[Ukraine Train]

Say you're involved in a routine traffic stop and the officer asks if you have any firearms in the car. If you say yes, does he have the authority to check them to make sure they're being transported correctly (unloaded in trunk with action open, etc.)? Or would it be one of those volunatry search situations where you don't have to consent to a search?

[R.H. Lee]

A followup question: If you decline to answer, would that give the aforementioned LEO 'probable cause' to search, and anything he found would be admissable in a court of law????

[Beren]

Why would you even have to answer the question?

"I'm sorry, officer, why was I stopped? Would you like to see my license and registration or may I be on my way?"

"I asked, do you have any firearms in the vehicle."

"I have nothing illegal of any kind in my vehicle, officer. May I please ask again why I was stopped?"

In my case:

"Officer, I have a license to carry firearms and currently have one at <location>. How would you like me to proceed?"

[armoredman]

Check the laws in your state on transport - if you have a CCW permit, more than likely one of the items in law is that you MUST disclose the fact you're carrying to a law enforcement officer during intial interview. Also, if you do not have a CCW permit, CHL, or whatever you call it, does your state require firearms to be carried in your vehicle in a certain way?
Here in AZ, you are required to disclose the fact of your permit to an offcier during initial interview. If you do not have a permit, you should disclose if you're carrying open, and he doesn't notice - but it is NOT required.
Also, we do not require certain types of storage for firearms, as long as they are in a holster, scabbard, or case designed for the carrying of a firearm, or as I do, in the trunk wrapped in a blanket going to and from the rifle range. if you have a loaded AK hanging in the rear window of your truck, it's legal, or a loaded M1 Garand in a case behind your seat. Legal.
LE can do what's called a Terry stop, or Terry frisk, which is driver and general location of the driver, meaning all areas the driver can reach unaided, from the drivers' seat. Items may be temporarily confiscated for officer safety for the duration of the interview, and unloaded, but if not illegal, will be returned to the individual at the conclusion of the interview. They may NOT be seized for any longer than the interview, unless the individual is placed under arrest.
Anyone else want to chime in?

[why_me]

No such thing. If you dont give permission to search. They probably will anyways.

[cslinger]

My take on things.

There are bad cops.
There are bad laws.

That being said most LEO's are good folks who get to deal with the crap of society day in and day out. Many times a little bit of common courtesy can go a long way. So were I to be asked I would simply answer truthfully and the reason I was carrying them. I wouldn't volunteer the information but as long as the LEO was being respectful I will be respectful back. For all I know his buddy could have just been shot or shot at and now this guy is paranoid...as I would be too.

The great majority of all of my interactions with LEOs over the years have been polite, friendly and uneventful.

I think one has to walk that fine line of defending ones rights to the very core while at the same time realizing when it is more of a human to human courtesy issue.

All that being said I have a carry permit so the first thing I am saying is "Officer I have a TN handgun carry permit and I am or am not carrying a weapon. The permit is in my wallet with my license how do you want to proceed."

Understand that traffic stops are not routine and every one of them does and should provide at least some level of pucker factor for the LEO. There are a lot of dead cops out there because of traffic stops gone bad.

I find it's a good rule of thumb to always take a second to look at situations from the other guy's view.

Sorry I am not as hardcore as some folks but I have friends who are officers and have worked with them.

Chris

[Ukraine Train]

I have an Ohio CCW and I'm aware I have to notify the officer if I'm carrying but I was aiming my question about non-ccw firearms, like a rifle in your trunk. If I'm carrying the officer may ask if I have any other guns in the car.

[R.H. Lee]

LE can do what's called a Terry stop, or Terry frisk, which is driver and general location of the driver, meaning all areas the driver can reach unaided, from the drivers' seat. Does this 'Terry stop' apply in all 50 states? How often is it used? Is anything found admissable?

[.45&TKD]

I was aiming my question about non-ccw firearms, like a rifle in your trunk. If I'm carrying the officer may ask if I have any other guns in the car.

I have always wondered about this also. I have had a AZ CCW for almost 4 years, but it has been almost 10 years since I have been pulled over.

If I am carrying CCW, but I have 5 rifles in the trunk (coming back from the range) do I have to divulge all that information, if asked?

Will they want to see everything if I do divulge everything?

If I divulge that I have a CCW and that my weapon is on my right hip inside wastband and they ask if there are any other weapons in the car, what is the proper response?

[Lone_Gunman]

if you have a CCW permit, more than likely one of the items in law is that you MUST disclose the fact you're carrying to a law enforcement officer during intial interview

You better look into your particular state law on that. In Georgia, we are not required to disclose if we have a permit or if we are carrying, and I would not do so unless I was asked to step out of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever been asked if they had any guns at a traffic stop? I never have been.

I would answer truthfully and politely, even though he would have no reason to ask that question of me; I would be afraid if he did find out I had a gun, he would go crazy on me for not being honest. Last thing I want is a freaked out police officer with a gun.

Then after I got home, I would report the incident to his superiors, and request an explanation for why I was asked that.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

In my case:

"Officer, I have a license to carry firearms and currently have one at <location>. How would you like me to proceed?"

And at that point in time you have diffused whatever situation (depending on your state laws) may have prompted the LEO to ask. You are now out in front of the situation, telling him yes and telling him you are legal, he’ll either ask you to display your CHL or just say okay, thanks for being honest ha may ask you to just stay away from where ever you have told him the gun is, or in a extreme case he may take it from you and place it in your trunk etc…and the traffic stop will proceed with either a warning or citation and you’ll be on your way as soon as possible. The latter would most likely happen only if he intended to have you get out of the vehicle, say he suspected you of DUI and wanted to perform FST.


No such thing. If you dont give permission to search. They probably will anyways.

Uhhh, okay…

First let me say this, if I have PC to search your car I won’t be asking, you’ll find out when I ask you to stop out of the car, handcuff you and pass you over to my partner who will Terry pat you and place you into the back of a patrol car, informing you that you are not under arrest at this time, but you are not free to go, you are being held on a investigative detention while we search your car. We are not required to explain our self’s roadside to you, but if you cooperate I’m sure most officers will, after the search is complete.

If I have to ask for permission, it’s because I need just that, your permission. If the cop proceeds anyway then let him and go find you a lawyer ASAP.

Now I will be honest with you, no where in the law books does it say I CANNOT lie to you and if I have PC for the stop and arrest etc, but I just want to gather a bit more info I have lied to folk on stops just to see their reaction to a particular question.

If a cop asks and you say no, he takes you out anyway then searches that could be the case. But you’ll find out soon enough because you will be arrested for whatever he was going to arrest for in the first place and the report will articulate his reason for the roadside challenge and response question.


Does this 'Terry stop' apply in all 50 states? How often is it used? Is anything found admissable?

Yes Terry was a USSC case it is the standard nationwide. I use Terry when I place someone into an investigative detention, not an arrest but not free to go either. Yes if I find evidence of contraband or fruits of the crime you can be charged and prosecuted.

[R.H. Lee]

Yes Terry was a USSC case it is the standard nationwide. I use Terry when I place someone into an investigative detention, not an arrest but not free to go either. So, hypothetically, if I were to throw the Uzi in the back seat (out of my immediate reach) and throw my jacket over it, it would or would not be admissable if the officer found it during a 'Terry stop'? Not being smart@$$ here, just asking a question.

[why_me]

Now I will be honest with you, no where in the law books does it say I CANNOT lie to you and if I have PC for the stop and arrest etc, but I just want to gather a bit more info I have lied to folk on stops just to see their reaction to a particular question.

The lies for probable cause are After the stop is made in the majority of cases.

"Uh yes your honor i noted suspect was weaving between lanes"
"I noticed a light was out"
" Suspect didnt completely stop for stop sign"

Fishing expeditions are no reason to gut the bill of rights.

[steveno]

if the officer asks I will tell him the truth otherwise it is none of his business if I have a gun in my truck or not. the officer already has is standard of care when he approaches the vehicle and I'm certainly not going to come out shooting for any reason. I try to follow the idea that I don't give them a reason to stop me in the first place.

[geekWithA.45]

Interesting discussion.

I've no problem with handing over my LTCF with my license if I'm pulled over in PA. Out of state's a different issue.

I regularly run the 95 corridor to VA through some fairly serious GFW territory with my sidearm locked up in my trunk pursuant to USC 18.whatever.

If pulled over in blue territory and asked that question, I'd just as soon sidestep the whole issue, and not get into any explanations. Since my sidearm's in my trunk, the sacred cow of "officer safety" isn't an issue, a terry search won't turn it up, and there will be no consent given to get through the 3 locks between my guns and open air.

I guess I'd have to pick between

A) Nope, no illegal guns in the car. (A true statement)
B) Splutter...guns? What on earth makes you think I've got guns? (Probing for PC)
C)Splutter...what's wrong with guns? You've got like 3 of them! (Just kidding)


In any event, the original question remains unanswered:

If an honest guy like me, having unloaded, locked and packed his guns according to interstate peaceable travel says something like, "Yes, my lawful handgun is unloaded and locked in its case in the trunk pursuant to federal interestate travel guidelines" provide an officer with PC to confirm that this is in fact the case?

I'm not interested in the BS answer, "well, if you've done all that, you've got nothing to worry about, and shouldn't object."

I've lived in NJ too long to believe that.

[ojibweindian]

In Alabama, the law does not require you to disclose that you have a CCW or a weapon in the car.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Then after I got home, I would report the incident to his superiors, and request an explanation for why I was asked that.

And you probably would be forwarded to OPS who would then explain to you that in GA a LEO could actually ask you anything during the course of a traffic stop. Miranda is not required on a traffic stop so if you admit to something illegal you can be charged.

Most officers myself included ask only if we suspect you of carrying, just to see if you are truthful and to judge your reaction.

Same reason we ask you if you nave been drinking, we have a pretty good idea we just want to judge you reaction.

I’ve only asked maybe 10 folks if they had a gun in the car, because I intended to have them exit the car for FST or some other investigation. I had maybe on 5 or 6 occasion people say yes, in the glove box, console in a bag etc…

I’ve only encountered 1 CHL on a traffic stop and he handed me his GA handgun permit with his D/L and insurance and told me he hand a gun in the glove box. I told him thank you for telling me, I proceeded with the traffic stop and I gave him a warning for running the stop light at the major intersection my partner and I were working that day (the only one I gave too) and I let him go.


When I make a traffic stop or any LEO/citizen encounter I subscribe to the FBI model of suspect approach, you approach everyone as if this encounter WILL end in a gunfight.

There are only two types of traffic stops unknown risk stops and felony stops. There is no such thing as a routines stop anymore, you can thank your fellow rock dwellers for that, tinted windows so dark you cannot see the interior lights, folks just generally acting stupid nutting up on a traffic stop cause they feel everything is racial, people spaced out on meth, drinking and driving, rolling domestic disputes.

And ironically due to some department’s policy on no chases except felony charges you now have MORE chases!

Here’s why…

Criminals are by their very nature stupid I believe we all agree, but they are not totally dumb. Most are street-smart learning skills they were taught while in jail. One thing now is for folks who say are running dope or have a buddy in the car who is wanted, they get stopped for whatever reason, minor, they wait till the cop is out of the car and just as he passes the hood of his car or makes contact with their car and can no longer see the brake lights they throw it in driver and go, many time making contact with the officer as they speed off, then it becomes agg assault by vehicle.

I had this done to me several time, the last time was on June 6, 2004, the reason I remember this, I was struck by the car, my gun holster (right side) caught on the rear passenger window which was down spinning me as the car took off. The driver turned into traffic as he left turning to the left into where I was standing I went up against the side of the car, knocking me down. I injured my hamstring in my right leg by over extending it when the car hit me.

The car was driven by a 19 year old black female her brother in the passenger seat was wanted for VOP and he knew it, told her what to do.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

So, hypothetically, if I were to throw the Uzi in the back seat (out of my immediate reach) and throw my jacket over it, it would or would not be admissable if the officer found it during a 'Terry stop'? Not being smart@$$ here, just asking a question.

Terry is NORMALLY applied to the basic areas on a person where one would be expected to conceal a weapon, waist, pockets, underarms you get the picture. When I terry pat I cannot “grab” or “grope” like I can when I am searching you incident to arrest, I can only “pat’ hence the Terry Pat.

There is some speculation as to whether terry is applicable to what the law calls the lunging area or wingspan search. This is the area in your immediate control such as the area you describe.

The way I read Terry is this,

No I do not have the right to do anything but a plain view search of your car IF all I am doing is a Terry pat of your person for weapons, I am removing you from the car thereby removing you from the weapon.

[charby]

I hardly ever get pulled over (haven't since I got my CCW), usually for not wearing a seat belt (stupid nanny state law) or pulling a california stop. I must have a some sort of tell tell sign on my forehead that I might have a firearm in my vehicle.

I don't attach NRA stickers or political stickers to my vehicles, all my firearms and assessories are in the trunk in the car or behind the seat in the pickup. The only thing that might set me off is my orange ball cap that usually annoints my dash during pheasant season or empty shotshell hulls on the floor of the passenger side during the fall. (I try and pick up all my hulls when hunting)

The last time I got pulled over was in South Dakota Aug 1999 for doing 5 mph over the speed limit on I-90. At the time I was clean cut, fresh shaven and wearing a polo shirt, kakhi shorts and sandles driving a Dodge Stratus rental car. First thing the trooper asked me after taking license, etc is if I had any firearms, I told him in the trunk was a muzzleloader that I brought along for my dad (who I was visiting) and I to target shoot with. The trooper was pretty cool and after about a 15 min chat about Iowa he set me on my way without a ticket. I think he was looking for drug trafficers or something like that and I wasn't that guy.

Charby

[TheFederalistWeasel]

The lies for probable cause are after the stop is made in the majority of cases.

"Uh yes your honor i noted suspect was weaving between lanes"
"I noticed a light was out"
" Suspect didnt completely stop for stop sign"

Fishing expeditions are no reason to gut the bill of rights.

I’m sorry why_me, evidentially you live in an extremely horrible state or city… about all I can offer you is the welcome mat for GA, please come down here where you are not instantly a criminal for owning a gun, infact most cops look at you funny if you don’t own a gun.

[cslinger]

infact most cops look at you funny if you don’t own a gun.

I have met many LEO's in Maryland of all places who will tell you flat out everybody should learn to shoot and own a gun. Most seem to be old guard but it seems that once most LEOs deal with their share of stuff and work a few murders that they understand that there are bad folks out there who do bad things to good folks.

Once again there are bad cops. There are stupid cops. There are lazy cops. and there are downright ignorant, AH, dirty cops. Kind of like there are bad people, stupid people, lazy people and downright ignorant, AH dirty people.

The fact is in my experience most cops are good folk who at least start out wanting to do the right thing and help folks. Now......chiefs and administrators.....they are mostly politicians and that is where problems start as far as I am concerened.

Chris

[why_me]

Already made up our mind.
We are moving to Minnesota. Last ticket i got was for disobeying a sign.
The sign was a white line painted on the road. A month later they painted over the line. SO now you can legally drive there. We have a law here ticket revenues go to municipality giving out the ticket. 20% goes to the state.
Little crap holes like West Milwaukee make big $$$$ off there tickets.

[Nickotym]

How about locking your car after you get out if the officer asks you to get out? PC? Would require warrant to look in car correct?
I can just see it:

judge: "Why do you want a warrant, officer?"
Officer: " He locked his car after I asked him to exit the vehicle."
Judge: "Gone fishing lately?"

[TheFederalistWeasel]

According to the US Supreme Court there are several exceptions to Search and Seizure

Consent

Search incident to arrest,

Emergency or exigent circumstances,

Automobile exception (when an officer makes a traffic stop he/she can search the car for weapons w/o a search warrant.) places that can be search is anyplace under the immediate control of the suspect.

