Personal true story. RV stop in ILL.


PDA






BBQJOE
June 19, 2007, 07:45 PM
This is a true story that happened to me a few years back.
Some will find this entertaining, I hope some might learn something they didn't know before.
I learned quite a bit from this experience.

I used to travel 48 states using my RV to work out of.
We relocated semi tractors. Our company required three people. We would all travel in the RV to the job site. Once there, we would unload all the tools necessary and take up to eight semi tractors and hook them together making two loads up to four each.

My wife would drive one load, I'd drive the other, and a third hired hand would follow us in the RV.

We were all in the RV on our way to the next job passing through Illinois inthe middle of the night. It was winter, cold, and snowing lightly.

My wife and I were asleep in the back and my friend John was driving.

I was awakened hearing John announce we were getting pulled over. I quickly hopped out of bed threw on some clothes and at the same time asked him why we were getting pulled over.
John responded that he had no idea, he wasn't speeding.
He pulled the RV to the side of the road. By this time my wife was awake and present as well.

We sat still until the officer came to the vehicle. He did not approach the drivers door but instead knocked on the side door leading to the living area.

I opened the door. The officer said it's cold may I come in?
At the time I saw no reason not to let him in, I had nothing to hide, so I let him in.
I inquired as to why were pulled over, and was told a lane change made was not indicated with a turn signal.( Turned out the bulb was bad)

The next thing he did was look at a rack in the kitchen mounted on the wall holding kitchen knives and asked if we had any other weapons.

Still a little groggy from waking up I asked weapons? He pointed to the rack and said WEAPONS.
I told him there was no weapons that he needed to worry about.
He then saw that John had a buck knife in the visor above the drivers seat.
The officer asked what about that? Pointing to the buck knife.
I told the officer I had no idea why he had that there.
The officer looked around another minute, and said he would be right back and left.
Looking out the rear window I could see at least two other units had arrived.
I thought Crap! What's this all about?

Another officer enters the RV. He too looks around and asks again, are you sure you have no other weapons, guns etc?

Being as we stayed on the road three or more months at a time, I decided leaving my firearms at home was not a good idea in case of burglary.

I told the officer, yes, I do have a six shot .22 pistol, but it's locked in the safe. he asked to see it. I thought of asking him, What? You never seen a .22 before? But keeping my better judgment I resisted, and retreated to the bedroom opened the safe and brought out the revolver, and unholstered it.
I opened the cylinder and ejected the bullets and handed it to him still open.

He examined the revolver, closed it and walked out of the RV.

A couple of minutes later the first officer returned, entered and giving me a nasty looked said, I thought you told me there weren't any weapons on board?

I told him I remember telling him there weren't any that he needed to worry about.
By this time there were now six squad cars behind us with all the lights flashing.
I could hear truckers talking on the CB radio.
One guy goes, well I bet they caught some drug runners, another chimes back with it's probably full of illegal aliens.
I told John to shut the dam thing off.

The officer asks, do you have any more guns in here. I told him no.

He then says everybody out.
We were ushered out not even being allowed to grab a coat.

As we stood on the side of the road four officers and a dog approached, and they all piled into the RV. We could see them rustling about inside.
Then they came out, and walked the dog around the RV a couple of times and went back in.
They came out again, and again went around the RV looking underneath and in the side boxes full of tools.
We were beginning to freeze standing outside in the cold. One of the officers had the decency to allow my wife to sit in his cruiser to stay warm, but John and I were left outside.

They went back into the RV for the third time, and came out carrying my SKS.

The officer carrying it came up to me, held it out, and asked, What's this?
I told him it wasn't much more than maybe a club. I pointed out there was no magazine and the bolt was completely removed, so it wasn't much as far as guns go.

He walked away with it, and I was asked again by the first officer who was pretty angry by now if I had any more guns inside. I told him no.

Nonetheless they all piled back in for another look. They went through all the drawers and cabinets as well as the closets.

We had been on the side of the road now for practically an hour and a half, or maybe more before they let us back in.

The first officer then wrote us a fix it ticket for the turn signal.
Another officer returned with the firearms, laid them on the sofa and announced they are registered and clean.

By this time I had about had it and told the cop that I could have told him that!

He told me he could tell I wanted to be a good guy and obey the law.
He then told me I needed to get a case for the rifle in order to carry it properly. I told him I didn't have one. he then proceeded to tell me to grab a pair of jeans and stuff it down a pant leg.
I inquired, wouldn't that be more like trying to hide it as compared to being stored underneath the bed as he had found it?
He told me no, so I did as he suggested.
He then handed me the ticket and told me to drive safely, and left.

We sat for a few minutes, stunned at all that had taken place. After all the police cars left, I looked around.
Sure they had tossed the place around a bit. But what really angered me was that they had broken every single latch on every cabinet and closet.
It was obvious they didn't know how to operate them.
Twenty latches were destroyed at $12 Bucks each to replace.

I should have probably filed a complaint but didn't.

THINGS LEARNED AFTER THE FACT:
1. I should have not let the first officer in. Doing so gave all the other officers permission to enter as well.
The RV was my home. Anything in the driver area forward of the seats is fair game for the most part. Anything behind the front seats is your home and they have no right to enter without a search warrant, or I suppose very good probable cause.


2. I should have directed the officer to the drivers door.

3. People younger than sixty five driving RV's are highly suspicious.

I'm sure there are more things I learned but can't remember, although I will remember to stay out of that state at any cost.

So again in summary, Never let a LEO in your RV without a warrant. I wasn't doing anything illegal, but was treated like some sort of criminal, and forced to freeze my butt off on the side of the road all because I didn't wish for the officer to stand out in the cold.

If you enjoyed reading about "Personal true story. RV stop in ILL." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RoadkingLarry
June 19, 2007, 08:11 PM
For my money whenever law enforcement ASKS if they can search your vehicle/home/saddlebags etc the answer is NO!

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 08:13 PM
If the Polis ask the answer is always no

Jefferson

pcosmar
June 19, 2007, 08:21 PM
...

Steve in PA
June 19, 2007, 08:29 PM
1) The stop was legal (burnt out light)

2) Letting the officer inside wasn't the problem.

3) You lied to the first officer about weapons, saying "none that you need to worry about". Producing the firearm for the second officer is probably what they based their PC upon for searching your vehicle.

4) The first officer was probably outside writting your ticket when the second officer comes outside with the handgun. I'm pretty sure that irked the first officer since you told him there wasn't any.

5) Did they have PC to search after this?? Depends, you'd have to ask the officer(s) involved what their thought process was, but they have a weapon you said you didn't have and..............

6) Then, they find another "none you need to worry about" firearm.

7) Apparently the state you were in required the guns to be carried in a case. Next time you should check to see what the requirements are for transporting weapons.

8) They should not have broken anything. You should have at least called the department and talked to a supervisor.

F4GIB
June 19, 2007, 08:33 PM
...

jpk1md
June 19, 2007, 08:35 PM
IIRC FEDERAL LAW requires that firearms be transported in an enclosed case of some sort when traveling interstate.

F4GIB
June 19, 2007, 08:46 PM
IIRC FEDERAL LAW requires that firearms be transported in an enclosed case of some sort when traveling interstate.

Wrong. Federal law has no "requirements" for private transport of a firearm.
18 USC 926A does, however, provide a safe harbor from state laws if the the firearm is unloaded and in a locked case with the ammunition, if any, in a separate, locked case.

Avenger29
June 19, 2007, 09:41 PM
1) The stop was legal (burnt out light)

But weak. I know that cops use stuff like this (burnt out lights, license plate lights out, etc) just to give them a reason to pull someone over to take a closer look at them. In your case, you were suspicious.

Wrong. Federal law has no "requirements" for private transport of a firearm.
18 USC 926A does, however, provide a safe harbor from state laws if the the firearm is unloaded and in a locked case with the ammunition, if any, in a separate, locked case.

So, that means I could carry an AK into Cali (I don't live there), so long as it is in a locked case, with ammo separate in another lockd case?

(and do soft cases with a padlock count?)

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 09:43 PM
as long as you never leave the interstate.

Jefferson

illini52
June 19, 2007, 09:45 PM
...

neoncowboy
June 19, 2007, 09:48 PM
2) Letting the officer inside wasn't the problem.

Yes, it most certainly was!

Compounded by entering into a conversation with said officer.

'No, I do not consent to a search', 'I have nothing to say', 'Am I free to go?'

BBQJOE
June 19, 2007, 10:00 PM
2) Letting the officer inside wasn't the problem.
No, I believe fully that was the problem. If I had made him go to the driver's door and stand out in the cold while he went back and verified registration etc. He probably would have just given us the fix it ticket and left.

(Unless he was "Profiling" younger white people in RV's driving in the dark)

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 10:03 PM
...

wdlsguy
June 19, 2007, 10:09 PM
I opened the cylinder and ejected the bullets and handed it to him still open.
I'm amazed you weren't cuffed and stuffed at that point.

TallPine
June 19, 2007, 10:11 PM
...

Aguila Blanca
June 20, 2007, 12:18 AM
Wrong. Federal law has no "requirements" for private transport of a firearm.
18 USC 926A does, however, provide a safe harbor from state laws if the the firearm is unloaded and in a locked case with the ammunition, if any, in a separate, locked case.
So, that means I could carry an AK into Cali (I don't live there), so long as it is in a locked case, with ammo separate in another lockd case?

(and do soft cases with a padlock count?)
That section of the US Code is what we often refer to as the FOPA (Firearms Owners Protection Act). It applies to interstate travel. There are some prerequisites: First, possession of the firearm must be legal at the place the journey begins, and at the place where the journey ends. UNless you are legally able to possess an AK in California, the law would not allow you to bring one in with you. What it would allow you to do is transport an AK with you if you are driving through California, perhaps on the way from Arizona to Oregon or Washington. But you would really have to be traveling THROUGH California. Stopping to eat, refuel, take a comfort break, etc, are what the law would probably consider activities "in the normal course of travel." I haven't seen any test cases, but I imagine if it's a long trip it the law would even cover spending a night in a motel near a highway interchange.

But ... take a 50 mile detour to have a visit with Uncle Joe and Auntie Maude on your way through California just might make California a destination of itself, which would remove the FOPA protections unless you can legally possess the AK on Uncle Joe's property.

Jeff White
June 20, 2007, 12:21 AM
You shouldn't have let the officer on board. And you really shouldn't have lied about guns.

This:
I opened the cylinder and ejected the bullets and handed it to him still open.

Equals this:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+24&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60752&SeqStart=50800000&SeqEnd=53500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E
(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)
(Text of Section from P.A. 94‑72)
Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or carries any bludgeon, black‑jack, slung‑shot, sand‑club, sand‑bag, metal knuckles, throwing star, or any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material or compressed gas; or
(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife, razor, stiletto, broken bottle or other piece of glass, stun gun or taser or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character; or
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non‑lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older; or
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed
on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or

The provision about possessing a firearm owners identification card doesn't apply to nonresidents.

