Pulled over for carrying

[nalioth 405]

Not an illegal search if it is in plain view.

 

And ya have to admit that orange S-12 does draw the eye.

It wasn't the "seeing" them or examining them, it was the "running the serial numbers without probable cause of a crime" that the court found was an "illegal search".

No, I've done this thread with law enforcement recently. It's perfectly legal for them to run the serial numbers on any weapons they legally have in their possession. In this case, the Glock was seen and so was the Saiga so they were legally in the officer's possession and it's perfectly legal to run them. Thread here...

 

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1055566

The Supreme Court disagrees.

It's not a search so the link has absolutely no meaning. Read the thread, it discusses the inapplicability that decision.

The act of running the serial numbers IS a search w/o probable cause.

 

ETA: Or are you saying that mere possession of a firearm is "probable cause"?

Edited June 1, 2009 by nalioth

[Reverendfranz 160]

Ever wonder why driving without private corporate sold car insurance carries a larger fine than speeding(which endangers people's lives)?Corporate corruption of our legal system and thereby our Law Enforcement Agencies

 

Even more telling is the difference between the fine for not having that corporate insurance, and driving without license or registration. It varries from state to state of course, but at least in a few, it is a much bigger deal, evidently, to not follow the corporate rules than it is to not follow the states. Kinda shows who is boss, doesnt it.

 

Not that that has anything to do with search and seizure, which is what we are talking about. It is obvious an officer, if he so desires, (feels that his gun is safer than yours) can secure weapons for his safety, and if there is a suspicion of committing a crime with a weapon, (in this case concealed carry without a permit) the officer can run the numbers on the firearm if it is within the scope of the investigation. However, i would think that the investigation would be over when the Carry permit was produced, and the firearms returned. that should have been it. If the cop really wanted to run the numbers, he should have done so before asking for the permit. (a small slight of hand) In a case of say a traffic stop, without an accompanying investigation, however, i would say that AZ vs Hicks would apply, It might not apply to a weapons investigation, as the weapon is the object of the investigation, and running the serial number is not outside the scope of that investigation. In a traffic stop running numbers would be outside of the original traffic investigation. If i understand, however, this is not the view most police departments take, asking that all firearm serials should be run.

 

The real shame is that this question comes up, and the only way for it to actually be cleared up is for someone getting arrested for an unwarranted search, and appealing it in court, at great expense.

 

I agree with an earlier poster who said that citizens shouldnt be presumed to be criminals, I might also have the right to look up the numbers of every gun i touch legitimately, and doing so isnt a crime, but damn, its pretty rude, dont you think?

[Reverendfranz 160]

Also, thank you for reminding me why i dont read glocktalk.

[GPalmer 1]

Not an illegal search if it is in plain view.

 

And ya have to admit that orange S-12 does draw the eye.

It wasn't the "seeing" them or examining them, it was the "running the serial numbers without probable cause of a crime" that the court found was an "illegal search".

No, I've done this thread with law enforcement recently. It's perfectly legal for them to run the serial numbers on any weapons they legally have in their possession. In this case, the Glock was seen and so was the Saiga so they were legally in the officer's possession and it's perfectly legal to run them. Thread here...

 

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1055566

The Supreme Court disagrees.

It's not a search so the link has absolutely no meaning. Read the thread, it discusses the inapplicability that decision.

The act of running the serial numbers IS a search w/o probable cause.

 

ETA: Or are you saying that mere possession of a firearm is "probable cause"?

Actually if you take a look through the thread you'll see that neither is correct. In the case you cited, they moved speakers which were not in their legal possession and thereby got the serial numbers. The act of moving the speakers made it a search. The speakers were not legally in their possession and they had no legal reason to move them.

 

In this case, they are taking possession of firearms during a stop for officer safety. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that this is legal. Once those firearms are in their possession it's perfectly legal for them to run the numbers. It's not a search since they are in their possession legally. Likewise, if they came up to your vehicle and brushed snow off your windshield to expose your VIN and then ran that, it's a search and would be illegal. On the other hand, if they brush the snow off to see if your registration is valid and the VIN gets exposed, it's legal for them to run it. It's then in plain view. They do this all the time with items having serial numbers which come into their possession.

