'Cause the driver's black, or hispanic? Because he's travelling along a known drug route (think I95)? 'Cause his car is too expensive/cheap for the area he's driving around in? 'Cause you don't like the NRA sticker or the tag "TITEGRP"?
Learn your rights regarding police searches; Interesting Reading.
- Thread starter Vernal45
- Start date
- Status
OK, Let's walk thru an illegal search. Let's imagine that I have decided to put my career at risk because I dont like the way you look, cause the department isnt gonna keep me around for long if I cost them much in settlements for civil rights violations. Let's say I gave also decided to risk my car, house, savings and any other assets I lose in the 1983 action, along with paying for the attorney I'll need to defend me after the FBI launches its investigation. Think they'll cut me some slack 'cause I'm a cop? Did they for the Rodney King crew?.
OK, I've decided to gamble all that. You go cruising by, not a care in the world, and I decide I want nothing more than to hassle ya, because you are just so darn....whatever you are.
I go to pull you over and flip on the blues. But wait, that also kicks on the dashcam, so now I am going to make a videotape of me violating your civil rights. I'll just destroy the tape, right? Unfortunately it is in an armored box in the trunk that only the supervisor has a key to. Also, I've got to call in the stop, cause its the policy, letting the dispatcher make a record of the time, location, and license plate of your car. That way there is a permanent public record of the stop That also means that my boss knows what I am doing, along with everybody in scanner land. And because its what we do, any minute now another car may stop by to back me up. Of course he will also gleefully engage in the conspiracy, cause we had this meeting where all 700,000 of us decided just to mess with you. Furthermore, he or she will want to be involved, cause if they dont turn me in they will face the same penalties I do and worse because then it will be a 1985 action, conspiracy to violate civil rights.
I could go on, but why bother, logic doesnt work, why should satire? You're right it's just a big conspiracy. We just sit around the IHOP plotting and planning because you are just that important to us.
OK, I've decided to gamble all that. You go cruising by, not a care in the world, and I decide I want nothing more than to hassle ya, because you are just so darn....whatever you are.
I go to pull you over and flip on the blues. But wait, that also kicks on the dashcam, so now I am going to make a videotape of me violating your civil rights. I'll just destroy the tape, right? Unfortunately it is in an armored box in the trunk that only the supervisor has a key to. Also, I've got to call in the stop, cause its the policy, letting the dispatcher make a record of the time, location, and license plate of your car. That way there is a permanent public record of the stop That also means that my boss knows what I am doing, along with everybody in scanner land. And because its what we do, any minute now another car may stop by to back me up. Of course he will also gleefully engage in the conspiracy, cause we had this meeting where all 700,000 of us decided just to mess with you. Furthermore, he or she will want to be involved, cause if they dont turn me in they will face the same penalties I do and worse because then it will be a 1985 action, conspiracy to violate civil rights.
I could go on, but why bother, logic doesnt work, why should satire? You're right it's just a big conspiracy. We just sit around the IHOP plotting and planning because you are just that important to us.
Hey - you asked a simple question, and I gave the direct answer.
No need to get all paranoid and defensive.
No need to get all paranoid and defensive.
Sindawe
Member
"The guilty flee where none pursue"???
At this stage in the game, I don't think its a grand conspiracy centac. The abuses that do occur are more likely the result of bad policy, bad training and bad law. At THIS stage of the game. What the future holds, few can say. But many can forsee glimpses of whats to come.
At this stage in the game, I don't think its a grand conspiracy centac. The abuses that do occur are more likely the result of bad policy, bad training and bad law. At THIS stage of the game. What the future holds, few can say. But many can forsee glimpses of whats to come.
2nd Amendment
member
It's necessary to use words like "conspiracy" and "tin-hat" and paranoia, because to not use them would mean actually adressing the argument and real-world events. Defending the faith can't work(as well) outside of legal theory and mischaracterizing/stereotyping the opposition.
"Hey - you asked a simple question, and I gave the direct answer."
