Treo
member
I'm not anti cop I'm pro-freedom
How would you phrase my advice?
Disclosure of lawfully concealed firearm on a traffic stop
- Thread starter jeff_d_148
- Start date
- Status
I'm not anti cop I'm pro-freedom
How would you phrase my advice?
I was just trying of make light of a frequently troublesome topic for the forums, LEO/civilian interactions; me occasionally on one side and you occasionally on the other side of the coin, so to speak, advise wise. Nothing more.
I think your advise is generically sound, and was posting that for the benefit of others. I'll probably get emails.
My advise, which obviously I consider generically sound, differs only from what I can tell in that I do not recommend asking for legal representation before it is necessary and to provide more information - minor points in the grand scheme of things.
I think your advise is generically sound, and was posting that for the benefit of others. I'll probably get emails.
My advise, which obviously I consider generically sound, differs only from what I can tell in that I do not recommend asking for legal representation before it is necessary and to provide more information - minor points in the grand scheme of things.
csmkersh
Member
Terry Stop & Frisk
That's right, before an officer can do the pat down legally he must have a reasonable belief a criminal act has transpired or is about to be committed. An ordinary traffic stop does not meet that expectation.
Telling an officer you are armed when the law does not require it only plays into some officers paranoia. You wind up being treated like a criminal. This is despite that no gremlin is going to admit to an officer he is illegally packing a gun. This isn't cop bashing, Erik, it's just the way some officers conduct themselves.
That's right, before an officer can do the pat down legally he must have a reasonable belief a criminal act has transpired or is about to be committed. An ordinary traffic stop does not meet that expectation.
Telling an officer you are armed when the law does not require it only plays into some officers paranoia. You wind up being treated like a criminal. This is despite that no gremlin is going to admit to an officer he is illegally packing a gun. This isn't cop bashing, Erik, it's just the way some officers conduct themselves.
Treo
member
The reason I would ask to speak to my lawyer at the same time as I declined permission to search the vehicle is because short of the cop backing down on the spot I'm not answering another question.
I personally think that legal representation is indicated anytime I get asked anymore than "Do you know why I stopped you tonight?" Hasn't happened in 18 years but when it did it was a bad cop who was trying to get me to confess to a crime he knew I didn't commit. If you count good time, I would just be getting out of prison this year.
Now you know why I'm just a little bit paranoid
I personally think that legal representation is indicated anytime I get asked anymore than "Do you know why I stopped you tonight?" Hasn't happened in 18 years but when it did it was a bad cop who was trying to get me to confess to a crime he knew I didn't commit. If you count good time, I would just be getting out of prison this year.
Now you know why I'm just a little bit paranoid
wyocarp
Member
Oh, why don't we start with abuse of power and then work our way towards being total jerks.
csmkersh
Member
Along this line?
Now if the mods would just split the thread rather than locking it...
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
It is generally best to speak the least possible when you are accused of violating any law, including traffic. The more you say, the more that can be used against you. If asked if you are armed and you are LEGAL, handing your permit might not be a bad idea (i'm not talking about states where required). I still wouldn't say anything...and it is not required here in TN. Just sign the ticket and be on your way and hopefully with no admission to guilt you might get your moving violation dropped.
wyocarp
Member
csmkersh, THAT IS PERFECTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT I WAS SPEAKING OF.
Powderman
Member
Ho hum, here we go...
Folks, here's a quick lesson in traffic stops.
When you are pulled over, it is because you have broken a traffic law. I do NOT need a pretext to pull someone over--as a matter of fact, it is almost impossible for someone to drive for a mile or two without breaking at least one or two traffic regulations.
So, how many people do I pull over? Quite a few, actually. What is the threshold that defines my actions?
If you are at least 15 mph over the speed limit;
If you cross the center line;
If you're riding the fog line, and cross it multiple times;
If you're driving without regard for the other traffic on the road;
Running lights, stop signs, or traffic control signals;
Expired registrations;
Illegible plates;
REALLY defective equipment;
and a few others.
Here's a dirty little secret: I may write a NOI (Notice of Infraction) ONCE for every 20 or 25 people I pull over.
So let's say you're pulled over. Here's the first version of the conversation:
"Hi, I'm Officer XXX, from XXX department. Do you know why I pulled you over?"
OPTION 1: The driver tells the truth: "Well, I was going a bit fast."
OPTION 2: The driver drags it out: "No, I don't know, Officer."
With option #1, I usually tell them that I have them on a speed measuring device going x mph over the posted speed limit, and ask for license, registration and proof of insurance.
