Illinois???

[wideym]

isp2605: I'm not sure how to do a link but try these address

www.topix.net/forum/city/vian-ok/TLR74333NFJUVMR9S

www.sequoyacountytimes.com/articles/2006/12/20/news/frontb.txt

They may have reported the wrong agency which banned them, but they were banned.

 

[isp2605]

So now it's not the FBI as you first said. A bit of embellishment?
There's a bit more to that story than banning. And I don't see anything that has anything to do with your story. Sorry but your story still doen't meet the smell test.

 

[Harvster]

While transporting anywhere---

Where you may not know the law, aren't you always covered if you follow the federal guidelines of having your gun unloaded and locked in the trunk or in a case if you don't have a trunk?

 

[Warner]

After reading all this with interest, one big question comes to mind. How (what wording) to refuse a consent search that wouldn't put more suspicion on someone with nothing to hide?

W

 

[wideym]

isp2605: Did you really read the articles or the topix forum in the six minutes from the time I posted to your post? I'm sorry if my sentence structure led you the FBI banned them, what I meant to write was that in addition to the FBI and ODS investigation they were banned.

Also the FBI doesnot investigate a local PD on the word of a couple of drunks or meth heads. They must have belived misconduct may have been happening. I'm trying to be calm about this, but personal attacks are just that personal. Time for another Prozac I suppose.

 

[isp2605]

Harvester is correct.
However, a person doesn't want to try to play games with FOPA thinking they can circumvent what it says and is intended. As an example, someone from FL is on vacation, goes to Chicago for 2 weeks and will return to their home in FL. They are legal where they start in FL and they are legal when they return home to FL therefore they think they'll try to squeeze the law by saying everyplace in between they can legal transport. That's not the intent of FOPA. Their destination is Chicago, not FL. They would have to be legal where they are heading. Those are the kind of things that get people tricked up with the law, not because the law is tricky but because they think they're smart enough to trick the law and find out they aren't.

How (what wording) to refuse a consent search that wouldn't put more suspicion on someone with nothing to hide?

To use the words of Nancy Reagan "just say no." There's no need to try to be cute about it or think a person can double talk their way thru it. Just say no. It's when people think they can double talk it that they trick themselves up. Think about it. How many times does the average person deal with the law in a stressful situation in their lifetime. Probably none or extremely rare. Yet every time the LEO works they are dealing with people in the same type situations. You get so you can quickly pick up normal reactions and what's not normal. Just act normal.

Did you really read the articles or the topix forum in the six minutes from the time I posted to your post? I'm sorry if my sentence structure led you the FBI banned them, what I meant to write was that in addition to the FBI and ODS investigation they were banned.

Yeah I read it. You're second link doesn't go to any story. And I still didn't see where it had nothing to do with your story.
As far as "led you the FBI banned them" that's what you wrote. There was no leading. There was nothing in the story about the FBI. Even so, what's any of that have to do with your situation? I haven't seen a thing. You're trying to paint 1 dept with 1 situation as if it applies to everything they did.

Also the FBI doesnot investigate a local PD on the word of a couple of drunks or meth heads.

And you know what the FBI investigates or doesn't? Do you think every investigation is only started when someone rich and respectable complains? Sorry, but I've been involved with enough FBI investigations to know your assumption doesn't hold water either.

I'm trying to be calm about this, but personal attacks are just that personal.

Nothing personal but just don't try to embellish your story if you want it believed. First it's the FBI, now it's not. Links to a story about speeding tickets which in your story has nothing to do with speeding tickets. That's embellishment and trying to link your case with something unrelated.

And what's more, what does your tale of woe in Oklahoma have to do with IL?

 

[Warner]

Thanks isp2605.

My effort wasn't to find any way to be cute or sneaky as much as it was trying to brainstorm ahead of time for any other effective answers other than an abrupt "NO" that a totally legit and legal civilian could give an LEO in that circumstance.

If there aren't any alternatives, so be it.

W

 

[glummer]

Completely enclosed in a case designed for the purpose of carrying a firearm.

"a container specifically designed for the purpose of housing a gun or bow and arrow device which completely encloses such gun or bow and arrow device by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened with no portion of the gun or bow and arrow device exposed."

Looks like that would include on old-style flap holster, would it not?

Jeff

Your home isn't using or possessing in the field.

?? What has “the field” got to do with it?

