Sad but true story -- LEO and HCP holder

[Fallguy]

with all the computers in the cars now days Im sure they can, they may not be supposed to anymore... but they can. Back in the day some used to run the 10-28, and then sometimes run the 10-27 from the owners information that came up on the 10-28. Thus you get HCP status.

Well you are right to some degree.....they can tell if the registred owner of the car has a HCP, but they have no way of knowing if the registered owner is the one operating the vehicle at the time.

But granted the registred owner is the operator probably just under 100% of the time.

[Guest Muttling]

But granted the registred owner is the operator probably just under 100% of the time.

I disagree. How many times does another family member drive the car? You buy a car for wifey in your name and she drives it. Or you take the wife's car to the shop for her. Or you buy a car for your kid to drive. etc, etc, etc.

Under 100% might be true for single folk, but I don't think it's true for married.

[Guest Alpha Dog]

I was the OP, and to clarify, it didn't happen to me. It happened to a friend who happens to be a 115 lb. female. I will send her a link to the thread so she can read the advice given. Lots of good points have been made.

[Guest HexHead]

I agree this was way out of line, but locking the car wont help in this situation. Remember he admitted he had a weapon. Therefor the officer has a right to obtain the weapon because of officer safety.

In other stops this is really a non issue, most LEO wont allow you out of the car anyway.

How is the officer's safety compromised if you're outside the vehicle with him and the weapon is locked inside the car?

[TMMT]

Having policed in three states over my years I can say that the gun laws in Tennessee actually are not very good, infact compared to some of the neighboring states they suck.

While I understand the anger at an over reaching LEO, maybe we should ALL begin venting and complaining to those idiots who wrote and saddled us with all these foolish excuses for gun laws and demand them changed.

[Guest HexHead]

Having policed in three states over my years I can say that the gun laws in Tennessee actually are not very good, infact compared to some of the neighboring states they suck.

While I understand the anger at an over reaching LEO, maybe we should ALL begin venting and complaining to those idiots who wrote and saddled us with all these foolish excuses for gun laws and demand them changed.

Such as???

[TMMT]

Such as???

For one I disagree with the requirement of a permit to keep a loaded gun in your vehicle, one that is not on your person.

The fee for the permit is stupidly ridiculous, not to mention the process requires that you spend an unacceptable amount of time visiting at a minimum three different places, (CCW Class, DMV, Fingerprints) just to complete the application requirements. If its gonna be this polluted then have it all centrally located, period.

Fees are non-refundable, even if the state screws up, loses the app or drops the ball, you eat the cost!

And don't even get me started on the Parks carry law and the comedy of the opt out provision. The State legislatures have fully ensured that cops will now be thoroughly confused as to what park is good to go and which ones aren't.

TCA 39-17-1305© is almost laughable. So is TCA 39-17-1359, basically it says property owners can prohibit guns on all or part of their property, AND adjoining property by posting a sign at prominent locations including all entrances to enter the buildings. But the owner can also include the land you had to traverse to get to the building to see the sign. The sign you can't read unless you broke the law... the badly worded law. And the very ambiguous very open to interpretation descriptions of what the sign could/can/might/may/should look like, well that goes to shows the lack of intelligence of whomever wrote this disaster.

Then you have subsection (Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

So can the owner be held liable if you are injured by a criminal, unable to defend yourself? Do they know this and how does the posting of property play into this?

Roadside Rest Stops are another "posted" area where the Tennessee Legislature has managed to create a law so convoluted it makes the parks law look elementary.

And no where in any stature is Peaceable Journey Laws addressed.

Its a mess.

I for one as a LEO with state wide arrest powers will not enforce the parks law absent any other PC, for the simple fact, I can't tell which park is good to go and which on isn't. Nor will I enforce the law requiring a permit to have a loaded gun in one's car again absent any other PC.

Horrible laws are the result of politicians who author them out of spite or disdain for their intended target. In this case gun laws, probably written by a politician who would just assume ban them outright.

Its time we sent them to collect their unemployment checks.

Edited October 10, 2009 by TMMT

[Kelemvor]

For one I disagree with the requirement of a permit to keep a loaded gun in your vehicle, one that is not on your person.

The fee for the permit is stupidly ridiculous, not to mention the process requires that you spend an unacceptable amount of time visiting at a minimum three different places, (CCW Class, DMV, Fingerprints) just to complete the application requirements. If its gonna be this polluted then have it all centrally located, period.

