"Sir, do you have any weapons in the vehicle"?

[Sergeant Sabre]

Does anyone here believe that someone illegally in possession of a firearm is going to have any problem lying about it?

You'd be very surprised at how many times criminals will disclose information if they are asked. On every night-time traffic stop I ask "how much have you been drinking?" regardless of whether or not I have any indications that the driver has been drinking and even if I don't think they have. More than a few times I've been surprised when they say "oh, a few drinks" and the stop ends up as a drunk driving arrest.

I asked an underage drinker "where's your pot?" once, having no indication that he had any. He reached into his pocket and handed me his dime bag.

I was searching a house under a consent search and asked a guys girlfriend "where's your dope?". She went to the kitchen, opened a cupboard, reached way into the back, and pulled out a small tin full of pot, paraphernalia, and prescription medication (sans prescription, of course).

A few officers on my department detained an individual who matched the description of a wanted man. It turned out not to be who they were looking for, but before they released him they asked "do you have anything illegal on you?". The response was "I have a gun in my backpack." Guy ended up being a leader in the Vice Lords and went to Federal court for weapons violations.

Bad guys often give up info freely, and I try to give them a bit of a break if they do.

Give us a break, guys. We're not robots programmed to make every possible arrest. Those who believe that have no idea what a pain the butt making an arrest can be, in terms of time spent, loads of paperwork, and court time later. At the end of a long shift, the last thing I want to do it stumble onto a big arrest. Sometimes, I'd much rather just send you on your way and go have a donut D)

 

[coloradokevin]

A non-violent college student getting tackled and tasered for the dangerous action of speaking out of turn.

...

In the case of the tasered college student, what saved them was the fact that everyone approved of such asinine, animal use of violence, except for those who stood by, bleating, "Why-y-y-y... why are you doing this? What did he d-o-o-o?" I'll continue speaking out about it until everyone wakes up: those who perform such actions, and those who let it happen.

Yeah, I guess law and order doesn't matter. It is amazing that you believe your own propaganda. Regardless of anything you claim to the contrary, it is quite obvious that you feel a great deal of resentment and distaste towards anyone involved in law enforcement.

I haven't seen that video in a while, but you provide a gross over simplification of that issue. Facts are, the student was told that his time was up, he kept speaking. His mike was shut off, he kept speaking. The officers told him he was to leave, and began to escort him out. He tried to pull away from the officers, and escalated the incident up to at least the level of "Defensive Resistance", perhaps even "active aggression" near the back of the room (when he pulls away and then turns on the officer). At this point the officers could have hit him with a couple of charges: Disobedience to a lawful order, trespass, disorderly conduct, etc (depending on local ordinances), interference, and possible resistance. Anyway, the student continued to be disruptive and PHYSICALLY uncooperative with officers who were doing their jobs to the letter of the law...

He ended up being tasered.

Oh well.

Had the student left without physically resisting the officer's attempts to remove him, he would not have been tasered. Thus, he was not tasered for "speaking out of turn".

This student caused everything that happened to him as a result of his combative actions, and I find it pathetic that you try to blame the officers for handling the situation with this whiny little cry-baby.

Also, the edited videos now being shown do not show the two minutes or so of air time that the subject took at the mike after they told him that he was done... But, they still show the subject resisting the officers, acting like a fool, disobeying multiple lawful orders, and receiving a short drive-stun tasering from the officers.

I guess that anytime someone wants to act like a fool and turn a public forum into their own little political charade, we better let them? I mean, it would be mean if we removed them from such an event... Why don't we just let everyone who wants to act like a fool interupt whatever event they are at, for as long as they please?

Here is a link to one of the edited videos for anyone who'd like to see it and hasn't:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

(By the way, I've been tasered... It feels like being hit by a train for the time that it is happening, but it isn't the end of the world, and the pain stops once the taser stops. I'd take being tasered to pepper sprayed any day, just for that reason!).


Sorry to everyone for taking this off-topic. But, I just felt that this issue needed to be addressed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm amazed that no one's claimed "cop bashing" yet

Well so far the stories about local small town Texas cops I've read on here tend to be true.

The Texas Highway Patrol and bigger cities are pretty good in general but you still get a LOT of the small down "revenue generator" types looking to ticket for just about anything.

There are several counties in south Texas that get a large chunk of their operating revenue this way, right or wrong.

 

[LongRangeMaster]

From the substance of this thread i can see that nobody really knows the law or their rights, so im going to be a bit informative here.