Abandon property

Probationers/Prisoners

Plain view doctrine

[DelayedReaction]

You should always lock your car after you exit from it. If an officer asks why, just say you do it out of habit. If he then asks for your keys, say you don't consent to searches. If he still asks for them, say you are complying with his order to provide him with the keys but you do not consent to any search of your property.

Never give up your rights.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Do a search of the internet for "automobile exception rule" Search and Seizure and read up before you take that approach.

[Ukraine Train]

Sooo.... I still don't think we've really received an answer to my original question lol.

[R.H. Lee]

Just say no. :p

[why_me]

You should always lock your car after you exit from it. If an officer asks why, just say you do it out of habit. If he then asks for your keys, say you don't consent to searches. If he still asks for them, say you are complying with his order to provide him with the keys but you do not consent to any search of your property.

So he asks you to get back in your car you open the door he has his hand on door. you have now let him into your car. If you try to close the door you are obstructing.

Since any evidence no matter how it was found is admissable you have no rights.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Let me lay out for you what CAN happen in Georgia before you head down this road straight to jail.

In GA…
(1)The motor vehicle traffic laws for this state shall apply to all roads, highways, thruways and private property where applicable within the jurisdiction of the state Georgia; provided, however, that the authority may determine and declare reasonable, safe, and lawful speed limits on all roads within its jurisdiction.
(2) Those so employed by any municipality of the state of Georgia designated as Law Enforcement Officers with powers of arrest granted under the Peace Officers Standards and Training Act shall have the power to arrest for all traffic offenses committed on any property under the jurisdiction of the state of Georgia.
(3) Such arrest may be affected by issuance of a citation, the requirement to post a cash or property bond or the appearance before a judicial officer of any court provided the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer.

Now you have been arrested and will be taken to jail for whatever traffic offense you have committed I will now under GA law tow your vehicle, requiring me to do a vehicle inventory search.

If you refuse to allow me entry into your car under the given circumstances…



(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) (b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.


That first one is very vague and ambiguous isn’t it? I successfully charged and won against a lady who was refusing to allow me to question her 16-year-old daughter in connection with an assault that she witnessed. I arrested mom on the spot took her to jail and charged her with obstruction she spoke with a lawyer prior to court and pled guilty to misdemeanor obstruction.

And now read that last one…

by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony

By offering or doing violence it’s a felony, the simple act of offering violence a felony, good by firearms, isn’t this what it’s all about to most of you, firearm ownership?






And since were now at this point, just what the heck is in that car anyway that you are so fearful of, if you are a law abiding person legally carrying?

Paranoid much….


:uhoh:

[Valkman]

So he asks you to get back in your car you open the door he has his hand on door. you have now let him into your car.

No, you don't. Unless you consent to a search or he has some valid reason to search you don't have to let him in.

I haven't been pulled over in a long time, but I can't figure out why they'd even ask if you have firearms in the car. Back when I used to get pulled over regularly no one ever asked that.

It's nice to live in a state that has no restrictions on how firearms are carried - they don't even have to be unloaded here. If you're carrying handguns in Vegas you have to have the "blue card" for each gun and if you have a Class 3 gun you must carry a copy of the paperwork for that.

[bogie]

"Oh! I would _never_ have anything illegal in my car!"

[why_me]

back from the adult store with some hmm hmm marital aids.
What exactly are you Fishing for?
Its none of your damm business whats in my car if i am not breaking any laws.
But your willing to violate my rights to go fishing.
Who is being paranoid. Can i come over to your house and look around? I think the answer is you wouldnt like that. What are you being paranoid of?

[Standing Wolf]

One of the pleasures of living in Colorado is that anyone who's legally entitled to own a firearm may carry it, loaded or unloaded, concealed or unconcealed, in his or her motor vehicle.

[DelayedReaction]

No, you don't. Unless you consent to a search or he has some valid reason to search you don't have to let him in.

You don't stop him, ever. You just say you don't consent to a search of your vehicle. You never, EVER, waver from that stance, but under no circumstances should you prevent a police officer from doing something. That's a very quick way to end up in prison.

So he asks you to get back in your car you open the door he has his hand on door. you have now let him into your car. If you try to close the door you are obstructing.

Since any evidence no matter how it was found is admissable you have no rights.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. You don't close the door to obstruct a police officer, no. But you have made it very clear that you do not consent to a search, and if he goes on searching because you open the door as per his instructions then none of the evidence is admissable. Where the heck do you get the idea that all evidence is admissable no matter how it was found? That's completely and utterly wrong.

[EOD Guy]

Here in AZ, you are required to disclose the fact of your permit to an offcier during initial interview.

No, you don't. AZ law does not require notification.

[R.H. Lee]

Of course, even if you don't consent and he searches anyway it's his word against yours. Remember, though, you're (probably) being videotaped from the patrol car so make gestures like you are NOT consenting, to back up your story. Also, be careful what you say if he seats you in the patrol car. You are being audiotaped inside his car, without your knowledge or consent.

[Gordon Fink]

I still don’t think we've really received an answer to my original question.

If you are “illegally” transporting an item protected by the Second Amendment, and a law-enforcement officer suspects such during a traffic stop, you may want to exercise your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Hopefully, the officer will not violate your Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches.

~G. Fink

[USP45usp]

In Oregon we don't have any "hidden gun laws" that I know about. We don't have an AWB (yet, they will try it this year) or any transportation laws especially if you have a CHL. I will not consent to a search but I will inform that I have guns/weapons in the car (they will know it anyway because I will give them my CHL along with my documents. They will know anyhow because it's in their computer).

I would do the same for any LEO. Now as for feds, that's another story :neener: :evil: :D (tis a joke all).

Wayne

[bogie]

What about the folks who say things like "You don't mind if I look in your car, do you?"

If you say "yes," they say you consented to a search. If you say "no," they say you consented to a search.

My policy is to try to not use words such as "yes" or "no" (since they may be misunderstood), and instead just rely on "there is nothing illegal in the vehicle" or "my sister, the attorney, has advised me never to consent to a search."

Just curious - Any FFLs here?

Next time you get stopped, fish out a business card at the same time, and if they pop the question, get it out of your shirt pocket or off the dash, or whevever... "Whaddya need?"

[TheFederalistWeasel]

The Automobile Exception to the Search and Seizure laws is the United States Supreme Court; it’s from them by them to be applied to ALL courts and cases below them!

Who do you think will win when the prosecutor starts citing USSC case law to the judge about why I searched your car incident to arrest for a traffic violation!?!?!?!?!?!?

Verbally resist or obstruct the officer and then you get another charge, is it worth it?

My job IS to be nosey my job is to patrol and investigate suspicious activity; a traffic violation is suspicious illegal activity. Isn’t that how a trooper caught Tim McVeigh and a rookie cop caught Eric Rudolph? By simply being nosey and pulling them over detaining them for what was basically a minor violation or local ordnance?

A Dekalb County PD Officer arrested two, not one but two suspects wanted on murder warrants about a year ago simply because he got out on a group of young black males loitering near a store after dark. Ran them got the hit, held them at gunpoint until backup arrived.

How did he find them, by being nosey!

:confused:

[why_me]

The police have the right to perform a search of a suspect and his immediate surroundings, "incident" to the arrest of the suspect. If the police arrest a person who was driving a car, they ordinarily get the right to search the entire passenger compartment of the car - and will usually also be able to search passengers for weapons. If the car is impounded, the police may perform an "inventory search" of the entire car, including the contents of the trunk.

[R.H. Lee]

OK. How about this, Officer Fed: You ask me a question. I say "I'll have to consult with my attorney first" and proceed to telephone him. (I happen to have prepaid legal, so this is not far fetched). What will you do while I'm waiting for a return call? Serious question.

[TRLaye]

RileyMC and his Uzi

In answer to your question. It is illegal for you to transport an "assault weapon", which by Calif law a Uzi is one, or a handgun, in anything other than a locked case with the ammunition stored seperately.

A non-"assault weapon", rifle or shotgun, but not handgun, can simply be laid on the seat unloaded and out of reach and you're good to go. Not that I would mind you. Not all officers are aware of, or understand, all the gun laws.

[why_me]

Former Sheriff Sidney Dorsey was convicted today of masterminding the murder of his successor, who was fatally shot in his driveway after winning election on a promise to rid the department of corruption.

The jury deliberated for more than two days before returning the verdict in the Dec. 15, 2000, killing of the victim, Derwin Brown, who defeated Mr. Dorsey a few months earlier in a bitter runoff election for sheriff of DeKalb County.

Mr. Dorsey was found guilty of murder and racketeering in 11 other counts charging him with presiding over widespread corruption in the suburban Atlanta sheriff's department, a pattern that Mr. Brown had promised to clean up.

Phyllis Brown, Mr. Brown's widow, trembled as the verdict was read. Moments later, Ms. Brown dialed her cellphone and told someone: ''They got him.''

Mr. Dorsey, 62, was acquitted of two bribery counts and a charge that he forced employees to campaign for him on county time.

He faces a mandatory life sentence, and the judge could toughen that by removing any possibility of parole. Defense lawyers said they would appeal his convictions.

Prosecutors said Mr. Dorsey had recruited the men who shot Mr. Brown, 46, and that he wanted his adversary dead so he could retake the sheriff's post in a special election. Mr. Dorsey eventually decided not to run in that election.

Jurors heard tearful testimony from Ms. Brown, who recounted hearing what sounded like firecrackers, then walking outside to find her husband dead. He had been shot 11 times.

''When I walked out the door, I looked to my left on the ground and Derwin was lying there,'' Ms. Brown testified. ''I knelt down, and when I looked in his eyes, I knew he was gone.''

[R.H. Lee]

In answer to your question. It is illegal for you to transport an "assault weapon", which by Calif law a Uzi is one, or a handgun, in anything other than a locked case with the ammunition stored seperately.

yah, yah, yah. We all know that. But if the 'evidence' was obtained as the result of an illegal search, it is the 'fruit of the poison tree' and not admissable. No evidence, no conviction. BTW, I don't carry a UZI around in my car. I don't even own an UZI or any other illegal weapon.

[why_me]

But if a batf trace shows you bought the uzi. It is enough to allow the use of the poison fruit.

this is funny too.

JONESBORO, Ga. (AP) -- A newly elected sheriff who deployed snipers to the roof of his jail on his first day in office, then fired more than two dozen people, has been ordered to rehire them.

Victor Hill, who started as sheriff in suburban Clayton County Monday, called 27 department employees to the jail, stripped them of their guns and badges, and had his new chief deputy hand them photocopied dismissal papers.

Sheriff’s department snipers stood guard on the roof of the jail as the fired workers were escorted out. Because they were no longer allowed to use their county cars, some former deputies were driven home in vans normally used to transport prisoners.

On Tuesday, a judge ordered the new sheriff to immediately rehire them.

“It appears ... that employees of the Sheriff were terminated without cause and in violation of the provisions of the Clayton County Civil Service system,” Clayton Superior Court Judge Stephen Boswell wrote in his order.

Hill, 39, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he fired the employees to “maintain the integrity of the department.”

The firings had a racial overtone. Hill was among a spate of black candidates elected last year in the county once dominated by rural whites. The county seat, Jonesboro, was the setting for the fictional plantation Tara in “Gone With The Wind.”

The fired sheriff’s employees included four of the highest-ranking officers, all of them white. Hill told the newspaper their replacements would be black.

Hill’s firings sparked outrage by another of the newly elected black officials. Eldrin Bell, new county commission chairman and former Atlanta police chief, called Hill’s firings unlawful and filed for a 30-day restraining order, which Boswell granted Tuesday.

Hill, who also is keeping armed guards to protect him and his home, defended the tactics to the newspaper for a Monday story.

He cited the assassination four years ago of DeKalb County Sheriff Derwin Brown, another black sheriff in a nearby county who fired deputies when he took over.

“Derwin Brown sent out letters to 25 to 30 people letting them know they would not be reappointed when he took office,” Hill said. “Just before he took office, he was shot and killed.”

Brown was gunned down in the driveway of his home on Dec. 15, 2000, three days before he was to be sworn in.

Former DeKalb Sheriff Sidney Dorsey, who was ousted by Brown in a contentious election, was convicted of ordering the hit and sentenced to life in prison.

Hill said he posted snipers on the roof for security reasons.

Hill is a former state legislator and police detective who clashed with some county commissioners and a local police chief before running for office. While in the Georgia House, Hill unsuccessfully pushed a bill that would have put Clayton County’s police operations under the command of the sheriff’s department, which has 345 employees.

Hill said the firings are justified by Georgia law, which he said allows the sheriff to run his department as he sees fit.

“A lot of people are under the impression that the sheriff’s office is under civil service laws,” he said. “But my research shows the employees work at the pleasure of the sheriff.”

[TheFederalistWeasel]

OK. How about this, Officer Fed: You ask me a question. I say, "I'll have to consult with my attorney first" and proceed to telephone him. (I happen to have prepaid legal, so this is not far fetched). What will you do while I'm waiting for a return call? Serious question.


Serious answer here not trying to be sarcastic.

I don’t have time for you to call your attorney, the road side is not a court room, if you want to turn a traffic stop into an epic size OJ style legal battle then you will got to jail for whatever traffic offense I pulled you for plus obstruction and I’ll watch the State Court Judge look at you in disbelief then sentence you to 1 to 12 months in jail, after I tell him what you did and why I arrested you for misdemeanor obstruction.

[R.H. Lee]

Fair enough answer, and I suspect that is what would happen. That's why I usually try to cooperate, and not being guilty of flagrant illegal activity, it works for me. :)

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Sidney Dorsey and Victor Hill are both controversial figures in GA law enforcement, Hill has been the subject of investigations before and is not well liked by his subordinates, and this just further proves his incompetence.

Dorsey was the target of GBI investigations prior to his murder-for-hire scandal, mostly for administrative idiocy and the occasional criminal probe.

Neither are police officers they are your average everyday run-of-the-mill crooked GA politician.

[lostone1413]

No choice anymore as far as a search goes. People must still think we are free

[why_me]

I don’t have time for you to call your attorney, the road side is not a court room, if you want to turn a traffic stop into an epic size OJ style legal battle then you will got to jail for whatever traffic offense I pulled you for plus obstruction and I’ll watch the State Court Judge look at you in disbelief then sentence you to 1 to 12 months in jail, after I tell him what you did and why I arrested you for misdemeanor obstruction.

Done
Close the thread,
No more comments needed. Welcome to the police state where you have no rights. And only the rich can afford justice.Expectation of Privacy is a fallacy and In one persons word against yours if you ahve a badge your telling the truth and the other person is lying, Automatically.

But 16-year-old Chris Mogren said he was pressed up against a 6-foot-high cyclone fence when he was shocked in the arm. It happened when he and a throng of Ute revelers were trying to enter the field.

The officers stunned "whoever was up against the fence," he said.
Mogren said he saw 10 to 15 other Utah fans get shocked.

"We weren't trying to break anything, or to tear down the goal posts or destroy the field," he said. "We just wanted to be over by the team."

The ASU Police Department maintains that anyone who was shocked must have been actively fighting with officers, per the department's policy, Jennings said.

[R.H. Lee]

I understand the sentiment, why me, and am not in disagreement with it. But, we do live in a society and must interact with other people, many of whom are in positions of authority. You can't get away from it. Sure, there are and will continue to be abuses. That said (tm), I wouldn't consent to a search of my person or vehicle whether or not I was doing anything illegal.

