Your rights are now suspended.


PDA






Sheldon J
June 29, 2009, 08:33 PM
and they said it could not happen here...

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.

According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:


Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. -- DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.


Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:


According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

What to do?


Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.


I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.



While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

In liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

If you enjoyed reading about "Your rights are now suspended." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tom609
June 29, 2009, 09:40 PM
I send this d-bag a "polite" e-mail from this site
http://www.ci.shreveport.la.us/dept/mayor/index.htm

colorado_handgunner
June 29, 2009, 09:54 PM
Please provide a verifiable source.

Tom609
June 29, 2009, 10:03 PM
Provide a source

A good question, but believe it or not, I just spent the past 20 minutes trading little e-mails (again, polite) with Mayor Glover. He was short and snarky, but he didn't deny it. I don't think much more of him, but he was responsive. Probably a slow night in Shrevesport.

t165
June 29, 2009, 10:23 PM
Unless Robert Baillio can produce a recording of his conversation with the police officers I'll file this one as Bull****! Sounds like he's stirring **** and trying to draw attention to himself. And is Mr. Baillio trying to pull a "nixon" on us...a partial tape. I may have been born at night...but it wasn't last night!

stickhauler
June 29, 2009, 10:34 PM
Provide a source? Go to www.gutalk.com and listen through the webcasts of Tom Gresham's shows, this gentleman called into Tom's show a few weeks back and told of the incident, he was on the very next show with the taped conversation he had with the mayor. If I recall right, the original report was probably the 7 June show, the taped conversation the very next week's show 14 June.

Jeff White
June 29, 2009, 10:49 PM
No link or other way to verify this and it's closed. We are not going to start another cop bashing thread based on what's been put in an email someone circulated.

Two members sent me links to this story: http://guntalk.libsyn.com/

The thread is reopened. But here's the thing, the first person who makes a comment about anything other then what the law says about this gets 10 days off to think about it.

Here's my comment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment nor in any court case that I am aware of that gives you any constitutional right to be armed when you deal with the police. Discussion will be limited to what the law says and how various court cases ruled. The first post out of line and this thread is done and the offenders sitting out for a while.

stickhauler
June 30, 2009, 01:34 AM
I guess I screwed up the link to Tom's podcast page, I checked your's and it takes it to the correct page. I heard both interviews, and like I said, this gentleman called the show on the 7 June & 14 June shows, and Tom knows this guy personally. I have yet to hear any false information presented by Tom Gresham on his show. I'd invite you to listen to the way the stop went down, and what this guy was told when he and Tom both called city officials about the matter. I'm not cop bashing, and from what I heard in the interviews, the guy was not armed, the gun was in his truck, he was standing at the rear of his truck when the cop went into his vehicle, took out the gun, dropped the magazine and ejected the round from the chamber. The last I knew, the law stated the police had no right to enter your vehicle and search it without your permission unless they had a warrant signed by a judge, listing specific items they were searching for, and specific areas they intended to search.

gc70
June 30, 2009, 01:34 AM
To turn the proposition around, I can't find any case law that says that police are universally allowed, in any and every interaction with citizens, to question individuals about weapons and then search for and seize those weapons.

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1)

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.
.....
And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.

Is it a "specific reasonable inference" that an individual driving a vehicle with pro-gun bumper stickers is "armed and dangerous" and that a weapon search is justified?

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/420/case.html)

"[T]he stop and inquiry must be reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.'" Ibid. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 392 U. S. 29.) Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released.

More to the point, is questioning about weapons "reasonably related in scope to the justification" for a stop for failure to use a turn signal?

2RCO
June 30, 2009, 01:46 AM
I would like to see a photo of the Baillo's truck. I'm guessing it might have some rather crude stickers other than just NRA stuff. If the guy failed to signal the stop was justified. The stickers if they have some kind of crude "shoot em all" etc. stickers might be seen as justification for concern by the officer (although this is also free speech so we move into possible violation of rights on that basis). I'd love to see the cruiser video on this one 10 to 1 says that this guy was extremely rude to the officer to start with. But who knows. I really don't like the writing style of the article so it makes me skeptical.

Also did he get his gun back at the end of the stop??

akodo
June 30, 2009, 01:56 AM
Here's my comment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment nor in any court case that I am aware of that gives you any constitutional right to be armed when you deal with the police.

