Pulled over for carrying

[Bayoupiper 738]

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.

 

When you actually get down to it, yes 97% sounds about right.

Especially when you consider the sheer number of officers you are talking about.

 

And there is a lot less "whitewashing" as you call it going on than you think.

I can't change your mind, nor do I really give a rat's ass to try.

I can only speak for departments that I have either been directly involved in, or had the "pleaseure" of having to be involved with.

Off the top of my head, I can think of one department that has about 750 officers, and has only had three dirty ones.

All three went to jail.

 

That's about .04 percent?

[suzukiltd 0]

When you think about the vast size of some departments such as NYPD, over 30,000 officer there has to be some bad apples there. Its just a numbers game, you can't keep all the bad people out when working with departments this big.

[Bayoupiper 738]

When you think about the vast size of some departments such as NYPD, over 30,000 officer there has to be some bad apples there. Its just a numbers game, you can't keep all the bad people out when working with departments this big.

 

 

You can't keep them out of ANY type of group or vocation!

[suzukiltd 0]

Very true

[Azrial 1,091]

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)....

No, I see your point, but if I was forced to make a warrant less exception to this stop I think that I would pitch Carroll v. United States rather then try and convince the court that a man standing outside of his vehicle, that we had already personally disarmed, was a danger because he might be able to get back inside his vehicle quickly enough to draw a shotgun on two armed police officers.... It seems to get a little thin with the telling, doesn't it? Perhaps you could articulate it better?

 

Where as Carroll is perfect for the warrant less search of this car, as probable cause existed based on plain sight of a weapon and the mobility of the automobile made it impracticable to get a search warrant. I am uncertain of the proximately to a jurisdictional border of the law enforcement officers in question, but if so we could as easily go with that as well.

 

Also in United States v. Johns the Supremes specifically stated, "A vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on the basis of probable cause to believe that it contains contraband, and there is no requirement of exigent circumstances to justify such a warrant less search."

 

I'm just saying... that there are a lot of ways to make a warrant less search of a vehicle, that Terry is not a good quoted exception here, and that these two officers saw a guy with one gun, which turned out to be legal and went on a fishing trip for something else, that was'nt...

 

I am not faulting the officers, we have not heard their story, the OP could have the misfortune of looking like a BOLO suspect, we will never know enough to properly Monday Morning Quarterback this.

[Reverendfranz 160]

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)....

No, I see your point, but if I was forced to make a warrant less exception to this stop I think that I would pitch Carroll v. United States rather then try and convince the court that a man standing outside of his vehicle, that we had already personally disarmed, was a danger because he might be able to get back inside his vehicle quickly enough to draw a shotgun on two armed police officers.... It seems to get a little thin with the telling, doesn't it? Perhaps you could articulate it better?

 

Where as Carroll is perfect for the warrant less search of this car, as probable cause existed based on plain sight of a weapon and the mobility of the automobile made it impracticable to get a search warrant. I am uncertain of the proximately to a jurisdictional border of the law enforcement officers in question, but if so we could as easily go with that as well.

 

Also in United States v. Johns the Supremes specifically stated, "A vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on the basis of probable cause to believe that it contains contraband, and there is no requirement of exigent circumstances to justify such a warrant less search."

 

I'm just saying... that there are a lot of ways to make a warrant less search of a vehicle, that Terry is not a good quoted exception here, and that these two officers saw a guy with one gun, which turned out to be legal and went on a fishing trip for something else, that was'nt...

 

I am not faulting the officers, we have not heard their story, the OP could have the misfortune of looking like a BOLO suspect, we will never know enough to properly Monday Morning Quarterback this.

 

I agree, both that neither of us was there, and that Terry seems thin, but ive always thought that Terry seemed thin in any vehicle search where an officer can just as easily ask the reasonably suspected to be dangerous person to step away from the vehicle, problem solved. There had to have been alot going on in these officers minds, if they were thinking about such exceptions, I cant really follow it with the information I heard here. I agree that utilizing the Carroll Doctrine is a cleaner pitch, but im not clear what the probable cause would be, which is why i didnt suppose it was the case. If i understand, the shotgun wasnt visible, and wouldnt there have to be not only probable cause to beleive that there was a gun in the car to search, but probable cause to believe that gun was in fact contraband? If you mean the initial stop upon seeing the holstered handgun, i didn't think that carrying a firearm, alone, in a state that allows concealed carry, would be grounds for anything above suspicion, without some other noted behavior or circumstances. Most likely, id assume that the OP was stopped for suspicion of carrying without a permit, and at some point indicated there was a firearm in the car when asked, that seems like the simplest explination, but of course he could confirm that.

 

Im not faulting the officers either, persay, because there is always more to a story than you ever hear second hand, but i think we are all pretty much worked it through unless there is new information out there somewhere. Maybe the OP can get pulled over and invite the officers to join the forum, i dont know, we are not likely to find out. It does seem to me though, that the stop was to investigate the suspicion of carry without permit, (unless it was another pretext, such as a burglary in the neighborhood with firearms missing, which is possible) and that investigation should have ended with the production of the valid permit, not with a fishing expedition for stolen arms. (again, assuming that wasnt the purpose of the stop in the first place.)

 

I do notice that the overall tone here doesnt seem to agree with the tone at the glocktalk thread that was linked to earlier, which really only stated "of course the firearms, once in lawfull possesion of the officer, for whatever reason, can be used to begin an investigation into their potential previous theft" and "Always, dont ask questions". Im thinking thats a good thing.