MD Cops harassing out-of-state gun owners...

[Fallschirjmäger]

Holy crap, people... Did you not see the quotes around the word 'evade?' Lighten up.

I did and I used quotes on 'evade' and 'avoid' as well. But Words Mean Things, if you don't mean a word, you may wish not to use it.

The idea that I should alter my route or get off the highway or turn into a business just because a police car is behind me is the height of paranoia. Either he will go by me, or not, or he will stop me. My time is too important to alter my route of travel just because there's a police car behind me. If he's truly following me, then whatever I do is not going to change his mind about stopping me. If he does stop me, I am prepared to interact with him in the most effective manner and be on my way, which will probably take less time than altering my route.

1) Read the case at hand and tell me what if anything the family could have done to 'interact with the officer in the most effective manner' and be on their way?
For that matter read Time For a Walk in the Park and tell us how that encounter could have been minimized. The police WILL detain you for as long as they think they are making progress towards finding criminal intent. Each question that doesn't provide more probable cause only means that an officer may be asking wrong question and needs to find the one question that will make progress in their investigation. The only way NOT to progress along the path is not to take the first step.

2) Just because good, measured advice is given, it doesn't mean you have to heed it. We're just telling you how to minimize the chances of having a roadside encounter.

3) Time is always important, the 5 minutes it takes you to hop into the Sack'o'Suds may save you 20, 30, or even two hours on the side of the road. It's your time, use it wisely. I'm not suggesting Every Time an officer is behind you as sometimes even da po-lice are just going the same stretch of road you are. But when a car hangs around, and you suspect you are the reason I highly advise taking any action you can to lessen an officer's ability to legally detain you.

Interesting how interest in preservation of health and liberty is demeaned as "paranoia".

Within the last 24 hours, I recall reading a post by a member with a history in LE stating he could follow a car for five minutes and find something to pull them over for. And he is by no means the first I've heard say so.

PPM, I've heard the same boast and seen it on forums as well. And it's not even that you Have to do something wrong. It can easily be a 'mechanical fault' such as a brake or tag light not functioning properly, some fault that is intermittent and impossible to prove didn't happen.


Apocryphal tale follows...
When I used to travel for weeks at a time, often driving late into the night/early morning to reach the next city where I had a job to do. I drove 50,000 miles per year and still worked an 8-10hr job for the customer. My "local territory" covered seven southern states.

I drove in all sorts of weather from clear to cloudy, rain, sleet and snow and even the blizzard of '94 didn't keep me off the road, nor did Hurricane Andrew. Company policy mandated that for safety the truck's headlights be on whenever the truck was in motion.

Now, oddly enough I was stopped three times in almost a decade of driving for 'equipment violations.' Each time was after midnight when I was on my way to the next city (or especially when going home for a one-night weekend after 4-5 weeks on the road.) Each time it was for the same 'equipment malfunction' a tag light that didn't work.

Each time, I offered to replace the bulb from the stock I kept in my van (kind anal that way, I had a first aid kit, too even though it wasn't required.) Each time, I wasn't allowed to do so, but told "I'm going to cut you a break and not give you a ticket but any other officer would. Get it fixed tomorrow, have a good day, Sir."
Each time, the bulb was working perfectly the next morning, and the day after that, the week after that and the months after that.

It was magical, the bulb was somehow alive, and knew to not shine only on late nights when the skies were clear and there was an officer behind the truck, I never saw or heard of it not shining any other time. It even worked nights when I was pulled over for excessive speed.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Maybe the Mod's could combine this thread with " Maryland is a scary Place" thread..

Thank you and best regards.

CCJ

 

[JamesCanby]

Interesting how interest in preservation of health and liberty is demeaned as "paranoia".

Within the last 24 hours, I recall reading a post by a member with a history in LE stating he could follow a car for five minutes and find something to pull them over for. And he is by no means the first I've heard say so.

I did and I used quotes on 'evade' and 'avoid' as well. But Words Mean Things, if you don't mean a word, you may wish not to use it.

1) Read the case at hand and tell me what if anything the family could have done to 'interact with the officer in the most effective manner' and be on their way?
For that matter read Time For a Walk in the Park and tell us how that encounter could have been minimized. The police WILL detain you for as long as they think they are making progress towards finding criminal intent. Each question that doesn't provide more probable cause only means that an officer may be asking wrong question and needs to find the one question that will make progress in their investigation. The only way NOT to progress along the path is not to take the first step.