What about the 'shall not be infringed'

If you get down to brass tacks, the constitution does not mention you have ANY rights when dealing with the police...I mean, the 4th amendment doesn't specifically say 'the police' can't search and seize

In general, I do believe that an officer has the right to secure the scene (which may or may not include securing a firearm) provided he has a legitemate reason for instigating the stop. If you are in a state that requires you to reveal your CCW status, I am still debating about if that can be used against you. (government cannot require you to incriminate yourself) However, I think it is clear in a state where you don't have to reveal, it probably is a good idea to go with the basics of remaining silent and handing over license and registration, and answering no other questions except to say 'am I free to go' and 'I do not consent to a search'

Unless the officer has some specific reason to believe he is in danger (and no, NRA stickers don't apply...even 'I kill Cops for Breakfast' stickers don't apply) I don't think the officer could legally search in the first place.

If the police inteaction gets to the point where the officer is detaining the person, or the person is being arrested, then definately the officer will take control of the firearm.

stickhauler
June 30, 2009, 02:02 AM
Listen to the gun talk episode, he details what kind of stickers he has on his truck, and I don't know the gentleman, but he certainly didn't sound like the type who'd be rude to a cop, matter of fact he sounded like a mild-mannered type. Yes, his gun was returned at the end of the stop, but if he's out of the truck, and has no access to the firearm, why would the cop have to secure it for anyone's safety? It ain't going off all by itself, and the "suspect" if in a regular sized pickup was at least 10 feet from the firearm, talking to an armed police officer. My bet is the cop could subdue him before he could get all the way back to the gun.

What was frightening to me was the comments of the Mayor, who this guy taped their conversation and the tape was played on the 14 June show. The Mayor says if you are pulled over by the cops in his city, you're civil rights are suspended until the officer releases you. Completely suspended! So I guess, protesting an illegal search wouldn't be allowed, as according to the Mayor I'd guess your freedom of speech is suspended, your right to refuse to answer questions lest they incriminate you as assured in the 5th amendment is suspended as well. Guess that due process right is as well according to his honor. Frankly, that sounds a bit like the reign of Hitler or Stalin. Not Shreveport, LA.

If there is a cruiser video, and the stop is as it was depicted by the guy, I doubt you'll ever see a copy of it, cities rarely release evidence that prove wrongdoing by any of their employees.

doc2rn
June 30, 2009, 02:08 AM
^ akodo beat me to it, this goes right back to the last Supreme court case this week where they said that the schools didnt have a right to strip search that girl, and neither did the police have a right to search and confiscate Baillio's weapon. Alot of ATF officers work like this too.

JohnKSa
June 30, 2009, 04:44 AM
...search his car without permission and confiscate his gun....a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time...The story is vague (misleading??)--did the police actually confiscate the weapon in question or was the man only temporarily disarmed for the duration of the traffic stop?

Confiscation implies that the gun(s) left with the police officer and the citizen had to contact the authorities and petition to retrieve his firearm(s). That would be a real problem given that the police officer had no reason to take the gun(s) (no crime had been committed). It would also be wrong, in that case, for the mayor to defend the police officer's actions.

On the other hand, while being disarmed for the duration of the traffic stop might chafe a bit (I'd be more than just a little irritated); absent unsafe gun handling by the officer it's nothing more than a very minor inconvenience. I'm not aware of any state/region/locale where a police officer is prohibited from temporarily disarming an armed citizen for the duration of their interaction/direct contact.

Given that there is nothing in the article about the citizen having to go retrieve his gun from the authorities, I strongly suspect that this is about a police officer temporarily disarming a citizen--NOT about a police officer confiscating a legally owned/carried firearm when no crime had been committed and having the mayor defend that action.

t165
June 30, 2009, 04:46 AM
This story has so many holes in it, as presented, it would have already sunk if it had been a boat! Right from the get-go...can Mr. Baillo even prove he was pulled over by the police? What were the officers names? Has anyone gotten the officers side of the story...if there was an actual traffic stop? Did Mr. Baillo file a official complaint with city officials? Mr Baillo sure seems to have vivid memory of the (alleged) incident and surely he would have remembered the names of the terrible police officers. Before I can even view this as anything more than the ravings of a madman I need some proof there was even a traffic stop to begin with. The officers would have radioed in the traffic stop. Has anyone attempted to obtain police radio traffic recordings or computerized radio logs of the traffic stop? These are public record in my state of Indiana. Does anyone really care what the officers have to say (if the story is actually true) or is this nothing more than the thinly veiled pursuit of a selfish agenda. I'm willing to listen but I do not have time for fairy tales.

