I got pulled over last night...

[offroadking208]

Whats with the sudden influx of people badmouthing police officers as of late? from what i've read, the OP was stopped by an officer, refused to give any information, informed the officer that he had two firearms BEFORE telling him he had a LTCH and then is surprised when after being told about the two weapons, the officer prones him out and puts him into custody for his own safety. I dont blame the officer for being nervous after being told the OP had two firearms on his person, before mentioning the LTCH. He said the officer was professional during the stop and didnt feel threatened.

The glove box, trunk, and anything in plain sight are free game during a traffic stop. I've always found life to be much simpler when just cooperating with police to a certain extent. I have no problem telling them, Yeah. I'm heading home from my girlfriends house. If they ask for her number to confirm it, thats too far. And if the officer has a problem with being told no, thats what dash cams are for.

 

[Rookie]

Then why not tell him your fishing?

I could, but it really doesn't matter how I answer. Either way is going to be considered contempt of cop...

 

[Rookie]

I'm interested to see if that gets over turned. How can you search a vehicle using the officer safety excuse when the suspect is out of the vehicle and in cuffs?

 

[norman428]

I'm interested to see if that gets over turned. How can you search a vehicle using the officer safety excuse when the suspect is out of the vehicle and in cuffs?

Oh I'm sure it will be, But for now, not much we can do about it. You can say "no" But according to that law it can even be locked and it means nothing.

And under that, they can enter your vehicle to look in the glove box, we all know anything in sight is free game.

 

[Rookie]

Yeah, I just read Arizona vs Gant again. It seems they ruled in favor because the end justified the means.

 

[public servant]

Whats with the sudden influx of people badmouthing police officers as of late?

You're new here...aren't you?

 

[finity]

Having read several of these types of threads lately an item that keeps coming up at least in the others was a supreme court case; Terry vs. Ohio.

Even Terry requires that the officer have at least a reasonable suspicion that an actual crime has occurred or is about to occur. Even then, the cop is limited in his authority to search you to your outer layer of clothing “to check for weapons” for “officer safety”. They can ask you to exit your vehicle. They can’t search it without permission or PC.

The cop can ask you any questions they want. You don’t have to answer. You can only be detained briefly unless there is other evidence uncovered that would give PC.

Just because you carry doesn't give probable cause!

It has been pointed out here (by other cops) that the carrying of a handgun without a LTCH is a crime so they do have PC to stop you & request that you produce a LTCH.

However there is a recent IN supreme court case that requires that all questioning related to the handgun stop once a valid LTCH is produced. Most cops either don’t know that (because ignorance of the law is a perfectly valid excuse for them) or if they do know it, they really don’t care & will happily violate that decision.

I do wonder though if you had answered his questions about where you were headed and had been if the encounter would have ended differently?

Probably. But I think you are missing the point.

He didn’t have to answer. His rights aren’t based on whether he kissed the cops ass or not.

I hate to say it but hes right, If you simply answer their odd questions, they may actually be friendly. so many people on here stand by their rights and take it too far, Yes you have rights, But if you avoid answering a question, the officer also has the right to be suspicious.

No. The officer has no rights. He only has authority. Authority granted to him by the state.

He may be suspicious but he still has to act within the restrictions placed on him by the various Constitutions, laws & court decisions for the jurisdiction where he works.

He doesn't know where your going or what your doing out,

So? He doesn’t need to know it nor does he have the authority to compel me to tell him.

For all he knows you just robbed someone, you haven't proved him otherwise yet.

You are very confused about a very basic tenet of our American legal system.

YOU don’t have to prove a thing.

THEY have to prove you are guilty or have probable cause to think you committed a crime before they can treat you like a criminal.

PC is a fairly high standard. It doesn’t just mean that he THINKS you MIGHT have done something based on some unarticulable “hunch”.

I completely agree the disarming was wrong of him, But You said you have a weapon on you BEFORE showing him your LTCH. Again, in that situation, hes allowed to get a little suspicious, he thus far knows nothing about you.

True but as soon as the LTCH is produced all PC based SOLELY on the gun is removed. See Richardson v State (http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf)

even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood’s questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson’s production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning.

And better question, WHY NOT just answer his questions.

Because the only legitimate reason for the officer to be asking you questions is to find PC of a crime – even one you might not even know that you committed. Ignorance of the law is a valid excuse for cops but it’s not valid for us.

The big defence to why people OC is because only criminals have to hide things, so why not just tell him what your doing, and stop hiding things.

Only criminals have something to hide.

You need to read up a little on the history & origination of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the 4A in this case.

You may be willing to readily give up your rights but please don’t take the rest of us down with you.

As I've stated in a few threads already that I have an OH CCW and as my home state's carry laws dictate I am required to notify a LEO ASAP that I have a CCW weather I'm armed or not, and if armed where my firearms are located. Now I know some people don't think this is right, but I have no problem telling a LEO that I'm armed, its as much for his safety as it is for mine

Informing has NOTHING to do with the officers safety.

If you would be the type to voluntarily inform then you aren’t the type that the officer needs to fear in the first place.

If you were the type to be a threat to the officer then you wouldn’t be the type to inform him of a weapon even if there was a law requiring it.