2) Just because good, measured advice is given, it doesn't mean you have to heed it. We're just telling you how to minimize the chances of having a roadside encounter.

3) Time is always important, the 5 minutes it takes you to hop into the Sack'o'Suds may save you 20, 30, or even two hours on the side of the road. It's your time, use it wisely. I'm not suggesting Every Time an officer is behind you as sometimes even da po-lice are just going the same stretch of road you are. But when a car hangs around, and you suspect you are the reason I highly advise taking any action you can to lessen an officer's ability to legally detain you.

I choose to rely instead on 67 years of living and 47 years of driving and the utter absence of the kind of hassles many of you in here fear. I realize that these things do happen and I have therefore schooled myself in the right things to say and do if stopped and have inculcated the advice of attorneys who are knowledgeable in this area. I am prepared to defend myself, verbally, if I am stopped ... but I am not going to alter my life just because *something* might happen.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I choose to rely instead on 67 years of living and 47 years of driving and the utter absence of the kind of hassles many of you in here fear. I realize that these things do happen and I have therefore schooled myself in the right things to say and do if stopped and have inculcated the advice of attorneys who are knowledgeable in this area. I am prepared to defend myself, verbally, if I am stopped ... but I am not going to alter my life just because *something* might happen.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't carry a gun, or isn't a robbery or mugging *something* that might happen?
I alter my life a great deal because *something* might happen...
I have medical insurance
I have life insurance
I wear a seatbelt when on the road
I have a first aid kit in my car
I have a fire extinguisher in the car and in the house

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I choose to rely instead on 67 years of living and 47 years of driving and the utter absence of the kind of hassles many of you in here fear. I realize that these things do happen and I have therefore schooled myself in the right things to say and do if stopped and have inculcated the advice of attorneys who are knowledgeable in this area. I am prepared to defend myself, verbally, if I am stopped ... but I am not going to alter my life just because *something* might happen.

When a potential predator enters my vicinity, from which I have little to no defensive recourse, it would be foolish NOT to alter my habits.

Unless you have some secret way of determining Officer Harless 2.0 from Officer Fife before the encounter even begins, tread carefully. That's all I'm saying.

 

[JamesCanby]

I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't carry a gun, or isn't a robbery or mugging *something* that might happen?
I alter my life a great deal because *something* might happen...
I have medical insurance
I have life insurance
I wear a seatbelt when on the road
I have a first aid kit in my car
I have a fire extinguisher in the car and in the house

Guessing can be a hazard.

I openly carry and usually conceal a BUG. I'm going to hazard a guess that you believe that because something has happened to someone that it's *going* to happen to you. I do not consider carrying a firearm to be an alteration to my life, no more than having a fire extinguisher in my home and car and all of those other things that you listed. I understand the need to be prepared for eventualities ... but I am not going to let the presence of a police car alter my route of travel, because in all of my experience I have never had a bad encounter with police. And yes, I have been stopped a few times, mostly in my younger days where the stops were appropriate. On more occasions, though, the police have come to my aid, sometimes by request and sometimes unbidden and I was grateful for their help.

I understand that bad things have happened to others, which is why I have studied the laws and have inculcated the strategies and tactics of dealing with a LEO who is there to harass or who is trying to find a way to increase his arrest record. Just like having a fire extinguisher, I feel prepared to handle such an encounter in a way that minimizes the risk ... but I am not going to live my life in fear of a possible negative encounter -- I'm ready for it if it ever occurs.

I value the time I spend on OCDO -- I have learned much from the discussions --- but I have noticed more and more of a tendency to automatically categorize the LEO community as the enemy, and I cannot support that. Certainly, one must be cognizant of one's rights and avoid having them trampled by an over-reaching LEO. I just will not go down that path -- as some have on OCDO -- that all LEOs are out to get me. My life experiences do not indicate that. Perhaps I'm just lucky, or perhaps I accord good behavior to everyone with whom I come in contact until they do something to cause me to change that opinion and, if necessary, I am prepared to defend my rights.

 

[countryclubjoe]

This citizen was clearly stopped for having out of state tags Florida tags.. Clearly being profiled for having out of state tags.
Bogus stop, bogus search and bogus detainment however I see no successful litigation in the citizens future. He may get an apology from the PD at best.

Remain silent.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

 

[JamesCanby]

This citizen was clearly stopped for having out of state tags Florida tags.. Clearly being profiled for having out of state tags.
Bogus stop, bogus search and bogus detainment however I see no successful litigation in the citizens future. He may get an apology from the PD at best.