Point is, you can't just throw up your hands and assert you have no rights just because somebody, somewhere may have authority over you at that given moment.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

In the past on nearly all cases where I locked up someone for obstruction on a traffic stop which went to state court or even in city court for that matter all I did was ask the judge to allow me to play the tape of the traffic stop complete with audio of both me and the suspect.

Normally I didn’t have to say much beyond that unless the court wanted to read my report, which I kindly do.

No conspiracy there it’s just you, me, lights, camera, action!!!

[why_me]

because i have no other choice. If you think you do you are wrong and you will end up in more trouble.
I dont like it but that is the way it is.
The old caveat "if you ahve nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is crap.
It is that sentiment which erodes our rights every year.

[Lone_Gunman]

And since were now at this point, just what the heck is in that car anyway that you are so fearful of, if you are a law abiding person legally carrying?


A police office made that statement.

Is anyone else concerned about it?

[why_me]

Used the car last night. Maybe his buddies left a marijauna butt in there.
Didnt have time to look thru car since im already running late for work. Especially now that you pulled me over for my license plate light not working.

[artherd]

Serious answer here not trying to be sarcastic.

I don’t have time for you to call your attorney, the road side is not a court room, if you want to turn a traffic stop into an epic size OJ style legal battle then you will got to jail for whatever traffic offense I pulled you for plus obstruction and I’ll watch the State Court Judge look at you in disbelief then sentence you to 1 to 12 months in jail, after I tell him what you did and why I arrested you for misdemeanor obstruction.

Serious answer here, good luck with that Malicious Prosecution, my attorney and I will have your badge in that courroom.

You may direct me to hang up my cell phone, and place me under arreast for the traffic offence, if you are prepared to demonstrate that arreasting someone taking 5th ammendment protections for a burnt out tail light is not cruel or unusual.

If however you intend to arreast me for obstruction for saying "I want to talk to my attorney", good damned luck!

If talking to one's attorney is considered obstruction, then please be prepared to demonstrate in a court of law how that is so.


Why do I have a bad feeling the in-car camera's tape may get 'lost'?

[TheFederalistWeasel]

A police office made that statement.

Is anyone else concerned about it?


THANK YOU!!!!! For pickup up on that!!!

Now go one further and reverse the situation and apply that statement to everything that has been posted here so far.

Not to mention the fact that I am TELEGRAPHING big time here about what to do when you meet an impossible cop, but I’m trying to keep you out of jail!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“Why Not” let me tell you a true story; I actually locked up a guy one night for loitering and pedestrian in the roadway and upon searching him I found a dime bag of weed, he proceeds to tell me that “these are not his pants, they are his cousins.”

The judge actually laughed at that one and told the gent that was possibly the weirdest excuse he had ever heard then stopped and said, now just based on the insane possible assumption that you could be telling the truth I have to ask one question, what were you and your cousin doing together with your pants off.

The guy just hung his head and stated that the weed was in deed his, he had bought it earlier at a house a few block over from where we stopped him.

If I had a dollar for the number of times I’ve been told hey man not my car, it’s my dads/moms/brothers/cousins/neighbors or my dad/mom/brother/cousin/neighbor used my car last it must be his/her/theirs I’d be rich.

You see, where I am going with this is that again, your fellow man has polluted this potential situation to the point that I hear it everyday that we just say okay you can tell it to the judge, the charge is possession of marijuana all I have to prove is the possession part.


Be careful who you let use your car

Also you the operator of the vehicle not the owner but the operator is responsible for anything in and on that vehicle at the time it is in motion.

You borrow your buddy’s car, I pull you 6 hours late for no headlights, they don’t work, and you get the ticket. I don’t go to his house and give it to him, you were in control of that vehicle at the time I discovered the violation.

Same for the weed


You borrow your buddy’s car and dump a bag of weed in the back, he gets pulled next day, and he gets the charge.

Now if you want to come to his court and testify that it was yours and you take responsibility for it that he in fact did not know it was there I’m sure the judge would drop the charges on your buddy, then lock you up.

And tell your buddy to find some new friends.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

if you are prepared to demonstrate that arreasting someone taking 5th ammendment protections for a burnt out tail light is not cruel or unusual.

It’s GA law, if you would take the time a read this post completely you will see that I have ALREADY posted that law in response to a question about arrests on traffic offense.

If talking to one's attorney is considered obstruction, then please be prepared to demonstrate in a court of law how that is so.

Sure thing, as I said before the roadside is not the courtroom and it is definitely not your attorneys officer.

The applicable law is OCGA 16-10-24 go read it yourself

[Art Eatman]

I can't help but wonder what folks are doing that makes an LEO want to search their cars.

I get stopped for speeding far more often than I like to, and have yet to have any officer ever do anything but write a ticket. Fortunately, more warning tickets than "real" tickets.

Even during comings and goings during deer season, no stop ever resulted in any sort of question about guns, or any request to search. That's during a forty-year period, too...

US Customs upriver at Presidio, Texas? 'Nuther story. That must be a punishment-tour location, 'cause those folks are plumb sour. But they found out that crawling around under a truck on a creeper when we've had rainy weather in dirt-road country is Not Fun. :) A Customs guy slammed the door while his buddy was underneath. Clods fell. Atrocious language resulted...

Art

[rms/pa]

last time i got stopped at a dui checkpoint.
"do you have any firearms in the vehicle?"

" sure what do you need?"

followed by a half hour showing the new statie and sherriffs deputy everything we had.

we were taking my buddies whole collection over to his dads house while he deployed.

aks? yep,shmeisser SMG? yep,mac 10? yep
dragonuv sniper? yep lots more ,what fun

also about 40,000 rounds of ammo

rms/pa

[Sindawe]

No conspiracy there it’s just you, me, lights, camera, action!!!

I've been wondering this for awhile now. FedWeasel, would you have a problem (both personal, and proffesional if you can answer as such) with other citizens having video and audio recording devices in their automobiles to capture interations with LEOs? If you would have a problem, why?

[Sindawe]

“Why Not” let me tell you a true story; I actually locked up a guy one night for loitering and pedestrian in the roadway and upon searching him I found a dime bag of weed, he proceeds to tell me that “these are not his pants, they are his cousins.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

"This is not blood all over my hands and clothing, thats not my axe in the back seat, those are not my dead bodies in the trunk, this is not my car I'm driving!!!"

Pity all crimminals are not that stupid, since the really smart ones get themselves elected to office.

[Cosmoline]

You should always lock your car after you exit from it. If an officer asks why, just say you do it out of habit. If he then asks for your keys, say you don't consent to searches. If he still asks for them, say you are complying with his order to provide him with the keys but you do not consent to any search of your property.

Good advice! I've received the same advice from assistant DA's after getting them drunk at parties. To one-up it, you can lock your keys in your car, thereby preventing even you from getting back inside. This prevents him from getting into the vehicle without getting a warrant and filling out paperwork. Call a locksmith after he's gone. Your defense to obstruction charges is obvious--you were stressed and forgot to get your keys.

In practice, though I've never had problems with the troopers. I trust the troopers and most LEO's in Alaska. Though APD gets a little gung ho and has plenty of rude robocops in its ranks, I'm on my home turf in this state and not too worried. If I'm in a rental outside, though, and I have a firearm in the vehicle, you're darn right I'm going to be paranoid and do all I can to safeguard my rights. Having five firearms in the pickup is normal here. In other states it would be sufficient cause to call in the SWAT team.

[varmint exterminator]

:neener: Let me put it too you this way,If you want to search my car get ready to call for backup,I know ALOT of officers personally,One was a friend of mine in my former state of residence make that former friend that pulled a woman over and forced her to follow him to the police station where he went into his locker and retrieved a condom while she waited in her car too scared to leave because he was a state trooper and she was a peon,When he returned he forced her to follow him and then raped her,He is now in prison.In other words I don't trust ANYBODY with a badge on.Sorry You may be a good cop or you may be a bad cop but if I am not doing anything wrong then you have no reason to ask me if I have a weapon in my vehicle and do a search.If you call for backup then maybe one of you will be honest.

[artherd]

16-10-24.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer, prison guard, correctional officer, probation supervisor, parole supervisor, or conservation ranger in the lawful discharge of his official duties by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person is guilty of a felony and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.

I say again, if you want to streatch a request to talk to my lawyer before making any statements into obstruction, then GO RIGHT AHEAD.

Are you missing something here? Do you actually arreast people under obstruction when they seek counsul before entering a statement?

[artherd]

I can't help but wonder what folks are doing that makes an LEO want to search their cars.

Driving on a public road sometimes is all it takes. Depends entirely on the attitude of the LEO. Many are cordial, and great do deal with. Some are not. Some are criminals.

Just like people, Many are cordial, and great do deal with. Some are not. Some are criminals.

[Greg Bell]

As an attorney, let me thank all you fools for doing this POINTLESS crap. It is paying my student loans back. :D

[why_me]

Thank you. I appreciate everything you LEOs' do for us. This country would be chaos without you. We are all human. You are doing the job we hired you for. Im not a hypocrite i am human just like you. And both of us have good days and bad days. For those who have not been pulled over that much. Please drive the POS car we have in the garage for emergencys. All the lights work the tags are current. Drive around milwaukee right after shift change and i gaurantee you, you will be pulled over b4 the end of the night. Your crime. Driving a POS car. Leos assume if you have a POS car you must be breaking the law. That said i really do appreciate the job your doing. EXCEPT
when i am on the receiveing end.

[CannibalCrowley]

I'm still interested in hearing how contacting a lawyer fits the definition of "knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties." Said person is simply assisting the officer as he is unsure of how he should proceed. Without the advice of his counsel he'd just be sitting there answering no questions, he's just trying to get advice so that he may assist the officer in the discharge of his duties.

It says a lot when someone who claims to be an LEO considers it a crime to contact one's lawyer.

[Jonathan]

So we've learned to never break traffic laws in Georgia, since the LEO can work you over (legally) if they feel like it.

Searches and consent have been thoroughly hashed out, but I'm still curious about the "automobile exception". The material I've found on the topic tends to involve full searches, rather than Terry-style officer-safety quick checks.

Does anyone know where to find details on such searches (which never require warrants, consent, etc) as applicable to automobiles?


Edit: Crowley, I think you're missing the point. Federalist has already explained that he can deal with traffic offenders as he deems fit since any offense is one for which the offender can be arrested. The fact that it is within the LEO's power to do so is an entirely different topic to discuss :cuss:

[Mark in California]

It is my understanding, in California, that any request to search must be voluntary. That it is impossible for you to give voluntary permission to search if you under arrest or detention. Voluntary means voluntary, with both the Freedom to say no and to leave scene.

If you are not free to go, how can you voluntarly agree to anything without being subject to punitive consequences, theats or violence.

That if you the police asked for permission to search your car, you are then free go. By the very act of asking, the officer is signaling the stop/detention is over. If you say no, and they hold you anyway, you were never free go in the first place and a possible avenue for agency or judicial action against the officer.

[Mark in California]

It is my understanding, in California, that any request to search must be voluntary. That it is impossible for you to give voluntary permission to search if you under arrest or detention. Voluntary means voluntary, with both the Freedom to say no and to leave the scene.

If you are not free to go, how can you voluntarly agree to anything without being subject to punitive consequences, threats or violence.

If the police asked for permission to search your car, you are then free go. By the very act of asking, the officer is signaling the stop/detention is over. If you say no, and they hold you anyway, you were never free to go in the first place; and have a possible avenue for agency or judicial action against the officer.

Just say no, all other arguments need to be made in court. Never get in a argument with a officer at the side of the road. Record everything and agree to nothing.

[armoredman]

I have to point out what someone else posted about AZ may be correct, that CCW holders do not have to announce - I don't have a CCW permit any more, and haven't attended a class in some time. Not being street LE, that is no concern to me - I don't arrest people outside the walls.
As for consent to search, outside of the immediate vehicle search for officer safety, no, you do not have to consent to a search of your vehicle. You also have the right to STOP a consented search of your vehicle at any time, if the officer has not found anything to give PC. You do not have to wait longer than a reasonable length of time, which I believe was held in some court to be 20 minutes.
I am also ghosting this like all get out - check your local laws, and stop driving like a maniac! I don't ever want to meet any of you fine people professionally.

[Specialized]

A few random observations, in no particular order:

1. One common thread in Special Agent Weasel's posts seems to be that he and other LEO's could be more polite, except that some of us "rock-dwellers" have gone and ruined it for everyone, so now LEO's must be paranoid/suspicious/etc and must think the worst of all of us to protect themselves from the lowest common denominator.

2. Another of Special Agent Weasel's common themes is that if we'll just trust him and the other LEO's and do whatever they say, unquestioningly and willfully, they won't be forced to use against us a system which, judging by the contents of his numerous and voluminous posts, will always result in some sort of physical or legal pain to us, with more certainty than even the most crooked and lopsided casino game.

3. A third theme from the "trust the LEO" camp appears to be that it is incumbent upon the citizenry to not only obey the laws of their city, state, and country, but also demonstrate this compliance -- without question, on the spot, and by any means requested of them -- simply upon as little as the "suspicion" (some might say "paranoia" or "fishing instincts") of a LEO, because failure to do so must mean that in the law's eyes they have something to hide.

4. Some of Special Agent Weasel's missives appear to say, "C'mon, y'all, just give in and do what we say, okay? We don't want to have to physically and/or legally ruin your life, and if you continue to resist, that's what we're gonna have to do! All's I'm trying to do is keep you out of jail!"

Well, I happen to think that there's room for an alternate view here.

I have a few ideas that I'd like to throw out, with the hope that Special Agent Weasel and other LEO's might better understand where the citizenry (in my opinion; I certainly can't say I speak for everybody else) might take exception to their view of the world. To wit:

As to point 1 above: I hate to break it to you, but you people -- LEO's -- are dwelling on (or under) the same rocks the rest of us inhabit. There is just as significant a percentage of LEO's (probably more, given the God-complex issues) that are "bad" as there are citizens that are that way. Dealing with this fact is probably the second-most daunting challenge for any LEO. I not only believe this fact, I know it from working with and training cops/agents/ninjas over the years and observing their antics. You ain't any different than the rest of us, Hoss.

To Point 2: This sort of "forced aquiescence" by government is exactly why this country was born in the first place. It still defines the struggle that determines where the fulcrum sits under the civil liberties/societal order continuum at any given time. While there is ample reason to be careful in the performance of your job duties, if a LEO cannot resist the temptation to practice the court-sanctioned legal judo you've been recounting, this "we-hold-all-the-cards-so-just-give-in" mentality, he/she shouldn't be a LEO, in my opinion.

To Point 3: The constitution was written to obsolete this very argument, and has unfortunately been weakened considerably by the logical gymnastics applied to the body of law in the form of case precedent, which has unfortunately led to the subversion of the constitution's original intent. If I'm complying with the law, and minding my own business, it's none of your bucking fusiness what I'm doing, or why, or where I've been doing it, or where I'm going to do it. Period. End of argument.

To Point 4: We probably can't do a thing about this modus operandi. It's that same logic a guy applies when he tells his wife it's her fault he had to beat her up. I have to tell you this, though -- the reason people don't trust LEO's implicitly when they're stopped is that there are representatively more instances of "bad cops" in the general cop population than there are "bad citizens" in the general citizenry out there, and we never know which one we're going to get when we roll down the window. You ain't the only one that's peering into a box of chocolates! Sometimes LEO's get a tentative or "nutted up" response that you don't trust from a stopped citizen because of this apprehension, not because they're up to no good. Unfounded suspicion on an LEO's part is NOT a basis for the legal and punitive actions you describe, no matter how inevitable it may or may not be.

Thoughts?

