LEO run in 2 times in 30 min.

[MACHINEGUN]

Gomez.. do not take it personal, that is Prometheus. Welcome to INGO! Lol!

 

[zebov]

It's a catch 22 on the ID in Indiana if you have a handgun.

You do NOT have to produce ID unless you are doing something that requires is. Being unarmed in a car, the cop can go pound sand. He can ask you name, residence and DOB. Thats all you have to answer. Verbally. You cannot be compelled to produce ID for that.

Driving a car? Yes you must produce your DL.

Carrying a gun? Yes, you must produce your LTCH and a photo ID (which is normally a DL for most ppl).

Unarmed? Not required.

This isn't Nazi Germany.... yet.

Actually it's even simpler than that. Unless the officer has some reasonable suspicion you've committed a crime, you do not have to identify yourself or answer any questions (Brown v. Texas 1979). An officer can't just stop anyone he/she wants and ask who they are, where they live, and when they were born.

 

[DemolitionMan]

This thread makes me wonder how you "should" handle giving your weapon to an LEO (setting aside for a moment the debate about whether the LEO has a right to ask for it or not).

My father was an LEO and he used to say simply keep your hands in sight, let the officer know that a) you have a permit and b) are armed and c) follow instructions. I never asked him what to do if the LEO asks for the weapon though.

Clearing a weapon before handing it to someone is something that's been drilled into me for years. If you ever watch a military weapons inspection you'll see that it includes an exaggerated set of moves to clear and check the weapon before giving it to the inspecting NCO/OIC. The person receiving the weapon then checks as well, and that way everyone is certain the weapon is safe. I've taught my kids to do a much less formalized but still thorough check whenever they handle a weapon.

I'm also concerned about giving a loaded weapon to someone who may or may not be familiar with it, especially when the first thing they're likely to do is attempt to clear it. That creates a hazardous situation for the LEO, me, and anyone else nearby -- not to mention my weapon!

My only concern is that the LEO might confuse clearing the weapon with preparing to fire it. Obviously I would keep it pointed in a safe direction, etc, but I'd rather avoid any "oops" moments when the other person is armed.

With all that in mind, it seems reasonable to respond to a request for my weapon with, "Sure officer. I'd like to clear it first to make sure it is safe for you." Does that seem reasonable to others?

 

[RA8]

This thread makes me wonder how you "should" handle giving your weapon to an LEO (setting aside for a moment the debate about whether the LEO has a right to ask for it or not).

My father was an LEO and he used to say simply keep your hands in sight, let the officer know that a) you have a permit and b) are armed and c) follow instructions. I never asked him what to do if the LEO asks for the weapon though.

Clearing a weapon before handing it to someone is something that's been drilled into me for years. If you ever watch a military weapons inspection you'll see that it includes an exaggerated set of moves to clear and check the weapon before giving it to the inspecting NCO/OIC. The person receiving the weapon then checks as well, and that way everyone is certain the weapon is safe. I've taught my kids to do a much less formalized but still thorough check whenever they handle a weapon.

I'm also concerned about giving a loaded weapon to someone who may or may not be familiar with it, especially when the first thing they're likely to do is attempt to clear it. That creates a hazardous situation for the LEO, me, and anyone else nearby -- not to mention my weapon!

My only concern is that the LEO might confuse clearing the weapon with preparing to fire it. Obviously I would keep it pointed in a safe direction, etc, but I'd rather avoid any "oops" moments when the other person is armed.

With all that in mind, it seems reasonable to respond to a request for my weapon with, "Sure officer. I'd like to clear it first to make sure it is safe for you." Does that seem reasonable to others?

YES!

 

[BloodEclipse]

This thread makes me wonder how you "should" handle giving your weapon to an LEO (setting aside for a moment the debate about whether the LEO has a right to ask for it or not).

My father was an LEO and he used to say simply keep your hands in sight, let the officer know that a) you have a permit and b) are armed and c) follow instructions. I never asked him what to do if the LEO asks for the weapon though.