Remain silent.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

Maryland has a long history of interdicting traffic along the I-95 corridor. When Don Schaeffer was Governor, he had the Maryland State Police stopping many trucks going south to north just to see if they were carrying cases of cigarettes from North Carolina or Virginia up to New York. He also had trucks and sometimes even cars stopped to see if they were carrying furniture from North Carolina or wine from the New York Finger Lakes wine country into Maryland, just so he could impose Maryland State sales tax on them. For him, it wasn't a criminal thing so much as it was a revenue thing.

 

[OC for ME]

Now, despite having fielded apologies from the officer’s captain as well as from a Maryland Transportation Authority Police internal affairs captain, John is wondering if he shouldn’t just cancel his CCW license.

Check that one off your list. The cops have done their due diligence.

 

[JamesCanby]

Interdicting is probably not the word you wanted. Particularly in the context of legalities.

Um, I think interdicting correctly describes what was happening:

in·ter·dict
verb
gerund or present participle: interdicting
ˌintərˈdikt/

1.
prohibit or forbid (something).
"society will never interdict sex"
synonyms: prohibit, forbid, ban, bar, veto, proscribe, embargo, disallow, debar, outlaw; More
stop, suppress;
enjoin
"they interdicted foreign commerce"
antonyms: permit
prohibit someone from (doing something).
"I have not been interdicted from consuming or holding alcoholic beverages"
2.
intercept and prevent the movement of (a prohibited commodity or person).
"the police established roadblocks throughout the country for interdicting drugs"
synonyms: intercept, stop, head off, cut off;

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Interdicting is probably not the word you wanted. Particularly in the context of legalities.

Interdiction is the exact word wanted, in context of legalities.
Highway Drug Interdiction

What other purpose would the police have for searching cars beyond a sweep to secure easily accessible weapons?

 

[countryclubjoe]

Interdiction is the exact word wanted, in context of legalities.
Highway Drug Interdiction

What other purpose would the police have for searching cars beyond a sweep to secure easily accessible weapons?

I feel safer now knowing all that dope is off the streets.

The word "interdiction" is not listed in Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition..

Best regards

CCJ

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

You need to get with the program, dude, the interwebs is where it's at for all the groovy cats today. Dead trees are like nowheresville, man. (just ribbing ya.)

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

INTERDICT
In Roman law. A decree of the praetor by means of which, in certain cases determined by the edict, be himself directly commanded what should be done or omitted, particularly iu causes involving the right of possession or a quasi possession. In the modern civil law, Interdicts are regarded precisely the same as actions, though they give rise to a summary proceeding. Mackeld. Rom. Law,

INTERDICTION
In French law. Every person who, on account of insanity, has become incapable of controlling his own interests, can be put under the control of a guardian, who shall administer his affairs with the same effect as he might himself. Such a person is said to be “intcrdit,” and bis status is described as “interdiction.” Arg. Fr. Merc. Law, 562. In the civil law. A judicial decree, by which a person is deprived of the exercise of his civil rights. In international law. An “interdiction of commercial intercourse” between two countries is a governmental prohibition of commercial intercourse, intended to bring about an entire cessation for the time being of all trade whatever. See The Edward, 1 Wheat. 272, 4 L. Ed. 86.


It doesn't have an entry for 'aardvark', does that mean the concept of aardvarks cannot be brought up in court?

 

[countryclubjoe]

You need to get with the program, dude, the interwebs is where it's at for all the groovy cats today. Dead trees are like nowheresville, man. (just ribbing ya.)

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

INTERDICT
In Roman law. A decree of the praetor by means of which, in certain cases determined by the edict, be himself directly commanded what should be done or omitted, particularly iu causes involving the right of possession or a quasi possession. In the modern civil law, Interdicts are regarded precisely the same as actions, though they give rise to a summary proceeding. Mackeld. Rom. Law,

INTERDICTION
In French law. Every person who, on account of insanity, has become incapable of controlling his own interests, can be put under the control of a guardian, who shall administer his affairs with the same effect as he might himself. Such a person is said to be “intcrdit,” and bis status is described as “interdiction.” Arg. Fr. Merc. Law, 562. In the civil law. A judicial decree, by which a person is deprived of the exercise of his civil rights. In international law. An “interdiction of commercial intercourse” between two countries is a governmental prohibition of commercial intercourse, intended to bring about an entire cessation for the time being of all trade whatever. See The Edward, 1 Wheat. 272, 4 L. Ed. 86.


