traffic stop searches - how do they ask

[jimpeel]

DMF

Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

The cure for that is to simply lock the car's doors when exiting the vehicle. If there remains any doubt, simply leave the keys in the ignition. "Oops! I seem to have locked myself out of my car. Would you be so kind, officer, as to call AAA for me?"

After they leave, get the spare key from under the vehicle and drive away.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Trouble with that, Jim, is that when a car gets locked around here, they usually call the local cop who has one of those "Slim Jim thingies"

They must be illegal for ordinary subjects to own.

Chances are the cop will just say, "That's alright, let me get it for you."

 

[jimpeel]

cropcirclewalker

Slim Jims are notorious for knocking the pivot links off of the linkages thereby disabling the locking mechanism. Do that to both doors and you are out of luck. "Thank you very much for your offer, Sir, but I will wait for a professional if you don't mind."

The fact that he would have to use a foreign object or breakage to gain entry says the same for me and negates any Terry action.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

jimpeel

Thanks for the info. I did not know that.

 

[Orthonym]

Happened to me too.

I posted about it maybe last year sometime, don't feel like looking it up right now,because I already have the RCOB from reading DMF's stuff. Yes, I, too, was coerced/cajoled into consenting to an unlawful search, back in '92. Near as I can figure, the cops picked on me for being particularly careful to obey the law. They NEVER got out a citation pad. They DID threaten to invoke the "nose of the dog" which as we all know depends on subliminal cues from the dog's handler.

They did eventually let me go, having generated a beginning cop hater, i.e. yours truly.

FYI, This was the Tatum, Texas, PD. No, they weren't brutal, nor rude,nor did they lay hands on me. They didn't need to do so. We all knew that I was poor, a stranger far from home and just trying to get home. I reckon that made me fair game to them. My recommendation (just my opinion) to anyone reading this is that when driving through that part of Eastern Texas, not to go within two counties of Tatum, as the town's right on the county line and you want to make sure.

Mods: (and Oleg) This is NOT a "personal attack." It is an attack against the very idea, the very existence of cops! Which is funny when I think about it, because I belong to the class of people who would achieve best benefits from a righteous police force.

That is, I'm a small, poor, scrawny guy, somewhat past middle age, without a large extended family or a large circle of well-connected friends. That's the kind of guy criminals tend to pick on. In my experience, it's also the kind of guy the cops tend to pick on. Why? because they can.

P.S. The Tatum Tx PD still owes me (above and beyond any other damages) the price of a thorough double laundry job (with LOTS of bleach) on my clothes they pawed through. I mean, would you put skivvies on yer tender parts which had been contaminated with cop germs? Sound harsh? That's EXACTLY how I felt at the time.

Later, from time to time, my head has cooled a bit, and I have been able to entertain the notion that some policemen are human beings. However, when I see excuses made for violations of obviously protected natural rights for reasons having to do with the convenience of people who get a charge out of shoving others around, I just tend to froth and rant.

Present company excepted, and all that.

 

[DMF]

RCOB

I'm not familiar with that acronym, anyone care to explain?

 

[jimpeel]

cropcirclewalker

I learned the hard way -- on my mother-in-law's car.

 

[rritter]

DMF - RCOB

Here's a good explanation:

http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/glossary.php

 

[DMF]

rritter,

Thanks for the explanation.

Sad to see that the truth can be so upsetting to someone.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I don't think I have ever suffered from the RCOB. It's a great acronym though. I think utilizing that concept is frequently used as an aid in locking up innocent subjects.

When I was arrested at the St. Louis Airport for commiting a lawful act, I looked at it as a chance to help a bunch of dumb a$$ed policemen learn the law. I was polite and answered all their questions.

One REALLY fat black woman sergeant (she had to qualify for ADA in more ways than one) (I could have outrun her in a wheel chair) (I'm not a racist, but she hadda be some kind of affirmative action hiree) stood me up with my cuffs still behind my back, grabbed my elbow and said, "We are going into the terminal now."

I was in a hurry because my wife was waiting for me to help her check in.

I stepped out smartly. She clamped down on my arm, I stopped, she said, "Don't walk in front of me, walk along side."

I said, "Sorry." and together we shuffled (I shuffled, she waddled) into the airport. This was my only chance to do the "Perp Walk" I'm sure she enjoyed it.

Once we are inside, she directs me to a bench. She cleverly says, "If I uncuff one of your hands, you will not get violent will you?" I am a rational person, but I have limits. I replied, "Not at this time." All this stuff is a clever ploy to get you to look angry and perhaps in need of restraint. So then she uncuffs my left hand and hooks me up to a pad eye in the bench. I am chained to a bench.