Your answer implies facts not in evidence. Stopping someone or searching without PC is a violation. Does it happen? Probably. Is it common? Not to my knowledge. Are you gonna believe the media about the extent of profiling? Show me some figures that support the contention that it is common or policy and then we may agree to the extent of the problem. Otherwise it means nothing.
Your answer implies facts not in evidence. Stopping someone or searching without PC is a violation. Does it happen? Probably. Is it common? Not to my knowledge. Are you gonna believe the media about the extent of profiling? Show me some figures that support the contention that it is common or policy and then we may agree to the extent of the problem. Otherwise it means nothing.
Let's be a little more clear on this vehicle search thing. You can search a vehicle without probable cause that anything illegal is in the vehicle. This has been allowed for many, many years. If you in fact had probable cause to arrest the driver or other occupant of the vehicle, then you would be permitted to do a search of the vehicle within arm's reach of the arrested person – and there is a difference between the PC needed to make the arrest and PC that would be required for a search and PC for a search is not needed in such an instance. (edited to add: I even think there was a ruling in NY that allowed for warantless search of the whole vehicle incident to a lawful arrest - I cannot recall if it was upheld but think it was). You can also perform an inventory search of a vehicle subsequent to the seizure or safe keeping of the vehicle (unless something changed that I have not heard about). On the other hand if a LEO makes a vehicle stop, for which by the way he does not need "probable cause", he/she does need probable cause to search that vehicle absent a warrant or consent or absent other special circumstances of which there are a few. Warrantless vehicle searches are often performed without probable cause such as a Border Search, extended border search, search at the equivalent of the border and so on.
Now back to the more on topic issue of a consent search of a residence (or of a car) after one controlling party has said "no" and the police then seek the consent of another controlling party. This is a really tricky one. Unless it was a major case of national security, or some sort of extreme exigent circumstances, I would not try to circumvent the first denial. Of course, it is possible that a consent search authorized by a second party, after a first party denial, possibly would be upheld as legal. For instance, you ask a home owner for consent to search and are denied consent and, he also denies you entry. You then ask a roommate for consent to search but limit your request to areas only used solely by said roommate. The roommate says yes and says you can come in. In the search you discover a kilo of cocaine that was hidden in a secret compartment inside of the roommate’s room by the homeowner. What would you think of such a scenario? Would the seizure be legal, should the LEOs have been allowed to seek such permission even after a denial by the homeowner to enter the home?
As for that article, there are a lot of incorrect assumptions made by the author. It would behoove her to provide some evidence as to the poor track record (her claims anyhow) of consent searches. Many departments require a record of negative searches – is that author so ill informed as to have been unaware of such – or is she just biasing the article.
Consent searches are a valuable law enforcement tool. It is so valuable that some departments do require officers to advise people they are not under any obligation to consent, so valuable that some departments require or at least provide for written consent to search forms (in multiple languages). Even if a department does not require such, it would be the wise officer who makes sure to get written consent if possible. That document is a great piece of evidence in court once a seizure has been made subsequent to a consent search. Such a document goes a long way to prevent or help win suppression hearings.
Now back to the more on topic issue of a consent search of a residence (or of a car) after one controlling party has said "no" and the police then seek the consent of another controlling party. This is a really tricky one. Unless it was a major case of national security, or some sort of extreme exigent circumstances, I would not try to circumvent the first denial. Of course, it is possible that a consent search authorized by a second party, after a first party denial, possibly would be upheld as legal. For instance, you ask a home owner for consent to search and are denied consent and, he also denies you entry. You then ask a roommate for consent to search but limit your request to areas only used solely by said roommate. The roommate says yes and says you can come in. In the search you discover a kilo of cocaine that was hidden in a secret compartment inside of the roommate’s room by the homeowner. What would you think of such a scenario? Would the seizure be legal, should the LEOs have been allowed to seek such permission even after a denial by the homeowner to enter the home?
As for that article, there are a lot of incorrect assumptions made by the author. It would behoove her to provide some evidence as to the poor track record (her claims anyhow) of consent searches. Many departments require a record of negative searches – is that author so ill informed as to have been unaware of such – or is she just biasing the article.
