Got pulled over this morning with handgun in vehicle

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I am probably one of the most carefull not to violate a Constitutional Right officer around here. Imagine a Terry Frisk if you will. I can't tell you how many officers I have seen say, "let me pat you down". "Oh wait whats this? Where did you get this weed?" I say this because I have had supervisors ask me why I didn't.... Just because they can sleep at night after a violation of a constitutional right doesn't mean I can. I had a classic text book case of a search with the Alttoids can which I am not really supposed to open but 99.9% of officers open it. Closed containers are supposed to be a no go unless the police allready know whats inside. This is where a gun case is a gun case.

This thread is interesting and educational. I don't have firm opinions or knowledge of law and procedures. Sounds like a no-brainer that if a driver is stopped then the best path is cooperation if the officer wants to check a carry gun. Cooperate and let things go as smooth as possible. Nobody appreciates drama on the job.

Many folks have people to do and things to meet, but I work at home and if I'm out driving, usually ain't in a hurry except to doctor appointments. If I'm ever stopped and a search requested, have about decided to be friendly and politely refuse, explaining "I'd like to help, nothing personal, but the answer is no on general principle" and then make friendly chat with the ossifers if they happen to decide they don't have anything better to do and they've just got to turn it into an extended dog and warrant show.

It might be educational or even entertaining as long as they don't leave much mess to clean up. I might get peeved if they finish and drive off leaving seats and assorted car parts strewn out on the side of the road. Saw that happen to a fella long ago, which seemed kinda rude. DaveTN said the popo have no obligation to reassemble your car if they dissasemble and don't find anything, but IMO reassembling the car would at least be the neighborly thing to do. Good customer relations and all that.

I guess if they are gonna remove seats they better at least have a long handle torque wrench. It was a beach getting seat bolts out of the Jeep when I had to do it. Had to go buy the longest handle wrench I could find at AutoZone to get the dang bolts out.

====

Anyway, here are curiosity questions in addition to mere demented rambling. Am not looking for loopholes or lessons on how to be a scofflaw, just curious of specifics--

-- Regarding that you said you don't approve of fellow officers ferinstance seizing pocket-weed in a Terry Frisk-- Never heard of a Terry Frisk and had to look it up. Wikipedia says the courts decided it is OK to seize drugs etc if it is "obvious by feel" during a Terry Frisk?

Now I don't approve of drugs but I do think folks should be left alone as much possible. If you would do a Terry Frisk for weapons, find no weapons, and politely ignore what feels a whole lot like a bag of weed in a guy's pocket, then I'm not complaining. It sounds live-and-let-live golden-rule neighborly to me. Am just curious, if the courts have decided that seizing the bag of weed is constitutional, are you in this instance choosing to follow a stricter interpretation of the constitution than the court's interpretation? I have no problem with you doing that. Just curious. Or maybe I misunderstood what you were explaining.

-- When you describe closed containers as off limits unless you already know what is inside them-- The altoids tin versus a rifle case which one might reasonably presume contains a rifle-- Is that in context of a Terry Frisk? Or in context of items easily visible in the vehicle and searchable with RS or PC without a warrant? Or both?

I go to the range with a large canvas bag full of assorted targets, ammo, tools, kitchen sink, and pistols each in their factory pistol cases. It travels in the back of the jeep and is sometimes easily visible.

This bag is just a generic big canvas bag. Dunno if a "reasonable person" would be forced to conclude that it definitely contains guns. The ratty old bag could just as easily contain dirty clothes, birds and blooms magazines, or a cherished collection of rare antique polonium neutron triggers.

If you haven't decided it worth yer time to get a warrant but you happened to be curious what's in the bag-- Now if asked nicely I would most likely boast that the bag is full of fine pistols and precision ammo. But would politely refuse a search request on general principle. And if you decided to do it anyway I'd reserve any complaining for a later date if any complaining needed to be done. Possibly if you don't think you legally need my permission to look in the bag then you wouldn't ask permission anyway, except possibly a mind game.

However, if yer customer is not so forthcoming and he won't tell you what is in the bag-- Do you need a doggie sniff or a warrant to unzip the bag?