 

Unless you are in an area where firearms are legally forbidden, I can't think of why possessing one would ever give them probable cause though.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Glocker

[GPalmer 1]

Also, thank you for reminding me why i dont read glocktalk.

There are only a few areas of relative civilization on the board. Most of the forum I avoid but I'm a member of the decent private forums. That was a heck of a thread. The gentleman asks the opinions of the law enforcement, gets responses from folks with a couple hundred years worth of law enforcement experience between them on the topic and then argues it... * SIGH *

[nalioth 405]

Actually if you take a look through the thread you'll see that neither is correct. In the case you cited, they moved speakers which were not in their legal possession and thereby got the serial numbers. The act of moving the speakers made it a search. The speakers were not legally in their possession and they had no legal reason to move them.

 

In this case, they are taking possession of firearms during a stop for officer safety. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that this is legal. Once those firearms are in their possession it's perfectly legal for them to run the numbers. It's not a search since they are in their possession legally. Likewise, if they came up to your vehicle and brushed snow off your windshield to expose your VIN and then ran that, it's a search and would be illegal. On the other hand, if they brush the snow off to see if your registration is valid and the VIN gets exposed, it's legal for them to run it. It's then in plain view. They do this all the time with items having serial numbers which come into their possession.

 

Unless you are in an area where firearms are legally forbidden, I can't think of why possessing one would ever give them probable cause though.

Well, this is all well and good, but we're WAY off from the original posters situation.

 

1) In Indiana both concealed and open carry are legal with a permit

2) the OP has a valid IN CHL/CWL/CCP/(whatever you want to call it)

3) the officers had no crime to investigate upon his presentation of the aforementioned license

4) illegal search

[GPalmer 1]

...

The real shame is that this question comes up, and the only way for it to actually be cleared up is for someone getting arrested for an unwarranted search, and appealing it in court, at great expense.

 

I agree with an earlier poster who said that citizens shouldnt be presumed to be criminals, I might also have the right to look up the numbers of every gun i touch legitimately, and doing so isnt a crime, but damn, its pretty rude, dont you think?

I'm not even going there. It's enough for me to know that it is legal for them to do so, once that is settled, it then is usually a matter of officer discretion. I don't have any stolen firearms, so they can run them all they want. If it makes them feel they've done their job better or makes them feel they're protecting the public safety, that's fine by me. And if one in a hundred comes back as stolen, then the world is a safer place since the bad guys don't have them.

[GPalmer 1]

Actually if you take a look through the thread you'll see that neither is correct. In the case you cited, they moved speakers which were not in their legal possession and thereby got the serial numbers. The act of moving the speakers made it a search. The speakers were not legally in their possession and they had no legal reason to move them.

 

In this case, they are taking possession of firearms during a stop for officer safety. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that this is legal. Once those firearms are in their possession it's perfectly legal for them to run the numbers. It's not a search since they are in their possession legally. Likewise, if they came up to your vehicle and brushed snow off your windshield to expose your VIN and then ran that, it's a search and would be illegal. On the other hand, if they brush the snow off to see if your registration is valid and the VIN gets exposed, it's legal for them to run it. It's then in plain view. They do this all the time with items having serial numbers which come into their possession.

 

Unless you are in an area where firearms are legally forbidden, I can't think of why possessing one would ever give them probable cause though.

Well, this is all well and good, but we're WAY off from the original posters situation.

 

1) In Indiana both concealed and open carry are legal with a permit

2) the OP has a valid IN CHL/CWL/CCP/(whatever you want to call it)

3) the officers had no crime to investigate upon his presentation of the aforementioned license

4) illegal search

Nope, that's still fine.

1) He was observed with a concealed handgun

2) The officers took possession of the concealed handgun and shotgun for officer safety, which is normal when contacting the public.

3) While they had legal possession, they ran the numbers.

4) Not a search.