So instead of sitting in jail on felony UUW charges, you were given your firearms back, a repair order for a broken tail light and sent on your way, and you have the audacity to complain about it? :what:

The Firearm Owners Protection Act under federal law doesn't protect you carrying a loaded gun interstate. You didn't check on the laws regarding carrying and possession of firearms in the states you were traveling in, you operated a vehicle that was not legal (inoperable lights). It seems like the lick is on you and you should be thanking the officers of whatever department you were pulled over by for using discretion and not arresting you on felony charges.

Kind of shoots the heck out of the THR myth that if you are innocently caught with a firearm by an Illinois officer you're on your way to jail doesn't it?

Jeff

stevelyn
June 20, 2007, 12:31 AM
Letting the officer in wasn't the problem.

Oh yes it was. Once you invite the vampire in across the threshold, everything he sees falls under the "plain view" doctrine and it only goes down hill from there.

bakerj
June 20, 2007, 12:36 AM
Didn't he state that the pistol was locked in a safe? Wouldn't that qualify as are not immediately accessible; or
b](iii) are unloaded

Not being a wise ass and dont carry loaded guns in my trunk but looks like it would be o.k.

Sage of Seattle
June 20, 2007, 12:37 AM
Jeff,

except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state

The rifle with no magazine or bolt in it and

;or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or

the pistol, while loaded, was described as being locked in a safe. He certainly could have been arrested, but looks to me like he'd have a good case against the officer.

The Lone Haranguer
June 20, 2007, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by BBQJOE:
I opened the door. The officer said it's cold may I come in?

I think you know now that's not why he wanted to come in. :)

My policy (should something like this happen) is to give only my documents as required by law (license, registration and proof of insurance), and add that I have nothing else to say. If asked for a consent to search, I will not give it.

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 12:43 AM
Jeff White: What about the fact that it was an RV? Does that change things as some people claim an RV as their primary residence.

I would also say that the OP did not lie to the cop because he did say none that he had to worry about. The one LOCKED in the safe and an inoperable rifle.

Kentak
June 20, 2007, 12:46 AM
I'm amazed the cop let *you* get the handgun and unholster it. Isn't that dangerous for the cop if you were up to no good?

K

LoverOfLiberty
June 20, 2007, 12:48 AM
1. Don't let them in the door. Being friendly to cops is fine on a personal level. Not when it gets down to business. We're talking about liberty and justice, here.

2. Don't let them search you without the required warrant.

3. I'd certainly get a non-.22... I mean... :P

4. You got lucky there, bro. Hehe.

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by BBQJOE:
I opened the door. The officer said it's cold may I come in?

Originally posted by The Lone Haranguer:
think you know now that's not why he wanted to come in.:)

So the best advice is to not be courteous to the police. ;)

I was told that if you allow the police into your home for purposes other than a search they are given less leeway when it comes to searching for evidence and discovery. I dont think this is true but the cop asked to enter for reasons other than to search the vehicle.

So if a cop comes to my door in the dead of winter and it is a blizzard outside I should make them wait on the porch? And of course shut the door while they are out there so the heat doesnt get out. Gotcha...;)

Kentak
June 20, 2007, 12:57 AM
It appears you did get a break on the loaded handgun.

From the NRA website on transportation:

FEDERAL LAW ON TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS

A provision of federal law serves as a defense to state or local laws which would prohibit the passage of persons with firearms in interstate travel.

Notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess it to any other place where he may lawfully possess such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm shall be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Necessary stops, like gasoline and rest, seem permissible.

TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE

In most states, personally-owned firearms may be transported legally if they are unloaded, cased, and locked in the automobile trunk.

The exceptions to this rule apply mainly to interstate transportation of handguns. The myriad and conflicting legal requirements for firearm transportation through the states make caution the key for travelers.

If you travel with a trailer or camper that is hauled by an automobile, it is advisable to transport the firearms unloaded, cased and locked in the automobile trunk. If your vehicle is of the type in which driving and living spaces are not separated, the problem becomes one of access. If the firearm (handgun, rifle or shotgun) is carried on or about the person, or placed in the camper where it is readily accessible to the driver or any passenger, state and local laws regarding concealed carrying of firearms may apply. It is recommended, therefore, that the firearm be transported unloaded, cased, and placed in a locked rear compartment of the camper or mobile home, inaccessible to the driver or passenger.

Generally, a mobile home is considered a home if it is not attached to a towing vehicle, is permanently attached to utilities or placed on blocks or in such a manner that it cannot immediately be started up and used as a vehicle.

I may be wrong, but I believe it has been ruled that a motor home, due to the fact that it is motorized and can leave the scene, is not afforded the same protections as a private residence or--as above--a permanently installed mobile home.

ILLINOIS--A nonresident is permitted to transport a firearm provided it is unloaded, enclosed in a case, and not easily accessible. A nonresident may possess a firearm for licensed hunting, or at a Department of Law Enforcement recognized target shooting range or gun show.

K

Jeff White
June 20, 2007, 01:37 AM
the pistol, while loaded, was described as being locked in a safe. He certainly could have been arrested, but looks to me like he'd have a good case against the officer.

Nope a loaded gun in a vehicle is prohibited in Illinois period. It doesn't matter if it's not accessible, it can't be loaded. He could have had a loaded speedloader in the safe with the revolver and that would have been fine, but loaded is a violation.

The easiest way around the situation was not to let the officer in.

What about the fact that it was an RV? Does that change things as some people claim an RV as their primary residence.

I honestly don't know. I'll ask the states attorney next time I see him what he thinks. Maybe isp2605 knows. I would think that since a person is only allowed to carry at his fixed place of business in Illinois, the legislature clearly intended to prohibit weapons in moving vehicles. You might have that argument if the RV was tied down in a campground.

I was told that if you allow the police into your home for purposes other than a search they are given less leeway when it comes to searching for evidence and discovery.

Who told you that? When an officer enters a dwelling or a vehicle and sees contraband in plain view then he can seize that contraband without a warrant. If he's in a home, the home is secured and the contraband found is used in the affidavit to request a search warrant for the rest of the dwelling. It's the same thing when you are serving a search warrant and you discover something that's not listed on the warrant. You stop and get a warrant to look for more of the things discovered. An example would be you are looking for stolen property and you open the door to the attic room and find an indoor growing operation. The warrant you have doesn't authorize you to look for an indoor growing operation. So if you want any additional evidence you of marijuana production recover besides the indoor growing operation in plain sight to be admissible, you have to get a new warrant. At least that's how we do it in this county.

Jeff

meef
June 20, 2007, 01:40 AM
I opened the door. The officer said it's cold may I come in?:uhoh: yep.... uh-oh...

At the time I saw no reason not to let him in, I had nothing to hide, so I let him in.And that was your mistake, as others have pointed out.

What you obviously failed to realize is that by letting him in and out of the cold, you fell under the jurisdiction of the universal doctrine of "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished".

And as we all know, ignorance of the above law is no excuse.

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 08:26 AM
Jeff White: What I meant to say was that if I let the officer in and there is nothing in plainview the officer does not have the right to open drawers or closets etc. It is not consent to a search. Just what is in plainview.

gunsmith
June 20, 2007, 08:47 AM
you would be looking at a year in prison, Rikers Island to be exact.
you were lucky to get away with broken cabinets!

It is laws like those that keep me out of occupied states!

I wish we had a National Law or something like the Bill Of Rights that we could rely on to enumerate our rights.

SWMAN
June 20, 2007, 09:09 AM
Most working people just minding their own business traveling interstate don't like being pulled over by the police even if its their own fault, but okay, they violated a minor traffic law. Give'em a ticket or warning. But, then being harrassed by needless nonsense, like a drug search, because they had told the LEO that they had no weapons he should worry about, and he later finds they have a couple firearms on board in an RV is a bit much. Why?

What about the LEO lying to the occupants about being cold and could he come into the RV and start a search and seizure w/o obtaining a warrant? Or is the fact that the LEO was first told there were no weapons aboard that he need worry about, later justification for the search & seizure w/o a warrant?

The LEO lied to the RV people to gain access to the RV w/o a warrant and the gun owner tells the LEO that he shouldn't worry about any weapons. Then, during the course of the search, they break all the cabinet latches in the RV so, only the LEO has a right to be mad? I don't think so! I'd be d___ mad too!

LEOs have a higher standard to maintain than do ordinary citizens. When police don't play by the rules, but use "tricks" to "entrap" then I don't think much of them or their methods.

jeepmor
June 20, 2007, 09:21 AM
Herzlich willkommen in Illinois, Papiere bitte
Welcome to Illinois, papers please

Note to self - Illinois, NY, NJ and California will never be vacation destinations for me. I don't want to contribute to the police states.

Mannix
June 20, 2007, 09:28 AM
Bad moves:

#1 Having the gun loaded knowing you're going to be crossing state borders without knowing the laws of the states you will be traveling through.

#2 Crossing the border into Illinois (with a loaded firearm in your vehicle).

#3 Letting the officer in.

By Illinois law you committed a felony. If the officer had busted you on it, and you subsequently got convicted, right now you would not be able to legally own a firearm.

Count yourself lucky that you got away with some broken latches and a repair order. Next time either stick to states with better laws, or take advantage of the protection provided by federal law by keeping it unloaded and locked in a container separate from ammunition.

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 09:40 AM
Gunsmith: What is this "Bill of Rights" thing you speak of? In Illinois we just do what the politicans tell us or they will send the police out to teach us how to behave. Didn't you read the thread about Kotowski doing that to the peasants who questioned his voting on some recent gun bills?

But please elaborate more on this "Bill of Rights" thing. Would it give us protections from the government? Would it allow us to keep and bear arms? Sometimes my grandad would tell us about when he was growing up in a country called the United States of America, and people there were allowed to carry guns to protect themselves!!! Its hard to imagine people carrying guns here in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois. Herr Daley, Marshall Blagovich, and Prime Minister Lisa Maddigan would send out the ISP (they are a LE agency here) to stop us as guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Well I must go hide, the Party members need me to work 12 hours todays so that I can be taxed to fund their bodyguards salary.

Cheers.

Tecumseh

isp2605
June 20, 2007, 10:00 AM
Quote:
What about the fact that it was an RV? Does that change things as some people claim an RV as their primary residence.

I honestly don't know. I'll ask the states attorney next time I see him what he thinks. Maybe isp2605 knows.
When the RV is moving down the road it's a vehicle, not a residence. We've had several drug cases where the courts have ruled as such. There was also a USSC court saying as much also. I no longer have that cite but they referred to the Carroll case.

Wayne G.
June 20, 2007, 10:04 AM
It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback here. Looking at all the facts as you've laid them out, I can clearly see what action I should take if I found myself in your predicament, thanks to your experience. I feel that I'm better equipped to handle that situation should I ever find myself in it.

Nothing wrong with keeping our executive branch in check and making the system work as it was supposed to by ensuring that proper channels are followed in the execution of searches. Point well received. Thanks for sharing your experience.

jke456
June 20, 2007, 10:34 AM
You got a break...a big one...