[TheFederalistWeasel]

CannibalCrowley,

To answer your question it’s not the fact that you are on the phone with an attorney it’s the mere fact that you are on the phone period when you need to be conversing/listening to the officer, at some point your continued refusal to address the cop and talk to him while you are on the phone getting the advice of counsel about the traffic stop is obstruction no matter who you are on the phone with.

Said person is simply assisting the officer as he is unsure of how he should proceed. Without the advice of his counsel he'd just be sitting there answering no questions, he's just trying to get advice so that he may assist the officer in the discharge of his duties.

CannibalCrowley if by now you are “unsure of how he should proceed” when stopped on a traffic stop by a cop then you need to surrender your D/L to the nearest State Patrol Post because you probably don’t need to be operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway.

“Without the advice of his counsel he'd just be sitting there answering no questions”.

You do realize that most all states I’m sure require you to ID yourself on a traffic stop, you must present a valid license because it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway w/o a valid license?

Failure to produce that ID is grounds enough by itself for arrest in GA.

And did you know that IF you do not tell me who you are in a manner which sufficiently dispels any doubt I may have about you ID I can jail you as John Doe and notify the Magistrate or State Court of the matter and the judge can compel you to ID yourself If you don’t you will be held in contempt until you do.

You can be held in jail on a contempt charge for up to 6 months WITHOUT a jury trial at which time the judge can have you brought before the court again, if you are still an idiot and refuse to ID back to the poky for 6 more months!

Specialized said…

the reason people don't trust LEO's implicitly when they're stopped is that there are representatively more instances of "bad cops" in the general cop population than there are "bad citizens" in the general citizenry out there,

So let me get this straight you are trying to say there are more crooked cops than crooks?

[wildcard]

Break it down....

LEO"s for the most part, are good, honest folks.. Doing a good job.


I, for one, dont like the rules that are on the books that give the LEO's the detainment power they have with regards to traffic stops. There is no redress, then and there. You have to wait, take it to a judge, supervisor. If the officer makes a mistake, or just has a bug up his anal area, you are screwed. The LEO is presummed innocent, we, non LEO's are not. That is what gripes me.

If I having a bad day, or just being an *********, computers get messed up, a server is still down. An LEO, well, people get abused.

[Specialized]

So let me get this straight you are trying to say there are more crooked cops than crooks? Nope -- reread it. The assertion is there are more bad cops in the cop population, by percentage, than bad people in the citizenry, by percentage. Disagree?

[artherd]

To answer your question it’s not the fact that you are on the phone with an attorney it’s the mere fact that you are on the phone period when you need to be conversing/listening to the officer, at some point your continued refusal to address the cop and talk to him while you are on the phone getting the advice of counsel about the traffic stop is obstruction no matter who you are on the phone with.

Again, very good luck to you sir with that. You may direct me to hang up the phone after I say "My name is ____ _______, I wish to consult with my attorney before making a statement", and only then if I fail to comply do you have even the faintest hint of cause for obstruction charges.

If I am operating a motor vehicle you have the furthur authority to demand production of my driver's license, which I may slide through a 1/2" open window.

I am NOT under any obligation to 'converse' with you about the weather, etc.

[Jay Kominek]

Said person is simply assisting the officer as he is unsure of how he should proceed. Without the advice of his counsel he'd just be sitting there answering no questions, he's just trying to get advice so that he may assist the officer in the discharge of his duties. CannibalCrowley if by now you are “unsure of how he should proceed” when stopped on a traffic stop by a cop then you need to surrender your D/L to the nearest State Patrol Post because you probably don’t need to be operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway.
You're going completely in the wrong direction, there.

The motorist won't be answering questions like "Do you have any firearms?" or "Where were you on the night of the 14th?"

Not knowing how to answer potentially very complicated questions like that is completely different from handing over the driver's license.

For instance, perhaps this fellow in the middle of divorce proceedings, and he was with his mistress on the night of the 14th. He's happy to tell the cop that, but he needs to ask your lawyer if the cop will be able to testify to that in his divorce proceedings if his wife finds out. I'm sure a lawyer could come up with all sorts of other similar situations. Do you want the driver to not tell you anything, or are you willing to suffer through a short phone call to get your answer? Perhaps you can come up with some reason to arrest him for not answering your question, but would you rather spend your time doing that, or let him make his call so he can find out that, in this case, he can answer your question without screwing up his divorce proceedings?

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Nope -- reread it. The assertion is there are more bad cops in the cop population, by percentage, than bad people in the citizenry, by percentage. Disagree?

Yes I do…

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics there are nearly 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the United States 700,000 of them are local cops the rest are feds and whatnot.

According to the US Census Bureau there are nearly 300 million people in the US, that’s the ones we know about.

About one cop for every 400 to 500 people…

In 2003, 6.9 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2003 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults.

State and Federal prison authorities had under their jurisdiction 1,470,045 inmates at yearend 2003: 1,296,986 under State jurisdiction and 173,059 under Federal jurisdiction.
Local jails held or supervised 762,672 persons awaiting trial or serving a sentence at midyear 2003. About 71,400 of these were persons serving their sentence in the community.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Artherd I’m sorry but I… just forget it… it’s useless. :rolleyes:



Jay Kominek where the heck did divorce proceeding come into play here?

I’m talking about conducting a traffic stop and what the law says a driver must produce to a LEO upon demand at the time of that stop. Not who he’s been porking on the side and his old lady finding out.

At some point your yapping on the phone while I stand in traffic waiting on you to be coached thru this little life event called a traffic stop will reach the level of obstruction plain and simple.

I’m sorry that some here are borderline ridiculous in their approach to this event and would prefer to turn it into a 10-hour roadside stand off, instead of a 2, 10 or 20-minute traffic stop. Cause you aren’t talking PERIOD and I want to see my lawyer!!!

I’m sure after a public display like that you’ll get to spend far more time talking with your lawyer than you had previously hoped for.

It’s your criminal history not mine and it’s your time in jail, not mine.



:( :scrutiny:

[Sindawe]

I've been wondering this for awhile now. FedWeasel, would you have a problem (both personal, and proffesional if you can answer as such) with other citizens having video and audio recording devices in their automobiles to capture interations with LEOs? If you would have a problem, why?
Still curious. :)

[TheFederalistWeasel]

I’m sorry I missed that one!

Personally not at all, infact the more cameras the better, I don’t do shady stuff on stops the fact is I don’t have to, I lock up enough folks for legitimate stuff like DUI, driving while suspended etc… I don’t need to create any more work for me.

The one that jumps to mind was a guy who stood on his porch and video taped about 6 stops me and another guy did one day in a bad drug neighborhood. I guess he got bored cause he just left after number 6 or so because we did nothing wrong infact we gave out mostly warnings as we were looking for dope that day, not busted tail lights or turned up stereos although that was what our PC for the stop usually was.

All I can say is before you record a stop w/o the cops knowledge just make sure that type of stuff is legal where you live.

In Georgia it would be as only one party has to consent for a recording to be legal and that would be you.

But in some states both or all involved have to so as each cop rolled up you would have to inform them you were recording and if they objected and you did not turn it off you could get into trouble, I guess…



:)

[TheFederalistWeasel]

I’m sorry I missed that one!

Personally not at all, infact the more cameras the better, I don’t do shady stuff on stops the fact is I don’t have to, I lock up enough folks for legitimate stuff like DUI, driving while suspended etc… I don’t need to create any more work for me.

All I can say is before you record a stop w/o the cops knowledge just make sure that type of stuff is legal where you live.

In Georgia it would be as only one party has to consent for a recording to be legal and that would be you.

But in some states both or all involved have to so as each cop rolled up you would have to inform them you were recording and if they objected and you did not turn it off you could get into trouble, I guess…



:)

[SUE ROVR]

Good tips:

1. Carry a little digital recorder
2. Be familiar with federal criminal procedure and state laws
3. NEVER CONSENT TO ANYTHING
4. Saying things is risky, don't do it unless you know what you are doing.
5. Valantine One Radar Dector: never get pulled over in the first place :evil:

I have to say that I feel as though I have a commanding knowledge of what I could do, but I have never had the opportunity to use it, in spite of traveling at 100+mph pretty much everywhere I go.

[thorn726]

a traffic violation is suspicious illegal activity

man i can buy that a persons reactions during a stop may point to illegal actions, and maybe some types of driving violations may make you think person is in a hurry or something else suspicious-

but someone without a seatbelt is now a "suspicious character" and should be searched?

really seems like we have lost the right to privacy once we get behind the wheel.

[Clean97GTI]

I just have a few simple questions.

First, in NV, we have no obligation to inform the officer we are carrying.

How do I answer if the officer asks if I am carrying? (and I am)
I am under no obligation to answer, but failure to answer...or refusal would probably get me pulled from the vehicle and patted down.

I know lying to a cop is usually a bad idea. Can I refuse to answer? Something along the lines of "I'd rather not say" or "I don't have to inform you of any weapons." We must present a carry permit to an officer if it is requested. Asking if I have any weapons doesn't sound like a request for a permit, but I'm no lawyer.
Oh, for those who care, I have been told by several officers (all LVMPD) I know that a CCW shows up when they run your license anyway.
The bit about NV laws earlier in this thread is incorrect. Different jurisdictions can set tougher laws. North Las Vegas has a law that forbids the carrying of weapons...period. As far as I know, only Las Vegas (or is it Clark County) requires registration. Other areas do not.
Not sure about concealed carry permits...I've only seen them issued by LVMPD. Never by another dept.

-edit-
Just did a quick search and found some more info.
Only Clark County requires registration (from what I found)
CCW permits are required anywhere/everywhere in NV. You get it from your county sherrif.

Seems to me that NLV is in violation of NRS 268.418.
1. Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, the legislature reserves for itself such rights and powers as are necessary to regulate the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms and ammunition in Nevada, and no city may infringe upon those rights and powers.
2. The governing body of a city may proscribe by ordinance or regulation the unsafe discharge of firearms.
3. As used in this section, “firearm” means any weapon from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive, spring, gas, air or other force.

[Molon Labe]

Interesting comments, TheFederalistWeasel.

I am also of the opinion that the vast majority of LEOs are good, honest, hardworking individuals who voluntarily put their lives on the line everyday for us. It's the few bad apples (every profession has them) that unfortunately makes some people anti-LEO. It would appear you're one of the "good" guys. :)

Now having said that, there is something you may want to contemplate.

Most freedom-loving Americans, and certainly just about everyone here at THR, are honest and law-abiding citizens, and we do our best to comply with statuary laws. But there may come a time when a succession of laws are passed that blatantly and systematically violate our natural/inalienable rights. If this happens, I can guarantee I and thousands of other freedom-loving Americans will not abide by such laws; we will resist, and by force if necessary. We can only be pushed so far.

So here's my question: If such a time comes, which side will you be on?

[InfernoMDM]

I hate when people ask stupid questions. If you asked me what would I do if I an Air Force airman were required to walk around and knock on your door and ask for your guns, I would have to do it. Even though it would probably be suicidal in SC. Same goes for LEO's.

On the same token laws are not something that some nut job makes, there are rules made by many nut jobs, and generally voted on. Preventing one officer is like killing one cockroach. You really havent done ????.

TFW is mearly pointing out that if you ubstruct his work he follows protocal. If your a ass and try to pull ???? and make life hard, your probably up to no good. If your not but the law is in place dont bitch at him bitch at your polticians. Get laywers stand up to stupid laws.

I hate most cops. I have never been arrested, or chraged with anything. I have had one bad cop be a complete dick in the Air Force, to the point a superior had to tell him to shut down or he would loose a stripe. I have also had a bad cop go after my friend because he happened to be the ex bf of a girl. (the cop went to strip clubs, but the girl wasnt allowed to chat on the phone hundreads of miles away). Also had a cop screw my good friends underage sister.

Thats a real bad taste. I still respect them, as much as I respect any other gun owner. Some people are idiots and dont check if there guns are loaded, some cops are idiots. Dont assume cops are bad because of political beliefs or personal experinces.

[R.H. Lee]

Failure to produce that ID is grounds enough by itself for arrest in GA.

And did you know that IF you do not tell me who you are in a manner which sufficiently dispels any doubt I may have about you ID I can jail you as John Doe and notify the Magistrate or State Court of the matter and the judge can compel you to ID yourself If you don’t you will be held in contempt until you do. I don't like the sound of that. IANAL, but I don't think you'd be able to get away with that in CA. I damn sure won't be traveling to GA anytime soon.

[Shovelhead]

If 'Weasel' is an example of most GA LEOs, I'll be sure to avoid GA in my travels also.

In addition, I wonder if the crime per population statistics factor in individuals who are serving time, or on probation for multiple offenses.

[Lone_Gunman]

And did you know that IF you do not tell me who you are in a manner which sufficiently dispels any doubt I may have about you ID I can jail you as John Doe and notify the Magistrate or State Court of the matter and the judge can compel you to ID yourself If you don’t you will be held in contempt until you do.


So basically if you get pissed off or are having a bad day and decide you don't like me you can claim I didnt ID myself in a way suitable to you, and you can throw me in jail?

Sheesh... I have lived in GA all my life, and didnt realize the Gestapo moved here at the end of WWII.

Thats a bad law, and the legislators are to blame, but so are the drones who enforce this kind of rubbish.

[Igloodude]

I must be too new here, I haven't seen anything particularly onerous in TFW's answers. I've been stopped for speeding six times in the last 15 years (all of them pre-CCW for me) and in each case I am simply polite and helpful. They have been straight-up "here's your ticket, drive slower" stops and I don't recall them asking me if I had anything dangerous/illegal in the car (and by the way, I didn't). Had they asked me if they could search the car I would have politely declined, and made sure I did so in range of their dashboard videocamera.

Now that I carry concealed (and have the permit for it), nothing will change except that if asked if I have a weapon on me/in the car, I'll say I have a CCW permit and I have a .45 in my ___ holster, how would you like me to proceed?

[Specialized]

Yes I do…

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics there are nearly 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the United States 700,000 of them are local cops the rest are feds and whatnot.

According to the US Census Bureau there are nearly 300 million people in the US, that’s the ones we know about.

About one cop for every 400 to 500 people…

In 2003, 6.9 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2003 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults. Thank you for the statistics. Unfortunately, they form a misdirection that doesn't address my point.

Your statistics in no way disclose how many cops end up being defrocked because of illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior. What percentage might that be? More importantly than that, how many are still on the job that condone or engage in behavior like that you've described for us here, this "wink-and-a-nod" dance with the judicial system that lets you trample people's rights just because you don't like their attitude, or because you don't trust their reactions, or because wholly on your stereotypical "hunch" you figure they're up to no good? What percentage of the 800,000 LEO's do you reckon fit that description?

My perception is that it's considerably more than 3.2%. Yours?

Don't get me wrong -- if people are disobeying the law, in a perfect world they would be caught and punished. Since this isn't a perfect world, we have to strike a balance between civil liberties and police/judicial powers. My perception is that there are alot of cops, such as yourself, that are too aggressive in challenging this balance, and since LEO's are people too us law-abiding citizens are just as wary of you as we are of the guy we may end up calling you to come and arrest. That is wholly incompatible with this "trust us and let us do anything we want or you'll get hurt" mentality. Does this make sense to you?

[Art Eatman]

Shovelhead, there's only one problem about travelling in Georgia: If you ain't ten over the speed limit, somebody's gonna ruin your trailer hitch.

Folks around Hotlanta think that I-75 means a minimum speed of 75; they'd rather take I-85. But it gets worse on I-285 as they try to see if a Honda Civic can go that fast. :D I-75 drivers in general, and Atlanta drivers in particular, make I-10 folks and Houston drivers look like little old ladies.