It is a feel good measure that does absolutely nothing to enhance officer safety but is VERY good at enhancing officer CONTROL over a legal action by an otherwise law-abiding person.

I will grant you the “ensuring my safety” part but I can’t see how that should be stipulated by law. That should be up to you to decide if it is in your best interest to inform or not. It seems to work pretty well in IN.

Sure, if the questions were ONLY that simple & could have no further impact on your life then any reasonable person could agree with that.

BUT…

That’s not the way it works or the reason they do it as I stated above.

Also, I am under no obligation to “make him/her happy”. The interaction is, by its very nature, an adversarial one. The cop would have no problem taking it to the next level if I somehow inadvertently incriminated myself while being lulled into a false sense of security by the cops “friendly” conversation.

I understand that you don't HAVE to answer their questions and they can't make you, but I normally participate in the small talk.

Its common courtesy and makes everybody happier, I think. And its not like its hurting me to do it; if I stopped at a grocery store and the clerk asked me why I was wearing whatever clothes I was wearing, I wouldn't mind saying "I'm going to be painting/hunting/working/gardening" etc.

The clerk can’t arrest you & legally restrict your physical freedom.

It doesn't really hurt me that the police officer now knows that I'm headed down to get a haircut, and then to pick up some groceries.

Probably not but it might. That’s the problem…you just never know what “innocent” answer on your part will trigger PC on the cops part.

I think I can see the LEO's side of this story. If we're both polite and have a little ****-chat everything seems to go much smoother. If he walks up and asks where I'm going and I either clam-up or have to really stop and think about my answer first...while its not illegal, it certainly does seem suspicious, and like I'm hiding something.

If the cop doesn’t “get it” that the interaction is adversarial & will use your exercise of a Constitutional Right to claim PC then he’s in the wrong line of work. The person taking your money at McDonald’s can’t violate your rights. Maybe that would be a better career choice for them.

I guess its just me, If I get stopped, for any reason and they want to search my vehicle, Go for it.

If they rang my doorbell and asked to look around my apartment, go for it. Do I have the RIGHT to refuse, well yeah.
But why?

All I can say is just…WOW.

I’m glad the Founders didn’t think like you.

I love the arguments everyone gets into on this site, its like no one is allowed to have a different opinion.

You can have any different opinion you like. That’s your right. Similar to the others you would so easily give up.

I also have the right to my opinion. I also have the right to get you to agree with my opinion. You then have the right to not listen.

Ain’t rights grand?!

I told him I had every right to ask him that question.

Again, NO.

You had no “right” as a cop to do anything. You only had the authority. The government doesn’t have any rights. As an agent of the government you didn’t have any rights either.

It may seem like a picky point but that concept is very important for people (especially in government) to understand.

LOL He pulled you over, You did SOMETHING WRONG. Could be speeding, Could be your vehicle matches the description of a armed robbery that happened 5 min ago, AND you happen to have a gun. The questions do have a purpose,

EXACTLY!!!

& that’s why you shouldn’t answer them.

We already had one cop on here a while back admit that he could get you for “something” because there are so many laws. We also had a contract prosecutor on here recently admit that he could get the judge to believe almost anything he wanted him to (which implies that he had done it before).

Is being all buddy-buddy with the cop THAT important?

And just to be clear....If he left the door open, the officer can legally search anything in site, Unless he was moving things he doesn't need a warrant, or probable cause. He can poke his head around all he wants…. You just cant be looking under seats and crap. Cmon guys, don't fight a law you don't actually know.

It’s not a “search” (under the 4A) unless he’s moving things around. Otherwise, it’s just poking his head around & looking at things that are simply in plain “site”.

Don’t argue a concept you don’t actually know.

AND as of this year, any officer may look in your glovebox, without permission.

You need to post a reference for that statement.

If that’s some kind of new law (that NOBODY here has mentioned) I can’t see that being declared Constitutional.

Oh, and probable cause can be ANYTHING.

Well, not to most people who know ANYTHING at all about the legal system. It’s only “anything” to those who are looking for ANY REASON to be able to search someone, legally or not.

That’s why we have the Constitution & its attendant Bill or Rights. Along with courts to attempt to enforce it.

Hey…are you sure you’re not a cop? Or at least a wanna-be?

 

[finity]

Ok

In re to the locked glove box search.



It's the IN court of appeals, true, but it's ONLY the IN court of appeals.

I still find it hard to believe that the IN supreme court or higher would be OK with that. Cases that go higher do get overturned at times.

That's really scary that the court would allow that.

If they can search there then what's to stop them from searching anything for the catch-all "officer safety"?

 

[finity]

I hereby declare today, Be rude to Finity day!!!

Eh, it'll be just like any other day then...

 

[JetGirl]

You did SOMETHING WRONG.
Could be your vehicle matches the description of a armed robbery that happened 5 min ago

Yes, 88GT!! You did something wrong by buying the wrong color car [x-amount] years ago!! WTH were you thinking??!!
RONG!! RONG!!! RONG-Doer!!!

 

[mainjet]

Ok

In re to the locked glove box search.



