Traffic stop turns into much more...questions.


PDA






gotime242
January 9, 2009, 08:04 AM
Hello and good morning all,

Last night I was involved in a traffic stop that has me curious of a few things, and was hoping some could shine some light on it for me.

I was driving home, i entered an area where the road turned to 25 mph for a bit. At this point i was going a touch over 30, maybe 33/34 or so. It was late at night and the one other car going the other way was a police officer. He turned around and pulled me over.

I rolled down my window and he asked me what the rush was, and at that point probably smelled beer/alcohol that had been around me while i spent about 5 hours around it watching the football game. I did have about a beer and a half, but by NO means was even close to intox or anything for that matter. I do understand that it is irrespondsible to have any form or quantity of alcohol and drive, even if you are 5 min away. Like i said, about a beer and a half.


So i step out of the car and he places me on the hood of his, while another cop that showed up watches me. As im standing there i see him open my door, and goes "OOOHHHH WHAT IS THIS?!!?" regarding a medium size asp that i have in a small compartment that is next to my seat. It is in plain view/open sight, and not in a sheath or anything. The picture at the bottom shows where it was. It was on the lower left of the seat, again in open sight.

He then SEARCHES my entire car without asking. While he is doing this He asks if there are any other weapons and i say "Yes sir, there is a small pistol that is loaded securely incased in the center consol." Of course he finds it and says that i have it illegally due to the fact that i consumed alcohol. I present him with my weapons permit, (which was not needed because it was on my car not on my persons). Then he makes a big deal of how my gun has a bullet in the chamber (its a KT P3at). I say, for my safety that is how it should be kept.

I make a couple points to say that 1) I did not authorize a seach of my vehicle. 2) It was securely encased and being legally transported. One of the other officers say that since i have a holster on (its a small leather IWB holster that is on me 24/7) that means i had the GUN on me this whole time and put it in the center consol upon being pulled over...
He tells me i am wrong. That he can search the car because he saw the asp (which he had to open the door to see) and also all of my gun rights go out the door if ive had even one beer.

Anyway, about 4-5 cop cars show up and they have taken my gun, license, CC permit. Im issued a field sobreity test which i pass no problem and eventualy they get another call they have to rush off to, and he throws my gun in my trunk. But im left wondering, how did that all go exactly? Did they take advantage of my rights regarding the car search?

The whole time i was very respectful and courtious, and they returned the favor. (Except for the one time when someone said the gun must of been on me since i had a holster on me.) I am fortunate to have gotten away with no tickets or anything else.

My questions:

-Was my asp illegaly (this is FL) housed in a little "tray" that is on my seat, in open view.

-With him seeing that, does it give him right to seach my entire car?


Here is the picture, bottom left was asp. The kel-tec was in center consol.

http://i43.tinypic.com/5bzeq8.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Traffic stop turns into much more...questions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Oro
January 9, 2009, 08:20 AM
1) to quote staff sergeant Martin from "Band of Brothers" - "Don't give'em no excuse!" - This is why I don't speed or break any other driving law. It's an open invitation to "probable cause" at any time. Especially late at night.

2) Before someone else asks, you had a snake on your seat? What other kind of "asp" is there? I don't get it and a google search didn't help.

What exactly are you talking about them seeing? Even searching "slang" and "asp" I don't find anything that would warrant probable cause.

gotime242
January 9, 2009, 08:24 AM
Sorry, an asp is a make of retractable baton. Obviously kept in the retracted position.

http://www.policelot.com/photos/Low%20res%20pics/ASP.JPG

Treo
January 9, 2009, 08:26 AM
First I'm going to suggest that you go to youtube and watch "Busted A Citizens Guide To Surviving An Encounter With The Law"

Then I'm going to suggest that you purchase a copy of "You And The Police" by Kenneth W. Royce writing as " Boston T. Party" and read it.

Then I'm going to recomend a lawyer.

Now I'm going to say that by leaving the door of your car open you made it easier for the cops to search your vehicle.

Being asked to step out of the car indicates that it's time to Calmly and firmly, assert your rights

OFFICER: I smell alcohol sir, Please step out of the car.

YOU : ( rolling up the window & locking the door as you step out and pocket the keys) Officer I do not wish to make any statement or answer any questions W/out my attorney present. Then SHUT UP!

Take the FST (it's usually a requirement or you automatically lose your licence) and politely refuse any request to search your vehicle. If they have PC they'll tell you, if they say they'll get a warrant tell them to go for it ask for your lawyer again and SHUT UP.

Final thought if they'd had PC to arrest you they would have.

Again any time any accusation of a crime is made ask for a lawyer and SHUT UP.

Floppy_D
January 9, 2009, 08:31 AM
It's an acronym, Armament Systems and Procedures.

In the future, lock the door behind you, and then he has to ask you to open it, or break a window to get in. Simple enough.

gotime242
January 9, 2009, 08:32 AM
I actually have watched that video a couple of times. And you are correct about stepping out and shutting up. Its just hard to do at the time, as usually it seems worth it to talk it out and maybe reason a bit. I guess i feel like is i said "no statements without my attorney present", that would be like admitting something. But you are right.


I did however step out and close the door behind me. The window was down but he opened the door, which must be done to see it.

Oro
January 9, 2009, 08:32 AM
I figured out it must have been a collapsible baton shortly after I posted given the location you illustrated. I googled "asp" and "baton" and found it.

Treo's advice is solid, but also, it sounds to me as they did "rick roll" you, likely hoping to find something that could then retroactively warrant their search, or were hoping you would blow high enough on the breathalyzer to put you in custody.

Yes, it does sound like they walked all over your rights. But that is often how LE agencies work - I've seen it in FL as well as WA - it's not a local or regional thing. It's the "us" vs. "them" attitude most LE agencies cultivate in their ranks. Rights exist for you to assert, not LEA's or the government to respect - sadly. Treo's advice is the best you can hope to get. It's hard to act upon in the heat of the moment and the glare of the lights - the law abiding of us assume compliance is the best thing, but it's not always the case.

gotime242
January 9, 2009, 08:39 AM
Yeah, it is unfortunate. When i did try to assert them they were shot down, and to be honest i would rather go home that night then try to argue rights and law with someone who thinks he going to be right regardless of what i have to say.

Also, at the time i couldnt remember what was legal about seeing the baton, and how that affects their ability to search.

Either way, it was all a good learning experiance, and the baton will not be in that location again.