Same with option #2, for the most part. Here's where the two contacts diverge:
If I believe that you know you were speeding (or other infraction), and that you will at least slow down or get the fault corrected, you go with a warning.
If I believe that you will NOT correct the action, then it's time to get your attention. The ticket book comes out, and you get the paper.
Now, if by using an established standard--that of a reasonable person, in this case a trained, cautious and prudent law enforcement officer, I believe that you HAVE committed, WILL commit, or ARE committing a criminal act, then I can detain you for purposes of investigating that act. (Terry v. Ohio, 386 US).
If I am detaining you for that purpose, AND I start believing that you HAVE done something criminal--or are on the way to do so, I will admonish you regarding your rights (Escobedo v. Illinois, Miranda v. Arizona).
For purposes of traffic stops, you don't have to admit that you did ANYTHING wrong. I can articulate that you did--and in the case of speeding, I have a certified and calibrated radar unit that will back me up.
Now, to the crux of the matter: Folks, we are NOT monsters! We are human beings, and fellow citizens like you are. We are NOT out to make your lives miserable. So, treat us with a bit of courtesy, eh? I'll do the same.
If you have a complaint about the way you were treated in contact with an officer, don't suffer in silence! Contact that department's Internal Affairs Department. If that doesn't work, contact your State Patrol and your State's Attorney General. In addition, you can contact DOJ and the FBI for violations of your civil rights.
Ya'll be safe, ok?
Folks, here's a quick lesson in traffic stops.
When you are pulled over, it is because you have broken a traffic law. I do NOT need a pretext to pull someone over--as a matter of fact, it is almost impossible for someone to drive for a mile or two without breaking at least one or two traffic regulations.
So, how many people do I pull over? Quite a few, actually. What is the threshold that defines my actions?
If you are at least 15 mph over the speed limit;
If you cross the center line;
If you're riding the fog line, and cross it multiple times;
If you're driving without regard for the other traffic on the road;
Running lights, stop signs, or traffic control signals;
Expired registrations;
Illegible plates;
REALLY defective equipment;
and a few others.
Here's a dirty little secret: I may write a NOI (Notice of Infraction) ONCE for every 20 or 25 people I pull over.
So let's say you're pulled over. Here's the first version of the conversation:
"Hi, I'm Officer XXX, from XXX department. Do you know why I pulled you over?"
OPTION 1: The driver tells the truth: "Well, I was going a bit fast."
OPTION 2: The driver drags it out: "No, I don't know, Officer."
With option #1, I usually tell them that I have them on a speed measuring device going x mph over the posted speed limit, and ask for license, registration and proof of insurance.
Same with option #2, for the most part. Here's where the two contacts diverge:
If I believe that you know you were speeding (or other infraction), and that you will at least slow down or get the fault corrected, you go with a warning.
If I believe that you will NOT correct the action, then it's time to get your attention. The ticket book comes out, and you get the paper.
Now, if by using an established standard--that of a reasonable person, in this case a trained, cautious and prudent law enforcement officer, I believe that you HAVE committed, WILL commit, or ARE committing a criminal act, then I can detain you for purposes of investigating that act. (Terry v. Ohio, 386 US).
If I am detaining you for that purpose, AND I start believing that you HAVE done something criminal--or are on the way to do so, I will admonish you regarding your rights (Escobedo v. Illinois, Miranda v. Arizona).
For purposes of traffic stops, you don't have to admit that you did ANYTHING wrong. I can articulate that you did--and in the case of speeding, I have a certified and calibrated radar unit that will back me up.
Now, to the crux of the matter: Folks, we are NOT monsters! We are human beings, and fellow citizens like you are. We are NOT out to make your lives miserable. So, treat us with a bit of courtesy, eh? I'll do the same.
If you have a complaint about the way you were treated in contact with an officer, don't suffer in silence! Contact that department's Internal Affairs Department. If that doesn't work, contact your State Patrol and your State's Attorney General. In addition, you can contact DOJ and the FBI for violations of your civil rights.
Ya'll be safe, ok?
Regarding your post of 12:20 AM today, Powderman...
Very well written indeed and very helpful.
I've been stopped four times in forty-four years.
Expired registration--twice, no tickets. 1965 and 2000.
Speeding--twice. 1966, ticket, but for a lower speed than what was measured. 1987--warning.
Three different departments. No unprofessional conduct.
Around 1961 I was with someone who was pulled over. Warning. The uncased rifles on the back seat were seen but not mentioned.
