Pulled over for carrying

[152dbs 0]

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=9359

 

http://cbs5.com/crime/sacramento.police.shot.2.1018781.html

 

 

no such as a "routine" traffic stop.

[grendelz 61]

Sir, do you have any weapons in the vehicle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL funniest thing I've seen all day!

[suzukiltd 0]

This sums it up for me.

[grendelz 61]

btw sopmod, the politicians got u convinced its public safety...go to one of their parties, see the massive amounts of alcohol consumed and look at how many of them drive afterwards.

I'm going to respond to this part. How many local police get togethers have you been to with your fellow officers consuming mass amounts of alcohol. Here the local cops call it "RIB NIGHT". Getting shitfaced drunk, calling each other nigga. It's funny how I know. One of my female friends dated one of these local cops and you wouldn't believe half the shit that goes on. Things I've learned firsthand. And about you saying that in some areas they ask that some departments ask for higher education, well here in NC all you need is a BLE certificate.

[grendelz 61]

This sums it up for me.

Agreed good vid, but you also get alot of this

[Reverendfranz 160]

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=9359

 

http://cbs5.com/crime/sacramento.police.shot.2.1018781.html

 

 

no such as a "routine" traffic stop.

 

Absolutely, and no one, as far as i know, at least while thinking about it, has said that an officer doesnt have a safety concern. As i said before, if an officer feels you might pose a threat, he has every right to minimise that threat, and its in your own best interest to allay his concerns, for a number of reasons. Failure to disarm if an officer asks you to is the same thing as threatening an officer with the posibility of deadly force, and wont get you very far.

 

I think the question is, where, and why does that simple taking possession of a firearm for officer safety turn into an investigation of theft? It may or may not be 100% in the eyes of the law, depending on the circumstances, but if nothing else it seems disingenuous and contrived, and not at all in line with securing officer safety.

[Bayoupiper 738]

A cop should not have to worry about facing an armed man during a legitimate traffic stop so surrendering our weapons should not be a problem but fishing trips and running numbers are unconstitutional horseshit

 

 

 

But who is to say that during a legit traffic stop for, oh, how about DUI, and the driver has a CCW and an attitude, as several here obviously do.

 

I've stopped ccws before and they announce that they are carrying.

If it is for something minor like a stop sign or such, I say "Ok" and go on and either fuss at them or write the ticket.

The fact that a driver is armed doesn't bother me one bit.

 

 

What does is the ones who either have a chip on their shoulder, are cop haters, or cuss up a storm, and are armed.

 

I'd be a complete fool to leave an asshole armed while I write him a ticket!

[Bayoupiper 738]

I think the question is, where, and why does that simple taking possession of a firearm for officer safety turn into an investigation of theft? It may or may not be 100% in the eyes of the law, depending on the circumstances, but if nothing else it seems disingenuous and contrived, and not at all in line with securing officer safety.

 

 

 

The answer is it never should UNLESS there is some sort of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or certain situations like a gun shop being burglarized in the area.

[suzukiltd 0]

This sums it up for me.

Agreed good vid, but you also get alot of this

 

I wasn't there so I did not see what started this altercation. Unfortunately the video only tells one part. People seem to forget that police are human and not infallible. Mistakes can and have been made.

[Bayoupiper 738]

This sums it up for me.

 

 

 

1/2 of 1%.

 

 

Wouldn't know that by the way some people around here talk!

[grendelz 61]

This sums it up for me.

Agreed good vid, but you also get alot of this

 

I wasn't there so I did not see what started this altercation. Unfortunately the video only tells one part. People seem to forget that police are human and not infallible. Mistakes can and have been made.

click on the info section on the right and follow the links.

[suzukiltd 0]

I read the info. Again I wasn't there, I won't defend nor will I bash what he did. If it comes out he was out of line I will be the first to say that he needs to be disciplined.

[grendelz 61]

I read the info. Again I wasn't there, I won't defend nor will I bash what he did. If it comes out he was out of line I will be the first to say that he needs to be disciplined.

here you go

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0509/627083.html

http://static.ktul.com/documents/emtstatement_0509.pdf

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0509/626636.html

article about Not releasing the officer's dashcam footage

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=10440200

[Reverendfranz 160]

I think the question is, where, and why does that simple taking possession of a firearm for officer safety turn into an investigation of theft? It may or may not be 100% in the eyes of the law, depending on the circumstances, but if nothing else it seems disingenuous and contrived, and not at all in line with securing officer safety.

 

The answer is it never should UNLESS there is some sort of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or certain situations like a gun shop being burglarized in the area.