Consent searches are a valuable law enforcement tool. It is so valuable that some departments do require officers to advise people they are not under any obligation to consent, so valuable that some departments require or at least provide for written consent to search forms (in multiple languages). Even if a department does not require such, it would be the wise officer who makes sure to get written consent if possible. That document is a great piece of evidence in court once a seizure has been made subsequent to a consent search. Such a document goes a long way to prevent or help win suppression hearings.
Vernal45
member
Since you never replied, I will repost: your quotes are below, and contradict each other.
BY CENTAC:
Quote:
The point being that consent isnt needed to search a motor vehicle. We ask for consent as a means of covering all the bases, same way as we sometimes Mirandize people who are not in custody.
BY CENTAC:
Quote:
OF COURSE you have to have probable cause, that's a given. What possible reason could you have for searching a vehicle, or anything for that matter, for which you dont have PC?
Which one is it? NO CONSENT NEEDED. Or CONSENT IS NEEDED WHEN PC IS NOT ESTABLISHED.
BY CENTAC:
Quote:
The point being that consent isnt needed to search a motor vehicle. We ask for consent as a means of covering all the bases, same way as we sometimes Mirandize people who are not in custody.
BY CENTAC:
Quote:
OF COURSE you have to have probable cause, that's a given. What possible reason could you have for searching a vehicle, or anything for that matter, for which you dont have PC?
Which one is it? NO CONSENT NEEDED. Or CONSENT IS NEEDED WHEN PC IS NOT ESTABLISHED.
Vernal,
If you actually were a cop you should know this. The warrantless search of a motor vehicle is covered by the Carroll doctrine. Consent is not needed when the Carroll doctrine applies. It is separate and distinct from PC for a stop, and/or PC for a search. Mr Bartley explains it very clearly and rightly points out other exceptions to the warrant requirement or the requirement for PC. You dont need PC for a border search or an inventory search. Otherwise, why would you be searching if you didnt have probable cause?
I dont know how much simpler it can be explained, or do you just want to argue?
If you actually were a cop you should know this. The warrantless search of a motor vehicle is covered by the Carroll doctrine. Consent is not needed when the Carroll doctrine applies. It is separate and distinct from PC for a stop, and/or PC for a search. Mr Bartley explains it very clearly and rightly points out other exceptions to the warrant requirement or the requirement for PC. You dont need PC for a border search or an inventory search. Otherwise, why would you be searching if you didnt have probable cause?
I dont know how much simpler it can be explained, or do you just want to argue?
Vernal45
member
Centac, you are wrong.
Lets go over the Carrol Doctrine again, before we get this thread back on track.
Carroll Doctrine allows for warrantless vehicle searches in many cases, due to the evidence's possibility of being easily moved. But even this doesn't give blanket authority to search vehicles without a warrant. You must establish PC that evidence is there. You cant, or you should not, invoke the Carrol doctrine as a catch all. If you to, you are a JBT. If, during a stop, the Carrol doctrine is not applicable, you must have consent to search.
NOW. This was a discussion on SEARCHES WHEN POLICE ASK FOR CONSENT. It stands to reason, that if the Carrol Doctrine applies, the search will happen, consent no longer applies. The article I posted deals with the Rights of the people to not consent to searches when asked by a LEO. I fail to see why you brought up the Carrol doctrine, I suspect to muddy the waters, but oh well. Suffice it to say. If an officer asks for Consent to search, the Carrol Doctrine does not apply, nor does the officer have PC to search. And citizens have the right to refuse consent.
Centac, Please get back on topic.
You still have not answered my questions from several posts ago. I understand, you do seem more confused today. 
Lets go over the Carrol Doctrine again, before we get this thread back on track.
Carroll Doctrine allows for warrantless vehicle searches in many cases, due to the evidence's possibility of being easily moved. But even this doesn't give blanket authority to search vehicles without a warrant. You must establish PC that evidence is there. You cant, or you should not, invoke the Carrol doctrine as a catch all. If you to, you are a JBT. If, during a stop, the Carrol doctrine is not applicable, you must have consent to search.