-- An additional variant-- I carry a folded up old painter tarp and a couple of old KFC boxes for camouflage. The back windows are factory tinted. The interior details are not immediately visible to a passer-by, but if you take the trouble to peek in from close up then interior details are easy to see.

So if wally world is the destination after the range, when packing up I sloppy-drape the old tarp over the range bag and toss the KFC boxes on top. Try to make it look like a bunch of useless junk not worthy of a daylight smash'n'grab in the walmart parking lot.

Anyway, if you stopped me on the way from the range to wallyworld and all that is easily visible is a nasty tarp and a couple of KFC boxes-- Without PC, dog sniff, warrant, or whatever, can you legally look under the tarp?

====

Thanks. To reiterate, I'm not asking for smuggling lessons. Just curious about the "closed container" and "easily visible" issues that you were explaining.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils
spelling and grammar

[jport]

They told me that the dog indicating was probable cause. No warrant needed if probable cause right? When I asked if that was going to fly with my Attorney, I was told that that was the law. I think this thread is very interesting myself. I know that the vast majority of LEO are out to do the right thing, and that some of the others just fall victim to not having enough knowledge of what to do. As I am much older now than I was during that Memphis stop(profiling a young'n I think), and dont expect that to ever happen again, I think it is important to know where you stand. And when your rights have been violated, intentional or not.

[Fallguy]

They told me that the dog indicating was probable cause. No warrant needed if probable cause right? When I asked if that was going to fly with my Attorney, I was told that that was the law. I think this thread is very interesting myself. I know that the vast majority of LEO are out to do the right thing, and that some of the others just fall victim to not having enough knowledge of what to do. As I am much older now than I was during that Memphis stop(profiling a young'n I think), and dont expect that to ever happen again, I think it is important to know where you stand. And when your rights have been violated, intentional or not.

One of the LEOs or former LEOs can say for sure, but Yes, AFAIK the dog "hitting" is PC to search. Of course I'm not sure how you are supposed to know they have hit. Some dogs are passive some scratch. I truly feel if they want to search, the dog is going to "hit" regardless of what the dog does.

[Patton]

Wow, a lot to answer. If i feel obvious drugs I act but if its something like a couple pills, dime bag, etc i wait to add that charge to any others but otherwise I wont charge for only drugs from a Frisk search.

[DaveTN]

But the point is the guy was clearly in the wrong, how many nights did he spend in jail? None. How much did he have to pay out of his pocket for violating the law? Not a single penny.

I believe you were talking earlier about Altoids containers, and how a lot of officers bend the rules on those, but you don't... How many would do that if your first offense for performing an illegal search was a life time loss of your POST certification and 10 years in state prison?

Today those officers bend the rules, have no skin in the game if they get caught... maybe a druggie gets off... but they don't loose their career, have no risk of loosing their house from civil law suits, and won't spend a night in jail.

This is my broken window theory of law enforcement, because we allow public servants to violate small rights, with no punishment, bigger rights end up getting violated... place harsh punishments on small violations and you'll rarely see the big ones happen.

But, the truth is, we need to move investigation of government employees out of the DAs office and create a completely separate group who is not beholden to any other agency or department.

Are you kidding me? We have a President right now that is the most beatable I have seen in my lifetime. Yet he is going to remain in office because the republicans don’t have anyone to run against him that can beat him. Why? No one wants the job; they don’t want to deal with the people that pry into everything they have ever done in their lives. Good people don’t want the job.

Yet you think you are going to find a bunch of good ole boys that are living at the foot of cross, have as much legal training as a criminal defense attorney, are experts on the Constitution and the case laws that go with it, will work for what a cop makes, and know that they are going to be fired and go to jail if they make a mistake? Good luck with that.

Just because some liberal criminal hugging Judge wants to restrict a cop’s ability to do his job, doesn’t make it right.

Only the courts can rule if there is violation of rights. Not the Police Department, not the DA, and not some goon squad you want to put together to fire cops.