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

You shouldn't have let the officer on board. And you really shouldn't have lied about guns.

This:

Quote:
I opened the cylinder and ejected the bullets and handed it to him still open.

Equals this:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...ode+of+1961%2E

Quote:
(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)
(Text of Section from P.A. 94‑72)
Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or carries any bludgeon, black‑jack, slung‑shot, sand‑club, sand‑bag, metal knuckles, throwing star, or any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material or compressed gas; or
(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife, razor, stiletto, broken bottle or other piece of glass, stun gun or taser or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character; or
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any vehicle, a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non‑lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older; or
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed
on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or

The provision about possessing a firearm owners identification card doesn't apply to nonresidents.

So instead of sitting in jail on felony UUW charges, you were given your firearms back, a repair order for a broken tail light and sent on your way, and you have the audacity to complain about it?

The Firearm Owners Protection Act under federal law doesn't protect you carrying a loaded gun interstate. You didn't check on the laws regarding carrying and possession of firearms in the states you were traveling in, you operated a vehicle that was not legal (inoperable lights). It seems like the lick is on you and you should be thanking the officers of whatever department you were pulled over by for using discretion and not arresting you on felony charges.

Kind of shoots the heck out of the THR myth that if you are innocently caught with a firearm by an Illinois officer you're on your way to jail doesn't it?

Jeff



Question Jeff????

Would not that the loaded pistol have been considered "(ii) are not immediately accessible; or" considering it was in a locked safe were it not?

Which means by Illinois state law he was transporting legaly.

Now by Illinois DNR laws he was transporting illegally as they require all weapons to becased and unloaded.
But I dont believe you could charge him under DNR law and make it stick for two reasons:
1. A .22 pistol is not considered a hunting weapon
2. He has no intentions of hunting in Illinois only passing through

As far as the SKS without a bolt
"(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;or"

No bolt means non funtioning which also means he didn't need to stick gun in pants leg which is not a lawful Illinois case anyway.

Jon

jke456
June 20, 2007, 10:40 AM
Nope a loaded gun in a vehicle is prohibited in Illinois period. It doesn't matter if it's not accessible, it can't be loaded. He could have had a loaded speedloader in the safe with the revolver and that would have been fine, but loaded is a violation.

The easiest way around the situation was not to let the officer in.



Jeff cite Illinois law that says this I have never seen it spelled out as plain as you are saying it is.

jon

S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
June 20, 2007, 10:47 AM
Well there's a lot of meaningful discussion here but the underlying lesson is one I've gleaned from a hundred stories like this: do not let the Police search you, your car, or your house without a warrant. Ever. Period.

Baba Louie
June 20, 2007, 10:59 AM
Note to self: Check tail-lights, turn signals, brake lights, etc before hitting the road.

exar
June 20, 2007, 11:14 AM
Well there's a lot of meaningful discussion here but the underlying lesson is one I've gleaned from a hundred stories like this: do not let the Police search you, your car, or your house without a warrant. Ever. Period.

I wish it was that easy. It can be very difficult to say no when you're being bullied by a few large men with guns. They can find literally any reason to perform a search. Everytime i've seen one of my idiot friends deny a search they just impound the vehicle and tear the carpet and seats out. The car interior is ruined after they're done.

meef
June 20, 2007, 11:18 AM
Everytime i've seen one of my idiot friends deny a search they just impound the vehicle and tear the carpet and seats out. The car interior is ruined after they're done.Every time...???

You hang with lots of people who get stopped, vehicles impounded and searched?

If this happens a lot (note, I didn't say "alot"), you need to find a new crowd.

Just my opinion.

:)

Kingcreek
June 20, 2007, 11:25 AM
I denied an IL state trooper permission to search my vehicle. While he was clearly irritated, and repeatedly asked me why I would not consent, he was professional and I was allowed to go on my way with no search, impound, ticket, or (further) harrasment.

[I have previously posted about the incident in more detail and won't repeat it here.]

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 11:26 AM
Yeah that's right the illegal search and seizure is the fault of the friends.

Jefferspn

isp2605
June 20, 2007, 11:34 AM
Question Jeff????
Would not that the loaded pistol have been considered "(ii) are not immediately accessible; or" considering it was in a locked safe were it not?
Which means by Illinois state law he was transporting legaly.
Now by Illinois DNR laws he was transporting illegally as they require all weapons to becased and unloaded.
But I dont believe you could charge him under DNR law and make it stick for two reasons:
1. A .22 pistol is not considered a hunting weapon
2. He has no intentions of hunting in Illinois only passing through

Here's where laymen who have no training in the law get into trouble.
Doesn't matter that he wasn't hunting for the Wildlife Code to apply. The IL statutes are a hodge-podge of laws and just because a law isn't listed under a certain section doesn't mean it doesn't apply. That's just the section where the legislature decided to include it. The reason for that could be many. Could be the sponsor was on that particular committee. One doesn't have to be hunting or with a hunting weapon for the Wildlife code to apply.
Jeff gave 100% accurate info. It wasn't "Jeff's opinion", he cited the statutes and case law. He's trying to keep you people out of trouble in IL by providing accurate info. Best advice is to heed what he has to say - unless of course a person enjoys the thought of spending at least 1 night in jail awaiting to see a judge.

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 12:02 PM
Guys,
Its real simple. It's Us vs.Them. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a cop or a collaborator. The Police in this country have been effective lobbying for special privileges for themselves (national carry, CCW for Corrections Officers in IL, etc.) and waivers of rights for the rest of us (Reasonable suspicion vs. 4th amendment warrants, No knock Searches, No warrant wiretaps, etc.). You made the mistake of treating the cop like a human being and it came back and bit you. Not really surprising. We are treated as criminals long before we actually get what is laughingly called due process.
Before you jump down my throat, logically point out where I am wrong. Are LEO's that are off duty and/or out of jurisdiction treat exactly the same as any other citizen, or do they get "professional courtesies" and lighter sentencing if and when they are caught breaking the law.

Jefferson

Kingcreek
June 20, 2007, 12:10 PM
Guys,
Its real simple. It's Us vs. Them
That seems a little extreme.
I'm not a cop or a "collaborator" but the LEOs that I know are regular folks with a tough job and not a lot of pay. Not really fair to lump them all together as JBTs.

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 12:21 PM
Mr. Kingcreek,

Do they stand up and speak out against the growing police powers and erosion of our basic rights? If so, good on them and I withdraw the statement as it applies to them. If not then they are part and parcel of the problem. They are just a lighter version.
Do you stand up to them against the growing police powers and erosion of our basic rights? If so then you are not a collaborator. If not then you are offering aid and comfort to the enemies of the Constitution and that is collaboration by definition.
It really is that simple.

Jefferson

geekWithA.45
June 20, 2007, 01:04 PM
RVs and the 4th Amendment

IIRC, there where a couple of cases that clarified RVs a to whether they need to be treated as homes or as vehicles.

The upshot of the cases isn't surprising.

When it's on the road, it's treated as a vehicle.

When it's parked in such a way suggesting it's at a quasi permanent resting place, it's treated as a home.

When it's ambiguous, the courts take into account things like whether the electric and sewer is hooked up to the external world, etc.

The rules about areas accessible to the driver still apply, but safety searches (which I think fall under the Terry frisk doctrine) involving opening closets and so forth are out.

RVs are not magical search proof smuggling vehicles.

pcosmar
June 20, 2007, 01:54 PM
RVs are not magical search proof smuggling vehicles.
translation;
Everyone in any vehicle is a potential smuggler.
Innocence must be proven.

geekWithA.45
June 20, 2007, 02:07 PM
Everyone in any vehicle is a potential smuggler.
Innocence must be proven.

That assertion's not well founded.

Time to go to school: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

Just say no is the soundbite, but one really has to understand things like probable cause, the plain view doctrine, Terry frisks and so on to be able to determine whether one is the subject of a fishing expedition, which is an unreasonable search, or a reasonable search, which doesn't _always_ have a warrant attached to it.

A cop who sees you holding a knife to someone does not have to get a warrant to search for a knife.

jimmyraythomason
June 20, 2007, 02:08 PM
"1. Don't let them in the door. Being friendly to cops is fine on a personal level. Not when it gets down to business. We're talking about liberty and justice, here." AMEN, brother,AMEN!

Daniel T
June 20, 2007, 02:13 PM
Jeff,

Please clarify something if you would. Illinois law says (pertinent parts bolded):

(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed
on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;or
(ii) are not immediately accessible;or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or

Is it case law that says "not immediately accessible" means unloaded? If so, then why is unloaded spelled out in section (iii) but not in (i) or (ii)?

Edit: saw isp2605's answer earlier. Apparently there's another pertinent law? Is the one I posted above just poorly written in that it includes redundant verbiage?

Kentak
June 20, 2007, 02:14 PM
Jeff,

What, really, do you think would have happened if he had denied entry to the officer. Do you have any doubt the officer would have found *some* way to conduct a search? I mean, real world stuff now, okay?

K

Im283
June 20, 2007, 02:16 PM
from my own personal experience I say do not trust the police when they are looking into your business. They are out to make arrests at most any cost.
Truth and what is moral and right really does not come into play.

I honestly cannot come up with one experience in my 49 years that was made better by a Cop being involved.

A good day is one when you do not have to speak to them or acknoweldge their existence.

Daniel T
June 20, 2007, 02:18 PM
They are out to make arrests at most any cost.

If that was true, they just would have arrested the OP instead of letting him go. How does that fit into your simple world view?

Kentak
June 20, 2007, 02:23 PM
I'm going to take a wild-ass guess and say that a hard-ass interpretation of "not immediately available" means not available to anyone without having to exit the vehicle, like in a trunk or a towed trailer.

Note that even when in a locked case, the weapon must be unloaded. So, I don't think the safe gets a pass, since it's just a big, locked case. IMO. Not saying it should be that way, but...

K

MrTuffPaws
June 20, 2007, 02:28 PM
I opened the door. The officer said it's cold may I come in?
At the time I saw no reason not to let him in, I had nothing to hide, so I let him in.

There's your problem.

pcosmar
June 20, 2007, 02:28 PM
A cop who sees you holding a knife to someone does not have to get a warrant to search for a knife.
True, but if he sees you holding a knife to a loaf of bread, there is no reason to assume you are doing anything but having lunch.

IV - Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
IF the stop was for a signal light, there is NO reason to enter the vehicle.
There is no reason to do anything but speak to the driver about the signal.
Anything else is fishing.

CountGlockula
June 20, 2007, 02:30 PM
Lesson to be learned:
Even though you're groggy, unfocused and tired from a long drive in an RV, NEVER lie to a cop.

That's one thing that they hate: Lies. Just be fully focused when a cop comes around. Don't be nervous and don't expect the worse. Be calm and collected.

Glad you came out OK, but next time tell them the truth.