NOW. This was a discussion on SEARCHES WHEN POLICE ASK FOR CONSENT. It stands to reason, that if the Carrol Doctrine applies, the search will happen, consent no longer applies. The article I posted deals with the Rights of the people to not consent to searches when asked by a LEO. I fail to see why you brought up the Carrol doctrine, I suspect to muddy the waters, but oh well. Suffice it to say. If an officer asks for Consent to search, the Carrol Doctrine does not apply, nor does the officer have PC to search. And citizens have the right to refuse consent.
Centac, Please get back on topic.
You still have not answered my questions from several posts ago. I understand, you do seem more confused today.
I understand what you mean but, this logic is faulty. Even if the officer believes he has PC to search a vehicle, he may decide to ask for consent. Just because he asks for consent does not mean he does not have PC. It is a sort of failsafe in the event the PC is later thrown out in a sppression hearing. Likewise if the consent is thrown out, the PC may be upheld. While one may be thrown out, it is less likely that both would be. Having both PC and consent is better than just PC.
I agree the Carroll doctrine requires PC for a search; however your statement above is not absolutely correct. Not all stops and searches are under the purview of the Carroll doctrine. As for requiring PC to search a vehicle without a warrant, yes that is normally when the Carroll doctrine appies; however, there are instances when PC is not required to search a vehicle as I pointed out above. Searches are frequently carried out incident to a lawful arrest without PC for a search. Searches in border type situations by federal officers are carried out frequently with absolutely no PC. There are exceptions to requirng PC or consent for a vehicle search.
All the best,
GB
No, not true at all. I have often asked for consent even though I didn't need it. So just because the Carroll Doctrine applies, does not mean the officer won't ask for consent before using the his authority under the Carroll Doctrine. The same is true of warrants. Many time I've had the warrant signed by the magistrate in my pocket, but still asked for consent. So just because the officer asks, that does not mean he doesn't have authority to search.
Vernal, you claim to have been a cop, but each time you post on LE related issues I doubt that more and more. ANY cop who did the job as long as you claim would know things like what I've posted above, and some of the other things I, and other cops on this forum, have explained before. I'm not saying you're lying, but let's just pretend my name is Thomas, and I'm from Missouri.
cropcirclewalker
member
I'm sorry if I can't get the thread back, but Mr. Centac says that a cop who does an illegal search is risking his home, yada, yada, yada, from a civil suit.
Some here may remember my problem......I was arrested at the St. Louis Airport for committing a lawful act. Back in 2002 (I think the statute of limitations has run) they (leos) saw a pistol on the seat of my car. This was before MO passed the law allowing concealed firearms in yer car and just more than a year after 9/11.
Open carry in MO was and still is LEGAL and when I pulled into the short term parking lot there was this big sign, "WARNING ALL VEHICLES WILL BE SEARCHED". Since it would have been a crime to conceal my piece and not a crime to leave it on the seat, I drove up to the rentacop and said, "I have a firearm in my car. Will I be allowed to park here?"
People in the Lou are not used to us country folk asserting our rights. He got bug eyed and called the cops.
To make a long story short, I was told to park in Long Term. Before I got there, I was stopped, arrested, hooked up, big scene, sitting handcuffed on a curb while bomb sniffing dogs searching my car, cops everywhere, other flight passengers etc walking past looking at me like I was a terrorist, chained to a bench for a couple of hours and then given my dissassembled piece and told not to return with it.
I was arrested. I was released without being charged. Nobody asked me for permission to search my car. The just did it.
Mr. Centac, you say that no cop will risk his house for an illegal search. Did I get illegal searched? Is committing a lawful act probable cause? Is a cop's ignorance of state law probable cause?
I emailed a reputable firearms lawyer here in MO. and asked him if I had a case to sue. He replied that he thought if I didn't get charged I was lucky. He further said If I got charged, I could employ him to help me get out of it.
Where is all this civil rights stuff you are talking about?
edited to add.......