It is unlawful to use any shotgun capable of holding more than 3 shells in the magazine or chamber combined, except on game breeding and hunting preserve areas licensed under Section 3.27 and except as permitted by the Code of Federal Regulations for the taking of waterfowl. If the shotgun is capable of holding more than 3 shells, it shall, while being used on an area other than a game breeding and shooting preserve area licensed pursuant to Section 3.27, be fitted with a one piece plug that is irremovable without dismantling the shotgun or otherwise altered to render it incapable of holding more than 3 shells in the magazine and chamber, combined.

It is unlawful to use any shotgun capable of holding more than 3 shells …
except on … preserve areas … and
except … for the taking of waterfowl. ...
(B)eing used on an area other than a ... preserve ... be fitted with a ... plug

Home defense fits neither of those exceptions.
And your home is definitely "other than a preserve."
So 3 shots IS the limit.

 

[isp2605]

Warner, I understand. I understood your question as sincere and legit and not one trying to be cute or sneaky. The simple answer is just "no". One doesn't need to go into things like "I know my rights", "You have no right", etc the other type responses that every cop hears. Those don't accomplish anything but usually shows the person really doesn't know their rights nor what rights the police have.
For additional, it's not that often that people get asked to be searched. IL has been doing a study the past couple of years of all traffic stops by every agency. Every LE agency in IL has to comply with the study. The purpose of the study is for racial profiling but it also shows just how infrequently someone is asked to be searched. If you dig around on IDOT's website and search for "racial profiling" you can find the study for the past few years. About 1% of all traffic stops statewide a consent to search is requested. That's for every traffic stop including those by units in high crime areas who aren't there to work things like speed enforcement. Those units are making stops and specifically looking for contraband and people on warrants. So if you aren't driving around in one of the high crime areas, particularly at night, then the percentage of requests goes way way down.
However, a lot of times when the officer asks if they can search they've already gotten enough PC for the search but are trying to be courteous. I tried to get my people to quit asking for a search if they've already established grounds for a search. There were some who'd walk up to a car, see pot, a gun, open liquor, or other illegal contraband in plain sight and they'd still ask permission to search. At that point they don't need permission. Seeing the contraband in plain view already gave them the legal right to enter the vehicle and conduct a search. When we'd talk in training or after action about it their usual response they gave for asking permission was they were trying to be nice. What we found instead was it often created a confrontation. If they saw dope in plain view, asked permission to search, and was told no the "no" answer really didn't matter. Plain view already gave them the legal right to search. They still had to carry on with the stop and conduct the search even tho told no. All the asking permission first did was to create an atmosphere of confrontation which sometimes resulted in an altercation and the driver in more trouble than they were with just the original contraband. So in the case of something like dope in plain view if the person responds with "I know my rights" then clearly they don't and the search continues on without their consent.
You'd be surprised tho how many people holding contraband will agree to a search. I was always amazed and I did it for a lot of years. I'm not talking small dope amounts but multi-pound quantities, obviously far more than personal use. We're talking mules hauling from across the border type operations. As an example one of my Troops stopped a semi driver who didn't act quite right and displayed some of the indicators we look for. The Troop asked if he could look around in the cab of the truck. The Troop really didn't need permission and could have looked around inside the truck doing a motor carrier safety inspection but the Troop asked anyway. Troop found the headliner was hanging down about 8" below the top of the cab. Feeling the liner you could tell something was in it. In it was $1.3 mil in cash stuffed in the truck which was heading for a town along the Mexican border. 24 hrs later that cash would have been in the hands of one of Mexico's largest drug cartels.

 

[scout26]

Looks like that would include on old-style flap holster, would it not?

Only if it COMPLETELY ENCLOSES the firearm. E.g. you can't see any part of the firearm no matter what angle you look at it. If you can see the butt of firearm, as with a flap holster then it's not COMPLETELY ENCLOSED. If you're thinking of something like the old US Army 1911 holsters, they don't cut it as it does not COMPLETELY ENCLOSE the frearm.

Now when deer hunting in Illinois it's a different story. I know a guy who goes out in the woods looking like the Frito Bandito with a pistol on each hip and and two in shoulder holsters.

 

[Jeff White]

glummer,
I'm sorry, I didn't include paragraph (ii) of Sec. 2.33. Prohibitions. which states:

(ii) This Section shall apply only to those species protected by this Act taken within the State. Any species or any parts thereof, legally taken in and transported from other states or countries, may be possessed within the State, except as provided in this Section and Sections 2.35, 2.36 and 3.21.

All the prohibitions in section 2.33 including the 3 round limit on shotguns only apply when hunting species protected by the act. Last time I checked, home invaders were not protected under either state or federal game laws.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

Jeff

 

[Warner]

Thanks again isp2605. I appreciate all the time you took and understood what you wrote.