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 02:50 PM
The word lie means the intent to decieve I think that the intent is lacking here. The weapons had nothing to do with the taillight and were none of the cop's damn business.
The true moral of the story is never treat a cop like a human being. He will just see it as weakness and try to use it against you.

Jefferson

F4GIB
June 20, 2007, 03:00 PM
Once in a great while a citizen wins on the lack of voluntary consent isue.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8D2161BA6DCC0E0882572FE0076991D/$file/0630386.pdf?openelement

CountGlockula
June 20, 2007, 03:01 PM
OK.

Most people, myself included don't like to be put on the spot or be questioned. It is tough for some to prepare themselves when the situation arises. ESPECIALLY when a form of authority come to play. And it seems that a lot of us are not humble enough to obey the authorities. But one thing for sure....

It's their job to question.

And treating a law enforcement officer...who has volunteered to sacrifice their time, effort and family to be trained (academy, self-defense, firearms, memorize state laws, psychological exams, background check, and graduate)...and become a full fledged professional to take his own life from the worst of the worst and even the innocent....as a non-human being is just a way to label them as the "enemy".

People, we need to appreciate the human effort and ride things out. It seems a lot of us are crying over spilled milk. "Oh, the cop came in my home destroyed everything, questioned me and my family, treated me like a criminal, etc." Boo-hoo. Cowboy up and be responsible for your mistakes. Stop blaming others or the "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Bring it on.

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Count Glocukla:

OK.

Most people, myself included don't like to be put on the spot or be questioned. It is tough for some to prepare themselves when the situation arises. ESPECIALLY when a form of authority come to play. And it seems that a lot of us are not humble enough to obey the authorities. But one thing for sure....

It's their job to question.

And treating a law enforcement officer...who has volunteered to sacrifice their time, effort and family to be trained (academy, self-defense, firearms, memorize state laws, psychological exams, background check, and graduate)...and become a full fledged professional to take his own life from the worst of the worst and even the innocent....as a non-human being is just a way to label them as the "enemy".

People, we need to appreciate the human effort and ride things out. It seems a lot of us are crying over spilled milk. "Oh, the cop came in my home destroyed everything, questioned me and my family, treated me like a criminal, etc." Boo-hoo. Cowboy up and be responsible for your mistakes. Stop blaming others or the "Us vs. Them" mentality.

Bring it on. Yes we are not humble. He allowed the officer to come into his home for the health and safety of the officer and the officer took advantage of that.

I understand it is their job to question us. Just as it is my job as a citizen to make sure the government and its agents do not abuse us or violate our rights.

You make LEOs sound like some noble knights in shining armor who will protect us poor townsfolk from the barbarian hill people and dragons. This volunteer service they do, are they getting paid? What about retirement and pension?

Yes so the cops came into your home and destroyed it because the law they are enforcing is poorly written and not very clear. Nor did the original poster lie to the officer when he said he did not have any guns the officer had to worry about. So we should allow police to come into our homes and destroy them because we made a small mistake? Or we did not understand a poorly written law? If so then what happens when they dont enforce the law in a correct manner or make mistakes?

So far the only crime the original poster is guilty of is having a broken taillight. Good thing 6 squad cars came out and stopped those criminals. I am sure all of us in Illinois are much safer to the heroic men and women of Law Enforcement for this bang up job.

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 03:33 PM
It's their job to question. No its not. Their job is to investigate and punish after a crime. Any precrime actions are a violation of the very basic presumption of innocence.
as a non-human being is just a way to label them as the "enemy".They are the enforcement arm of those who work hard every day to strip us of our basic rights. That makes them a domestic enemy of the constitution.
Are you LAPD?
If you are clean up your own damn house before you presume to dictate to others.

Jefferson

oobray
June 20, 2007, 03:33 PM
Ok, everyone on here that thinks the police did anything wrong, is being very unrealistic. The officer stopped the vehicle on a traffic violation. (Does anyone think that non-working tail lights are not traffic violations? If you do your'e wrong because I do not want to rear end someone because thier tail lights don't work). Then the officer asked permission to enter the VEHICLE. A vehicle is defined as any motorvehicle that can readily be moved. Obviously since you were traveling the the RV is defined as a vehicle, not a home. To which vehicles are subject to easier search criteria (I'll get to that in a second). If you allow an LEO to enter the vehicle (regardless of the stated reason) the officer has the right to sieze anything in plain view, or use anything you say about things that are in plain view against you to develop reasonable suspicion and or probable cause. Thus, the fact that you lied to him about any weapons being present would constitute reasonsable suspicion.

Here's the deal. The famous Terry vs Ohio case stated that LEO's can conduct a "frisk" of a person, (and this has been interpreted to include vehicles that are readily movable) if the officer has articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion to believe that a weapon exists on thier person, or in the vehicle. This officer I definately believe had reasonable suspicion after the revolver was produced after the occupant lied about it's presence. However, I would believe that the officer probably had reasonable suspicion after he was told no weapons existed, and then observed a knife above the visor.
Ok, so a frisk of a vehicle is defined as a search of the passenger compartment anywhere a weapons could reasonably be, as well as any unlocked containers. So here's what I think happened.

1. LEO lawfully pulls over RV for traffic violation
2. LEO asks for permission to enter vehicle.
3. LEO observes weapons (or items that could be reasonably used as such)
4. LEO asks if any more weapons are present
5. LEO is lied to
6. LEO again asks if anymore weapons are present (being more specific to include firearms)
7. Low and behold the occupant states that he has a .22
8. LEO ASKS if the occupant can retrieve the .22 (occupant did not have to comply)
9. Based upon the fact that the occupant was being evasive or outright lying, the LEO at this point had reasonable suspicion to believe that more weapons are present in the vehicle and might pose a danger to him.
10. Based upon this the LEO orders all occupants outside in order to conduct a "frisk" of the vehicle, in which he finds yet another weapons, which was lied about.
11. LEO now has probabl cause to search the ENTIRE vehicle.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for the poster, he allowed the officer in his vehicle, then lied about the presence of weapons. I think I would have done the same thing if I were the LEO

oobray
June 20, 2007, 03:36 PM
Ok, everyone on here that thinks the police did anything wrong, is being very unrealistic.
The officer stopped the vehicle on a traffic violation. (Does anyone think that non-working tail lights are not traffic violations? If you do you're wrong because I do not want to rear end someone because thier tail lights don't work).
Then the officer asked permission to enter the VEHICLE. A vehicle is defined as any motorvehicle that can readily be moved. Obviously since you were traveling, the the RV is defined as a vehicle, not a home. To which vehicles are subject to easier search criteria.
If you allow an LEO to enter the vehicle (regardless of the stated reason) the officer has the right to sieze anything in plain view, or use anything you say about things that are in plain view against you to develop reasonable suspicion and or probable cause. Thus, the fact that you lied to him about any weapons being present would constitute reasonsable suspicion.

Here's the deal. The famous Terry vs Ohio case stated that LEO's can conduct a "frisk" of a person, (and this has been interpreted to include vehicles that are readily movable) if the officer has articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion to believe that a weapon exists on thier person, or in the vehicle. This officer I definately believe had reasonable suspicion after the revolver was produced after the occupant lied about it's presence. However, I would believe that the officer probably had reasonable suspicion after he was told no weapons existed, and then observed a knife above the visor.
Ok, so a frisk of a vehicle is defined as a search of the passenger compartment anywhere a weapons could reasonably be, as well as any unlocked containers. So here's what I think happened.

1. LEO lawfully pulls over RV for traffic violation
2. LEO asks for permission to enter vehicle.
3. LEO observes weapons (or items that could be reasonably used as such)
4. LEO asks if any more weapons are present
5. LEO is lied to
6. LEO again asks if anymore weapons are present (being more specific to include firearms)
7. Low and behold the occupant states that he has a .22
8. LEO ASKS if the occupant can retrieve the .22 (occupant did not have to comply)
9. Based upon the fact that the occupant was being evasive or outright lying, the LEO at this point had reasonable suspicion to believe that more weapons are present in the vehicle and might pose a danger to him.
10. Based upon this the LEO orders all occupants outside in order to conduct a "frisk" of the vehicle, in which he finds yet another weapons, which was lied about.
11. LEO now has probabl cause to search the ENTIRE vehicle.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for the poster, he allowed the officer in his vehicle, then lied about the presence of weapons. I think I would have done the same thing if I were the LEO

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 03:37 PM
Remember the LEO asked permission to enter because it was cold outside. He did not ask permission to enter for other purposes. I believe that the LEO should have asked permission to search. Having a knife in a mobile home or camper does not seem strange to me. But it was used by the officer as a reason to search the vehicle for other weapons.

TallPine
June 20, 2007, 03:39 PM
I'm still confused ... just what is so suspicious about an RV with a bad tail light...?

Is this standard procedure now to demand entry to an RV rather than just speak with the driver?

"Just because they can" is not an adequate answer :(

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 03:40 PM
Notice it says he saw kitchen knives and then the cop saw the buck knife. Because a buck knife and kitch knives are unusual things to have in a mobile home or camper.

Don Gwinn
June 20, 2007, 03:41 PM
[quote]Its real simple. It's Us vs.Them.[/qujote]
Based on your definition of "us" and "them," I'm not sure where that leaves me. I'm not a police officer, so I guess I can't be a "them." And frankly I don't want to be part of "us" if "us" means I have to behave the way a lot of "us" have on this board lately.

Do you have a handy label for a citizen who's grateful for all the good cops do in this world and also insists on his sovereign rights as a citizen?

Autolycus
June 20, 2007, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Don Gwinn:
Do you have a handy label for a citizen who's grateful for all the good cops do in this world and also insists on his sovereign rights as a citizen?

An American is what I would call that citizen.

TallPine
June 20, 2007, 03:52 PM
Do you have a handy label for a citizen who's grateful for all the good cops do in this world and also insists on his sovereign rights as a citizen?

"Suspect" ...? :D

Honestly, the fact that I have had mostly good experiences with cops over the past five decades makes incidents like this seem doubly horrifying. :(

That, and the fact that I might not even be here today if it wasn't for long long ago a loaded gun was carried in an "RV" type vehicle.

Nil
June 20, 2007, 03:52 PM
Another situation that could have been averted by declining the officer's request to look around.

oobray
June 20, 2007, 03:53 PM
tecumseh, and tallpine,

The mere fact that kitchen knives, and a buck knife was in the vehicle doesn't give the LEO suspicion. It's the fact that they were lied about!! If the occupant lied about those two things, what else was he lying about. Well, hmm, he was lying about a handgun in the car. Well, wait a second, he was lying about a rifle in the car also!! Notice the officer did NOT ask, "Sir are there any weapons in here, either assembled or disassembled, or loaded or unloaded, or locked or unlocked." No, the LEO asked if there were any WEAPONS. To which the answer should have been, "yes, there is a knife on the visor, a revolver locked in a case and a non-working rifle under the bed. I'm sorry, but if I was the officer, and I was continually being lied to and then finding items that definately posed a danger to me, I would "frisk" (<-- which is different than search) the vehicle also. Then, based upon what is found/not found during the frisk can establish probable cause to do a detailed search.
Keep in mind that your 5th ammenment right to remain silent doesn't mean you have a right to lie or "mis-represent" yourself to the police. The occupant could have terminated his consent at anytime and told the officer to leave. And the bottom line, is that the job of the police is to find criminals. If you give them the opportunity they are going to look for evidence of criminal activity, or evidence that you pose a danger to them. Just as everyone on this forum regards strangers as a potential threat until proven otherwise, the LEO definately look at anyone as a potential threat until proven otherwise. And the fact that the occupant continually lied about the presence of a weapon definately gives the LEO reason to believe that the occupant poses a danger!!!!

