Your rights are now suspended.

[Sheldon J]

and they said it could not happen here...

Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.

According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have": His cops can take away your rights.

And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?

Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck -- and had his gun confiscated.

While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration -- and no discussion of a turn signal.

Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!

What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling -- going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?

Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.

In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.

Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."

Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:


Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.

Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer -- it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.

[. . .]

Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.

Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?

Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. -- DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.


Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:


According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun -- willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.

From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.

NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.

So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.

"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation -- including dying -- and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."

What to do?


Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.


I'll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.



While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

In liberty,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights

 

[Tom609]

I send this d-bag a "polite" e-mail from this site
http://www.ci.shreveport.la.us/dept/mayor/index.htm

 

[colorado_handgunner]

Provide a source

Please provide a verifiable source.

 

[Tom609]

Provide a source

A good question, but believe it or not, I just spent the past 20 minutes trading little e-mails (again, polite) with Mayor Glover. He was short and snarky, but he didn't deny it. I don't think much more of him, but he was responsive. Probably a slow night in Shrevesport.

 

[t165]

Unless Robert Baillio can produce a recording of his conversation with the police officers I'll file this one as Bull****! Sounds like he's stirring **** and trying to draw attention to himself. And is Mr. Baillio trying to pull a "nixon" on us...a partial tape. I may have been born at night...but it wasn't last night!

 

[stickhauler]

Provide a source? Go to www.gutalk.com and listen through the webcasts of Tom Gresham's shows, this gentleman called into Tom's show a few weeks back and told of the incident, he was on the very next show with the taped conversation he had with the mayor. If I recall right, the original report was probably the 7 June show, the taped conversation the very next week's show 14 June.

 

[Jeff White]

No link or other way to verify this and it's closed. We are not going to start another cop bashing thread based on what's been put in an email someone circulated.

Two members sent me links to this story: http://guntalk.libsyn.com/

The thread is reopened. But here's the thing, the first person who makes a comment about anything other then what the law says about this gets 10 days off to think about it.

Here's my comment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment nor in any court case that I am aware of that gives you any constitutional right to be armed when you deal with the police. Discussion will be limited to what the law says and how various court cases ruled. The first post out of line and this thread is done and the offenders sitting out for a while.

 

[stickhauler]

I guess I screwed up the link to Tom's podcast page, I checked your's and it takes it to the correct page. I heard both interviews, and like I said, this gentleman called the show on the 7 June & 14 June shows, and Tom knows this guy personally. I have yet to hear any false information presented by Tom Gresham on his show. I'd invite you to listen to the way the stop went down, and what this guy was told when he and Tom both called city officials about the matter. I'm not cop bashing, and from what I heard in the interviews, the guy was not armed, the gun was in his truck, he was standing at the rear of his truck when the cop went into his vehicle, took out the gun, dropped the magazine and ejected the round from the chamber. The last I knew, the law stated the police had no right to enter your vehicle and search it without your permission unless they had a warrant signed by a judge, listing specific items they were searching for, and specific areas they intended to search.

 

[gc70]

To turn the proposition around, I can't find any case law that says that police are universally allowed, in any and every interaction with citizens, to question individuals about weapons and then search for and seize those weapons.

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.
.....
And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.

Is it a "specific reasonable inference" that an individual driving a vehicle with pro-gun bumper stickers is "armed and dangerous" and that a weapon search is justified?

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)

"[T]he stop and inquiry must be reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.'" Ibid. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 392 U. S. 29.) Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, he must then be released.

More to the point, is questioning about weapons "reasonably related in scope to the justification" for a stop for failure to use a turn signal?

 

[2RCO]

I would like to see a photo of the Baillo's truck. I'm guessing it might have some rather crude stickers other than just NRA stuff. If the guy failed to signal the stop was justified. The stickers if they have some kind of crude "shoot em all" etc. stickers might be seen as justification for concern by the officer (although this is also free speech so we move into possible violation of rights on that basis). I'd love to see the cruiser video on this one 10 to 1 says that this guy was extremely rude to the officer to start with. But who knows. I really don't like the writing style of the article so it makes me skeptical.

Also did he get his gun back at the end of the stop??

 

[akodo]

Here's my comment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment nor in any court case that I am aware of that gives you any constitutional right to be armed when you deal with the police.

What about the 'shall not be infringed'

If you get down to brass tacks, the constitution does not mention you have ANY rights when dealing with the police...I mean, the 4th amendment doesn't specifically say 'the police' can't search and seize

In general, I do believe that an officer has the right to secure the scene (which may or may not include securing a firearm) provided he has a legitemate reason for instigating the stop. If you are in a state that requires you to reveal your CCW status, I am still debating about if that can be used against you. (government cannot require you to incriminate yourself) However, I think it is clear in a state where you don't have to reveal, it probably is a good idea to go with the basics of remaining silent and handing over license and registration, and answering no other questions except to say 'am I free to go' and 'I do not consent to a search'

Unless the officer has some specific reason to believe he is in danger (and no, NRA stickers don't apply...even 'I kill Cops for Breakfast' stickers don't apply) I don't think the officer could legally search in the first place.