Prion
January 9, 2009, 08:59 AM
Get a truck. How could you not speed in that thing? Kidding, but I've got a WRX and I find it is harder to drive the limit than it was in my old Jeep. If I drink at all, a rarity, my guns stay locked up at home. Don't want to give anyone any reason to bust my chops. Sometimes cops are just looking for trouble be it real or not. Always have a designated shooter.

Starcheck55
January 9, 2009, 09:05 AM
this would have been a perfect time to have assorted advil and tylenol (otc variety) scattered all over the carpet of your Z.

FullEffect1911
January 9, 2009, 09:07 AM
I was always under the assumption that if a officer can see something through the windows of the car (or an open door or trunk) that seems suspicious or illegal, then they have probable cause to search your vehicle.

Since in this case they opened your door then I *think* that they were in the wrong. But they could easily say that they just saw the ASP through the open window, and then it's your word vs theirs.

Still sounds like you were getting harassed for being a pistol owner.

In FL, if you have one beer your firearm rights go out the window?

Treo
January 9, 2009, 09:09 AM
would rather go home that night then try to argue rights and law with someone who thinks he going to be right regardless of what i have to say.

No one said anythingabout arguing anything W/ the cops I said ask for a lawyer and SHUT UP

Treo's first law of police interactions:

If you talk long enough you WILL say some thing they can & will use against you.

Art Eatman
January 9, 2009, 09:33 AM
"...probably smelled beer/alcohol that had been around me while i spent about 5 hours around it..."

There ya go. Suspicion of Driving While Messed Up. I won't disagree with Treo, but I can tell you that cops are just really, really fed up with the cleanup after some drunk has a wreck. They perceive a mix of booze and any sort of weapon and you have a problem with folks who go into Guard Dog mode.

Can't blame 'em, really. Pretty much normal human behavior for folks in that line of work.

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 10:21 AM
Ask for the laws, you will receive:

790.151 Using firearm while under the influence of alcoholic beverages, chemical substances, or controlled substances; penalties.--

(1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to "use a firearm" means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "readily accessible for immediate discharge" means loaded and in a person's hand.

(3) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in subsection (4) for any person who is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired, to use a firearm in this state.

(4) Any person who violates subsection (3) commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(5) This section does not apply to persons exercising lawful self-defense or defense of one's property.

Unless the weapon is a firearm (the Asp does not count), the firearm is loaded and in your hand, and you are proven to be intoxicated, it is not illegal to drink and have a weapon in your vehicle. (It is illegal to operate the vehicle while impaired, but that is a different issue)

790.153 Tests for impairment or intoxication; right to refuse.--

(c) The provisions of s. 316.1932(1)(f), relating to administration of tests for determining the weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, additional tests at the defendant's expense, availability of test information to the defendant or the defendant's attorney, and liability of medical institutions and persons administering such tests are incorporated into this act.


Under the law an ASP baton is not a weapon:

790.001 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, except where the context otherwise requires:

(13) "Weapon" means any dirk, knife, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife, plastic knife, or blunt-bladed table knife.

Unless you want to make the case that any club is a weapon, in which case you need to include bats, golf clubs, and lug wrenches.

Master Blaster
January 9, 2009, 10:34 AM
billie

That would be a short weighted club

or other deadly weapon except a firearm or a common pocketknife, plastic knife, or blunt-bladed table knife.

Deadly weapon Includes an ASP Baton which has no other use than as a weapon.

Treo
January 9, 2009, 10:35 AM
really fed up with the cleanup after some drunk has a wreck. They perceive a mix of booze and any sort of weapon and you have a problem with folks who go into Guard Dog mode.

And this abrogates the OP's rights how?

CDH
January 9, 2009, 11:08 AM
Points to ponder:

1. I don't want to assume where the OP lives, but here in Texas, any, a-n-y, (ANY) alchohol consumption while you are carrying will get you arrested and very probably cost you your CCW license. The standards of alchohol use are totally different from when you are not carrying to when you are carrying. When carrying, there is no legal limit because any amount is illegal when you are packing.

2. A pistol in your center console is, i-s, (IS) the same as "carrying" because it's within easy reach. By having the pistol loaded and chambered, all pretext of "not carrying" was taken away.

3. Police do not, n-o-t, (NOT) have to ask for permission to search the moment they see anything even possibly illegal. The fact that the OP smelled of alchohol was enough to give the police a legal right to search the vehicle.
Noticing a weapon in plain view was most definitely a "lets have a closer look" moment.

So here's the deal: The OP had obviously been drinking, was carrying a CCW legal weapon at the same time as the drinking part, and a weapon in plain view plus the alchohol virtually assured that the car would be searched.

I'm thinking that the OP was very, very lucky that, in the end, he was allowed to leave without being cited for drinking while carrying his CCW weapon. That could have cost him his CCW permit except for the kindness of the police.

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 11:34 AM
1. I don't want to assume where the OP lives, but here in Texas, any, a-n-y, (ANY) alchohol consumption while you are carrying will get you arrested and very probably cost you your CCW license. The standards of alchohol use are totally different from when you are not carrying to when you are carrying. When carrying, there is no legal limit because any amount is illegal when you are packing.

The OP lives in Florida. The law in Florida states "when affected to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired" there is no zero tolerance law for weapons and alcohol in Florida. According to FS 790.151, the OP did not break the law concerning alcohol and firearms. See my last post.

2. A pistol in your center console is, i-s, (IS) the same as "carrying" because it's within easy reach. By having the pistol loaded and chambered, all pretext of "not carrying" was taken away.

Not in Florida. A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased or in a public conveyance when the weapon is securely encased and not in the person's manual possession is not considered to be carrying the weapon. It is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. "Readily accessible for immediate use" means that a firearm or other weapon is carried on the person or within such close proximity and in such a manner that it can be retrieved and used as easily and quickly as if carried on the person (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC001.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0790-%3ESection%20001#0790.001). "Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.


Can't we have a discussion about state law without someone mentioning Texas law?

sendarope
January 9, 2009, 11:42 AM
I don't see enough here that you could sue them. They imho violated your rights. At the very least you should file a citizens complaint and write a lte and the nra and goa and pitch a fit. The squeaky wheel and all that.

jr45
January 9, 2009, 11:43 AM
3. Police do not, n-o-t, (NOT) have to ask for permission to search the moment they see anything even possibly illegal. The fact that the OP smelled of alchohol was enough to give the police a legal right to search the vehicle.

