Aw, heck. I guess I just can't resist poking the bear.
Mr. White, would you please list the departments which consider it normal and proper practice to search a vehicle with the occupant still inside said vehicle? I ask because if Mr. Baillio was not in the vehicle, I am inclined to wonder how, exactly, the police justified the search under the idea that Mr. Baillio was "unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search."
You may note the quotation marks; the language within comes from the recent US Supreme Court Case Arizona v. Gant (citation not yet available), which stated that police officers do not have the authority to search based merely upon the fact of an arrest. The crime for which Mr. Baillio was stopped was failure to signal; the idea that his pro-gun bumper stickers constitute probable cause to believe he's engaged in other crimes is laughable at best. In the language of the court, "n many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence."
So, restraining ourselves to the Constitution and the language of the Supreme Court (i.e. case law) about, oh, two months ago, I again defy you to show A) where the search was reasonable under the law (particularly given Mr. Baillio's concealed carry permit, which would presumably allow him to carry such arms--the presumption is rebuttable, if you care to try), and B) where the Chief's position that Second Amendment rights are completely and inherently suspended at each and every traffic stop is reasonable under the law, again under the conditions of Gant. You may, of course, argue that the Shreveport PD keeps suspects in the car during searches if you can back that claim up, but I suspect that will be a losing proposition.
I shall look forward to your answer. Or, presumably, my now-twenty days.