Random Taffic Stop Gun Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.

atlctyslkr

Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
477
Location
Atlanta, GA
Seatbelt checks and intoxication checkpoints have been around for a while. Now it's checking for valid insurance, what next? How long will it be before California or New York decide to do random traffic stops for guns? The search and seizure rights supposedly protected by the constitution have been consistenly erroded.
 
The Milwaukee County Sherriff's dept. was doing this in Milwaukee last year. They did use the pretext of minor traffic or safety violations, not just random checkpoints.

I'll fully grant they focused on the neighborhoods where the odds were 95% of the guns they found would be illegal somehow, but the principle of the thing still bugs me a bit...
 
NY has been using vehicle scanners, in search of hidden guns, for several years now.

There's only one non-organic technology I know of that can find a firearm in a vehicle. As far as I'm aware, not a single system of the type has been deployed yet. If this is anything other than a rumor, I'd like a reference...
 
I've always wondered if I'm driving and hit one of our famous Illinois traffic check points with a long gun case visible in the cargo area of my hatchback if they'd just glance at my license and insurance and wave me on, or ask me to pull over.
 
Soybomb,
Most likely they would ask if you had a FOID or just do a FOID inquiry through LEADS when they ran your license. I have never asked someone to produce a FOID card. I just run them through LEADS when I run their ID.

Jeff
 
Thanks Jeff, good to know. The pessimist in me was half expecting an open the case and run the serial thing. Although I dont think you can read the serial with the side saddle on the 870 anyway... :D
 
Since possession of a firearm would not impair the driver's ability a roadside checkpoint would be the ultimate in fascism.


However, How Many of us can say they have been pulled over at the wee hours by a LEO who states, "You were weaving a bit", or "One of your License Plate lamps is out" or "You didn't come to a full and complete stop before turning right on red."
My favorite, "I had trouble reading your tag.". This was on a pickup with a hitch ball on the step bumper. The LEO told me, after I objected, that step bumper hitches were intended for temporary use only and the ball should be removed imediately after towing....! Of course his first words to me after pulling me over were, "Good evening sir I stopped you because I couldn't clearly read your license plate have you had anything to drink tonight sir?"

As long as LEO's are taught to turn minor traffic stops like that into big violations and arrests, we will always have roadside checks for concealed firearms.
 
However, How Many of us can say they have been pulled over at the wee hours by a LEO who states, "You were weaving a bit", or "One of your License Plate lamps is out" or "You didn't come to a full and complete stop before turning right on red."
My favorite, "I had trouble reading your tag.".

That's nothing. I was pulled over for "accelerating fast out of an intersection". No kidding. After that happened, I did some research on the legality of that. Turns out that was what they call "reasonable suspicion" (particularly when done at 2:30 AM which is just after the bars close). "Resonable suspicion". A much lower standard than what most people think they need to pull you over (in other words, "probable cause").
 
Random checkpoints are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

They shouldn't be able to stop your car to ask you questions or make you prove something anymore then they should be able to enter your home whenever they feel like it so you can prove you aren't doing something illegal.
 
Random checkpoints are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

They shouldn't be able to stop your car to ask you questions or make you prove something anymore then they should be able to enter your home whenever they feel like it so you can prove you aren't doing something illegal.

Driving on a public roadway is a privilege. Owning a house and being safe from unwarranted random searches while on your personal property is a right. That's the difference.

Also, it's not a random "search" checkpoint. It's a checkpoint to ensure drivers are complying with traffic laws: insurance, intoxication, license, and registraton are among the most popular.
 
Lupinus, that's why they are required to stop you for a minor traffic violation, like a burnt out side marker, or a cracked windshield, or a parking pass hanging from the rear view mirror (Obstructed view). These are all minor things that go on every day. When they feel like stopping you they can usually find SOMETHING in the vehicle code.

Good advice I received fro ma LEO friend at a party after we had beers:

Ensure your car is 100% up to code. Check every bulb often. Use your blinker at every time you change direction. Make sure you come to a complete stop at every signal or stop sign. Obey speed limits to the letter. Wear your seat belt. DOn't put anything on the glass of your car or hanging from the mirror.

Also: Especially with smaller cars, the big Police cruisers, when tucked close behind you, can change the way the wind moves over both cars (like NASCAR drafting). By easing the cruiser over to the side they can get your vehicle to drift with them, even without you moving the steering wheel. If that takes you onto the side line of the road, that's failure to travel in marked lanes. Even if you keep it in the lane, the car may "wobble" a little as you correct course, Presto, You are "weaving" & it looks good on the videotape.
 
