THP out of control

[TN-popo]

.

Edited September 27, 2010 by TN-popo

[Guest RevScottie]

I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned why this car was likely pulled over. I had a friend who worked for a narcotics task force. They patrolled the freeway and looked for cars that fit a certain profile. Tinted windows was part of that profile. The LEO was likely looking for drugs and when none where found things went the way they did. We weren't there so there is no telling what was said by either party to get to this end result.

Besides I doubt this guy is really a God fearing patriot or he would have been carrying an American made firearm instead of that Commie AK47

[strickj]

Without saying what everyone else has said in this thread about the alleged events.....

It sounds like this guy has watched Red Dawn one too many times!

With his statement about fighting to protect police and that amount of ammo, he is definitively off his rocker!

[DaveTN]

Now all charges have been dropped, so the bad guys are basically acknowledging that they had no real legal reason to take the weapons in the first place. But still they make the victim jump through all these hoops and pay about $1000 total just to get the guns back.

And, of course, the officer who took the guns without reason, is still on the force patrolling the highways, writing tickets, doing his thing.

The guns taken are just about equal in value to the costs the victim had to pay in getting them back, so the calculation in the minds of all involved in the confiscation is that most people will not go through all the hassle to get their guns back and that the TN highway patrol can, in most instances, just take guns and property with no recourse.

I was arrested for having a gun in my car. I was guilty as hell; never made any argument otherwise. But I got the charges dismissed. That doesn’t mean I was innocent; it just means I spent the money to play the game.

We are discussing the circumstances of a case that we can’t even determined ever happed.

Why would someone make up the story…. For exactly what you see going on here and having a thread named “THP out of controlâ€. Drammmmmaaaaa.

[Raoul]

I was arrested for having a gun in my car. I was guilty as hell; never made any argument otherwise. But I got the charges dismissed. That doesn’t mean I was innocent; it just means I spent the money to play the game.

We are discussing the circumstances of a case that we can’t even determined ever happed.

Why would someone make up the story…. For exactly what you see going on here and having a thread named “THP out of controlâ€. Drammmmmaaaaa.

Hmm, must be Voldemorts.

[DaveTN]

Hmm, must be Voldemorts.

Hmm, you must be new here.

[Smith]

I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned why this car was likely pulled over. I had a friend who worked for a narcotics task force. They patrolled the freeway and looked for cars that fit a certain profile. Tinted windows was part of that profile. The LEO was likely looking for drugs and when none where found things went the way they did. We weren't there so there is no telling what was said by either party to get to this end result.

Besides I doubt this guy is really a God fearing patriot or he would have been carrying an American made firearm instead of that Commie AK47 :)

Says the guy with a fascist Italian Beretta as his avatar!

[Guest RevScottie]

Says the guy with a fascist Italian Beretta as his avatar!

Nope, the one in my profile was made by the good ole boys down in Brazil

I do have my Amurican made Kel Tec, Smith and Wessons, and Ithaca though.

[vontar]

What is boils down to, the guy seems to have consented to a search.

We still do not know where the Ammo was in relation to the guns.

[DaveTN]

What is boils down to, the guy seems to have consented to a search.

We still do not know where the Ammo was in relation to the guns.

I don’t see where it says that the Trooper ask for permission to search.

If you are buying this story, he says the ammo was having a peaceful ride in the trunk with the AK (that was unloaded and in a case) and the handgun (that was unloaded and in a lockbox.)

I told Him no drugs, but that I did have a pistol in a locked box, locked in the trunk of the car.

At that point I informed Officer Loftis that there was also an un-loaded rifle in its case in the trunk. He wanted to see it as well. I pointed to where He could locate the case, and when He removed the un-loaded rifle from its case (AK-47 semi-automatic rifle),

The Younger Officer, Michael Robertson, found the ammunition for the rifle, (approx 1100 rounds) which was still wrapped in plastic and in a box and separated from the rifle which had been in its case, and the search was over.

But no trouble presented itself, so the rifle and the ammunition STAYED IN THE TRUNK, and was on its way back home to Colorado, PEACEFULLY.

[TN-popo]

What is boils down to, the guy seems to have consented to a search.

Or, the guy got a speeding ticket from Loftis and made the whole damn thing up.

There's enough goofy stuff in his story to make me suspect as much.

-He's such a good documenter, where's the copy of the formal complaint / paperwork that he filed with THP / TBI?

-Where's the copy of the THP property receipt...property taken / property returned?

-If we're naming names, what's the name of the Internal Affairs THP / TBI Investigator that he spoke with?

-He felt the need to take 1100 rounds to a Tea Party / 2A Rally in case of a disturbance (and it's still in the plastic)? Weirdo.