Later, she came into the room wherin I had been falsly imprisoned and asked, "Is this pistol registered?"

I said, "Yer not from around here are ye?" She said, "I'm from Illinois, why?"

I said, "In Missouri we don't register guns." See, trying to help the DA LEO.

 

[Art Eatman]

Off-thread: DMF, James Pate, in Soldier of Fortune magazine, wrote several articles about the BATF. Complete with interviews and photos and such.

A "kicked in door" deal happened in Oklahoma. Neighbors were witnesses; owner not home. Safe drilled/broken open. Some trashing of the house during the search. Guns left scattered around; door left open. IIRC, the door's frame was torn up.

The article contained commentaries from neighbors who were present, as well as photographs of the damage...

Art

 

[cropcirclewalker]

OK, owner not home, left door ajar

I think that occurance was written about in the "American Rifleman" Maybe back sometime in the 90's

I let my dues lapse when I figured out who they were, but I remember reading that article.

 

[DMF]

Would that be the same "Soldier of Fortune" magazine which was successfully sued in a civil suit, after an ATF investigation that took down a ring of contract killers, who were operating through the magazine? Yeah, SOF magazine is what I consider an unbiased, legitimate news source with no axe to grind against the ATF.

EDIT TO ADD: Here is a link to one of the court cases, I think there were more, but this the only one I could find quickly. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/braun_v_sof.txt

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I'll probably catch hell for this post, but I can't resist.

I used to have a FFL. During my application process, the ATF guy called me up and we did an "Interview"

Amongst a bunch of perhaps relevant questions, he asks, "Do you have a dog?"

I reply, "Yes, but I just have to ask what that has to do with it?"

He says, "Sir, if you wish to withdraw your application for this license, you are free to do so."

That is the Gods honest truth. I have since let my license lapse.

I can only suppose that if they choose to come to inspect and they knew I had a dog, they would bring poison, or no, that would be too slow, they would just plan on shooting it.

 

[DMF]

The article contained commentaries from neighbors who were present, as well as photographs of the damage...

I forgot to ask did the article contain a copy of the warrant, and inventory of items seized? See if this was anything more than urban legend, because I have been hearing variations of this story since I first read in the "American Rifelman" in the early 80s, that piece of information would be available.

Even if the search was done with a telephonic warrant, after the judge signs the warrant, which must be done within 24 hours of the phone call for a telphonic, the subject of the search gets a copy of the warrant. Telephonics aren't the norm though, as most Magistrates don't like to issue them. Also, what about the iventory of items seized. Officers must give leave a both a copy of the warrant, with items seized inventoried on the back of the warrant, before leaving the premises. In case of a telephonic warrant they must still leave an inventory of items seized. If no one is present during the search they must leave those items in a conspicuous place so that the occupants may find it.

Further the agents must do a "return" on the warrant to the magistrate, which will include the inventory. The magistrate judge upon request will provide a copy of the inventory to the person from whom the property was seized.

Those are the rules. All the feds MUST follow them, including the ATF. So why didn't that article contain information about the warrant, (assuming it is anything more than urban legend). Could it be that if a search actually occurred, there was more to it than those people wanted people to know about?

 

[Orthonym]

Uh, DMF,

I'm not trying to be (unnecessarily) rude, here, but do you live under a bridge in Sweden and make yer living filing and chiseling parts for Saabs? I mean, I'm sure everybody in Trollhaettan is a nice person, even the short, wide ones with too much hair, but, well, I think you catch my drift here, and you have admitted to being a gummint person. No personal offense intended, you may not even know that you're flicking some of us here on a raw, tender spot. It does hurt, though, seeing as how that wound was unjustly inflicted in the first place.

"Soldier of Fortune" is a magazine invented and run by Mr. Brown to amuse and remunerate Mr. Brown, its publisher. Other people may have been amused or educated by reading in it from time to time, but those are just accidental results. If you really want to know how that rag is run, I suggest you look up Fred Reed's Web site: www.fredoneverything.net, and scroll up'n down and mouse-click around until you find Fred's memoir on his experiences working there.

P.S. Fred's the real deal; was a Marine in the Viet-Nam thing, wherein he caught some fragments in the eyeballs, has been a police reporter in Washington DC, where from all reports he got along just fine with the street cops,and seems to be now having expatriate fun in Mexico with strong likker and hot hispanic babes.