TiredOleMan
June 30, 2009, 06:39 AM
I cant get too excited here, if the cop got warm and fuzzies by holding the guys gun until the traffic stop was concluded I could see him being a tad pissed but thats about it. The weapon was returned and everybody went their own way, nobody went to jail and nobody died.

Hammer-52
June 30, 2009, 10:46 AM
A few interesting bits from when I heard this on Gun Talk.
1. Mr Barillo was at the rear of his truck both hands visible to the officer.
2. The pistol was INSIDE the cab of the truck.
3. The officer went into the vehicle without permission--& never asked.
4. The officer seemed to ask a lot of questions unrelated to the stop; ie where were you, where are you going?
5. The Mayor acted as if the Mr. Barillo has no rights once stopped by the police.

My lessons learned:
1. Drive safely.
2. If pulled over during day time get out with both hands visible & lock the car.
3. Get my own dash cam :D.

hso
June 30, 2009, 10:57 AM
My understanding of a "Terry stop" is that the LEO can temporarily secure any weapon or individual to ensure the safety of all involved. How that is done and whether that is appropriate is something that can be debated.

Since the weapon wasn't confiscated (it was returned at the end of the stop) there doesn't seem to be a 2A protection violation.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
June 30, 2009, 11:13 AM
My lessons learned:
1. Drive safely.
2. If pulled over during day time get out with both hands visible & lock the car.
3. Get my own dash cam

Yes, and most importantly, do NOT answer questions and/or cooperate with the police in any way (that you're not legally required to) in Shreveport, LA.

It IS a crime to say "I don't have any guns" when you do.

It is NOT a crime to say "I choose not to answer that" or similar, or just keep your mouth shut when asked about guns. MAKE THEM do an illegal search, and never consent to a search. At least in a hostile jurisdiction such as this town.

JR47
June 30, 2009, 11:31 AM
Stopping a person for an technical violation, and removing him from the vehicle, pretty much satisfies Officer Safety rules and SOPs. It was not a felony stop, he had "failed to properly display a turn-signal".

A vehicle requires a warrant, obtained with probable cause, to be searched without the operator's permission, or a felony arrest. Neither was obtained, nor were they necessary, as the driver was separated from access to the weapon.

Unless, and until, the people telling us about the type of bumper stickers, or proof of the stop, can disprove anything, they need to remember that their suppositions have less validity than anyone else involved.

It appears to me that the search of the car, without the operator's permission was, in this case, clearly illegal. The assumption of danger, and other negative values, evidently the result of patriotic slogans on the vehicle meets the legal definition of profiling, and is similarly illegal.

The discussion with the mayor is an interesting aside, and was clearly the mayor's plan of action that the officer was following. That, in and of itself, lends credence to the fact that the traffic stop was a valid occurrence, and that something untoward happened during it.

I believe that the onus here was directed towards the mayor's policy, and not the officer carrying it out.

Deanimator
June 30, 2009, 12:34 PM
and never consent to a search. At least in a hostile jurisdiction such as this town.
NEVER consent to a search ANYWHERE under ANY circumstances.

Consenting to a search is like picking up every banded snake you see based on the assumption that they're all scarlet king snakes. That works until you pick up a coral snake.

Don't play with strange snakes.

Don't consent to searches.

KyJim
June 30, 2009, 09:48 PM
This post is made without benefit of listening to the podcasts about this.

Police can stop a car based on reasonable suspicion that an offense (of any type) has been or is being committed. This is based on an objective standard, meaning the officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant. Assuming there really was a failure to signal, the officer could constitutionally make the stop even if based on the subjective belief that gun ownership is a bad thing.

Once stopped, the officer can question the person without reading any Miranda rights up until the officer places someone in custody. This is often a gray area. It does not have to be a full blown arrest but is more than just a stop. The focus is on whether the detained person reasonably believed he was in custody; again, something more than a brief detention for investigative purposes. Asking a few questions at a traffic stop is not normally a custodial interrogation. I'm assuming there was not a custodial interrogation here.

Even in a traffic stop, the officer has the right to conduct a limited search for weapons upon reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed. This may be a pat down search or, if the person is in a vehicle, a search of the passenger compartment. This can be done without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable searches. It says nothing explicitly about warrants.