As I said, IF the account is true (which I very much doubt), then fire at least one Trooper.

You can "what if" search and seizure law / this incident all day long, but I you'd be wasting your time on something that probably didn't happen or happened very differently from what was posted.

If, if, if..."If your Aunt had balls, she'd be your Uncle."

Let me see something substantial and not just blatherings on some blog.

Edited September 28, 2010 by TN-popo

[dralarms]

But it still has not been determined that the hand gun was unloaded. Not once has anyone said that it was loaded or unloaded, only that the rifle was "unloaded" which leads me to suspect something was going on.

[Raoul]

Hmm, you must be new here.

Somedays I feel new to the planet...lol

[vontar]

I don’t see where it says that the Trooper ask for permission to search.

If you are buying this story, he says the ammo was having a peaceful ride in the trunk with the AK (that was unloaded and in a case) and the handgun (that was unloaded and in a lockbox.)

I was kinda peacing together from the story and the comments.

However, there is the part where in his story where he unlocked the box for the trooper. That seems like consenting to a search.

Hanging out on this site, I have learned so much more about my rights, things I just took for granted in the past.

I do not give consent to search.

Edited September 27, 2010 by vontar

[DaveTN]

I was kinda peacing together from the story and the comments.

However, there is the part where in his story where he unlocked the box for the trooper. That seems like consenting to a search.

Hanging out on this site, I have learned so much more about my rights, things I just took for granted in the past.

I do not give consent to search.

That is a great plan as long as you have nothing illegal in your vehicle.

Following the instructions of an Officer is not giving consent. The Officer can ask you for consent to search (that does not mean he doesn’t already have PC) and you have the right to either grant permission or refuse. If you are clean; it really doesn’t matter. If you have something illegal in your car you better pause and think before you answer because the words that come out of your mouth at that moment could impact your future. The fact that someone told you to always refuse a search may not be much comfort if you are standing there in handcuffs watching your vehicle being towed away.

I think most cops are like I was, they just ask for permission to make conversation and see how things are going to go. They already have PC for a search.

[daddyo]

If we didn't have tragic accounts such as the Costco shooting in Las Vegas involving Erik Scott (coroner's inquest continues today, I believe), I would be hesitant to say that there is a small part of the LEO community who is violating the constitutional rights of the citizenry. Unfortunately, there are many accounts surfacing on YouTube that are starting to make me uneasy and distrustful.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Because some people love to make up stupid **** about cops.

I've been a civilian cop for 15 years and I am currently a shift SGT who supervises 12 officers. When the officer's audio/video is checked, the majority of citizen complaints are either TOTAL BS or an misunderstanding of proper police procedure.

Sometimes I don't like what I see when I review an officer's A/V, but it's a rarity.

I'm not saying that this account can't be true...believe me, I've known some idiot THP Troopers (in fact, one was fired, in part, for something he did to me).

I am saying that I'm not going to throw these Troopers under the bus just because some guy posts something on the internet.

As we are all aware, there are all kind of people out there that make all kind of stuff up, but jumping to a

conclusion about this, if it had merit(I have my doubts, also) appears unproductive. There are good and

bad in all walks of life. I ain't siding with anyone, but I ain't going to be a sycophant, either. If nothing

happens, fine.

I show my HCP card with my license when I get stopped, ask the officer what I did, don't admit to anything, and it usually turns out fine. The last time it happened to me was a couple weeks ago in Benton County. It turned out my brake lights weren't working. We talked about what each of us carried. He was a young guy and pretty damned decent about everything. No ticket.

The reason I said the above is that how the communication goes usually determines the result, unless it's obvious you're guilty of something you're not saying and there is obvious evidence. In other words,I just asked a simple question. I'd like to hear facts.

TN-popo, your answer and conclusion is good enough for me until the facts show differently. All I saw is what I read, but I also know every state trooper I've met has been the most courteous example of state government I've ever seen. But there's some other reason it happened.

Just the facts, man!

Edited September 27, 2010 by 6.8 AR

[LagerHead]

I was kinda peacing together from the story and the comments.

However, there is the part where in his story where he unlocked the box for the trooper. That seems like consenting to a search.

Hanging out on this site, I have learned so much more about my rights, things I just took for granted in the past.

I do not give consent to search.

Unfortunately for him, according to the story, they brought out a drug dog that indicated he smelled something - probable cause.

That is a great plan as long as you have nothing illegal in your vehicle.

Following the instructions of an Officer is not giving consent. The Officer can ask you for consent to search (that does not mean he doesn’t already have PC) and you have the right to either grant permission or refuse. If you are clean; it really doesn’t matter. If you have something illegal in your car you better pause and think before you answer because the words that come out of your mouth at that moment could impact your future. The fact that someone told you to always refuse a search may not be much comfort if you are standing there in handcuffs watching your vehicle being towed away.