If your states laws allow carrying of a weapon in your vehicle, and you do so, be sure to have a copy of the law in your vehicle also, this will speed up the process for Unknowing LEO's. If you are stopped, it is a polite thing to inform the officer that you have a firearm in the vehicle even before he asks, it will also put the officer at ease and in a better mood. Just because you are right, doesnt mean you have to be an ass.

The following is the FEDERAL LAW.

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


Meaning any LEO that detains you, or uses any tactics to stop you from enjoying your rights afforded you under the constitution is in fact a Criminal and subject to fine and imprisonment. If you notify him of the law and he continues to detain you, you then have legal grounds that will hold up in court. I have personal exp with this.

 

[Grizfire]

I think the best advice is to just call up the non-emergency phone number for the jurisdictions you will be driving through and just ask them what the protocol is. Police are VERY nice to citizens who call in, at least in my experience.

record the phone conversation and hold them to their word if you are pulled over.

 

[Zoogster]

I think the best advice is to just call up the non-emergency phone number for the jurisdictions you will be driving through and just ask them what the protocol is. Police are VERY nice to citizens who call in, at least in my experience.

They are very nice and polite in China and Russia too if you go through such steps. Both locations you want to insure you conform to police desires and not just the local law in order to avoid arrest or harassment.
Of course the UK can just require all citizens in an area to suddenly pass through detectors to insure they have no weapons, so you should probably call ahead and insure you not only conform to the law, but the desires of the local LEO too. Learn thier definitions of various things they don't like, not just thier law's definition.

It is funny, Americans think they have unique freedoms, and then at the same time defend actions which remove those liberties and presumption of innocence because it is simply easier to accomplish objectives that way.
The end justifies the means, after all, it may keep someone someplace a little safer even if it keeps many people in many places a lot less free.
So just when you think you are more unique in the world on more levels than you really are, think again. That changes more every day.

 

[yinyangdc]

Sans Authoritas, I am perfectly humble, and inordinately proud of it!!!

On a more serious note (to everyone), regarding what makes a weapon.
I had read this thread last night and earlier this morning. As I was leaving my Tai Chi class today, and putting my tai chi sword into my trunk, I was wondering about its weapon "status". It is unsharpened, cheap stainless steel, my purpose for it is for the exercise of performing the tai chi sword form. If I had to use it as a weapon, it would be better used as a club than as a cutting instrument.
Any thoughts?

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Bad guys often give up info freely, and I try to give them a bit of a break if they do.

Interesting how this seems to work. A guy literally hands an officer evidence and confession of a crime he comitted and, supposedly because he's truthful, get's a break; yet if I, during a routine traffic stop, politely refuse to answer questions unrelated to the traffic stop, I would get run up, ticketed, removed from the car, get the car tossed, forced to wait for the drug sniffing dogs, etc.

I am not making implications regarding any THR members, just an observation from what I've read so far in the several years of being on this forum.

And coloradokevin, normally I don't mind being ignored, but I was one of the few people to welcome you here and I also provided links upon your request, yet no response from you regarding either. I was initially interested in your thoughts regarding the legitimate recording of police officers during their duty and the ones who find that offensive, but now I'm not sure I care anymore.

 

[yinyangdc]

Regarding the tasered student, I believe he later acknowledged that he was being a jerk and I think that he even apologized. Okay, I got off my lazy butt (figuratively) and found a cite:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/31/State/Tasered_student_is_so.shtml

Meyer apologizes for the Sept. 17 confrontation and arrest at Kerry's campus speech.

The apologies were part of a voluntary 18-month probation, so make of it what you will.

 

[ilbob]

But it's also a job that you can't do unless you believe you're promoting public safety, which is still the goal of traffic enforcement (recognizing that many of you believe it's simply about enriching the government coffers with the fines paid by all the bad drivers).

Lets do a little thought experiment about this. Suppose the state legislature decided that monetary fines would no longer be the primary punishment for traffic infractions and abolished them, to be replaced with something else (say community service).

Its unlikely drivers won't still speed a little here and there, or do other things that are nominally illegal.

After a year of no fines, how many traffic citations are likely to be issued versus while the fine system was still in place? 5%? 10%?

The results of this thought experiment will tell you exactly what traffic enforcement is about.

 

[Zoogster]

yinyangdc: As I was leaving my Tai Chi class today, and putting my tai chi sword into my trunk, I was wondering about its weapon "status". It is unsharpened, cheap stainless steel, my purpose for it is for the exercise of performing the tai chi sword form. If I had to use it as a weapon, it would be better used as a club than as a cutting instrument

What state are you from?