Are you sure about that? I know they can search the area that is accessible to the suspect at the time of the incident (i.e. the glove box, under the seat etc) but the entire vehicle with out the intent to impound it? I do not know if this applies to vehicles...

Mainsail
January 9, 2009, 11:47 AM
I often read the appeals court cases here in Washington when they come up about this subject. Here’s what I’ve learned so far:

The police can look into your car for anything illegal; this is not a search. Anything they seize that is illegal that is in plain sight will stand up in court.

To otherwise search your vehicle they need your permission, unless you are arrested. They can then do a “search incident to arrest” of the portions of the car that are/were accessible to the driver or passenger(s). If you get out and pocket the keys as suggested here, they can still search incident to arrest if you are within an undefined closeness to the car. The idea here is officer safety; if you could pull away from the officer and unlock the car, you could get a weapon. Even if you are in handcuffs, if you are arrested next to your car it is considered accessible to you. That is what allows the search. If you get out and lock the keys inside, or are a significant distance from the car at the time of your arrest, they cannot search the car since it was inaccessible to you.

One suspect did just that. He knew the officer was going to arrest him for DWS, so he got out of the car, locked the doors, and had walked a significant distance from the car before the officer told him he was under arrest. The court ruled the evidence they found in the search of the car, incident to his arrest, was inadmissible because of how far he was from it. In other words, he couldn’t have retrieved a weapon from the car so the police had not authority to search it.

gotime242
January 9, 2009, 11:59 AM
Wow, good info guys. Im glad i asked, this thread is definetly turning into a good read.

One thing to add as well, the asp is NOT visible, UNLESS the door is open. When he approached my car only my window was down, (asp is too low/behind a panel with door closed.)

But as mentioned, it might be that once alcohol was introduced in the whole situation that might of given them the right to search?

ants
January 9, 2009, 12:07 PM
Well, you did draw attention upon yourself by speeding at night after consuming a beer (and a half). That wasn't very smart, was it?

Once they stopped you, anything would attract further review. Weapons, drug paraphenalia, the smell of illegal aliens in the trunk, a bag of ammonium nitrate and a gallon of diesel fuel, or a bumper sticker saying "We [heart] Terrorism". Anything like that is going to set the cops into mode of looking for probable cause when they stop you for speeding at night in a fast Nissan Z after drinking beers.

Know your rights ahead of time. Don't do anything wrong, including speeding after drinking beers at night.
Then you probably won't have to follow Treo's advice in your lifetime.

Sniper X
January 9, 2009, 12:11 PM
I can say that even though it is a pain, you should not drink anything and have weapons in the car. The cop was probably right about that law.

I have been lucky enough to never be asked to get out of my vehicle after being stopped, even when armed.

gotime242
January 9, 2009, 12:20 PM
Yes, it wasnt smart, it never is.

One funny point too, is i dont have a wallet, but more of a leather card-holder that i keep 2 credit cards in, my DL , CWL, annndddd a small business-sized card that has on one side the constitution's preable and 2nd amendment and on the other side Florida Statute 790.25 (lawful ownership possession and use of firearms) as well as 790.001 (definition on securely encased).

:D

So im sure they thought it was interesting to see those in there with my licenses. Hopefully they read it.

Maelstrom
January 9, 2009, 12:44 PM
By the way. A beer and a half.....isn't ever a beer and a half.

Oddly enough, the cops don't seem to be here giving their version of the events, so everyone seems to be offering advice based on one side of the story.

gotime242
January 9, 2009, 01:07 PM
You are correct, they are not here. But they are trained to detect and arrest those that drive while intoxicated. I am not in jail, i am still here.

They were correct in doing a field DUI test. And they determined that i passed. That should be a good idea of their side of the story.

ServiceSoon
January 9, 2009, 01:12 PM
gotime242 did you use to own an MR2?

StephenT
January 9, 2009, 01:19 PM
Get a good radar detector. :D

gotime242
January 9, 2009, 01:21 PM
ServiceSoon - Yep! Im on those forums as well. How did u come accross that? Small world.


Stephen - I have one :( He said i just looked like i was going fast.

mbt2001
January 9, 2009, 02:28 PM
Florida's CWL is a Concealed Weapons License... Doesn't that extend to an ASP baton? My impression of Florida law was that you could carry anything and the permit doesn't restrict you to a pistol, as it does in Texas.

Am I under arrest? Am I free to go? I want to speak with my lawyer.

Over and over again.

carbine85
January 9, 2009, 02:35 PM
In Ohio it doesn't take much at all to have probable. The police don't really care. They will detain you, bring in the dogs and search. I have read many articles in the paper where this has happened over a speeding violation. Trying to argue "probable cause" is getting very difficult. In my teenage years you could tell a LEO "no warrant no search", these days it doesn't work like that.

Robert
January 9, 2009, 02:40 PM
Get a good radar detector
They only work if the radar is turned on, and by then it's too late.

I have one He said i just looked like i was going fast.
Yeah we were trained to be able to visually id a speeder but with out something, radar or pacing, to back that up it would never stick... sounds like he was bored.


As a former State Trooper I never searched anyone's car without permission. Yes it can be done incident to arrest or if something illegal was in plain view. But by always getting consent I was covered. I even had our Sgt come out and watch one day for a guy that was ranting about how I was going to take his stuff... nothing I wanted anyway. By not asking you to search it first he is opening himself and the department up to lawsuit. I'd get a copy of the report and see what it says. Public records are wonderful. If 5 cop cars were on seen there has to be some kind of report. And if your trunk was locked and you had not given permission and you were not under arrest then he can not go into a locked compartment. At least in CO. Be assertive about your rights, ask for a supervisor to come down. Do not be rude or confrontational, not saying you were, as that will not end well for you.

VINTAGE-SLOTCARS
January 9, 2009, 03:11 PM
The smell of alcolol is good enough to get you out and do field sobriety tests, and to check the veh for the sorce of intoxication. The ASP was in plain sight. The ASP is a baton which in most states is a felony to possesss w/o a lic. If you were not booked for it your were very lucky, you would have lost your ccw for sure. Count your blessings the you were not arrested. As for asking for permission , it wasnt needed. The case would have held up in court. As far as law suit, who cares as long as the arrest was legal. The big questions are why are you drinking/driving armed w/a gun and what is the asp for? Think before you put yourself in a bad situation. All in all you were lucky.