 

Here in Florida, I've had several encounters with law enforcement where they took my concealed weapon after I had announced I had a permit and was carrying. I didn't pay attention to whether or not they were running it. Perfectly legal for them to do so. Even if we have a permit the circumstances of the stop indicate what they should do. It's not an automatic good guy card, it just means that at the time we were given the permit we had not committed crimes.

[nalioth 405]

Well, whatever and however you guys want to twist it, I believe the OP's rights were violated.

[Marc 147]

This stop had nothing to do with Terry. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

Please enlighten me.

[152dbs 0]

Actually if you take a look through the thread you'll see that neither is correct. In the case you cited, they moved speakers which were not in their legal possession and thereby got the serial numbers. The act of moving the speakers made it a search. The speakers were not legally in their possession and they had no legal reason to move them.

 

In this case, they are taking possession of firearms during a stop for officer safety. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that this is legal. Once those firearms are in their possession it's perfectly legal for them to run the numbers. It's not a search since they are in their possession legally. Likewise, if they came up to your vehicle and brushed snow off your windshield to expose your VIN and then ran that, it's a search and would be illegal. On the other hand, if they brush the snow off to see if your registration is valid and the VIN gets exposed, it's legal for them to run it. It's then in plain view. They do this all the time with items having serial numbers which come into their possession.

 

Unless you are in an area where firearms are legally forbidden, I can't think of why possessing one would ever give them probable cause though.

Well, this is all well and good, but we're WAY off from the original posters situation.

 

1) In Indiana both concealed and open carry are legal with a permit

2) the OP has a valid IN CHL/CWL/CCP/(whatever you want to call it)

3) the officers had no crime to investigate upon his presentation of the aforementioned license

4) illegal search

 

 

i guess since someone has a permit, they cant possess a stolen firearm?

 

 

this arguement can go on til the end of time. many stolen firearms at recovered just b/c numbers are ran. pretty soon ill be reading a thread that someone is saying its unconstitutional to run their DL. just gives people another crusade and makes them feel important.

[GPalmer 1]

...

this arguement can go on til the end of time. many stolen firearms at recovered just b/c numbers are ran. pretty soon ill be reading a thread that someone is saying its unconstitutional to run their DL. just gives people another crusade and makes them feel important.

The most important thing I take from the argument is that there is case law that says it's legal for them to do so. Whether the laws should be changed is another topic. I personally like it fine the way it is.

[GPalmer 1]

Well, whatever and however you guys want to twist it, I believe the OP's rights were violated.

That's fair, I'm just telling you how the courts are going to rule on it. It's your right to disagree with them if you choose.

[vitamink 90]

this one time a cop stopped me and everything was cool until i told him that i was a saiga 12 forum member... for some reason he got all pissed off, took my saiga and rammed it up my ass. This was a stock s12 19" with a shark brake so you can imagine the pain... if only i got a tromix sbs conversion i might be able to walk correctly. Then they did the most reprehensible thing ever, they ran my serial number, found nothing wrong, then crammed it back in the ol poop shoot . Ever since then i can't even watch cops without crapping my pants. From now on when the cops stop me im just gonna take off runnin' and yell "illegal search" cuz earl over at www.iknowthelawbetterthananyoneofyouforum.com 5 years ago states, "ya ought not never give up anything to the po-lice no how". I'll let you know how it goes for me.

[Azrial 1,091]

This stop had nothing to do with Terry. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

Please enlighten me.

Fair enough, "Terry" grants the officer the legal ability to make a brief "search" of the outside of a suspect's clothing for weapons. It is a frisk, not a search,legally and is done for officer safety. A search is more invasive.

 

If after conducting this frisk for weapons the officer can articulate a need for a more invasive search, it may make the search justified by a warrantless exception. This will usually get debated in court, after the fac,t as the defense tries to suppress any evidence found.

 

But none of this matters at all. There was no need for a Terry exception, as the firearm had already been seen. It was in plain view. I have no problem that the officers made a stop on the OP, having a firearm displayed in a high crime area would amount to justified "reasonable suspicion" in most courts. Personally, I think that this is debatable in a state that has CCW, but that is a matter decided by the courts, ultimately.