A bladed weapon is more severe in most states than a blunt weapon. However in CA exceptions are made to various bladed weapons irrelevent of blade length (you could have a 6 foot "folding pocket knife.) Yet a few inch screwdriver could be considered a felony dirk or dagger in your pocket.
For the same reason a very small fixed blade could be considered a dirk or dagger if concealed, but worn openly you could legaly wear a sword (though still likely stopped and perhaps arrested by police.)
There is some local knife length limits, but state law leaves it open.
There is school and college restrictions, and some other locations.

CA law is wierd in some instances. It outlaws basicly everything, and then make exceptions where those prohibitions don't apply.
So dirks or daggers are any item readily usuable as a stabbing weapon, but they are not legal knives carried in a legal manner, which is open or concealed for folders, and openly for fixed blades.
Billy, slungshot, sap, etc is any blunt object made for use or intended for use as a weapon, even "just in case" and even if otherwise a legal object.
Accidentaly having a blunt weapon available for defense can be legal, intentionaly doing so is a felony.

However at the same time, absolutely any blunt object weapon is always illegal as a weapon. Even legal items intended for use as a possible weapon, and definately items created for use as a weapon.

Law enforcement are a different class of citizens in the state, and many statutes exempt them.

So in CA it would be legal unconcealed worn openly as a knife (a sword is a knife under state law), but illegal as a blunt object. If there is any confusion you might need to insure it is sharpened in CA

I think pointing out the ironies is hilarious. A metal (or wooden or plastic etc) rod the same size with a handle, designed or carried as a weapon is illegal carried openly or concealed and would be a felony Billy anywhere in the state. The same weight and size object carried openly with a sharp blade is legal at the state level.

Many states though would be the reverse, with different definitions of the same named items. Many have knife length limitations, but are much more relaxed on a blunt object, especialy those with normal uses which just double as defensive items.

However since the item in question was created as a sword from the start, that is likely what it would be considered most places unless seriously altered.

You have got to like CA law. Carrying a flashlight, a wrench, or basicly anything, even heavy keys, a weighted purse etc is illegal and a felony if you plan to use it for self defense if needed.
Carrying a sword on your belt sharped to a razor's edge is legal for the same purpose. Carrying a loaded firearm illegaly concealed on your person while walking down the street would be a misdemeanor on the first offence in many situations, but a screwdriver (dirk/dager under state law) or wrench (some form of sap/billy under state law) carried for the same reason in the same way a felony.

 

[chris26]

Maybe it is just me..but I find it pretty refreshing that LEOs are on this site. To me, it proves that they are part of the shooting fraternity and choose to listen to the statements (at times very generalized) considering those in their chosen profession. Let me take the time to thank you guys for doing your job, thankless as it may be. One of my old 1SGTs is now a LEO and he shares some stories that curl my hair! (and I am on my third tour here in the Middle East!) Being no stranger to things that bump in the night, I respect the fact that these fellows are watching out for their own safety and have been on the recieving end of LEO with an ego trip (Georgia) but as in all things and places, there are folks who take the power given them and abuse it. We are all human, and we all have the potential for greatness and for villianous actions as well. I realize that we have rights, as I have fought for them and for the rights of others here in the Middle East as well. I do not feel that my rights have been violated by an officer asking me if I have weapons in my vehicle but I do believe that that is where it should stop. I do not beleive that LEOs have the right to invade or attempt to invade my privacy if I have not done anything to warrant it. By speeding, I have obviously incurred the penalty of a ticket, warning etc, not the opportunity for an LEO to grill me on any other issues or suspicions. If I have not given any additional indications of illegal activity, I do not believe that they have the right to attepmt to pry info or use double speak to get info from me for laws I do not have knowledge of (ie club, sap issue listed above) That is an abuse of power. As an aside, I believe that LEOs have a duty to enforce the laws they are entrusted in enforcing. I also believe that they are a servant of the people, as I am as a soldier. It is up to the people to speak out as a whole against laws we do not agree with and we should not "shoot the messenger" as the saying goes; which is what most folks seem to do when the LEO shows up and enforces the laws they are sworn to enforce. If you do not like the law, vote against the folks who emplaced it and also take whatever legal recourse you can. However, LEOs must also stand up for what is right as well. They must not abuse the power entrusted to them and remember above all, you are a servant of the people. This is the greatest nation on earth because we are a nation of freedom for the people and by the people. Men have died for it. Do not stifle or infringe upon it. Respect it. The Golden Rule applies both ways. If you cannot abide this, quit your job. Otherwise you are a tool of oppression and abuse. I say this because it is what we in the miltary must abide by as well. In parting, Thank you Brothers, for protecting me and mine and for laying down your lives if called to do so to insure our safety. May the Good Lord protect you and yours.