IOW, when you see somebody pulled over by The Law, you can book it that they were doing some sort of "Intimidator II" imitation. Georgia cops are pretty lenient. If they weren't, they'd all have to call in sick from writer's cramp.

:), Art

[why_me]

I have a theory on how the expanded police powers, and erosion of our rights came along.
In The 70s growing up I watched a lot of tv. Seems many cop shows there was always the stereotypical, "Punk got off due to a technicality" villain.
Anyone see where i am going with this? Any cop show you seen, streets of san franscisco, swat, hill street blues etc. etc. There was always the murderer or rapist "we had to let him go" guy.
I think this shaped public perception, and the lower court judges who had been ruling in favor of defendants rights now started ruling for the police.
If a judge had let soem one go for a technicality that he ruled on he would be voted out of office, It takes a while for precedents but little by little, police have gained almost limitless powers.
Absolute power corrupts absolutley. Did you know police can rifle thru your garbage without a search warrant? You can get a search warrant on an anonyomous tip, real of fictitcious?
Traffic stops:
Police officers are supposed to monitor traffic for safety. That is the prime reason they give tickets. Or supposed to be anyways. When you combine municipal needs for money i.e. collars for dollars, with the forfeiture laws with regards to drugs. YOu now have police out patrolling, not for public safety but instead for cash revenue.
Know what the most effective, cost efficient traffic safety plan is?
Parking an empty cruiser on the side of the road. Doing that doesnt generate income though.
Profiling:
Every cop does it. ALways has. Its called a hunch. Its been part of police tactics since the stone age. See a white guy in a black neighborhood, maybe he is buying drugs. Make up probable cause and go fishing. Black guy white neigborhood? Make up probable cause and go fishing. Latino on highway? Make up probable cause and go fishing. And if you dont find anything, charge him with something anyways.
There are so many laws. Everyone breaks them everyday. Its a sad state of affairs. Its the way it is. Nothing can be done about it. Trying to change the laws is near impossible.
Laws are enacted to protect US from Them. Not until we are oppressed by Them will we change the laws that affect US.
So beware kiddies. That traffic stop could put you in jail

In March 1997, police officer Bart Turek stopped Gail Atwater because she and her two children weren't wearing their seat belts. In Texas, the maximum punishment for not wearing your seat belt is $50. Jail is not an option. Having committed a crime for which the legislature had decided she couldn't be locked up, Atwater was nonetheless arrested and detained until she was presented to a judge.

[Zach S]

Isn’t that how a trooper caught Tim McVeigh and a rookie cop caught Eric Rudolph? IIRC Rudolph was detained for scavenging in a private dumpster behind a store.

[Specialized]

IIRC Rudolph was detained for scavenging in a private dumpster behind a store. True. And McVeigh was stopped by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol for not having a license plate on the station wagon he was driving. When the trooper approached McVeigh's window, McVeigh's handgun was plainly visible in a shoulder holster, partially under an open jacket. When pressed for the proper credentials to allow for carrying a weapon concealed, and upon no such authorization being presented, McVeigh was arrested, and from there was off to hell in a leaky bucket.

Stops like that are valid and make perfect sense, and are examples of how these laws were intended to be enforced. Both of those officers did the world a favor on those respective days.

[Shovelhead]

Art, I appreciate the advice.
I've driven though the beautiful state of GA on several occasions and never had a problem.
Even looked at property down that way as a possible retirement location.
Must have been traveling on "Weasel's" day off. :D

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Seems that someone who quoted me about failure to ID missed the paragraph directly above the quote used.

You do realize that most all states I’m sure require you to ID yourself on a traffic stop, you must present a valid license because it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway w/o a valid license?

“You must present a valid license because it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway w/o a valid license”, that pretty much says it’s the driver, he is the one operating the vehicle not the passenger (I hope) but after this debate I’m beginning to wonder.

Passengers are in no way compelled legally or other wise to produce ID on a traffic stop. I can ask and usually do and more times than not will get at a minimum a name a DOB out of a passenger and every once in a while GCIC will return a “hit” or “want” on that name and I’ll hook’em up and take to jail for whatever outstanding charge they may have.

Most people (passengers) produce ID because they think they have to, it’s not my job to hold the hand of society and teach them how to navigate legal mind fields. If you are so scared of what may come of a traffic stop then as I’ve told folks before maybe you should not drive, or better yet just don’t do anything which will cause a cop to stop you for a citable or arrestable violation.

I’m 33 years old and [evidentially] amazingly I’ve never even seen blue lights in my rear view mirror much less got a ticket or been arrested, yet it seems that some cannot even walk to the mailbox w/o going to jail these days. I have encountered people who have been let out of jail on the morning of and by that afternoon they were back in my custody, usually for the same crap that got them locked up in the first place.

I am under no obligation to tell you what the law is, especially in a lawful police encounter, courts have even held that it is legal for LE to lie to people, while conducting an investigation; it is incumbent upon yourself to know the law.





thorn726

Illegal Activity is defined as suspicious in just about every context I’ve ever seen it defined. Most people don’t break the law, those who do, their actions warrant investigation by LE.





Molon Labe

Americans are extraordinarily lazy, I use the frog in the boiling pot analogy here, as long as there is beer in the fridge, NASCAR or WWF on the boob tube and porn on the net liberal politicians like Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer and Finswine will erase their rights and they won’t ever even care until it’s too late, if they are even capable of understanding what has really even happened.

So here's my question: If such a time comes, which side will you be on?

I’ll be on my side if that day comes, your welcome to join me.


RileyMc

Please see my response above top of post.


Shovelhead

I think it does or at least that’s the way I read it.


Lone_Gunman

Please see my response above top of post.


Specialized

I remember reading in the GA Associations of Police Chiefs Journal that the FBI reported there were 917 cops convicted of crimes in 2003. 917 out of 800,000, that’s roughly about one in every 700 or so as apposed to 1 in 32.

You cannot factor in those who were not yet caught, undetected or had it swept under the rug. But the same could be said about the general population as well. I’m sure many have yet to be caught or detected and somewhere someone’s mother/father/brother/sister/uncle/cousin who is a cop or a lawyer has juniors weed possession or vandalism case swept under the rug or called in a favor and had the arresting officer drop the charges.


why_me

Did you know police can rifle thru your garbage without a search warrant?

So can you

I posed earlier in this post the seven exemptions to the search and seizure laws and abandon property is one of them. You have no expectation of privacy for a pile you heap in the curb. Even though it may be still technically on your property it is still in public view.

You can get a search warrant on an anonyomous tip, real of fictitcious?

See Aguilar v. Texas

2. Although an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was creditable or his information reliable. Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 , followed. Pp. 110-115.
172 Tex. Cr. R. 629, 631, 362 S. W. 2d 111, 112, reversed and remanded.
Clyde W. Woody argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Two essentials must be met first, must show the veracity of the informer and his information, second you must show how or why the informer knew the information, the basis for the knowledge. This is called the two-prong test.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Must have been traveling on "Weasel's" day off.

Naaahhh….

Sure you just did what 99% of good folks do and drove right on thru never drawing any attention to yourself.
:)

[Shovelhead]

;)

[why_me]

Two essentials must be met first, must show the veracity of the informer and his information, second you must show how or why the informer knew the information, the basis for the knowledge. This is called the two-prong test.

My anonymous informer code named federalist weaver, who has previously given the GA pd. good information. Has knowledge of xxx crime occuring at xxx location.
Informer is a resident of same building. Can i have a search warrant?
Judge: sure you can. Here you go.
Cop: Your honor it has to be a no knock. Evidence might be destroyed if we announce ourselves.


later
Crap we just shot a home owner trying to protect himself. Wrong address. Damm.

[Sindawe]

InfernoMDM said...
If you asked me what would I do if I an Air Force airman were required to walk around and knock on your door and ask for your guns, I would have to do it.

Does this not violate the oath you took apon enlistment?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Source: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

Hopefully that the right one, the only oath I can find specific to the Air Force is an obvious joke.

[artherd]

I am under no obligation to tell you what the law is, especially in a lawful police encounter, courts have even held that it is legal for LE to lie to people, while conducting an investigation; it is incumbent upon yourself to know the law.


Well, there you have it, I'm done with you.

See you in court! ;)

[CannibalCrowley]

I am under no obligation to tell you what the law is, especially in a lawful police encounter, courts have even held that it is legal for LE to lie to people, while conducting an investigation; it is incumbent upon yourself to know the law.That's exactly why people should call their lawyer if they become confused about the situation. The police are not your friends, they will lie to your face in order to put you in jail; yet cry foul if you lie to them.

[why_me]

That's exactly why people should call their lawyer if they become confused about the situation. The police are not your friends, they will lie to your face in order to put you in jail; yet cry foul if you lie to them.
Actually they dont cry. They laugh as they put the hand cuffs on you.
Why is it that some one(officer) gets paid to violate my rights. But i need to pay (lawyer) to protect them?

[Lone_Gunman]

FederalistWeasel, you do realize that making comments like saying it is ok for you to lie to people really isn't helping win support for law enforcement here?

Whether its legal or not to do is beside the point. You are coming across as vindictive, and seem obsessed with the power you hold over other people.

Your profession is already beleagured enough, I don't see what you think to gain by making other people dislike your job even more.

[why_me]

I dont think federal is trying to be vindictive. I think he is being more educational. Maybe it is just coming out wrong. What he is pointing out is maybe things people dont know. Anything i am debating is why I think what he is saying is wrong. That doesnt mean he is going to pratcie these things.
What he says certainly angers me. But I dont believe he is saying he is a bad cop. Thanks to this board I have discovered the federalist papers. I am going to occupy a lot of my free time reading them.
Here they are in there entirety
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers
If any one has a better faster link please share

[R.H. Lee]

The Georgia patrol was making their rounds
So he fired a shot just to flag em down
A big bellied sheriff grabbed his gun and said
"Why'd you do it?"

The judge said guilty in a make believe trial
Slapped the sherrif on the back with a smile and said
"Suppers waiting at home and I got to get to it"

Chorus:
That's the night that the lights went out in Georgia
That's the night that they hung an innocent man
Well don't trust your soul to no back woods Southern lawyer
Cause the judge in the town's got bloodstains on his hands


:p

[why_me]

Well they hung my brother before I could say
The tracks he saw while on his way
To Andy's house and back that night
were mine
And his cheatin wife had never left town
And that's one body that'll never be found
You see little sister don't miss when she
aims her gun


This song and the carol burnett show :barf:

[Igloodude]

Sindawe, that's the right oath, it is the same for Army/Navy/AF/Marines/CoastGuard. I administered it to several hundred military applicants over the course of three years while stationed at a MEPS.

[InfernoMDM]

Sindawe

Yep sure the hell is in my opinion. However you can make the argument that weapons control will end up turning into a legal removal. Essentially you will have the same restrictions as you would have for machine guns. Technically still legal under the constitution, hopefuly it will never come to that. If I had to do it..... I'd probably let everyone know I was a prior gun owner, kindly ask if you had any guns. If required to search, Id ask if I could stick my head in. THen kindly close my eyes and stick my head in.

GA is a great state, I go to Savnnah, Atlanta, etc all the time. TFW seems to be a very nice cop who gave you more info then you ever need. Hes doing a job, if you dont like the laws change the laws dont attack the cops.

[Specialized]

What Special Agent Weasel is saying is indeed true, and there's a good reason for it. LEO's are in the public safety business, and there are times when they must work quickly to ensure the safety of themselves and the public. During these times, they don't have time to dick around with the finer points of adjudicating the law. That's why the legislature (take your pick -- federal, state, local, etc) places upon the citizenry the obligation to obey these officers while they are carrying out their duties. While this may seem to some to be abuse-prone, it is sound reasoning.

To disagree with a LEO during a street contact is one thing, but to sit down on the trail, call your lawyer, and try to argue the point at that juncture is neither legal or wise. All your lawyer is going to do, most likely, is tell you to do what the officer says, do it courteously, and call him/her after the fact to discuss whether avenues of legal redress should be pursued. Any lawyer that advises otherwise would be a good indication that you need a new lawyer.

Through all of this debate (a good one, in my opinion), you will almost always achieve the best results if your contacts with the police involve you being friendly, attentive, and responsive to their requests. While each of us can point to numerous incidences where doing so has caused someone legal or physical harm, it's the same kind of risk we face walking down a city street and passing someone we don't know. They might turn out to have a desire to harm us, and with the element of surprise, they hold most of the cards just like a LEO does during a contact.

I believe we have some valid points and complaints here, and I think they are bones to pick with our legislators, not the police. Still, we and the LEO community have to be vigilant of those who will take their official powers beyond common sense and/or the law. I have found that older and more experienced officers have often figured out where this line is, and learn skills over time that achieve the results they need without having to get their toes over it anymore. It's also been my observation that this level of maturity is where their careers begin to take off for the better as well. As for legislators, it's a different story -- why we don't elect better representatives (or find better choices to elect in the first place) is a mystery of the universe that's much more perplexing.

[Gordon Fink]

LEO's are in the public safety business, and there are times when they must work quickly to ensure the safety of themselves and the public.…

That’s not what we’re talking about. The discussion revolves around minor traffic stops used as a pretext to fish for more serious “crimes.” Gun owners (even law-abiding ones) are participating in a borderline “illegal” activity, so some of us are justly concerned about how the police might treat us and how we should respond.

With the advent of universal surveillance and photo-enforced stoplights, there is no sane reason to risk patrol officers’ lives for minor traffic infractions. Of course, mailing out citations to minor “offenders” wouldn’t feed the “war on drugs.”

~G. Fink

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Okay, several folks are beginning to pick up on what [it is] I am doing here, in boxing it’s called telegraphing the punch.

I am essentially sending a message how “some” of my more heavy-handed brothers do things and screw you in the process all with the full and complete support of the criminal courts in Georgia.

Most of the time if I lock you up it’s because you gave me no other alternative and instead of running the risk of being disciplined or worse yet sued because of something you did after I left the scene failing to make an arrest you will get the grand tour at the old gray bar hotel.

I’ve charged (in the past) folks with affray (mutual combat) or even lesser Disorderly Conduct instead of Simple Battery under The Family Violence Act (which is more or less equal to a felony conviction in Georgia) because I new if I didn’t remove someone from the scrimmage I’d be back working a greater crime before end of shift. But yet I didn’t want to hit this person square between the eyes with the scarlet letter(s) of FV in the state.

Gun rights, several jobs, joining the Military and many other opportunities GONE FOREVER!!!

The most powerful tool the State imparts to me is not the power of arrest or the right to use deadly force its’ the power of discretion.

Re read this post, slowly and completely while not mad or drunk or after you just beat the snot out of the dog cuzz you are seeing red over my commentary and think about what has been posted.

[spacemanspiff]

gee, it sure sounds like it sucks to live in a state where having firearms in your vehicle is such a big deal.

:neener:

[Hawkmoon]

I become increasingly concerned about FederalistWeasel. In a previous thread he mis-cited the basis of a Terry stop, ignoring the fact that a Terry stop (and frisk) is not legal absent at least a "reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts" that a crime either has been committed or is about to be committed by the party or parties stopped.

Now he appears to be saying that declining permission to search your vehicle equals "obstruction of justice."

Whoa, Officer Weasel. Asking for my Constitutional rights to be respected is not obstruction of justice. If you have no right to search my vehicle without my consent, then you have no right to search my vehicle without my consent. End of discussion. In several other threads, other LEOs have written that if they ask permission to search a vehicle and permission is denied, the appropriate response is "Have a nice day, Sir/M'am."

What is YOUR problem?

[lostone1413]

Glad I live in Arizona

[R.H. Lee]

OK. I think the bottom line is, if the officer asks if you have guns in your car, is to simply look directly at the officer, smile, and say "No". Big upside, no (as far as I can tell) downside.