 

I also have little problem with a officer running every firearm that legally comes into their possession. The problem is that once the CCW was presented there was no reason to take the firearm from the citizen, based on the story as told. More so there was no reason to go into a search of the vehicle for the shotgun. The pistol could have come into the officer's possession in some jurisdictions based on the theory of "Officer Safety" and that is not without some justification! But the shotgun, that was strictly fishing, and hence in my opinion a warrantless illegal search.

 

By some stretch, it could have been a Caroll Search, but I have heard no buyable justification for that. On the other hand, I must point out that we have not got the officer's side of this story.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Azrial

[Nailbomb 10,221]

Wow, let me say that this is a AWSOME discussion, and i'm proud of everyone for keeping it as civil as it is.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

this one time a cop stopped me and everything was cool until i told him that i was a saiga 12 forum member... for some reason he got all pissed off, took my saiga and rammed it up my ass. This was a stock s12 19" with a shark brake so you can imagine the pain... if only i got a tromix sbs conversion i might be able to walk correctly. Then they did the most reprehensible thing ever, they ran my serial number, found nothing wrong, then crammed it back in the ol poop shoot . Ever since then i can't even watch cops without crapping my pants. From now on when the cops stop me im just gonna take off runnin' and yell "illegal search" cuz earl over at www.iknowthelawbetterthananyoneofyouforum.com 5 years ago states, "ya ought not never give up anything to the po-lice no how". I'll let you know how it goes for me.

[Reverendfranz 160]

...

The real shame is that this question comes up, and the only way for it to actually be cleared up is for someone getting arrested for an unwarranted search, and appealing it in court, at great expense.

 

I agree with an earlier poster who said that citizens shouldnt be presumed to be criminals, I might also have the right to look up the numbers of every gun i touch legitimately, and doing so isnt a crime, but damn, its pretty rude, dont you think?

I'm not even going there. It's enough for me to know that it is legal for them to do so, once that is settled, it then is usually a matter of officer discretion. I don't have any stolen firearms, so they can run them all they want. If it makes them feel they've done their job better or makes them feel they're protecting the public safety, that's fine by me. And if one in a hundred comes back as stolen, then the world is a safer place since the bad guys don't have them.

 

Actually, i stated earlier why not having a stolen gun isnt good enough to keep you out of deep inconvenience and expense. at risk of seeming tacky, ill just quote myself.

 

As to the assertion that you have nothing to hide, so you shouldnt mind, i think you have a little too much faith. For one, mistakes are made, and a number can be entered incorrectly. If they have no information connecting you to the theft of that gun with the simular SN, say you bought it used at a gun show, you probably wont be charged with theft, but unless you can prove their error (which you have no real way to do) you will probably never see that gun again, and will probably suffer legal fees. Second, The stolen firearms database is rampant with fraud. It is not unheard of for someone to walk into a pawn shop or another location and write down the serial numbers of a gun, then report that gun stolen and when the cops check pawn tickets, they will drop by to pick up the firearm. The perp who reported the firearm stolen, is hopeful that the gun will be given to them by the police, but more often than not, the pawn ticket has already been checked and the gun is never picked up, or the cops spot the fraud, but there is no garauntee that they clear the serial number from the database, so there is a chance that any used gun you buy might very well have already been reported stolen, and again, you lose not only your rights, but your gun, probably your time, and most likely your money. The same thing also happens in divorces and family feuds.

 

But, i mean, if you have nothing to hide, right, isnt all that a small price to pay? I think not.

 

Rights dont exist to protect the guilty, but to prevent the exploitation of the innocent. Anyone who uses the "nothing to hide" shill is pushing an agenda.

[GPalmer 1]

Actually, i stated earlier why not having a stolen gun isnt good enough to keep you out of deep inconvenience and expense. at risk of seeming tacky, ill just quote myself.