I believe I was looking for something that didn't imply the civilian had anything to hide ... on the other hand, I also can see where some of an LEO's leverage might be peeking through now.


W

 

[ShunZu]

Question for ISP2605

You are obviously very well qualified to talk to this topic, and all of us appreciate your expert input.

(I went to LE school for 2 years with Mike "The Judge" from District 11 back in '73 and '74, so there's a possibility you and I have met before. I've also lectured several seminars on I.T. security in Springfield at the same location the ISP has training and conventions).

I have a basic question... actually, 3 parts. First, are you personally in favor of QUALIFIED CCW in this state? and secondly, what is your professional opinion of what CCW would do (good, bad or little positive effect) for this state. And thirdly, what is the general concensus among your peers?

Thanks. Have a great weekend. And again, all of us appreciate your input.

 

[isp2605]

Shunzu,
Possibility we have met. Not familar with the nickname "Mike the Judge". Only time I worked D-11 was when there were the OIS shootings in E St Louis in the late 80s/early 90s and a few non-LEO related investigations in that area.

First, are you personally in favor of QUALIFIED CCW in this state?
I would like my wife, kids, parents, siblings, other relatives, friends, etc to have that option if they desire. That's the reason a lot of LEOs support CCW.

People will say LEOs don't care about CCW for non-LEOs because LEOs can carry already. What they fail to realize is that even tho the LEO can carry their family and friends can't. I can't be with my wife all the time to protect her and the kids are grown with their own families.

secondly, what is your professional opinion of what CCW would do (good, bad or little positive effect) for this state.
Truthfully, I don't think there will be any impact on crime rates. Even in states that have CCW there has been no direct corrolation proven. Crime rates can be impacted by a lot of things including things completely unrelated to LE. It's dangerous to point to an individual CCW state that has had a drop in crime rates and try to use that state as an example in favor for CCW. What happens the next year when the crime rate in that state goes up? There goes the pro-argument and it's done nothing but lend credibility to the antis. In addition, most of those committing the violent crimes aren't thinking they'll give up crime because a state has CCW. They'll continue with their "job" but just choose the target carefully. What CCW might do is sort of like the death penalty. Neither may reduce crime but they might reduce the world of 1 criminal. Unfortunately there are plenty more getting into that line of employment all the time.
My look at CCW is police can't be every where to protect everyone all the time. That's not the role of the police. Not only can they not but US society would not stand for that type of law enforcement.
I grew up in a very remote rural location in the corner of 3 counties. Back then there was no LE presence in our area. There wasn't a lot of problems but we took care of what problems there were until the police got there. I made my first assist with apprehending a burglary subject when I was 16 and armed with a 20 ga Ithaca Model 37. Had we waited until the sheriff got there from 30 miles away there wouldn't have been any burglary subject hanging around.

And thirdly, what is the general concensus among your peers?
Generally favorable. As with any cross section of society, and LEOs are a cross section of society, you can find beliefs ranging from one side to the other and everything inbetween.

I think there could have been a possibility for some kind of CCW movement making progress in IL but the zealots have poisoned the water. What has hurt us the most have been the raving fringe showing up on the capitol steps in their cammie fatigues, waving signs, making implied threats, and generally making fools of themselves. I've talked to some of the legislators who had been sort of neutral on the issue but they bring up the cammie wearing, sign waving, yelling knuckleheads and have said if those are the people who will be carrying the guns then there's no way they could support CCW. Standing back and watching the way some of these folks have acted at the rallies I can see why a legislator would think that way. Some of them even made me wonder if a person who can't control their emotions any better than some at the rally then could we trust them carrying a firearm and not losing control. CCW is a major personal responsibility and there are some folks who demonstrate they don't have the ability to take responsibility for their actions. We would have been better off if those types had just stayed home, or in their cave.

 

[for_hire]

This might be a bit off topic but I have 2 statements of experiences i have had as a new carrier.

1. I recently was helping with a haunted house. I was dressed up in my atire when a man that is a deputy came up to me and asked if he could look in my bag. I asked him why and he preceded to tell me that they had met and decided that only the police where to wear firearms.
I did not let them search my bag for 2 reasons. The first is they had no basis and the second is they assumed I was carrying because they know me.
The interesting thing is a days later the police chief was involved in a confortation involving some individuals there. He lost his temper and began to throw stuff..Im glad the cops that had a temper issue had the gun

2. I was pulled over at one time coming home from shooting. I had my AR-15 and 3 pistols. I have a CCW and when pulled over I gave them my ID and CCW card. The officer asked me if i had weapons. I did not lie and said yes officer I have one on my right hip and my rifle and others are stowed away. He then asked me if he could search my vehicle. I asked what were his grounds and he reluctantly told me to have a good night and be safe.