Mr. DMF, I see that you were replying as I was typing myself. Since the sound of these crickets is getting to be pretty loud, and since you know so much about everything legal.......What exactly is the statute of limitations of the crime of deprivation of one's civil rights under the color of law? The more I think about this, the more I think I want to own some leo's house.
Some here may remember my problem......I was arrested at the St. Louis Airport for committing a lawful act. Back in 2002 (I think the statute of limitations has run) they (leos) saw a pistol on the seat of my car. This was before MO passed the law allowing concealed firearms in yer car and just more than a year after 9/11.
Open carry in MO was and still is LEGAL and when I pulled into the short term parking lot there was this big sign, "WARNING ALL VEHICLES WILL BE SEARCHED". Since it would have been a crime to conceal my piece and not a crime to leave it on the seat, I drove up to the rentacop and said, "I have a firearm in my car. Will I be allowed to park here?"
People in the Lou are not used to us country folk asserting our rights. He got bug eyed and called the cops.
To make a long story short, I was told to park in Long Term. Before I got there, I was stopped, arrested, hooked up, big scene, sitting handcuffed on a curb while bomb sniffing dogs searching my car, cops everywhere, other flight passengers etc walking past looking at me like I was a terrorist, chained to a bench for a couple of hours and then given my dissassembled piece and told not to return with it.
I was arrested. I was released without being charged. Nobody asked me for permission to search my car. The just did it.
Mr. Centac, you say that no cop will risk his house for an illegal search. Did I get illegal searched? Is committing a lawful act probable cause? Is a cop's ignorance of state law probable cause?
I emailed a reputable firearms lawyer here in MO. and asked him if I had a case to sue. He replied that he thought if I didn't get charged I was lucky. He further said If I got charged, I could employ him to help me get out of it.
Where is all this civil rights stuff you are talking about?
edited to add.......
Mr. DMF, I see that you were replying as I was typing myself. Since the sound of these crickets is getting to be pretty loud, and since you know so much about everything legal.......What exactly is the statute of limitations of the crime of deprivation of one's civil rights under the color of law? The more I think about this, the more I think I want to own some leo's house.
Last edited:
Vernal45
member
SO, you ask for consent, even though you have a warrant. Let me guess, if you have consent it lets you search everywhere, where as normally there are restraints on a warrant, depending what Item is being looked for. If you can search, PC, warrant, Carrol doctrine, then search. There mere aspect that you ask for consent tells me that there is something in smelly in your PC.
Glenn Bartley, I Understand the other instances that you cite. My point on this, before DMF's little brother Centac hijacked it, is if you are asked for consent to search, you can say no. NOW, if the officer has reason, PC, the the asking for consent is not needed. As I said above, the only reason I see asking for consent, if you already have a warrant, is to get around the constraints of the warrant.
DMF, if you want to email, hell, I will provide my phone number to you, to verify my experience, please feel free to do so.
Call me a liar, dont care, I can prove my service. For all I know, you could be a 12 year old nerd, sitting in mommys basement, and have a nack for computer research.
I agree with this however, it is good policy for an LEO to ask for consent even if the searching officer thinks he has PC. You have to understand that even though you believe you have PC, a whacko judge may not think so and may suppress evidence seized under what you thought had been good PC. It has happened before and will happen again.
Sorry if it seems I am getting involved in some ongoing feud between you and others, that was not my intent at all.
**********************************************************
Cropcirclewalker,
Was the arrest lawful? The officers do not have to charge you for their arrest of you to have been lawful. If you were in the car when they legally arrested you, and then searched the car, it was probably a legal search. They may have had all the PC they needed to arrerst you legaly, are you sure you know what the parking attendant told them. Are the laws about carying at the airport the same as those in areas off of the airport property. There are a lot of variables here.I am not saying it was agood arrest and a good search; maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Without all of the facts it would be hard to tell.