Yes, I have seen the caliber of cops go down. And it’s going to get worse because the best don’t want the job; they don't want to work for people like you.

[JayC]

Dave,

In all fairness, we don't see eye to eye politically So I won't bring Presidential politics into this

If we'd just follow the constitution it would solve a lot of things.

The 4th amendment means what it says... unless you have a written warrant signed by a judge you can't search or seize any item. No probably cause, RAS, terry stops, exigent circumstances.... The reason police officers need a law degree today is because the courts have made so many exceptions to the constitution... take the exceptions away and it's pretty easy that everybody with a 5th grade education knows... here is a car, need a signed warrant to search it... Here is somebodies backpack, need a signed warrant to search it... etc.

We have few exceptions (ie violations) to the Constitution, then it would be much simpler for everybody involved... including police officers, who I personally think the vast majority want to respect citizens rights, but there is so much BS that is 'case law' they make human mistakes. Make the process much simpler for the police officers, and we'd see fewer human mistakes happening.

Now as for my comment about a group outside the DAs office to investigate and prosecute public servants.... I stand by that idea... Think of a Grand Jury with their own Prosecutors who work for them. You'd still have your day in court, but the lawyer prosecuting you wouldn't be in an office that works with your agency on a regular basis.

Are you kidding me? We have a President right now that is the most beatable I have seen in my lifetime. Yet he is going to remain in office because the republicans don’t have anyone to run against him that can beat him. Why? No one wants the job; they don’t want to deal with the people that pry into everything they have ever done in their lives. Good people don’t want the job.

Yet you think you are going to find a bunch of good ole boys that are living at the foot of cross, have as much legal training as a criminal defense attorney, are experts on the Constitution and the case laws that go with it, will work for what a cop makes, and know that they are going to be fired and go to jail if they make a mistake? Good luck with that.

Just because some liberal criminal hugging Judge wants to restrict a cop’s ability to do his job, doesn’t make it right.

Only the courts can rule if there is violation of rights. Not the Police Department, not the DA, and not some goon squad you want to put together to fire cops.

Yes, I have seen the caliber of cops go down. And it’s going to get worse because the best don’t want the job; they don't want to work for people like you.

[DaveTN]

If we'd just follow the constitution it would solve a lot of things.

The 4th amendment means what it says... unless you have a written warrant signed by a judge you can't search or seize any item. No probably cause, RAS, terry stops, exigent circumstances.... The reason police officers need a law degree today is because the courts have made so many exceptions to the constitution... take the exceptions away and it's pretty easy that everybody with a 5th grade education knows... here is a car, need a signed warrant to search it... Here is somebodies backpack, need a signed warrant to search it... etc.

We have few exceptions (ie violations) to the Constitution, then it would be much simpler for everybody involved... including police officers, who I personally think the vast majority want to respect citizens rights, but there is so much BS that is 'case law' they make human mistakes. Make the process much simpler for the police officers, and we'd see fewer human mistakes happening.

Now as for my comment about a group outside the DAs office to investigate and prosecute public servants.... I stand by that idea... Think of a Grand Jury with their own Prosecutors who work for them. You'd still have your day in court, but the lawyer prosecuting you wouldn't be in an office that works with your agency on a regular basis.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4^th amendment protects you from unreasonable searches. Not all searches, just unreasonable ones. It also doesn’t require a warrant for all searches. Rarely are you going to see (or need) a warrant on a vehicle search. Even a fith grader knows that.

I see them as good cops doing their jobs; trash collectors if you will. You see them as picking on the poor drug dealers and gang bangers.

I’ve never ask for permission to search a vehicle that I didn’t already have PC to search, and I’ve never (That I can remember) not been able to search a vehicle that I wanted to search and do it legally.

[Patton]

Jayc, you need to study some Case Law.

[JayC]

Jayc, you need to study some Case Law.

Patton,

I'm very familiar with case law, I just don't think it's a good legal theory

We once had 300 years or more of case law that said it was perfectly legal to own other humans, we now realize that is an immoral act and a violation of the slaves God given rights.