Fees are non-refundable, even if the state screws up, loses the app or drops the ball, you eat the cost!

And don't even get me started on the Parks carry law and the comedy of the opt out provision. The State legislatures have fully ensured that cops will now be thoroughly confused as to what park is good to go and which ones aren't.

TCA 39-17-1305© is almost laughable. So is TCA 39-17-1359, basically it says property owners can prohibit guns on all or part of their property, AND adjoining property by posting a sign at prominent locations including all entrances to enter the buildings. But the owner can also include the land you had to traverse to get to the building to see the sign. The sign you can't read unless you broke the law... the badly worded law. And the very ambiguous very open to interpretation descriptions of what the sign could/can/might/may/should look like, well that goes to shows the lack of intelligence of whomever wrote this disaster.

Then you have subsection (Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

So can the owner be held liable if you are injured by a criminal, unable to defend yourself? Do they know this and how does the posting of property play into this?

Roadside Rest Stops are another "posted" area where the Tennessee Legislature has managed to create a law so convoluted it makes the parks law look elementary.

And no where in any stature is Peaceable Journey Laws addressed.

Its a mess.

I for one as a LEO with state wide arrest powers will not enforce the parks law absent any other PC, for the simple fact, I can't tell which park is good to go and which on isn't. Nor will I enforce the law requiring a permit to have a loaded gun in one's car again absent any other PC.

Horrible laws are the result of politicians who author them out of spite or disdain for their intended target. In this case gun laws, probably written by a politician who would just assume ban them outright.

Its time we sent them to collect their unemployment checks.

Agreed. It's bad enough when they make a mess of the laws that don't interfere with your constitutional rights.

[Oh Shoot]

While I agree with all your points, just a FYI:

Roadside Rest Stops are another "posted" area ...

Rest areas, on any type road, are not exempt to legal handgun carry.

May have been in the distant past, or some posted in error for a time, I forget which, but carry permit holder is good to carry in them in TN.

- OS

[TMMT]

While I agree with all your points, just a FYI:

Rest areas, on any type road, are not exempt to legal handgun carry.

May have been in the distant past, or some posted in error for a time, I forget which, but carry permit holder is good to carry in them in TN.

- OS

If its posted its prohibited but there is no specific requirements for the sign type, location or wording again this is ambiguous if not absent in state law.

Alos something else where Tennessee laws are beyond hope is any land around/in/on/under/between/beside etc... a lake I think it is still off limits.

From reading the statue I think it is owned by the Army Corp of Engineers and does not fall under the new National Park/National Wildlife Areas, but who knows Tennessee made a mess of that too, when it addressed the question of ceded federal venue (jurisdiction) to enforce local and state by local and state LE. Its one of those really gray areas of law where thanks to crafty political wordsmiths those of us who need to know what we can and can't do here, have no clue what we can and can't do, again way to go Tennessee!

[Oh Shoot]

If its posted its prohibited but there is no specific requirements for the sign type, location or wording again this is ambiguous if not absent in state law. ...

None are posted now.

Here's the story from the TFA on how some of them got briefly posted back in '03:

http://www.*********.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=260

edit: what the hey, are the letters ********* (TEE EF A online) banned here?

I guess they are.

here's link with tinyurl:

http://tinyurl.com/ylzth4m

- OS

Edited October 10, 2009 by OhShoot
add'l info

[TMMT]

None are posted now.

Here's the story from the TFA on how some of them got briefly posted back in '03:

http://www.*********.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=260

edit: what the hey, are the letters ********* (TEE EF A online) banned here?

I guess they are.

here's link with tinyurl:

Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc. • View topic - Rest Stops

- OS

Thanks for the link

Having read the back and forth email exchange it just reenforces my already low opinion of those who are writing these laws that I am tasked with enforcing.

The next time you deal with any LEO, please remember this thread posted at your link and multiply that by an order of magnitude and you'll see what we sometimes put up with.

I once emailed the State AG using my state email address asking for clarification on a TCA for a felony criminal case and the response I received was more confusing to me and my boss

than the TCA statute was.

Edited October 10, 2009 by TMMT

[JayC]

I agree this was way out of line, but locking the car wont help in this situation. Remember he admitted he had a weapon. Therefor the officer has a right to obtain the weapon because of officer safety.

