Your rights are now suspended.

[Art Eatman]

ConstitutionCowboy, the big problem is that until some court rules on the constitutionality of a law, that law is in force and is considered to be constitutional until decided otherwise.

"It's constitutional until a court declares it to be unconstitutional."

And while we may not agree with a court as to its decision on constitutionality, we're stuck with it.

 

[GLOOB]

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.

I think this merits some examination. Of course it's ok to stop someone who has broken the law. A good police officer will use that stop to look for clues for other violations. But what does any of that have to do with legally carrying a firearm? It's not like the officer asked "Is that a bag of crystal meth on the dashboard?" Or "is that a dead body in the back seat?" No. He asked, "Are you (legally) in possession of a firearm?" "Are you a member of the NRA?" What next? Will it be ok to ask "Are you a Republican?" "Are you against abortion?" "Did you vote against the current [mayor/administration]?" It's an odd line of questioning for a very minor traffic stop. And did the guy even receive a traffic citation?

 

[Jeff White]

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.

Bottom line, the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough. That's it plain and simple. Find one court case anywhere in this country that says otherwise. Just one, You can't because it doesn't exist. If I or another officer deems that the contact may be unsafe because you are armed, you will be disarmed and there are no legal grounds to stop it.

 

[SHvar]

Determining whether the stop or search is up to the courts and the individual to file a case if they believe they were wronged, not for those who were not present to see or hear what actually happened to decide. If the case went to court afterwards we would probably find out that alot more than what is mentioned happened, or was said (video camera in the cop car, complete with audio).
From what I read with what info is present the search was legal, there was reasonable suspicion to the presence of a weapon, there was a legal traffic stop that occured beforehand for a turn signal not used.
You can refuse a search and refuse to say whether a weapon is present, but you better have lots of free time to take off of work and lots of disposible income to spend on a good lawyer.
Take your pick, if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about when pulled over, period.

 

[Flyboy]

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.

Mr. White:
the Constitution was ordained to list the specific powers of the government; they are detailed in Article I, Section 8. There are eighteen specific powers laid out in that section. I defy you to find the one in there that allows the police to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms based upon bumper stickers.

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.

My comment is entirely restrained to the content of the supreme law of the land; nonetheless, I shall take my ten days with pride.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bottom line, the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough. That's it plain and simple. Find one court case anywhere in this country that says otherwise. Just one, You can't because it doesn't exist. If I or another officer deems that the contact may be unsafe because you are armed, you will be disarmed and there are no legal grounds to stop it.

I did find a case. I quoted from it. Terry v. Ohio.

Let me ask you this:

Suppose you are off duty and get caught speeding, are pulled over, and the officer insists that he search you for arms and does in fact disarm you. Do you believe your rights were violated, or are you cool with the situation? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that even though you live in Illinois, a state that does not issue concealed carry permits, that you have a concealed carry permit, and have submitted to the NICS check, etc., etc., and received all the required training. Lets also assume that the officer knows who you are, and does not suspect you have committed or are committing a crime. Please explain how the simple fact that you, a permit carrying, state and federal background checked and approved armed citizen presents probable cause that you are a danger to the officer who pulled you over? You've made the claim on this open forum and I believe you should back it up with specific statutes and any relevant court cases.

Believe me when I say I have respect and admiration for all officers of the law. Its an honorable avocation fraught with many dangers. But that doesn't grant you or any other officer freewheeling power. Your powers are specific an must be laid out in the law that creates your position. You will win the argument when you can post the law for all to see and I'll be grateful for the edification.

Woody

 

[GLOOB]

the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough

So, if you choose to legally exercise your 2A rights, you must be a law abiding citizen and therefore you have nothing to hide? And according to law, you are automatically subject to search at any time? Or is it only legal in this case because of the concomitant failure to signal a turn at an intersection?

I'd rather have all my rights at the same time. Is this really a matter of choosing one or the other?

On a side note, I don't blame the guy if he was mad. I can't imagine being pulled over for failure to signal a turn to begin with, let alone find out that the main reason for the stop was to be asked if I was doing anything LEGAL and what my political affiliations happened to be. If I have ten days coming, just lemme know.

 

[Art Eatman]

First: "Lets also assume that the officer knows who you are, and does not suspect you have committed or are committing a crime."

Then:

"Please explain how the simple fact that you, a permit carrying, state and federal background checked and approved armed citizen presents probable cause that you are a danger to the officer who pulled you over."

These, to me, look mutually exclusive. The second does not follow from the first. Need a better example...

 

[bluekatana650]

Bottom line is......Don't talk to the police. Answer in Yes sir/No sir replies, as long as the questions pertain to the initial stop issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

If you play tennis with Andre Aggisi you'll lose,
If you play golf with Tiger, you'll lose,
When you are interviewed by a cop/detective, you'll lose! They do this everyday, for a living. I'm not saying you can't trust them, but there is no reason.....NO REASON, to have to discuss anything other than the intial traffic stop subject.

 

[Flyboy]

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.

 

[model of 1905]

Flyboy, careful or your rights may be suspended.

 

[akodo]

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.

NO. The officer does NOT have the right to conduct a limited search for weapons upon a reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed.

What the officer instead has is the right to conduct a LIMITED search for weapons upon a reasonable and ARTICUABLE specific reason to suspect there is a threat to the officer's safety.

A general 'I feared for my safety' is not enough. A 'it appeared he reached toward his glovebox and I feared he had retrieved a weapon and placed it hidden on his body' is enough.

 

[akodo]

Bottom line, the fact that you are armed is probable cause enough. That's it plain and simple. Find one court case anywhere in this country that says otherwise. Just one, You can't because it doesn't exist. If I or another officer deems that the contact may be unsafe because you are armed, you will be disarmed and there are no legal grounds to stop it.

No, it is ont. Find one court case ANYWHERE in this country that says that being armed and excluding ANY OTHER factor is probable cause.

You are asking us to prove a negative, that is unrealistic.

You might as well try and say 'the officer has the right to take a perminant marker and write your name on your forehead, because you cannot find a court case or law that makes this specific action illegal'

 

[Flyboy]

Actually, akodo, Gant would appear to limit even the "reasonable suspicion" search as soon as the suspect is restrained or removed from the vehicle, hence my second post.

 

[GTSteve03]

I'm not saying you can't trust them, but there is no reason.....NO REASON, to have to discuss anything other than the intial traffic stop subject.

You're not saying it, but I am. There is NO reason to trust them. They are trying to get you to admit anything that might be used against you. They definitely aren't your friend and have no legal obligation to serve or protect you.

 

[JohnKSa]

The article clearly says that the officer asked if there was a gun and where it was. The article also clearly says that the citizen told the truth.

Once you tell the officer you have a gun and where it is, I don't see how the officer reaching in and picking it up can be called a "search". I certainly don't understand the wrangling about "probable cause". Since when is TELLING the cops you have a gun and where the gun is not probable cause for the cops believing that you have a gun?

As I see it, this incident isn't about probable cause, searching, and firearm confiscation, it's about whether or not it's ok for police to disarm citizens temporarily during a traffic stop.

I think we need to get past the problems in the poorly written article and discuss the actual incident and it's implications instead of getting bogged down in issues that are irrelevant to the incident in question.

 

[Jeff White]

No, it is ont. Find one court case ANYWHERE in this country that says that being armed and excluding ANY OTHER factor is probable cause.

No court anywhere in the US has ever denied an officer the right to be safe while doing his job. If the officer knows that the person he is dealing with is armed the officer has every right to disarm that person temporarily for the duration of the contact.

Over the years I have taken everything from baseball bats to guns away from people I was dealing with until the contact was over. Some of those people were arrested and some weren't. The reality is that if an officer knows there is a weapon present and he decides to secure it for the duration of the contact it is legal and guess what, it happens everyday.

You don't get into Fourth Amendment issues until the officer conducts a search for the weapon. Terry and Gant do not apply in this case, just as they don't apply in states where CCW holders are required to inform. You don't get into 5th Amendment issues (takings without due process) unless the weapon is not returned at the end of the contact. The police have the right to secure the scene and until someone successfully gets a court to rule that they don't, things will continue to be the way they are.

I walked into a home answering a 911 call on a domestic dispute once. Standing in the corner at the back of the room was a Ruger 1022 with a Ram Line clear plastic extended magazine sticking out of it. I secured the weapon until the domestic dispute was settled and then returned it when I was leaving. No search was involved, the rifle was in plain sight. No illegal entry was involved, I was invited in by the complainant, no taking without due process was involved because the rifle being in my custody was a temporary safety measure and was returned to the owner upon completion of the contact.

The incident we are discussing is almost exactly the same. The motorist was stopped for a violation, the officer asked if there was a weapon in the vehicle, the motorist replied there was, the officer asked where and the motorist told him. The officer secured the weapon for the duration of the contact and returned it to the motorist. No rights were violated. There was no search and there was no taking.

 

[Mike Sr.]

What if the gun was in a 'locked' glove compartment?
What if the gun was in a 'locked' trunk?
What if the gun was in the 'locked' trunk and in a locked gun case or trigger lock???
What if the gun was a 'locked' case?
What if the gun was in a locked glove compartment with a trigger lock?
What if the gun was broken down into pieces where it was totally & completely non-functional?

===============

Would the officer have a 'right' to secure that which was already by a reasonable account 'secure'?

 

[t165]

I listened to the radio show. The taped conversation was edited. It needs to be aired from beginning to end. And I agree the suspended rights comment of the mayor is not accurate. It was a dumb comment but certainly not fatal to anyone. Nothing to cry about...the mayor is not a LEO.

And I am surprised opinions are being formed and argued without getting the other side to the story. According to the radio host, and Mr. Baillo, he was invited to file a complaint by the Shreveport Police Department. IIRC the radio host had to ask him (3) times if he was going to take up their offer. He seemed pretty reluctant to initiate an investigation...I wonder why? I hope he files the complaint. If he is telling the truth then what is he scared of?

A Terry Stop and Search is a privilege given to law enforcement officers to help protect them. It has and will be argued in courtrooms and debated in public because everyone has their own personal feeling concerning the legality of it. I have conducted a Terry Stop and Search many times in the past. I never done it just to annoy someone. It has a purpose and it is a legal police procedure under the right circumstances. Criminals always try to exclude evidence based on illegal searches and almost always fail. Criminals, like many law abiding civilians, simply do not understand the purpose and nature of the court granted privilege. And police officers should not abuse the privilege...that is one very quick way for the courts to take the privilege away.

I am not so dumb as to believe everything Mr. Baillo says based solely on Mr. Baillo's account. Only one side to this story so far...and a very self-serving one at that. No witnesses. P.T. Barnum is credited for saying "there is a sucker born every minute"! Well Mr. Baillo, I am not one of those. File the complaint and let the authorities dig into this a little further. If you are correct then the officer(s) need to be dealt with. If you have embellished or lied then shame on you. If you do not file the official complaint then that is a tacit admission to me you are not being truthful.

 

[akodo]

No court anywhere in the US has ever denied an officer the right to be safe while doing his job. If the officer knows that the person he is dealing with is armed the officer has every right to disarm that person temporarily for the duration of the contact.

back this up with facts and court cases.

The truth is actually the exact opposite.

The courts have ruled MANY times that actions police officers desire to take 'for their own safety' are often in voilation of the suspect's rights, and are denied.

For instance, the much discussed TERRY SEARCH. You cannot,search for weapons 'just because I want to make sure for my own safety'

Over the years I have taken everything from baseball bats to guns away from people I was dealing with until the contact was over. Some of those people were arrested and some weren't. The reality is that if an officer knows there is a weapon present and he decides to secure it for the duration of the contact it is legal and guess what, it happens everyday.

it happens every day that police plant evidence too. Just because it happens doesn't change the fact it is an infringement of rights.

It used to be that police would routinely rough up a suspect to get information. That was a violation of the suspects rights as well.

 

[Jeff White]

it happens every day that police plant evidence too.

And that is the end of this thread. You were warned to keep it on topic.