Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Well, yeah, but we're not a police state, because no one's legally required to drive, right?
Random Taffic Stop Gun Checks
- Thread starter atlctyslkr
- Start date
- Status
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
I know a woman whose husband was pulled over in Chicago. He had a mauser in the back seat of the car, which earned him an immedate arrest.
I don't know if this would happen in other parts of Illinois. I wouldn't be surprised if it did. I really don't like Illinois.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Legal or not, the fact that the police can search any vehicle they want is obscene.
Doesn't that bother you?
Vex
Member
It would bother me if it was true, but it's not. And there's no fact in what you're saying. They can't search any vehicle they want, just because they want to. They have to find a legal way. If the citizen gives them a way to get into the vehicle legally, whether by smoking weed in the car or driving without a license or whatever, it's the fault of the citizen for not following the laws, not the fault of the police for doing their job legally.
If you get busted for having a kilo of cocaine in plain sight of the police, who's fault is it? The police, for searching your vehicle? No. It's your fault for not hiding your drugs.
Sgt Stevo
Member
I got pulled over for speeding in my souped up t-bird. Not real fast, But I got up to sped real fast.
My car sounds like power boat when i gun it. Anyway. I had one of my shotguns in the trunk. Unloaded. In a case. I Also have tinted windows. I normally dont have a problem As I have VETs Plates and a VFW sticker. But I pushed it this time. Deputy says. "Nice dog,that a malinois." His dept uses them.
I said yep. He says, "Got anything in the car I should know about?." I Told him my Browning was the trunk. He asked if it was loaded I said No. He ran me. Or whatever cops do when they take your info back to there car.
Gave me a ticket for 45 in a 30 and split.
He did not seem to care about the Gun. weird. I also make it a point to be respectful and not make the cop nervous. Nervous is bad. He asked me if I know I was speeding. I said Yep. I am a speeder not a liar. So Honestys the best policy.
My car sounds like power boat when i gun it. Anyway. I had one of my shotguns in the trunk. Unloaded. In a case. I Also have tinted windows. I normally dont have a problem As I have VETs Plates and a VFW sticker. But I pushed it this time. Deputy says. "Nice dog,that a malinois." His dept uses them.
I said yep. He says, "Got anything in the car I should know about?." I Told him my Browning was the trunk. He asked if it was loaded I said No. He ran me. Or whatever cops do when they take your info back to there car.
Gave me a ticket for 45 in a 30 and split.
He did not seem to care about the Gun. weird. I also make it a point to be respectful and not make the cop nervous. Nervous is bad. He asked me if I know I was speeding. I said Yep. I am a speeder not a liar. So Honestys the best policy.
evan price
Member
Neoncowboy: There is a large difference between "PC" probable cause and "RS" reasonable suspicion.
In order to perform a warrentless search the LEO must have either Probable Cause or else Reasonable Suspicion that a crime either has or is going to take place. For example, Terry V. Ohio. This decision has led to interpretation that cars are included in a stop & frisk, where WEAPONS are possible. Anybody a CFL? Does your state include CFL info on a routine LEADS license plate check? Now, you are going to have RS for a weapons search. Note that this means they can only look for weapon-like objects; but if that baggie of MJ in the center console is located it is now evidence and your attorney will have to try to get it thrown out. Check out Minnesota V Dickerson for a clarification of Terry V Ohio. Or State (NC) V Battle to clarify when the LEO's can stop you.
It has been tried in court repeatedly that a minor traffic infraction, which would otherwise result in only a ticket and not a "criminal" offense, does not justify a "PC" search of the vehicle. In order to search the LEO needs to acquire consent to search from the operator/owner. Consent searches are the #1 way to find incriminating stuff to hang on the operator. Again, it has been in court repeatedly, failing to allow a consent search IS NOT creating Probable Cause for a warrentless search. However the officer may bring in a canine to search around the outside, look in windows, etc.
Whether or not detention pending a canine arriving is legal is up for the courts to decide; certainly if the officer tells you you are being detained- is that a legal order? Do you have to stay? What are the consequences if you defy his commands? Certainly remember this: Once the ticket is issued, if the LEO asks to search, ask if you are free to go. If he gives the runaround, ask, are you free to go. If he says yes, request your ID documents back, and leave, immediately, but safely. If they say NO, or do not return your documents, ask if you are being detained. If you are being detained ask why. Be polite, and not whiny, and not nasty. Remember this is all most likely going to be on video and audio tape in the cruiser. If you are not being detained then the LEO must return your documents; ask if you are free to go. If he says yes you are free to go, but wants to wait a second and talk and refuses to return your documents, ask them to be returned. Insist. Politely. Then leave. Safely.