Treo
January 9, 2009, 03:28 PM
In Ohio it doesn't take much at all to have probable. The police don't really care. They will detain you, bring in the dogs and search. I have read many articles in the paper where this has happened over a speeding violation. Trying to argue "probable cause" is getting very difficult. In my teenage years you could tell a LEO "no warrant no search", these days it doesn't work like that.

Which is why you never argue with a cop. As soon as they ask to search the vehicle (in this case as soon as they open the door) “Officer I do not consent to any searches I’d like to speak with my attorney before I say anything else” and SHUT UP

As soon as they ask you to step out of the car “officer I’m not comfortable making any statement with out my attorney present and SHUT UP

As soon as they Mirandize you ”Officer, I choose to exercise my right to remain silent, I’d like to speak to my attorney before answering any questions and (all together) SHUT UP

No one in this discussion (including me) knows enough about the law to deal with the cops in a situation like this that’s why you get somebody who does it for a living. When lawyers deal with cops on their own business, the hire other lawyers to do their talking for them.

Treo’s rules for dealing with cops

1. People have gone to jail for being in the wrong place, at the wrong time and fitting a general description.

2. If you talk to a police officer long enough you will say something that can be used against you.

If a police officer stops you he holds all the cards. He knows why he stopped you. He knows what he suspects you of. And he is under no obligation to share any of that information W/you.

This is a perfect time to calmly and firmly assert your rights

if I were stopped on the street and questioned by a police officer the very first words out of my mouth would be "Officer am I free to leave." This question establishes the status of the contact immediately, and tells you exactly how to proceed. If you are told you are free to go do so immediately, Thank you officer have a good day. Do not say another word.

If the officer tells you, you are not free to go you can rest assured that he suspects you of something and is looking for probable cause to make an arrest. This also establishes the contact as official, I would hand him my ID & CHP immediately (you’re not sitting in a car he's going to pat you down)

If you are being detained the less you say the better, if the officer has probable cause he's going to arrest you no matter what you say. If he doesn't the easiest way for him to get it is for you to open your mouth. If asked where my weapon is I would answer directly and refuse comment on all other questions. "Officer I do not wish to make a statement or answer questions without my lawyer present" He can't keep you there forever & if he had PC you'd already be in handcuffs. No matter what he asks you (exception questions directly related to where your firearm is) ask to speak to your lawyer before answering the question.

Treo
January 9, 2009, 03:29 PM
As for asking for permission , it wasnt needed. The case would have held up in court. As far as law suit, who cares as long as the arrest was legal

Where did you get your law degree?

Are you admitted to the Florida Bar?

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 03:44 PM
The ASP is a batton which in most states is a fellony to possesss w/o a lic.

Really? Where is that law?

So many people come up with these odd laws that no one can ever find in print. They are not illegal in any of the states I have lived in (although they may be illegal to carry)

In Florida (my current state of residence, and the OP's state) they are legal to carry concealed with a CCW (790.06 and 790.01), and are also legal for open carry (790.053).

Treo
January 9, 2009, 04:34 PM
Got real quiet real quick here didn't it?

nutter
January 9, 2009, 04:48 PM
And you are correct about stepping out and shutting up. Its just hard to do at the time, as usually it seems worth it to talk it out and maybe reason a bit.

"A right not exercised is a right lost."

I know its harder to do than to say. Trust me.

akodo
January 9, 2009, 06:06 PM
If the cops start searching and you DON'T tell them to stop, it is assumed you are agreeing to allow them to search.

They are fishing when they dig into the car...but they will keep on until you stay stop. (At which point they may continue but anything they find after that will be inadmissable in court)

In the same way they want to keep you talking , and they will keep at it until you stop. They never know when you will make some sort of statement they can use to get you on something. Again, until they arrest you they aren't going to say 'you are free to be quiet' YOU need to assert that you don't want to continue the discussion.


Now, the whole 'Am I under arrest? am I free to go? I want to talk to my lawyer" is a little bit too simple when you are pulled over.




REMEMBER refusing a search or saying "no warrant no search" or anything like that WILL NOT STOP A COP...but it will stop a conviction.

Unfortunately, there is no real penalty for a cop who is doing an illegal search.
When operating a motorvehicle, it is "would you like my license and insurance officer?" but beyond that do not get involved talking to him. If he says "why were you in such a rush? got any beer in here? do you do drugs? what you doing out so late?" then you say "what can I do to help officer?"

if and when he asks you to get out of the car, THEN you go into "Am I being detained? Am I free to go? For what am I being detained? I want to talk to my lawyer!"

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 06:16 PM
The ASP is a batton which in most states is a fellony to possesss w/o a lic.

Really? Where is that law?


This is what I thought, no one can find such a law in "most states."

Kind of like the people who claim that it is illegal to own throwing stars, or to tie a hangman's noose with 13 wraps. People constantly talk about such laws, but can never produce them.

Macmac
January 9, 2009, 06:26 PM
Since you keep a pistol in a center console, you should invest in the lock which must be optional for it.

When the pistol is in the console you should have it locked and with the key in place.

In the event you are forced to leave the vehical, lock the consol, and then the door. That would be 2 locks anyone must pass to just 'discover' anything.

Other wise follow Treo's wisdoms..

xanderzuk
January 9, 2009, 06:50 PM
All of this "ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS" stuff seems like a logical way to deal with the police who abuse their power, until you actually try it.

I was arrested for "asserting my rights" as "interfering with a police investigation."

Not to be a jerk, but most of that advice is just armchair quarterbacking. The only advise I will agree with is to keep your mouth shut and don't physically resist anything.

Zoogster
January 9, 2009, 07:07 PM
This is what I thought, no one can find such a law in "most states."

Kind of like the people who claim that it is illegal to own throwing stars,

Perhaps those people are in CA.

Both batons and throwings stars are criminal offenses in CA. Batons are covered under California's legal definition (several of which are not the dictionary definition) of "billy".
Throwing stars are specificly outlawed.

