehicle. I'll believe you over these other guys though. This officer was really cool so I didn't want to make a scene like I normally do with the city police where I live. Thanks for the info.

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

The female officer took my case back to the hood of her car and inspected it with another CHP officer. I gave them the key to unlock it. I guess next time I'll just say that I don't have anything illegal in my vehicle.

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

greg36f wrote:

wewd wrote:

You don't have to answer any police questions about your guns. Your answer to the CHP officer should have been, "I don't have anything illegal in the vehicle", or answer with another question: "Am I legally required to answer that?" If she says yes, ask for the penal code (there isn't one). If she tries to pull a PC 148 (obstructing an officer) on you, then you can shut up right then and there and say nothing more except "Am I under arrest?", "Am I being detained?", "Am I free to go?"... If the officer goes any further from that point, and searches your vehicle without a warrant or arrests you, you should be on the phone to the Calguns Foundation and the ACLU. She didn't seem like that type of a cop from your description, but there are far too many who do not know or respect the legal boundaries they operate under.

Rich Keagy wrote:

I read somewhere here that it's okay to place an unloaded pistol (and magazine if it has one) in plain view on, say, the passenger seat. It's just like Open Carry, but you're in your car.
Am I wrong on this?

Plain view is plain view, concealed is concealed.

If it's unloaded in a locked case, you can put it anywhere.

You have to be smart enough and mature enough to pick your battles. Poblacht32 did the right thing. He did not let his past negative issues with the policeaffect this encounter. That takes maturity that is often lacking in modern society.

He had no ID and he committed a violation. Because he was polite, reasonable and related to the officer like a human being, he got off.

If he decided to see the officer as the enemy and be difficult, she could have returned the favor. If you commit a violation and have no ID, you can be arrested under the authority of 40302 (a) CVC. This means that you will be taken to jail, your car could be impounded and as part of the impound an inventory search will be conducted. The gun will be found. Along with whatever else you have in there (I'm not saying that there is anything else).

Let’s say that they leave the car there. There’s always the chance that your car will be burglarized while you are in jail and then, "no more gun".

Sounds like a lot of hassle was avoided by showing a little courtesy.

It was late and I just didn't feel like getting into it with these officers. I've never had any issues at all with the CHP like the cops in my city so didn't want to get off to a bad start.

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

Gundude wrote:

You could tell them...."There is nothing illegal in my car, and I do not consent to a search of myself or my car."

That did cross my mind Gundude! But if I took that route I probably would have gotten a ticket for running the stop sign and maybe even arrested because I didn't have my drivers license on me at the time.

I'm heading on vacation to Ireland next week so definitely didn't want any issues with the police! I'll save it for when I get back LOL!

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

bigtoe416 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Assuming the OP said "No there is no weapons in the car" then she would have said "Then do you mind if I search the vehicle". What would he say then??? "NO".. ok bam, police thinks "disrespect me?" your under arrest, Im searching your car anyways. They ask these questions knowing full well they can search your car anyways. The OP granting the search only gave the officer a reason to let him go without an arrest.

I think you're overestimating the desire of a police officer to arrest an individual simply because they don't consent to a search. Maybe the officer was at the end of her shift and needed the money from the overtime and had a sergeant that wouldn't mind booking a person for running a stop sign. But I'm willing to bet that that wasn't the case.

Had I been in the OP's situation I would have said that I didn't have a weapon in my car. If I was asked if I consented to a search of my vehicle I would have said, "I understand that you're just trying to do you're job, and I respect that. I don't have anything illegal in my car, and I do not consent to any searches." What's the worst thing that can happen? I get a ticket for running a stop sign and I get my time wasted for asserting my rights. I'd rather be in the latter group personally. I guess that's where we differ.

You asked whats the worst that could happen. In the OP's scenario which I have been trying to clearly point out to you, is that HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Once again, he did not have his drivers license. You can be arrested for this. Please read my past posts carefully. You fail to see the argument because you were not reading my posts completely. In the OP's case, he would have been in jail.

I'll say it again.

In the OP's case, he would have been in jail in addition to being ticketed for the stop sign.

Once again, any reasonable person can see that in the OP's distinct scenario, it would be in his best interest to comply to a search since it would have been done anyways when he was arrested for driving with out a license. The officer let him go on that because he was nice and let her search his vehicle. So she did not have to go the route of arresting him.

Pullnshoot25, care to comment on my argument please? I hope you both now understand that in the OP's distinct case, he would have been searched regardless. It was in his best interest to be respectful and comply with the officer because he had a lot to lose. He could have said no to the search and the officer would have arrested him because she had no idea who he was, no idea if he was a felon.. etc. And if he is saying no to a consent to search, why would they believe his identity if he told her. Instant arrest, instant search.