 

[DMF]

Orthonym, your attack on me does nothing to change the facts as I presented them. I am not a "troll" as you imply, I am presenting my opinion, backed up by facts. I have not resorted to personal attacks as you have, but stuck to the matter at hand.

I believe in the Constitution, have sworn to uphold it, both for the military and in my LE job. That means I believe in the WHOLE thing, not just the parts that suit me. I owned firearms before I got into LE, I have friends who are not LE, and own guns. Even have a couple friends that have their FFLs. So I am not some troll here trying to stir up trouble. I post on these threads to balance out the BS anti-gov't, anti-LE propaganda. If people have criticisms about the government I encourage them to voice their opinion, however when making accusations about abuses and wrong doing I expect it backed up by fact, NOT urban legend, conjecture, half-truths, and outright lies.

So you don't like hearing the other side of the debate? Too bad. I have not broken any of the rules of this forum, and the description of the Legal and Politics forum is self explanatory:

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

emphasis added

However, in case you need further guidance, from Webster's Online here are the generally accepted definitions of debate and discuss:

Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind

Main Entry: dis·cuss
Pronunciation: di-'sk&s
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin discussus, past participle of discutere to disperse, from dis- apart + quatere to shake -- more at DIS-, QUASH
1 obsolete : DISPEL
2 a : to investigate by reasoning or argument b : to present in detail for examination or consideration <discussed plans for the party> c : to talk about
3 obsolete : DECLARE

 

[Art Eatman]

The only lawsuit I know of against SOF was the one in Houston, over the ad for mercenaries. I'm not sure that's indicative of a "ring operating through SOF" in the sense of the publisher's approval. Back then, there were a fair number of such ads in SOF and other, similar magazines.

SFAIK, the search to which the article referred was via warrant. The article alleged the cause was a tip from an ex-wife, who allegedly thought an AR-15 was full-auto. Certainly nothing unusual there.

I believe that most ATF efforts follow the book's procedures. I also believe that some of the accusations against them are factual, and some insider info from one ATF-buddy of mine bears this out.

James Pate seems to be a pretty good investigative reporter. I've read all his articles in SOF, and if he's making up phoney baloney, he's absolutely the most skilled such person I've run across in a long, long number of decades.

Ah, well. No point in backing-and-forthing on the Inet. If in doubt, go to Pate as a possible source. He's available through SOF, I'd imagine.

, Art

 

[DMF]

. . . and some insider info from one ATF-buddy of mine bears this out.

Well sir, I don't know who your source is, but as I said on another thread, I know about a half dozen retired agents, and about a dozen current agents. None of their experiences match up with the wild stories that are spread on the internet.

Regarding the SOF magazine issue, one of the retired guys I know some of the cases related to rings of contract killers working through SOF. Now I don't know whether there were other successful civil suits against the magazine (I know one other civil suit in TX was initially successful, but overturned on appeal) however there were other criminal prosecutions. Unfortunately this was in the late 80s and early 90s, so much of it is not available on the internet, or I would post links. Also, at the district court level there is usually more difficult to find links, when cases make it to appeal at the circuit court level there is more interest and they easier to research online. My point being that SOF magazine has a huge axe to grind with ATF, because the criminal investigation and successful prosecutions of those murderers were used as the basis for those civil suits.

 

[Art Eatman]

Aw, no doubt about the axe-grinding...And, like I said, I don't think the various foobars are commonplace.

The thing about CYA and stonewalling was not initiated by Watergate and the White House "Plumbers". Unless something blows open, not everybody knows...

Another aspect is typified by the personal viewpoints within the upper echelons of administrators. For instance, LAPD Chief Darryl Gates did not believe in civilian ownership of firearms. This attitude tends to percolate downwards and affected officers' behavior. I maintain this sort of behavior pattern exists in any police-authority agency, whether local or state or federal government. The behavior varies according to the bosses' particular pet peeves.

Face it: There are those who enjoy enforcing what most of us would call bad law or unconstitutional law. Not many, but it doesn't take "many".

Whether traffic or moonshine or guns or environmental matters, one can always find some power-mad sleazoid.

Art

 

[cropcirclewalker]

DMF,

Please do not construe this as an attack and I appreciate that sometimes you LEO types make contributions here. It is a rare opportunity for a guy like me, lacking interpersonal relationship skills, to dialog with a LEO without just having to say, Yes, sir or No, sir and still not expect to be looking at the concrete or wearing orange coveralls.