 

As to the assertion that you have nothing to hide, so you shouldnt mind, i think you have a little too much faith. For one, mistakes are made, and a number can be entered incorrectly. If they have no information connecting you to the theft of that gun with the simular SN, say you bought it used at a gun show, you probably wont be charged with theft, but unless you can prove their error (which you have no real way to do) you will probably never see that gun again, and will probably suffer legal fees. Second, The stolen firearms database is rampant with fraud. It is not unheard of for someone to walk into a pawn shop or another location and write down the serial numbers of a gun, then report that gun stolen and when the cops check pawn tickets, they will drop by to pick up the firearm. The perp who reported the firearm stolen, is hopeful that the gun will be given to them by the police, but more often than not, the pawn ticket has already been checked and the gun is never picked up, or the cops spot the fraud, but there is no garauntee that they clear the serial number from the database, so there is a chance that any used gun you buy might very well have already been reported stolen, and again, you lose not only your rights, but your gun, probably your time, and most likely your money. The same thing also happens in divorces and family feuds.

If you feel that the police running a serial number of a weapon, bicycle, computer, etc. is such an imposition then you need to start acting to get the laws changed. That's your right and I encourage you to exercise it. I personally do not and would rather they have the ability to run them to catch criminals.

[Reverendfranz 160]

Edited June 1, 2009 by ReverendFranz

[Vultite 57]

what am I missing here? you got spotted with a firearm that should have been kept concealed(the glock), you were pulled over b/c your window tint is too dark, this isn't really harassment because it could have gone south real fast but you ended up ok....so I dun get it, did you expect less or more? Obviously you weren't a criminal, but they don't know that, what if you were a criminal and they spotted you with a gun on your hip? then what? don't do anything?

Edited June 1, 2009 by Vultite

[GPalmer 1]

...

I also have little problem with a officer running every firearm that legally comes into their possession. The problem is that once the CCW was presented there was no reason to take the firearm from the citizen, based on the story as told. More so there was no reason to go into a search of the vehicle for the shotgun. The pistol could have come into the officer's possession in some jurisdictions based on the theory of "Officer Safety" and that is not without some justification! But the shotgun, that was strictly fishing, and hence in my opinion a warrantless illegal search.

...

I kind of skipped ahead after reading the first couple of posts but it was my understanding that the shotgun was in the back seat in plain view and probably within reach. If so, I could see it being taken for officer safety. I am wrong in my assumptions?

[yakdung 2,926]

I have a friend that is an Attorney and he told me once "you have the right to remain silent, so shut the fuck up!". Most cases are built when the gums start flapping. Also, keep in mind that in most jurisdictions you are on audio and video streaming back to the trunk of the police car. May want to consider a device to record audio if you get stopped.

 

Yakdung

[Reverendfranz 160]

what am I missing here? you got spotted with a firearm that should have been kept concealed, you were pulled over b/c your window tint is too dark, this isn't really harassment because it could have gone south real fast but you ended up ok....so I dun get it, did you expect less or more? Obviously you weren't a criminal, but they don't know that, what if you were a criminal and they spotted you with a gun on your hip? then what? don't do anything?

 

They should accertain if a crime is is being commited, and probably convince the driver to explain what he is doing. Once they have confirmed that their pretext is resolved, and there is no crime, they should go on their way, not waste both parties time with fishing expeditions.

[nalioth 405]

...

I also have little problem with a officer running every firearm that legally comes into their possession. The problem is that once the CCW was presented there was no reason to take the firearm from the citizen, based on the story as told. More so there was no reason to go into a search of the vehicle for the shotgun. The pistol could have come into the officer's possession in some jurisdictions based on the theory of "Officer Safety" and that is not without some justification! But the shotgun, that was strictly fishing, and hence in my opinion a warrantless illegal search.

...

I kind of skipped ahead after reading the first couple of posts but it was my understanding that the shotgun was in the back seat in plain view and probably within reach. If so, I could see it being taken for officer safety. I am wrong in my assumptions?

You should go back and read all the posts by the OP.

 

He reports the shotgun was covered up by other items and not in plain view.

[GPalmer 1]

...

