traffic stop - consent question-

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='ochretoe' timestamp='1352230017' post='840177']
Federal law states that in a given conversation, face to face, only one of the parties needs to know the conversation is being recorded. State law follows this. In audio(phone or radio) recording the non recording person must be advised. This is without warrants of course. With cell phones there is no expectation of privacy because it is easy to [color=#FF0000]t[u][b]ap into airwave calls[/b][/u][/color].
[/quote]

So no warrants needed for wiretaping a cell phone? I think you are wrong.

Dolomite

[TLRMADE]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352230100' post='840179']You are not required to notify all parties when recording.

Dolomite[/quote]

I guess it goes along the same lines of security cameras? I think somewhere it said were on an average of 15+ cameras everyday!

[TLRMADE]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352230100' post='840179']You are not required to notify all parties when recording.

Dolomite[/quote]

I guess it goes along the same lines of security cameras? I think somewhere it said were on an average of 15+ cameras everyday!

[101]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352227358' post='840142']


You do realize officers have the right to secure that weapon in your possession? It is because anyone, including you, in this state with a firearm on their person is committing a crime. An officer has the right to treat you like a criminal until they determine you have a valid reason to have that firearm.

Again, you [u]ARE[/u] a criminal (intent to go armed) in this state when you have a firearm in your possession. It is just you cannot be charged because a defense is having a HCP.

Dolomite
[/quote]

I understand this entirely.

My issue with this is the state, has removed my right to bear arms and handed it back to me in the form of a privilege. Since they have granted the right of exemption for this crime in the form of HCP, they have given the right to police to violate my Constitutional rights as a citizen of the Country, by treating me like a criminal until I prove to the state that I have been given back the right to bear arms that I never should have lost in the first place. So, our state constitution violates the Constitution. This needs changed. Then, the police will no longer be able to disarm us against our will....which technically is violating my rights now, just not in the eyes of the state.

[101]

[quote name='piercedan' timestamp='1352228484' post='840153']


When I am stopped on a rare occasion, I am always courteous and professional. I say sir a lot, keep my hands visible, have my information ready, never make fast or unexpected movements, and I hand my HCP to the office along with my license. Usually I get respect back from the officer. That being said, I've run into some a holes. I've had my rights violated.

A couple of years ago, I was coming down I40 between Memphis and Jackson, heading toward Nashville. It was early in the morning, about 4:30 or so. I came through the usual "trap" area around mile marker 25. Although the speedometer said 68, I figured I'd be okay with the limit being 65. I was wrong.

The white SUV pulled me over and the officer came to the passenger side. We exchanged the usual conversation on why I was stopped, speed along with window tint (they weren't tinted at all). While we were talking, he kept looking at the large boxes in the back seat. He said that he would not cite me for the speed, but then asked if I would consent to a search of my vehicle. I politely said no. He then said he would run his K9 around the outside. He got me out and had me stand behind the vehicle with another officer.

Now, I spent eight years in law enforcement. I've had several K9 handlers as friends. I've helped with their training scenarios, caught dogs with sleeves, and know the procedure for presenting an area for the dog to inspect. I also know about rewards and when they are given.

I watched the dog. He never alerted. He never showed interest. When he was done, the officer returned him to the vehicle with no reward. He then returned and told me the dog had alerted. I looked at him in amazement and he said, "You didn't see him trying to tear the door off the car?". I said no, because he hadn't.

I knew what was going on at that point. This officer wanted to look in those boxes. He was prepared to violate my rights to do it, and he did. Of course, the boxes had parts for ultrasound systems that I had been working on. When he was done, my suitcase was ransacked, the boxes were unpacked and disheveled, and I had been violated and detained for 30 minutes for no reason.

This guy was a bad cop who was prepared to wipe his feet on the constitution. I was powerless and felt betrayed. This is why I don't trust law enforcement automatically. This is why I will not consent to a search and will not volunteer any information other than what I am required to do. There are too many of these guys mixed in with the good cops to let my guard down.

Call me cynical, but it seems to be getting worse. We seem to be militarizing out law enforcement at an alarming rate.
[/quote]

This story illustrates perfectly what I have been trying to complain about this whole time. I did not mean to derail the topic.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='piercedan' timestamp='1352228484' post='840153']...This guy was a bad cop who was prepared to wipe his feet on the constitution. I was powerless and felt betrayed. This is why I don't trust law enforcement automatically. This is why I will not consent to a search and will not volunteer any information other than what I am required to do. There are too many of these guys mixed in with the good cops to let my guard down.[/quote]
What did you do about it?

[Guest ochretoe]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352230168' post='840180']
So no warrants needed for wiretaping a cell phone? I think you are wrong.

Dolomite
[/quote]
I may be on the cell phone laws. They change way to fast for me to keep up. Three years ago I was involved on a case where an accidental eavsdrop on a cell call by a cell company worker working on a tower overheard plans for a murder. The conversation was recorded and the number given to MPD and it held up in court as a no expectation of privacy on cell conversations. That is what I based my comment on.

[piercedan]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352230791' post='840190']
What did you do about it?
[/quote]

My word against two officers? I'm ashamed to say, I did nothing. I just took my lumps, learned my lesson, and moved on. The amount of effort to get any satisfaction seemed disproportionate to the likelihood of actually making a difference. Probably a pessimistic attitude, but I'm too busy to pursue it. You better believe I'm running 64mph or less through there any more.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='piercedan' timestamp='1352232019' post='840220']
My word against two officers? I'm ashamed to say, I did nothing. I just took my lumps, learned my lesson, and moved on. The amount of effort to get any satisfaction seemed disproportionate to the likelihood of actually making a difference. Probably a pessimistic attitude, but I'm too busy to pursue it. You better believe I'm running 64mph or less through there any more.
[/quote]Wouldn't it have been your word against two officers and at least one dash cam?

[piercedan]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352232498' post='840228']
Wouldn't it have been your word against two officers and at least one dash cam?
[/quote]

You're probably right, but still a lot of effort for not much payoff. If the guy was willing to lie about the dog, it isn't too much of a stretch to think he could use poor cam footage to interject manufactured probable cause. They had me and the other officer standing in between the patrol vehicle and my vehicle. I'm sure there was some opportunity to say it appeared the dog alerted, some spot blind to the camera. Typical traffic stop positioning gives a limited view of the passenger side anyway.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='101' timestamp='1352230543' post='840186']
I understand this entirely.

My issue with this is the state, has removed my right to bear arms and handed it back to me in the form of a privilege. Since they have granted the right of exemption for this crime in the form of HCP, they have given the right to police to violate my Constitutional rights as a citizen of the Country, by treating me like a criminal until I prove to the state that I have been given back the right to bear arms that I never should have lost in the first place. So, our state constitution violates the Constitution. This needs changed.[/quote]
What have you been doing to get it changed?


[quote name='101' timestamp='1352230543' post='840186']Then, the police will no longer be able to disarm us against our will....which technically is violating my rights now, just not in the eyes of the state.[/quote]
Law enforcement officers are given a lot of discretion in the field...and for pretty good reasons. It's one thing to discuss philosophically what an officer "should" or "shouldn't do"; it's quite another matter when an officer is alone and at the side of the road walking up to a vehicle and not knowing anything about who or what might be waiting for him - I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; at least until they've shown they don't deserve it.

I'm not suggesting that a LEO should trample on a citizen's rights just because he can but I don't know of any state where an officer, if he has justification to detain you at all, doesn't [u][i]also[/i][/u] have both the authority and the right to disarm you/secure your weapon while he has you detained and is conducting his investigation...I would also suggest that officers have had that authority long before our individual 2A rights were first infringed as well as after the infringements started to be reversed (if anyone knows of a state where they don't have that right, feel free to share!).

[Links2k]

[quote name='DaddyO' timestamp='1352163319' post='839685']
I've heard stories of people being pulled over for traffic violations and when the LEO was informed that there was a weapon in the vehicle, and it was there legally, he did nothing about it except to ask the driver not to touch the weapon.

[/quote]

This has been my experience

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='ochretoe' timestamp='1352230017' post='840177']
Federal law states that in a given conversation, face to face, only one of the parties needs to know the conversation is being recorded. State law follows this. [b]In audio(phone or radio) recording the non recording person must be advised.[/b] [/quote]

My understanding is that federal law only requires consent of one of the parties (ie yourself), as far as phone conversation. 10 or 12 states require all party notification -- but TN is not one of them.

- OS

[E4 No More]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352234871' post='840271']
My understanding is that federal law only requires consent of one of the parties (ie yourself), as far as phone conversation. 10 or 12 states require all party notification -- but TN is not one of them.

- OS
[/quote]This, otherwise the dash cams on the police cars would be illegal.

[RobertNashville]

I'm pretty sure that at least in some states now, it is illegal for a citizen to video/audio record a police officer at all...I guess that's what some cities think is an appropriate response to lawsuits.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352237612' post='840309']
I'm pretty sure that at least in some states now, it is illegal for a citizen to video/audio record a police officer at all...I guess that's what some cities think is an appropriate response to lawsuits.
[/quote]

I don't know if any still have statutes on the book, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that taping public interactions with police is a right protected under the 1A. Not researching it, bu I think it was was maybe Boston and somewhere in Michigan wound up paying substantial damages for arresting someone for it, too.

- OS

Edited November 6, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352238185' post='840318']
I don't know if any still have statutes on the book, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that taping public interactions with police is a right protected under the 1A. Not researching it, bu I think it was was maybe Boston and somewhere in Michigan wound up paying substantial damages for arresting someone for it, too.

- OS
[/quote]Probably right....I can't say it's anything I've followed; just remember news stories I've heard in passing.

[E4 No More]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352238185' post='840318']
I don't know if any still have statutes on the book, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that taping public interactions with police is a right protected under the 1A. Not researching it, bu I think it was was maybe Boston and somewhere in Michigan wound up paying substantial damages for arresting someone for it, too.

- OS
[/quote]I seem to recall that too...as long as they weren't hindering & interfering.

[TMF]

Eh, I was pulled over when I was 19ish and was transporting a mini-14. It was properly stowed and no ammo in the vehicle. The officer asked if I had any drugs or weapons. Answering "yes" to having the rifle got me removed from the vehicle and had to sit on the hood of his car. I consented to search when asked. He absolutely tore apart my car. While the exchange was all very respectful between the two of us, I don't see myself volunteering so much in the future if have two small children in the car. Just way too inconvenient; I'd rather take the ticket. In this case I guess I don't have too much to complain about. The deputy let me go with a warning, and I had been going 15 over the limit. If ever I deserved a ticket, it was then. I guess being nice and cordial goes a long way in both directions.

[Guest ochretoe]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352234871' post='840271']
My understanding is that federal law only requires consent of one of the parties (ie yourself), as far as phone conversation. 10 or 12 states require all party notification -- but TN is not one of them.

- OS
[/quote]

I thought that is what I said. You just said it better.

[oldmustangjunkie]

What effect (if any) does the gun being locked in a glovebox have on the LEO's ability to seize the weapon without a warrant?
Does having your gun stowed in a locked glovebox mean you are disarmed?

[Dolomite_supafly]

A few phone calls later and... You MUST have a warrant to wiretap a cell phone. There is no expectation that the conversation is public.

I have been out of the business for about 7 years and just wanted to make sure laws hadn't changed.

Dolomite

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='ochretoe' timestamp='1352240241' post='840346']
I thought that is what I said. You just said it better.
[/quote]

No biggie, but re-read, you said: [b] [/b]"In audio(phone or radio) recording the non recording person must be advised." I quoted and bolded that in my response.

- OS Edited November 7, 2012 by OhShoot

[DaveTN]

[quote name='oldmustangjunkie' timestamp='1352242880' post='840389']
What effect (if any) does the gun being locked in a glovebox have on the LEO's ability to seize the weapon without a warrant?
Does having your gun stowed in a locked glovebox mean you are disarmed?
[/quote]
How did the cop get in the glove box? If you are arrested from the vehicle and the Officer is towing it, everything in it is fair game without a warrant. If the cop has probable cause and is searching for drugs, he can search anywhere drugs can be. That includes the glove box.

I would call a loaded gun in a glove box, locked or not readily accessible. Unless there is some specific case law; you are armed. Point being…. If I’m out drinking and happen to have my gun with me, I’m unloading it and putting it in the trunk, while my wife drives. If a cop asks if there is a gun in my vehicle I will answer him honestly. I think saying “Yes, it’s in the locked glove box” while you are sitting in the passenger seat drunk; may not end well for you or your HCP.

That’s just my opinion; I’m not an expert on Tennessee law and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn last night. [img]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Web%20Stuff/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Daniel]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1352226681' post='840132']
I have two honorable discharges, volunteered during Vietnam, and served my country as a Police Officer. If any of that matters.

I can only speak for myself, but I was very well trained. Trained well enough to know that if I have a "gut feeling" something was wrong I acted on it. Disarming a person that you feel is a possible danger is for his safety also. It keeps you from having to kill him if he does something stupid, and it reduces his chances of shooting you while you are dealing with the ticket, accident, arrest, whatever. [b]Bad people shoot cops on traffic stops and Police Officers will never (Hopefully) be required to wait until guns are pulled to act.[/b]
[/quote]
Soldiers do.