In other stops this is really a non issue, most LEO wont allow you out of the car anyway.

That is not exactly true... Under state law they may take a weapon in your possession, I seriously doubt a Judge is going to see a weapon in a locked car with an officer between you and said car as in your possession under that law.

I can't find any case law on point with a quick search, but it appears as if officers are prohibited from searches for officer safety in the case of a locked car and other items in this state.

Personally I'd make him break out the window and argue to his Chief and a Judge how it was a lawful search after I file a federal civil rights lawsuit against him and his department.

[TNRobocop]

The story is a little confusing on one point that no one has pointed out.

When they went back to the gas station, did the clerk directly tell the LEO that did the stop, or did he call dispatch about the screwup he committed with the credit card?

The reason I ask is that besides getting a story second hand from the friend, if the clerk told dispatch (which we have no timeline on btw) and not the officer, then the LEO is acting on the last good information he was given, which was a gas drive-off it seems.

Therefore I can see a case where the LEO is investigating a crime, and not just a simple traffic stop.

Just wanting clarification.

[Guest Spuds]

None are posted now.

Here's the story from the TFA on how some of them got briefly posted back in '03:

http://www.*********.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=260

edit: what the hey, are the letters ********* (TEE EF A online) banned here?

I guess they are.

here's link with tinyurl:

Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc. • View topic - Rest Stops

- OS

www.*********.org

Why would the Tennessee Firearms Association be entered into the banned words section of tgo? An organization working for our rights has their website URL banned here?

[Hotshot]

I'm pretty sure if you got out and locked the car and told the cop he had no right to look in it, you would go to jail or at least be sitting in his back seat for some time. It's best to cooperate, even if they're being rude.

[Guest dlstewart01]

Divided court limits warrantless vehicle searches (April 21, 2009) | On the Docket

Divided court limits warrantless vehicle searches (April 21, 2009)

Case Reference:

Arizona v. Gant

The Supreme Court today put new limits on what conditions police must meet to conduct a warrantless search of vehicle once the occupants have been arrested.

In August 1999, Arizona police went to the home of Rodney Gant in search of drugs and to arrest him for failing to appear in court. When they arrived at the house, Gant was not there (though two other people were in his home, one of whom was in possession of a crack pipe) but while the police were still at the house Gant pulled into the driveway. While Gant was still in his car, an officer shined a flashlight into the vehicle, but the police made no other contact with him until he stepped out of the car. After he was out of the car, the police searched it and found drugs and a handgun. Gant was arrested and charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Before trial, Gant asked the judge to rule the evidence found in the car unconstitutional because the search had been conducted without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial judge denied the motion, ruling that the search was a direct result of Gant's lawful arrest and therefore an exception to the general Fourth Amendment warrant requirement under New York v. Belton (1981). Gant was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

Gant appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling the search unconstitutional. The court found that exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be justified by concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation. The court ruled that these justifications did not apply in Gant's case because he had left the vehicle voluntarily without being stopped by police or asked to get out of the car. The search of the vehicle was therefore not directly connected to the arrest and, without that justification, clearly violated the Fourth Amendment.

On October 20, 2003, without issuing a decision in the case, the court sent it back to Arizona state court for further consideration in light of the Arizona case, State v. Dean.

The issue raised in this case, however, was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court later in the same term. On May 24, 2004, the court issued a decision in the case of Thornton v. U.S., finding that police could constitutionally search a vehicle even after its occupant has left it voluntarily.

On April 21, the Supreme Court affirmed in a 5-4 opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens.

“Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest,†Stevens wrote. “When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.â€

Justice Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion and Justice Samuel A. Alito filed a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined in part by Justice Breyer.

“There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a weapon or evidence,†Alito wrote.

Question presented: When police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle who got out voluntarily, can they search the vehicle without a warrant?

[Guest flyinglowwithheat]

I'm pretty sure if you got out and locked the car and told the cop he had no right to look in it, you would go to jail or at least be sitting in his back seat for some time. It's best to cooperate, even if they're being rude.

When the Chinese decide to take over we'll just let them in our house to take all our weapons when they knock.

When H--- freezes over.

Same applies to warrant less searches when you've done NOTHING wrong.

LEO knocks on your door and wants in to search your house???

Sorry Charlie, NO FREAKIN' WAY! Got a warrant???