Now, here is the interesting part. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a case called Arizona v. Gant which limits weapons searches in automobiles. Prior to this case, police could search the passenger compartment of a car which had been recently occupied by someone in custody, even sitting in the back of a cruiser. Under Gant it now appears that once the suspect is in custody and no longer in the vehicle, a weapons search for safety is no longer authorized (a search based upon probable cause of the passenger compartment of the auto is still presumably lawful).

The question is whether the rationale of Gant will be extended to disallow searches where a person is detained and is outside the car but not in full custody. There's an excellent argument to be made that it should not be extended. The suspect is not under the full control of the officer and might retrieve a weapon from the car. I recall a terrible video of a man stopped by an officer who exited the vehicle and then returned to it to retrieve a rifle and shoot the officer.

Anyway, it appears to me that the officer was probably legally justified in making the stop (assuming no signal) and there were legal grounds to question the driver and search the vehicle and then to temporarily take possession of the firearm. Once the ticket was written or warning given, the gun should have been given back to the driver.

gc70
June 30, 2009, 10:17 PM
there were legal grounds to question the driver and search the vehicle

What statutory or case law provides legal grounds to question a driver about weapons during a traffic stop?

What statutory or case law provides legal grounds to search a vehicle during a traffic stop?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 30, 2009, 10:42 PM
There is nothing in the Second Amendment nor in any court case that I am aware of that gives you any constitutional right to be armed when you deal with the police.

At the risk of a ten day suspension or even expulsion, I must point out that it doesn't work that way. The Second Amendment doesn't give anyone any right. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe upon the right. That would include any enforcement branch of government. These things don't get done by seat-of-the-pants authoritarian fiat. Rule of law must be followed.

As for a court case, Terry v. Ohio spells out that certain criteria must be present in order for an officer of the law to search a person for arms and disarm that person. The mere presence of an officer of the law does not automatically trigger a power in the officer to disarm or even search a person for arms, even during a traffic stop for a traffic violation, unless as stated in Terry v. Ohio, “... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.” In other words, the officer must be able to articulate facts that show a crime has probably been committed or is being committed. Something like stopping a car, seeing it riddled with bullet holes, blood dripping from the undercarriage, bags with money spilling out, responding to a BOLO, etc., would probably qualify.

Bottom line, it's not that we have a right to be armed when we deal with the police, it's that the police don't have the power to disarm us without probable cause.

Woody

Lou McGopher
June 30, 2009, 10:49 PM
2. If pulled over during day time get out with both hands visible & lock the car.

Some states demand that you remain in the vehicle. In Ohio, if you have a concealed firearm, you must remain in the vehicle, keep your hands in plain sight, and in no way touch the firearm with your hands, except as instructed to do so by the cop.

Art Eatman
June 30, 2009, 10:57 PM
ConstitutionCowboy, the big problem is that until some court rules on the constitutionality of a law, that law is in force and is considered to be constitutional until decided otherwise.

"It's constitutional until a court declares it to be unconstitutional."

And while we may not agree with a court as to its decision on constitutionality, we're stuck with it.

GLOOB
June 30, 2009, 10:58 PM
Assuming there really was a failure to signal, the officer could constitutionally make the stop even if based on the subjective belief that gun ownership is a bad thing.
I think this merits some examination. Of course it's ok to stop someone who has broken the law. A good police officer will use that stop to look for clues for other violations. But what does any of that have to do with legally carrying a firearm? It's not like the officer asked "Is that a bag of crystal meth on the dashboard?" Or "is that a dead body in the back seat?" No. He asked, "Are you (legally) in possession of a firearm?" "Are you a member of the NRA?" What next? Will it be ok to ask "Are you a Republican?" "Are you against abortion?" "Did you vote against the current [mayor/administration]?" It's an odd line of questioning for a very minor traffic stop. And did the guy even receive a traffic citation?

Jeff White
June 30, 2009, 10:59 PM
Bottom line, it's not that we have a right to be armed when we deal with the police, it's that the police don't have the power to disarm us without probable cause.

Bottom line, the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough. That's it plain and simple. Find one court case anywhere in this country that says otherwise. Just one, You can't because it doesn't exist. If I or another officer deems that the contact may be unsafe because you are armed, you will be disarmed and there are no legal grounds to stop it.