Mumwaldee
June 20, 2007, 03:54 PM
I'm not sure when this took place, but do agencies train their officers to do this? Wouldn't it be foolish to step inside a multi-occupant RV OUT of the view of dashboard camera without backup?

He sounded like a young over-zealous eager beaver. He's (the LEO) is lucky he ran into Joe Schmo and not a pack of smugglers or he would most likely not be with us any longer.

I think he instigated this. If he knocks on the door and you tell him to go to the driver's window...doesn't he now have enough suspicion to give him cause to search?

I wonder how we're supposed to talk to LEOs without sounding smarmy or indignant. I need a RP voice for dealing with these situations. "I need you to step around to the driver's window officer...I think that's reasonable."

Scorpiusdeus
June 20, 2007, 03:56 PM
Drama, Paranoia, guns, cops, cars, and women.

What a film we could make.

While I generally agree that allowing a search of your person or vehicle is not required and a clear exercising of your rights, I wouldn't browbeat the original poster too much.

Some here among us are obviously paranoid in the extreme.

As this story illustrates the officers did not try and frame you, or punish you for anything you didn't do.

You were inconvenienced because when asked a direct question you gave a somewhat evasive, though accurate answer.

Scenario: the officer asked the question about the weapons, took you for your word, he returns to his unit to wrote th cite, you grab the gun and shoot him upon his return.

What this boils down to is that he wants to be the judge of what concerns him. The guy just wants to go home at the end of the shift.

I always wonder about people who are so afraid and defiant of the police.

CountGlockula
June 20, 2007, 03:56 PM
I like to see both views of discussion. I feel that it enables me to see the "Bigger picture" and not be so narrow minded...that's why I enjoy this forum.

Yes we are not humble. He allowed the officer to come into his home for the health and safety of the officer and the officer took advantage of that.

I'm glad you admit to your pride. Again, we see it as "THEM" taking advantage. To "THEM" it's an opportunity to prevent a crime.

I understand it is their job to question us. Just as it is my job as a citizen to make sure the government and its agents do not abuse us or violate our rights.

Good for you and I highly agree.

You make LEOs sound like some noble knights in shining armor who will protect us poor townsfolk from the barbarian hill people and dragons.

Believe me, I've had my share of "bad" cops. More like someone doing their job and other's not allowing them to do it. It's comes in both ways my friend.

So far the only crime the original poster is guilty of is having a broken taillight.

...and neglecting that he had weapons in the vehicle. Is that a crime? No, but at least the situation didn't turn out deadly. More like a personal crime of forgetfulness.

oobray
June 20, 2007, 04:02 PM
Mumwaldee,

No, that would NOT constitute reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle. First of all, an officer has to have probable cause to search the vehicle. He can do a "frisk" which I have defined previously, based upon reasonable suspicion. Later in court, or to the DA the LEO is going to have to give articulable facts that led the reasonable suspicion/probable cause. The denail of consent cannot be legally used as an articulable fact.

jselvy
June 20, 2007, 04:14 PM
I stand by my statements.
By being hospitable he was subjected to an unwarranted search predicated on his possession of kitchen utensils. If there is a kitchen there must be utensils.
I have no beefs with the cops that are on the up and up and do their jobs honorably and well. But they are a vanishing breed. Downright endangered species.
Every cop and I mean every cop that does not make a loud, public stand up to and including resignation when the unions and fraternal orders lobby for expanded powers is a criminal in violation of the U.S. Constitution and their own oath of office. The officers that follow unconstitutional orders are not by definition good cops.
I am weary of being told to kneel for my own good. This kind of attitude has led to the rampant abuse of power so prevalent among the law enforcement community.
I don't have to answer any nosy question from anybody, especially not my employees. And that's what cops are, my employees as long as my money is taken from me with menaces to pay their salary.
The Cops still haven't answered what a burnt taillight has to do with kitchen knives.
Read the sig.

Jefferson

High Planes Drifter
June 20, 2007, 04:22 PM
Well, this thread was certainly taught me not to voluntarily submit to a vehicle search.

ArfinGreebly
June 20, 2007, 04:24 PM
I wish we had a National Law or something like the Bill Of Rights that we could rely on to enumerate our rights.
Funny.

There's a fine example of irony.

I really can't improve on it.

Now . . .

Back to the original scenario: what happens if the occupant, in response to the "it's cold, may I come in" question says, "oh, sorry officer, just a sec, I'll get a coat on and join you out there; we can sit in your car if it's cold."

"Is there some reason I shouldn't come in?"
"The place is a mess, the missus is sleeping, and I'm sure you didn't pull us over to discuss housekeeping. Wait right there."
"Why did you come out instead of letting me in?"
"Officer, you're right, it's cold out here. What can I help you with? Do I have a flat tire?"

And so on.

I'm sure LEO training makes them nosy. I'm fine with that.

The problem, in reality, is found in that Ayn Rand quote about making so many things a crime that you can't help but break the law.

You're not trying to break the law, but no particular effort is required for that to happen.

Odds are, the more time and exposure you allow, the more likely you will fall afoul of something obscure in the Revised Statutes or Penal Code, and off you go.

In the instance being discussed, I would say our OP caught something of a break.

It's not a case of "OMG cops are SO BAD" but more a case of "you can't live your life without some kind of transgression."

And, from the viewpoint of the law, it don't much matter if the transgression is intentional. "Ignorance of the law" and all that.

I carry a knife in my car. It's a tool. I never go anywhere without it. I'm sure there's some statute somewhere that could be construed such that I'm "concealing a weapon." However, if asked about the "weapon" my response would be along the lines of "you mean 'tool', don't you?"

I don't maintain an adversarial relationship with the police.

I also don't offer them any more opportunities for "revenue" than I have to.

A job like that would suck, and I'm glad I don't work in that field.

Even so, it's hard for me to muster excessive sympathy for someone whose job it is to "catch me breaking the rules."

"That's okay, officer, I'll join you outside; wait right there."

Mumwaldee
June 20, 2007, 04:25 PM
Anyone got a lead on "COME BACK WITH A WARRANT" welcome mats?

Sergeant Sabre
June 20, 2007, 04:45 PM
Perhaps this has been addressed, but I feel compelled to throw my thoughts in:

1. I should have not let the first officer in. Doing so gave all the other officers permission to enter as well.

No it didn't.

The RV was my home. Anything in the driver area forward of the seats is fair game for the most part. Anything behind the front seats is your home and they have no right to enter without a search warrant...

Not according to the US Supreme Court.


2. I should have directed the officer to the drivers door.

Ya, maybe.

3. People younger than sixty five driving RV's are highly suspicious.

Possibly. In the absence of any other "oddities", I wouldn't think they were that suspicious.

So again in summary, Never let a LEO in your RV without a warrant.

You probably won't be pleased with how things go if you try that.

Twenty latches were destroyed at $12 Bucks each to replace.

I should have probably filed a complaint but didn't.

Yes, you should have.

They may have had every legal authority to do what they did. In Michigan, the handgun would have been a felony. As another poster has pointed out, you violated the law in Illinois with the handgun, also. A weapon in the vehicle, illegally transported / stowed, is prima facie evidence of a crime. That establishes probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime exists within the RV. That gives them the authority to search.

I'd say you were given a big break. I know you don't think you said there were no weapons in the car. You did, though. You tried to play cute little word-games and mental gymnastics with the officer. So, you said there were no weapons in the RV, then they found some. As the peace officer that I am, I'd be more than a little upset at you in that situation, also.

from my own personal experience I say do not trust the police when they are looking into your business. They are out to make arrests at most any cost.
Truth and what is moral and right really does not come into play.

So you were breaking the law and thought no cop could ever catch you. One did. Now you're mad about it. Happens all the time.

anotherKevin
June 20, 2007, 05:47 PM
"Oh, the cop came in my home destroyed everything, questioned me and my family, treated me like a criminal, etc." Boo-hoo.

I have plenty of respect, as I'm sure you do, for LEO's and other authorities, but I haven't dropped this low. You might want to take a break and visit the USA periodically to get other perspectives.

pcosmar
June 20, 2007, 06:01 PM
This is exactly why we need to get rid of these stupid laws.
And then the people who enforce them.

BBQJOE
June 20, 2007, 06:13 PM
Wow!

I knew there would be a little stir from this post, especially since it crosses a lot of different issues, but the response I found amazing. I was hoping to enlighten some about what I learned, and ended up myself learning even more!
Let me try to clarify a few issues.

First, I was very unaware ( at the time) of all the gun laws and how they vary so greatly from state to state. Total stupidity on my part.
No argument, period.

I am now much more aware of gun laws and the law itself since obtaining my CCW a few years ago.

As I stated in the OP, I traveled sometimes three months at a time. My home is in the boonies and could easily be burglarized and I didn't wish for some theif to break in and steal my then precious few guns, so I kept them with me.

We traveled to many big cities, as well to many out of the way urban types of areas. Sometimes we would spend days on a project, camping out in parking lots alone by ourselves and available to anyone who may wish to whack us for one reason or another.

I knew the SKS was a questionable firearm, and that is why I kept it disassembled. Although it would be the most practical one to have on hand for an attack.
I did keep the .22 loaded, because in reality what good is an unloaded gun when it is needed? Granted, retrieving from a safe in dire need is almost as good as not having one at all, but nontheless it was there.

So much for the gun issue for now.

I clearly stated in the OP that MY biggest mistake was letting him in. And some here must have missed that or just enjoyed pointing out the obvious.

In my mind, I felt I posed no threat to the officer because I really did have nothing to hide and wasn't involved with doing anything illegal. Except being the owner of a vehicle with a burned out bulb.

He looked at the kitchen knives on the wall, and thought of them as weapons.
As far as the buck knife goes, I have no idea why my driver was stowing it there, but I guess I thought it kind of ridiculous when he saw the knives as a threat or mostly as weapons.
I never ever thought of them as that so it struck me as odd.
Especially since just about everything in an RV could be used as a weapon.

I had a fire extinguisher I could have easily grabbed off the wall and clonked him on the head with well before he had a chance to grab his sidearm.
I could have easily whacked him with the cutting board next to the sink.
Heck, for that matter I could have kicked him in the crotch well before he had a chance to defend himself.

