NavyLCDR
member
Just curious... who provided the knee high black leather boots, the chief or the union?
BTW, the union will only protect you from your employer. The union won't protect you from the courts.
Last edited:
Illinois traffic stop while transporting firearms.
- Thread starter wlemay
- Start date
- Status
Just curious... who provided the knee high black leather boots, the chief or the union?
BTW, the union will only protect you from your employer. The union won't protect you from the courts.
Just curious... who provided the knee high black leather boots, the chief or the union?
Okay now having been marked as a jackbooted thug,
1. The state law allowed a police officer to either issue a verbal warning, written warning, summons or arrest for a motor vehicle violation.
2. State law also made the police department liable for damages and contents of a person's car when they were arrested. The only way to ensure they were secure was to inventory and tow the car.
I guess it was the state legislature that should have issued the boots but they didn't. I know some live in parts of the country where Sheriff Bubba and his drinking buddies make up the law as they go along. I can't help that.
BTW, the union will only protect you from your employer. The union won't protect you from the courts.
Read my response, you can't sue a police department or successfully pursue a civil case when everything was done within the law.
Okay now having been marked as a jackbooted thug,
1. The state law allowed a police officer to either issue a verbal warning, written warning, summons or arrest for a motor vehicle violation.
2. State law also made the police department liable for damages and contents of a person's car when they were arrested. The only way to ensure they were secure was to inventory and tow the car.
I guess it was the state legislature that should have issued the boots but they didn't. I know some live in parts of the country where Sheriff Bubba and his drinking buddies make up the law as they go along. I can't help that.
BTW, the union will only protect you from your employer. The union won't protect you from the courts.
Read my response, you can't sue a police department or successfully pursue a civil case when everything was done within the law.
NavyLCDR
member
GRIZ22 said:
It is squarely your decision, officer, whether or not to the wear the boots, regardless of who issues them to you.
kingpin008
Member
GRIZZ - you say this:
Which seems to contradict this:
If they weren't doing anything wrong, how could towing and searching their cars be legal?
Which seems to contradict this:
If they weren't doing anything wrong, how could towing and searching their cars be legal?
It is squarely your decision, officer, whether or not to the wear the boots, regardless of who issues them to you.
That could be construed as a personal attack but I won't respond in kind.
I agree with what you say in your post 23 and if you thought I was referring to you as a wise ass I was responding to Cop Bobs post.
My point in relating what I did is too many people think they will be "exercising their rights" by refusing to talk to police at all. I use the issue about being arrested and your car being towed for a MV violation to illustrate a point. It can happen and just shutting your mouth totally (which you didn'y say) can give you more trobule than you just answered questions (as you said you would do).
I guess I have to go shine my boots now.
That could be construed as a personal attack but I won't respond in kind.
I agree with what you say in your post 23 and if you thought I was referring to you as a wise ass I was responding to Cop Bobs post.
My point in relating what I did is too many people think they will be "exercising their rights" by refusing to talk to police at all. I use the issue about being arrested and your car being towed for a MV violation to illustrate a point. It can happen and just shutting your mouth totally (which you didn'y say) can give you more trobule than you just answered questions (as you said you would do).
I guess I have to go shine my boots now.
If they weren't doing anything wrong, how could towing and searching their cars be legal?
kingpin my error and thank for bringing it to my attention, I should have stated:
I know of this happening to people who played smartass, they weren't doing anything wrong other than the MV violation but preferred to try the bust the LEOs chops.
I failed to include "other than a MV violation" in my original post.
kingpin my error and thank for bringing it to my attention, I should have stated:
I know of this happening to people who played smartass, they weren't doing anything wrong other than the MV violation but preferred to try the bust the LEOs chops.
I failed to include "other than a MV violation" in my original post.
I'd like to see a state law that allows for the arrest of a motor vehicle operator for something as petty as a broken tail light. I'm not accusing you of lying. It wouldn't be the first time a law enforcement agency didn't interpret the law correctly.