General Vehicle Search Guidelines (NOTE I AM NOT A LAWYER OR A COP NOR IS THIS INTENDED TO BE FORMAL LEGAL ADVICE; USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK!)
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Sigh...
The laws allow a cop to find a legal way to stop almost anybody they want. That's what you said, and that's what I've heard from LEO's: "If I look hard enough, I can find a reason to pull over every car on the road." Searching a vehicle is a little harder, legally speaking, but is still far too easy.
The bottom line remains: if they wanna search your car badly enough, they will find a legal way to do so.
Legal or not, that's wrong. It bothers me. It should bother you.
Vex
Member
So, what you're saying is that if the police pulled over some people because their brake lights were out, and he discovered through standard, legal investigative procedures and techniques that these were actually neo nazis transporting a stolen atomic bomb to New Orleans to destroy the chocolate city... that it would be wrong? And this bothers you?
Wow.... I just... I don't know what.... I'm speechless... just wow.
I guess I didn't learn that it's wrong to be a good investigator when I was in the police academy.
Mr.V.
Member
Vex--
You pull someone over because they were going 10 mph over the speedlimit. You decide...eh...I don't like the look of this guy. I'm going to search his trunk... there's a blonde wrapped up in duct-tape squirming in the back.
Should this guy get arrested for kidnapping+attempted who-knows-what?
Yes obviously he should but the problem is that you essentially broke his constitutional rights in order to do it.
fortunately for most crimes like kidnapping etc there's a ton of other evidence that can be constitutionally attained and can be used to successfully prosecute a crime.
Gun-owning is a bit more of a sticky subject. The crime is simply having the gun. Therefore it is the centerpiece of case. Where does the legality lie?
The supreme court in its infinite wisdom has decided the 2nd Amendment isn't worth being discussed for the past 67 years while lower courts have mostly allowed the eroding of firearm rights on a state to state basis.
This has left us all (esp us in the anti-gun states) with the uneasy feeling that anytime someone could arbitrarily decide that our gun is illegal and now we have learn how to please a 275lb manimal in cell block 5 because we didn't signal more than 100feet before the turn.
There are a lot of legitimate concerns over how constitutional your "standard, legal investigative procedures and techniques" really are and how valid the argument "if it stops just one neo-nazi fission bomb" is...
You pull someone over because they were going 10 mph over the speedlimit. You decide...eh...I don't like the look of this guy. I'm going to search his trunk... there's a blonde wrapped up in duct-tape squirming in the back.
Should this guy get arrested for kidnapping+attempted who-knows-what?
Yes obviously he should but the problem is that you essentially broke his constitutional rights in order to do it.
fortunately for most crimes like kidnapping etc there's a ton of other evidence that can be constitutionally attained and can be used to successfully prosecute a crime.
Gun-owning is a bit more of a sticky subject. The crime is simply having the gun. Therefore it is the centerpiece of case. Where does the legality lie?
The supreme court in its infinite wisdom has decided the 2nd Amendment isn't worth being discussed for the past 67 years while lower courts have mostly allowed the eroding of firearm rights on a state to state basis.
This has left us all (esp us in the anti-gun states) with the uneasy feeling that anytime someone could arbitrarily decide that our gun is illegal and now we have learn how to please a 275lb manimal in cell block 5 because we didn't signal more than 100feet before the turn.
There are a lot of legitimate concerns over how constitutional your "standard, legal investigative procedures and techniques" really are and how valid the argument "if it stops just one neo-nazi fission bomb" is...
Mr.V,
In the great majority of the cases where a vehicle is stopped, the stop is made legally, no one's rights are violated. In the great majorirty of cases where a vehicle is susequently searched, the search is legal. We get constant updates and inservice training on what the courts have ruled is legal and isn't legal in regards to searches.
There is not a consistant standard nationwide. The courts have made thousands of rulings and some even contradict each other. For instance an Arizona court ruled that an officer couldn't make a custodial arrest on an offense that wouldn't normally result in a custodial arrest so that a search incident to arrest could be conducted. However in Tennessee the state courts have ruled and the federal court of appeals has upheld that an officer can make a custodial arrest for any offense and that evidence recovered in the search incident to arrest is admissible.