It doesn't have an entry for 'aardvark', does that mean the concept of aardvarks cannot be brought up in court?

Touche on all points.. Boy I'm getting old. LOL

CCJ

 

[sudden valley gunner]

When a potential predator enters my vicinity, from which I have little to no defensive recourse, it would be foolish NOT to alter my habits.

Unless you have some secret way of determining Officer Harless 2.0 from Officer Fife before the encounter even begins, tread carefully. That's all I'm saying.

+1

Yes will whine about painting with a broad brush, but the reality is there is very limited group of people who actively interject themselves into the liberty of free people.

It is always a good thing to take a precaution that one of us will be the next victim.

 

[eye95]

+1

Yes will whine about painting with a broad brush, but the reality is there is very limited group of people who actively interject themselves into the liberty of free people.

It is always a good thing to take a precaution that one of us will be the next victim.

It is painting with a broad brush, your juvenile characterization of whining aside. Not all cops will start following a citizen for no good reason. In fact, most would probably not bother. However, if one starts following me, he is likely one of the few, and I will turn off.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Hence the use of "potential".

We all agree there are some bad, dangerous cops out there, yes?

We all agree there are some decent people wearing the same badge, yes?

My entire point, which the bashing crowd so eagerly misses, is to exercise caution until you are able to determine which type of cop you are dealing with.

Perhaps if the cop apologists would stop their rabid finger pointing, they could have employed some modicum of intelligence to figure that out.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Hence the use of "potential".

We all agree there are some bad, dangerous cops out there, yes?

We all agree there are some decent people wearing the same badge, yes?

My entire point, which the bashing crowd so eagerly misses, is to exercise caution until you are able to determine which type of cop you are dealing with.

Perhaps if the cop apologists would stop their rabid finger pointing, they could have employed some modicum of intelligence to figure that out.

+1

 

[Citizen]

It is painting with a broad brush, your juvenile characterization of whining aside. Not all cops will start following a citizen for no good reason. In fact, most would probably not bother. However, if one starts following me, he is likely one of the few, and I will turn off.

This isn't particularly to contradict; just to expand.

Its more than just a cop starts following me.

It if a cop is driving behind me at all. He doesn't have to be deliberately following me with his attention focused on me. Now, if there are four or six cars behind me, and he's behind them, no, I don't take evasive action; I just keep a close eye on him. But, if there are no cars between the cop and me, I'm gonna evade.

The reason is I don't want to become a fishing expedition that starts with a pretext of a burned out tail-light, not signalling early enough for a lane change, or any of the other six zillion little "violations" that are technically sufficient to justify being seized by a cop.

So, for example, lets say I'm driving along on a road with light traffic. Just ahead of me I see a cop waiting for traffic to clear so he can pull out into traffic. After I pass him, I'm keeping an eye on him in the mirror. If he turns in my direction, I'm watching even closer. If he pulls out right behind me, say just because that's what the traffic allows, I'm looking at my evasion options right now.

So, its not just being followed by a cop. Its more than that. Its if there is a cop back there at all.

 

[Silvertongue]

Where do you see the argument that turning into a gas station or changing lanes will "throw him off your tail"? You also put words into previous poster's mouths by rephrasing this practice as "evading".

I believe you misunderstand the purpose of this alteration to the route. It isn't to "shake 'em off your tail". The police are pretty experienced at NOT being evaded. I highly doubt making a right turn will do the trick. I've seen criminals on COPS jump entire culverts and blaze through car dealerships without success. Do you honestly think swapping lanes will make one go, "HOLY COW! HE JUST DISAPPEARED!"?

The purpose of turning in to a business or changing lanes is more of a "litmus test" than an "evasion". Doing so forces the issue. Either the trailing officer continues about his business ending any attempts at "fishing"......

.....or he alters his course as well, unmistakably revealing that he is, indeed, on a fishing trip.

There he is! He's listing lazily to the left!

Oh man, he's got some moves.

Family Guy references aside, think of it as an if/then scenario. If an officer is driving behind you, then that officer is either 1) Fishing or B) Simply driving.

Changing lanes, only to have the officer follow you, makes it a little better indicator that it's 1. If the officer just goes on by, then it's not-1.

Pulling into the first open business on the right (whilst in the furthest right lane) is another if/then. If the officer follows you, then it's a better indicator for 1.