I have been formulating this question in my mind about guys like you though.

you said"

I believe in the Constitution, have sworn to uphold it, both for the military and in my LE job. That means I believe in the WHOLE thing, not just the parts that suit me.

How does a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself;
1) Take an oath (as I did) to protect and defend the constitution and
2) P & D the WHOLE thing, not just the parts that suit you and
3) Arrest somebody for asserting his constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

A few posts back, you enlightened us with 922 (I think that came out of GCA of '68, a TAX bill) and I was ashamed to read it. The whole of your paste was a repugnancy to the constitution.

How in good conscience, could you enforce it?

 

[DMF]

cropcircle,

Good question, do you think slander and libel should be crimes? If you don't then I can see where you would have a problem with 18USC922. If you get the concept that things like slander and libel should be crimes, then you can understand that 18USC922 is the same type of law. The Constitution is not a suicide pact (I think Jefferson said that first), and there is supposed to be a balance between individual rights, and the protection of other individuals and society as a whole. Just like things like slander and libel can prohibited under the law, which amounts to specific and narrowly defined restriction on free speech, so can certain very specific and narrowly defined restrictions on firearms ownership. Both are in the interest of balancing individual rights, with the protection or other individuals and of society as a whole. There must be a balance, and the best explanations of it will not come from my posts on THR, but from some of the brilliant majority and dissenting opinions on various Supreme Court decisions over the history of the Court. Do a little reading on that for further guidance.

To suggest that there can be no laws that might restrict any behavior is to advocate anarchy. That was not the goal of the 1st, 2nd or any of the other Amendments. There is no Constitutional crisis in what I do in investigating violations of the law. They have all been passed, signed into law, and challenged in the courts, under the process defined in the Constitution. Again, the Constitution as a whole must be considered when discussing these issues. Looking at the 2nd Amendment (or any other single sentence) and ignoring the rest of the Constitution is surely a recipe for disaster, and not what the founding fathers intended.

I'm sure you and many others will disagree, now flame away.

I answered your questions and those of others, endured some personal attacks, some blatant others more subtle, I have posted the relevant case law on the original topic, and when the conversation digressed to irrelevancies I addressed some of those too. On this thread I am done. If you want to engage me in more debate on the laws of the land, alleged abuses of LE, etc. see me on another thread, but I draw the line when people question my personal devotion to the Constitution, because I have served this country in the military and LE for over a decade, and I have NEVER done anything that would violate my oath to support and defend the Constitution.

 

[Art Eatman]

With respect to certain narrow restrictions on one's rights under the First and the Second Amendments: "Both are in the interest of balancing individual rights, with the protection or other individuals and of society as a whole."

This concept has been discussed and debated at length by many noted jurists as well as conscientious legislators. It's the basis for many of the threads here at this forum, as well. IMO, a major problem is that there are multitudes of opinions, some more informed than others...

Now, we know that the present Campaign Finance Reform laws seems to be a non-narrow restriction on free speech, regardless of the SCOTUS decision. We here tend to agree that many of the laws concerning firearms are definitely "infringements" against the meaning of the Second Amendment.

For the Second, then, there are two subjects for discussion: First, the laws themselves; second, the way they're enforced. The way they're enforced depends in large part on the LEOs' opinions of the meaning and intent of those laws.

This also holds true for the way we're dealt with in the world of traffic laws, as well. This brings the Fourth Amendment into the equation...

Sloganeering doesn't work, and high emotions don't help.

Art

 

[TallPine]

Slander and libel are to the first amendment as murder and robbery are to the second.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I'm sorry that DMF bailed out. Like I said, I was not trying to attack. Just understand.

Even though he's gone, maybe he will read this and think.

he said:

Good question, do you think slander and libel should be crimes?

This is the classic demonstration of prior restraint in action and proof that it's wrong.

Nobody gets arrested for having a mouth or a pencil. That would be the weapons of choice for committing slander or libel. Like firearms, the pencil and mouth are protected by the constitution. I can carry them, even concealed, and nobody bats an eye.

Then he said,

To suggest that there can be no laws that might restrict any behavior is to advocate anarchy.

Nothing wrong about restricting criminal behavior. Not all behavior is a crime. Crime is usually (at least in the past) accompanied with some evil intent. Mens Rea?

Packing a piece with no other intent than self defense? Where is the intent?

There can be no argument to the "They have all been passed, signed into law, challenenged in the courts" other than to say

"Yes, we are no longer a constitutional republic". The founder's worst fears of democracy have come true.