*********************************************************
All the best, GB
You "guess" wrong.* Well once again you make wild conclusions that aren't true. On the occasions I do it, the reason I ask for consent, despite having a warrant, is it is less confrontational. If you can talk to someone calmly and get their consent it's much less upsetting than just shoving the warrant in front of them, and demanding entry. You see, contrary to what you and some others choose to believe, the vast majority of cops want to do things in a manner that lower confrontation.
It's not always reasonable to stand at the door chatting and asking for consent, but when the circumstances allow it, it helps keep things low key.
*Again, a cop should know this type of thing, rather than having to guess.
[SARCASM]If a 12 year old living in the basement can figure it out, a former cop should be able to also.[/SARCASM]
Crosshair
Member
I view this whole "Click it or Ticket" crap as another way for cops to try and search you're car. It was helped mostly by busybodies who have nothing better to do than boss other people around. Yes seatbelts do save lives in most cases, but it is MY car and I will do what I want with it. It's my problem if I go flying through the windshield and end up as a vegie.
I don't want any "But society pay's for that too. Waaaaaaaaa." Yes they may get stuck with the bill in some cases. But I get stuck with outrageous car insurance rates because some young male drivers like to wrap themselves around trees. I have to pay higher prices beause some people can't figure out that wet floors are slipery and other stupid lawsuits. We have to go rescue stupid skiers and mountain climers when they get lost/stuck/fall off cliff/ etc. Just let me get from point A to point B, let me smoke in a bar, and above all shut up you're screaming little kid on the airplane.
/end rant
I don't want any "But society pay's for that too. Waaaaaaaaa." Yes they may get stuck with the bill in some cases. But I get stuck with outrageous car insurance rates because some young male drivers like to wrap themselves around trees. I have to pay higher prices beause some people can't figure out that wet floors are slipery and other stupid lawsuits. We have to go rescue stupid skiers and mountain climers when they get lost/stuck/fall off cliff/ etc. Just let me get from point A to point B, let me smoke in a bar, and above all shut up you're screaming little kid on the airplane.
/end rant
cropcirclewalker
member
Hi, ho, Mr. Bartlely, Crop here:
RAC: "Hey, Officer Friendly (name changed to PTI), Theres a guy here who wants to know if he can park in Short Term with a Weapon in his car".
OF, "Is it loaded?"
RAC, bug eyed and looking down at it on the seat, "Yeah."
OF (quoting his understanding of FOPA, "Tell him he has to have it locked in the trunk in a container with the ammo in a separate container."
Me; "Tell him I don't have any containers in the trunk and ask him where is the lawful place for me to park."
RAC, repeats the question, still bug eyed and looking at the piece.
OF, "Tell him to park over in the long term lot."
Me; "I heard him, can you help me back out onto the circle?"
RAC: "OK"
[aside]......The state of Missouri is OPEN CARRY. The legislature, however legislated that individual cities, municipalities, counties, political subdivisions or whatever can prohibit by ordinance open carrying and yet still at that time it was a felony to have a concealed firearm in your vehicle. It didn't have to make sense, it was just the law.
The city of The Lou had prohibited open carry. The St. Louis Airport was/is owned by The Lou but is not within the city limits. The State Legislature has enacted that the St. Louis Airport is it's own political subdivision. I guess tax loopholes or something. There was no ordinance prohibiting open carry at the airport. [/aside]
If there was don't you think they would have charged me?
I got the police report. In it is said, "The St. Louis County Prosecutor was asked and refused to prosecute. In the report they contacted FBI, no violations. A FBI guy came to the door of the room which had the bench with the pad eye in it to which I had been chained. Stood there for maybe 2 minutes, silent, looking at me like a dolt. If the great apes at the zoo have self awareness, I know how they feel.
I don't know what the fibbi was thinking, but I just looked back at him, silent, chained to my bench and thought.."What is this guy's problem?" I guess it's the arrogance of authority.
This whole thing was a circus. I was completly cooperative during the whole abuse.
One cop (after it became obvious that I would not be charged), offered to buy my piece. I hadda 'splain to him that he had to get permission from his CLEO.