OTOH, if I were travelling in GA with CA plates, I'd be plenty worried..........

[Specialized]

That’s not what we’re talking about. The discussion revolves around minor traffic stops used as a pretext to fish for more serious “crimes.” Gun owners (even law-abiding ones) are participating in a borderline “illegal” activity, so some of us are justly concerned about how the police might treat us and how we should respond. To the contrary, traffic stops are well within the boundaries of LEO's ensuring the public safety. While our discussion has been more focused on a handful of issues, including "fishing-expedition" traffic stops, all of those issues fall under the aegis of ensuring the public safety, and not doing what a cop tells you to do under these circumstances is still illegal.

I don't care for the fact that LEOs can lie to us. I don't care for the lack of common courtesy that is displayed when a cop asks if he/she can search a car/house/boat/whatever, gets a "no" answer, then does it anyway, because asking denotes a measure of cooperation and respect that is immediately shown to be disingenuous and it makes us mad. I also don't care for LEOs that feel compelled to tell me about all the ways they have at their disposal to lock me up, or search me, etc., just to get a rise out of me or because it makes them feel better about themselves. I've studied martial arts for years, but just because I think I could kick some guy's @ss in a few different languages doesn't make it right, or smart, or even morally defensible for me to tell him all about it.

That's what the overall message in this thread is about, as far as I'm concerned. If LEOs, or anybody else for that matter, do things that tend to undermine folks' dignity, whether it's government-sanctioned or not, the results are going to be unpredictable. If cops lose their feel for the loss of dignity, the embarassment, that's caused by having one's person or property searched, then it'll be hard to prevent distrust from permeating the very citizenry they are charged with protecting. On the other hand, if they apply their powers in a dignified manner and their discretion and judgement is good, and not frivilously applied, it isn't (or shouldn't be) a problem.

[McCall911]

Quote: <<< If an officer asks if you have guns in the car.... >>>

Just say no.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

USSC in Terry v. Ohio (since folks here like citing case law but have no clue what it actually says…

Terry v. Ohio was the first case which considered the stop and frisk situation.

Court concluded

(1) In order to justify a stop and follow it with a frisk, the officer had to only be able to point to specific and articlable fact(s) which taken together with reasonable inferences, judged against an objective standard, would justify a reasonable person in believing that a frisk was appropriate. This action may not be justified solely by a hunch, guess or mere suspicion.
(2) When an officer reasonably concludes that a suspicious person he is investigating at close range may be armed or potentially dangerous to the officers or others, it would be unreasonable to prevent the officer from determining if he is armed and if so, to prevent him from disarming the person.
(3) The sole purpose of the frisk is to discover weapons so as to protect the officer and others.
(4) A frisk is not justified by a need to seize evidence but any contraband or fruits of the crime discovered during a lawful frisk can be admitted into evidence against the person.
(5) The frisk, like other searches must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances, which initially rendered it permissible.
(6) The frisk must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons, which might be used against the officer or others.
(7) A stop and frisk is not outside the protection of the fourth amendment
(8) When a person is restrained so he cannot freely walk away he has been seized.
(9) A frisk is a serious intrusion on the person being frisked.
(10) It is not necessary to have probable cause for an arrest in order to justify a stop and frisk.

In Terry the USSC emphasized that the stop was solely to search for weapons but in United States v. Hensley the USSC pointed out that a stop could be based on an articlable suspicion that the person stopped was wanted for a completed felony or misdemeanor crime of high and aggravated nature.


Pennsylvania v. Mimms


U.S. Supreme Court
December 5, 1977
434 U.S. 106

(This is a Per Curiam opinion, which means it was decided
without any argument before the Court. Much to the dismay of
the dissenting justices in this 6-3 decision. The 6 smart ones
hold, in this great, great opinion, that, because of officer safety,
we can order the driver out of a lawfully-stopped car. And,
because of Terry v. Ohio, we can frisk him.)

Harry Mimms and a buddy are in downtown Philadelphia, in Harry's car,
with Harry driving, and up to no good. I say that because Harry has a .38 caliber
revolver tucked in his waistband and his buddy has a .32 caliber revolver in his
jacket. Harry's
car has an expired license plate.

Two Philly officers spotted the expired license plate and pulled Harry over.
One of the officers asked Mimms to step out of the car to produce his registration
and driver's license and to accept the traffic summons. Harry, reluctantly,
stepped from the car, pursuant to the officer's instructions, and, as he does, the
officer noticed a large bulge in the waistband under his sports jacket. Fearing a
weapon, the officer frisked him and pulled out the snub nose. Mimms was
immediately arrested for violation of Pennsylvania's carrying-a-concealed-weapon
statute.

At trial, the officer testified that it was his practice to always order all drivers
out of their vehicles, as a matter of course, whenever making stops for traffic
violations. Why? Because he felt safer doing it that way, outside the car.
Makes sense, the trial court thought, and he was convicted of the CCW
charge.

However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the conviction,
holding that the officer's order to vacate the car was "an impermissible seizure."
Why, you ask? Because, "...the officer could not point to objective observable
facts to support a suspicion that criminal activity was afoot or that the occupants
of the vehicle posed a threat to police safety." The Pennsylvania Big Court
continued (wrongly), "Since this unconstitutional intrusion led directly to
observance of the bulge and to the subsequent pat down, the revolver was the
fruit of an unconstitutional search, and, should have been suppressed."
Here, the 6 wisest decided it was a good day to make new law and to
restore reason. Accordingly, they reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the situation was controlled by 2
things. Safety of the officer. And Terry v. Ohio.

"The order to get out of the car, issued after Mimms was lawfully detained,
was reasonable and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The state's
proffered justification for such order - the officer's safety - is both legitimate and
weighty and the intrusion into Mimms' personal liberty occasioned by the order,
being at most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against
legitimate concerns for the officer's safety."

And, finally, on the second point, "... the answer is controlled by Terry v.
Ohio. In that case we thought the officer justified in conducting a limited search
for weapons once he had reasonably concluded that the person whom he had
legitimately stopped might be armed and presently dangerous ... The bulge in the
jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a
serious and present danger to the safety of the officer ... any man of reasonable
caution would likely have conducted the pat down."

[spacemanspiff]

In order to justify a stop and follow it with a frisk, the officer had to only be able to point to specific and articlable fact(s) which taken together with reasonable inferences, judged against an objective standard, would justify a reasonable person in believing that a frisk was appropriate. This action may not be justified solely by a hunch, guess or mere suspicion.
i think in every episode of COPS i have watched, i have seen officers execute the Terry stop based 100% on a 'hunch, guess or mere suspicion', at least once. things like 'oooooo its a man driving and theres a woman in the passenger seat. looks suspicious!'


mind you, i am not in the group that hates on law enforcement. but i have a tough time believing that every time an officer executes the terry stop they are going on more than just the hunch, guess or suspicion.

[SMLE]

All the cops I've ever talked to said it was best to advise the Officer up front that you have a firearm in the car. In NM there is no restriction on carrying in a motor vehicle, so unless you're drunk, stoned or committing some other serious violation, there's no problem. I have followed this advice and always politely advised the Officer I was packing. The response has always been very polite on the part of the Officers. Several have had me step out of the car and then taken charge of the pistol, a few have just said. "Thanks, no problem" and the first time I got pulled over after I got my CHL, the response was; "COOL!"

Several folks have already suggested checking your State laws, that's a good start. You might also want to ask a few cops to see what makes THEM happy. ALWAYS be POLITE, be HONEST, and be LEGAL. The first two are the most important, especially if there is any room for legal "interpretation" on the cop's part.

[Jonathan]

However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the conviction,
holding that the officer's order to vacate the car was "an impermissible seizure."


Actually, since Terry had already been established, it would seem that by removing the driver from the vehicle, the officer actually reduced his intrusion into the driver's personal space. If the LEO has the right to check for weapons in the immediate control of the questionee, then in a vehicle he would have to check areas that are not in plain sight as well as their person, etc, while a check of a pedestrian only involves their person.

This brings me to my two questions: What court cases clarify the officer's search of the vehicle when the driver is or is not still within the vehicle? Secondly, if a driver does not want his car searched, could he request to exit the vehicle, and only undergo a Terry search of his person?

[Sindawe]

i think in every episode of COPS i have watched, i have seen officers execute the Terry stop based 100% on a 'hunch, guess or mere suspicion', at least once. things like 'oooooo its a man driving and theres a woman in the passenger seat. looks suspicious!'

As entertaining as COPS sometimes is, its not really a good source for accurate data on police procedure or protocol. Too many times I've seen smash ups that were the cops fault (like the one they captured in Denver years ago, where two patrol cars tried to occupy the same space at the same time), or gems this one, where a LEO was telling the camera about folks giving him a hard time for arresting them, saying it was because they were hispanic.

"...I'm not arresting you under the pretense that you're hispanic, I'm arresting you under the pretense that you're breaking the law..."

pretense: A professed but feigned reason or excuse

IMHO, the LEOs here are a better source of such data.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Look inside the training mindset here, clarification for some (maybe)

A lot of this case law, which gives us the right to order you out of your car on a lawful stop and then disarm you even if you are legally carrying, is based on cases which came about from the 1960’s forward a very apprehensive time in the US of A indeed.

Now before the cries begin again about this law is 40 years old!!! Understand that we still enforce laws that are 200 years old!!!

Anyway…

The FBI for the most part is the “head” LEA in this country they pretty much set the standard by which all other agencies follow.

(I know insert stupid fed/conspiracy joke here)

The FBI teaches ALL of its agents to approach each Agent/Citizen encounter with the attitude that it WILL end in a gunfight.

I know a lot here will pooh-pooh this but tuff; it’s the way it is, the way it has been and the way it will be until one of you runs for office and gathers enough support to mandate a change.

Then good luck finding enough cops to staff you departments…

Personally I love my family I love going home at the end of my shift, people do horrible things to each other, people do horrible things to cops and know that cops will hunt them down find them and either lock them up for doing horrible things to other people or do nasty things to them when they resist or do stupid stuff like jump out of a car with a weapon or refuse to take hands out of pockets.

Cops intentionally place themselves into harms way, looking for those people. That is why I carry a gun and a backup gun plus 55 rounds of ammo, a bullet proof vest with rifle plate which will stop a 7.62 round at point blank range, along with many other assorted goodies designed with my safety in mind.

I subscribe to the FBI model just as it was taught to me in the Academy of LEO/Citizen encounters.

Why, because I want to go home at the end of my shift.

[spacemanspiff]

nobodys questioning your line or work, or the dedication you have to upholding the law. no one is saying you shouldnt look forward to going home safe and sound to your family every night.

but what you basically just said is 'neener neener neener, we're going to keep doing things this way even though the case law referenced goes against our policy of executing terry stops, and you cant do nothing about it'.


that doesnt mean we look at you as the enemy. it just means we are that much more unwilling to let those with a badge and attitude similar to yours encroach upon our rights.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

This brings me to my two questions: What court cases clarify the officer's search of the vehicle when the driver is or is not still within the vehicle? Secondly, if a driver does not want his car searched, could he request to exit the vehicle, and only undergo a Terry search of his person?

Carroll v. United States (dealt with a vehicle search for illegal liquor)

Chambers v. Maroney (dealt with a BOLO to a robbery, subsequent stop and arrest based on nothing but the BOLO and the finding of fruits of the crime)


The 4th Amendment limitations apply to vehicles a warrantless examination of automobiles has been upheld in circumstances in which a search of a home or office would not have been validated. The courts have recognized 4th Amendment distinctions between home and automobiles.

Here are a few of the reason given by the USSC for the distinction.

The mobility of the vehicle as a matter of necessity prevents rigorous enforcement of the warrant requirement.

An individual’s expectation of privacy is less in an n automobile.

Automobiles are frequently subject to governmental regulations such as those relating to licensing and inspections and…

The contents of impounded vehicles are routinely inventoried to protect the owner and to protect the officer against claim of theft.

Interesting case we discuss a lot in in-service training is Cardwell v. Lewis which states you have no expectation of privacy to the exterior and around the outside of the vehicle.

Incriminating evidence was collected from the bumper of a car, which implicated the driver in a crime; no warrant was required because the court said…

“What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office is not subject to the 4th Amendment protections.”

[Sindawe]

The FBI for the most part is the “head” LEA in this country they pretty much set the standard by which all other agencies follow. (I know insert stupid fed/conspiracy joke here) The FBI teaches ALL of its agents to approach each Agent/Citizen encounter with the attitude that it WILL end in a gunfight.

So should not us non-LEOs take the same stance and behave in a like manner? Why are LEOs sometimes so surprised when they are greeted with a less than friendly attitude on online forums?

Why, because I want to go home at the end of my shift.

Of course. But you did ask for the job, its not like somebody went out and pressed you and your fellow LEOs into service against your will.

[Gordon Fink]

[T]raffic stops are well within the boundaries of LEO’s ensuring the public safety.…

Sure, but minor traffic stops shouldn’t require officers to “work quickly to ensure the safety of themselves and the public” such that “they don’t have time to dick around with the finer points of adjudicating the law.…”

It’s a minor traffic infraction, not a felony stop, so the officer should have all the time in the world to obey the Constitution.

~G. Fink

[R.H. Lee]

It’s a minor traffic infraction, not a felony stop, so the officer should have all the time in the world to obey the Constitution. .......unless he's on a fishing expedition under color of authority.

[CannibalCrowley]

That is why I carry a gun and a backup gun plus 55 rounds of ammo, a bullet proof vest with rifle plate which will stop a 7.62 round at point blank range, along with many other assorted goodies designed with my safety in mind.Anyone else picturing a second plate duct taped to his back?

[TheFederalistWeasel]

The amount of time one can be detained on a lawful stop will vary from stop to stop, the USSC held in one case that 20 minutes was not unreasonable while on another stop that 45 was unreasonable then again a 50 minute stop in yet another case was reasonable.

As long as the arresting officer is doing whatever is required to complete the stop such as writing tickets or conducting FST the stop is good, but waiting around while a K-9 is flown in from Germany, trained and sent to the scene or a pit crew is located to take apart your car is not.

The Georgia State Patrol uses the rule of thumb which has yet to be tossed in court that as long as the arresting officer is writing citations the stop can continue and any business conducted during that time is above board, such as a vehicle search or a K-9 located and dispatched to the scenes for a free air sniff of your car.

So if I am writing you 3 citations and a K-9 gets there during that time and the dog hits I can then search your car.

If I am writing you 20 citations the same applies for the longer duration of the stop.

As long as my business in legal and founded in good ARS or PC the stop can continue.

[Jonathan]

Thanks for the reply. I should have been more clear that I was interested in situations when there is not PC. Know of any case law dealing with that kind of scenario?

[Old Dog]

I am truly amazed at the number of forum members who seem to enjoy perpetuating an adversarial view toward law enforcement ... this whole thread started by a simple question about answering a simple question from a cop during a hypothetical simple traffic stop?

Why wouldn't one answer a cop's question honestly during a traffic stop? Even if I believe the cop has no reason whatsoever to even ask ... I'm sorry, but getting asked stupid questions for no good reason is not necessarily a violation of my constitutional rights.

If, apropos of nothing, the officer decided to put me in handcuffs, well that's another story ... Or if he became physical with me simply because he didn't like my answers ... Or if I had reason to worry about anything in my vehicle ... or was perhaps engaged in some illegal enterprise ... but otherwise, really, so you might have an encounter with a rude, overbearing, possibly exceeding-his-authority police officer who is having a bad day -- what is it to you beyond an irritating inconvenience and a waste of your valuable time? And how often does this really happen? Some posters imply that every cop in their cities have attitude problems and are looking for excuses to search vehicles and violate every citizen's rights ...