SHvar
June 30, 2009, 11:13 PM
Determining whether the stop or search is up to the courts and the individual to file a case if they believe they were wronged, not for those who were not present to see or hear what actually happened to decide. If the case went to court afterwards we would probably find out that alot more than what is mentioned happened, or was said (video camera in the cop car, complete with audio).
From what I read with what info is present the search was legal, there was reasonable suspicion to the presence of a weapon, there was a legal traffic stop that occured beforehand for a turn signal not used.
You can refuse a search and refuse to say whether a weapon is present, but you better have lots of free time to take off of work and lots of disposible income to spend on a good lawyer.
Take your pick, if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about when pulled over, period.

Flyboy
June 30, 2009, 11:14 PM
Here's my comment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment nor in any court case that I am aware of that gives you any constitutional right to be armed when you deal with the police. Discussion will be limited to what the law says and how various court cases ruled. The first post out of line and this thread is done and the offenders sitting out for a while.
Mr. White:
the Constitution was ordained to list the specific powers of the government; they are detailed in Article I, Section 8. There are eighteen specific powers laid out in that section. I defy you to find the one in there that allows the police to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms based upon bumper stickers.

But here's the thing, the first person who makes a comment about anything other then what the law says about this gets 10 days off to think about it.
My comment is entirely restrained to the content of the supreme law of the land; nonetheless, I shall take my ten days with pride.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 30, 2009, 11:36 PM
Bottom line, the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough. That's it plain and simple. Find one court case anywhere in this country that says otherwise. Just one, You can't because it doesn't exist. If I or another officer deems that the contact may be unsafe because you are armed, you will be disarmed and there are no legal grounds to stop it.

I did find a case. I quoted from it. Terry v. Ohio.

Let me ask you this:

Suppose you are off duty and get caught speeding, are pulled over, and the officer insists that he search you for arms and does in fact disarm you. Do you believe your rights were violated, or are you cool with the situation? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that even though you live in Illinois, a state that does not issue concealed carry permits, that you have a concealed carry permit, and have submitted to the NICS check, etc., etc., and received all the required training. Lets also assume that the officer knows who you are, and does not suspect you have committed or are committing a crime. Please explain how the simple fact that you, a permit carrying, state and federal background checked and approved armed citizen presents probable cause that you are a danger to the officer who pulled you over? You've made the claim on this open forum and I believe you should back it up with specific statutes and any relevant court cases.

Believe me when I say I have respect and admiration for all officers of the law. Its an honorable avocation fraught with many dangers. But that doesn't grant you or any other officer freewheeling power. Your powers are specific an must be laid out in the law that creates your position. You will win the argument when you can post the law for all to see and I'll be grateful for the edification.

Woody

GLOOB
June 30, 2009, 11:53 PM
the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough So, if you choose to legally exercise your 2A rights, you must be a law abiding citizen and therefore you have nothing to hide? And according to law, you are automatically subject to search at any time? Or is it only legal in this case because of the concomitant failure to signal a turn at an intersection?

I'd rather have all my rights at the same time. Is this really a matter of choosing one or the other?

On a side note, I don't blame the guy if he was mad. I can't imagine being pulled over for failure to signal a turn to begin with, let alone find out that the main reason for the stop was to be asked if I was doing anything LEGAL and what my political affiliations happened to be. If I have ten days coming, just lemme know. :)

Art Eatman
June 30, 2009, 11:55 PM
First: "Lets also assume that the officer knows who you are, and does not suspect you have committed or are committing a crime."

Then:

"Please explain how the simple fact that you, a permit carrying, state and federal background checked and approved armed citizen presents probable cause that you are a danger to the officer who pulled you over."

These, to me, look mutually exclusive. The second does not follow from the first. Need a better example...

bluekatana650
June 30, 2009, 11:58 PM
Bottom line is......Don't talk to the police. Answer in Yes sir/No sir replies, as long as the questions pertain to the initial stop issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

If you play tennis with Andre Aggisi you'll lose,
If you play golf with Tiger, you'll lose,
When you are interviewed by a cop/detective, you'll lose! They do this everyday, for a living. I'm not saying you can't trust them, but there is no reason.....NO REASON, to have to discuss anything other than the intial traffic stop subject.

Flyboy
July 1, 2009, 12:04 AM
Aw, heck. I guess I just can't resist poking the bear.

Mr. White, would you please list the departments which consider it normal and proper practice to search a vehicle with the occupant still inside said vehicle? I ask because if Mr. Baillio was not in the vehicle, I am inclined to wonder how, exactly, the police justified the search under the idea that Mr. Baillio was "unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search."