 

[coloradokevin]

And coloradokevin, normally I don't mind being ignored, but I was one of the few people to welcome you here and I also provided links upon your request, yet no response from you regarding either. I was initially interested in your thoughts regarding the legitimate recording of police officers during their duty and the ones who find that offensive, but now I'm not sure I care anymore.

geez... didn't mean to be offensive. I must have completely missed the comment that you posed to me. Please direct me towards it, and I'll try to respond to the best of my ability!

 

[yinyangdc]

zoogster, I am in California, northern California, which would like to become the State of Jefferson (google it) if we could split from the heavily populated areas (notice that I didn't say liberal, statist or anything else that could be labeled as negative)
Guess I will have to sharpen that sword and wear it openly. I have been transporting it in an old folding camp chair bag.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

geez... didn't mean to be offensive. I must have completely missed the comment that you posed to me. Please direct me towards it, and I'll try to respond to the best of my ability!

Well, okay. I posted last night I believe, post 74 in response to you in this thread. I looked back and I guess I welcomed you in a different thread; I didn't find it here.

I'm sorry, I made the assumption since you asked me a direct question earlier that you'd be looking out for it, hence my irritation at your non-response. I'll call "my bad" on this one.

 

[coyotehitman]

Who YOU label? Again, not the place of the police. They're not in the "labeling" business.

Tell me, based on your experience/education/and professional training, what business a professional LE is in. While you are at it, please detail an "ordinary" day in LE for me. Please tell me what is running through my mind when I pull you over with the intention of telling you that you have a headlight out and you immediately begin to argue with me that you were not speeding and I had no right stopping you. Tell us how it is.

What is it you do for a living? If you were an expert welder would it be appropriate for me to criticize how you think you should join two pieces of metal because I read something on the internet about welding and I met a guy once who was a bad welder. If you were welding something for me and I stood over your shoulder telling you how to do your job and claiming that you did not know what you were doing, how would you like it?

A most excellent example of the attitude police should NOT have.

Harpo, how long have you worked in LE? If your answer is that you have never done so, and I suspect it is, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

This is not directed to anyone specific, but it needs mentioned.
Reading something in the newspaper, watching a 30 second clip of some altercation on the internet, sitting around and stewing over a bad contact with the police because you were caught breaking the law, does not make you an authority/expert on anything.

 

[Zoogster]

zoogster, I am in California, northern California, which would like to become the State of Jefferson (google it) if we could split from the heavily populated areas (notice that I didn't say liberal, statist or anything else that could be labeled as negative)
Guess I will have to sharpen that sword and wear it openly. I have been transporting it in an old folding camp chair bag.

Oh and technicaly the law does not prohibit concealed blades of any length, it prohibits concealed dirks and daggers which are defined by CA law as anything which can be "readily used as a stabbing instrument" which are legal worn unconcealed.

So technicaly a flat tipped sharp cleaver would be legal even concealed as well as it is incapable of being a stabbing instrument with no point.

Though I suspect an officer would be totaly baffled and confused and not understand such a subtle difference in law without researching the statute themselves (or having thier supervisor likely better at adhering to the law) read it for them.

Personaly I would carry a copy of PC 12020, with the very small portion which is relevant highlighted. That part would be both the mention of a dirk/dagger carried which is only illegal concealed and then the definition of a dirk and dagger under the law, which is not a knife at all, but something readily useful as a stabbing weapon which can include knives which are not excluded ( folders are excluded if not a switchblade in compliance with 653K.)
A sword or any blade with a point would be legal openly carried, and any blade without a point, especialy flat tipped legaly carried concealed or open.

A folder with any tip carried concealed (as long as not locked in an open position while concealed) or openly. However folders have an additional minute law to comply with as well. They must have a "bias or detent". A detent could essentialy be anything which can be tightened, like a nut, screw etc (PC 653k) That would make a 2 foot long folding blade legal to conceal. A two inch blade without that though is an illegal switchblade.

