Lenior City traffic stop

[DaveTN]

Perhaps you are correct about the officer seeing a weapon, BUT, he stated that his reason for the stop was the helmet and the obscured tag: therefore, he clearly had no reason to believe that the person was carrying an illegal weapon otherwise he would have said so; not use a chicken :poop: excuse to stop him. Just like your statements can incriminate you, recorded statements by the police can be used against them as well provided that the judge gives a crap - which most smaller court judges don't give a crap. But I'm coming for a LEO background in a state where open carry was not illegal, so my perspective of the situation is skewed by that. :shrug:
 
What I'm curious about is whether the license was mounted in a factory mount or really obscured as claimed.

I’ve seen people that I suspected were burglars, but waited for a traffic violation to stop them. I have testified in court that I used a traffic violation to stop the vehicle to look in it and talk to the occupants; never had a problem with it.

I was taught that when you are working District Patrol or Drug Enforcement the vehicle code is one of the best tools you have. Did you never use a traffic violation to stop a suspicious person when you were a Police Officer?

[btq96r]

I don't disagree that with our 20/20 hindsight, that would have been a better choice. But given the facts from the officer's perspective, it was within his rights to stop and disarm exactly the way he did. I don't think it was the right way, but it was certainly his way and there was nothing unlawful about it. I think he would have been better off to have blocked the biker in the parking spot and turned on the blues as soon as he saw the gun if that was his interest. That would have prevented any high-speed chase if his suspicion was correct. Then again, there were people around the store so making an approach if his suspicions were correct about him being a robber could have made things more dangerous. It's a hard call.

 

I think there are several training opportunities shown in this stop, but nothing that's OMG! Can you believe he did that!

 

One thing, maybe semantics, but important to me.  LEO's don't have any more rights than the any citizen, they have authority that comes with their position such as stopping people and disarming them within the context of the law.  

 

I concur that the reason he probably let the guy ride off then turned on the lights was to avoid having a potentially dangerous (which all stops are) encounter in an area with people in close proximity.  I'm fine with that "on the ground" decision as much as I am the stop itself. 

 

What I'm questioning the reason the officer had to disarm the biker in the first place.  If he truly did reasonably believed it was for the safety of the permit holder, the officer, or other individuals, why not do it as soon as you see it- or barring that to allow the person to move away from all the people in the store like he did- as soon as the stop was made?  The 25 second gap and snatching it during a moment of distraction for the biker leads me to believe his safety concerns didn't exist to a reasonable belief, especially when you look at it in the additional commentary EssOne provided in post #94.

 

Isn’t that what he was doing? Somewhere between the time he saw the guy and the time the guy was taking his gloves off the cop saw something that made him decide to disarm him. I don’t know what that was.
How is disarming him a violation of his rights? Do we have a right to carry under the 2nd amendment? If so why are we paying for an HCP?

 

No, he never asked the guy if he had a permit, he asked if the guy had his license, because the pretext given for the stop was about the plates on the bike.  The discussion about if the guy had a permit never came from the officer, the biker volunteered that information after the officer took the gun.

 

I think the officer went into the encounter with the mindset of disarming the guy while questioning him.  His tactics to do so were, at best, questionable, but I don't think something happened between first noticing the weapon and taking it.  Like I said above, I question his reasons for doing so, as I don't think he is able to articulate any safety concerns besides not wanting someone else in the encounter to have a gun, which isn't good enough for me to qualify as a reasonable belief for his protection.

 

I would argue that we have the right to carry, and that the HCP is simply the process by which we are vetted on a cyclic basis as being in compliance with the requirements to exercise that right, much as voting is a right that you have to register to exercise and show ID at the polls each time you do so.  To me, keep and bear are the rights with carrying under a permit system being the bear part of it.  The responsibility of the state should be to have an as expedited as possible process to make sure those HCP checks are done, and done on a shall issue basis, with only people who have a legal disqualification being denied.  The cost of it all is in line with regular taxes or fee based services, but should never be used as a revenue enhancement as I suspect the HCP's bring in for TN.  But that's a separate issue like most .gov cash cows.  I'd also be fine with the legislature enacting Constitutional Carry, but I know that isn't coming anytime soon.