Now on the other side of the coin I realize that the officer has no idea who I am or whether I pose a threat to him or not, and he is best to presume I am a threat right off the bat in order to protect himself in case I am.
The thought about my firearms at that point really did not cross my mind heavily because one was disassembled, and the other was locked away.

My intent when asked about other weapons, was to diffuse any thought he may have had concerning his safety or well being and to let him know I was not a threat and meant him no harm.
I was not trying to be smart, nor was I trying to be evasive or lie at that time.

When the second officer asked specifically about guns, I felt somehow more intimidated by him and told him of the .22.
Upon seeing their response over the .22 I did become scared over the fact I had the SKS and what they might think if I produced it.
So yes at that point I did lie about having any other guns, and in hindsight I should have been honest, but believe me, with all the squad cars arriving I was scared poopless to say the least, even though I thought I was not guilty of any major infraction of the law.

After reading the responses here I am still not sure whether or not I was improperly transporting the firearms or was guilty of criminal negligence.
(Obviously in some states I was well beyond being a criminal)
And in hindsight I could easily have been shot when I produced the firearm and I guess I am lucky for that or the officers reasonable awareness that I had no intent upon using it against him.

My original intent of the Op was to shed a little light on RV owners and what can happen if you allow LE into your vehicle/home, and give them a warning, and maybe some info as well as far as what not to do.

I did not post to cry, whine, or complain.
I did what I did, got what I got, and didn't get what I see I might have gotten.

I am a much wiser man from the experience, and I hope some of you are now too.

Don Gwinn
June 20, 2007, 06:35 PM
Illinois' gun laws are not terribly clear and are made more unclear by the fact that a lot of people have tried to muddy them further.

The thing is, I've always believed that the law means what it says--that there are three ways to transport a firearm legally in your vehicle, and by doing any one of those ways, you may comply with the law. The second way is to have the gun "inaccessible." It doesn't say "Inaccessible and unloaded" or "inaccessible and encased." It just says inaccessible.

Now, I can't tell you that some judge somewhere didn't effectively change this by accepting some prosecutor's argument that "inaccessible" still requires that the gun be unloaded, but I don't see where it says that in the law.

The problem as raised before is that "inaccessible" itself is kind of a murky term. If you can grab the gun without having to stop the vehicle and go somewhere else, Illinois law considers it accessible. If it takes a little more effort to get to it, you might be able to argue the point, but I wouldn't expect to succeed. If it's in the RV and so are you, it's probably considered "accessible."

The SKS was broken down, which would be legal with a FOID even if it were accessible, but for you . . .

On the other hand, I think the humor of the officer's legal advice was lost on some of us as we debated whether to have a civil war. Put your rifle in the leg of a pair of blue jeans? Huh?
That ain't gonna be considered a case . . . . and as you say, when the next guy pulls you over and finds that you have a stripped rifle hidden in a pair of jeans, he's going to wonder which mafia family you work for.

oobray
June 20, 2007, 07:39 PM
jslevy,
he [the original poster] was subjected to an unwarranted search predicated on his possession of kitchen utensils.

WRONG!!! The original poster was subject to a vehicle frisk, due to the evasive nature in which he answered REASONABLE questions by the LEO. If I were an LEO and I entered an RV, or home, I would definately take notice of anything that might be used to cause me harm. If I found somehthing readily accessable, I would also inquire as to whether or not there were any other items readily accessable that could cause me harm.
Whether or not you want to believe it, a kitchen knife IS A WEAPON!!! However, the OP was not searched due to possession of these kitchen knives. HE WAS SEARCHED BECAUSE HE WAS EVASIVE, AND OUTRIGHT LIED!!!!!

BBQJOE,
I truly thank you for posting this, I think that it was very educational for most people, and I really like getting to apply laws and legal practice to real life scenarios. I'm glad that you were lucky, and the LEO was nice to you and didn't get you for the illegal transporting of weapons, which we all agree he could have. I think this even proves further that this particular LEO was not deliberately out to harm, or entrap you. Lesson learned, never allow an LEO to enter your personal space, EVER!! I don't care if you're not doing anything illegal. As we all can see, seemingly innocent actions can be seen totally differently by the law.
Glad, things worked out for you BBQJOE.

TallPine
June 20, 2007, 11:51 PM
If the stopping officer was so concerned about his safety and possible weapons in the RV, why did he even go inside in the first place? Seems a lot safer to address the unsafe vehicle (tail-light) issue from outside just like a normal traffic stop.

I've had misc contact with law enforcement over the years, but I've never experienced that kind of paranoia from them. I've even had guns drawn on me, but that was a case of mistaken identity that was immediately defused when they saw who I was (not). Just another little exciting story that is funny looking back on it.

I haven't been stopped in over 25 years now, but I guess if I am ever stopped in my work/ranch pickup and asked about "weapons" I will need to spend about 30 minutes reciting every possible implement that might be used for harm: ax, shovel, chainsaw, jack handle, wrenches, screwdrivers, broom, blocks of wood, tire chains, log chains ... etc etc etc .... ;)

Though I suppose the rifle in the rear window rack would be a dead giveaway :rolleyes:

Jeff
June 21, 2007, 12:51 AM
Whether or not you want to believe it, a kitchen knife IS A WEAPON!!!

WRONG. A kitchen knife is a tool.

A kitchen knife is not designed to kill or maim another living creature, and unless the kitchen knife in question was used previously in such an act, it cannot be classified as a weapon. Anyone who tries to do so is behaving irrationally or dishonestly.

If I were an LEO and I entered an RV, or home, I would definately take notice of anything that might be used to cause me harm.

For crying out loud, that could be ANYTHING. As soon as you enter a stanger's domicile, you will be surrounded by numerous objects that might be used against you.

Question is, why are so many officers so damn eager to do such things if they think that everything around them is a weapon? In this particular case, the officer could have approached the driver and asked for the three pieces of documentation, as should have been expected.

His approach seemed a little over-zealous.

sig228
June 21, 2007, 01:25 AM
Anyone got a lead on "COME BACK WITH A WARRANT" welcome mats

go to target.com and serrch for "warrant mat"

scout26
June 21, 2007, 01:29 AM
Mrs Scout said "No" to the "Come back with a Warrant" doormat, but I got a "maybe" on the "Grow Dammit" garden stone.

Kentak
June 21, 2007, 01:53 AM
WRONG. A kitchen knife is a tool.

Be that as it may, I think you will find that, legally, a knife, whether a chef's knife or a USMC KaBar knife, is considered a deadly weapon. Often, in law, a blade length of 3 inches or so is the defining characteristic.

Suppose you and the wife are watching TV late one night and hear the sound of breaking glass. You go to the kitchen to find an intruder stealing your toaster. You confront him, and he grabs your prized Henckels chefs knife and raises it menacingly. Your wife screams, "OMG, he has a weapon!" You reply, "Don't worry, honey. It's only a kitchen tool. I think he means to prepare us a meal."

Later, in court, the intruder's attorney says, "Your Honor, I move to dismiss the charge of assault with a deadly weapon, since, as you can see (holding up your Henckel), this knife is a tool."

Get my drift? ;)

Gordon Fink
June 21, 2007, 03:24 AM
[W]hy are so many officers so damn eager to do such things if they think that everything around them is a weapon?

They think they’re going to make drug busts. All the vehicle “frisks” and concern for “weapons” are means to slip around the Fourth Amendment.

~G. Fink

silverlance
June 21, 2007, 03:57 AM
a major problem in this in situation that no one else has discussed is the wording of the officer's question. He said, IIRC, "Are there any weapons in this RV?"

Now if someone asks me if I have any weapons in my car, I would hesitate. I have a swiss army pocketknife. Is that a weapon? I have a tire iron on my backseat. Is that a weapon? i have surgical scalpels in my medikit. are those all weapons? how about the tent stakes? Mom's knitting needles?

when i was stopped, the officer asked me, "Are there any FIREARMS in the car?"

That's MUCH more concise than "weapons", which is VERY difficult to quantify (and would cause problems if you asked the officer to be more specific)

Kentak
June 21, 2007, 09:05 AM
This discussion has gotten me thinking about the folding knife I keep in my center console (just under 3 inch blade). Anyone know Ohio law about that?

K

jselvy
June 21, 2007, 09:12 AM
Back when I was working on the RenFair cicuit we would have scared the life out any cop that asked us if we had weapons in the RV.
We regularly carried:
200 Footmen's pikes
60 Broadswords
300+ Broadhead arrow
4 Longbows
50+ Daggers of every description
14 maces

and a plethora of other medieval hardware that I can't remember.
I wonder how they would have reacted.

Jefferson

Thin Black Line
June 21, 2007, 10:07 AM
Years ago I had a friend pulled over in a Jeep Wrangler for speeding (really this
is a story about a friend and not me :D ). Officer tells him he was speeding and
friend didn't disagree. Askes for license, registration, etc, weapons (there
were none) and then reaches through the open Wrangler top and begins
rummaging through interior of the vehicle. LEO comes to the locked center
console and it won't open. My friend mentions matter of factly that he has
not consented to a search of his vehicle. LEO asks what's inside the locked
box. Friend reminds him that no consent was given. LEO asks what he's
hiding. Friend says "Get a search warrant."

LEO goes back to his car with papers in hand, no other cars arrive, and comes
back with speeding ticket. Friends hangs out and smokes 2-3 cigarettes for about
15-20 minutes --ya know just chillin'. Officer comes back clearly frustrated
and says "Sir, when are you leaving?" Friends says "Oh, I'm free to leave now?"
Officer says "Yes, you were when I gave you the ticket." Friend: "Do you have
to wait here until I leave now?" Officer: "Umm....yes....." Friend: "Gee, guess
this was 20 minutes of your time now wasn't it?" ;)

So what was in that locked box? CDs and cigarettes.....

Hold your chin up, be a CITIZEN and use your rights.

foob
June 21, 2007, 04:12 PM
The worst time to have a cop at your door is when you are sleeping or just woke up. Happened to me once, it's like they know you are too groggy to remember your rights.

SalTx
June 21, 2007, 06:15 PM
I believe it is US vs. THEM. I'm not sure who all falls into US, but THEY are the guys who will put you into jail or screw your life up so bad they might as well have murdered you, along with those who are so weak as to see THEM as saintly protectors. Never trust a police officer. Simple.
As for the leo's who post about how much they suffer on the job and how they endure the hard sacrifices..bunch of b.s.! They are well paid, more than they deserve. I certainly was. Some guy said how they paid for their schooling, I guess they were stupid or something, I was paid for all four academies I attended and graduated from. I've been in a few hairy situations, but I never felt like I was alone facing a human wave assault of chinese communist soldiers intent on sharpening their axes on my bones. I tell those around me not to be stupid towards leo's, but to remember that theirs' is not an altruistic existence.

Jeff White
June 21, 2007, 06:29 PM
Why don't you tell us all about your experiences? And feel free to PM with the details if you're not comfortable posting them in public. Anyone can make up a screen name and claim to have been anything or anyone online. It's not unreasonable to ask for verification.