What state is this? This seems like a host of issues beginning with civil rights moving into harassment. It also seems like something that would be fought in court and would be won with something simple like arguing that by arresting anyone who is speeding that an LEO is now able to search the vehicle without PC or a search warrant. So whatever state this is has given LEOs the ability to search essentially any car that he wants.
As to the OP, illinois doesn't require you to inform don't inform. From there it's up to you whether you're tight lipped and rub the LEO the wrong way or whether you are straight forward and flipping the coin... as a general rule in Illinois I'd say the closer to Chicago I was the more tight lipped I'd be.
What state is this? This seems like a host of issues beginning with civil rights moving into harassment. It also seems like something that would be fought in court and would be won with something simple like arguing that by arresting anyone who is speeding that an LEO is now able to search the vehicle without PC or a search warrant. So whatever state this is has given LEOs the ability to search essentially any car that he wants.
As to the OP, illinois doesn't require you to inform don't inform. From there it's up to you whether you're tight lipped and rub the LEO the wrong way or whether you are straight forward and flipping the coin... as a general rule in Illinois I'd say the closer to Chicago I was the more tight lipped I'd be.
Last edited:
Geckgo
Member
There was an LEO in my hometown in Illinois that would arrest people and have their car towed by a friend of his that would give him kickbacks from the money paid out for the "victims" to get their cars back. I wonder if he's still in prison.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Folks, this is an important conversation, and a very emotionally charged one. Please keep it as civil and respectful as humanly possible.
The police have a tough job to do with pitfalls on either side of a very narrow path. Their actions in search and arrest live at the very crossroads of one of the more knotty Constitutional questions in existence. The interpretations and instructions they're given, not only differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but can be confusing, hard to put into practice safely and legally, and are sometimes even wrong, and need to be challenged in court. Unfortunately officers are often taught to reach just as far as they can -- get folks to "arrest themselves" -- rather than respect the rights of their fellow citizen above all else.
The "average Joe citizen" also has a tough and frustrating line to walk between friendly compliance with the public servant (officer) standing at his/her window, and abdicating his rights as a free Citizen of the United States. There may (or may not, unfortunately, depending on the circumstances) be a narrow path he or she can walk to avoid the pitfalls on either side -- and he/she knows/believes that he/she will suffer serious consequences from an over-step in either direction. Fairly or unfairly, Constitutionally, or Un... Unfortunately, A.J. Citizen is often taught to roll over and blithely submit to whatever an law enforcement authority requests because, of course, "I've got nothing to hide ... I'm a good person," and because they don't really understand their rights or the law.
Let us speak plainly and without emotional hyperbole (JBT...
) so we can distill the issue and obtain the clearest possible answers to help both parties walk their fine lines.
The police have a tough job to do with pitfalls on either side of a very narrow path. Their actions in search and arrest live at the very crossroads of one of the more knotty Constitutional questions in existence. The interpretations and instructions they're given, not only differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but can be confusing, hard to put into practice safely and legally, and are sometimes even wrong, and need to be challenged in court. Unfortunately officers are often taught to reach just as far as they can -- get folks to "arrest themselves" -- rather than respect the rights of their fellow citizen above all else.
The "average Joe citizen" also has a tough and frustrating line to walk between friendly compliance with the public servant (officer) standing at his/her window, and abdicating his rights as a free Citizen of the United States. There may (or may not, unfortunately, depending on the circumstances) be a narrow path he or she can walk to avoid the pitfalls on either side -- and he/she knows/believes that he/she will suffer serious consequences from an over-step in either direction. Fairly or unfairly, Constitutionally, or Un... Unfortunately, A.J. Citizen is often taught to roll over and blithely submit to whatever an law enforcement authority requests because, of course, "I've got nothing to hide ... I'm a good person," and because they don't really understand their rights or the law.
Let us speak plainly and without emotional hyperbole (JBT...
) so we can distill the issue and obtain the clearest possible answers to help both parties walk their fine lines.
Sam1911 I agree with keeping things civil however, I will not give up my lawful rights to appease the power personality of a Police Officer with a puffy chest and a shiney badge.
Smart azz is as smart azz does and just asking a question as ridiculous as
"Do you have any guns, knives, pipe bombs, Al Queda operatives, etcetera in your vehicle?" already opens the door to a smart azz response from the citizen.
When you have been pulled over for simple speeding, there is no reason what so ever to ask that question nor is there a reason for the citizen to answer it, truthfully or otherwise.
There is no reason, lawful or otherwise, for a citizen to NOT question the Officer as to why specifically he is being pulled over.
There is no reason for the Officer to become super dick and start writing additional Mickey Mouse tickets because the citizen chooses to not comply with his form of investigative talents.
This form of Police work is harrassment of the citizenry in its purest form and real professional Officers do not need to resort to these measures.
Pure rookie in my book.
Smart azz is as smart azz does and just asking a question as ridiculous as
"Do you have any guns, knives, pipe bombs, Al Queda operatives, etcetera in your vehicle?" already opens the door to a smart azz response from the citizen.
When you have been pulled over for simple speeding, there is no reason what so ever to ask that question nor is there a reason for the citizen to answer it, truthfully or otherwise.
There is no reason, lawful or otherwise, for a citizen to NOT question the Officer as to why specifically he is being pulled over.
There is no reason for the Officer to become super dick and start writing additional Mickey Mouse tickets because the citizen chooses to not comply with his form of investigative talents.
This form of Police work is harrassment of the citizenry in its purest form and real professional Officers do not need to resort to these measures.
Pure rookie in my book.
WHY????
If your owning & transporting your firearm is legal, why wouldn't you answer the question?? Answering the officer will save you a whole lot of hassle and lost time on the street. I live in Illinois and I would surely answer the question since I am of the mind the officer is doing his job. As a dealer I transport several guns at a time on occasion. Protecting your rights is one thing, being foolish is another.
If your owning & transporting your firearm is legal, why wouldn't you answer the question?? Answering the officer will save you a whole lot of hassle and lost time on the street. I live in Illinois and I would surely answer the question since I am of the mind the officer is doing his job. As a dealer I transport several guns at a time on occasion. Protecting your rights is one thing, being foolish is another.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I didn't suggest you should. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. But to take this right to "power personality" and "puffy chest and a shiney badge," is the kind of hyperbole I'm seeking to avoid. Officers are generally taught to ask lots of probing questions and see just how much they can get out of someone "voluntarily." The fact that a detained person is not under any obligation to answer some of those questions is glossed over. The simple act of asking doesn't imply that the officer is a puffed-up self-important jerk -- or a rookie, by any stretch -- any more than the simple act of retaining your rights and refusing to divulge information or consent to a search means the detained person is a criminal or deserves to be treated like one.
These aren't "smart alek" questions. They are purposeful and used deliberately. But regardless of your opinion of the officer or the tactic, responding in less than a highly professional and courteous way cannot possibly help you. Why would you give a "smart alek" answer to ANY question an officer asks? If you feel he's a jerk, keep yourself above that level and don't give him more attitude (or "rope") with which to decide to hassle you.
If he's polite, be polite in return. If he's a fishing, self-inflated, jerk -- be EXTRA polite in return. You have every right to be a "smart alek." But it probably isn't wise.
Being polite doesn't mean rolling over. Being professional in response to whatever the officer throws at you does not mean consenting to every request, nor giving information you don't have to.
Again, there IS a reason. People often will say the darnedest things. Many "arrest themselves" as Grizz said. You don't have to play that game, though. A citizen's polite, firm, and lawful refusal to answer a question is an appropriate response.
You're correct. That's just smart.
No, but -- like it or not -- officers do have a lot of leeway with how they can make an investigation proceed. Knowing that they are using a fishing technique with their questions allows you to not subject yourself to that technique -- and to understand that it isn't necessarily a personality thing. Keep your responses polite and professional and you're likely to give them much less reason to "punish" you.
Hey, if you are boiling for a fight and want to taunt the officer into treating you inappropriately so that you can try to fight him and his department for harassment -- that's fine. But go into it knowing that's the road ahead, and be prepared for disappointment and great hassle. Don't let your emotions drive you into that path blindly or you're likely to do yourself harm without producing any benefits.
Is it harassment? As described in the most extreme cases (like, a person stopped for a dead headlight doesn't consent to a search so his car is towed, impounded, and searched) it could be. Is it rectifiable in court or through administrative means? Maybe, maybe not. We hope that all who find themselves subjected to that kind of treatment fight it as hard and as long as they can.
The questions? Or the possible subsequent harassment for non-compliance? The questions aren't a "rookie" thing, at all. The harassment may be, but may be deeply ingrained in some agencies/areas.
Last edited:
NavyLCDR
member
snubbies said:
Each person has their own personal level of where they feel their rights are being violated and how far they will go to exercise their rights. In this case, we aren't really talking about 2nd Amendment rights just because guns are involved. We are talking about 4th Amendment rights.
My personal level is that I won't identify myself to a police officer unless I am certain that he is officially detaining me. I will not provide my CPL to a police officer unless I am required by law to do so whether or not I am officially detained. Once it is undeniably clear that I am officially detained, I will answer most of the officer's questions truthfully, and then we'll sort it out in court, if need be, whether there was a legally justifiable reason for the detainment. But that is the key - it must be undeniably clear that a non-consensual detention is occurring, and offering blind compliance to an officer's request does great damage to proving in court that the encounter was not consensual.
In the situation of being asked about guns in the vehicle, many people have decided for themselves that the importance of not being removed from the vehicle and searched (frisk or search of the vehicle) is the reason why they will refuse to answer a question about the presence of firearms in their vehicle.
There is a small minority of police officers out there who will automatically remove a person from the vehicle, frisk them and search the vehicle for weapons upon receiving notification or indication there is a firearm present, even when the subject presents a permit. Some police officers call it "SOP", standard operating procedure. When a person answers the gun question with, "I have nothing illegal in my vehicle nor transporting anything in an illegal manner" it will derail those officers' automatic sequence of events.
One thing to keep in mind is that the US Supreme Court has ruled many times that a person exercising their 4th Amendment or 5th Amendment rights does NOT provide reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. The argument of "if you have nothing to hide, than don't hide anything", in my personal opinion, goes a bit against the concept of "just because I am keeping private affairs private does not mean that I am hiding something."
hermannr
Member
mg mikael
The wrong street was not a one-way, but may have been considered that for some white boy...that is, one way into the public tenements, from which you, as that young white boy, may never exit, except maybe in horizontal position.
At least that was the impression the officer gave me.
The wrong street was not a one-way, but may have been considered that for some white boy...that is, one way into the public tenements, from which you, as that young white boy, may never exit, except maybe in horizontal position.
At least that was the impression the officer gave me.
Ogie
Member
This is not totally accurate in Illinois. Your pistol can be in your glove box, unloaded, with a full magazine right next to it. The Illinois Supreme court ruled on this recently. The same applies if you are out of state. There is no requirement that an out of state resident is required to have a FOID card, only a permit to carry from their own state. The Illinois supreme court ruled on this just in the last few months in regard to an Indiana state driver that had an unloaded pistol in their center console.
Edited: This is in response to the original post. Apparently I haven't figured out how to select a quote.
Edited: This is in response to the original post. Apparently I haven't figured out how to select a quote.
Ogie
Member
"If we shorten the original question to "do you have any weapons in the vehicle" how would you respond? In most jurisdiction lying to a LEO is against the law (18USC1001 in the US Code)."
Actually that only applies to Federal LEOs. The stipulation for local LEOs would be that you can't lie to cover up a crime or obstruct an investigation. There may be a couple of other stipulations as well. Otherwise there is usually no law that prohibits you from lying. I'm not saying you should, just saying that you could do so in many cases. If the officer asks where you are going and you tell him you are going to the moon, there's no law against that.