I also have little problem with a officer running every firearm that legally comes into their possession. The problem is that once the CCW was presented there was no reason to take the firearm from the citizen, based on the story as told. More so there was no reason to go into a search of the vehicle for the shotgun. The pistol could have come into the officer's possession in some jurisdictions based on the theory of "Officer Safety" and that is not without some justification! But the shotgun, that was strictly fishing, and hence in my opinion a warrantless illegal search.

...

I kind of skipped ahead after reading the first couple of posts but it was my understanding that the shotgun was in the back seat in plain view and probably within reach. If so, I could see it being taken for officer safety. I am wrong in my assumptions?

You should go back and read all the posts by the OP.

 

He reports the shotgun was covered up by other items and not in plain view.

Ahhh, now that's a fishing expedition, let me read and catch up on exactly what he said in regards to it.

[GPalmer 1]

...

I also have little problem with a officer running every firearm that legally comes into their possession. The problem is that once the CCW was presented there was no reason to take the firearm from the citizen, based on the story as told. More so there was no reason to go into a search of the vehicle for the shotgun. The pistol could have come into the officer's possession in some jurisdictions based on the theory of "Officer Safety" and that is not without some justification! But the shotgun, that was strictly fishing, and hence in my opinion a warrantless illegal search.

...

I kind of skipped ahead after reading the first couple of posts but it was my understanding that the shotgun was in the back seat in plain view and probably within reach. If so, I could see it being taken for officer safety. I am wrong in my assumptions?

You should go back and read all the posts by the OP.

 

He reports the shotgun was covered up by other items and not in plain view.

In this case, I believe that their right to search the passenger compartment is based on his ability to reach the weapons. Certainly they can search for weapons within his access based on officer safety. I don't think once they removed him from the vehicle and thereby removed his access to the shotgun they had a right to search it. That was a fairly recent decision though as I remember, within the last few months so they may be out of date on it. I would have to look it up since there was some discussion of the decision.

 

My understanding is this is what happened:

1) They viewed his concealed weapon.

2) While investigating the concealed weapon they took possession, probably for "officer safety."

3) At some point they ran his serial number on the handgun.

4) At some point they also determined he was violating windows tint laws (I don't see it bears on this).

5) They removed him from the vehicle.

6) They then asked him if he had any other weapons.

7) They then searched a area for weapons which he no longer had access to since they had removed him.

 

I'll check on it but that doesn't seem right.

[Reverendfranz 160]

the recent decision you are probably referring to is AZ vs Gant, it only refers to SIA (after arrest)

[SOPMOD 254]

Does the OP look to be of legal age to carry a gun?No offense but there are instances when police should tiptoe past the line of our sovereignty in regards to minors,impairment,aggressive language/gestures,etc that when coupled with seeing someone's piece poking out would be adequate reason for a polite "fishing trip" in the interest of the public good but they should indeed tread lightly and do as little as is needed to ascertain if their curiosity was justified or not.

 

Telling the lad that his pistol was showing and asking if he had a permit should have been the end of it in this particular instance with at most a warning to keep it concealed or even a ticket if such a policy exists in Indiana.

 

There's a fine line between keeping the peace and oppression and just because there are many instances of oppression does not mean that all LE activities are oppression.Kids getting themselves into trouble,people driving like maniacs endagering others are perfectly legitimate reasons for the police to insinuate themselves into the comings and goings of a private citizen without witnessing a crime or having a warrant but they must never be allowed to dominate,oppress or harass private citizens who's taxes pay their salaries without a damned good reason.

Edited June 1, 2009 by SOPMOD

[GPalmer 1]

Ah, the recent one I was thinking of was in the case of a person who voluntarily left his vehicle. I went back and read closer and they had him sit back down. The OP doesn't say where but I assume it was in the vehicle. So long as it could be argued the area with the shotgun was under his immediate control, they could legally take possession of the weapon until their investigation was completed.

 

the recent decision you are probably referring to is AZ vs Gant, it only refers to SIA (after arrest)

Yup, that was the one.