Jeff

oobray
June 21, 2007, 07:54 PM
Suppose you and the wife are watching TV late one night and hear the sound of breaking glass. You go to the kitchen to find an intruder stealing your toaster. You confront him, and he grabs your prized Henckels chefs knife and raises it menacingly. Your wife screams, "OMG, he has a weapon!" You reply, "Don't worry, honey. It's only a kitchen tool. I think he means to prepare us a meal."

Kentak,
I couldn't have said it better myself.
And yes, if an officer asks you if you have any weapons in the vehicle, you better tell him that you have many ranch tools, and possibly an axe of sorts somewhere in the vehicle. In most cases the LEO will say "ok, please sign your ticket here" and you both will be on your way.

Everyone seems to forget the FACT that the original poster LIED ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF WEAPONS IN THE VEHICLE!!!! I cannot say it anymore clearly. If someone lied to you, you found out, then lied to you again, you found out then lied to you AGAIN, would you ever believe them? NO YOU WOULDN'T. Therefore, if your job is to find criminals, I would highly suspect this person who is lying to me to be a criminal. Plain as that.
Trust me, I don't always side with LE on these issues. I plan on making a career out of defending cases where constitutional rights have been violated. However, all of the fault lies within the original poster for this incident. That is further evidenced by the fact that the LEO didn't arrest him for the obvious firearms violations.

I also want to bring up the fact that what the officer was excercising was situational awareness. Which is exactly what all of you preach here on this forum. He has the right to ask someone a question about weapons, to which the citizen has the right to refuse to answer it. However, the citizen in this case lied instead of not speaking.

Jeff
June 21, 2007, 10:25 PM
kentak, oobray:


A kitchen knife is NOT a weapon.

If you are brandishing a kitchen knife against another human being in a threatening manner, then it can be used as a weapon. A kitchen knife on its own, that has never been used in a violent activity against another human (or animal), is a tool.

By your definition, anything is a weapon if it can kill someone?

Is a pillow, sitting on the bed, a weapon? You can suffocate someone with it. Is a golf iron, sitting in its golf bag, a weapon? In the hands of anyone, that would be deadlier than any knife. Is it a weapon?

The kitchen knife was in.........the kitchen of the RV. How is this a weapon?

kentak says:

Suppose you and the wife are watching TV late one night and hear the sound of breaking glass. You go to the kitchen to find an intruder stealing your toaster. You confront him, and he grabs your prized Henckels chefs knife and raises it menacingly. Your wife screams, "OMG, he has a weapon!" You reply, "Don't worry, honey. It's only a kitchen tool. I think he means to prepare us a meal."

No, I probably wouldn't say that, because it would be an unnecessary detail in a moment of great stress and anxiety. So, what's your point?

How, exactly, is a kitchen knife sitting in a kitchen, lying there, minding its own business, equivalent to a kitchen knife in a home invader's hand as he brandishes it violently?

Do guns kill people, too? Are all inanimate objects really weapons in disguise?

Like I said before, when someone casually calls a kitchen knife a weapon, such as a nosy cop in someone's RV, he is either behaving irrationally or dishonestly.

Jeff
June 21, 2007, 10:34 PM
And yes, if an officer asks you if you have any weapons in the vehicle, you better tell him that you have many ranch tools,

B.S.

If I have TOOLS in my vehicle, and a cop asks me if I have any weapons, I will say no. Is that a crime?

I don't consider my tools as weapons. If the cop thinks of them as weapons, then he obviously chose the wrong occupation. Period. End of story.

Acquiescing to this type of unacceptable behavior is a big part of the problem, guys.

foob
June 21, 2007, 11:33 PM
I told him there was no weapons that he needed to worry about.

Saying this is not equivalent to saying "there are no weapons". To me, that's not lying. An intelligent police officer would have clarified his response with "forget what I should be worried with, do you have any firearms in the RV at all".

The officer made an assumption what he meant was there are no weapons onboard. The original poster did not lie. Granted it wasn't a smart thing to say after allowing him to enter the RV.

Anyway, is lying illegal? And is allowing the officer to enter the RV the same as consenting to a search?

Fletchette
June 22, 2007, 02:28 AM
'No, I do not consent to a search', 'I have nothing to say', 'Am I free to go?'

+1

I have been stopped like this and always respond in this way. I intentionally do not say that he cannot search (could be misinterpreted as resisting an order; a psychological pissing match that tempts a cop to show that he is boss) and state that "I do not consent".

Elza
June 22, 2007, 08:47 AM
Sergeant Sabre:
Quote:So again in summary, Never let a LEO in your RV without a warrant.

You probably won't be pleased with how things go if you try that.Feel free to correct me, but I read this as “if you exercise your Constitutional rights we (the cops) will make you pay for it”. You claim retaliation against those that exercise their rights. And you wonder why the “us vs. them” mindset exists??!! :banghead:

meef
June 22, 2007, 09:32 AM
Elza:Feel free to correct me, but I read this as “if you exercise your Constitutional rights we (the cops) will make you pay for it”. You claim retaliation against those that exercise their rights. And you wonder why the “us vs. them” mindset exists??!!Well, this does sort of resemble the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

org
June 22, 2007, 09:54 AM
The law has nothing to do with "interstate highways". The interstate reference means travelling from state to state, regardless of the highway used.

oobray
June 23, 2007, 07:54 AM
Anyway, is lying illegal? And is allowing the officer to enter the RV the same as consenting to a search?


Yes, lying to the police is illegal. It's called obstructing justice. What IS legal however, is to keep your mouth shut.

No, letting an LEO into your vehicle is not consenting to a search. However, the officer has a right to see anything in plain view, and ask questions about whatever he sees. And remember, you have a right not to answer him, and terminate your consent for the LEO to be in your vehicle at anytime.

I don't consider my tools as weapons.

then you are niave

How, exactly, is a kitchen knife sitting in a kitchen, lying there, minding its own business, equivalent to a kitchen knife in a home invader's hand as he brandishes it violently?

In the eyes of an LEO, or anyone else for that matter, a potential weapon is just as dangerous as one currently being brandished. Consider you were in your yard working one saturday. Your neighbor is in his yard working as well. You both get in to a political discussion on some heated subject, say... gun control.
As the discussion gets more and more tense your situational awareness starts to increase. You notice that a shovel is very close and within his reach. Would you not consider this to be a potential weapon that your neihbor could use against you should the situation turn ugly? If you wouldn't, then you need to re-read a lot of posts on here about situational awareness.
LEO's must walk around in situation orange most always. While most people would not wish to harm them, there are many of those that would.

meef
June 23, 2007, 11:37 AM
What a load of crap.

:cool:

Okay, look.... everything is a weapon. All right? EVERYTHING!

Let's just make it simple and officially pass a law declaring any and everything to be a freaking weapon and save all of this stupid word games business for something more productive.

"Sir, do you have any weapons?"

"Uh.. Officer, as you can clearly see I'm nekkid as a freaking jaybird while I'm sitting here on the beach getting a suntan."

"Sir, what about those hands and feet attached to your arms and legs? Aren't you aware they can be used to gouge my eyes, choke my neck, kick my groin, stomp my toes? I don't believe you're being forthright with me and I'm going to have to conduct a further search of you, Sir."

"Umm.. Officer, we've already established the fact I'm not wearing anything. Just where did you plan on searching?"

:what:

Good grief, I can pick up literally anything within reach of the computer I'm typing on and use it as a weapon on you. Depending on our disparity of size, speed, skill, etc. - I stand a chance of doing damage, maybe serious or fatal, to you.

Stupid, stupid word games.

:cool:

Let's just pass a law making EVERYTHING illegal. Then the authorities can go about hassling anyone they take a fancy to without having to worry about that annoying thing called probable cause. And I'm talking about real probable cause, not some power-tripping, ego-boosting fishing expedition garbage.

And we can stop playing stupid word games.

"Hey buddy, that there ball point pen you're totin' is a freakin' weapon!"

"Is not!"

"Is too!"

"Is not!"

"Could be!"

"Huh-uh!"

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

JWarren
June 23, 2007, 11:47 AM
Sadly, meef hit the nail on the head.

When exactly did people start to become such pansies?


You see the whole weapon anxiety thing repeated constantly on thread here. A shopowner freaks out because a cop enters his store with a handgun on his belt.... A coworker hears two people talking about a match over the weekend and reports them to the manager... Someone's brother turns red in the face and starts shaking and generally throwing a hissy-fit because his brother put a downpayment on an AR.

Give me a freaking break.


I'm with Carlos Mencia. The problem with society is there are too many stupid people and not enough things to eat them.


-- John

Jeff
June 23, 2007, 12:40 PM
oobray,

You have got to be kidding me.

You need to understand what the definition of weapon is. What is a potential weapon? By your irrational logic, all women are potential prostitutes, and all men are potential rapists.

That is exactly what you are saying. EXACTLY.

And you want to get into the justice business? Your thinking is exactly the kind we need far less of.

Please think about what you are saying. Think rationally.

Jeff
June 23, 2007, 12:47 PM
Easily the most insane and moronic thing I have EVER seen on this forum:

In the eyes of an LEO, or anyone else for that matter, a potential weapon is just as dangerous as one currently being brandished.

Let me repeat that, folks, in case you missed it the first time:

In the eyes of an LEO, or anyone else for that matter, a potential weapon is just as dangerous as one currently being brandished.






Don't call me naive.

eltorrente
July 4, 2007, 02:58 AM
I think I have a completely different view of this situation than most of you guys seem to.

From my perspective/experience, I think it's best to just cooperate and tell the truth - and most of all, stay completely legal on the roads.

If the cop asked me if he could come in from the cold, I would have said, "sure, c'mon in". When he asked, "Do you have any weapons?", I sure as heck wouldn't have said, "None that you need to worry about...". Why say that? What do you think the cop is gonna think now - not just about potential weapons, but about what you obviously don't want to tell him? I would have just said, "yup, I have a .22 in the safe, and a rifle that has no magazine and the firing pin was removed - that one is under my bed.".

If I was a cop I sure as heck would get sick of people not telling me the straight-forward answers to simple questions.

Autolycus
July 4, 2007, 05:31 PM
Then ask a straight question like "Do you have any items that can be used to harm me? For a example a shard of glass, a long stick, a pointed stick, a piece of paer crammed into a ball that could be wedged down my throat, a set of keys, a sweater that could be used to strangle me, a drivers license that could have sharp edges and be used to cut my throat, or anything at all for that matter?"

I am sorry but the more you cooperate with the police, the more likely you are to end up in jail. Ask yourself why the Founding Fathers explicitly say that we have the right to not cooperate with police?

scout26
July 4, 2007, 06:19 PM
The problem with society is there are too many stupid people and not enough things to eat them.