One big fat woman seargant came in and asked, "Is this gun registered?" I smiled and said, "Yer not from around here are ya?" She said "ILLinois, why?" I said, "In Missouri we don't register guns."
The cop who had been talking on the talkie to the RAC came in said, (something like) "They are next door trying to figure out what you will be charged with."
Later, he came in and hunkered down in front of me where I was still chained and said, "It looks like they found some little known loophole. It seems like you were on a "Lawful Journey" (maybe he said "peaceable") and that is an exception so maybe we won't charge you." I replied, "Sir, the law you are referencing is the "concealed weapon" law. What I was doing is called Open Carry, which is lawful in Missouri."
It's like his eyes glossed over. He could not conceive of a citizen lawfully open carrying.
Sorry for the verbosity. I was committing a lawful act. The only way one could have probable cause is if one was ignorant of the law. Lawful Acts at that time were not crimes.
A cop on a bike rode up to the Missus who was waiting on the sidewalk for me to come help her check in. Gave her a note with his name, phone no. and wrote, "Arrested for having a gun".
Isn't there supposed to be like, Probabable Cause? They can't just go around Lawfully Arresting people for having guns.
I heard the complete exchange on the Rent a cop's Talkie.
RAC: "Hey, Officer Friendly (name changed to PTI), Theres a guy here who wants to know if he can park in Short Term with a Weapon in his car".
OF, "Is it loaded?"
RAC, bug eyed and looking down at it on the seat, "Yeah."
OF (quoting his understanding of FOPA, "Tell him he has to have it locked in the trunk in a container with the ammo in a separate container."
Me; "Tell him I don't have any containers in the trunk and ask him where is the lawful place for me to park."
RAC, repeats the question, still bug eyed and looking at the piece.
OF, "Tell him to park over in the long term lot."
Me; "I heard him, can you help me back out onto the circle?"
RAC: "OK"
I was on the roadway going through the airport.
[aside]......The state of Missouri is OPEN CARRY. The legislature, however legislated that individual cities, municipalities, counties, political subdivisions or whatever can prohibit by ordinance open carrying and yet still at that time it was a felony to have a concealed firearm in your vehicle. It didn't have to make sense, it was just the law.
The city of The Lou had prohibited open carry. The St. Louis Airport was/is owned by The Lou but is not within the city limits. The State Legislature has enacted that the St. Louis Airport is it's own political subdivision. I guess tax loopholes or something. There was no ordinance prohibiting open carry at the airport. [/aside]
If there was don't you think they would have charged me?
I got the police report. In it is said, "The St. Louis County Prosecutor was asked and refused to prosecute. In the report they contacted FBI, no violations. A FBI guy came to the door of the room which had the bench with the pad eye in it to which I had been chained. Stood there for maybe 2 minutes, silent, looking at me like a dolt. If the great apes at the zoo have self awareness, I know how they feel.
I don't know what the fibbi was thinking, but I just looked back at him, silent, chained to my bench and thought.."What is this guy's problem?" I guess it's the arrogance of authority.
This whole thing was a circus. I was completly cooperative during the whole abuse.
One cop (after it became obvious that I would not be charged), offered to buy my piece. I hadda 'splain to him that he had to get permission from his CLEO.
One big fat woman seargant came in and asked, "Is this gun registered?" I smiled and said, "Yer not from around here are ya?" She said "ILLinois, why?" I said, "In Missouri we don't register guns."
The cop who had been talking on the talkie to the RAC came in said, (something like) "They are next door trying to figure out what you will be charged with."
Later, he came in and hunkered down in front of me where I was still chained and said, "It looks like they found some little known loophole. It seems like you were on a "Lawful Journey" (maybe he said "peaceable") and that is an exception so maybe we won't charge you." I replied, "Sir, the law you are referencing is the "concealed weapon" law. What I was doing is called Open Carry, which is lawful in Missouri."
It's like his eyes glossed over. He could not conceive of a citizen lawfully open carrying.
Sorry for the verbosity. I was committing a lawful act. The only way one could have probable cause is if one was ignorant of the law. Lawful Acts at that time were not crimes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked