Passengers with HCP and car gets pulled over

[Guest canynracer]

That was a little extreme and in-your-face. But he made the basic point: you are not necessarily under any obligation to answer questions like that. And in the end he was not detained and waved through without having to answer.

yes, it was extreme, a simple "Yes" to the intial question could have saved a lot of time, especially for the people behind him...but I see your point.

As for the other points made, no one is calling anyone an *******. But I personally am disappointed that people who claim to value freedom as much as they do seem so willing to give it up for nothing.

On the other side though, I just dont see handing a HCP (that shows I am privelaged to carry) along with my driver license (that shows I am privelaged to drive) is giving up my freedoms....though I certainly do see both sides, I choose the path of least resistance for THIS particular matter. Whether I feel my action to do so provides a certain "respect" I am willing to show to an officer whos job is hard enough as it is. My opinion is that respect is rewarded by a more pleasant, less time consuming encounter.

[Tim Nunan]

Doesn't relate to HCP but otherwise yes:

http://www.lawreader.com/index.php/browse/node/7438.html

Fed appeals court says motorist's refusal to give police his name is no cause for arrest

By Rob Moritz Arkansas News Bureau Saturday, Apr 5, 2008

LITTLE ROCK - A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed an Arkansas federal judge's ruling and ordered a new hearing in a Benton County man's lawsuit challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification during a traffic stop.

"It is amazing how many times I have had people convicted for doing the same thing," said Rogers attorney Doug Norwood. "You have to have a reasonable suspicion that the individual person is either committing a crime or about to."

Norwood filed the original lawsuit on behalf of Richard M. Stufflebeam of Lowell.

Stufflebeam was a passenger in his grandson's car in May 2003 when the vehicle was stopped by a state trooper. The driver was not issued a citation during the traffic stop. When Trooper Jeff W. Harris asked the grandfather for identification, he told the officer he did not have to show any ID.

"It was an afterthought," Norwood said. "The officer asked Mr. Stufflebeam for his ID and he said 'no.'"

The trooper "returned to his vehicle and requested backup," the court said.

"When two additional officers arrived, Harris asked Stufflebeam to exit the vehicle," the ruling said, adding that Stufflebeam was handcuffed and placed in the back of the trooper's cruiser. He was taken to jail and charged with obstructing governmental operations.

The prosecutor's office later dismissed the charge in district court and Stufflebeam filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Harris, alleging the trooper had no probable cause to arrest him.

U.S. District Court Judge Jimm Hendren dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the trooper had qualified immunity as a police officer and that Stufflebeam failed to state a claim. Stufflebeam appealed to the 8th Circuit.

In its ruling Friday, the federal court panel referenced a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop."

There was no evidence Stufflebeam was trying to obstruct justice when he refused to identify himself, the appeals court said.

"Thus, the primary question ... is whether Arkansas law permits a police officer to arrest a person for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of other criminal activity and his identification is not needed to protect officer safety or to resolve whatever reasonable suspicions prompted the officer to initiate an ongoing traffic stop. We conclude it does not," the court said.

The court also said the state trooper did not have qualified immunity from the lawsuit under state statute.

Qualified immunity protects public officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have," the court said, adding that the trooper "acted contrary to the plain meaning" of the state statute.

[Guest canynracer]

We arent debating the law

Edited May 12, 2008 by canynracer

[Fallguy]

re-read the whole article.....carry on

LOL...quick edit there.

[Guest canynracer]

LOL...quick edit there.

Couple of them....but, like I edited in there again...We arent debating the law...

[Fallguy]

Couple of them....but, like I edited in there again...We arent debating the law...

We aren't?

But I guess true to some degree. We are debating if people can choose to do what they want to do. People being LEOs and Citizens. I say both can as long as they play by the rules (laws). In the above case from AR, it looks like the Citizen played by the rules and the LEO didn't. Not when he asked him for ID (a LEO can ask anyone, anything at anytime), but when he arrested the guy for not answering, which apparently the Citizen did not have to do. Now the LEO may have to pay the price for his actions, just like a Citizen does if they don't play by the rules.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Fallguy

[Fallguy]

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2483

Post #1

Has this happened to you?

Awhile ago I was pulled over for speeding maybe 10 miles over at the most on a main road at 2 in the afternoon with my wife. The police officer came to the window. I had already had my hands on the wheel. He asked for my license and insurance nice and politely. I gave him my license, insurance and ccw cards together.When he seen the ccw license his whole demeanor changed. He then asked if the weapon was in the vehicle I told him it was and where it was. Then his hand went to his snap on his weapon. I remained calm not understanding his reaction. I ask him what he wanted to do to help relieve his "stress". He walked backwards to his car with his hand still on his weapon reached into his car and radioed. He stood behind his door for what seemed 30 min. but was closer to 10 min. never taking his hand off his weapon. With this going on I was running though what must be wrong ,or what I did wrong, was it mistaken identity. Believe me I don't even have three speeding tickets in my whole life and they are the worst run in with the police I've ever had. My wife was scared and at the time I had no power to help her. Then after an eternity a second police car with lights and sirens came sliding up across the street. The police officer jumped out behind his door with his weapon partly drawn he stood watching me like I was going to, I don't know turn into a pumpkin. I had no idea why he was so intense. Then the original officer walked up to my window had me sign my ticket gave it to me and let me go. Is that standard operations? I've not been pulled over since and it has me a little nervous. Should I filed a grievance? I had no proof other than my wife. I truly felt like a criminal.

Sorry so long winded.

What would you have done?

Post #23

i was in our local sheriff's office talking to a city leo, a county leo, and a state trooper about traffic stops. neither the local or the county had any problems with concealed carry. the state trooper on the other had was quite different. he said that when he found out you were carrying( by you ) he would draw his weapon on you and seperate you from your weapon until he was done. the other leo's and were shocked at his response. they oviously have no sop's for stopping ccw permit holders. it raises alot of what if's. what if your children are in the vehicle and the leo that you have taught you children are good guys stops you and draws his weapon on you. can you imagine the shock and fright on them? all departments need to sop's on this so the ccw holder knows what to expect and his family members.

[Guest Steelharp]

Wow. Just... wow. I hate to think, "You don't have to have a badge to be a dick... but it helps." That's just a shame... glad the other LEO's were shocked as well. And the first quote... I don't know what to say.

[The Rabbi]

It would be instructive to know where the incident happened. I would think it would be rare in TN where cops are pretty used to private citizens with guns. A place like MI, no telling.

Which brings up my point: I see no upside to presenting the permit, only a downside.

OK, I went and read the thread. Nevada. And the SOB isnt with the dept anymore (of his own volition). I'd recommend anyone to read that thread and the comments with it.

I will say that anyone drawing a weapon on me for no reason is presenting a threat.

Edited May 13, 2008 by The Rabbi

[Fallguy]

Let me say that I don't necessarily believe the two post I referenced in the thread from the other board are common and maybe even less common in TN, but they do happen. Just one reasons some may not be so up front about their carry status.

[Punisher84]

Just one reasons some may not be so up front about their carry status.

It's like anything else though. Especially on forums, it's generally the bad encounters that make it on here. There are something like 200,000 permit holders in TN right? You can figure at least a few of those get pulled over or have some interaction with LEOs a month. Now, I'd say a case would be made for not saying anything if this was a frequent occurrence by every cop on the street, but it isn't. Any officer that acts that way AFTER a valid permit is shown to him needs to go sit through the 8 hour class and watch that state video. Then if he does it again yank him off the street, because he obviously has issues.

I'm in favor of showing the permit, but I'm against anyone acting like an ass. No matter which side of the car window they are on.

[Guest canynracer]

Well, I think we can all agree that there is no SOP for whether or not to show, it is up to you, and only you. You make the decisions, and you deal with the outcome, hopefully for both sides of the debate, the outcome is always pleasant.