Edited August 10, 2015 by btq96r

[Clod Stomper]

Just watched the video. It must have taken great restraint on the rider's part to not react reflexively when the cop snatched his gun. I know for me, it wouldn't be a conscious decision to react, even if for a fraction of a second.

It was a dick move. I saw no reason he couldn't have simply told the rider that he was going to disarm him. I think that would have gone further toward avoiding an "uncomfortable" situation. May have even kept him off the internet, who knows. Edited August 11, 2015 by Clod Stomper

[blewbayou]

Just watched the video. It must have taken great restraint on the rider's part to not react reflexively when the cop snatched his gun. I know for me, it wouldn't be a conscious decision to react, even if for a fraction of a second.

It was a dick move. I saw no reason he couldn't have simply told the rider that he was going to disarm him. I think that would have gone further toward avoiding an "uncomfortable" situation. May have even kept him off the internet, who knows.

You know, that's something I've been going over in my head for the past few days and every time this thread comes back to the top. Instinctively, I'm going for my gun if someone snatches at it. I may be as quick to stop myself knowing that it is an officer. The result of the officers less than good decision making could have just as easily led to another police shooting for absolutely no good reason what-so-ever.

I stand firmly that while the law may protect the officers actions, it was the wrong approach to the stop and I would have done my best to continue through the stop with civility and filed my complaint after.

[monkeylizard]

It was a dick move.

 

Can't argue with that.

[macville]

Because carrying a firearm (outside your vehicle, home, business, etc.) is a crime. The HCP is a defense to the crime, not an exception to it.

 

Operating a motor vehicle is not a crime in and of itself. Operating without a license is, but as no crime can be reasonably suspected simply by operating the vehicle, no stop can be made just to check the license. there's no probable cause to stop. Some other reason for the stop must be found. The littany of traffic rules makes that pretty easy though. Exceeding the posted limit, impeding the flow of traffic, failed to signal a lane change, partially obscured plates. The list is a long one.

 

Huh? Operating a motor vehicle on a public road without a license is a Class C misdemeanor. Just like a carry permit, a drivers license is a defense to that crime. So explain to me again how they are different? Anyone driving a car in a public right might be breaking the law, but how is a cop supposed to know?

Edited August 11, 2015 by macville

[macville]

note: Illegal carry is gonna be a Class A 'meanor most of the time.

 

The law is interesting here. If you are on a public area (street, etc.) it would be a class C, if it's a "place open to the public" it's class A. Our laws are mind numbingly stupid, but what to expect from lawyers writing laws.

 

  (2)  (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).

      (B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor.

      (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present.

[Oh Shoot]

The law is interesting here. If you are on a public area (street, etc.) it would be a class C, if it's a "place open to the public" it's class A. Our laws are mind numbingly stupid, but what to expect from lawyers writing laws.

 

  (2)  (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).

      ( B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor.

      (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present.

 

You know, I've apparently overlooked the "place open to the public" exact wording of that, like forever I guess, if that has been the statute all along. Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I had in mind "public place".

 

But does that really mean like an actual building, biz, whatever, or just any public place where people are allowed (like a city street) ya reckon? Meaning, you'd think they'd use the word "establishment" if they only meant the former, as in the carrying under the influence statute? So is it actually the same as just "public place"?

 

- OS

Edited August 11, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

You know, I've apparently overlooked the "place open to the public" exact wording of that, like forever I guess, if that has been the statute all along. Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I had in mind "public place".

 

But does that really mean like an actual building, biz, whatever, or just any public place where people are allowed (like a city street) ya reckon? Meaning, you'd think they'd use the word "establishment" if they only meant the former, as in the carrying under the influence statute? So is it actually the same as just "public place"?

 

Place "open to the public" normally means businesses and such. But honestly, who really knows. Vagueness is the name of the game when it comes to laws. It's stupid and just entraps people.

[monkeylizard]

Huh? Operating a motor vehicle on a public road without a license is a Class C misdemeanor. Just like a carry permit, a drivers license is a defense to that crime. So explain to me again how they are different? Anyone driving a car in a public right might be breaking the law, but how is a cop supposed to know?