This is the only thing worthwhile in this whole thread. And since it has devolved into argueing semantics, I predict lock in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

ilbob
July 4, 2007, 06:55 PM
For my money whenever law enforcement ASKS if they can search your vehicle/home/saddlebags etc the answer is NO!
Amen. NEVER, EVER voluntarily do anything LE asks you to do. It is never to your benefit, ever.

IMO, you may have lucked out. I don't know how long ago this happened, but these days the most likely thing to happen to someone with a loaded gun, even one that is not readily accessible, is that the people in the RV would be charged with all kinds of crimes and you'd be on the front page as a gun runner the next day, with the director of the ISP crowing about how a major criminal had been taken off the street.

KenpoProfessor
July 4, 2007, 08:40 PM
The whole strings of posts on this thread has taught me something. If a LEO talks to me, comes to my house, car, tent, I'm not saying a word. If it's cold outside and they want to come in to get warm, I'll tell them to get back in their vehicle and thanks for checking up on the citizens.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Alphazulu6
July 4, 2007, 08:46 PM
Yeah.................

kbarrett
July 5, 2007, 12:02 AM
If the thought of free citizens bearing arms frightens a police officer, then I would suggest finding some other line of work. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that cops should have any more privileges than anyone else. Allowing such was a gross mistake, and should be corrected. If this causes some police officers to quit ... good.

The SCOTUS has determined that a traffic stop is no longer a valid reason for a terry frisk. If you do not leave your vehicle, and refuse to answer questions about weapons, then they do not have an excuse for one.

As for broken tail lights ... the best cure for that is an LED replacement that is permanently attached to your car's wiring with soldered pigtails.

Autolycus
July 5, 2007, 02:44 AM
If I see a cop with a broken taillight, can I pull him over and arrest him? What if they are speeding? Do I get to frisk them for my safety?

I figure what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

LAK
July 5, 2007, 05:35 AM
(720 ILCS 5/24‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24‑1)
(Text of Section from P.A. 94‑72)
Sec. 24‑1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or carries any bludgeon, black‑jack, slung‑shot, sand‑club, sand‑bag, metal knuckles, throwing star, or any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material or compressed gas; or
(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife ..........
"Dangerous knife"? I wonder who were the legal scholars who drafted this in - and the educated statesmen that voted "yes" passing it into law :D

Ooops, almost forgot. I agree with those who recommend; just say no. And tell no lies. Things may not run smoother this way, it does however reduce some unpleasant risks.

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

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Autolycus
July 5, 2007, 03:16 PM
El Torrente: Please respond to my question?

Sergeant Sabre
July 5, 2007, 04:50 PM
I am sorry but the more you cooperate with the police, the more likely you are to end up in jail.

Well that's just silly and paranoid. I've let plenty of people go that could have been arrested, simply because they were honest and forthcoming with me.

To give an example, I had a kid at a party who bought a bunch of beer for minors. I asked him "Where's your dope?", and he retrieved it from his pocket and handed it to me. With further questioning, he without delay provided the ID that he used to buy the beer. The ID was real, but belonged to somebody else. So, we have:

1. Marijuana possession
2. Minor in possession of alcohol (kid was under 21)
3. Fraudulent use of an ID

All are 93-day misdemeanors. I would have had no problem locking him up and charging him, putting 279 days of his freedom in jeopardy.

I figured since he didn't give me a hard time, I wouldn't give him one. I flushed the dope, and confiscated the ID. He walked away with a ticket for Minor in Possession of Alcohol.

He could have made problems for us, and we would have been much less inclined to give him a break.

The truth is that if you are doing something illegal (like the original poster was, according to the laws of the State he was in), the more honest and cooperative you are, the less likely you are to get hammered. All paranoia aside, that's the truth.

scubie02
July 5, 2007, 04:58 PM
isn't it interesting that both cops and vampires have to be invited in...coincidence?

;P

Sergeant Sabre
July 5, 2007, 05:26 PM
I'd like to add the following:

For all of the "Cops just want to arrest everybody they can" people, you should realize that it's actually a big comittment to arrest somebody. It's much easier and safer to give them a break by writing an appearance ticket or just let them go completely, and often is a more attractive option for both us and the suspect.

First off, we have to put ourselves in danger to do so, since if we try to arrest them, they might fight.

Once we get them in custody, we have to take the time to drive them to the jail and book them in. Just the drive can be enough to drive you out of your mind if the arrestee wants to yap and scream the whole way :rolleyes:.

Depending on your jail, booking can be a big undertaking. In one of the counties I work in, I have to search the arrestee in painstaking detail in a secure foyer while a jail deputy watches before they will even think about letting me in the jail. If I am seeking my own charges on the arrestee, I have to wait until the jail gets to my guy, then stand around while they go through the ten minute booking process before they get to the mug shot and fingerprints. Finally, I'll get my copy of the fingerprints to go with my warrant request.

The fun is just beginning, however. Now I have to fill out the warrant request, witness list, compile statements, print the guy's criminal history, and write my report. If I have impounded a vehicle, I have to go through the proper steps to enter it into our state-wide system as impounded. Then I have to print it all out, get it in order, and submit it to the chief. Hopefully it all looks good, or else I am re-doing it.

Hopefully the above does not occur on a Friday or Saturday, because then I am obligated to get up early the next day (regardless of whether or not I am scheduled) and drive down to the department to get into uniform and pick up a car. Then I go to the County jail with my paperwork to pick up my prisoner and take him to the City jail, where weekend arraignments are done.

Then I'm off to the prosecutor's office to wait until they get to me to review my report, fingerprints, criminal history, and warrant request. Hopefully they like what they see and authorize the warrant.

Off to the judge (or magistrate, if it's a misdemeanor) to swear to the warrant and have it signed. Hopefully, the judge likes what we have or else it's back to the drawing board.

Back to the courthouse to present the warrant at the arraignment, then transport the guy back to the County lock-up.

Then I wait for my subpoena to the guy's court hearings and / or trial, and hope that they aren't scheduled for a day / time for which I already have plans. If so, I've just ruined my plans by arresting rather that citing & releasing or warning.

All in all, I'm looking at a good six to eight hour commitment with an arrest on Friday or Saturday, not including any time spent responding to subpoenas. I take great care to make sure my arrests aren't BS arrests, because I have a lot invested in them. Therefore, I don't arrest for a myriad of things that I constantly run into that I could potentially arrest for. Such as:

1. Driving without your license on your person
2. Failing to change your address on your license within 6 mos.
3. Driving while license suspended
4. Violating your restricted license provisions
5. Speeding (does not apply in Michigan, but speeding is an arrestable misdemeanor in many States)

and more...

An arrest is such an investment (and inconvenience, at times) that we can't afford to go out looking for every arrest we can. To assert otherwise is to ignore reality.

sacp81170a
July 5, 2007, 05:38 PM
An arrest is such an investment (and inconvenience, at times) that we can't afford to go out looking for every arrest we can. To assert otherwise is to ignore reality.

+100

The only time when it's slam dunk easy is when there's already an arrest warrant. A warrant is basically a court order to all law enforcement officers in the state to take the person into custody, so you can't ignore it. Otherwise you're in contempt. So, you take the subject into custody, search them, if you're impounding a vehicle, you do an inventory, wait for the tow truck, transport them to the county jail, fill out your PC, wait for the jailers to process them, notify the issuing agency(who has the option to release them), then fill out your report, fill out and sign the warrant, make sure it gets deleted from the system, and then get back on patrol. This generally takes a couple of hours. If someone is arrested on one of your warrants, even if it's halfway across the state, it's up to your agency to send someone to pick them up.

Nah, if someone gets arrested, you can bet they worked for it. :rolleyes:

eltorrente
July 5, 2007, 06:12 PM
Then ask a straight question like "Do you have any items that can be used to harm me? For a example a shard of glass, a long stick, a pointed stick, a piece of paer crammed into a ball that could be wedged down my throat, a set of keys, a sweater that could be used to strangle me, a drivers license that could have sharp edges and be used to cut my throat, or anything at all for that matter?"

I am sorry but the more you cooperate with the police, the more likely you are to end up in jail. Ask yourself why the Founding Fathers explicitly say that we have the right to not cooperate with police?

If I see a cop with a broken taillight, can I pull him over and arrest him? What if they are speeding? Do I get to frisk them for my safety?

I figure what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You're correct that it's your right to refuse to cooperate.

If you want to take everything so far and look into everything, then what if he asks you if you have any drugs in the car? Do you defiantly say as an immediate response, "None that you need to worry about."? Go ahead, feel free to get snotty with him because you have Aspirin and Mountain Dew. I'm sure he'll send you on your way. Perhaps you'll feel proud of making him suspicous for no reason and having him search your vehicle for nothing, while you stand in the cold waiting for him.

Me, I'll just cooperate and say what I should say at that moment: "Nope". If I have a gun safely locked away in my trunk, I'd tell him immediately if he asked about weapons, and I'd probably say also, "oh yeah and I have a Buckknife in the glove compartment, if that matters." I figure he'd confirm what I told him and run my license or something and send me on my way.

I understand the refusal to cooperate though, believe me. I also understand that you aren't necessarily taking things to the extreme all the time, but my point still stands. That point being that if he asks me a question and I don't have anything to hide I'll just answer the question. It's when you start getting evasive and uncooperative that sends red flags up and lead directly to bigger "incidents"- despite those incidents turning into nothing. Those "incidents", of course, become more fuel to the fire that seems to burn deeply in many people about being oppressed and this and that.

I think we have things pretty good and I don't have any issues with cops- despite having spent a couple nights in the holding cell and countless times being pulled over and such. :D In my younger days I did countless stupid things, and cops I encountered often helped me out. Like once driving me home after pulling me over completely drunk when I was underage. He made sure my car was locked up, gave me a lecture on the way home, and dropped me off at home. No ticket, nothing. Many other instances like that where a cop caught us doing things we could have gotten into big trouble doing and they let us go with a lecture or somthing. Most of the times I've been pulled over I get off with a warning, or a lesser speed on a speeding ticket or whatever. All this because I just cooperate and admit my guilt and no excuses or BS. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Caimlas
July 5, 2007, 08:06 PM
Kind of shoots the heck out of the THR myth that if you are innocently caught with a firearm by an Illinois officer you're on your way to jail doesn't it?

No. He was clear under the law - the firearm may have been loaded, but it was in his abode - the RV - which is apparently covered by the statutes.

As has been said, however, it comes down to this: be friendly and cooperative with police, until they start asking questions that are none of their business (ie, fishing expedition). Then ask if he is going to charge or arrest you with anything, and if not, ask if you're free to go.

isp2605
July 5, 2007, 08:10 PM
No. He was clear under the law - the firearm may have been loaded, but it was in his abode - the RV - which is apparently covered by the statutes.
The IL courts have ruled and the USSC has affirmed that while running down the road an RV is not a residence but is a vehicle and therefore to be treated like a car or pickup.

LAK
July 6, 2007, 04:02 AM
IIRC, generally an RV parked up for the night is a "residence" - on the highway it is a motor vehicle.

If you enjoyed reading about "Personal true story. RV stop in ILL." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!