Case law is being abused to continue to erode Constitutional protections, it's a flawed legal theory when applied to criminal law.

[Patton]

So what your saying is I should just sit at the Police station and wait for people to turn them selves in because even a traffic stop has allready been concedered seizure(temporary). However a crime or infraction has been commited to give me PC top do the stop.

[JayC]

Dave,

I completely agree, the 4th amendment protects us from unreasonable searches, but that is just the first part of the amendment, it also outlines, that you must have a warrant, that warrant must be based on probable cause, the person making the claims on probable cause must swear or affirm to the truth of the claims, and the warrant must document exactly where the search is to take place, whom or what is to be seized.

The first part, it a protection against unreasonable warrants... In the late 1700's there was no other type of search permitted under English common law. Before the revolutionary war (and during it) British soldiers would write their own search warrants, even the British soldiers understood to search a mans home or his person you needed a warrant. The 4th Amendment was put in place to protect against what the founders saw as a tyrannical government run amuck... by those standards our current government is far worse.

I understand that current case law does allow for a lot of exceptions to the 4th amendment, that doesn't make the exceptions moral, or not a violation of a persons God given rights, just a form of tyranny.

My world view is far different from yours... I see a government that creates a huge mess, then over reacts and creates a bigger mess... and a bunch of police officers trying to do the best they can to clean the mess up. It's a Sisyphean response to a self created problem. Focus on the root causes, the mess will become manageable, and we won't need such drastic police powers to resolve the remaining mess.

For example, realize we've failed to win the war on drugs, we can never win the war on drugs, and we're creating more problems in society than the drugs would on their own. Allow the corner drug store to sell whatever adults want to put in their bodies, and a vast majority of the searches police officers need to do today go away over night. Gang bangers are there because we're trying to outlaw drugs, and people want drugs so bad they're willing to do anything to get them... when was the last time you saw 2 liquor store owners do drive by shootings on the competition? Take away costs associated with smuggling drugs into this country and avoiding confiscation, the cost of the drugs gets really cheap, as inexpensive as tobacco or alcohol ... While there will be some criminal activity still surrounding the use of drugs, it will drop to a much more manageable level, and would make police work much safer.

Focus police efforts on real crimes, where somebody is physically hurt, or has something stolen. More of your police force is doing detective work, the amount of 'preventative' policing goes way down... although traffic investigations might go up slightly do to a slight increase in DWI cases for a couple of decades... truth is technology is going to solve DWI in the next 20-30 years anyhow, and traffic units are going to go away. At the same time you'd see a drastic decrease in petty theft... since the costs of the drugs would go way down.

It won't be some utopia, good people will still be killed by stupid criminals from time to time... somebody's child will get hooked on drugs and ruin lives all around them... these things are happening today, they will continue to happen whether we legalize drugs or not.

The 4^th amendment protects you from unreasonable searches. Not all searches, just unreasonable ones. It also doesn’t require a warrant for all searches. Rarely are you going to see (or need) a warrant on a vehicle search. Even a fith grader knows that.

I see them as good cops doing their jobs; trash collectors if you will. You see them as picking on the poor drug dealers and gang bangers.

I’ve never ask for permission to search a vehicle that I didn’t already have PC to search, and I’ve never (That I can remember) not been able to search a vehicle that I wanted to search and do it legally.

[jport]

I see them as good cops doing their jobs; trash collectors if you will. You see them as picking on the poor drug dealers and gang bangers.

This is the kind of inflated language that causes such divisive debates. I don't think most people who speak for stricter police guidelines see police solely as a barrier for drug dealers and gang bangers. People who see different sides of the spectrum--police as autonomous, individualized enforcers as opposed to tax-paid, protectors of society--still, essentially, want the same criminals off the street, and I think the majority of us harping for more control over police action still value the crucial job these officers do of monitoring for serious criminals. What it is that I was trying to point out with my story of being hassled, searched, and profiled for no apparent reason other than an all-knowing because-the-dogs-said-so be-all-end-all rule was that there are myriad possible interpretations between the constitution and individual police action. One word in the 4th amendment--unreasonable--does not mean that the constitution is up for vast re-interpretation between thousands of police officers, all subjectively deciding what it is that they deem reasonable or not so without any sort of governing repercussion.