Im nto saying these are bad experinces but the Original Poster has a point when he says that there are bad people on both sides of the law. And just because one has a badge does not make them above the law..

Thank God I do not live in Illinois...

 

[ShunZu]

We would have been better off if those types had just stayed home, or in their cave.

Well said, and absolutely NO argument. There are those of us, however, that wear suits and have been professionals for 30 years... and those "knuckleheads" DO need to return to their cave. But we're not the ones hanging out on the capital's steps... we have jobs and responsibilities requiring us elsewhere than donning fatigues and waving flags.

I have a notion on where some of those cavemen came from... and unfortunately, I've belonged to that organization for several years. I -will-, however, be dropping my membership when it expires. The ISRA. The email they sent out every time there was a bill pending a vote was 1) usually inflammatory, 2) alarmist and 3) recommended the members employ the shotgun approach using their phone to call EVERYONE in Springfield, -demanding- they vote pro or con, depending on the bill that was pending.

A better approach would have been professionally toned, with suggestions on who they should specifically contact, while giving the member some ideas on polite verbiage to use when discussing this topic with legislators.

Unfortunately, this hasn't been happening. And sadly, I have little hope of any constructive change in the ISRA's management in the near future. Minus 1 member shortly.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[isp2605]

And sadly, I have little hope of any constructive change in the ISRA's management in the near future. Minus 1 member shortly.

I use to be a member too and dropped out for exactly the same reason. Years ago it use to be a great organization run by some pretty decent folks. Unfortunately the fringe element took over and they started pulling the stunts like you mention. When they get doing their thing on the capital steps it's near impossible to convince a legislator that those aren't the normal responsible gun owner.

 

[JN01]

isp 2650:

Are you saying that if someone refuses a consent to search their vehicle when the officer has no probable cause to do so, said officer will then simply say "OK, have a nice day" and send you on your way? I'm a little skeptical of that scenario.

I would think that it would be almost reflexive (particularly for people who deal with scumbags lying and hiding stuff all the time) to think that the person might be hiding something. Would they not then give the person/vehicle extra scrutiny and perhaps "push the envelope" to give them probable cause to search- i.e. "I saw something sticking out from under the seat that I thought was a weapon case."

I believe that most cops are upstanding and that the honest guy who has nothing to hide but refuses consent will ultimately come out OK, but I am cynical enough that I believe he would be severely inconvenienced before they let him go.

 

[isp2605]

Are you saying that if someone refuses a consent to search their vehicle when the officer has no probable cause to do so, said officer will then simply say "OK, have a nice day" and send you on your way? I'm a little skeptical of that scenario.

You can be skeptical all you like but I've seen that very scenario played out many times.
However, reread my previous post replying to Warner. Many many times the LEO already has enough legal reason to do the search before they ever ask. You, as the driver, don't know what the LEO has or what the LEO already knows.

perhaps "push the envelope" to give them probable cause to search- i.e. "I saw something sticking out from under the seat that I thought was a weapon case."

Would you risk being charged with a Class 2 Felony, you job, and loss of everything you worked for just to take a look in someone's car? What makes you think a LEO would want to risk it all? That's exactly what one would be looking at to "push the envelope". Would you risk all you have to look for a few grams of pot? Would you be willing to go to prison for several years to lie about what you've seen? That's what you seem to think a LEO would be willing to do.
Some people watch too much TV.

, but I am cynical enough that I believe he would be severely inconvenienced before they let him go.

Reread my response to Warner again. Most of the time if a LEO asks they already have enough reason to do the search. It's just that the average citizen doesn't know enough about the law to know the LEO already has enough. The average citizen bases their legal knowledge on TV shows, movies, their neighbor's "I heard" story, and BS they read on the internet, none of with any basis of legal truth.

Are there dirty cops? Sure. Show me any job that doesn't have their share of people who are in prison. Tell me what your job is and I'll bet I've probably arrested someone in your line of work. Do these reflect on you and your profession? What are you doing to keep those out of your line of work? But what you and others fail to realize the LEO who screws up has a whole lot more to lose than most other jobs.

This thread has nothing at all to do with "bash the cops" and I won't be drug into it. If you want to beat up on professions then everyone tell what they do for a living and I'll bet I can give you some examples of some real scummy dirt bags in that line of work.