Small data sample but supports the idea that police officers are not out to get people. In the major city near where I live, calls to the police are so numerous that the responses have to be prioritized.
Very well written indeed and very helpful.
I've been stopped four times in forty-four years.
Expired registration--twice, no tickets. 1965 and 2000.
Speeding--twice. 1966, ticket, but for a lower speed than what was measured. 1987--warning.
Three different departments. No unprofessional conduct.
Around 1961 I was with someone who was pulled over. Warning. The uncased rifles on the back seat were seen but not mentioned.
Small data sample but supports the idea that police officers are not out to get people. In the major city near where I live, calls to the police are so numerous that the responses have to be prioritized.
Just like only a few drivers are cop-killers looking for an opportunity so too only a few cops are JBTs looking to make themselves more powerful than the citizen they've stopped. Unfortunately in both cases people don't come with lapel pins telling you which is which. So it is prudent, on both sides, to take reasonable precautions.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Jeff,
I didn't read all of the responses, simply because I can only guess where this thread has gone over the course of four pages.
Nevertheless, you telling me (as an officer) that you have a gun in the car does not give me any legal grounds to search the car!
I have pulled over two CCW'ers in the last two weeks, and both encounters were brief... No one here ever believes it, but I tend to find that folks who are legally carrying often have quicker traffic stops than those who aren't!
Simply put, I am fairly certain that the guy who hands me a legitimate CCW permit is not a felon, is not wanted, and is not likely to be trying anything I should be worried about! Thus, I'm often able to clear these stops more quickly than I normally would.
My wife has had similar experiences when she was stopped while CCWing. She informed the officer, and the stop was over in less than two minutes.
I didn't read all of the responses, simply because I can only guess where this thread has gone over the course of four pages.
Nevertheless, you telling me (as an officer) that you have a gun in the car does not give me any legal grounds to search the car!
I have pulled over two CCW'ers in the last two weeks, and both encounters were brief... No one here ever believes it, but I tend to find that folks who are legally carrying often have quicker traffic stops than those who aren't!
Simply put, I am fairly certain that the guy who hands me a legitimate CCW permit is not a felon, is not wanted, and is not likely to be trying anything I should be worried about! Thus, I'm often able to clear these stops more quickly than I normally would.
My wife has had similar experiences when she was stopped while CCWing. She informed the officer, and the stop was over in less than two minutes.
csmkersh
Member
Cop Bashing - I Don't Think So
I'm not sure if you are commenting on this:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....8&postcount=78
or this:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....7&postcount=81
I assume it's the former, not the latter. As an ex-deputy and long time civilian, I don't consider that cop bashing. If you do then that means you are turning a blind eye to any and all abuses by the few bad officers out there. It's that old "them against us," that has become ingrained in some agencies where the vast majority of good cops cover for the one or two bad one in their department.
wyocarp said:
I'm not sure if you are commenting on this:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....8&postcount=78
Kersh said:
or this:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....7&postcount=81
Kersh said:
I assume it's the former, not the latter. As an ex-deputy and long time civilian, I don't consider that cop bashing. If you do then that means you are turning a blind eye to any and all abuses by the few bad officers out there. It's that old "them against us," that has become ingrained in some agencies where the vast majority of good cops cover for the one or two bad one in their department.
evan price
Member
Let's get a quick rundown of the playas:
On one side, we have Officer Jerkwad. Officer Jerkwad may work in a busy metro PD, or a rural burg. Odds are he has issues. He needs to be in control. He views any challenge or hint of dissent as a direct assault on his AWE-THOR-ITAY! and it will be dealt with as such.
Officer Jerkwad represents maybe 5% of police officers in the world right now but receives a LOT of bad press to make up for it.
Officer Jerkwad is often seen in groups with Officer Lazybones (the one who blips the lights and sirens to run red lights), Officer Useless (The one who would rather write out a citation for your missing brake light than investigate your complaint of three kids who just stole your stereo), Officer Lardbutt (the one who parks in handicap spots to get into Burger King quicker) and Officer Oldtimer (the one who just can't grasp that young people have rights, too).
Now, on the other side of the coin we have Citizen Jerkwad. He's the guy who holds a grudge about meeting Officer Useless 22 years ago. Citizen Jerkwad isn't a lawyer but he really wants to play one on TV someday, and he has a well thumbed edition of the Bill of Rights duct-taped to the dash of every car he owns. He views any interaction with a police officer as police brutality and secretly wishes he could be the one with the badge and gun just to "Show them all" one day.