In CA carrying any object for use as a blunt weapon is a crime, and can be charged as a felony. Whether it is a bat, a lock on a bicycle chain (case law specificly deals with such an incident that creates precedent) a stick, or even a perfectly legal object intended for use as a weapon.
Items with no purpose other than a blunt weapon are automaticly a crime.
However legal items carried for use as a weapon must be proven to have been carried for use as a weapon (and saying you carry it for self defense, or could use it for defense is the most common admission of guilt to carrying it as a potential weapon.)
It does not have to be used in any crime or be intended to be used in any crime. Just possession is a felony.
The legal definition of sap, slungshot, sandclub, or billy is very different than the dictionary meaning or even the meaning of those terms in some other state laws. It also includes "leaded cane" which does not mean "leaded" cane but any object made heavier to strike better.
The specific definition given in the penal code and backed by case law covers any object intended to be used as a blunt weapon. Sandclub and sap are defined as practicly anything heavy, or weighted for use as a weapon.
A purse made heavier with change for example qualifies as a sap or sandclub if intentional done for use as a weapon.
I would copy the legal definition here, but it is long, and then I would also have to cite relevant case law, which is tiresome and long even in summary.
However to keep it simple, any blunt item clearly meant to be or designed as a weapon is automaticly a crime.
Any regular item not designed as a weapon (like a flashlight, bat, chain, roll of coins, rock etc) is a crime if the person intends to use it as a weapon. Even if you say you carry the flashlight to see in the dark, and in case someone attacks you, you just admited to a felony. Ever even mentioning its use for defense or as a weapon makes it a crime.

Much of it but not all is covered under the laws in PC12020.

Ironicly it is legal to keep an axe intended to be used as a weapon. Or a sword or massive knife intended to be used as a weapon (open carry only to avoid violation of "dirk law".) But carrying a flashlight for use in self defense would be a felony.
Why do you have that sword on your waist? "To cut anyone that attacks me in half" would be a perfectly legal response (though not wise.)

The law is the law, when you start thinking it makes logical sense and you don't need the details you will get into trouble with it.

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 07:52 PM
Perhaps those people are in CA.

Perhaps. The poster claimed "most states."

I would agree that CA, NJ, IL, and the other worker's paradise states might have restrictions, but those states don't allow CCW at all.

Zoogster
January 9, 2009, 08:08 PM
I would agree that CA, NJ, IL, and the other worker's paradise states might have restrictions, but those states don't allow CCW at all.
Actualy CA has had CCW longer than most states, because it has been licensing the "right" much longer (rather than denying it as many states had, because many other states believed open carry was honest and concealed dishonest).
So even when open carry was legal in most of the nation, and concealed prohibited in much of the nation, CA allowed both until a politician decided to require a license to carry concealed.
Hispanic and asian immigrants were the reason for most of CA weapon laws, including the ban on concealed carry without a license which previously had been legal until the 1920s.


Most citizens of the state today just cannot aquire a CCW because they are "may issue" on a county basis. Most of the population lives in populous counties that only issue a handful of CCWs to the elite of society, those who have connections to them, and some celebrities.


Here is a great article on it:
http://californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm

It is also when blunt weapons became a felony. Both CCW licensing and blunt weapons becoming felony happened under the same law in 1924.
Open carry remained legal until the civil rights era.
Text such as:
Possible unconstitutionality of the provision against possession of weapons by non-naturalized residents was admitted in McKissick's letter to the Governor urging signing of the bill, but he pointed out that if this clause should be held invalid the rest of the act will not be affected and that if it can be sustained that it will have a "salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent."
Translation:
'So it may be unconstiutional, but lets pass it anyways because it will have good results.'
See where that leads?
They were essentialy anti gang laws of immigrant gangs.

Armed blacks marching around is why CA and then many other portions of America created laws regarding open carry.
That was in the 1960s.

So it was all done under the pretense of keeping the "good people" armed and not others. Outlaw weapons prefered by some groups (like oriental weapons) while still allowing "law abiding citizens" to get a permit to be armed.
Over time most places in CA just stopped issuing the permits to the average person.

It was racist and wrong, but to give perspective to the times immigrant minorities were commiting most of the violent crime at the time. Just like most criminal gangs today.
Which generaly has always been the case in this nation of immigrants. Whether it was the Irish gangs in the 1800s or the Oriental gangs in the early 1900s, the Latin gangs, the Italian gangs etc.
The latest wave of immigrants is always poor, and violent crime is usualy most comon in those neighborhoods filled with people clawing thier way out of poverty.


So keep that in mind when bills to fight crime are introduced. They may even really target legitimate problems at the time.
That does not mean they won't be used to reduce the rights of everyone over time. What can be done to anyone can be done to everyone.

Treo
January 9, 2009, 08:35 PM
All of this "ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS" stuff seems like a logical way to deal with the police who abuse their power, until you actually try it.
Let’s see who might that be directed at?

How many ways can I say this? I’m not talking about arguing W/ the cops or being Billy Badass, I’m talking about protecting yourself.

I’m not saying be rude to the police be very polite but firm,
If I get pulled over I ask the cop why he pulled me over before he ever opens his mouth; it ends the getcha gotcha games before they ever start. Anything bigger than a traffic stop and it would behoove me to avail myself of every protection offered me by the Constitution. How hard is it to say officer I want to speak to a lawyer before I answer any questions?

I was arrested for "asserting my rights" as "interfering with a police investigation." I promise there is more to this story than we’re being told you can not be arrested for invoking your right to remain silent or your right to counsel, you might be arrested for trying to physically resist a search

Not to be a jerk, but most of that advice is just armchair quarterbackingNo, It’s really not I learned this stuff the hard way and almost spent 25 years in a federal prison learning it

cassandrasdaddy
January 9, 2009, 09:01 PM
did the cop get a flashlight close to your face when you rolled down window? around here they have flashlights with sniffers to detect alcohol. instant probable cause.


so lets recap guy had a beer and a half got caught speeding. he didn't follow the sage advice of the "us against the man" folks. was civil and treated the same. passed the field test and got to go home. i mighta missed it did he get the speeding ticket? he kept his gun his dignity and didn't have to be any kinda poseur. win for all sides

cassandrasdaddy
January 9, 2009, 09:04 PM
§ 46.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Club" means an instrument that is specially
designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious
bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument, and
includes but is not limited to the following:
(A) blackjack;
(B) nightstick;
(C) mace;
(D) tomahawk.