 

It's a fine nuance in the law that you're missing. Yes, it's unlawful to operate a vehicle without a license, but it's not unlawful to operate a vehicle. The operation of the vehicle is not a crime in and of itself, so it does not provide PC that a crime (operating w/o a license) is being committed just by operating the vehicle. Contrast that with the handgun carry laws. It IS unlawful to carry a handgun in public. The permit does NOT make it not illegal, it provides a defense to prosecution for violating 39-17-1307. The act of carrying is itself in unlawful act both with an without a permit. Even with an HCP, we're still violating 39-17-1307, but we won't be prosecuted for it. That provides PC that a crime is being committed if observed by an officer. Once an HCP is produced, the officer will let the permit holder go because there will be no prosecution. Technically, they could still arrest a person with an HCP for violating 39-17-1307, but only a complete moron LEO would do that. He'd catch hell from his SO and probably the Chief/Sheriff who themselves would probably catch hell from the DA for wasting time and opening them up to a lawsuit.

Edited August 11, 2015 by monkeylizard

[Tobashadow]

That's a peeve of mine as well, gotta look Syu the good side though, it's like the guys that talk about their "clips" you know they don't know what that are talking about as soon as their mouths open.

The biggest problem with allowing the sheep to think we are required to keep them concealed like other states is that we wind up with the incident a few years ago at the Knoxville walmart with the cop going off on a guy cause his weapon was showing.

I carry out of sight but it makes me feel comfortable knowing I don't have to freak out wondering if someone seen it or not.

A friend from Ohio freaks out if he sees the outline in my pocket because just that can get him in trouble at home.

I don't want that here for anyone of us.

[Oh Shoot]

..... It IS unlawful to carry a handgun in public. The permit does NOT make it not illegal, it provides a defense to prosecution for violating 39-17-1307.....

 

Against the law to possess a loaded firearm period. Even doing so at your home is a defense.

 

People in other states don't usually grok that regarding "The Patron State of Shootin' Stuff". 

 

Most states simply pass laws against certain actions with firearms, while TN starts with premise ALL possession of loaded firearms is illegal, and then gives a scatload of defenses or exceptions.

 

- OS

Edited August 11, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

Against the law to possess a loaded firearm period. Even doing so at your home is a defense.

 

People in other states don't usually grok that regarding "The Patron State of Shootin' Stuff". 

 

Most states simply pass laws against certain actions with firearms, while TN starts with premise ALL possession of loaded firearms is illegal, and then gives a scatload of defenses or exceptions.

 

- OS

 

Great term from a great book. 

[conn_air7]

Much like many others who have already posted, I think the LEO could have handled the situation a little better. Here are my compressed thoughts:

1. I would be taken a little off guard by being disarmed the way he was.

2. It is 100 percent unsafe to put any gun in your back pocket (ESPECIALLY GLOCKS) (assuming that's where the cop put it).

3. The cop has 2 different stories. I have a hard time believing he pulled him over for the license plate. The LEO made it very clear that it was more about the gun than the license plate.

4. The cop was not mean, nor was he mistreating the rider. Also, the rider did a GREAT job handling a very strange situation and I commend him for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[otnman]

Much like many others who have already posted, I think the LEO could have handled the situation a little better. Here are my compressed thoughts:

1. I would be taken a little off guard by being disarmed the way he was.

2. It is 100 percent unsafe to put any gun in your back pocket (ESPECIALLY GLOCKS) (assuming that's where the cop put it).

3. The cop has 2 different stories. I have a hard time believing he pulled him over for the license plate. The LEO made it very clear that it was more about the gun than the license plate.

4. The cop was not mean, nor was he mistreating the rider. Also, the rider did a GREAT job handling a very strange situation and I commend him for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5. It is LenOIr City. Sorry it is a pet peeve of mine and has been bugging me every time I see this thread come to the top.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

[macville]

It's a fine nuance in the law that you're missing. Yes, it's unlawful to operate a vehicle without a license, but it's not unlawful to operate a vehicle. The operation of the vehicle is not a crime in and of itself, so it does not provide PC that a crime (operating w/o a license) is being committed just by operating the vehicle. Contrast that with the handgun carry laws. It IS unlawful to carry a handgun in public. The permit does NOT make it not illegal, it provides a defense to prosecution for violating 39-17-1307. The act of carrying is itself in unlawful act both with an without a permit. Even with an HCP, we're still violating 39-17-1307, but we won't be prosecuted for it. That provides PC that a crime is being committed if observed by an officer. Once an HCP is produced, the officer will let the permit holder go because there will be no prosecution. Technically, they could still arrest a person with an HCP for violating 39-17-1307, but only a complete moron LEO would do that. He'd catch hell from his SO and probably the Chief/Sheriff who themselves would probably catch hell from the DA for wasting time and opening them up to a lawsuit.

 

Okay, i get what you are saying now and I agree. The odd thing to me is that operating a vehicle without a license on a public road is a crime, but the 4th amendment protects checking for that. Not sure why it doesn't protect the same for carrying a gun since it's actually a right written into the constitution. Oh wait, I forgot, the constitution wasn't meant to be applied consistently across all things and and citizens...

 

Here's some interesting info. Reading 39-17-1308, it was written totally ignoring the constitution. Our constitution states, "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Maybe I am missing it, but I can't find anything in there that says the state can regulate the possession (keeping) of arms. Any part of 39-17- that restricts possession is very plainly unconstitutional. I also don't see where they can make all carrying illegal, just parts that can prevent crime. I think this next session would be a great time to address simple wording that would actually change quite a bit on how the law is addressed with regards to weapons. Changing the wording would go far more under the radar than big public bills like parks carry.

 

What's even stranger, and why the entire section needs to be re-written, is 39-17-1307e, "(e)  (1) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person is carrying or possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition in a motor vehicle if the person:..." Notice the word, "exception" there. It would appear the only place that it's NOT illegal, because it's an exception and not a defense, is to possess a weapon in your vehicle. 1308 would not need to apply because it's already an exception. Am I reading that wrong?

[monkeylizard]

You got it right. In the car (or on a motorcycle) is an exception, not a defense. In that regard, it's exactly like driving a motor vehicle. One can not be lawfully stopped for that reason only. There also appears to be no lawful basis for disarming a person who is lawfully carrying in/on their vehicles, except for HCP holders. In the video, had the officer only seen the firearm while the rider was on his bike ("partially obsured plates" aside) it would have been an unlawful stop as no law was broken by carrying while on the bike. It would have also been an unlawful disarming IF the officer at that time had no knowledge of the rider having an HCP. Running the plates would probably show it, so he could have known there was an HCP.

 

However, since he witnessed the rider armed away from the motorcycle, 39-17-1307 was violated. That gives cause for both the stop and the disarming.

[conn_air7]

You got it right. In the car (or on a motorcycle) is an exception, not a defense. In that regard, it's exactly like driving a motor vehicle. One can not be lawfully stopped for that reason only. There also appears to be no lawful basis for disarming a person who is lawfully carrying in/on their vehicles, except for HCP holders. In the video, had the officer only seen the firearm while the rider was on his bike ("partially obsured plates" aside) it would have been an unlawful stop as no law was broken by carrying while on the bike. It would have also been an unlawful disarming IF the officer at that time had no knowledge of the rider having an HCP. Running the plates would probably show it, so he could have known there was an HCP.

However, since he witnessed the rider armed away from the motorcycle, 39-17-1307 was violated. That gives cause for both the stop and the disarming.

But wait, the officer pulled him over for an obstructed license plate. IF it was really obstructed, how'd he run his plate?? If the officer couldn't read his plate, he wouldn't have known he had an hcp (making the disarming portion of stop unlawful). Also, if he could read the license plate (meaning it's probably not obstructed) and did know he had an hcp, the cop pulled him over for the sole reason of having a gun (also making this stop unlawful). Just food for thought, very interesting situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

The officer said he witnessed him coming out of the store with a handgun. That makes the stop and the disarming lawful. Period. In this case, the HCP is irrelevant and carrying in/on a vehicle being legal is irrelevant.

 

I was saying that IF the officer had not seen the rider with the handgun away from his bike, and had only witnessed the handgun while the rider was on his bike, then the disarming would have possibly been unlawful. I see no allowance for it within the TCA. The stop would have still been lawful if the plates were indeed partially obscured, but that's definitley fishing.

 

All in all, everything done was lawful, but as Clod Stomper said, it was a dick move for both the stop and the snatch-n-grab. The rider took his sweet time getting on his bike and leaving. If the officer had suspicion he had robbed the place because he came out with his helmet on, that long process of mounting up and riding off slowly while other customers continued to come in and out of the store should have dispelled that.

[conn_air7]

The officer said he witnessed him coming out of the store with a handgun. That makes the stop and the disarming lawful. Period. In this case, the HCP is irrelevant and carrying in/on a vehicle being legal is irrelevant.

I was saying that IF the officer had not seen the rider with the handgun away from his bike, and had only witnessed the handgun while the rider was on his bike, then the disarming would have possibly been unlawful. I see no allowance for it within the TCA. The stop would have still been lawful if the plates were indeed partially obscured, but that's definitley fishing.

All in all, everything done was lawful, but as Clod Stomper said, it was a dick move for both the stop and the snatch-n-grab. The rider took his sweet time getting on his bike and leaving. If the officer had suspicion he had robbed the place because he came out with his helmet on, that long process of mounting up and riding off slowly while other customers continued to come in and out of the store should have dispelled that.

100 percent agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[E4 No More]

I’ve seen people that I suspected were burglars, but waited for a traffic violation to stop them. I have testified in court that I used a traffic violation to stop the vehicle to look in it and talk to the occupants; never had a problem with it.

I was taught that when you are working District Patrol or Drug Enforcement the vehicle code is one of the best tools you have. Did you never use a traffic violation to stop a suspicious person when you were a Police Officer?

Where you and I apparently disagree is the premise that he was suspicious to begin with: therefore, the police officer had no reason to stop him based on that alone - other than carrying a weapon which the officer expressed no concerns over to begin with, and considering the propensity of many of the >250,000 HCP holders in this state alone to open carry, this could no longer be PC, (the courts would have to argue that one out).

 

Let's break this down, shall we?

 

1. "I noticed a cop staring at me while I loaded my tail bag."  Does someone stop to calmly load a bag on their bike, pat their selves down checking for whatever it was that he was checking for, put on their riding gloves, and check the security of their bag after walking out and seeing a cop eye-balling them after they just robbed a store? Does he then calmly mount the bike and take his time starting it and pulling out of the spot?

 

2. The biker was clearly on the side of the brick building of the store where there was only one other person who got into their vehicle to leave, (who apparently having NOT just witnessed a robbery), so there wasn't any obstruction to conducting any interaction with the "suspect" at that time, no other indications of criminal activity, (alarm, call, or body language of the citizen getting into the vehicle next to the biker), and avenues for escape of the vehicle/rider were reduced where he was. Since statistically the most dangerous thing that a police officer does is a traffic stop because conducting business on the side of the road with vehicles whizzing by is inherently dangerous, does it make sense to allow someone that you think might have just robbed the store get on a crotch-rocket and pull into traffic leaving a more controllable location for a less controllable location? Is increasing the chance of a chase on public roadways safer for the public than where he was initially? Remember, the rider was courteous enough to the officer to pick an open parking lot for a safe location; not the officer choosing the location.

 

3. The officer states that he was just "checking" on the rider because he had his tag "not displayed right" and walking out of the store with his helmet on and a gun on his side, and that he looked suspicious. Suspicious of what? Over my many years I've seen many law-abiding motorcyclists who do not take their helmets off to run into a convenience store, so that's BS unless Lenoir City is the world's capital of motorcycle bandits who do this. The officer appeared to be waiting on the biker to leave. I base that opinion on the fact that he was parked in the back corner of the side of the convenience store back by the dumpster. That's a pretty unusual place for a patrolman to park to get a cup of coffee if he's concerned about emergency response time as he should be. What would happen if his car was blocked by a trash truck while he was in the store and got an emergency call? So it appears that he noticed the armed biker before the biker left the store and was waiting for him to leave, so why wait for the guy to go into the store to begin with if he either noticed the tag first or thought that he was suspicious for another reason? If he noticed the tag first could he have not run the tag of the bike and the registered owner for wants/warrants while he was in the store? We don't know about how the tag was displayed, but if it was affixed to the factory mount that claim is total BS since manufacturers have to make their vehicles in accordance with lawful standards in order to sell them. Also, from the sound and what could be seen of the bike, it has not been modified leading me to believe it very unlikely that the one thing the owner would change on a crotch-rocket would be the tag mounting location.

 

4. The officer first asks if the biker has a license on him; not a HCP, nor does he ask about a HCP at all, so I submit that this again points to the officer not being really concerned about the legality of the gun. Then when questioned about the reason for the stop he responds that his reason is that the tag is not displayed right. He then snatches the gun from the biker. Within his right? Yes! Dickhead move? Absolutely! What would be the consequences had the weapon gone off giving the biker a bad case of Glock Butt or worse?

 

My take from this video is that the officer was NOT truly suspicious of any criminal activity. And if the tag was really properly affixed to the factory mount, (it would have been great if the video showed the tag to remove all doubt about that), he could be subject to legal scrutiny because we do NOT live in a police state. You and I both know that many officers pad their activity numbers and up their warnings count with BS stops like this. Besides the fact that crap like this just exacerbates the general public's negative perceptions of police as a whole, the increase in the number of cameras out there also increases the chances of suits against officers and departments. Why risk it just to pad your activity numbers?

 

So my opinion is this: If the tag was indeed illegally affixed to the motorcycle then the officer was within the law but not a very good officer, and he certainly needs to explore other job opportunities before he does something drastically stupid and gets someone hurt in the process.

[Chucktshoes]

I don't have much to say on the primary subject of the thread as I think that btr96, SWJewelTN and others have articulated most of my views reasonably well. I do want to address an argument that I have seen made repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere whenever the subject of interactions between the police and the public has arisen. Variations of arguments that question the standing of those critiquing cop behavior to even do so because they don't have an LE background are just plain bad argumentation. It is one thing to use your background in LE to explain why you do things a certain way. That's a valid argument, but to say that someone shouldn't question a tactic or action because they don't understand what it is like to be a cop is in no way shape or form a valid argument. It is the equivalent of feminists saying that men can't have an opinion of abortion because they lack a vagina or when SJWs say that folks can't question certain behaviors because they aren't of a particular race. It is simply a tactic to silence the other party without substantively addressing the topic actually being discussed. When you say "you need to be a ______ or you wouldn't understand what _____ go through" what you are really saying is that you can't make a strong argument to support your position would rather try to weasel out of the debate by delegitimization of your opponent. Edited August 11, 2015 by Chucktshoes

[peejman]

But wait, the officer pulled him over for an obstructed license plate. IF it was really obstructed, how'd he run his plate?? If the officer couldn't read his plate, he wouldn't have known he had an hcp (making the disarming portion of stop unlawful). Also, if he could read the license plate (meaning it's probably not obstructed) and did know he had an hcp, the cop pulled him over for the sole reason of having a gun (also making this stop unlawful). Just food for thought, very interesting situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

A plate can be illegally mounted and still be legible.  For example, this is illegal in TN (don't know about CO).  It's too low to the ground, it's too far inboard from the rear of the bike, it's mounted vertically, and it's not lighted.  Disregarding the law, its also a really stupid place to put it.  

 

[E4 No More]

The words that the officer used were that the tag was "...not displayed right." This doesn't necessarily mean that he couldn't read it from a normal position. Considering it was broad daylight the lighting wouldn't matter most likely.

[McGarrett]

If Ponch & Jon would have been on their toes they would have stopped these 2 suspicious motorcycle riders that went into the store with their helmets on.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP005cw2jIk