If the courts rule that it's constitutional, then it is, in fact constitutional until a higher court rules otherwise. That is how the system works. If the courts don't share your personal view of what's constitutional and what's not, then I would suggest that you either vote out the local judges when they come up for retention or elect politicians who will appoint judges whose interpretation of the constitution meets your approval. That is also how our system works.
There is no debate as to if standard legal investigative procedures and techniques are constitutional. If they were in fact unconstitutional, they wouldn't be legal now would they?
Jeff
In the great majority of the cases where a vehicle is stopped, the stop is made legally, no one's rights are violated. In the great majorirty of cases where a vehicle is susequently searched, the search is legal. We get constant updates and inservice training on what the courts have ruled is legal and isn't legal in regards to searches.
There is not a consistant standard nationwide. The courts have made thousands of rulings and some even contradict each other. For instance an Arizona court ruled that an officer couldn't make a custodial arrest on an offense that wouldn't normally result in a custodial arrest so that a search incident to arrest could be conducted. However in Tennessee the state courts have ruled and the federal court of appeals has upheld that an officer can make a custodial arrest for any offense and that evidence recovered in the search incident to arrest is admissible.
If the courts rule that it's constitutional, then it is, in fact constitutional until a higher court rules otherwise. That is how the system works. If the courts don't share your personal view of what's constitutional and what's not, then I would suggest that you either vote out the local judges when they come up for retention or elect politicians who will appoint judges whose interpretation of the constitution meets your approval. That is also how our system works.
There is no debate as to if standard legal investigative procedures and techniques are constitutional. If they were in fact unconstitutional, they wouldn't be legal now would they?
Jeff
These are to get people used to the idea of checkpoints stops.
And they do not have to come out and say "random checks for firearms". It could be "random vehicle mechanical safety checks". That's right; "Brake pedal pressure?" .. "seat and seatbelt integrity - are the seats anchored to the floor of the vehicle properly, are the belts anchored, in good condition, have they been remounted outside the manufacturer's specs? " ... "any dangerous wiring condition?"... "Any flammable liquids in the trunk?"
There will be enough excuses to eyeball every single nook and cranny in the vehicle.
---------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Last edited:
evan price
Member
In England the MOT (Ministry of Transportation) has the right to pull vehicles over for a primary offense if they notice a safety violation, and then perform a full safety inspection right there. For ex, bald tire, broken headlamp, etc.
Chris Rhines
Member
Not in my book, and this statement smacks of outright tautology (not to mention being more than a little condecending.) There are many laws that remain on the books that fly in the face of the constitution as written, and it's worth noting that when a higher court overturns the decision of a lower court on constitutional grounds, it means that said law was unconstitutional from the day it was enacted. Not from the day it was overturned.
Driving on a public road places no obligation on any other person, assuming that the driver is paid up on his taxes and owns his own car. That makes it a right, just the same as walking down a public sidewalk.
- Chris
romma
Member
My Favorite
Line is when they ask you "where you headed to this evening?" or "where are you coming from?" As if what I do, or where I go is any of their or anyone elses business.
Line is when they ask you "where you headed to this evening?" or "where are you coming from?" As if what I do, or where I go is any of their or anyone elses business.
My father got the best one ever. He was pulled over in another county because his stoplight cover wasn't red enough. It had faded, but was still clearly visible for what it was. His choice was either to pay the $100+ in fines (the same as for a major speeding offense in other counties), or to come back to the county and fight it. He paid, as was expected.
Erebus
Member
I have a related question. If I am pulled over for a legitimate traffic reason I am not required to present my CHL to the officer in MA. However I own a police scanner and know full well when he runs my driver's license he is going to find out anyway. So I give it to them with my license and reg. This has never come up but if it did. The officer asks me if I have a gun in the car. I reply I have one in the trunk unloaded and locked in a case, in compliance. Can he go in the trunk without permission "to confirm it's properly stored"? If I say I have no guns in the car can he search without permission?
In other words does me having a CHL give him probable cause for anything?
When I was younger that Vette got searched at least twice a month. State Police seemed convinced they were going to find drugs in it eventually. I had to write a letter to the captain to get it to stop. I was 21 and bought it brand new. I got to know a couple locals very well and, with the exception of one, the locals left me alone. But I was always afraid to say no when they asked to search it. Never had anything in it that could get me in trouble so I was more afraid of what might happen if I said no than yes. Man that was time consuming! My boss was getting sick of me showing up over an hour late for work on a regular basis. That's what finally got me to write the letter, I explained that they were getting me in trouble at work.