§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits
an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on
or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or
issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.


guess what state

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 09:21 PM
Texas. You left out the rest of the law:

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

Also, the statement was that an Asp is illegal to own. Under TX law it is illegal to carry, not possess. You also left out:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal institution;

(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision (5);

(3) is traveling;
(4) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

Treo
January 9, 2009, 09:36 PM
I knew you'd show up sooner or later to tell us (me) what posers we are

divemedic
January 9, 2009, 09:52 PM
:D:neener:

cassandrasdaddy
January 9, 2009, 09:56 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-108850.html

http://forums.realpolice.net/archive/index.php/t-74362.html

cassandrasdaddy
January 9, 2009, 09:57 PM
did you feel i meant you? curious that

RioShooter
January 10, 2009, 12:03 AM
1. I don't want to assume where the OP lives, but here in Texas, any, a-n-y, (ANY) alchohol consumption while you are carrying will get you arrested and very probably cost you your CCW license. The standards of alchohol use are totally different from when you are not carrying to when you are carrying. When carrying, there is no legal limit because any amount is illegal when you are packing.

I agree with you about carrying after drinking, however, you are mistaken about the Texas code. The law states that it is illegal to carry while intoxicated. The law does not state what "intoxicated" means. It is not the same standard as the DUI limit.

ants
January 10, 2009, 12:19 AM
gotime, that card is a great idea. Thanks, buddy.

209
January 10, 2009, 02:15 AM
Quote:
The ASP is a batton which in most states is a fellony to possesss w/o a lic.

Really? Where is that law?

So many people come up with these odd laws that no one can ever find in print. They are not illegal in any of the states I have lived in (although they may be illegal to carry)

In Florida (my current state of residence, and the OP's state) they are legal to carry concealed with a CCW (790.06 and 790.01), and are also legal for open carry (790.053).



Maybe the felony to possess statement wasn't explained in depth enough by the poster who made it. There may be a law in the state he was referencing that is similiar to this one: Reference is CGS 29-38 which states, in CT it is an "unclassified" felony to have a "police baton or nightstick" in a car you are operating. Penalty is: Not more than a $1000 or 5 years or both.

You can see it here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-38.htm

There is no overlap if you have a CT pistol permit. For instance, I have a pistol permit, but the law doesn't excuse my having a baton even though I can legally have a loaded handgun. I find it strange, but most laws are.

I'm also a certified police officer. However, I am in violation of the law should I toss a PR-24 in the trunk of my POV and carry it there all of the time.

Now if I stop you and when looking in the car, see a baton "in plain view" and you don't fit the limited exceptions, I can then legally search the passenger area of the car for additional weapons. You "could" also be arrested for the above mentioned violation.

divemedic
January 10, 2009, 07:40 AM
209- only in a car? So it is not illegal to possess, unless it is in your car?

gotime242
January 10, 2009, 10:32 AM
Well, one thing i learned for sure is the baton definetly caused a bit of issue, certainly not worth having happen again vs. the probability of ever needing it. Not to mention i usually have the pistol that should be doing the work of SD.

The baton will no longer be in my car. Thats my personal conclusion on it.

bdickens
January 10, 2009, 11:02 AM
You are wrong, CDH. In Texas, the law is that you can't carry while intoxicated. Inoxicated is spelled out in the law.

Read this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=418732

kurtmax
January 10, 2009, 12:23 PM
The only thing I've wondered about the 'implied consent' to search vehicles and whatnot:

What if you can't see your vehicle or know they are searching it. Same thing, say, if they detain you and take a bag you are carrying. How can you tell them to not search it if it's somewhere you can't see?

Are they considered legal searches?

outerlimit
January 10, 2009, 12:28 PM
Just sounds like bored cops on a fishing expedition.

Trying to justify their reason for being in your life at that particular point in time.

MikePGS
January 10, 2009, 12:35 PM
YOU : ( rolling up the window & locking the door as you step out and pocket the keys) Officer I do not wish to make any statement or answer any questions W/out my attorney present. Then SHUT UP!


That is the perfect thing to do and say. Mind you, while growing up my grandfather would always tell me stories about his time as a police officer and instilled a great deal of respect for law enforcement within me. Being a LEO seems like a difficult, dangerous, and most likely thankless job and I have great respect for the position, even if sometimes individuals acting in said position aren't worthy of said respect. That being said under no circumstances whatsoever should you voluntarilly suspend your fifth amendment rights. Theres a great video that I found on xavier's blog that showed a Law Professor talking about various ways speaking to police officers has come back to haunt them. Really just do your best to say as little as possible and if you volunteer information you should understand that this could very well lead to your downfall.

ServiceSoon
January 10, 2009, 12:48 PM
ServiceSoon - Yep! Im on those forums as well. How did u come accross that? Small world.I remember your handle from MR2oc.com. Since it is winter where I live I spend more time on the highroad than mr2oc right now. How I miss summer :(

Art Eatman
January 10, 2009, 02:07 PM
Treo, referring to Post #16: I generally try to figure out what is somebody else's reality, to have some notion of how they're likely to think. Doesn't matter if it's an LEO or a sales clerk.

So, I don't worry about my rights being violated when the cops pull me over for excessive enthusiasm. I work at defusing the situation so the cop doesn't think to do anything that might violate my rights. So far, my way has worked since I got out of the Army in 1958.

I won't bore folks with any litany; suffice that I was a pretty hard-charging partying guy, as well as a hot-rodding street racer. Many and many a well-deserved stop. Never a hassle. Far more warning tickets than I should have gotten, rather than $$$ tickets. (But, a hint: Don't wash your car and then dry it off at 120 in a 55. That gets a real ticket, not a warning. :D:D:D)

Learn about other people's reality and accomodate it--and walk free, rights unviolated.

akodo
January 10, 2009, 02:31 PM
art

there may be a distinction between "doing something wrong and trying to talk your way out of it" and being pulled over for for say 'driving while black'

I can definately understand the impluse to attempt to talk your way out of or at least down on a speeding ticket, roll through a stopsign, etc.

However, being pulled over because of the 'cut of your jib', color of your skin, or because you have a "Remember Ruby Ridge" bumpersticker...entirely different ballgame.

akodo
January 10, 2009, 02:38 PM
I was arrested for "asserting my rights" as "interfering with a police investigation."

Not to be a jerk, but most of that advice is just armchair quarterbacking. The only advise I will agree with is to keep your mouth shut and don't physically resist anything.

It is all in the hard sell vs the soft sell.

Screaming "GET AWAY PIG I KNOW MY RIGHTS YOU CAN'T TOUCH MY STUFF!" will get you in handcuffs and face down. It may also mean you dodge the conviction on the pot you have in the bag...if that's your thing.