If you carried a folder I would also keep a folded copy of PC 653K.
So open carry of a sword is perfectly legal under state law. Both on the waist (given in statute as an example of open carry, not a requirement), or as demonstrated by case law anyplace unconcealed, such as an ankle or across the back.

The sword may in fact be illegal carried in a bag, since while it is not readily available, the item itself is a dirk or dagger being carried in a concealed manner.

http://www.equalccw.com/knifelaw.html seems to be up to date and a good location to find all the relevant information together. However the highlighted documents you should carry would be the actualy state penal code word for word. That is readily available from state .gov websites.

That way you will not only be in compliance with the law, but you can easily reference it in a helpful and polite fashion if an officer finds themselves confused.

So carrying a stick for defense is a felony, carrying a sword openly is legal. Carrying a cleaver or similar cutting knife not readily useful as a stabbing instrument would be legal both openly and concealed.
Roll of coins no, hammer no, cleaver yes.
Technicaly that means a machete with a flat or round tip would also be legal carried openly or concealed.

Which just gave me an idea!
If you hack the tip off your sword it would be legal both concealed and open carried, that means it would become legal to carry it in a bag as you already do without the need to wear it openly.

 

[Vector]

TexasRifleman wrote:

OK let me say up front I hate the ACLU and what they stand for since they refuse to honor ALL of the Bill of Rights.

That said, I recommend watching this video they produced.

Good information here. Seems to be aimed at the "pot people" but the legal ideas are sound I think.

In Texas you're required to tell if you are carrying under the legal cover of a CHL, that's it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

"Seems to be aimed at pot people"? There is no question that it is. I wonder if the ACLU would produce the same type of video or legal defense related to firearms. I think not. Regardless, much of the info in the video makes sense in protecting your rights even if you have nothing to hide.


coloradokevin wrote:

Also, asking the question that was proposed in that ACLU video promises a ticket from me, under most conditions... If I walk up to a car on a traffic stop and someone is dumb enough to start our contact by asking "am I being detained, or am I free to go?", then I figure they deserve a ticket. If you weren't being detained, you wouldn't have been pulled over. If I haven't finished the stop, you are still being detained. This is common sense... It is easy to recognize when someone is trying their best to throw on the attitude with us, and we often legally respond by hitting them in the pocket book!

I have to agree with others who said you are basing your hypothetical actions on emotion, rather than proper judgment. I see nothing in that video that should offend a LEO nor make them want to "make the person pay in their pocketbook". Granted it might take more time and be something you do not typically encounter, but your response shows a sense of wanting to teach someone a lesson if they do not willingly give away their rights upon your request.

I am very pro law enforcement, however LEO's have to abide by the law just as regular citizens do. To make a person pay in some fashion for exercising their constitutional rights is not professional at best, and unlawful at worst.

`

 

[coloradokevin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sage of seattle
And coloradokevin, normally I don't mind being ignored, but I was one of the few people to welcome you here and I also provided links upon your request, yet no response from you regarding either. I was initially interested in your thoughts regarding the legitimate recording of police officers during their duty and the ones who find that offensive, but now I'm not sure I care anymore.

geez... didn't mean to be offensive. I must have completely missed the comment that you posed to me. Please direct me towards it, and I'll try to respond to the best of my ability!

Well, okay. I posted last night I believe, post 74 in response to you in this thread. I looked back and I guess I welcomed you in a different thread; I didn't find it here.

I'm sorry, I made the assumption since you asked me a direct question earlier that you'd be looking out for it, hence my irritation at your non-response. I'll call "my bad" on this one.

Okay, you totally had me convinced that I was crazy... 'cause I couldn't recall asking a direct question to you in this thread.

Anyway, I re-read the entire thread (because I am bored, intrigued, defending my honor, and making sure I'm not completely nuts)... And, I found something out!!! Coyotehitman was actually the one who asked you the question that you responded to in this thread!

I'm innocent!

I'm really not crazy! I'm normal, just like everyone else!!! (okay, that's a stretch... but still, I'm not as crazy as I was thinking you thought I was. Or something. Oh, nevermind ).

 

[coloradokevin]

I have to agree with others who said you are basing your hypothetical actions on emotion, rather than proper judgment. I see nothing in that video that should offend a LEO nor make them want to "make the person pay in their pocketbook". Granted it might take more time and be something you do not typically encounter, but your response shows a sense of wanting to teach someone a lesson if they do not willingly give away their rights upon your request.

I am very pro law enforcement, however LEO's have to abide by the law just as regular citizens do. To make a person pay in some fashion for exercising their constitutional rights is not professional at best, and unlawful at worst.

