Questionable procedures by police last night

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a man arrested for DUI a few miles east of where I live a couple years back. He was parked on the side of the road and sleeping in his car. His crime? The key was in the ignition, therefore he had control of the vehicle.

He was convicted too...
Click to expand...

Utterly ridiculous.

Good thing that happened in some other, communist-type country, and could never happen here! Oh, wait...
 
In some states you have given "implied consent" when the officer tapped on the window and asked you to unlock the door and you did so and did not refuse him - you offerred "implied consent"

A similar situation is if an officer knocks on your front door and asks if he can come in - you say nothing but open the door wide and lean to the side. You have given implied consent that the officer may enter.
 
Hawkeye

Whats your chlosterol level like? You sound like one miserable fella.
 
The fact that someone reported these behaviors did not make it reasonable to believe he posed a threat with his firearm. Anyone can claim anything about anyone. That's the world we live in. If someone said to me that you were drunk and violent, causing me to approach you from behind and grab your gun from under your sport jacket, would you feel that your rights had been violated, and that I had violated the law? After all, according to you, I had a reasonable cause to believe that your being armed at that moment constituted a real threat to my safety and that of other bystanders. Be consistent, now. Let's not have double standards.
Click to expand...

Hey there...no, you're wrong, because...er, that is to say, you're wrong because...

Well, I have no valid argument. It doesn't make sense that the police get away with disarming non-violent citizens during traffic stops. But the law says the first-class citizens can disarm us commoners whenever they want--and all they have to do is say the magic words "officer safety" later to get away with it. So there!

Government's Hired Guns: 1 You and me and the rest of Amerika: 0

Of course, they say they believe in our individual sovereignty. They're on our side! But if we should ever exercise disobedience in the face of tyranny, the double talk would cease, and the hired guns would come out.

Ironically, I'm not even "anti-cop"--far from it. I am most certainly, however, anti-rights-trampling, and anti-any cop who thinks he has the authority to trample rights, or that the government has the authority to let him.
 
Alduro

I would like to thank you for your attempt to answer my, admittedly, vague question. I get that way when I post late in the eve. As for my questions I had in mind were the search of the vehicle in any states you are familiar with. I now realize there isn't sufficient evidence to make any real conclusions one way or the other. There is the other matter of the CHL disarm. Judging from my experience as well as reading posts on this forum, I realize thats a given from most LEOs point of view. However my own viewpoint differs which is I suppose what I was getting around to eventually. First, and most importantly, I believe that bearing a firearm is a fundamental civil right. Therefore, infringing that right needs a really good reason. "I want to get home tonite doesn't meet that standard in my opinion. I am sure your department rep will also say that "for the officers comfort and safety" especially given the number of police shot in the line of duty. Disarming therefore, is and should be a given. I'm going to want my attorney to get the officer on the stand and ask him how many police officers have even been assaulted much less shot by a CHL. I'm sure most would be astounded that according to the record, it has virtually never happened. There have been one possibly two that I have heard of. Given that record as well, as well as the record of ADs and NDs by law enforcement, any CHL according to their own standard would be within their rights to demand the police disarm.:(
Alduro, I'm going to assume you will agree that most LEOs have very little personal experience with firearms other than issue and so the less they handle someone elses gun the better. I am looking to put that very legal question to the test given the opportunity. Please forgive my run on posting, I just got home and I'm bushed.
 
Actually it does. During the course of an investigation of wrongdoing with reasonable suspicion of such and officer can disarm you for the duration of the investigation.
Click to expand...
The law you quoted referred to "reasonable belief," not "reasonable suspicion," the latter being specifically a criminal procedure term of art. Even though both share in common their being objective standards, reasonable suspicion is a much easier standard to satisfy, and only requires an articulable reason for suspecting that a crime was committed, whereas a reasonable belief, in this context, is a belief, not a mere suspicion, that in fact one is actually endangered by the weapon in question. It requires that a reasonable person who was in your shoes would have agreed with your judgment based on the facts observed, not reported. Suspicion vs belief. A crime has been committed vs being personally endangered by the presence of a weapon. Apples and oranges.
 
Hey there...no, you're wrong, because...er, that is to say, you're wrong because...

Well, I have no valid argument. It doesn't make sense that the police get away with disarming non-violent citizens during traffic stops. But the law says the first-class citizens can disarm us commoners whenever they want--and all they have to do is say the magic words "officer safety" later to get away with it. So there!

Government's Hired Guns: 1 You and me and the rest of Amerika: 0

Of course, they say they believe in our individual sovereignty. They're on our side! But if we should ever exercise disobedience in the face of tyranny, the double talk would cease, and the hired guns would come out.

Ironically, I'm not even "anti-cop"--far from it. I am most certainly, however, anti-rights-trampling, and anti-any cop who thinks he has the authority to trample rights, or that the government has the authority to let him.
Click to expand...
+1 Are we still using the +1 thing?
 