Many of the posts I see in this thread seem to indicate that the posters believe (1) they shouldn't have to answer any questions from LE officers during traffic stops and (2) most LE officers enjoy making up reasons for probable cause to pursue vehicle searches during every routine traffic stop.

Sure, but minor traffic stops shouldn’t require officers to “work quickly to ensure the safety of themselves and the public” such that “they don’t have time to dick around with the finer points of adjudicating the law.…”

Well, having done the job, I don't feel that the two are mutually exclusive, but ... there have been a number of cops even in the past couple years or so who've been killed within seconds of pulling over drivers for minor traffic infractions ... cops who died believing they were simply going to write citations for "minor traffic infractions." This is the reality cops live with. So if an officer pulls me over for 10 mph over the speed limit and happens to ask me if I have a gun or guns in the truck ... I'll simply say, "Sure, wanna see 'em?"

[Greg Bell]

If I ever see police lights I just don't stop. I mean, hell, I KNOW I didn't break any laws so I ain't got time to talk to no pig. Usually I just raise hand, middle finger extended, out the window and put my old " fu@# the po-lice" cassette in my tape deck. They ain't got the balls to pull me over. :cool:

If some fool pig is dumb enough to accost me once I get to the package store, I usually rip their badge off so that I can write down their "badge numba." If they get in my face, I perform a little ninjitsu on their piggy a#$.





Then after the daydream, I produce my license and gun permit, tell em' not to worry about the gun (and where it is if they want to get it). Then we engage in a little conversation. Then the cop says "have a good one." No World War Four, just common sense/courtesy. Sheesh. :cool:

[Greg Bell]

This is the reality cops live with. So if an officer pulls me over for 10 mph over the speed limit and happens to ask me if I have a gun or guns in the truck ... I'll simply say, "Sure, wanna see 'em?"

my favorite was the wag who told the cop "sure, watcha' need!"

[gunsmith]

whether she has guns in her car,& it allways angers her.
She lives near West Palm Bach FL and they used to ask me too the few times I was pulled over.
At the time I didn't have any on me.
I try to obey traffic laws when packing,but cops around here never ask anyway.

[poe_9999]

"I don’t have time for you to call your attorney, the road side is not a court room, if you want to turn a traffic stop into an epic size OJ style legal battle then you will got to jail for whatever traffic offense I pulled you for plus obstruction and I’ll watch the State Court Judge look at you in disbelief then sentence you to 1 to 12 months in jail"

This is the reason why people shoot cops over petty traffic stops. This is also the reason why people refer to cops as pigs. People like you are the reason why I will never donate any money to any police department ever! Everyone should give to the fire department instead, they are actually there to help you.

[gc70]

The FederalistWeasel,

If I am ever in Georgia and you pull me over for a traffic stop, we would probably not get into a confrontational situation. When you asked for my driver's license, I would fish it out of my credentials case from the little pocket behind MY badge and hand it to you. Seeing my badge, you would probably stand down from your hyper-sensitive approach and the stop would be concluded pleasantly, quickly, and efficiently.

The crappy part of this scenario is that I should not be treated any differently than any "mere" civilian, but prior experience suggests that I would be treated with more respect and defference.

[Intune]

Oh, boy. Going... Going...

[why_me]

The crappy part of this scenario is that I should not be treated any differently than any "mere" civilian, but prior experience suggests that I would be treated with more respect and defference.

What are the chances your going to get a ticket?

[50 Freak]

Wow, interesting thread. I have to say from my quick glance through. I'm staying the hell away from Georgia. And people in the other 49 states say we have LEO Nazis here in Kali....jeez

I have a little word of advise for you Weasel, you seem to like to bully people into thinking you will arrest them and then they will have to spend a lot of money hiring lawyers to fight your trumped up BS charges. I have to tell you buddy, one day, your going to pick on someone that doesn't mind "wasteing" all that money to preserve their consitutional rights. And you my friend will soon have a hard time finding a job guarding an ice-cream stand. With an LEO like you, I hope your dept has some good lawyers because you are a walking liability. I now know why I carry in my wallet my license, registration, insurance and a bunch of telephone numbers to all my lawyer friends.

Getting back to the original point of this thread. Check with your state laws regarding the requirement to inform LEO's as to whether or not you are legally carrying a firearm. Here in Kali, I am not required by law to inform any LEOs that I neither have a CCW nor I am carrying.

Just remember to be polite to the LEO and follow their instructions (as long as they are not unreasonable or violate your rights, safety etc). LEOs most often just want to quickly effect the stop, write a ticket and be on their way. So don't be a prick, you'll make life a lot easier for everyone.

[JohnBT]

"So don't be a prick, you'll make life a lot easier for everyone."

That's a tall order for a lot of people from what I've seen during my life.

John...IBTL

[El Rojo]

I just read through this whole thing and no where did I interpret Federalist Weasel as you seem to like to bully people into thinking you will arrest them and then they will have to spend a lot of money hiring lawyers to fight your trumped up BS charges.What I did see is that if he pulled you over and he was just trying to complete a traffic stop and you suddenly shut down and demand to call your lawyer and start to give him hell, he would do what is within the law and arrest you for obstruction. Your lawyer doesn't say, "Don't say anything to the cops until I get there." Your lawyers says don't say anything to the cops and call me after you are done.

Weasel never said he just rolls up on people and asks to search their car. Most of this thread has been about certain THR members refusing to even talk to Weasel until they get off the phone with their lawyer. How stupid can you get? Seriously. You can't just call up your lawyer, or your baby's mama, or your mama at a traffic stop. You need to talk to the cop. He clearly stated what he would do if you tried such a thing and he backed it up with justification from Georgia State law. Sounds reasonable to me.

Weasel sounds like a good cop to me. He has been trying to be honest with us and outline a cops options at a traffic stop in Georgia. Some of us have come up with these brilliant ideas of locking our car doors or refusing to talk to a police officer until you get off the phone. He has outlined what Georgia State law says he can do about those tactics. What does he get for it? Vague generalizations and all sorts of hell.

I think most of us on THR if we were pulled over by Weasel wouldn't have a bit of trouble. What makes me appreciate him is if you are running drugs or doing something that the People of Georgia have determined are bad, he is going to try and put you behind bars. That is good. That is what we pay cops to do. The problem here is some of you can't tell the difference between yourselves and the bottom dwellers that are out there and really deserve to go to jail. They are most certainly out there. Weasel sees them all the time and I used to see them when I worked in prison.

If you get pulled over. Be polite and friendly. Keep officer safety in mind and make it easier on the cop. I would argue that about 99% of the time you will get treated with respect and you won't be on the side of the road very long. How do I know? That is my philosophy and it has kept me out of 4 tickets. The last stop was a chicken ???? (sorry, it is the phrase the cops use) stop by the California Highway Patrol and I was carrying. When the officer got to the window I already had my license, registration, and insurance card in my hand my hands on ten and two. He looked at my license, told me he pulled me over for not having a front license plate and told me to have a good night. He didn't ask for guns and I didn't tell him I had one. 30 seconds at my window max and he was gone. How did I find out it was a true CS pull over? My friend from high school was his partner and he stayed back in the car and had bragged about pulling me over on a CS stop to my sister and he was telling her how I was ready to go with license and everything and he though it was funny. I know some of you think that is the most horrible thing in the world and those cops should be ashamed of themselves. I thought it was funny and it only took two minutes out of my life. I am also glad they are searching out for people to arrest and they do know the difference between good citizens and people that are up to no good.

It is unfortunate that there are a few bad cops out there that get so many of you THRers riled up into raising such a fit over all cops. However, it will never change. Thanks Weasel, I think you have done a fine job explaining the laws and offering honest advice. If you ever pull me over, I will say, "Aren't you The Federalist Weasel?" and we will end up having a nice conversation.

[Gordon Fink]

First, I think some folks are being a little hard on FederalistWeasel. I believe he is playing the devil’s advocate here.

Now …

Why wouldn’t one answer a cop’s question honestly during a traffic stop?
When it comes to guns, an officer’s reaction can be very unpredictable. He may not be concerned, but the situation can easily deteriorate. Besides, though I have no criminal intent, am I absolutely sure that I’m transporting my firearms in complete compliance with the “law”?


[T]here have been a number of cops … who’ve been killed within seconds of pulling over drivers for minor traffic infractions … cops who died believing they were simply going to write citations for “minor traffic infractions.” This is the reality cops live with.
Which is why I maintain that you shouldn’t stop drivers for minor infractions. Photograph the car and cite the owner of record, just like you do at stoplights and toll stations.

~G. Fink

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Seems that many here are a bit hot under the collar, one is even trying to make the point of “This is the reason why people shoot cops over petty traffic stops.”

Brilliant…

One would think that as most of you (who are responsible gun owners) this statement from a fellow gun owner would cause you more consternation than me posting a bunch of GA law and then explaining how it is applied to the ridiculous situation you have described in this thread and the legal remedy I have to handle such situation IF they ever arise.

:rolleyes:

[Flyboy]

Which is why I maintain that you shouldn’t stop drivers for minor infractions. Photograph the car and cite the owner of record, just like you do at stoplights and toll stations.

The problem with this being that cars don't commit traffic offenses, drivers do. There have been a number of cases where photo-radar and such tickets were overturned on those very grounds. Now, the stationary systems typically take two pictures: one from the front, to get the driver's face, and one from the rear, to get license plate, prove the infraction, etc.

Unfortunately, that won't work as well with a roving squad car, as the officer would have to speed ahead of the offending vehicle to get a picture from the front. That can be hazardous to the officer, the offending driver, and innocent bystanders.

Neat idea, but I just don't think it's workable.

[Gordon Fink]

Of course it’s workable. It’s the same principle as parking citations! No drivers present there usually, but most tickets stick. So what if some citations are successfully contested in court? This already happens.

Why risk officers’ lives for faulty taillights and expired registration stickers?

~G. Fink

[jojo]

Let me apologize up front if this was addressed somewhere back in the thread. Some of it got a bit silly and I passed over most of it.

I had an officer from another state tell me that if I'm asked to get out of the car, do so, and lock the doors as I get out. I would probably not do that myself, but am curious if that is an "advisable" thing to do.

jojo

[Molon Labe]

I had an officer from another state tell me that if I'm asked to get out of the car, do so, and lock the doors as I get out. I would probably not do that myself, but am curious if that is an "advisable" thing to do.If the cop tells you to exit the car, always lock the doors after exiting, and then put the keys in your pocket. This will keep a rogue cop from using double-speak to get easy access to your car.

(As mentioned by another poster, some cops ask, “Do you mind if I take a look in your car?” If you answer “No,” then it means you don’t mind, and he’ll look in your car. If you answer “Yes,” he may pretend to interpret this as you saying, “Yes, you may look in my car,” and then he’ll look in your car. So no matter how you respond, you have given him permission to search your car. Neat trick, huh?)

If the cop asks why you locked the doors, just tell him, “Habit.”

Some additional advice when pulled over by a cop:

1. Just as a cop assumes you’re a bad person, also assume the LEO is a rogue cop who has no respect for your natural rights, no matter how nice and genuine he appears to be. Always be on guard, and don’t say any more than you have to.

2. Never admit to a crime. If he asks, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” tell him, “No.” If he asks how many beers you had, do not tell him “Two or three.” Tell him “None.”

3. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, under any circumstance, give permission for a cop to search your car. I don’t care if you’re late for a flight. I don’t care if the only thing in the car is a candy bar wrapper. I don’t care if he threatens to “call the dogs in.” I don’t care if he threatens to arrest you. Never, under any circumstance, give permission for a cop to search your car.

4. Ask the cop, “Am I free to go?” And then ask him again. And again. And again. Keep asking him this question until he lets you go.

5. Unless required by state law, do not answer any question you do not want to ask. Politely refuse, and then ask, “Am I free to go?”

6. Be polite, be patient, and do not get mad. But do stand your ground, and do not be intimidated by a bad/rogue cop. Simply lock your door and keep your mouth shut (other than asking the “Am I free to go?” question).

[Old Dog]

TheFederalistWeasel: I'd been trying to ignore that one outrageous remark. I totally agree with you; for someone who wants to be thought of as a responsible gun-owner to make a statement like that ... whoa! And, FWIW, I understand what you've been trying to communicate.

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.

[why_me]

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.

Its not an anti law enforcement bias.
Its for protecting our collective rights. I dont think weasel is a bad cop. I think he has the potential to be one. And that is not his fault. The laws have been distorted to allow weasel to totally F&^% with us. And aloow him and ever other LEO carte blanche, to go on fishing expedtions. That is what people are upset about.
Standing up for your rights doesnt make you a criminal.
same as being against the war in Iraq doesnt make you un-patriotic

[Molon Labe]

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.I’m not anti-cop. God knows we need cops. and while I believe most cops are good, I believe too many (20%?) have absolutely no respect for a person's inalienable rights.

I won't bore you with them, but I could relate numerous instances of me being harassed by local (and rogue) cops when I was a late teenager, and for absolutely no good reason. I've also heard way too many stories – even from other cops - about immoral and unconstitutional actions conducted by rogue LEOs.

But I don’t dwell on it… just as most cops are "on guard" when pulling someone over, I am always "on guard" when interacting with an LEO.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Of course it’s workable. It’s the same principle as parking citations! No drivers present there usually, but most tickets stick. So what if some citations are successfully contested in court? This already happens.

Why risk officers’ lives for faulty taillights and expired registration stickers?

Parking citations where I work are $10.00 per violation and it’s not even reported to the state, no criminal/drivers history entry, and no insurance/extortion inquiry anything.

Just pay the tax… Uhhh fine and be done with it.

Most all officers I know understand the hazards of traffic stops just as we understand the hazards of answering a domestic in progress or answering the hold up alarm at the community bank in town for the 10,000 time…

The one time we let our guard down is the one time it’s real.

[Igloodude]

Thanks Weasel, I think you have done a fine job explaining the laws and offering honest advice. If you ever pull me over, I will say, "Aren't you The Federalist Weasel?" and we will end up having a nice conversation.

Only catch is, if you get pulled over in Georgia you're probably facing 1000-to-1 odds that it is him, and I'm not sure you'll get a positive reaction from most police if you ask them if they're federalist weasels. :p

On the whole I concur with you, most here seem to have missed TFW's Devil's Advocate stance. I've learned a lot from the thread so far... :cool:

[R.H. Lee]

I somehow suspect I would get along just fine with FW during a roadside stop. Other than CA plates on the car and me having no accent whatsoever except maybe a slight damnyankee twang, he'd have no reason to roust me. :)

[TheFederalistWeasel]

and I'm not sure you'll get a positive reaction from most police if you ask them if they're federalist weasels.


:D :D :D

[Byron Quick]

Things are a bit easier on me. I live in Georgia and work in an Emergency Department in South Carolina. When I get stopped in SC, it's usually by an officer who knows me and knows I might be giving him emergency care one bad day. If he knows me then he knows there are firearms in the vehicle. The only possible question would be if I have more than the basic three handguns and a rifle.

My experience in Georgia has been that barring other suspicions the police don't really care. A trooper spotted my 1911 as I bent over to retrieve my dropped wallet one day after he wrote a warning ticket. He asked if I had a permit and I said yes. He didn't ask to see it and we hung out on the shoulder for about a half hour talking about guns, shooting, and hunting.

Got asked,"Any weapons in the truck?" by a Richmond County deputy one day. My answer was,"16 rifles, 4 shotguns, 8 handguns, 10 Mauser Yugo bayonets, a Blackie Collins Bowie, and a 400 year old Japanese katana. Might be a few other odds and ends." He didn't blink an eye. Didn't search the vehicle. Didn't ask to do so. Sent me on my way with,"Have a good day."