One side doesn't have to be liberal, criminal-hugging hippies, and the other doesn't have to be constitution-abiding, law-loving conservatives. There is a vast amount of grey area between those two black and whites. I am a constitution-abiding, gun-loving, criminal-hating liberal. It doesn't need to be one or the other.

What happened to me is a minuscule example of abused police power. And that's not to say that there aren't just as many or more officers out there who hold their power sacred and do everything they can to keep the rest of their communities safe--these are the officers I'm proud to pay my taxes to support. I think what the other side is saying is that there needs to be something--and I'm not claiming to know the answer for that is--in place to keep police power in check, beyond complaining about it in a forum.

[Patton]

Jayc you dont understand there basically has allready been a blanket warrant issued for sircumstances that mimic allready decided Case Law.

[Patton]

Case Law is on the books so we can learn what has allready be decided as constituitional. What your suggesting is that we should carry a Judge around in our cars to issue warrants for every traffic stop. A friend of mine had a Judge ride with him one night for 1 hour before he had seen enough.

[JayC]

So what your saying is I should just sit at the Police station and wait for people to turn them selves in because even a traffic stop has allready been concedered seizure(temporary). However a crime or infraction has been commited to give me PC top do the stop.

Patton, if I were king? I doubt you would recognize police work

First, I think we should move away from police officers performing traffic enforcement and use technology more. It's a lot less expensive, and a lot safer for officers.

Second, I believe that arresting a person you see commit a felony, it is perfectly constitutional. You can take that person before a judge or magistrate and they issue a warrant/order to hold that person on your oath to the acts you witnessed. That standard meets the smell test on both the 4th and 5th amendments.

But, I think there should be a firewall on searches... police officers need to be able to search people being arrested for their protection, I just don't think they get to use that as evidence against somebody at the same time. So you can take my wallet and place it in a bag, but you can't look through it just because you're arresting me. The same goes for papers, cell phones, computers etc. And even firearms... anything you see is fruit of the poisonous tree... Yes I'm aware more bad guys will go free in a system like that.

And I think exigent circumstance exception needs to be tossed out the window in the dead of winter and left for dead. Officers have a moral responsibility to protect life... you want to break down a door because you hear a kidnap victim in a house... you should have legal protections to allow you to do that, but just know anything you see or find, gets tossed and can never be used in a court of law.

Truth is, the right balance is probably somewhere in between where we are today and where it was 160 years ago... The real issue is to get rid of stupid laws which don't work, will never work, and reduce the number issues police officers are having to deal with... Just think if all you had to do was respond to real calls? You'd probably be doing a lot fewer searches anyhow, and have the time to really do investigations and find people who are committing real crimes.

[JayC]

Case Law is on the books so we can learn what has allready be decided as constituitional. What your suggesting is that we should carry a Judge around in our cars to issue warrants for every traffic stop. A friend of mine had a Judge ride with him one night for 1 hour before he had seen enough.

Patton,

I don't think you need to carry around a judge in your back pocket... I just think you need to be doing a lot of different things day to day...

Lets talk about traffic stops, what percentage of your traffic stops result in a person being written a ticket and sent on their way? What is the ratio between criminal traffic stops and administrative stops?

Now take away all the administrative stops... no more speeding tickets, broken tail lights, expired tags, etc... We let a computer and a camera handle all of those automatically.

If you see a crime you can stop and arrest somebody for a crime that you see committed. You don't need a judge in your back pocket... you arrest the person... In the process of that investigation you get probable cause to search the vehicle... sit down in your patrol car, type out a search warrant and hit submit, wait 5 or 10 minutes for a judge to read and approve or deny your request for a search warrant.

[Patton]

I m going to stop this and say I wish people would just lock their doors, hide valuables, discipline their kids, and take care of themselves. I wouldn't have no where near as much work to do.

[JayC]

Jayc you dont understand there basically has allready been a blanket warrant issued for sircumstances that mimic allready decided Case Law.