Random checkpoints are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

They are not technically unconstitutional because you are under no obligation to enter a checkpoint. You are absolutely within your rights to do a legal u-turn and not enter the checkpoint.

Of course, depending on how many other citizens are u-turning, you might get scrutinized after the turn, and you had better make sure you do a 100% legal u-turn.
 
Mumbles Menino was talking about random checks of cars coming into MA from NH, for "illegal guns". I think people might have reminded him about that fourth amendment thing, because that notion went away.

And I don't see how anything could detect a steet and polymer item in a steel and polymer vehicle. And if the rounds are kept in an airtight box, no powder scent, either.
 
Random checkpoints are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
Sadly, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, so long as the stop meets some unquantifiable standard of 'minimal intrusion'.
 
+1 on the unconstitutional feeling. Sounds like the whole point of them is that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
"You are just driving home from the range huh? Prove it. Are those guns legal? We'll just see about that. Step out of the vehicle. Have you been drinking?" :barf:
Some sheeple say "If it saves just one life it's worth it". How many saved lives would it take for you to give up ALL your rights? Think about how many men DIED to give you those rights.
 
NY has been using vehicle scanners, in search of hidden guns, for several years now.

So, how do they get around the suspect/driver saying, 'no officer, I do not consent to any searches of my person or my car'?

Is a burned out tail light/speeding/minor traffic violation enough for the 'arresting' officer to have PC to search the car (as it would be if he were making an arrest?) I didn't think it was.
 
My car is my personal property. As such a government agent has no right searching it without probably cause or a warrant.

To search it you need probably cause or a warrant, you can't simply pull over a motorist randomly order them out of the car and go through it. You shouldn't be able to set up a road block either and order someone who has given you no probably cause to prove they aren't doing something illegal- IE driving under the influence, without insurance, etc. You don't have to prove innocence the government needs to prove cause and prove you guilty that is the basis of our country.

It is thinking like yours VEX that is what is slowly turning the constitution into a worthless pile of confetti.
 
I need to start typing faster lol

Driving on a public roadway is no more a privledge than walking on a public sidewalk.

This misconception needs to be killed off before it gets any more traction.

They are not technically unconstitutional because you are under no obligation to enter a checkpoint. You are absolutely within your rights to do a legal u-turn and not enter the checkpoint.

Of course, depending on how many other citizens are u-turning, you might get scrutinized after the turn, and you had better make sure you do a 100% legal u-turn.
Not if you can't saftly do so. Say I drive a full sized van and it is a narrow two lane street with ditches on each side. If I can't do the U-Turn saftly it isn't legal. It is a publicly owned right of way and I am in my own private property. Police have no right stopping me with no cause and demanding me to prove I am doing nothing illegal. I will gladly tell the police officer "no, you can't see my insurence card." I have a right to not be harrased by police on a fishing trip, just because I am driving down the road does not change this right.

Sadly, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, so long as the stop meets some unquantifiable standard of 'minimal intrusion'.
They seem to agree with a lot of bull droppings lately.
 
Driving on a public roadway is no more a privledge than walking on a public sidewalk.

This misconception needs to be killed off before it gets any more traction.

It is thinking like yours VEX that is what is slowly turning the constitution into a worthless pile of confetti.

It's not my thinking. It's the law. If you don't like it, don't drive a motorvehicle on the public road. Buy a bicycle, or a horse, or become amish, or start walking to work.

My car is my personal property. As such a government agent has no right searching it without probably cause or a warrant.

To search it you need probably cause or a warrant, you can't simply pull over a motorist randomly order them out of the car and go through it. You shouldn't be able to set up a road block either and order someone who has given you no probably cause to prove they aren't doing something illegal- IE driving under the influence, without insurance, etc. You don't have to prove innocence the government needs to prove cause and prove you guilty that is the basis of our country.

This is true. But if they want in, they will find a way. Want to avoid it? Either 1) don't drive on a public roadway, or 2) make sure you never break any laws regarding motor vehicle traffic. Don't speed. Don't brake too suddenly. Don't speed up too suddenly. Make sure all your lights work. Make sure you use your turn signal. Make use of your horn to pass someone. Make use of all your mirrors. Don't follow too closely. Don't drive too slow.

If you break ANY traffic law, they have the right to stop you. They can't "search" you without probable cause, but police officers are professionals at what they do. If I want into someone's car legally, there are always ways, because people always mess something up.