You may note the quotation marks; the language within comes from the recent US Supreme Court Case Arizona v. Gant (citation not yet available), which stated that police officers do not have the authority to search based merely upon the fact of an arrest. The crime for which Mr. Baillio was stopped was failure to signal; the idea that his pro-gun bumper stickers constitute probable cause to believe he's engaged in other crimes is laughable at best. In the language of the court, "n many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence."

So, restraining ourselves to the Constitution and the language of the Supreme Court (i.e. case law) about, oh, two months ago, I again defy you to show A) where the search was reasonable under the law (particularly given Mr. Baillio's concealed carry permit, which would presumably allow him to carry such arms--the presumption is rebuttable, if you care to try), and B) where the Chief's position that Second Amendment rights are completely and inherently suspended at each and every traffic stop is reasonable under the law, again under the conditions of [I]Gant. You may, of course, argue that the Shreveport PD keeps suspects in the car during searches if you can back that claim up, but I suspect that will be a losing proposition.

I shall look forward to your answer. Or, presumably, my now-twenty days.

model of 1905
July 1, 2009, 12:32 AM
Flyboy, careful or your rights may be suspended.;)

akodo
July 1, 2009, 12:58 AM
Even in a traffic stop, the officer has the right to conduct a limited search for weapons upon reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed. This may be a pat down search or, if the person is in a vehicle, a search of the passenger compartment. This can be done without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable searches. It says nothing explicitly about warrants.

NO. The officer does NOT have the right to conduct a limited search for weapons upon a reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed.

What the officer instead has is the right to conduct a LIMITED search for weapons upon a reasonable and ARTICUABLE specific reason to suspect there is a threat to the officer's safety.

A general 'I feared for my safety' is not enough. A 'it appeared he reached toward his glovebox and I feared he had retrieved a weapon and placed it hidden on his body' is enough.

akodo
July 1, 2009, 01:01 AM
Bottom line, the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough. That's it plain and simple. Find one court case anywhere in this country that says otherwise. Just one, You can't because it doesn't exist. If I or another officer deems that the contact may be unsafe because you are armed, you will be disarmed and there are no legal grounds to stop it.

No, it is ont. Find one court case ANYWHERE in this country that says that being armed and excluding ANY OTHER factor is probable cause.

You are asking us to prove a negative, that is unrealistic.

You might as well try and say 'the officer has the right to take a perminant marker and write your name on your forehead, because you cannot find a court case or law that makes this specific action illegal'

Flyboy
July 1, 2009, 01:09 AM
Actually, akodo, Gant would appear to limit even the "reasonable suspicion" search as soon as the suspect is restrained or removed from the vehicle, hence my second post.

GTSteve03
July 1, 2009, 01:26 AM
I'm not saying you can't trust them, but there is no reason.....NO REASON, to have to discuss anything other than the intial traffic stop subject.
You're not saying it, but I am. There is NO reason to trust them. They are trying to get you to admit anything that might be used against you. They definitely aren't your friend and have no legal obligation to serve or protect you.

JohnKSa
July 1, 2009, 01:27 AM
The article clearly says that the officer asked if there was a gun and where it was. The article also clearly says that the citizen told the truth.

Once you tell the officer you have a gun and where it is, I don't see how the officer reaching in and picking it up can be called a "search". I certainly don't understand the wrangling about "probable cause". Since when is TELLING the cops you have a gun and where the gun is not probable cause for the cops believing that you have a gun?

As I see it, this incident isn't about probable cause, searching, and firearm confiscation, it's about whether or not it's ok for police to disarm citizens temporarily during a traffic stop.

I think we need to get past the problems in the poorly written article and discuss the actual incident and it's implications instead of getting bogged down in issues that are irrelevant to the incident in question.

Jeff White
July 1, 2009, 02:03 AM
No, it is ont. Find one court case ANYWHERE in this country that says that being armed and excluding ANY OTHER factor is probable cause.

No court anywhere in the US has ever denied an officer the right to be safe while doing his job. If the officer knows that the person he is dealing with is armed the officer has every right to disarm that person temporarily for the duration of the contact.

Over the years I have taken everything from baseball bats to guns away from people I was dealing with until the contact was over. Some of those people were arrested and some weren't. The reality is that if an officer knows there is a weapon present and he decides to secure it for the duration of the contact it is legal and guess what, it happens everyday.