 

 

Thank you, that was my opinion as well, and i hadn't heard anyone else say that from a LEO perspective. Instead ive heard "We always run the numbers, thats policy" and "I run the numbers on everything i can, everytime" without explaining why. That glocktalk thread a few pages back was a good example, there was very little in the way of information spread out over its 15 some odd pages. Id like to think we are doing a little better here.

[Stansplace 414]

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=9359

 

http://cbs5.com/crime/sacramento.police.shot.2.1018781.html

 

 

no such as a "routine" traffic stop.

They obviously didn't announce and had bad intentions from the get go. That is a hell of a lot different than stopping someone for the same or a similiar offence, having them announce CCW and armed, then harrassing the hell out of them for being a law abiding citizen. We could trade videos and posts forever and still disagree. My problem is when I am legal and minding my own fucking business but having my rights trampled on because it is policy or whatever you want to call it. It is still illegal search and seizure. And addressing the post about an obnoxious loud threatening CCW holder, that is a much different scenario than the narrow confines of the original posters question and ensuing discussion. If the CCW holder is being a dick, then of course the officer should take the weapon. I was only addressing the OP's specific query and discussion, until I was told to leave the country. But as a patriot, I think I'll stay.

[G O B 3,516]

I sure didnt think they had a real reason for stopping me in the first place!

 

You brandished a weapon. A gun at that. In my state that gets a lot of attention. In my neighborhood if a cop saw a pistol on me they'd probably draw first, then disarm me, then ask questions.

 

In MY neighborhood, when they saw the gun they would have been out of the cruiser and on your ass in .1 seconds flat. There is no real CCW in Maryland, and P.G.'s finest are ACTUALLY acting "in fear for their safety", as shooting at Cops is one of the local street sports.

 

As in morals, ethics are a matter of geography.The more populous the area, the less morals and ethics.

[Krom 36]

Will, you are correct. There are elements within law enforcement agencies that represent the finest characteristics of the American patriot. Unfortunately, in the case of law enforcement as a whole, a few bad apples do ruin the bunch. The Fraternal Order of Police has supported gun control legislation in the past and I don't see any reason why they won't again in the future. All this is done in the name of public safety. The FOP is currently lobbying Congress to pass legislation that would allow off duty and retired LEO's to carry concealed firearms without having to obtain a CCW. This further illustrates that many LEO's view themselves as above the laws the "little people" must obey. I agree that within any group there are those individuals that defy the norm; however, the majority of political organizations that assert they speak for LEO's are constantly seeking to expand rights and protections for LEO's at the expense of the average citizen.

 

 

I respect your opinions, but.. I think your dead wrong. Maybe the best way to expand our gun rights is to ABIDE by the existing laws that alow an officer to check the area that he/she works in for their saftey (IE traffic stops) and maybe get more LEOs to join our fight for our freedoms. Rather than taking a combative attitude toward LEOs which will continue the cycle of us and them bullshit and it will keep some LEO based organizations on the antis side rather than our own.

 

FYI you don't have the same rights in a vehicle as your home, LEO have RIGHTS too like the RIGHT to try and reduce the posibility of getting killed in the line of duty on traffic stops. Cops make shit money and risk their asses protecting our freedoms, the law is the way it is for a reason, OFFICER's SAFTEY. The more difficult it is for LEOs to catch illegal firearms and stay safe on the job the more restrictive gun laws will become that is a FACT. LEOs based organizations that are on our side gun rights wise are a force multiplier in our fight. Keep this attitude and your hurting not helping to preserve your rights.

[Krom 36]

wow, reading this thread i feel completely insulted. a few people that posted makes fellow LEOs jaded and makes us view society as "US vs THEM". we have to take care of people that curse us when we take their "little boy" to jail for dealing drugs or robbery, but then we have to rush to their aid when they are the victim as well. ive had my truck searched before while in TX while i was their hunting. they may have seen my concealed firearm because either the wind exposed it or it was poking out a little. big deal, im just glad they were doing their jobs. i couldve been some nut with a pistol that was going to kill someone, who knows.

 

i agree it could be labeled as "fishing" but i can obtain a CCW permit and own stolen firearms. its not a stretch.

 

some people need to see it from this side sometime.

 

Bump, I agree.

[Azrial 1,091]

Just as a point of clarification, the Terry exception for officer safety, if combined with articulatable "furtive" movements, can be, and often is, extended to vehicles.

Generally we agree. These are the points of concern and interest I found in your post.