Clearing a weapon before handing it to someone is something that's been drilled into me for years. If you ever watch a military weapons inspection you'll see that it includes an exaggerated set of moves to clear and check the weapon before giving it to the inspecting NCO/OIC. The person receiving the weapon then checks as well, and that way everyone is certain the weapon is safe. I've taught my kids to do a much less formalized but still thorough check whenever they handle a weapon.

I'm also concerned about giving a loaded weapon to someone who may or may not be familiar with it, especially when the first thing they're likely to do is attempt to clear it. That creates a hazardous situation for the LEO, me, and anyone else nearby -- not to mention my weapon!

My only concern is that the LEO might confuse clearing the weapon with preparing to fire it. Obviously I would keep it pointed in a safe direction, etc, but I'd rather avoid any "oops" moments when the other person is armed.

With all that in mind, it seems reasonable to respond to a request for my weapon with, "Sure officer. I'd like to clear it first to make sure it is safe for you." Does that seem reasonable to others?

Completely.

 

[pftraining_in]

Can Law Enforcement question Passengers During a Traffic Stop

QUESTION:

What are the laws regarding the questioning of passengers during a routine traffic stop?​

_____​

ANSWER:​

Asking Passenger for Identification
What Happens when He or She Refuses?​

On April 4, 2008 the United States Court of Appeals considered a civil rights claim filed against an officer who demanded identification from a passenger on a motor vehicle stop, and arrested the passenger when he refused to comply with the officer’s demand.i The case involved a motor vehicle stop by an Arkansas State Police Officer, Jeff Harris.

​

The court outlined the facts as follows: “It is undisputed that Harris stopped the car being driven by Stufflebeam's grandson because it did not display a license plate. After the grandson produced his driver's license, proof of insurance, a bill of sale, and a title document, Harris asked the passenger, Stufflebeam, for his identification. Stufflebeam angrily replied, ‘You can't do that!’ Harris replied that the law permitted him to ask for identification. Stufflebeam again refused, stating, ‘You either arrest me and take me to jail or I don't have to show you anything!’ Harris returned to his vehicle and requested back-up. When two additional officers arrived, Harris asked Stufflebeam to exit the vehicle. He complied but still refused to identify himself ‘with anger in his voice and expression,’ according to Harris's report. Harris then arrested and handcuffed Stufflebeam and removed everything from his pockets, including a wallet containing a driver's license that identified Stufflebeam. Harris placed Stufflebeam in the back of the squad car, searched the vehicle ‘incident to the arrest’ over the grandson's protest, and then released the grandson and drove Stufflebeam to a local jail where he was booked for obstructing governmental operations.” The prosecution against Stufflebeam was dropped which led to the lawsuit presented here.
The case raises two distinct issues: First, can an officer ask a passenger for identification during a traffic stop, and second, what can the officer do if the passenger refuses to cooperate with the officer’s request.
On the question of whether an officer can ask a passenger for identification, the court considered its prior decision in United States v. Slater.ii Slater was the passenger in a vehicle that was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. “At the checkpoint, Officer Perry asked the driver, Nicholas Jones, if he had been drinking. Jones replied that he had a couple drinks earlier in the evening. Perry then asked Jones and his two passengers, Slater and Jones's young son, to get out of the car. Perry took Jones to the field sobriety test location, while a civilian volunteer or another officer drove the vehicle to a nearby parking lot. After Jones passed the sobriety tests, Perry asked Jones if his adult passenger was a licensed driver. Jones said he did not know, so the two returned to where the passengers were waiting, and Perry asked Slater if he was willing to drive. Slater replied that he had no driver's license. Perry asked Slater for identification, and he produced a Missouri non-driver identification card. Perry's computer check of Slater revealed the outstanding warrant. [During a search incident to arrest, Slater was found to be in possession of a loaded firearm, leading to a federal charge.] After Slater was arrested and searched, Perry issued Jones three citations for an improperly registered motor vehicle, no insurance, and failure to have his driver's license with him. Jones then left the checkpoint in the car with his son.”
In holding that the mere asking for identification did not violate the 4th Amendment, the court cited to a portion of the United States Supreme Court case, Muehler v. Mena.iii Mrs. Mena was detained when officers executed a search warrant at her home looking for a gang-banger who had been involved in a drive-by shooting. The officers were looking for evidence relating to gang activity. Mrs. Mena, who had nothing to do with gangs, had previously rented a room to the gang-banger. During the execution of the search warrant she was handcuffed and, at some point, questioned about her immigration status.
In rejecting Mrs. Mena’s claim that the questioning violated her 4th Amendment rights, the United States Supreme Court asserted: “We have held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.iv Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.”v
Applying this principle in reviewing Mr. Shufflebeam’s claim, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit held that asking Mr. Shufflebeam for identification did not violate his 4th Amendment rights. This did not however end the case since it did not answer what the officer could do if the passenger refused to identify him or herself.
In determining whether the officer had any authority once the passenger, Mr. Shufflebeam failed to identify himself, the court turned to the United States Supreme Court decision in Hiibel v. Nevada.vi
In Hiibel v. Nevada the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of an arrest and conviction based on the failure of the defendant to identify himself to police during a valid “Terry-Stop.”
In Hiibel, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department received a call of an assault in the middle of the afternoon. The caller reported seeing a man assault a woman in a red and silver GMC pickup on Grass Valley Road. A deputy, Lee Dove,vii was dispatched to the scene and found the truck as described parked on the side of the road. The deputy noted skid marks in the gravel behind the truck indicating a sudden stop. He further observed a female in the truck and a man standing on the side of the truck, all consistent with the caller’s report. The man appeared to be intoxicated and repeatedly refused the officer’s request for identification. The Court noted that the deputy asked Hiibel for identification eleven times. The man then began, in full view of the cruiser’s mobile video-recorder to taunt the officer to arrest him. The officer arrested Hiibel for obstructing an officer’s official duties. The basis of the “official duty” was a requirement under Nevada’s Investigative Stop statute that requires a person to identify themselves to an officer during such a stop. The Court cited statutes from twenty-states with a similar requirement during investigative stops.viii
In upholding the arrest and conviction of Hiibel, the 5-4 majority of the Court first recognized that the stop of Hiibel met the constitutional standard for investigatory stops, specifically, reasonable suspicion. The Court extended this reasoning in stating that…