No I understand the twisted logic that is used today to try and make things look legal.. A warrant can not be valid without probable cause, which specifies whom or what is to be seized and where.

A 'blanket' warrant on it's face is unconstitutional. Because it can not list the person or item to be searched or seized, nor where that item/person is located. This is exactly why we have a 4th amendment, because we knew just how bad warrants could be abused.

Patton, I understand this is not how our current legal system works today... I promise I'm not stupid I'm just saying the current system perverts our constitutionally protected rights.

Edited February 1, 2012 by JayC

[Patton]

Actually I dont really do that many traffic stops maybe 2 per 12hr shift and I may right both or 1 a ticket. Ill do a few more on a weekend and ecreen for a DUI. I do a lot more casual stops onf people walking or loitering midnight hrs.

[hkgonra]

Dave,

My world view is far different from yours... I see a government that creates a huge mess, then over reacts and creates a bigger mess... and a bunch of police officers trying to do the best they can to clean the mess up. It's a Sisyphean response to a self created problem. Focus on the root causes, the mess will become manageable, and we won't need such drastic police powers to resolve the remaining mess.

People on both sides of this argument have said things I agree with and things I disagree with but this seems to be the truest statement I have seen yet. I have MANY close friends in law enforcement and I have never considered cops in any way the enemy. I have seen cops ( and all of us in various ways ) reacting to government created problems that ends up taking away all of our rights in order to try and give us some safety. It never works.

My favorite example of looking at the big picture is the myth that our departments are understaffed. Weactually have too many cops , it is just that our prisons are undercrowded.

[hkgonra]

I m going to stop this and say I wish people would just lock their doors, hide valuables, and take care of themselves. I wouldn't have no where near as much work to do.

We used to live in a society where you really didn't need to do that. But that was when we used to shoot or at least really punish crime and before we started as a society raising criminals generations with welfare, food stamps and housing projects. Makes about as much sense as a farmer raising rabid dogs.

Edited February 1, 2012 by hkgonra

[mikegideon]

We used to live in a society where you really didn't need to do that. But that was when we used to shoot or at least really punish crime and before we started as a society raising criminals generations with welfare, food stamps and housing projects. Makes about as much sense as a farmer raising rabid dogs.

I have been a victim of quite a bit of crime on a business level, and have had the chance to discuss it with a number of good, experienced cops. Yes, we cultivate our criminals these days. Law enforcement has their hands tied in a lot of ways. At this point, it's not a new thing.

[DaveTN]

Patton, if I were king? I doubt you would recognize police work

You wouldn’t be King for more than a day; the criminals you are trying to protect would drag you to into the street, kill you and eat you; you have no protection. The people that were left to witness that would probably do away with the whole King idea after seeing what happened to you. They might think a Democracy or maybe even a Republic might be a better way to go.

Maybe in their new set of “Rules†they will make all searches require a warrant? Maybe they could do away with traffic stops altogether. Maybe they have cops be dispatched from a “Police House†just like firemen are only when they are needed.

Oh but wait….. You are going to have a problem. You are going to have deal with the families of the dead victims. The families of the kids that were killed by the drug dealers and users you protect, or the families of the dead victims of the drunk drivers that your “Technology†didn’t work on. And because you want to completely tie the hands of the Police, or not have cops at all, there will be a lot of those people speaking out…. And running for office.

Maybe when they want justice you can throw out some old Thomas Jefferson quotes taken out of context and that will help.

[Guest pfries]

OUCH!!! I get what JayC is after but

[DaveTN]

My favorite example of looking at the big picture is the myth that our departments are understaffed. Weactually have too many cops , it is just that our prisons are undercrowded.

We have to either get our economy fixed and get people back to work or we need to build more prisons. Since fixing the economy rest on the shoulders of the American people; I would suggest we start building more prisons.

As our economy gets worse you are going to see more and more of your friends and family become victims of violent crimes. The Police try to do what they can; but they are reactive not proactive.

We are moving towards having more people in public service and medical than we have working in jobs that pay the bills. That can't work.