Don't make it into more than it is. I do abide by the law, and I don't make unethical decisions at work.

However, many of my contacts involve relatively minor violations... These violations are ones where I can (and have) easily gone either way on charges. In other words, I can decide to write the cite, or give a warning.

Every officer has these types of contacts. Some give tickets everytime and have reputations for being "traffic nazis". Others always give breaks and are labeled ineffective. And, the vast majority do a little bit of both. I am in this final category.

Thus, I have to be honest when I say that a person's attitude may well determine whether or not they get a ticket.

To phrase this another way: Assume that I am always planning to write a ticket, and that sometimes a person's good attitude will convince me to cut them a break! It is a two way street.

Have you never been given a warning by a LEO? I had my share of tickets and warnings before I became a cop... discretion existed in each of those stops, and the officer made his/her decision based on whatever criteria they used personally.

Just because I can legally choose whether or not to write a cite does not mean that I am being unethical when I make that choice.

Case in point:

Today I pulled a guy over for passing in a no passing zone. Wasn't a huge safety issue at that particular time as no traffic was in the area. But, that offense annoys me, and I was initially thinking I would write the citation. I contacted the driver, and he was polite and respectful. He apologized and explained his circumstances (which doesn't justify the violation, but does provide a clear picture of his mindset). I ran the driver and saw that his record was clear, so I cut him a break... I felt that his behavior had been addressed by the stop alone, and that he would avoid such behavior for the remainder of his drive!

Now, consider the same violation on the same stretch of road last week (where I did write the cite). I walked up to the vehicle, and told the driver that I stopped him for passing on a double-yellow line. He 'huffed' and grunted something to the effect of "yeah, whatever, just hurry up already". Obviously being stopped by me wasn't enough to drive the message home, so he left the stop with a citation.

Do you honestly fault law enforcement for making these kind of judgement calls at work? Would you prefer if we go to a system where EVERYONE gets a cite for every violation?

Cooperation is a two way street.

Lets do a little thought experiment about this. Suppose the state legislature decided that monetary fines would no longer be the primary punishment for traffic infractions and abolished them, to be replaced with something else (say community service).

Its unlikely drivers won't still speed a little here and there, or do other things that are nominally illegal.

After a year of no fines, how many traffic citations are likely to be issued versus while the fine system was still in place? 5%? 10%?

The results of this thought experiment will tell you exactly what traffic enforcement is about.

Don't kid yourself into thinking we are paid on commission!

I could care less about the city's bottom line when I make traffic stops. The monetary factor means very little to me, beyond the impact it has on the unlawful behavior.

I don't get any more recognition, or any more pay for the number of tickets I write. Whether or not you believe it, I don't have a "quota" either. Whether I write zero or ten tickets in a shift makes no difference in how I am viewed by my Sgt at the end of the day.

Every department is different, and each unit within a department is different. Certainly the guys that work in our Traffic Unit are expected to write more tickets than the rest of us, but that still doesn't mean they are sitting their with a calculator or a spreadsheet in an attempt to determine how much money they are raising for the city each day!

 

[Jenrick]

To directly address the OP's question:

I am a Texas LEO (a bit to the left on the map, and in a city WAAAAY to the left on the political spectrum of Houston/Harris County).

Me personally, I wouldn't ask that question unless I had some suspicion or probable cause to believe there was a weapon in the vehicle (say you have a CHL, or a shotgun case on the back seat).

The answer should be the truth. "Yes sir I do. I'm headed to the range (back from the range, etc.)" It's not illegal to transport a firearm in your vehicle in Texas provided you're not a convicted felon, or have previously been convicted of a family violence offense, so why worry about it?

Me personally I'll probably get into a discussion about guns with you, as will some of the other officers I work with. Some of the officers I work with will tell you step out of the car and hang out away from the vehicle until they're done with the stop. Obviously the first is preferable to the later, but I can't actually fault a fellow officer for taking a measure that is non-intrusive that they feel provides added officer safety.

In short, be honest, be polite, and 99.9% of the time the officer will return the favor. The exact same goes for officers, if we are polite and respectful, even the meanest most rowdy SOB can and usually is talked into cuffs rather then fought into them. It's a two way street that I personally always try to take advantage of.

Saw a couple of posts I felt I should address:

"1. "Am I being detained, officer?"
2a. If no, "Have a good day, officer."
2b. If yes, "On suspicion of what crime am I being detained, officer?"
3a. If none, go to 2a.
3b. If something (whether cockamamie or not), "I'd like for your supervisor to be present, officer."