[JayC]

I'm pretty sure if you got out and locked the car and told the cop he had no right to look in it, you would go to jail or at least be sitting in his back seat for some time. It's best to cooperate, even if they're being rude.

What exactly would be the charge he'd take you to jail on? Or the RAS he'd hold you on the side of the road for?

Refusing entry to your locked house or car is not a crime in TN, only if you physically attempt to prevent the officer from searching. Simply refusing to help the search through inaction does not violate TN state law.

He very well may be able to hold your vehicle while he waits for a warrant, but he'd have no RAS or PC to hold you during that time. It would be annoying to sit around and wait for the search warrant, but it's very unlikely that the officer would be allowed to place you for that long of a period of time in this backseat unless he was arresting you because it clearly falls outside the restrictions on a Terry Stop.

Like it or not there are severe limitations on what can be searched and when for police officers, and the vast majority of the time the police rely on you not understanding your rights and the law to get around those restrictions by allowing them to do stuff they can't do on their own under the law.

[Mike.357]

I think you ought to name the police department involved in this.

[Guest Muttling]

There's a key phrase in the court's ruling, "incident to a recent occupant’s arrest".

This ruling doesn't give them authority to search the vehicle just because you step out of it. They have to have a reason to arrest you before this ruling allows them to search the vehicle under this ruling.

Is there some other ruling(s) that open this door for the police? It seems to me like a pretty grevious way to circumvent the 4th ammendment if all they have to do is ask you to step out of the vehicle and they suddenly have right to search it.

[Guest canynracer]

I spent 21 of my 28 years in law enforcement in the rank of sergeant investigating complaints against officers by citizens. Here's some advice:

1. Before you go throwing your money down a sinkhole by hiring an attorney, sit down and type an articulate, professional, gramatically correct, totally factual registered letter to the chief of the department. Nothing must be exaggerated or understated....it has to be completely objective and factual. Keep the emotion and outrage out of it.....you want to come across as cool, calm, and collected, not just another irate jerk pissed about a ticket......they're a dime a dozen and nobody listens to them.

You should state that this is a formal complaint for the officer's inappropriate and/or unreasonable conduct during a traffic stop.....don't say unlawful unless you can back it up, and don't refer to something a friend told you an officer can't do, because most friends don't know diddly squat about the law or what an officer can or cannot do, and that includes most of the guys on this forum. Do not stipulate that you expect the officer to be fired or transferred because no chief is going to be told what to do with one of his officers......that's between him, the City Manager, and the laws and rules governing the officer's employment. Just state that you consider the officer's actions to be unreasonable, that you feel that he dealt with you in a totally inappropriate manner, that you believe the search was unjustified under the circumstances, and that you expect the Department to take the appropriate corrective action.

2. Now, what will this accomplish? You can't fire an officer for mistreating the public verbally and for violating Departmental policies pertaining to search and seizure without a paper trail of complaints and unsuccessful corrective actions....cops are government employees and their employment has certain protections under the law just like anyone else, and they can't be fired just because someone thinks they should be. Your letter will be one cog in that process, so you want to make it as credible, factual, and believable as possible. This will be especially important in a case like yours where there are no uninvolved or objective witnesses to the event in its entirety.

3. In your letter, after the signature block, write "cc: City Manager" or whoever the prevailing authority might be. This will keep the Department from roundfiling it and will make sure they look at it, if you don't trust them to do this in the first place. Oh, and make sure you actually send the copy to that prevailing authority, also registered mail with a cover letter explaining briefly what your letter to the Chief concerns.

4. As far as a lawsuit is concerned, the process of civil remedy is intended to remedy an injury suffered by the plaintiff, and a civil rights violation could be such an injury while being yelled at by a cop or being harmlessly delayed a few minutes too long is not. In the case you've articulated here, I think most good lawyers would tell you to save your money and write the letter I've described, but I'll leave that up to you.

It's always best to resolve the complaint at the lowest possible level and revert to letter writing only after that fails, which I understand to be the case here. Once again, factual objectivity will be what counts in having your complaint taken seriously. FWIW

MG

PS....lodging your complaint on an internet gun forum will not bring about the corrections you're looking for, and the advice obtained there isn't reliable enough to base a suit on. See a lawyer if you think you need to sue.

Well said!!! and Quoted for historical.