However, simply stating POLITELY 'I don't agree to any search' but stepping back and not interfering with the search is going to go much better.

The cops are going to search if they are going to search. You aren't going to phyiscally stop them EVER.

As I said before, a way that appears relatively POLITE is to NOT answer the questions they ask by asking your own polite question.

That's why my 'what can I do to help?' question comes in handy when asked "been drinking tonight? where are you going? why are you in such a rush?"

Rtlan
January 10, 2009, 04:31 PM
Hello all.. new here :)
A conversation I had with someone a little while ago included a bit about being pulled over (out side of Portland, OR) and refusing a search of his car. He was told that he would then have to wait until the K9 arrived. He was later told that waiting for the K9 was not necessary and that he was being polite since there was no PC. Is this true since he was not (as I understood it) detained and did not ask if he was free to go?

withdrawn34
January 10, 2009, 05:00 PM
He pulled you over because you drove a 350z, end of story.

Also, there's nothing illegal about having an ASP in your car - so long as you have a concealed weapons permit, which you obviously do. Otherwise it is illegal.

I guess the "reasonable cause" for the search came about because they thought you were drunk. I'm not sure what to say. Sorry to hear you had to go through that.

Reyn
January 10, 2009, 05:40 PM
Hello all.. new here
A conversation I had with someone a little while ago included a bit about being pulled over (out side of Portland, OR) and refusing a search of his car. He was told that he would then have to wait until the K9 arrived. He was later told that waiting for the K9 was not necessary and that he was being polite since there was no PC. Is this true since he was not (as I understood it) detained and did not ask if he was free to go?

What? I dont understand. He was told he would have to wait...then told waiting was not neccesary. Is what true?

Rtlan
January 10, 2009, 05:52 PM
Sorry, He was told by a third party at a future time, not at the same time of the incident by the officer.
The way i see it is that if the officer has cause to search his car the officer would have. Since he didn't the officer "asked" him to stay until a dog came.
May be i am answering my own question. If the officer cannot hold you because the officer cannot see or smell anything wrong he then cannot hold you until a dog comes to sniff around your car. Does that seen right?

divemedic
January 10, 2009, 06:07 PM
Also, there's nothing illegal about having an ASP in your car - so long as you have a concealed weapons permit, which you obviously do. Otherwise it is illegal.

Not as long as it is securely encased. If it is, no permit is required.

Reyn
January 10, 2009, 06:21 PM
Sorry, He was told by a third party at a future time, not at the same time of the incident by the officer.
The way i see it is that if the officer has cause to search his car the officer would have. Since he didn't the officer "asked" him to stay until a dog came.
May be i am answering my own question. If the officer cannot hold you because the officer cannot see or smell anything wrong he then cannot hold you until a dog comes to sniff around your car. Does that seen right?

A lot of these scenarios are almost impossible to determine because of the totality of the circumstances.

If an officer has finished his investigation (written ticket,NCIC info,etc.) and has nothing else then no you wouldnt have to stay if asked.

But dont assume you know all the circumstances behind the stop.

The question should be am i free to leave.

ACBMWM3
January 10, 2009, 09:34 PM
I dont know what state you live but here in Washington they can't search your vehicle without your consent. Even if a weapon is in plain view outside the vehicle they can't search it. 2nd off even if you had a beer or two there is nothing that says you cannot have your weapon with you. The officer was in the wrong for even saying that because you drank you have no 2nd amendment rights. I hope you got a badge number or at least a name. I would def. persue this further. My regular shooting bddy is a County Sheriff and I asked her about your situation and she just laughed and said that officer was for a lack of a better word a power hungry idiot.

ericyp
January 10, 2009, 09:53 PM
It was racist and wrong, but to give perspective to the times immigrant minorities were commiting most of the violent crime at the time. Just like most criminal gangs today.
Which generaly has always been the case in this nation of immigrants. Whether it was the Irish gangs in the 1800s or the Oriental gangs in the early 1900s, the Latin gangs, the Italian gangs etc.
The latest wave of immigrants is always poor, and violent crime is usualy most comon in those neighborhoods filled with people clawing thier way out of poverty.

Source?

nekwah
January 10, 2009, 10:01 PM
I agree that they shouldnt have done that to you. But if you think about all the wierdos and creeps they can catch if they can search a car because the creep can stuff his weapon under the seat fast. To bad that after seeing your permits and such, they should have known.

Coronach
January 10, 2009, 10:15 PM
Where did this happen, FL? I am not up on caselaw or statutory law specific to FL, but let's assume that the same general rules apply there as they do here. From reading the OP, I cannot see where the cops were out of line, unless I am misunderstanding what was said. Consider:

1. The OP admits to speeding. That is the officer's PC for the stop.

2. The stop is conducted and the OP admits to smelling of alcohol, which gives the officer a reason to have him step from the vehicle, in order to further investigate whether or not the OP was intoxicated. Regardless, Pennsylvania v Mimms grants the officer the authority to remove the driver of the vehicle during the course of a traffic stop, regardless of the OVI/DUI/DWI angle.

3. Once the other officer arrives, he sees the ASP, which is immediately recognizable as a weapon, and which the OP stated was in plain view in the vehicle. Michigan v Long allows a warrantless, limited search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that there is a weapon in the car. Well, this officer saw a weapon in the car, so that gives him the authority to search any place that might contain further weapons and could be accessed by the driver once he is released back into the motor vehicle.

4. The subsequent protective sweep (the search authorized by Michigan v Long) yields the handgun.

The OP is subsequently found to have committed no crime, and is released with no charges filed against him. Assuming that the officers were polite and professional (which the OP says they were), I can't see much to complain about here. There may be Florida-specific laws or court decisions that limit the scope of the officers' authority, though. I am only going by federal caselaw.

Mike

Treo
January 10, 2009, 10:28 PM
e sees the ASP, which is immediately recognizable as a weapon, and which the OP stated was in plain view in the vehicle.

Did you read the part of the OP where gotime said the ASP WASN'T visible till the cop opened his door?

Coronach
January 10, 2009, 10:35 PM
I read that part, but it is not clear whether or not the ASP was seen, and then the door was opened, or if the ASP was only seen after the door was opened. I'm aware of the timeline of "cop opens door and says 'what is this?'", but it is not clear whether or not he saw the ASP prior to opening the door, and just opened the door to retrieve it.