If the police inteaction gets to the point where the officer is detaining the person, or the person is being arrested, then definately the officer will take control of the firearm.

 

[stickhauler]

Listen to the gun talk episode, he details what kind of stickers he has on his truck, and I don't know the gentleman, but he certainly didn't sound like the type who'd be rude to a cop, matter of fact he sounded like a mild-mannered type. Yes, his gun was returned at the end of the stop, but if he's out of the truck, and has no access to the firearm, why would the cop have to secure it for anyone's safety? It ain't going off all by itself, and the "suspect" if in a regular sized pickup was at least 10 feet from the firearm, talking to an armed police officer. My bet is the cop could subdue him before he could get all the way back to the gun.

What was frightening to me was the comments of the Mayor, who this guy taped their conversation and the tape was played on the 14 June show. The Mayor says if you are pulled over by the cops in his city, you're civil rights are suspended until the officer releases you. Completely suspended! So I guess, protesting an illegal search wouldn't be allowed, as according to the Mayor I'd guess your freedom of speech is suspended, your right to refuse to answer questions lest they incriminate you as assured in the 5th amendment is suspended as well. Guess that due process right is as well according to his honor. Frankly, that sounds a bit like the reign of Hitler or Stalin. Not Shreveport, LA.

If there is a cruiser video, and the stop is as it was depicted by the guy, I doubt you'll ever see a copy of it, cities rarely release evidence that prove wrongdoing by any of their employees.

 

[doc2rn]

^ akodo beat me to it, this goes right back to the last Supreme court case this week where they said that the schools didnt have a right to strip search that girl, and neither did the police have a right to search and confiscate Baillio's weapon. Alot of ATF officers work like this too.

 

[JohnKSa]

...search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.

...a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time...

The story is vague (misleading??)--did the police actually confiscate the weapon in question or was the man only temporarily disarmed for the duration of the traffic stop?

Confiscation implies that the gun(s) left with the police officer and the citizen had to contact the authorities and petition to retrieve his firearm(s). That would be a real problem given that the police officer had no reason to take the gun(s) (no crime had been committed). It would also be wrong, in that case, for the mayor to defend the police officer's actions.

On the other hand, while being disarmed for the duration of the traffic stop might chafe a bit (I'd be more than just a little irritated); absent unsafe gun handling by the officer it's nothing more than a very minor inconvenience. I'm not aware of any state/region/locale where a police officer is prohibited from temporarily disarming an armed citizen for the duration of their interaction/direct contact.

Given that there is nothing in the article about the citizen having to go retrieve his gun from the authorities, I strongly suspect that this is about a police officer temporarily disarming a citizen--NOT about a police officer confiscating a legally owned/carried firearm when no crime had been committed and having the mayor defend that action.

 

[t165]

This story has so many holes in it, as presented, it would have already sunk if it had been a boat! Right from the get-go...can Mr. Baillo even prove he was pulled over by the police? What were the officers names? Has anyone gotten the officers side of the story...if there was an actual traffic stop? Did Mr. Baillo file a official complaint with city officials? Mr Baillo sure seems to have vivid memory of the (alleged) incident and surely he would have remembered the names of the terrible police officers. Before I can even view this as anything more than the ravings of a madman I need some proof there was even a traffic stop to begin with. The officers would have radioed in the traffic stop. Has anyone attempted to obtain police radio traffic recordings or computerized radio logs of the traffic stop? These are public record in my state of Indiana. Does anyone really care what the officers have to say (if the story is actually true) or is this nothing more than the thinly veiled pursuit of a selfish agenda. I'm willing to listen but I do not have time for fairy tales.

 

[TiredOleMan]

I cant get too excited here, if the cop got warm and fuzzies by holding the guys gun until the traffic stop was concluded I could see him being a tad pissed but thats about it. The weapon was returned and everybody went their own way, nobody went to jail and nobody died.

 

[Hammer-52]

A few interesting bits from when I heard this on Gun Talk.
1. Mr Barillo was at the rear of his truck both hands visible to the officer.
2. The pistol was INSIDE the cab of the truck.
3. The officer went into the vehicle without permission--& never asked.
4. The officer seemed to ask a lot of questions unrelated to the stop; ie where were you, where are you going?
5. The Mayor acted as if the Mr. Barillo has no rights once stopped by the police.

My lessons learned:
1. Drive safely.
2. If pulled over during day time get out with both hands visible & lock the car.
3. Get my own dash cam .

 

[hso]

My understanding of a "Terry stop" is that the LEO can temporarily secure any weapon or individual to ensure the safety of all involved. How that is done and whether that is appropriate is something that can be debated.

Since the weapon wasn't confiscated (it was returned at the end of the stop) there doesn't seem to be a 2A protection violation.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

My lessons learned:
1. Drive safely.
2. If pulled over during day time get out with both hands visible & lock the car.
3. Get my own dash cam

Yes, and most importantly, do NOT answer questions and/or cooperate with the police in any way (that you're not legally required to) in Shreveport, LA.

It IS a crime to say "I don't have any guns" when you do.