It's the IN court of appeals, true, but it's ONLY the IN court of appeals.

I still find it hard to believe that the IN supreme court or higher would be OK with that. Cases that go higher do get overturned at times.

That's really scary that the court would allow that.

If they can search there then what's to stop them from searching anything for the catch-all "officer safety"?

I agree. I have not read about it but it certainly would be a scary thing.

There are some cars that do not have a lockable glove box. What about the console? Can they look there if it's not locked? Maybe the trunk through the fold down rear seat that is not locked.

 

[snowman46919]

Whats with the sudden influx of people badmouthing police officers as of late? from what i've read, the OP was stopped by an officer, refused to give any information, informed the officer that he had two firearms BEFORE telling him he had a LTCH and then is surprised when after being told about the two weapons, the officer prones him out and puts him into custody for his own safety. I dont blame the officer for being nervous after being told the OP had two firearms on his person, before mentioning the LTCH. He said the officer was professional during the stop and didnt feel threatened.

The glove box, trunk, and anything in plain sight are free game during a traffic stop. I've always found life to be much simpler when just cooperating with police to a certain extent. I have no problem telling them, Yeah. I'm heading home from my girlfriends house. If they ask for her number to confirm it, thats too far. And if the officer has a problem with being told no, thats what dash cams are for.

So your saying we're guilty until proven innocent.. I am pretty sure you have it backwards Oh and you support illegal search and seizure. Glove box maybe but a trunk is most definitely not in plain sight.

 

[offroadking208]

Im pretty sure that a trunk is considered searchable during a traffic stop. Unless its just places easily reachable from the passenger compartment. Either way, im not voluntarily letting someone search my car. I have no problem answering questions, but without a warrant a search of my car or apartment isn't voluntary. Like I said, i have no problem cooperating with law enforcement to an extent. The sooner the traffic stop is done, the sooner I can be back to whatever I was doing. And yes, the burden of proof is on the state, but if I've done nothing wrong then why worry?

 

[snowman46919]

Im pretty sure that a trunk is considered searchable during a traffic stop. Unless its just places easily reachable from the passenger compartment. Either way, im not voluntarily letting someone search my car. I have no problem answering questions, but without a warrant a search of my car or apartment isn't voluntary. Like I said, i have no problem cooperating with law enforcement to an extent. The sooner the traffic stop is done, the sooner I can be back to whatever I was doing. And yes, the burden of proof is on the state, but if I've done nothing wrong then why worry?

The only time they can search a trunk area without a warrant is if it is a hatch back. The glovebox is questionable at best but a recent court decision allows the search. At this point I am not even sure there was a viable reason for the stop. At that point any action would be illegal on the part of the officer would it not?

 

[norman428]

The only time they can search a trunk area without a warrant is if it is a hatch back. The glovebox is questionable at best but a recent court decision allows the search. At this point I am not even sure there was a viable reason for the stop. At that point any action would be illegal on the part of the officer would it not?

an officer can stop you and just call it a "welfare check"
All you have to do is touch the center line, or white line, Bam, reason for stop. Its a s simple as that.

I think we should just bring up whether it really was his second amendment right to carry a handgun, Did he declare he is in a well regulated militia?
FIGHT THE POWER!

If everyone is going to -rep me for my own opinion, I may as well just keep it going.

Haters gonna hate. :P

 

[snowman46919]

an officer can stop you and just call it a "welfare check"
All you have to do is touch the center line, or white line, Bam, reason for stop. Its a s simple as that.

I think we should just bring up whether it really was his second amendment right to carry a handgun, Did he declare he is in a well regulated militia?
FIGHT THE POWER!

If everyone is going to -rep me for my own opinion, I may as well just keep it going.

Haters gonna hate. :P

Welfare check does not give him pc to search the car and mere possession of a hand gun does not provide pc either.

 

[norman428]

Welfare check does not give him pc to search the car and mere position of a hand gun does not provide pc either.

He did not "search" the vehicle. He can do whatever he wants to get everything in "plain sight" he just cant look under seats and crap.

 

[snowman46919]

He did not "search" the vehicle. He can do whatever he wants to get everything in "plain sight" he just cant look under seats and crap.

He then searched my vehicle unloaded my weapons confirmed my LTCH before allowing me to recover to a citizens point of view.

Reading comprehension issues?

 

[norman428]

Reading comprehension issues?

LOL the OP may define "searched" as in looked around the vehicle in areas such as the glove box. I would like to think that if he started digging under seats and stuff the OP would have said something.

Comprehension issues?

 

[snowman46919]

LOL the OP may define "searched" as in looked around the vehicle in areas such as the glove box. I would like to think that if he started digging under seats and stuff the OP would have said something.

Comprehension issues?

If it's not in plain sight it is a search

search   
[surch] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to go or look through (a place, area, etc.) carefully in order to find something missing or lost: They searched the woods for the missing child. I searched the desk for the letter.
2.
to look at or examine (a person, object, etc.) carefully in order to find something concealed: He searched the vase for signs of a crack. The police searched the suspect for weapons.
3.
to explore or examine in order to discover: They searched the hills for gold.

Versus plain sight in which you don't have to go through something carefully to find something concealed.