If you get a "Step out of the vehicle, please," then lock your doors as you get out and close your door behind you. Get the officer's name and badge number. If you have a cell phone, call the local police, a friend to be a witness, or (even better) a friend who's a lawyer."

Regarding the above: a traffic stop is a detention, the SOCOTUS has ruled as such, so you can automatically skip 1. From there you're not being stopped and detained on suspscion of a crime normally. You're being stopped and detained after we observed a violation of the Texas Transportation code.

You have every right to request my supervisor be present, but please be aware that may take upwards of 30 minutes for them to get on scene. Far as locking your door as you get out and the like, sure if you feel like it. If I'm going to be searching your car, I'm either going to have your permission to do so, or be doing so under the legal authority to be able to open the car. So it really doesn't matter. You will however not be able to call anyone, as I do not know that you are in fact calling a friend, you're lawyer etc, it's an officer safety issue.

As others have said, if a cop asks for permission to search your car, it indicates the he does not have probable cause.

Also not true, it's generally much easier, and less paperwork to get consent then to have to write out your probable cause. For instance if I smell the odor of burnt marijuana in a vehicle I stop I now have a legal right to search the entirety of the car. If I ask if they mind if I look in the vehicle, it does not negate my probable cause search. It can get sticky in court on a variety of technical matters however, which is why we are taught to just go ahead and search if we've got PC, rather then ask for consent.

I don't think a policeman is always, or even often, interested in dragging out the encounter, etc. But I don't think many are only interested in enforcing only the laws that protect individuals from having their life, liberty and property violated. And that means that there are very few laws that they should be enforcing.

I get paid to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and the ordinances enacted by the municipality that pays my salary. I frequently and often enforce laws and ordinances that I find pointless, ridiculous, stupid, etc. I however do not create the law or ordinance, and I do not think so highly of myself that I feel that I can decide what laws and ordinances are good/correct/useful/etc. and enforce only those. We all do things are work that we personally feel really are a waste of resources, but someone pays our salary to do them. In my case at least it's the citizens I work for who tell me what to do. If they want a change, it's their responsibility to enact that change. It is not my authority to simply enforce the law as I see fit. Rather it is my responsibility to enforce the law as the community wishes me to.

Quote:
These folks get shot during routine stops and while cops know some in their midst are insecure losers who give them a bad name (we all have a small percent of these in any profession, IMHO), I assume they are good guys and gals who put their lives on the line every day.
Ummm.....no they actually don't. Look up the stats. Being a cop is nowhere near as dangerous they claim.

Okay this one irks me. www.odmp.org Specifically http://www.odmp.org/officer/184-trooper-carlos-ray-warren I drive by Trooper Warrens marker every night I work, he took several rounds to the back as he walked away from the car. He stopped the suspect vehicle for no head lights. I agree we don't get in shoot outs every day, but we've got a lot more risks then a paper cut or broken water cooler.

Lets do a little thought experiment about this. Suppose the state legislature decided that monetary fines would no longer be the primary punishment for traffic infractions and abolished them, to be replaced with something else (say community service).

Its unlikely drivers won't still speed a little here and there, or do other things that are nominally illegal.

After a year of no fines, how many traffic citations are likely to be issued versus while the fine system was still in place? 5%? 10%?

The results of this thought experiment will tell you exactly what traffic enforcement is about.

Having done a couple of death notifications regarding accidents that occurred due to excessive speed, I'd keep writing just as many tickets as I do now. I'm NEVER doing another death notification again if I can help it.


-Jenrick

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

who I label

That really did bother me.

Why should you change the way you interact with a citizen, let alone arrest someone, based on your personal feelings?

 

[Harpo]

Police Officer 1:

I get paid to enforce the laws of the State of Texas, and the ordinances enacted by the municipality that pays my salary. I frequently and often enforce laws and ordinances that I find pointless, ridiculous, stupid, etc. I however do not create the law or ordinance, and I do not think so highly of myself that I feel that I can decide what laws and ordinances are good/correct/useful/etc. and enforce only those. We all do things are work that we personally feel really are a waste of resources, but someone pays our salary to do them. In my case at least it's the citizens I work for who tell me what to do. If they want a change, it's their responsibility to enact that change. It is not my authority to simply enforce the law as I see fit. Rather it is my responsibility to enforce the law as the community wishes me to.