In other words does me having a CHL give him probable cause for anything?
When I was younger that Vette got searched at least twice a month. State Police seemed convinced they were going to find drugs in it eventually. I had to write a letter to the captain to get it to stop. I was 21 and bought it brand new. I got to know a couple locals very well and, with the exception of one, the locals left me alone. But I was always afraid to say no when they asked to search it. Never had anything in it that could get me in trouble so I was more afraid of what might happen if I said no than yes. Man that was time consuming! My boss was getting sick of me showing up over an hour late for work on a regular basis. That's what finally got me to write the letter, I explained that they were getting me in trouble at work.
HankB
Member
There's a better than even chance that video/audio tape which supports the motorist's testimony will be lost/damaged/unavailable if it ever gets to court. Video/audio tapes which support the officer's testimony will be clear, sharp, and unambiguous.
In parts of TX, answering this may be ill-advised. TX recently revised its "traveling" statutes relative to firearms in vehicles, but some PDs down around Houston, IIRC, haven't gotten the message. Respond honestly, and they may decide you've nonetheless given the wrong answer, and give you grief. TSRA suggests pointing to your license & insurance paperwork and saying words to the effect of "Officer, all the information you legally require is right there."
Creeping Incrementalism
Member
California firearm safety check
In California, if you tell an officer that you have a firearm in your vehicle, by law, they can check it themselves to see if it is being properly transported, and those laws are rather strict. Furthermore, while pinned "off-list" mag ARs are legal in California, cops will frequently confiscate them anyway. Thus, we are in a dilemma--if we tell the truth, we may be screwed over. The best response to the question, "Are there any guns in your vehicle", is in my opinion, "No, I've got no contraband." Also worrying is that anyone who's legally bought/transfered a handgun in this state in the last 5 of 6 years has had it registered, and this information appears on their computer, along with address information, when police run a query.
Also--I don't know how many of you realize this--but cops lie all the time to get probable cause to search. Since many of us aren't "suspicous"-looking, it may not have happened to you, but once you fit the profile of the kind of person a cop likes to bust, in many cases they will search you and your vehicle anyway on the probable cause that you "looked nervous" or something along those lines, if they can't find a valid excuse, and believe they can get away with it.
As far as the most BS reason for pulling over someone to begin with, other than the outright lies (dirty license plate, etc.), how's this one--my brother got pulled over for "stopping at a yield sign". That's just funny, pulling someone over for driving with extra precaution. Sort of like the joke. How do you know when a driver has something to hide? He's obeying all the traffic laws.
In California, if you tell an officer that you have a firearm in your vehicle, by law, they can check it themselves to see if it is being properly transported, and those laws are rather strict. Furthermore, while pinned "off-list" mag ARs are legal in California, cops will frequently confiscate them anyway. Thus, we are in a dilemma--if we tell the truth, we may be screwed over. The best response to the question, "Are there any guns in your vehicle", is in my opinion, "No, I've got no contraband." Also worrying is that anyone who's legally bought/transfered a handgun in this state in the last 5 of 6 years has had it registered, and this information appears on their computer, along with address information, when police run a query.
Also--I don't know how many of you realize this--but cops lie all the time to get probable cause to search. Since many of us aren't "suspicous"-looking, it may not have happened to you, but once you fit the profile of the kind of person a cop likes to bust, in many cases they will search you and your vehicle anyway on the probable cause that you "looked nervous" or something along those lines, if they can't find a valid excuse, and believe they can get away with it.
As far as the most BS reason for pulling over someone to begin with, other than the outright lies (dirty license plate, etc.), how's this one--my brother got pulled over for "stopping at a yield sign". That's just funny, pulling someone over for driving with extra precaution. Sort of like the joke. How do you know when a driver has something to hide? He's obeying all the traffic laws.
Thefabulousfink
Member
"officer, the answer is right there on the license. That address is where I started from this morning and, God willing, is where I will end up tonight."