I've never had the dubious pleasure of getting stopped in one of the states with screwy laws. I try to avoid these places and when I fail to do so then I have everything in working order and drive very carefully.

I won't lie to a cop at any time. Lying to the police is a felony here in Georgia from what I've read in newspapers. However, I've never heard of a law requiring me to answer questions. I've just found that answering the weapons question is not a problem here.

[R.H. Lee]

Got asked,"Any weapons in the truck?" by a Richmond County deputy one day. My answer was,"16 rifles, 4 shotguns, 8 handguns, 10 Mauser Yugo bayonets, a Blackie Collins Bowie, and a 400 year old Japanese katana I've never tried it, but I'm sure an answer like that almost anywhere in CA would bring out SWAT, helicopters, bomb-sniffing dogs, HAZMAT, and who knows what else. Your name would be at the top of the page, that's for sure. :what:

[Byron Quick]

Frankly, the anti-law enforcement bias I'm seeing is beyond amazing, it's appalling.

I work closely with many cops in the emergency department. I even have cops bring me donuts:D

However, I also live in a world where the police are human beings not angels. Maybe you live in a different world.

I know of two officers who were convicted of premeditated murder while on duty and in uniform. They were convicted of shooting my crippled cousin six times in the back of his head from a range of 18 inches. Their main defense was that they thought his walking cane was a firearm. Didn't work. I don't much care for these two people. Is that an example of anti-law enforcement bias?

Riley,
That's one of the reasons you won't be finding me in California on a voluntary basis. Abduction is the only way I'll be there.

[Byron Quick]

During a traffic stop, I pull my wallet as I'm stopping my vehicle. I have my driver's license and insurance in hand before the officer exits his car. I then rest both hands dangling out of the window sill with my license and card.

Traffic stops are dangerous for him. If I don't make him nervous then he probably won't feel the need to make me nervous. I like calm officers.

[SMLE]

During a traffic stop, I pull my wallet as I'm stopping my vehicle. I have my driver's license and insurance in hand before the officer exits his car. I then rest both hands dangling out of the window sill with my license and card.
I carry my DL and CHL in a little card folio in my left shirt pocket. I can reach for it without my hands going out of sight. I just hand it over and say; "You probably want to see both of these." So far the reaction has always been very positive. I will soon be working in EMS, so I expect to make aquaintance with a fair number of local cops.

[Old Dog]

However, I also live in a world where the police are human beings not angels. Maybe you live in a different world.

Huh? Something I said suggested I believe police aren't human beings with the same failings as the rest of us? Actually, I live in the world where, if you treat someone courteously and with respect while they are doing their job, you normally won't have too many problems. Life is too short to worry about the bad apples -- and life is certainly too short to to go through with the attitude that one must automatically assume an adversarial attitude with law enforcement during traffic stops ...

I don't believe in, for example, things such as:

while I believe most cops are good, I believe too many (20%?) have absolutely no respect for a person's inalienable rights.

Hmm. How did you come up with that figure? Why not 19%? Or 23%?

Or:

The laws have been distorted to allow weasel to totally F&^% with us. And aloow him and ever other LEO carte blanche, to go on fishing expedtions.

If this is what you believe working in law enforcement is about, perhaps it's time to get some education, to get to know some law enforcement officers -- and the law itself -- which is mostly set up to PROTECT citizens from law enforcement officers. One of the underlying hypocrisies of many forum posts on the Internet: constant, interminable complaints that the laws are stacked in favor of the criminals or illegal aliens or would-be criminals and that law enforcement agencies don't do enough about enforcing existing laws against criminals and illegal aliens, etc. - BUT -- should someone have a complaint about an unfavorable encounter with law enforcement (or they've heard on an internet forum about someone's brother having an unfavorable encounter with law enforcement -- then the complaints come flooding in that the laws favor the LEOs and are stacked against the law-abiding citizens, while at the time cops and other LE agents have nothing better to do than fabricate probable cause, evidence and just love getting into ugly confrontations with citizens, hooking them up and doing the tons of resultant paperwork. Sheesh!

[Specialized]

I'd been trying to ignore that one outrageous remark. I totally agree with you; for someone who wants to be thought of as a responsible gun-owner to make a statement like that ... I wholeheartedly agree with you. In a similar vein, I'm not entirely comfortable with some of the other tone or content in this thread either. I would like to thank TheFederalistWeasel and others who have contributed to this thread for their patience and for sharing their points of view, research, and experiences. I have learned from it and appreciate it.

I don't believe there's room in this sort of discussion for the veiled threats or antagonistic "observations" like those in some of the posts, or even for anti-cop sentiments. That was not, in my mind, what we were debating at all, and if they are valid opinions I still don't find them worthy or think they have a place here. For those who care, I don't personally hold such an opinion, and if any of my arguments have been construed as such then I wholeheartedly apologize for not having exhibited the eloquence to more exactly describe my position. My point in all of this is that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government powers, and that (in my opinion) both sides of the debate -- LEO's and non-LEO's -- should each respect the other's position enough to regularly put themselves in the other's respective shoes.

Some of my work involves training LEO's (and others), and that coupled with my volunteer work put me in close contact with police officers and brass several days each week. If I had had my poop in a group as a younger man I would very likely have become a LEO myself. For those of you that are currently or formerly LEO's, thank you for your service, and for your dedication to what is a very noble, vitally critical, and supremely challenging means of public service.

And with that, I'm 10-7/OOV. Time to find some dinner.

[artherd]

I dont think federal is trying to be vindictive. I think he is being more educational. Maybe it is just coming out wrong. What he is pointing out is maybe things people dont know.

You know, you may well be right. I giving him the benefit of the doubt untill he articulated what HE personally would do in a situation in which a compliant suspect wished to confer with his counsul and had not been directed against doing so.

Though perhaps he was still playing devil's advocate.

Hopefully I provided a vaild 'counter-point' :)

[artherd]

I have a little word of advise for you Weasel, you seem to like to bully people into thinking you will arrest them and then they will have to spend a lot of money hiring lawyers to fight your trumped up BS charges. I have to tell you buddy, one day, your going to pick on someone that doesn't mind "wasteing" all that money to preserve their consitutional rights. And you my friend will soon have a hard time finding a job guarding an ice-cream stand. With an LEO like you, I hope your dept has some good lawyers because you are a walking liability. I now know why I carry in my wallet my license, registration, insurance and a bunch of telephone numbers to all my lawyer friends.



All cops who like to 'bend' the law to the breaking point in the name of intimidation, cajoleing, etc. will eventually meet a person with the money, time, and determination to deal with said officer in a fully legal mannar.

Hey, cops who don't break the law have nothing to worry about, so there's no problem, right? ;)

[Phil Ca]

As a person who has walked in two camps at the same time as a federal officer and a police reserve officer I have seen interesting aspects of both. even with all my years in uniform and out I still get a quasi-nervous feeling when I am followed to closely by a patrol car.

One time I was driving a rental car outside Louisville when a County officer turned on his lights and followed me and stopped me. It was late and I was a bit in a hurry while heading to Fort Knox. The officer asked me if I had noticed my speed and where was I was heading? I told him that my rental car was a tad quicker than my family car and that I was going down to visit our field office. He looked at my license and ID and smiled and said to take it a bit slower and have a good night. I thanked him and drove off more slowly.

Another time in the Napa Valley I was driving home after being gone for several days and I was about 10 miles over the limit. The CHP officer that stopped me knew me and issued me a ticket for only five over the limit. The ticket did not do anyting to my insurance or my license but I did decide to "slow down and live" if just for the sake of my family I was going home to see. The CHP officer was know to be a fair ticket writer in that he would have ticketed his own mother.

In San francisco I have dealt with cops that in some cases appreciated a federal presence and some that did not like it. I have on occasion made an arrest while out of my specific jurisdiction but the SFPD handled the pick up and booking and in one case I was given a citation from the chief for coming to the aid of an elderly man that had been attacked by a street thug. I had requested a young man to assist me with the violent suspect and we subdued him and held him for the patrol car. The young guy I had helping me did not stay around to give his name as he seemed a bit nervous seeing so many cops appear.

One time I was going from one of our offices to my main office when I walked down a very windy street. An undercover police unit was just responding to an altercation not far fromwhere I was walking. As the unit pulled up past me the wind caugjt my jcket and blew the coat tail out of my hand exposing the 2" revolver I was carrying. I saw the officer on the passenger mouth the word "GUN!" to his partner as they stopped. I palmed my badge case and turned slowly with my arms extended and told the first officer, "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours." He smiled and waved me on.

One time in San Jose I was attending a survival seminar with a lot of notable speakers with many booths showing products or services. Larry Pratt and Jack Mclamb and a couple of well known financial wizards were there. I was with another federal officer and when we were talking to someone some character from a booth overheard us and came out and loudly said, "These guys are Feds and should be arrested!!!" He attempted to place an arm on me but stopped when we gave him a rather hard look and let him know we were both conservative and US Constitutional believing Feds. Some other attendees told him to get back in his booth.

When you stop to consider the make up of the police in this country you find that some jurisdictions have all college trained officers and some don't. Nowadays there are more of the former but some years ago an officer did not need a college degree as much as an uncle on the force. In some of the more rural areas you have some very reasonable level-headed officers and a few bubbas. The rural officers are more likely hunters and fisher folk and are more likely to appreciates helpful and sometimes armed citizens. In the city you find less tolerance of armed citizens and more of a 'us and them" attitude.

During the late 60's and the 70's with the "equal opportunity" crowd in charge you saw a number of black officers promoted to sergeant and many did not live up to the requiremnet of the job. That seems to be on the wane but it sure took a toll on the good officers that were relegated to the back of the promotion list due to government edict.

When I attended the federal police training school known as FLETC in Georgia we were advised that we should not get into any trouble in the surrounding counties in Georgia. One group of three US Treasury Agents were in a small bar in a rural area when the local sheriff came in and asked who that US Government vehicle belonged to. When the agents said it was their car the sheriff told them thay had 5 minutes to get out of his county. They left and went to a more amicable place.

During my years with a federal agency I had occasion to travel and I always took the opportunity to talk to local police in Boston, Kenebunkport, Washington D.C., NYC, Denver, Philadelphia, Kentucky and Chicago as well as other places. In Maine I talked to a small town cop that was more of a constable than a police officer. In NYC the cops were more officious yet still courteous. In SF I have met the gamut from friendly and decent, to outright uncivil and sorely in need of a blanket party. :)

The police have a tough job trying to sort out all the rules and laws that they are supposed to deal with and then to try to be fair and deal with the citizens in a proper manner. Than they have to cope with the gang problem and keep people from killing each other when they more than likely would just as soon see them do each other in.

The job of a police officer now is a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' type of job. I am not looking forward the day that all the police are federalized but I do believe that day is coming. I have more on that subject in a future post.

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

The correct answer (in my book anyways) is......

A) Nope, no illegal guns in the car. (A true statement)

This state is hostile when it comes to firearms.
My guns are legal hence the question, "Any drugs or firearms in your vehicle?"

"No. There are no "ILLEGAL" guns in this vehicle officer."

Everything is locked up legally, legally owned and out of sight. If he is after me for my gun possession he will check the vehicle anyway no matter what I answer.

For those of you thinking, "If it is all legally owned and transported why not tell him that you have guns?"

You definitely have not lived in this state!


RW3

[rlq9thrk]

My being involved in a traffic stop is far from "routine". Last time was at least 15 years ago, only 3 or 4 times since I started driving. In all cases both the officer and I were quite courteous and the officer never asked any questions about guns or anything else in the car.

If I were traveling through states other than mine and had concealed-weapon reciprocity with my state, I would be carrying, otherwise not.

If I were stopped in a state that requires CWPermittees to notify the officer, I would hand over the permit, driver license, and auto registration when advised. My state does not require such notification, but I would do the same here. And if it were at night, I would turn on the interior light to give the officer a good view. The state law here allows the officer to disarm me during the stop if he or she wishes. I would answer any questions, but there are never any other firearms or contraband in my vehicle and I never drink more than 1 beer per day (frequently 0 beer per day), so I would not expect any problems.

I would cooperate fully with the officer and would not hesitate to comply with any request or demand. I would not know laws about what the officer could or could not do and would not allow my ignorance to cause any problems.

To me, being disagreeable with a police officer would be similar to standing in the path of a tornado because I felt I had the right to stand my ground.

[Specialized]

For those of you thinking, "If it is all legally owned and transported why not tell him that you have guns?"

You definitely have not lived in this state! As soon as I read this I realized I had neglected to mention where I live. The area of this state (IL) where I live is that way as well. If the cops in Chicago or many of the surrounding jurisdictions find out you have a weapon in the car, legal or otherwise, the game is definitely afoot. The majority of cops up here are convinced that (presence of firearm) = (up to no good). In the City of Chicago it's the worst, Cook County and the close suburbs it's (MAYBE) slightly better, and the more distant suburbs you're taking your chances. One of my friends is a local Police Chief, and his take on it is "Out of sight, out of mind". Some of them aren't so laid back about it.

The fastest way I know of to get the sh*t beaten out of yourself is to be young, driving a nice car, and caught in Chicago with a gun in your car. Maybe it's some sort of sick and twisted "tough love" thing or something, but it definitely a no-no to be found even with a legal gun in a car. The Daley administration, like so may before him including his father, like to blame all their crime woes on those evil guns and their easy availability to what he must believe were perfect angels prior to their acquisition of said evil. Daley has demonized guns and given them the status of evil spirits during his entire time as mayor. He has repeatedly picked weak "Yes-men" as police superintendents so that he can pick and choose what laws get enforced, against whom, and when, without any fear of the police brass growing a brain and opposing his wishes.

The Chicago Police have even had a task force for the last few years whose sole purpose appears to be to work with the ATF to close down gun shops that they believe are "running guns" to gangbangers. Mind you, the evidence in these investigations are very seldom proven valid, but that doesn't stop them. Illinois is also in trouble with the Justice Department for keeping a database of gun owners and gun data from the background check information that goes through the IL State Police; even though the courts have told them to destroy that database, they have flatly refused to do so repeatedly. This is the same information that, by federal law, is supposed to be destroyed after some number of days once the approval or denial has gone through.

So when a cop asks one of the locals here whether he/she has "guns in the vehicle", they must assume that it's a loaded question that may very well result in the confiscation of the gun(s), the filing of any and all charges the cop's imagination can come up with (quite possibly including "Impersonating a Pinata", if you don't cheerfully waive your rights), loss of your Firearm Owner's ID card (mandatory in IL to possess weapons or purchase ammo), and a protracted legal battle just to keep your shiny @ss out of jail, whether you're found guilty or not. By the time they've dropped or reduced the charges, you've at the very least lost your confiscated weapons for good and usually they're telling you that in consideration of the "favor" they're doing for you, you must make some sort of deal with the devil before they'll let you loose, usually agreeing to plead guilty to some lesser crime. The lawyers around here will tell you to take the deal, because if you don't the courts will almost certainly side with the cops, and then you're really lost.

Did I mention that residents of Chicago are not allowed to own or possess a handgun, unless you owned it and registered it with the city prior to 1984 and have re-registered it (at a pretty hefty cost) faithfully every year since then? You can still register long guns, but not handguns, and you can forget anything that even approaches a useful tactical rifle -- those are illegal too. That should tell you what the folks up here think of guns.

As I think about it, the last two presidential elections quite handily showed how votes in less populated areas count for more than those in heavily populated areas. Why do you suppose the framers of state constitutions didn't come up with similar protections? Then we wouldn't have population centers' corrupt politicians dictating their ways upon the rest of the state. Just a thought.