 

Terry is a less invasive "search" then other physical searches, for example turning out pockets or a strip search. It may well lead to justification for either or both. I have never denied that it is a search; I simply said that it is considered a "frisk" to differentiate it from more invasive searches.

 

The "English language," or common sense for that matter, has little to do with the law.

 

The "Federal Law Enforcement Guidebook" is just that, a guide book. I have writing one myself. A search of the interior in close proximity to an arrested person, without a warrant is a well know warrant less exception, but that does not mean that it is derived from "Terry." This search if conducted before an arrest or without lawful exception would be pretty questionable in my opinion.

 

But, then it is just like the Feds to try and telescope a law far beyond its original intent, if they did not do so they would be doing damn little law enforcement now would they.

 

I maintain that this search had nothing to do with Terry. There is no need for "reasonable suspicion" where there is absolute knowledge hence, no Terry.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Azrial

[Reverendfranz 160]

Just as a point of clarification, the Terry exception for officer safety, if combined with articulatable "furtive" movements, can be, and often is, extended to vehicles.

Generally we agree. These are the points of concern and interest I found in your post.

(...)

The "Federal Law Enforcement Guidebook" is just that, a guide book. I have writing one myself. A search of the interior in close proximity to a arrested person, without a warrant is a well know warrant less exception, but that does not mean that it is derived from "Terry." This search if conducted before an arrest or without exception would be pretty questionable in my opinion.

(...)

 

I maintain that this search had nothing to do with Terry. There is no need for "reasonable suspicion" where there is absolute knowledge hence, no Terry.

 

Agreed, this was plain view, and not a Terry, but "In proximity to an arrested person" is SIA, Search Incident to Arrest, a completely different exception from Terry or plain view. (and something that is very slightly limited since Arizona v Gant)

 

Now, im not saying i agree with it, but the same standards of "reasonable suspicion" of a threat to officer safety that SCOTUS noted in Terry can, and is regularly used as an officer safety "reasonable" exception to warrant-less searches. If you are pulled over, and that officer feels that there is articulable reason to believe you may be armed and dangerous, (usualy described as "furtive movements" or recognizing gang colours, or the like) he not only has the right to "frisk" your person, but also the passenger compartment of the car (so called areas of immediate control.) this "frisk" (again, a frisk is still a search, even if under constraint) is limited to areas where the suspected armed and dangerous person might obtain immediate control of a weapon, that includes the seats, floor, visor, under the seats, the unlocked glove box, a briefcase, or console in the passenger compartment in vehicle.... really, anything that isnt locked (as then it isnt immediately accessible) and not the trunk, even if unlocked, (as it isnt immediately accessible either)

 

Anything he uncovers during this search that is not a weapon may be seized as evidence, because in the course of the search, items that are uncovered end up in "Plain View"

 

This is commonly refered to as a Terry Frisk of a Vehicle, although the actual case that gave it teeth, above and beyond the fact that cops had been doing it all over the country after Terry, was Michigan v. Long, (which was a convoluted and politically motivated decision) but im guessing that they dont call it a Long Search, as that would too obviously point out how much of a stretch of logic it is.

 

Another interesting case to note is Arizona v Johnson, (why do all these cases come from AZ?) in which the court ruled that a Terry Frisk can be extended to all occupants of a vehicle, and not just the driver who was stopped in say a traffic violation that the passengers couldn't possibly be guilty of. The court ruled that all parties can be detained at that point, and if suspicion exists, searched.

 

Again, this doesn't apply here, but it is good to know, and the moral of the story, is probably to make sure you lock your glove box/briefcase, whatever. A vehicle search prior to arrest may be "questionable" but it holds up in court, and isnt something you can easily or safely keep an officer from doing.

 

Thats all i was trying to say in my previous post.

Edited June 2, 2009 by ReverendFranz

[vinnivanhood 17]

Wow I gotta say I really just started this thread in reference to how the cops did and didnt like my Saiga without even considering any rights violations. I dont have anything against police even though Ive witnessed and been victim of harasment countless times(far worse than this!), not even trying to be sarcastic Im sure there are good cops out there. All that aside, out of curiosity I called a lawer today and he said theres nothing to discus if I wasnt physically or mentally harmed- rights violation or not (let me add I know there are good guy lawers I have actually met one of those-he helped me get custody of my kids 9 years ago). So anyway my son was OK, no ticket, got my guns back. Could have been constitutional but could have been worse!

[DogMan 2,343]

What did the cops think about your Saiga?

 

"Can we possibly find any reason in the world to take this gun away from this guy".