Hawkeye

Whats your chlosterol level like? You sound like one miserable fella.
Click to expand...
About 180 (and I take no statin drugs), with a better than average ratio of HDL to LDL (about a 2% risk of heart disease over the next ten years). My blood pressure is also lower than average for a healthy middle aged adult. Yes, it makes me miserable to see the direction our nation is going, but I eat right and exercise to counteract the detrimental effect this fact might otherwise have on my health. Thanks for your concern though.
 
The fact that someone reported these behaviors did not make it reasonable to believe he posed a threat with his firearm. Anyone can claim anything about anyone. That's the world we live in. If someone said to me that you were drunk and violent, causing me to approach you from behind and grab your gun from under your sport jacket, would you feel that your rights had been violated, and that I had violated the law? After all, according to you, I had a reasonable cause to believe that your being armed at that moment constituted a real threat to my safety and that of other bystanders. Be consistent, now. Let's not have double standards.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that makes sense, anyone can walk up and start reaching :rolleyes:

Some idiot walks up and just reachs into my jacket isn't going to have a good day, esspecialy if I am armed and their hand is going for my gun.

Police officers are humans, read some of my posts I wont stand for their screw ups or a god complex. But when a police officer gets a call he has that information to go on, and in this case he had to go on the guy was drunk and possibly violent. Given those to things, violent and drunk, they have a right to disarm him untill they prove he isn't. If someone breaks into your house and you call the police do you expect them to let him keep his gun untill it is sorted out, I mean afterall all they have to go on when they arrive is your word right? :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, that makes sense, anyone can walk up and start reaching

Some idiot walks up and just reachs into my jacket isn't going to have a good day, esspecialy if I am armed and their hand is going for my gun.
Click to expand...
You're preaching to the choir there, brother. You and me both. That's exactly the point I was making.
Police officers are humans, read some of my posts I wont stand for their screw ups or a god complex. But when a police officer gets a call he has that information to go on, and in this case he had to go on the guy was drunk and possibly violent. Given those to things, violent and drunk, they have a right to disarm him untill they prove he isn't.
Click to expand...
You are making the common mistake of confusing rights with apparent authority. We can argue over whether or not it is an officer's right to do that, but the fact that he has apparent authority to do it is not subject to argument. We need only look into the rules governing police conduct, and that seems to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
If someone breaks into your house and you call the police do you expect them to let him keep his gun untill it is sorted out, I mean afterall all they have to go on when they arrive is your word right?
Click to expand...
Try that again. Your wording of this question is a bit confusing.
 
I'm saying that just because all they have is the word of the person who called them doesn't mean they don't have reasonable suspicion to remove the weapon for the time being.

Put yourself into their shoes for a second where the information you have is that the guy you are talking to is a violent drunk and you have just learned he is armed, are you going to want him armed the entire time you are investigating to disprove him being violent or drunk? I certainly don't want him to be. Once a police officer gets there he has what he has to go on and has to investigate to prove or disprove it and in the mean time until he can prove one or the other he has the right to keep himself as safe as is reasonably possible. And if that means disarming the violent drunk until he can prove the guy isn't he has that right. I wouldn't want to bet my life on giving the benefit of the doubt to someone believed to be violent and drunk and I therefor don't expect an officer to. If I'm ever in such a situation I hope the police officers are as reasonable and professional as these ones were.

The cop didn't yank him out of the car, didn't knock him on the ground, didn't even handcuff him or anything else I would be talking bad about. He handled it in a very professional manner and once it was determined he wasn't dealing with someone who was violent or drunk the gun was returned and they left.
 
makarova said;
I am looking to put that very legal question to the test given the opportunity. Please forgive my run on posting, I just got home and I'm bushed.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand you right, your plan is to refuse to disarm if asked by an officer, then try to get the statute invalidated in court? You're a pretty brave person, risking getting manhandled, OC'd, tased or even shot, not to mention the criminal charges like obstruction, resisting arrest, battery to an officer, just so that you can gain status to challenge the law.

The Real Hawkeye said;
The law you quoted referred to "reasonable belief," not "reasonable suspicion," the latter being specifically a criminal procedure term of art. Even though both share in common their being objective standards, reasonable suspicion is a much easier standard to satisfy, and only requires an articulable reason for suspecting that a crime was committed, whereas a reasonable belief, in this context, is a belief, not a mere suspicion, that in fact one is actually endangered by the weapon in question. It requires that a reasonable person who was in your shoes would have agreed with your judgment based on the facts observed, not reported. Suspicion vs belief. A crime has been committed vs being personally endangered by the presence of a weapon. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Anytime an officer may have to take enforcement action even of the most minor type, he has a reasonable belief that the presence of a weapon not in his control is a threat. People flip out over the most minor things. There are plenty of instances where normal everyday citizens who have never been in trouble with the law before go absolutely bonkers when faced with a traffic ticket or other minor infraction. I don't know what makes them do it, but there they sit in the booking area of the jail, starting to calm down after they flew into a rage over a minor enfocement action, only now they are facing felony charges, when they could have paid a fine by mail and had it over with. Plenty of officers have been assaulted and even killed when someone flipped out over a minor enforcement action. What's the difference between temporarily disarming a CCW holder then asking a subject to put his softball bat down when you talk to him about an incident at the ball park?