Citizen Jerkwad represents a very small percentage of the actual population but is very adept at pounding on keyboards in Intarnetz chat rooms so you think there's a lot more of him than there really are.
Citizen Jerkwad is often associated with Citizen Sluggy (The one who won't bother to make sure his load is properly secured on the highway), Citizen Speedy (The one who goes 30+ over the limit, and aggressively zips in and out of traffic to gain a few seconds on a red light), Citizen Smokey (The one who knows Mary-Joo-Wanna is illegal... wink wink..but everybody is doing it) and Citizen Mouthy (The one who is always coming up with negative things to say about anything that is ever brought up).
Put these two groups together and what do you have?
On one side, we have Officer Jerkwad. Officer Jerkwad may work in a busy metro PD, or a rural burg. Odds are he has issues. He needs to be in control. He views any challenge or hint of dissent as a direct assault on his AWE-THOR-ITAY! and it will be dealt with as such.
Officer Jerkwad represents maybe 5% of police officers in the world right now but receives a LOT of bad press to make up for it.
Officer Jerkwad is often seen in groups with Officer Lazybones (the one who blips the lights and sirens to run red lights), Officer Useless (The one who would rather write out a citation for your missing brake light than investigate your complaint of three kids who just stole your stereo), Officer Lardbutt (the one who parks in handicap spots to get into Burger King quicker) and Officer Oldtimer (the one who just can't grasp that young people have rights, too).
Now, on the other side of the coin we have Citizen Jerkwad. He's the guy who holds a grudge about meeting Officer Useless 22 years ago. Citizen Jerkwad isn't a lawyer but he really wants to play one on TV someday, and he has a well thumbed edition of the Bill of Rights duct-taped to the dash of every car he owns. He views any interaction with a police officer as police brutality and secretly wishes he could be the one with the badge and gun just to "Show them all" one day.
Citizen Jerkwad represents a very small percentage of the actual population but is very adept at pounding on keyboards in Intarnetz chat rooms so you think there's a lot more of him than there really are.
Citizen Jerkwad is often associated with Citizen Sluggy (The one who won't bother to make sure his load is properly secured on the highway), Citizen Speedy (The one who goes 30+ over the limit, and aggressively zips in and out of traffic to gain a few seconds on a red light), Citizen Smokey (The one who knows Mary-Joo-Wanna is illegal... wink wink..but everybody is doing it) and Citizen Mouthy (The one who is always coming up with negative things to say about anything that is ever brought up).
Put these two groups together and what do you have?
Powderman
Member
Well, guess what happened?
I was on my way to work tonight, and wasn't paying attention too much to my speed. So, there I was--I looked at my speedometer, and said to myself, "Oops! Better slow down..." right when the lightbar came on behind me.
So, I immediately pulled over. The officer that came up to the car was professional and cordial. And no--I did NOT know him, and was in my personal vehicle, a 2006 Grand Caravan.
He asked me, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" I winced and said, "Yep--I was going too fast." He replied, "Yes you were. I need to see your license, registration and proof of insurance, please."
I put my hands on the dashboard, and said, "Look, before I reach for anything, I want you to know that I have a CPL, I am armed, and I have to reach past it to get my wallet. What do you want me to do?"
He just smiled, and said: "How about watching your speed? That's a $180 dollar ticket, you know." I said, "OK, I will."
He said, "Drive carefully, OK? Take care." I replied with, "You too."
He walked back to his patrol unit and shut his lights off. I continued to work.
AT NO TIME DID I MENTION THAT I WAS A POLICE OFFICER; I DID NOT SHOW HIM A COMMISSIONING CARD OR A BADGE, AND THERE WERE NO POLICE-RELATED ITEMS OR EQUIPMENT VISIBLE IN MY VEHICLE.
So, you see--a bit of common courtesy does go a long way.
Along with--possibly--a valid CPL.
I was on my way to work tonight, and wasn't paying attention too much to my speed. So, there I was--I looked at my speedometer, and said to myself, "Oops! Better slow down..." right when the lightbar came on behind me.
So, I immediately pulled over. The officer that came up to the car was professional and cordial. And no--I did NOT know him, and was in my personal vehicle, a 2006 Grand Caravan.
He asked me, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" I winced and said, "Yep--I was going too fast." He replied, "Yes you were. I need to see your license, registration and proof of insurance, please."
I put my hands on the dashboard, and said, "Look, before I reach for anything, I want you to know that I have a CPL, I am armed, and I have to reach past it to get my wallet. What do you want me to do?"
He just smiled, and said: "How about watching your speed? That's a $180 dollar ticket, you know." I said, "OK, I will."
He said, "Drive carefully, OK? Take care." I replied with, "You too."
He walked back to his patrol unit and shut his lights off. I continued to work.
AT NO TIME DID I MENTION THAT I WAS A POLICE OFFICER; I DID NOT SHOW HIM A COMMISSIONING CARD OR A BADGE, AND THERE WERE NO POLICE-RELATED ITEMS OR EQUIPMENT VISIBLE IN MY VEHICLE.
So, you see--a bit of common courtesy does go a long way.
Along with--possibly--a valid CPL.
csmkersh
Member
Powderman, I had a similar experience earlier this year. See here.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4341861&postcount=22
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I sorta vaguely recall that I first started driving a car around 1947. On through the years, it can be truthfully said that much of my driving was "enthusiastic", although I can truthfully say that I have never been above 150 mph "on the street." (Highway, actually.)
I've had what I consider to be a reasonable number of Oopsies with the minions of the law. Fewer than might be expected, but I was usually in Condition Yellow as I played.
I've met a helluva lot more cops like Powderman than any other sort.
I've been let off more often than not; either a discussion or a warning ticket. Why? I guess mostly because I never had a hostile attitude toward a guy enforcing the rules in the great game of traffic.
And if you start in on a, "How's your mom'n'em?" conversation, they become eager to send you on your way...
Art
I've had what I consider to be a reasonable number of Oopsies with the minions of the law. Fewer than might be expected, but I was usually in Condition Yellow as I played.
I've met a helluva lot more cops like Powderman than any other sort.
I've been let off more often than not; either a discussion or a warning ticket. Why? I guess mostly because I never had a hostile attitude toward a guy enforcing the rules in the great game of traffic.
And if you start in on a, "How's your mom'n'em?" conversation, they become eager to send you on your way...
Art
JohnBT
Member
I got a '65 Beetle up to 90 even though it was only rated for 72 mph.
I did 60 in it once backwards on ice and didn't hit anything or roll it.
Needless to say, being polite to traffic cops and troopers is very important. In VA we're supposed to tell 'em we're armed.
I wonder if an '06 Toyota Avalon is really limited to 138 mph? It's justing getting warmed up at 80 and coming into the good part of the power band. It's all I can do to stay awake as I crawl along with the cruise on 72.
I learned to drive from my father, he was a State Trooper way back when. Smooth and under control, but don't lug the engine.
John
I did 60 in it once backwards on ice and didn't hit anything or roll it.
Needless to say, being polite to traffic cops and troopers is very important. In VA we're supposed to tell 'em we're armed.
I wonder if an '06 Toyota Avalon is really limited to 138 mph? It's justing getting warmed up at 80 and coming into the good part of the power band. It's all I can do to stay awake as I crawl along with the cruise on 72.
I learned to drive from my father, he was a State Trooper way back when. Smooth and under control, but don't lug the engine.
John
csmkersh
Member
Don't know. My GPS said I was doing 120mph headed North on i-17 somewhere South of Flagstaff on one of the Resevations. Things happen when you're already doing 75mph and pull out to pass.
FYI, an Avalon is basically a Lexis 350 but $5K less in cost.
There has been a lot of discussion about a search with probable cause. Not meaning to thread jack here, but....
I have been wondering if an officer did have probable cause to search the car is that limited to the passenger compartment? Would the trunk then require a warrant?
I have been wondering if an officer did have probable cause to search the car is that limited to the passenger compartment? Would the trunk then require a warrant?
csmkersh
Member
No, no warrant. Also, If the officer decides to give you a ride, then they are supposed or should to inventory the vehicle contents when it reaches impound. No warrant required then either.
thesecond
Member
probable cause
depends upon the nature of the probable cause articulated.
depends upon the nature of the probable cause articulated.
This is a state issue and the laws of the states differ. Check the state that you are in at the time of the stop and do what you are supposed to do in that state. The office will ask you if he/she has an interest in the no tell states. Answer truthfully.
Blacksmoke
Member
A LEO asking if you are carrying drugs or a firearm is a very strange question. The first part involves asking you to admit to a crime. You have no obligation to respond to a question about drugs and thereby admit to a crime. The second is a reasonable question but in NM and CO an answer in the affirmative is unlikely to constitute Reasonable Suspicion on its own. Combined with other facts it could be justified.
- Status