It is thinking like yours VEX that is what is slowly turning the constitution into a worthless pile of confetti.

My thinking is very constitutional. Go read the 10th Amendment. Since there is nothing to delegate power to license a person to operate a motorvehicle in the constitution, then the power falls to the States. This really has nothing to do with the US Constitution. If you think driving is a right (which is BS), write to your state legislature and complain to them.

If that's not good enough for you, go read the Commerce Clause. Maybe it will remind you that things could be much worse off if the feds challenged the 10th in court to issue a federal driver's license.

Be happy with the privilege.
 
yes vex they can, but the issue here is setting up a road block and for absoloutly no reason making a person prove they are not doing anything illegal. If they have a reason to pull you over that is one thing, annoying as hell, but legal.

Setting up a road block to prove your innocence and let them fish for something is not constitutional I don't care what some idiot on the court says.
 
That's nothing. I was pulled over for "accelerating fast out of an intersection". No kidding. After that happened, I did some research on the legality of that.

I got pulled over for "excessive acceleration" after leaving a light at 2am once. It was pouring rain and he made me leave my window down. :fire: Of coarse I was 21 and driving a $50K brand new "Arrest Me Red" Corvette. What really pissed him off was when he found out it was mine and not my dad's. Needless to say I was a drug dealer from then on.

Now on a car like that in the pouring rain, how did I excessively accelerate without spinning the tires? They are 10.5" wide!! <--That is an example of something you DON'T say to a LEO at 2am in the pouring rain.

Heard on the radio today(96.9FM Talk out of Boston) that Boston is considering searching people for guns who are wearing clothes that appear inappropriate. IE big coats in the summer.

They have drunk stops around my area all the time. They just ask you 2 or 3 questions to get a wiff of your breath and send you off. Never heard of anyone getting busted for anything except OUI and they list the names of all the people they bust and what they are charged with in the paper. They catch ALOT of drunks when they do one, it's quite scarey how many they catch in a couple hours.
 
My thinking is very constitutional. Go read the 10th Amendment. Since there is nothing to delegate power to license a person to operate a motorvehicle in the constitution, then the power falls to the States. This really has nothing to do with the US Constitution. If you think driving is a right (which is BS), write to your state legislature and complain to them.

Driving isn't a right. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is. Do I take it you don't believe the fourth ammendment applies to vehicles? Or do you feel that it isn't "unreasonable" for a police officer to be able to search a vehicle for any of a variety of tenuous reasons? (Yes, I realize the words "vehicles" or "conveyences" are not present in Amndmt IV. Aren't vehicles "effects", ie. moveable personal property?)

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-twency
 
Driving isn't a right. Being free from unreasonable search and seizure is. Do I take it you don't believe the fourth ammendment applies to vehicles? Or do you feel that it isn't "unreasonable" for a police officer to be able to search a vehicle for any of a variety of tenuous reasons? (Yes, I realize the words "vehicles" or "conveyences" are not present in Amndmt IV. Aren't vehicles "effects", ie. moveable personal property?)

I agree with you completely. Every person should be free from unreasonable search and seizure, whether in their house or in their vehicle. I never advocated otherwise. I'm a major supporter of the 4th Amendment. What I stated is that people who believe driving is a right, not a privilege, are wrong in stating so... and that I don't believe a DUI checkpoint is an "unreasonable" seizure... Is it a seizure? Yes, because the person and their property, once inside the checkpoint, are not free to leave. Is it unreasonable? No. It is as reasonable as speed limits. (Side note: Some people will try to tell you speed limits are an unreasonable seizure of person or property because it limits how fast you can travel....).

But there are always ways to get into a vehicle legally. I love stating examples, and here's one for you: Someone drives on a public road without a license. They get pulled over. The police arrest them for no ops. The person goes to jail. The police then have to impound the vehicle. During the impound, they get to conduct an "inventory" of the vehicle for any valuables, which have to be recorded on the impound paper to account for any liability (otherwise someone could say "Hey, where's my briefcase with a million dollars in it, it was right here in the trunk..." know what I mean?). It's not called a search. It's called an inventory, and it means the police get to rummage around the car to account for all valuables in the car. What is of value? Money? Guns? Drugs?

I also want to point out that I do not agree with a random checkpoint to check for guns. DUI is one thing. But guns are not illegal to own in this country, so there should be no reason to check to a legal item.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top