We don't have CCW here, but if I pull over a driver in a pickup truck and he's got firearms in the cab, he waits in the backseat of my squad while I write the ticket or the warning. I work alone, backup can be 30 minutes or more away. I don't think I am violating anyones rights by separating them from their weapons while I'm taking enforcement action. It's impossible for me to watch everything that goes on in the cab of that pickup while I'm writing a ticket. For all I know the person I've stopped has just killed his family and thinks that any minute the BOLO about him will come over the radio.

When we get CCW here in Illinois, and yes we will get it, I will probably have the same attitude. If I can't keep my eyes on you for the duration of the contact, then you're not keeping access to a firearm. Sorry, I'm not going to end up dead and unable to watch my grandkids grow up, just so someone's feelings aren't hurt. I would have no problem surrendering my weapon to another officer for the duration of a contact if I were to be pulled over.

If I am pulled over (haven't been in years) my procedure is to turn on the domelight, place my hands on the steering wheel and tell the officer that I am Officer White from the __________ police dept. my badge and ID are in my left hip pocket and I am armed, how would you like me to procede. If he asked for my weapon, I would have no problem turning it over to him. I've been in his position, he doesn't know me from Adam or if I'm really who I say I am.

I don't look at handing over my weapon as a bad thing. I don't think I'm any less of a man nor do I think my constitutional rights have been violated.

Jeff
 
Just so everyone understands I am not being a hypocrite, when I was sworn in I was pulled over 2 weeks later. I showed the officer my badge, I.D. ect. I still got two tickets (expired inspection and headlamp out) AND the officer disarmed me for the duration, knowing I was a cop. I didn’t have a problem with it or the tickets, fair is fair....

Another time upon entering a BOP (Federal Prison) I had to surrender my weapon, even though I wasn’t going in anywhere near the inmates. Again, I don’t have a problem with that.


Neither time did I feel my constitutional rights nor my CHL (yes I have one) nor my authority were infringed upon.
 
Follow-up on Incident Report

I finally talked with the department representative yesterday, and again I think it was a very positve situation. I explained the circumstances and told her specifically that I didn't want this to reflect poorly on the officers as I felt they had done a great job. But I wanted to provide feedback they could use to evaluate areas they could be more effective.

I told her specifically about the glove compartment and the scanner, both of which she agreed that if what I was reflecting to her was accurate, could potentially be problematic under different circumstances. I told her that I thought it was more an issue of training and awareness as I'm 99% sure that the officer doing it really didn't consider me a threat at all and had simply relaxed and let his guard down, subsequently causing him to make a couple of errors that could be costly in a courtroom. She agreed that was probably the case and that this would be forwarded as an incident to the training department to incorporate into their situational awareness classes.

She thanked me for taking the time to bring this to them and said she wished more citizens would give them feedback like this as it helps improve their operations.

As far as the disarming thing, personally I see this as an issue of balance. Ying and Yang. Whatever you want to call it. Yes, I could take a hardcore line as far as disarming. On the other hand I could take the other route and be open to anyone taking my weapon from me for any reason. As in everything in life, balance is everything. The officer hopefully uses balance in making his judgements and so do I. If the officer, or anyone else for that matter, takes an inappropriate, unbalanced approach in dealing with me, I will first try to respond in such a way as to bring the situation back into balance...but ultimately I will use ALL my skills to ensure the situation doesn't become unbalanced, or to respond to an unbalanced situation. In some cases that might incur a fight (maybe physical, maybe not) if I'm dealing with what I believe to be an unreasonable person....such as the bus driver.

It would probably be worth some posters time here to study a few good books on human interaction and martial arts mindset. You are only in control of YOUR actions. However, through that control you have the ability to INFLUENCE the actions of others..for good and for bad. As we used to teach our students in martial arts class, the greatest form of martial arts is the ability to avoid conflict.
 
Aloha, thank you for your reference (Michigan V Long). However the facts and circumstances in that case are very different from this case in this thread. Once the "suspect" is out of the vehicle and under the officers control. Usually that means the rear of the suspects vehicle, in front of the police car, so the interview is on the dash cam. In this case we have a compliant subject who has so far, allowed himself to be disarmed and searched. I think opening the glove box and "siezing" the scanner were both outside the protective pat down for officer safety. When you start siezing legal items because they "might be used illegially" where do you stop? Cameras, optic equipment, two-way radios, gas masks, BDU's all legal items, would you open a car door and reach in to "sieze" these items because they could be used in a crime, when you have no PC to believe they have?
 