Actually that only applies to Federal LEOs. The stipulation for local LEOs would be that you can't lie to cover up a crime or obstruct an investigation. There may be a couple of other stipulations as well. Otherwise there is usually no law that prohibits you from lying. I'm not saying you should, just saying that you could do so in many cases. If the officer asks where you are going and you tell him you are going to the moon, there's no law against that.
I'd like to see a state law that allows for the arrest of a motor vehicle operator for something as petty as a broken tail light. I'm not accusing you of lying. It wouldn't be the first time a law enforcement agency didn't interpret the law correctly.
It also wouldn't be the first time someone tried to blame a LE agency for not interpreting the law correctly, a law the person wasn't aware of, New Jersey Statute 39: 5-25:
39:5-25. Any law enforcement officer may, without a warrant, arrest any person violating in his presence any provision of chapter 3 of this Title, or any person,...... violating in his presence any provision of chapter 4 of this Title.......person arrested shall be detained in the police station or municipal court until the arresting officer makes a complaint and a warrant issues.
Any law enforcement officer may, instead of arresting an offender as herein provided, serve upon him a summons
Not much room for a misinterpretation there.
FYI, Chapter 3 generally deals with registration, licences, etc and Chapter 4 with operation.
I edited most of the stuff not required to answer your question and if you care to you can read the entire statute at this link,
http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/5-25.html
Generally you will be arrested in NJ for MV violations such as DUI, Driving on the Revoked List, Reckless Driving, and other more serious violations. However, you can be arrested for any MV violation. You can be arrested for a broken tail light. Does it happen often, no definitely not. Am I saying it should be used often, no. It is something you may want to be aware of and statutes like this do have some value to the police in enforcing the law.
I would hazard a guess many states have a similar statute. Rather than list specific MV violations you can be arrested for its easier to say all of them and only arrest for the most serious ones as a matter of practice.
What state is this? This seems like a host of issues beginning with civil rights moving into harassment. It also seems like something that would be fought in court and would be won with something simple like arguing that by arresting anyone who is speeding that an LEO is now able to search the vehicle without PC or a search warrant. So whatever state this is has given LEOs the ability to search essentially any car that he wants.
If you go to the above link you'll see this statute has been on the books since at least 1940 when it was first amended and last reviewed in 2010. There has been plenty of opportunity to challenge this law but its been there at least 70 years.
Police can be held liable for not safeguarding the personal property of someone they arrested and the only way to ensure the vehicle is secure is to have it towed. The search without warrant is an inventory search which SCOTUS has upheld several times (there are some conditions). The inventory search is to secure any valuables, note the condition of the car, etc. If evidence of a criminal violation is found it is admissible.
You can Google inventory searches for more details.
Quote:
Your car can be towed and an inventory search can be done.
It can? Please cite the relevant law that allows police to confiscate property because an individual refuses to answer questions. Sounds like illegal search & seizure to me.
kingpin I am not saying the police are seizing your property they are safeguarding it. Read my explanation above.
There was an LEO in my hometown in Illinois that would arrest people and have their car towed by a friend of his that would give him kickbacks from the money paid out for the "victims" to get their cars back. I wonder if he's still in prison.
That's not a problem where the tow trucks are registered with the PD, contract fees are established and tow trucks are called on a rotating basis. You can't be aware of who is getting the next tow and there is no incentive for the tow truck operator to provide kickbacks.
I brought up these issues as being relavent to the discussion. I haven't suggested anyone give up their rights or consent to a search. I agree with Cop Bob when he says, "Being "cute" and verbally quoting law and the Constitution is NO way to win Friends and Influence the Po-Po on a traffic stop... ". You can deal with it anyway you want.
You may not like the truth but you have to deal with it.
It also wouldn't be the first time someone tried to blame a LE agency for not interpreting the law correctly, a law the person wasn't aware of, New Jersey Statute 39: 5-25:
39:5-25. Any law enforcement officer may, without a warrant, arrest any person violating in his presence any provision of chapter 3 of this Title, or any person,...... violating in his presence any provision of chapter 4 of this Title.......person arrested shall be detained in the police station or municipal court until the arresting officer makes a complaint and a warrant issues.
Any law enforcement officer may, instead of arresting an offender as herein provided, serve upon him a summons
Not much room for a misinterpretation there.
FYI, Chapter 3 generally deals with registration, licences, etc and Chapter 4 with operation.
I edited most of the stuff not required to answer your question and if you care to you can read the entire statute at this link,
http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/5-25.html
Generally you will be arrested in NJ for MV violations such as DUI, Driving on the Revoked List, Reckless Driving, and other more serious violations. However, you can be arrested for any MV violation. You can be arrested for a broken tail light. Does it happen often, no definitely not. Am I saying it should be used often, no. It is something you may want to be aware of and statutes like this do have some value to the police in enforcing the law.
I would hazard a guess many states have a similar statute. Rather than list specific MV violations you can be arrested for its easier to say all of them and only arrest for the most serious ones as a matter of practice.
What state is this? This seems like a host of issues beginning with civil rights moving into harassment. It also seems like something that would be fought in court and would be won with something simple like arguing that by arresting anyone who is speeding that an LEO is now able to search the vehicle without PC or a search warrant. So whatever state this is has given LEOs the ability to search essentially any car that he wants.
If you go to the above link you'll see this statute has been on the books since at least 1940 when it was first amended and last reviewed in 2010. There has been plenty of opportunity to challenge this law but its been there at least 70 years.
Police can be held liable for not safeguarding the personal property of someone they arrested and the only way to ensure the vehicle is secure is to have it towed. The search without warrant is an inventory search which SCOTUS has upheld several times (there are some conditions). The inventory search is to secure any valuables, note the condition of the car, etc. If evidence of a criminal violation is found it is admissible.
You can Google inventory searches for more details.
Quote:
Your car can be towed and an inventory search can be done.
It can? Please cite the relevant law that allows police to confiscate property because an individual refuses to answer questions. Sounds like illegal search & seizure to me.
kingpin I am not saying the police are seizing your property they are safeguarding it. Read my explanation above.
There was an LEO in my hometown in Illinois that would arrest people and have their car towed by a friend of his that would give him kickbacks from the money paid out for the "victims" to get their cars back. I wonder if he's still in prison.
That's not a problem where the tow trucks are registered with the PD, contract fees are established and tow trucks are called on a rotating basis. You can't be aware of who is getting the next tow and there is no incentive for the tow truck operator to provide kickbacks.
I brought up these issues as being relavent to the discussion. I haven't suggested anyone give up their rights or consent to a search. I agree with Cop Bob when he says, "Being "cute" and verbally quoting law and the Constitution is NO way to win Friends and Influence the Po-Po on a traffic stop... ". You can deal with it anyway you want.
You may not like the truth but you have to deal with it.
Actually that only applies to Federal LEOs. The stipulation for local LEOs would be that you can't lie to cover up a crime or obstruct an investigation.
I am well aware of that and there are states that have similar statutes.
If the officer asks where you are going and you tell him you are going to the moon, there's no law against that.
I have a story where that was a response that eventually got the actor arrested but I can't put it on an open forum.
I am well aware of that and there are states that have similar statutes.
If the officer asks where you are going and you tell him you are going to the moon, there's no law against that.
I have a story where that was a response that eventually got the actor arrested but I can't put it on an open forum.
1stmarine
Member
Option A) I have a weapon!
Option B) Officer, I have a firearm in my possession and a permit to carry it.
Option B) Officer, I have a firearm in my possession and a permit to carry it.
Ogie
Member
"I have a story where that was a response that eventually got the actor arrested but I can't put it on an open forum."
Oh, I don't doubt it, but it probably wasn't for what he said.
Oh, I don't doubt it, but it probably wasn't for what he said.
- Status