Mike

ETA If you look down into the car from a standing position alongside of it, you can probably see the whole way to the floorboard. Try it and see. It's not clear, however, if you can do that in a WRX. I just assumed that the OP meant it was in plain view from the exterior. Also, the door was opened when the OP stepped out. Believe me, if the cop knows what he is doing, he is doing a quick scan of that area for things that are otherwise concealed when the door is closed when the driver or passenger steps out. It is a prime space to put a gun, or other weapon (like an ASP...hmmm). When I pull someone out, the first thing I do once I look them over is glance at the floorboard and the area between the door sill and the seat.

Treo
January 10, 2009, 10:59 PM
Wasn't aware you were an officer.
Would you care to comment on the validity of Akado's & my advice to the O.P.?

divemedic
January 11, 2009, 06:32 AM
I read that part, but it is not clear whether or not the ASP was seen, and then the door was opened, or if the ASP was only seen after the door was opened. I'm aware of the timeline of "cop opens door and says 'what is this?'", but it is not clear whether or not he saw the ASP prior to opening the door, and just opened the door to retrieve it.

The OP is in Florida. Since he has a CCW, it is not illegal to have an ASP in the car next to you. The comment that carrying while drinking in Florida is illegal ( as made by the LEO) is incorrect.

Coronach
January 11, 2009, 01:19 PM
The OP is in Florida. Since he has a CCW, it is not illegal to have an ASP in the car next to you.The OP states that the CCW permit was provided after the pistol was located, which was after the ASP was located. Unless I'm misreading the OP or he is otherwise unclear, knowing that the OP had a CCW permit when the officer looked into the car and saw the ASP would have required telepathy, or some other form of advance knowledge. Cops are often good, but we're not that good. ;)

Furthermore, the case law (which is not FL-specific) does not state that a protective sweep is invalid if the weapon is carried pursuant to a permit. The sweep is not a search for contraband weapons, it is a search for weapons. What is done with the weapon afterward depends upon its legality.In this instance, the weapon was legal, it was returned, and the subject was released without charges.The comment that carrying while drinking in Florida is illegal ( as made by the LEO) is incorrect.I'm not a FL LEO and I have no knowledge of how FL-specific caselaw works, but the ASP would certainly fall under the common-sense definition of a weapon. I agree that, reading the statutes provided only, the bit about having a gun while intoxicated seems to be incorrect. Regardless, the OP was already being detained for the possibility of DUI/DWI/OVI, so at worst an already-legal detention was made slightly longer while the cops figured out that what he was doing was legal.

Mike

ACBMWM3
January 12, 2009, 04:04 AM
arguments aside, from reading it about 4 times over now it seems the officer did NOT know that the ASp was in the vehicle until he opened the door and did a search. Since he was not told by the "suspect" he could do a search then the officer broke the law by openign the door and searching the vehicle.

gotime242
January 12, 2009, 09:51 AM
You are correct sir. The asp is 100% NOT visible when the door is closed, and he was too far away to see it when i stepped out and thus didnt.

My ccw permit was presented after the fact of the asp because to be honest it caught me off-guard. While i was back by the patrol car, i saw him open the door, thats when i said "Sir, i didnt say it was ok to search my car." Then about 2 seconds later he saw the asp, continued to seach my car and i presented them with my ccw and told him of the pistol.

Coronach
January 12, 2009, 11:23 AM
OK, going with that, then, the protective sweep would be invalid, unless they have some other articulable reason to think there were weapons in the car, or other reason to search.

Since you were not charged with anything, there are no arrest documents that would state what the reasonable suspicion or PC would be. I would suggest calling the PD and asking.

Mike

Robert
January 12, 2009, 11:27 AM
around here they have flashlights with sniffers to detect alcohol

For real? Got a link to something we can see? Seems a bit mall ninja to me...

JDoe
January 12, 2009, 11:36 AM
For real? Got a link to something we can see? Seems a bit mall ninja to me...

Here ya go http://www.pasintl.biz/pasiv.html

$695.00 plus shipping

Product Description
The P.A.S. IV Alcohol Screening System combines: a) high-intensity, super-beam flashlight technology with b) a dynamic sampling system and c) a miniature alcohol sensor. It “sniffs” ambient air, the breath, open containers, or enclosed spaces for the presence of alcohol. The P.A.S. functions as a non-intrusive “extension of the operator’s nose.

The P.A.S. is a hand-held, rapid alcohol detection instrument using a platinum electrochemical fuel cell sensor of high alcohol specificity, accuracy and stability. Designed for law enforcement, industry, corrections, transportation agencies, and educational facilities. The operator-controlled sampling system guarantees accurate detection of alcohol, and is especially suited for quick subsequent measurements.

The P.A.S. is used to check alcohol presence/absence with or without a subject’s direct participation. When used without the subject’s direct participation it is known as passive sampling, as opposed to active testing where the subject blows directly into a mouthpiece or the intake port. The P.A.S. can also be used to detect open containers of alcoholic beverages, or to detect low, ambient levels of alcohol in enclosed spaces such as vehicles, jail cells, or classrooms. Includes: Carrying Case AC Adapter Auto Adapter Recharging System Rechargeable Battery Instruction Manual Twelve-Month Warranty on parts & labor Two-year warranty on fuel cell

cassandrasdaddy
January 12, 2009, 06:09 PM
thanks for the link

instant probable cause especially if you claim to have had nothin to drink. once word of the flashlights got out some guys hold their breath funny to watch but not near as funny as the occasional hero of the revolution who refuses to roll his window down or otherwise participate in the checkpoint/rights violation. shame they don't get any heroes that pass the breathalyzer

209
January 13, 2009, 02:48 AM
dive medic asked :



209- only in a car? So it is not illegal to possess, unless it is in your car?



Again, this is CT law.

CGS 29-38 is "Weapons in a Vehicle"

CGS 53-206: Carrying of Dangerous Weapons Prohibited. This law pertains to carrying a dangerous weapon upon your person. My interpertation of that statute pertains to carrying it somewhere other than on your property. Police baton is one of the listed prohibited items in that statute also. There are exceptions in that statute also. It's another unclassified felony.

Owning a baton and having it in your house? As far as I know, you can own and possess any type of baton in your home or on your property. Of course, it depends what you do with it. I can probably think of a few things that may cause a person to have a problem with a baton. Life is often stranger than fiction and people do strange things. :p

If you enjoyed reading about "Traffic stop turns into much more...questions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!