 

Thats what they thought about it.

Edited June 2, 2009 by DogMan

[DogMan 2,343]

This sums it up for me.

 

 

 

1/2 of 1%.

 

 

Wouldn't know that by the way some people around here talk!

 

I'm not going to get into a war about statistics here but I'm sure they are refereing to cops that have been caught and convicted of a crime. How many cops, who are in the best position to get away with criminal activity, never get caught? Nobody will ever know that number. What are the statistics on disiplinary action against officers for sustained charges? I'm sure we are still talking about fairly low numbers here but even if the figure of 3% encompasses all known, unknown, covered up, whitewashed, shall we say "less than exemplary" activity by officers, that still one hell of a lot of police officers. Way too many. Now you are going to say that my figure is way too high. But even with my figure you are being asked to believe that 97% of police officers have never, or will ever commit an act that is contrary to the public trust. If you believe that, fine. Again, I live in the real world.

[suzukiltd 0]

This sums it up for me.

 

 

 

1/2 of 1%.

 

 

Wouldn't know that by the way some people around here talk!

 

I'm not going to get into a war about statistics here but I'm sure they are refereing to cops that have been caught and convicted of a crime. How many cops, who are in the best position to get away with criminal activity, never get caught? Nobody will ever know that number. What are the statistics on disiplinary action against officers for sustained charges? I'm sure we are still talking about fairly low numbers here but even if the figure of 3% encompasses all known, unknown, covered up, whitewashed, shall we say "less than exemplary" activity by officers, that still one hell of a lot of police officers. Way too many. Now you are going to say that my figure is way too high. But even with my figure you are being asked to believe that 97% of police officers have never, or will ever commit an act that is contrary to the public trust. If you believe that, fine. Again, I live in the real world.

 

I believe the stats were for criminal acts. Breaking the public trust is a huge grey area. One part of the public would believe searching a vehicle that contained guns would be perfectly acceptable, the other believes constitutional rights were trampled. Law enforcement in general is extremely limited by department policies, judgements, statutes, and not to mention public opinion. When you put all these limitations in place it makes it extremely difficult to catch bad guys, and lets be real that why we are here. To be an effective officer a lot of times you need to be in the grey area. That might sound bad to some but its the reality we live in. This is where case law comes from. I guarantee this, if every law enforcement officer went strictly by the book, never going into the grey area everyone would have bars on there windows and live in a constant state of fear. Everyone has an opinion about law enforcement, but I ask how many of you a have actually have a clue about what we really do? I'm not talking about what you see on the news or read in the paper but real life experience, maybe a ride along. Almost all police officers I have encountered have good intentions and want nothing more than to catch the bad guy.

[DogMan 2,343]

Breaking the public trust is a huge grey area.

 

I rest my case.

[152dbs 0]

some here are stuck in the good old boy era. well, where i work we are always subject to what our lts, capts, majors, or sheriff want. its easy to bash everyone without knowledge of anything. if anyone violates our sop or general orders, the person that violated them are dealt with swiftly. 1 got put on suspension for bringing his cellphone past a certain point. 2 were terminated b/c of defending themselves at a local fastfood restaurant. they defended themselves against former inmates. but it made local news...and like the atlanta braves, they were fired b/c it didnt look good for the dept. hell, ive even had to talk to IA b/c i broke up w/ a girl i was seeing and since she was mad at me for leaving, she made my life hell for a few months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

i dont drink and drive. seen what it did to friends when they got hit by a drunkdriver in high school. my better 1/2 is my driver.

 

 

 

 

 

i wonder how great society would be if we werent here to protect u.

[suzukiltd 0]

I am a firm believer that departments should handle most problems swiftly. But like most jobs the bigger the business/ department there is more room for people to fall through the cracks. Unfortunately a lot of departments make policies based on how things play out in the media. We are subject to unwarranted media criticism because it generates ratings. This is why departments over react in some circumstances. Example.. the media loves to criticize taser use. Its proven to be safer for the suspect and officer, but because the media portrays it as being electrocuted it has a negative stigma to it. The public is uneducated in our jobs and draw there opinions from the media who has there own agenda. This is how unwarranted laws and policies are formed. Fore my department the taser and baton are the same level of force. You tell me which is worse, getting tased to beaten with a baton? Sorry for the off topic rant.

[Reverendfranz 160]

i wonder how great society would be if we werent here to protect u.