Vex
Member
The law doesn't allow the police to search someone's trunk based on how the officer "feels" about the subject. Police aren't allowed to have feelings, and a "hunch" doesn't give the police the legal right to search someone's property. The thing I'm saying is that there are always ways.... maybe I pull a guy over, he doesn't have a license, I hear banging in the trunk. I arrest him for no ops, call a tow truck to impount, and during the inventory of the vehicle subsequent to an arrest, I find said blonde bound in ducttape. It's legal, it's pretty, and everyone is happy. What's more, the blonde is evidence, and since I obtained her legally, she and the fact that I found her bound in ducttape in the guys trunk can now be used in court as evidence.
Mr.V, the constitutionality of these techniques... the plain sight rule, for example (If I come to your window and see a bag of cocaine through the window, it's considered plain sight and I don't need a warrant to get it)... if you want them changed, then lead the way. Vote for the judges. Sue the state. Take the constitutionality of the laws to the supreme court. Otherwise, it's the name of the game. THe police are already fairly limited... think of the law as a game. You're playing the game to hide whatever contraband or blondes... I'm playing the game to get inside. Sometimes I win. Sometimes you win. But it's a game nontheless, and when we win, you can't prematurely yell, "Foul! Unconstitutional! Unfair!" and expect it to fall on anything other than deaf ears.
If you don't want to play the game, don't break any laws.
I know this is the extremist libertarian wet dream, but I just don't ever see it happen. If we turned into a police state, I'd resign my police certification the same day. I don't believe random DUI checks are unreasonable, but if they start stopping every car asking if there's any flammable liquids in the trunk and forcing us to consent to a search, then that will be a different argument entirely.
You'd be very surprised if you knew how many times someone said, "The crack house," or "We're going over to Compton to kill this guy."
Check the laws in your state regarding having a CHL. In Ohio, if someone is pulled over and has a CHL and the weapon on them, the police have the authority to remove the weapon until the stop is over... this is all that's allowed by the law under the 4th Amendment.
But if you have an unloaded gun in the trunk, and the ammo is stored seperately from the weapon, then there's no reason or probable cause to search anything. If the police wanted in, they'd have to go get a warrant to search your vehicle, which, based on the information you're giving me, would make the judge chuckle... and then deny the warrant.
romma
Member
I wonder how surprised I might be if I refused to answer A question I am not inclined to answer... Something tells me that I would end up having a more exhaustive "interview" flavored with a just a hint of scutiny...
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
What about walking down the street? Should random checks of pedestrians for public intoxication be allowed?
Walking in public is a right, not a privilege, correct? I see nothing in the Constitution which would lead me to believe a public intoxication checkpoint and ID check is "unreasonable".
But legally, what is the difference? If random checks for DUI are not unreasonable, why would random checks for flammable liquids or explosives be? A random check without probable cause or reasonable suspicion is just that. Why get upset if it's for flammables, instead of intoxication?
And you know they wouldn't force you to consent to a search. They would just conduct one based on the fact that they smelled gasoline. Which gives them probable cause to conduct a search. At which point consent, is unnecessary, right? Just as if they smelled alcohol on your breath during the random reasonable DUI checks.
Mr.V.
Member
Jeff White said:
Sorry I meant to quote his "standard legal investigative procedures" to imply just how "legal" the average car search is. Certainly adquate probable cause which leads to a search conducted under signed warrant obtained by a judge is perfectly legal and necessary to maintain a society of laws. But not all car searches follow the 4th amendment to the T.
I do agree that the majority of searches are probably legal. But there are plenty of instances where a car gets searched for no good reason...certainly lacking probable cause. It happened to me. I went 45 in a 35. The cop asked for my license and registration. I gave him both. Both were valid. I gave him my proof of insurance which was also valid. I said very few words and was excessively polite (maybe he thought I was a lunatic =) He asked me to step out of the car anyways. Then his partner watched me while he proceeded to rummage around my car finding a plethora of cheetos wrappers and not much else. Then he gave me a ticket for speeding and sent me on my way.
I didn't do anything wrong besides speed (a bit) and I got searched. No kilos of smack, no bodies in the trunk, no guns anywhere to be found, he just found out I have a soft-spot for cheesy poofs which isn't a crime...yet. I still didn't like it one bit. I sped. There was no probable cause for any other crime. Then I see similar things happening on shows like Cops to other people much like it happened to me, only they usually find drugs. Still...if drugs etc isn't in plain view, should they get to search the vehicle for doing a California roll through the stop sign?
As per your second point...
That appears to be precisely the problem. We're supposed to all have equal protection under the law. It makes it difficult to know your rights when they change every 300 yards.
- Status