You don't get into Fourth Amendment issues until the officer conducts a search for the weapon. Terry and Gant do not apply in this case, just as they don't apply in states where CCW holders are required to inform. You don't get into 5th Amendment issues (takings without due process) unless the weapon is not returned at the end of the contact. The police have the right to secure the scene and until someone successfully gets a court to rule that they don't, things will continue to be the way they are.

I walked into a home answering a 911 call on a domestic dispute once. Standing in the corner at the back of the room was a Ruger 1022 with a Ram Line clear plastic extended magazine sticking out of it. I secured the weapon until the domestic dispute was settled and then returned it when I was leaving. No search was involved, the rifle was in plain sight. No illegal entry was involved, I was invited in by the complainant, no taking without due process was involved because the rifle being in my custody was a temporary safety measure and was returned to the owner upon completion of the contact.

The incident we are discussing is almost exactly the same. The motorist was stopped for a violation, the officer asked if there was a weapon in the vehicle, the motorist replied there was, the officer asked where and the motorist told him. The officer secured the weapon for the duration of the contact and returned it to the motorist. No rights were violated. There was no search and there was no taking.

Mike Sr.
July 1, 2009, 02:35 AM
What if the gun was in a 'locked' glove compartment?
What if the gun was in a 'locked' trunk?
What if the gun was in the 'locked' trunk and in a locked gun case or trigger lock???
What if the gun was a 'locked' case?
What if the gun was in a locked glove compartment with a trigger lock?
What if the gun was broken down into pieces where it was totally & completely non-functional?

===============

Would the officer have a 'right' to secure that which was already by a reasonable account 'secure'?

t165
July 1, 2009, 03:04 AM
I listened to the radio show. The taped conversation was edited. It needs to be aired from beginning to end. And I agree the suspended rights comment of the mayor is not accurate. It was a dumb comment but certainly not fatal to anyone. Nothing to cry about...the mayor is not a LEO.

And I am surprised opinions are being formed and argued without getting the other side to the story. According to the radio host, and Mr. Baillo, he was invited to file a complaint by the Shreveport Police Department. IIRC the radio host had to ask him (3) times if he was going to take up their offer. He seemed pretty reluctant to initiate an investigation...I wonder why? I hope he files the complaint. If he is telling the truth then what is he scared of?

A Terry Stop and Search is a privilege given to law enforcement officers to help protect them. It has and will be argued in courtrooms and debated in public because everyone has their own personal feeling concerning the legality of it. I have conducted a Terry Stop and Search many times in the past. I never done it just to annoy someone. It has a purpose and it is a legal police procedure under the right circumstances. Criminals always try to exclude evidence based on illegal searches and almost always fail. Criminals, like many law abiding civilians, simply do not understand the purpose and nature of the court granted privilege. And police officers should not abuse the privilege...that is one very quick way for the courts to take the privilege away.

I am not so dumb as to believe everything Mr. Baillo says based solely on Mr. Baillo's account. Only one side to this story so far...and a very self-serving one at that. No witnesses. P.T. Barnum is credited for saying "there is a sucker born every minute"! Well Mr. Baillo, I am not one of those. File the complaint and let the authorities dig into this a little further. If you are correct then the officer(s) need to be dealt with. If you have embellished or lied then shame on you. If you do not file the official complaint then that is a tacit admission to me you are not being truthful.

akodo
July 1, 2009, 03:21 AM
No court anywhere in the US has ever denied an officer the right to be safe while doing his job. If the officer knows that the person he is dealing with is armed the officer has every right to disarm that person temporarily for the duration of the contact.

back this up with facts and court cases.

The truth is actually the exact opposite.

The courts have ruled MANY times that actions police officers desire to take 'for their own safety' are often in voilation of the suspect's rights, and are denied.

For instance, the much discussed TERRY SEARCH. You cannot,search for weapons 'just because I want to make sure for my own safety'


Over the years I have taken everything from baseball bats to guns away from people I was dealing with until the contact was over. Some of those people were arrested and some weren't. The reality is that if an officer knows there is a weapon present and he decides to secure it for the duration of the contact it is legal and guess what, it happens everyday.

it happens every day that police plant evidence too. Just because it happens doesn't change the fact it is an infringement of rights.

It used to be that police would routinely rough up a suspect to get information. That was a violation of the suspects rights as well.

Jeff White
July 1, 2009, 03:46 AM
it happens every day that police plant evidence too.

And that is the end of this thread. You were warned to keep it on topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "Your rights are now suspended." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!