 

You protect what passes for "Society", you do not protect me, and i resent the insinuation of otherwise. I can count the times ive had need of the services of a police officer in my entire life on one hand, and most of that is because commercial insurance claims require a man in a blue suit to write it down before they will accept it, and I have never asked a police officer to "protect" me. Thats my responsibility, and one i take seriously, thank you.

 

Im sorry that you feel insulted by this thread, and i hope i havent said anything to further your resentment, but as i stated previously, this is an excellent opportunity for you to relate experience and practice in law enforcement to people who might not otherwise gain access to that information, and isnt the best place to just insult citizens with sweeping statements in such a confused fashion, not acknowledging the counter productivity that entails, as you are in fact also a citizen yourself. I cant speak for the broad statements others have made against LEO's nor do i agree with them, but i do know that alot of people realize that while they are protecting themselves and their family, as their responsibility, there are police officers that are not only not assisting them in that duty, but commiting a myriad of offenses against people just like them, and they can grow resentful. I would hope we could work through that resentment with communication and realizing we are all in this together. People will stop assuming cops are bad when they see cops standing up for good, not just at work, but in everyday life. There are bad cops, and we can argue that they are a tiny minority, and we can argue that you arent one of them, but its awefull silly to say there is no problem at all, and that nothing ought to be done about it, and how dare anyone bring it up. What we need instead of that argument is something constructive.

 

thats my $0.02 for what its worth.

 

So wheres your take on the original post?

 

How about a simple one, that Will already answered: Where, and why does a simple taking possession of a firearm in the interest of officer safety turn into an investigation of theft in the mind of a law enforcement officer?

Edited June 2, 2009 by ReverendFranz

[152dbs 0]

i wonder how great society would be if we werent here to protect u.

 

You protect what passes for "Society", you do not protect me, and i resent the insinuation of otherwise. I can count the times ive had need of the services of a police officer in my entire life on one hand, and most of that is because commercial insurance claims require a man in a blue suit to write it down before they will accept it, and I have never asked a police officer to "protect" me. Thats my responsibility, and one i take seriously, thank you.

 

Im sorry that you feel insulted by this thread, and i hope i havent said anything to further your resentment, but as i stated previously, this is an excellent opportunity for you to relate experience and practice in law enforcement to people who might not otherwise gain access to that information, and isnt the best place to just insult citizens with sweeping statements in such a confused fashion, not acknowledging the counter productivity that entails, as you are in fact also a citizen yourself. I cant speak for the broad statements others have made against LEO's nor do i agree with them, but i do know that alot of people realize that while they are protecting themselves and their family, as their responsibility, there are police officers that are not only not assisting them in that duty, but commiting a myriad of offenses against people just like them, and they can grow resentful. I would hope we could work through that resentment with communication and realizing we are all in this together. People will stop assuming cops are bad when they see cops standing up for good, not just at work, but in everyday life. There are bad cops, and we can argue that they are a tiny minority, and we can argue that you arent one of them, but its awefull silly to say there is no problem at all, and that nothing ought to be done about it, and how dare anyone bring it up. What we need instead of that argument is something constructive.

 

thats my $0.02 for what its worth.

 

So wheres your take on the original post?

 

How about a simple one, that Will already answered: Where, and why does a simple taking possession of a firearm in the interest of officer safety turn into an investigation of theft in the mind of a law enforcement officer?

 

 

society is protected as a whole. just because u havent needed for anything besides commercial claims, that doesnt mean we are here. and everyone in the US isnt able to protect themselves to the same level u are.

 

im not insulting people. sorry if u see it that way.

 

 

i hate the bad ones that tarnish us. just because of some, im viewed dirty as they are. this isnt that discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for my opinion on the OP refer to posts #69 and #149.

[152dbs 0]

I am a firm believer that departments should handle most problems swiftly. But like most jobs the bigger the business/ department there is more room for people to fall through the cracks. Unfortunately a lot of departments make policies based on how things play out in the media. We are subject to unwarranted media criticism because it generates ratings. This is why departments over react in some circumstances. Example.. the media loves to criticize taser use. Its proven to be safer for the suspect and officer, but because the media portrays it as being electrocuted it has a negative stigma to it. The public is uneducated in our jobs and draw there opinions from the media who has there own agenda. This is how unwarranted laws and policies are formed. Fore my department the taser and baton are the same level of force. You tell me which is worse, getting tased to beaten with a baton? Sorry for the off topic rant.

 

 

 

one night a kid got tased while holding a pistol aimed at a fellow deputy. he started complaining. then i asked if he wouldve the deputy shot him instead. his opinion of being tased completely changed. he thanked the deputy for not shooting him.