 

[NukemJim]

ISP2605, Thank you for your responses and viewpoints.

1) Regarding the SA's and ASA's power over what to prosecute, WOW , I now know why Daley became an SA. ( Forgive me I did not grow up in Ill and until recently have not followed local politics much at all. I was in error in doing so )

2) Although not currently a member of ISRA (they lost me a number of years agowith some of their antics) I have driven to down to Springfield 3 0r 4 times now on the days they called for. Every time I wore a suit and every time I have been amazed at being the only non organizer that I could see in a suit. Your comments are adding to a queazy feeling in my stomach that I got from IGOLD when instructed to go to various commitee meetings that had nothing to do about firearm laws and just be there wearing yellow T-Shirts (I carried mine it did NOT go with the suit and tie ). We were told this was a standard lobbying tactic. Don't know much about lobbying but somehow it did not "feel right".

By going down to Springfield under ISRA's banner was I making another error ? Would it have been more effective to drive down independetly so to speak to talk to my legislators?

Again thank you

NukemJim

 

[isp2605]

Don't know much about lobbying but somehow it did not "feel right".

Usually if a person listens to that gut feeling that's telling them something isn't right then it probably isn't right.

By going down to Springfield under ISRA's banner was I making another error ? Would it have been more effective to drive down independetly so to speak to talk to my legislators?

Need some level heads who have a bit more political savvy running ISRA. (You up for a run at it?) I've about given up on them.
I don't know if all the cammie wearing hooligans were ISRA. The problem is that the legislators don't know either but they lump everyone into that same pot.
One on one with a legislator never hurts. It's a time for calm discussion where they get to know you, learn that not everyone they hear from is from the fringe element, and can ask questions to clarify any concerns they may have. They shut out the yelling and waving signs. That kind of stuff is viewed pretty much as entertainment around the capital building, a lot of lip service but of little substance.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

The ISRA has tried to get members to tone it down lately and to be more polite in public and in writing.

 

[DrLaw]

isp2605 wrote
DrLaw, if you are referring to the OP then reread his very first post again. He wrote "...they ask if they could search his truck...he said yes..." That's a consentual search. A consentual search does not need probable cause nor a search warrant, it's consentual.

__________________

The thing is that if they want a consentual search, they also have to advise that the person does not have to consent and can revoke that consent. Otherwise, they need probable cause. Illinois law is that once a stop is over, the officer cannot ask for consent to search as that makes the stop an unreasonable stop at that point. If it was a roadblock, they would also have to advise on consent or it is truly non-consentual.

The Doc is out now.

 

[Jeff White]

The thing is that if they want a consentual search, they also have to advise that the person does not have to consent and can revoke that consent.

I don't know where you got that idea from. Asking for consent to search is not the same as giving a Miranda warning. There is no requirement to advise the person that they are free to decline.

Illinois law is that once a stop is over, the officer cannot ask for consent to search as that makes the stop an unreasonable stop at that point.

Wrong again. You cannot ask for consent to search until the stop is over. The Illinois Supreme Court, the US 7th Circuit and the USSC have all ruled that if you ask for consent before you conclude the enforcement action that was the reason for the stop, the consent could be invalid as the subject wasn't free to go at that point. You always ask after you conclude the stop. If you are holding the subject's DL or haven't made it clear the subject is free to leave, then the subject could file a motion to suppress based on the fact he felt he had to comply with the request to search.

There is quite a bit of case law on this.

Jeff

 

[Aguila Blanca]

LEO's do not get a choice in which laws they choose to uphold, they are sworn to uphold them all.

Yeah, they are sworn to uphold them all ... but they don't. Ever hear of an officer letting someone off for running a stop sign after a verbal warning? That's not in the motor vehicle code, so that's not upholding the law. Many states (mine included) prohibit having the front door windows dark tinted. Any police officer who sees such a vehicle on the street (and they are everywhere) is failing to uphold that portion of the law. Same with "lifted" trucks and SUVs. Most states have limitations -- in my state the limit is 4" higher than stock. Go to any mall on a Saturday or Sunday and you'll see lots of trucks that are lifted 6", 8" even 10" or more, with the tires sticking WAY out beyond the bodywork. Violations, blatant violations. The police ignore them.

More recently, the State legislature was bemoaning the fact that everyone ignores the law prohibiting cell phone use while driving. Many police officers spoke up and said they refuse to write the tickets because THEY THINK the $100 fine is too stiff. How does that fit in with "sworn to uphold them all"? You mean they are sworn to uphold oll the laws they agree with, and ignore the rest? That sounds like a working definition of "anarchy."