I am not sure there is a right or wrong here, but definatley a learning experience for me to see both sides. I guess for me, it will be a mixture of both worlds depending on circumstance, and attitudes at the time of the stop. You are all right, attitude can work both ways, and if a cop is being an ass from the start, I see no reason to bend over for him. On the other hand, if they are pleasant, I will be equally as pleaant.

[molonlabetn]

One can certainly be pleasant without volunteering information which is irrelevant to a traffic stop.

[The Rabbi]

One can certainly be pleasant without volunteering information which is irrelevant to a traffic stop.

Bingo.

And it is situational. If I were pulled over at 10PM and I knew I had a gun in the glove box I would tell the officer I've got a permit and a weapon in the glove box, how do you want me to proceed. That's not so much being nice as self-preservation.

[Guest killemducks]

As far as rights are concerned, the fact that we are required to have a permit to carry is proof already that we have lost said "rights" to a degree.

I think I understand Rabbi's position on this issue. While we may think that just volunteering the permit and the gun at a stop is good etiquette, and it may be, it is somewhat admitting or inferring that having the gun in the first place is a bad thing, or something that we should have permission to do. Let's face it, the permit is, after all, an infringement on our Constitutional right to bear arms.

Fight the power. Respectfully.

killem

[molonlabetn]

As far as rights are concerned, the fact that we are required to have a permit to carry is proof already that we have lost said "rights" to a degree.

I think I understand Rabbi's position on this issue. While we may think that just volunteering the permit and the gun at a stop is good etiquette, and it may be, it is somewhat admitting or inferring that having the gun in the first place is a bad thing, or something that we should have permission to do. Let's face it, the permit is, after all, an infringement on our Constitutional right to bear arms.

Fight the power. Respectfully.

killem

To a degree, yes... I think the argument against that would be that there is no restriction on keeping or bearing whatever arms you may legally own, as long as you are on your own property... All that a permit does is allow you to leave your property with them (loaded handguns, at least). So, it could be argued that the TN permit structure doesn't necessarily violate the 2nd Amendment so much as it begs the question of whether or not people have a 'right' to be in public places. If it's not a right, then the permit is valid (again, this is how I picture 'their' argument)... but, if it is indeed a 'right' to be in public places, then the requirement for a permit is invalid. Because, if that's the case, I don't need anyone's permission to occupy a public place and exercise my rights, any more than on my own property.

[Guest atomemphis]

I've read this whole thread, and must say, I'm a little worried about you people, and your perception or 'rights'.

Many posts here reflect the ignorance of what the 4th and 5th amendments are designed to do.

Don't volunteer ANY information to a LEO. Especially if you've done nothing wrong. Everybody wants to tell their story. Those people routinely find more trouble than they know what do with, even though they are innocent.

You don't say anything, but the usual niceties, and MYOFB mr. passenger. You are along for the ride.

[Guest kwikrnu]

Here is what you do when stopped.

[dralarms]

Here is what you do when stopped.

No that guy was and is an ASS.

[Fallguy]

Here is what you do when stopped.

What you can do...Yes

What you should do......that is up to you.

[Guest atomemphis]

What a douchebag.

[strickj]

Thats what you do not do!

Theres a time and a place to video tape blondes against there will

[The Rabbi]

No that guy was and is an ASS.

No, he was fine. What's an ass is an illegal check point asking questions that they have no constitutional right to ask. While I doubt that kind of behavior is going to elicit much sympathy from a cop there is no reason for a private citizen to submit to illegal detentions, searches, and seizures. And yet it happens every day.

[Guest atomemphis]

Yeah, but try that attitude with a large male officer, and you'd be pulled from the car ASAP, possibly through the window.

[Guest canynracer]

Here is what you do when stopped.

This is my point....all he had to say was "Yes" I am a citizen....and move along...instead, he is a jerk, and holds the people behind him up...I would be PISSED if I was behind him..