It is NOT a crime to say "I choose not to answer that" or similar, or just keep your mouth shut when asked about guns. MAKE THEM do an illegal search, and never consent to a search. At least in a hostile jurisdiction such as this town.

 

[JR47]

Stopping a person for an technical violation, and removing him from the vehicle, pretty much satisfies Officer Safety rules and SOPs. It was not a felony stop, he had "failed to properly display a turn-signal".

A vehicle requires a warrant, obtained with probable cause, to be searched without the operator's permission, or a felony arrest. Neither was obtained, nor were they necessary, as the driver was separated from access to the weapon.

Unless, and until, the people telling us about the type of bumper stickers, or proof of the stop, can disprove anything, they need to remember that their suppositions have less validity than anyone else involved.

It appears to me that the search of the car, without the operator's permission was, in this case, clearly illegal. The assumption of danger, and other negative values, evidently the result of patriotic slogans on the vehicle meets the legal definition of profiling, and is similarly illegal.

The discussion with the mayor is an interesting aside, and was clearly the mayor's plan of action that the officer was following. That, in and of itself, lends credence to the fact that the traffic stop was a valid occurrence, and that something untoward happened during it.

I believe that the onus here was directed towards the mayor's policy, and not the officer carrying it out.

 

[Deanimator]

and never consent to a search. At least in a hostile jurisdiction such as this town.

NEVER consent to a search ANYWHERE under ANY circumstances.

Consenting to a search is like picking up every banded snake you see based on the assumption that they're all scarlet king snakes. That works until you pick up a coral snake.

Don't play with strange snakes.

Don't consent to searches.

 

[KyJim]

This post is made without benefit of listening to the podcasts about this.

Police can stop a car based on reasonable suspicion that an offense (of any type) has been or is being committed. This is based on an objective standard, meaning the officer's subjective motivation is irrelevant. Assuming there really was a failure to signal, the officer could constitutionally make the stop even if based on the subjective belief that gun ownership is a bad thing.

Once stopped, the officer can question the person without reading any Miranda rights up until the officer places someone in custody. This is often a gray area. It does not have to be a full blown arrest but is more than just a stop. The focus is on whether the detained person reasonably believed he was in custody; again, something more than a brief detention for investigative purposes. Asking a few questions at a traffic stop is not normally a custodial interrogation. I'm assuming there was not a custodial interrogation here.

Even in a traffic stop, the officer has the right to conduct a limited search for weapons upon reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed. This may be a pat down search or, if the person is in a vehicle, a search of the passenger compartment. This can be done without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable searches. It says nothing explicitly about warrants.

Now, here is the interesting part. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a case called Arizona v. Gant which limits weapons searches in automobiles. Prior to this case, police could search the passenger compartment of a car which had been recently occupied by someone in custody, even sitting in the back of a cruiser. Under Gant it now appears that once the suspect is in custody and no longer in the vehicle, a weapons search for safety is no longer authorized (a search based upon probable cause of the passenger compartment of the auto is still presumably lawful).

The question is whether the rationale of Gant will be extended to disallow searches where a person is detained and is outside the car but not in full custody. There's an excellent argument to be made that it should not be extended. The suspect is not under the full control of the officer and might retrieve a weapon from the car. I recall a terrible video of a man stopped by an officer who exited the vehicle and then returned to it to retrieve a rifle and shoot the officer.

Anyway, it appears to me that the officer was probably legally justified in making the stop (assuming no signal) and there were legal grounds to question the driver and search the vehicle and then to temporarily take possession of the firearm. Once the ticket was written or warning given, the gun should have been given back to the driver.

 

[gc70]

there were legal grounds to question the driver and search the vehicle

What statutory or case law provides legal grounds to question a driver about weapons during a traffic stop?

What statutory or case law provides legal grounds to search a vehicle during a traffic stop?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is nothing in the Second Amendment nor in any court case that I am aware of that gives you any constitutional right to be armed when you deal with the police.

At the risk of a ten day suspension or even expulsion, I must point out that it doesn't work that way. The Second Amendment doesn't give anyone any right. The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe upon the right. That would include any enforcement branch of government. These things don't get done by seat-of-the-pants authoritarian fiat. Rule of law must be followed.

As for a court case, Terry v. Ohio spells out that certain criteria must be present in order for an officer of the law to search a person for arms and disarm that person. The mere presence of an officer of the law does not automatically trigger a power in the officer to disarm or even search a person for arms, even during a traffic stop for a traffic violation, unless as stated in Terry v. Ohio, “... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.” In other words, the officer must be able to articulate facts that show a crime has probably been committed or is being committed. Something like stopping a car, seeing it riddled with bullet holes, blood dripping from the undercarriage, bags with money spilling out, responding to a BOLO, etc., would probably qualify.

Bottom line, it's not that we have a right to be armed when we deal with the police, it's that the police don't have the power to disarm us without probable cause.

Woody

 

[Lou McGopher]

2. If pulled over during day time get out with both hands visible & lock the car.

Some states demand that you remain in the vehicle. In Ohio, if you have a concealed firearm, you must remain in the vehicle, keep your hands in plain sight, and in no way touch the firearm with your hands, except as instructed to do so by the cop.