When we get CCW here in Illinois, and yes we will get it, I will probably have the same attitude. If I can't keep my eyes on you for the duration of the contact, then you're not keeping access to a firearm. Sorry, I'm not going to end up dead and unable to watch my grandkids grow up, just so someone's feelings aren't hurt.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a two way street? I don't know you from Adam either. For all I know, you are a serial killer who just happens also to be a police officer. I am all alone, except for you. Why shouldn't you hand your weapon to me for the duration of the contact? I will give it back once additional officers have arrived to assure me that this is a legit traffic stop and not one of your serial killing adventures. After all, being a police officer is no more a guaranty of non-criminality than possessing a license to carry a handgun. Ever see Serpico? It's a true story. Lots of cops, it would seem, are the scum of the earth who wouldn't hesitate to murder someone for merely reporting their corruption. Who's to say they aren't serial killers too? I must insist, if you pull me over for a traffic violation, that you hand over your piece for the duration of the contact, or until other officers arrive (or, maybe, some friends of mine, also armed). I have to go home to my wife and kids at the end of the day. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I can't be concerned with your hurt feelings at having to hand over your weapon to a "civilian" (truth be told, we are both civilians). Any problem with that?
 
I'm saying that just because all they have is the word of the person who called them doesn't mean they don't have reasonable suspicion to remove the weapon for the time being.
Click to expand...
If a credible witness alleges specific violent and criminal conduct, it would indeed establish probable cause to arrest, part of which is to disarm. But, and this is a big but, if the report was false, the person who reported needs to spend serious time in jail. That's how grave a thing it is to disarm and arrest an innocent sovereign citizen. There must be serious consequences if done falsely.

As for the bus driver, there was no specific allegation of violence that we know of. He didn't report to the dispatcher that the man tried to stab him with a knife, or smash him in the head with a Billy club. Just that he was "acting violently," whatever the heck that means. The dispatcher should have gotten more specifics, and if none were supplied, the report of "violence" should have been given zero credibility, and the man in the car should not have been disarmed.
 
TRH is correct.

Say I'm pulled over by an LEO. What about my safety? I consider an LEO to be a much bigger threat than the average person on the street.
 
??

That is until you or loved one is attacked by that person on the street and then its the police fault for not being there blah blah blah

There is no winning with some of you.
 
Quote:
TRH is correct.

Say I'm pulled over by an LEO. What about my safety? I consider an LEO to be a much bigger threat than the average person on the street.

You and me both.
Click to expand...

Somehow I get the feeling ya'll are gonna' make the news someday.;)

But hey, last guy I saw who was "above the law" and didn't feel the police had any right to disarm him or even pull him over (he didn't recognize the police's authority, he was "soverign") well, they just smashed his little windown in and shot that car full of pepper balls. Wouldn't you know, the courts seemed to think the cops were okay in doing this.

Moral of the story? You're an adult (I assume) and make your own choices. Every choice in life has consequences. Some easy.............some hard, ya'll seem to want to make it hard. Good luck with that.:rolleyes:
 
Somehow I get the feeling ya'll are gonna' make the news someday.

But hey, last guy I saw who was "above the law" and didn't feel the police had any right to disarm him or even pull him over (he didn't recognize the police's authority, he was "soverign") well, they just smashed his little windown in and shot that car full of pepper balls. Wouldn't you know, the courts seemed to think the cops were okay in doing this.

Moral of the story? You're an adult (I assume) and make your own choices. Every choice in life has consequences. Some easy.............some hard, ya'll seem to want to make it hard. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Oh, you have me all wrong, my friend. The fact that I recognize that tyranny is bad does not mean that I am suicidal. Quite the opposite. I will not oppose tyranny in ways which will tend to get me killed, at least not meaninglessly killed. Even if I was a resident of Nazi Germany, I would have avoided any conduct which would have foreseeably given the Gestapo an excuse to shoot or arrest me. No, a traffic stop and disarmament is not a hill on which I would ever choose to die. That hill exists, but that's not it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Pulled over w/ CCW in Minnesota
Replies
19
Views
1K
LiquidTension
L
T
  • Locked
Texas Gun Law Questions
Replies
9
Views
850
Tyrannosaurus
T
L
  • Locked
Encounter with Arkansas State Police
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
5K
Art Eatman
A
Lennyjoe
  • Locked
Got pulled over by Arizona Highway Patrol
Replies
7
Views
1K
Lennyjoe
Lennyjoe
A
  • Locked
USPS Story
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top