Edit: To the OP, good job at recognizing you were in a nasty situation of a possible night in jail, you had nothing to hide. Your respect and compliance to a search saved your ass and you recognized that. I know every other reasonable person here can see that saying no to the search would have led her to being forced to arrest you in order to search your vehicle in your particular case. Please do not listen to anyone saying you made the wrong move by not telling her no. You essentially waived a right that you did not have. Shes a police officer, she is not stupid, she knew she could search you already though asked to see if you would be polite and compliant, which you were.. so she did not have to arrest you in order to search your vehicle. A lot of peoples bitter disposition while interacting with LEO can really hurt a person at times, this is one of those times.

Thanks Streetbiker! I appreciate it. This was my first time in a situation like this. I'm glad I didn't argue with them like I usually do with the city cops here where I live when I'm out on my bike rides late at night getting some exercise. I agree that it would have turned out a lot different had I taken the approach to deny them to search my vehicle. The Concord Police here where I live arrest people ALL the time for not having their drivers license on them.

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

He could have said no to the search and the officer would have arrested him because she had no idea who he was, no idea if he was a felon.. etc. And if he is saying no to a consent to search, why would they believe his identity if he told her. Instant arrest, instant search.

You sound so sure of yourself. Is there a citation I should be aware of where officers are known to arrest people for not having their driver's license on them?

To find out the identity of the OP, the officer could have asked the OP for his driver's license number, then compared the returned name with the name registered to the car.

mjones makes a good point regarding searches. Are you absolutely 100% sure that nothing in your car is illegal? I'm not. Maybe having a map of California is illegal now. Or maybe a friend accidentally dropped his stash in your car. Sure, the officer could search your car if she wanted to arrest you and go through all that hassle. But I'm willing to bet that she wouldn't. I am willing to bet that if she stumbled upon some weed during her search that was consented to that she'd happily arrest you or at least give you a much larger ticket to worry about.

I'm really not trying to be a wiseguy here. I'm trying to save all of our butts from future pain. I've personally never heard of a person being arrested for not having their license and asserting their rights. I know that doesn't mean anything, but I can't exactly find information saying that that is expected behavior.

I just gave the officer my drivers license number and she matched it up with my registration. They spent about 10 minutes though inspecting my gun. Not sure what they were doing.

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

Poblacht32 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

bigtoe416 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Assuming the OP said "No there is no weapons in the car" then she would have said "Then do you mind if I search the vehicle". What would he say then??? "NO".. ok bam, police thinks "disrespect me?" your under arrest, Im searching your car anyways. They ask these questions knowing full well they can search your car anyways. The OP granting the search only gave the officer a reason to let him go without an arrest.

I think you're overestimating the desire of a police officer to arrest an individual simply because they don't consent to a search. Maybe the officer was at the end of her shift and needed the money from the overtime and had a sergeant that wouldn't mind booking a person for running a stop sign. But I'm willing to bet that that wasn't the case.

Had I been in the OP's situation I would have said that I didn't have a weapon in my car. If I was asked if I consented to a search of my vehicle I would have said, "I understand that you're just trying to do you're job, and I respect that. I don't have anything illegal in my car, and I do not consent to any searches." What's the worst thing that can happen? I get a ticket for running a stop sign and I get my time wasted for asserting my rights. I'd rather be in the latter group personally. I guess that's where we differ.

You asked whats the worst that could happen. In the OP's scenario which I have been trying to clearly point out to you, is that HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Once again, he did not have his drivers license. You can be arrested for this. Please read my past posts carefully. You fail to see the argument because you were not reading my posts completely. In the OP's case, he would have been in jail.

I'll say it again.

In the OP's case, he would have been in jail in addition to being ticketed for the stop sign.

Once again, any reasonable person can see that in the OP's distinct scenario, it would be in his best interest to comply to a search since it would have been done anyways when he was arrested for driving with out a license. The officer let him go on that because he was nice and let her search his vehicle. So she did not have to go the route of arresting him.

Pullnshoot25, care to comment on my argument please? I hope you both now understand that in the OP's distinct case, he would have been searched regardless. It was in his best interest to be respectful and comply with the officer because he had a lot to lose. He could have said no to the search and the officer would have arrested him because she had no idea who he was, no idea if he was a felon.. etc. And if he is saying no to a consent to search, why would they believe his identity if he told her. Instant arrest, instant search.

Edit: To the OP, good job at recognizing you were in a nasty situation of a possible night in jail, you had nothing to hide. Your respect and compliance to a search saved your ass and you recognized that. I know every other reasonable person here can see that saying no to the search would have led her to being forced to arrest you in order to search your vehicle in your particular case. Please do not listen to anyone saying you made the wrong move by not telling her no. You essentially waived a right that you did not have. Shes a police officer, she is not stupid, she knew she could search you already though asked to see if you would be polite and compliant, which you were.. so she did not have to arrest you in order to search your vehicle. A lot of peoples bitter disposition while interacting with LEO can really hurt a person at times, this is one of those times.

I wanted to add that the CHP officers didn't ask me any questions like "Why do you have a gun in your truck". I didn't get any questions at all like that so that was cool.