“…obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing (a person’s) identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Identity may prove particularly important in cases such as this, where the police are investigating what appears to be a domestic assault. Officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.”
​

The Court noted that it is well established that an officer can ask a subject to identify himself/herself during a Terry stop and the only question was whether an individual could be prosecuted for failing to do so.
The Court concluded that a conviction for failing to identify oneself during a valid Terry stop in accord with a state statute is valid. The Court did distinguish the Nevada statute from other states in that it had been interpreted as only requiring a subject to identify himself/herself and does not require the production of reliable and credible identification.
In applying the principles from Hiibel to the circumstances involving Shufflebeam’s arrest, the court noted that Officer Harris had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Shufflebeam was involved in criminal activity; he was merely a passenger in a vehicle stopped for motor vehicle violations. As such, Hiibel would not justify his arrest since the rule from Hiibel requires that the person(s) being asked to identify themselves must be the subject of a valid Terry stop, i.e. they must be suspected of criminal activity and that suspicion must be supported by reasonable suspicion. Even though Arkansas is one of the states that has a statute requiring person(s) to identify themselves during a validTerry stop, the court concluded that Shufflebeam was not the subject of such a stop. Thus, the court concluded that Mr. Shufflebeam’s lawsuit against the officer should go on to a jury.
Key Points from Hiibel:

• Decision would only have application in states where there is a statutory requirement that person(s) identify themselves during an investigative detention.ix​
• The request for identity must be supported by a valid Terry stop.​
• If the preceding elements are met, the officer may request that the person(s) identify themselves but the case does not allow for an arrest based on a failure to produce “credible and reliable” identification.​

Key Points from Shufflebeam:

• The Unites States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing United States Supreme Court precedent concludes that it is not unconstitutional to merely ask for identification. Note, some states would consider this an expansion of the scope of the stop under state constitutions.​
• The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, citing Hiibel concluded that arresting a passenger for refusing to identify himself/herself where the officer has no independent reasonable suspicion to believe that the passenger is involved in criminal activity does violate the Constitution.​

CITATIONS:​

i Stufflebeam v. Harris, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7156 (8th Cir. 2008).

ii United States v. Slater, 411 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2005).

iii Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005).

iv Citing, Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 210 (1984).

v Id.

vi Hiibel v. Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

vii Deputy Dove was recently promoted to sergeant.

viii The Court noted the following states as having statutes similar to Nevada: “NRS § 171.123(3) is an enactment sometimes referred to as a "stop and identify" statute. See Ala. Code § 15-5-30 (West 2003); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-213(a)(1) (2004); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-103(1) (2003); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 1902(a), 1321(6) (2003); Fla. Stat. § 856.021(2) (2003); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-36(b) (2003); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, § 5/107-14 (2004); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2402(1) (2003); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A) (West 2004); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 84.710(2) (2003); Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-401(2)(a) (2003); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-829 (2003); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 594:2, 644:6 (Lexis 2003); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 30-22-3 (2004); N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 140.50(1) (West 2004); N. D. Cent. Code § 29-29-21 (2003); R. I. Gen. Laws § 12-7-1 (2003); Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-15 (2003); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, § 1983 (Supp. 2003); Wis. Stat. § 968.24 (2003).”

 

[pftraining_in]

When was the last time someone with a LTCH was carrying a stolen gun? Let alone volunteer it?

I know someone who had a LTCH and ended up with a stolen handgun. He had even bought the firearm through a gun shop. The gun was reported stolen by a previous owner and had been sold to other parties in private sales prior to being sold to the gun store. This was not discovered until he was stopped on a traffic and the gun was ran. So yes, it does happen.

In reference to the Fourth Amendment, the OP stated that he volunteered the information freely that he had a firearm. He never stated that the officer ask him if he was armed or that he was searched and the firearm was found. No Fourth Amendment violation occurred. If you notice, vehicles (carriages and horses in that time period) are not included in the Fourth Amendment as you have a lesser expectation of privacy in a vehicle. In addition a vehicle can be easily moved from point A to point B and evidence can be destroyed in the time it would take to obtain a warrant. An officer could "run" an IPOD or other devise or item in plain view if the belief is the item could be stolen.

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[finity]

In reference to the Fourth Amendment, the OP stated that he volunteered the information freely that he had a firearm. He never stated that the officer ask him if he was armed or that he was searched and the firearm was found. No Fourth Amendment violation occurred. If you notice, vehicles (carriages and horses in that time period) are not included in the Fourth Amendment as you have a lesser expectation of privacy in a vehicle.

So, are you really trying to say that the 4A does not prevent you from searching a vehicle without a warrant because it doesn't specifically say that a vehicle is included in it's protection?

If so then I'd have to say you're completely wrong.

The 'in plain view' exception also extends to anywhere that someone is, even in their own house but that doesn't mean you don't need a warrant to search it otherwise.

In addition a vehicle can be easily moved from point A to point B and evidence can be destroyed in the time it would take to obtain a warrant.

Since evidence can be destroyed anywhere, even in a house, then following that logic it would mean that no warrant should be needed to search a house, either.

An officer could "run" an IPOD or other devise or item in plain view if the belief is the item could be stolen.

True, but don't you need reasonable suspicion (at a minimum) before you can sieze an item that 'could be stolen' to 'run the numbers'. I mean, any item 'could be stolen'. You can't just reach in & pick up an IPOD laying on the seat & "run the numbers" without some justification to do so except it 'could be stolen'. Like Prometheus said, why not run every piece of someone's personal property just in case it's stolen? Why is a gun any different than the IPOD?

 

[fpdshooter]

In regards to the 4th Amend and the vehicles, I believe he is referring to the Carroll (sp?) doctrine which allows warrantless searches of vehicles because of their inherent mobility.

Obviously one cannot just search a car on a whim, PC is still needed. But a warrantless search is allowed.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In regards to the 4th Amend and the vehicles, I believe he is referring to the Carroll (sp?) doctrine which allows warrantless searches of vehicles because of their inherent mobility.

Obviously one cannot just search a car on a whim, PC is still needed. But a warrantless search is allowed.

And while Finity is correct that it shouldn't be, this is what SCOTUS has decided, so until and unless they overrule themselves or an Amendment is passed to change that fact, that's the law.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In regards to the 4th Amend and the vehicles, I believe he is referring to the Carroll (sp?) doctrine which allows warrantless searches of vehicles because of their inherent mobility.

fpd, you got it. Carroll v. United States (1925).

As the motor vehicle is active, mobile and hostile, it is an exception to the warrant requirement.

 

[HICKMAN]

I guess we all go by our own rules.

If I get pulled over and am carrying, I present both my DL and LTCH.
If I get pulled over while not carrying, I present my DL.

If I was a passenger, I don't think I'd volunteer anything unless asked. If there were a reason for the LEO to ask for my DL, I'd present both.

I don't think I would just randomly volunteer that I am armed.

 

[pftraining_in]

So, are you really trying to say that the 4A does not prevent you from searching a vehicle without a warrant because it doesn't specifically say that a vehicle is included in it's protection?

If so then I'd have to say you're completely wrong.

The 'in plain view' exception also extends to anywhere that someone is, even in their own house but that doesn't mean you don't need a warrant to search it otherwise.

Yes vehicles are not included.

If you have invited an officer inside your home, onto your property or an item is seen from a location where the officer can legally be, the plain view doctrine covers the location where that item is placed. Further search of the residence or closed containers inside the residence would require either permission by the property owner or a warrant.

Houses can not cross State or country boundaries as a vehicle can, so they will still be in the same location after the search warrant is obtained. Cars move and can be miles away after a warrant is obtained.

Since evidence can be destroyed anywhere, even in a house, then following that logic it would mean that no warrant should be needed to search a house, either.

If evidence is located in a plain view in a residence or business and a warrant is requested or required the scene would be secured and parties could be detailed until a warrant is obtained to prevent destruction of evidence.

True, but don't you need reasonable suspicion (at a minimum) before you can seize an item that 'could be stolen' to 'run the numbers'. I mean, any item 'could be stolen'. You can't just reach in & pick up an IPOD laying on the seat & "run the numbers" without some justification to do so except it 'could be stolen'. Like Prometheus said, why not run every piece of someone's personal property just in case it's stolen? Why is a gun any different than the IPOD?

Reasonable suspicion would be met if the officer believes the item could be stolen. Common stolen items are firearms and small electronics.

If an officer had a recent series of FUBU clothing thefts and you had a pile of FUBU jeans in your back seat and you were wearing a pair that appeared new, that would be reasonable suspicion. If they have a tag number or some type of unique serial number then they could be ran.

I would think that if all your firearms were stolen out of your home or vehicle, you would want an officer to be running firearms that he comes into contact with. How else would they ever be recovered. Your typical thief or burglar does not sell the guns he steals at the local gun store or pawn shop. They are sold face to face and passed from person to person. By "running" your gun, the officer finds out only if the firearm is stolen, no other information is obtained or available. The officer is typically not taking the firearm for his safety. By having the weapon in his or her possession the time on the traffic stop is also reduced. If numbers are wrote down they can be transposes or hard to read depending on environmental issues. If the weapon or item is in the officer's possession he does not have to make repeat trips to the car to verify the numbers. If the gun or item came back stolen, where would you rather have the weapon or item, in the hands of the person that possibly stole it or in your possession?

 

[finity]

Yes vehicles are not included.

Whatever happened to the concept that just because something wasn't specifically listed doesn't mean its not a protected right? I guess the internet isn't protected either because it's not listed in the 1A?

Yes, I see that the SCOTUS has made the (completely wrong) decision that you don't need a warrant for a vehicle. Another by-product of our governments failed war on some drugs.

If you have invited an officer inside your home, onto your property or an item is seen from a location where the officer can legally be, the plain view doctrine covers the location where that item is placed. Further search of the residence or closed containers inside the residence would require either permission by the property owner or a warrant.

Houses can not cross State or country boundaries as a vehicle can, so they will still be in the same location after the search warrant is obtained. Cars move and can be miles away after a warrant is obtained.

True, but what's to stop an officer who has PC from stopping the vehicle while the warrant is being obtained. I mean, you already have the vehicle & the driver/occupants under your control. It's not like the vehicle is just going to get up & move on it's own (unless cars can do that but guns can't). It just makes no sense to me.

As to the "hostile" comment made by someone else, I have to say that my ability to be "hostile" is WAY EASIER in my house than in my vehicle.

If evidence is located in a plain view in a residence or business and a warrant is requested or required the scene would be secured and parties could be detailed until a warrant is obtained to prevent destruction of evidence.

I still see no difference between cars & houses with regard to evidence being removed or destroyed. If you have PC to believe that evidence is in a house (that is unsecured until after you get the warrant & actually enter it) you have more of a risk of that evidence being removed or destroyed due to the size & privacy & utilities available there than the same happening with a car that is stopped.

Reasonable suspicion would be met if the officer believes the item could be stolen. Common stolen items are firearms and small electronics.

From your post above you seem to be saying that you have PC to search a vehicle if you see a "gun or small electronics" laying on the seat in plain view. You could say that you 'believe' that ANY item is stolen in order to justify a search (or what's better known as a fishing expedition).

If an officer had a recent series of FUBU clothing thefts and you had a pile of FUBU jeans in your back seat and you were wearing a pair that appeared new, that would be reasonable suspicion. If they have a tag number or some type of unique serial number then they could be ran.

Ah, so just because you 'think' or have some kind of 'hunch' that they might be stolen without any other evidence pointing to me, you get to search my vehicle & my personal belongings. What if I just really like FUBU jeans. Talk about a slippery slope. WHEEEEEEEE!!!

I would think that if all your firearms were stolen out of your home or vehicle, you would want an officer to be running firearms that he comes into contact with.

Not if it means violating the rights of other innocent citizens that would be effected until you happen to find the right MWAG.

How else would they ever be recovered. Your typical thief or burglar does not sell the guns he steals at the local gun store or pawn shop. They are sold face to face and passed from person to person. By "running" your gun, the officer finds out only if the firearm is stolen, no other information is obtained or available.

Then why not just stop & search every person walking down the street on the off chance that they might be carrying something reported stolen? You shouldn't need a warrant because they are mobile & could walk right out of your jurisdiction with that precious evidence. WHHEEEE!!!

ETA: Why don't officers stop & confiscate the guns of every OC'er they see just so they can run the numbers on those guns? Why is it mostly traffic stops that it happens on? Oh I know, because the SCOTUS gave the officers carte blanche protection from illegal searches on traffic stops but limited Terry stops somewhat. HMM?

WHHHEEEEEEE!!!!

The officer is typically not taking the firearm for his safety.

Wait...what??...I thought that's been the reason for taking the gun in almost every single debate about this that's come up here or in the courts, now you're saying it's not the real reason but just to gather evidence of a possible crime without needing a warrant?

WHHHHEEEEEEE!!!

By having the weapon in his or her possession the time on the traffic stop is also reduced.

By not treating every gun owner as a possible felon the time on the traffic stop would be reduced even more.

If numbers are wrote down they can be transposes or hard to read depending on environmental issues. If the weapon or item is in the officer's possession he does not have to make repeat trips to the car to verify the numbers. If the gun or item came back stolen, where would you rather have the weapon or item, in the hands of the person that possibly stole it or in your possession?

Honestly, what percentage of, say, guns that you run actually come back as stolen? I can't see it being very high. Probably not high enough to justify the infringement on every gun-owners time & the indignity of being a suspected felon on every traffic stop. I would have added personal privacy to that but as has been pointed out the 1925 SCOTUS found that you can't have expectations of privacy in a vehicle, even though you can carry pretty much anything private in a vehicle that you can store in a house.

 

[finity]

Having had the time to read the entire Carroll decision, it's interesting to read some of the arguments in the dissent.

 

[MolonLabe]

Why exactly would you have the need to produce ID in the first place?
So what if you had been drinking?
No harm in getting a ride home.

You can be arrested for public intoxication in the passenger seat of a vehicle.

If the officer can articulate that, based on looks, he thought the person was under age, he's got the right to ask for the ID. Remember, an officer only needs a reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is, or is about to occur to ask for a person's ID. It would be quite simple to articulate that a person appeared to be 18 years old, thus making the ID request perfectly legal.

 

[7orelevn]

Glad to not hear about officer "horror stories" good encounters with police is nice to hear.