I think most cops are like I was, they just ask for permission to make conversation and see how things are going to go. They already have PC for a search.

Do you mean because of the drug dog? If not, they apparently didn't. At least according to this version. Or maybe the fact that he indicated that he had guns in the trunk? Of course since that is not illegal I don't think that would apply either.

If we didn't have tragic accounts such as the Costco shooting in Las Vegas involving Erik Scott (coroner's inquest continues today, I believe), I would be hesitant to say that there is a small part of the LEO community who is violating the constitutional rights of the citizenry. Unfortunately, there are many accounts surfacing on YouTube that are starting to make me uneasy and distrustful.

Just remember that nobody posts videos of their uneventful and respectful LEO encounters.

[vontar]

Unfortunately for him, according to the story, they brought out a drug dog that indicated he smelled something - probable cause.

BTW, don't take this the wrong way, I still think the story is full of holes. As I said pages back, we only have 1 side. I am just adding it seems like he in some way consented to search, before the dogs checked for drugs.

The order of events from Dan Howley

Officer Loftis then told me to exit the vehicle and open the trunk. After I complied and opened the trunk, Officer Loftis could plainly see that it was EXACTLY as I had said. Officer Loftis then told me to unlock the guncase and then told me to step away from the vehicle.

was 2 paragraphs before he brought the dog out. The guns had already been checked. Seems he had already been searched to some point. As I understand, he could have said he does not consent to a search before that point?

I am not fully up to speed on how that works, but I have watched a few videos on youtube about it and it seems pretty straight forward.

Seems that would be the point to say you do not consent to a search before being ask to open the trunk, correct me if I am wrong as if I am I need to know.

Edited September 27, 2010 by vontar

[TN-popo]

In other words,I just asked a simple question. I'd like to hear facts.

TN-popo, your answer and conclusion is good enough for me until the facts show differently. All I saw is what I read, but I also know every state trooper I've met has been the most courteous example of state government I've ever seen. But there's some other reason it happened.

Just the facts, man!

Agreed and post #25 wasn't an attack or snotty towards you. Hope you didn't take it that way.

Also, I edited post #61 for additional thoughts.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't take it that way, NP

This thing's probably overblown anyway. Supposition does get in the way of truth, though,

and can lead people down the wrong path.

[DaveTN]

ISeems that would be the point to say you do not consent to a search before being ask to open the trunk, correct me if I am wrong as if I am I need to know.

You are not required to specifically tell the Officer that you are not consenting to a search; he is required to specifically ask you if you are voluntarily allowing him to search. If he has PC he doesn’t need your consent. If he conveys that to you all you can do is let him do whatever he is going to do. You are not required to open a trunk if he tells you to, but if he has PC the trunk is getting opened.

Your own common sense will tell you what to do during a traffic stop. Don't be stupid.

[vontar]

Yea I agree, with the Don't be stupid bit 100 percent.

The biggest problem I have every had with a traffic stop was I was pulled over about 10 p.m. about a half mile from a Bar, reason given he said I was swerving and crossing the white line and he felt I might have been impaired. I had not even been drinking or at at bar that night. In fact I had actually just drove past it on my way to work. He did hold me up enough to make me about 20 minutes late for work while he checked my tag, license and what ever else he checked.

The trouble, he had to find something, so he me clean my license plate. It was dusty. I lived on a dirt road at the time.

No ticket or anything on paper from the event.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

If he has PC he doesn’t need your consent. If he conveys that to you all you can do is let him do whatever he is going to do. You are not required to open a trunk if he tells you to, but if he has PC the trunk is getting opened.

If I got pulled over and my trunk was completely EMPTY, with nothing but carpet, and he asked to search, I would still say no. If he had PC, yes it would be opened, but I'm not gonna say, "Yeah, go ahead and open it up there fella..." Not trying to start anything or attack you, just my personal opinion. The only thing a nice, cordial police officer is going to open on my car, is something he has PC to open. Cause I will give consent to nothing... Even if it is EMPTY.

[DaveTN]

If I got pulled over and my trunk was completely EMPTY, with nothing but carpet, and he asked to search, I would still say no. If he had PC, yes it would be opened, but I'm not gonna say, "Yeah, go ahead and open it up there fella..." Not trying to start anything or attack you, just my personal opinion. The only thing a nice, cordial police officer is going to open on my car, is something he has PC to open. Cause I will give consent to nothing... Even if it is EMPTY.

If you have had nothing to drink, aren’t high, and there is nothing illegal in your car… thumb your nose at the cop.

Most everyone on the Internet says they wouldn’t let a cop search; just like they all say they will invoke Miranda. As a cop I just didn’t see it happen much.