 

[wewd]

imported post

If you don't want encounters with police, don't run stop signs and don't drive your car without your license. If you break the law and get caught, they will bust you. If they somehow find it in their heart to show you mercy, consider yourself lucky, but don't expect that to be the normal outcome. The cop didn't ask if you had any weapons because she's pro-gun and wants to make sure every law-abiding citizen is properly armed, she wanted to catch you violating the law. That is her job.

There is no guarantee that anything you do or say to an officer will help you. In most cases the exact opposite will happen. If the cop tries to convince you that they are trying to help you, they are lying. The cop's job is to catch you breaking the law and fine you or jail you. You have no obligation, legally or morally, to help them do that to you. They are not your advocate and they are not your friend.

Don't talk to police.

 

[sjalterego]

imported post

It was PC 148 "Resisting, Delaying Obstructing Police Officer" that I was thinking of.

Correct there is no statute that states simply "lying to a police officer is a crime." Absent that, the hypertechnical answer is "it depends" on the circumstances.

Given the availability of 148, the broad leeway courts give to police officers the safest short answer is don't lie to cops, it can get you arrested/charged with violation of PC 148. Whether you get convicted or not is another matter. A lot of such charges are dropped as not worthy of the time/effort. However I doubt you would ever win a civil case for damages if a police officer arrested you under PC 148 for lying to him/her if your basic position was "yes I lied, but there was no active criminal investigation, therefore the police officer had no RAS to arrest me for PC 148."

I think the basic point, don't lie to cops is a pretty good one. I certainly agree that if you choose not to talk to them or admit something to them that is valid. When asked if you have any guns, I think the answer "nothing illegal" or the like is fine. If pressed however you may have to choose between lying, sticking by your (metaphorical) guns and refusing to answer, or admitting that you do have a gun.

On a related note, I think that simply stating you have a gun is NOT RAS for a police officer to conduct a search, unless the statement indicates an illegal type of possession.

i.e., I have an unloaded gun in the trunk, or in a locked container = no RAS to justify a search of the car for the gun. I would refuse officer request to search unless extenuating practical circumstances indicated otherwise.

But, I have a loaded gun under my seat = RAS (unless you have a CCW) for illegal possession of a loaded/concealed firearm.

And our favorite, my gun is unloaded but not concealed (i.e. on holster or on passenger seat) and in plain view = 12031(e) check

 

[bigtoe416]

imported post

sjalterego wrote:

On a related note, I think that simply stating you have a gun is NOT RAS for a police officer to conduct a search, unless the statement indicates an illegal type of possession.

I definitely agree that it isn't RAS for a search. But in California we have 12031(e) which allows an officer to inspect a firearm to ensure it is unloaded, and failure to allow the inspection is probable cause for arrest. So when you admit that a firearm is present, you instantly grant the police officer the ability to inspect the weapon.

Of course, if anybody wants to take their case to the supreme court, they will undoubtedly win, but that's a lot of hassle.

 

[Poblacht32]

imported post

I found out on Friday that even though it was just a Fix-It Ticket for not having my license on me, I still have to go into the court or DMV to pay a $25 Administrative fee. The fix it tickets used to be free after getting them signed off but not anymore.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Yah I have owned 3 bikes in my life, I have already wrecked one. I have been riding since I was 17. I do get crazy. I've gone about 170-180 at least 10 times now. I know I should take my antics to a track but I really don't want to wreck my beautiful 2005 1000RR. I used to zig zag between traffic on the freeway going 80-90 but now I don't do that. I am not sure if it is my fear or wrecking or my fear of speeding tickets that holds me back now. You are right, some day I will mature on the road. For now I don't have much family ties or a girlfriend so it does not seem selfish of me. None of my rider friends have died but they have all gone down...

Not to get all preachy on you man, but take it from a fellow rider:

Stop doing this crap on the street!

I have been riding since I was 5 years old, and have had over 25+ motorcycles (I'd be happy to name em if ya want to hear! :lol. I have done all the stupid crap in the world (Yeah, I admit it. 170+ down the 15 between Temecula and the Oceanside freeway many times years and years ago.), and I admit to having to mellow out myself in my early twenties. Although I was never quite as crazy as some of my friends, I took great pride that in most situations I was faster, and reacted properly and instinctually to surprise situations. I think this is the great key to safe riding.

I don't know if they are still doing it, but maybe check out Infineon Open track Days? You don't have to be irresponsible to have fun on two wheels man, and you would be surprised at some of the celebrities you can find yourself doing laps with. There is always Thunder Hill too.

This gives you the chance to really test how good you are, against a clock that actually counts, and away from soccer moms applying makeup and making 8oz bottles of formula for their children while driving a 4000lb SUV or minivan.

Sorry to bring up something not entirely OC related, but I hate seeing fellow riders hurt!

To the OP, I am very happy that CHP was positive with you! CHP has proven itself to be spotty in the past, to me. Sometimes you get a trooper who is just foul. Then sometimes you get the nicest officer you could have ever met.

Hit or miss, hit or miss.