Police Officer 2:

The best thing about contact (Especially one in which you intended to end on a positive note) with someone who is difficult, argumentative, sarcastic, overly assertive, confrontational, condescending, obstinate, impolite, belligerent, cocky, testy, or who could otherwise be construed as attempting to create friction through discourse, action, or inaction, by a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer, during the course of a lawful contact (lawful is determined by legislators, not by what some individual thinks is lawful, and that is not open for debate with me), is the point in which they realize they are not calling the shots/are not the big man/have taken the rope you handed them, tied a noose, placed it around their neck, and hung themselves with it/tripped over a certain body part/crossed the line you drew in the sand/opened their mouth and inserted their foot, and ultimately get what is coming to them.

In contrast, the best thing about having contact with the other 99.99% of the population, who I label as reasonable and normal everyday citizens, is the feeling I get by helping them, providing guidance, being a role model, and doing my part to better society--which is, coincidentally, a common goal for that part of the population.

Who would you rather be stopped by, Jenrick or the "hit man"? It's a clear choice to me - I'll take #1.

And BTW coyote, it doesn't take a welding expert to recognize a bad weld. Your suggestion that "if you haven't worked in LE, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about" is ridiculous. In any event, I have. So yes, even by your standards, I can tell you your approach is prejudicial.

It is the job of the officer to remain calm and objective, both externally and internally, in the face of whatever he meets. If personal opinion or fear for his safety overshadows this objectivity, he is in the wrong job.

The idea that everyone should be approached as a killer is fatally flawed. It promotes an "us vs them" mentality that destroys true communication and interaction between officer and citizen, and creates the "police state" that is now so common. Yes, you should be prepared - but if it your readiness manifests itself as the need for every citizen to "toe the line" to avoid getting shot or tazered, it's gone too far.

To borrow your words, coyote, even if a citizen is "difficult, argumentative, sarcastic, overly assertive, etc", a "reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer" must still remain calm and courteous.

Harpo

 

[tmg19103]

I live in Pennsylvania. There is no legal requirement to let a cop know you have a legally transported firearm in your vehicle, whether it is under your shirt on your hip with a CCW or in your trunk, unloaded in a container with ammo in a separate container without a CCW. Thus, why should a cop be asking if I have a firearm in my car int he first place, unless he suspects me of a very serious crime? I have been pulled over for various minor traffic violations over the past 20 years in PA and a cop has never asked me if I had a firearm in the vehicle.

Since I am not wanted for a serious crime, this is none of the cop's business in Pennsylvania. My response would be a polite "Why do you ask? I am a law-abiding citizen". If the cop persists, my response would be "I'm sorry, but I can't see how that is any of your business as I am a law-abiding citizen".

Now, if you have been pulled over for running a red light, this response will pretty much guarantee points and higher insurance rates and the cop can argue you are not a law-abiding citizen - albeit for a minor summary offense. Thus, in that scenario, it might be wise to admit you are carrying a firearms to the range or wherever and to kiss the cop's rear in hopes of avoiding the points.

If I'm pulled over for something that does not involve points, it is none of his jackbooted thug's business - and unless he has probable cause to believe I have committed a serious crime, asking if I have a gun in my car makes the cop a jackbooted thug who is only seeking to intimidate me and find a way to violate my rights. Cops have no reason to fear an armed law-abiding citizen and they have no reason to ask about my private business. He has no more reason to ask if I have firearms in my car than he does asking if I have groceries in my trunk. It is none of his business.

Now, some states require you to notify a cop if you are carrying CCW if you are pulled over, so this is a whole different situation. I'm just speaking for Pennsylvania.

 

[bensdad]

To address the OP:

Guns are legal to own and transport. There are regulations involved in every state. They vary, but they are there.

Unless a cop explains exactly why he/she is asking about guns (vehicle matches description, suspicious behavior, etc.), they are overstepping their bounds.

When I've been pulled over for breaking the law (speeding, broken headlight, using a controlled access) I have been polite. Every time it's happened I knew exactly what I had done wrong. I had my license and insurance card in my hand. The interactions have ranged from friendly to professional. I've never been rude, and the officer has never been rude.

If an officer ever decides to turn my broken tail light into a fishing expedition, I'll lock the door behind me when I get out, ask him to call his supervisor, and refuse to consent to a search. I have never, and will never, transport a firearm in an illegal manner. That's not the point. The cop is using authority in an inappropriate manner. This type of behavior is where the term "JBT" comes from. Submitting to it is part of the problem.