pro-gun bumper sticker as probable cause for pat down

[FCSD 23-18]

I also question the legality of you using someone not answering a question, as RS to initiate a Terry search. I wish we could get one of our resident attorneys to speak on this, because I think they would agree with me.

Roadie, it is not just the refusing to answer that gives RS it is the totality of the circumstances. Someone with nothing to hide would answer this question when asked unless it is their intent to be a smart butt. I to would like for an atty to look at this. See in Washington v. Ind, the officer messed up by restraining the driver, once he done this Terry would not apply because the subject is no longer a threat to the officer. If he was not restrained the officer would have been able to articulate that the gun even though legally possessed caused an officer safety issue.

 

[IndyGunner]

So I guess the question is... do I want to tell you I legally have a firearm after showing you my LTCH and invite an opportunity for you to pull me out of my car and disarm me for no reason... or should I legally exercise my right to not speak considering you have no probable cause to detain or disarm me, which somehow gives you probable cause?


*not a cop hater, many neighbors and good friends of mine are distinguished vet officers. I just disagree with your viewpoints and am engaging in conversation*

 

[Roadie]

In the scenario that I was given and wrote the report about the driver was acting uncooperative toward my investigation, He did not inform me that he held a License to carry, The stickers along with his behavior and my experience and training led me to believe he may be in possession of a firearm, also he is under investigation for an infraction of Indiana Traffic Code. Terry v. Ohio states "For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" (see my above statement) and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This would all be avoided if the driver would have just gave up the carry license and said yes I am armed. Because of the drivers avoidance of my question along with the other facts that I have articulated it becomes an officer safety situation that allows a Terry Search under Terry V. Ohio. As far as me asking if you are armed, there is absolutely no problem with this just like I can ask you if you have any contraband in the car. If you falsely answer my question you have just committed a crime.

I would like to recant my statement about people being cop haters, I just felt like I was being attacked instead of us having an intelligent conversation. I do not feel that I am above anyone because of the position I hold but it is hard to argue that some of the statements made about my prior posts were direct attacks against me personally and not the topic we are discussing. I hope I answered your question if not please ask agian more directly and I will do my best.

Wait, we have a RIGHT not to answer questions. You cannot use that against us, that is not being "difficult", and case law supports that.

A resident attorney on INGO once said..

..."reasonable belief" that the driver is dangerous or engaged in other illegal behavior, the officer is not legally authorized to take any further action with respect to that firearm, and any such action, including a search of the vehicle or the forcible seizure of that firearm, is illegal.

Look up the Washington and Richardson cases..

Another point here is that you are not pulling the driver over for a crime, you are pulling them over for a traffic stop. You have to have SOLID reasonable suspicion to escalate that beyond a traffic stop into searching the car. If this were not the case, why are you trained to go on "fishing expeditions" and to try and get PERMISSION to search a car, if RS is so easy to prove? Why? Because it isnt. Once that citizen says "sure you can search my car" then ANYTHING you find is admissible(as I understand it).

Terry also says, as I pointed out..

Armed AND presently dangerous WHILE suspicion exists of a crime..

Your scenario does not fit that description..

Please answer this question, if you dont mind..

Do you think that a Judge would accept stopping a car because it has a Grateful Dead sticker on it as PC for a search for pot?

Edit: make that "Searching a car"

 

[IndyGunner]

why are you trained to go on "fishing expeditions" and to try and get PERMISSION to search a car, if RS is so easy to prove?

My Indiana State Police officer neighbor told me this past weekend after we were discussing (and agreeing) how stupid quotas are for speeding tickets and that it was ridiculous that his friend gave someone a ticket for 3mph over the limit (just to get a paycheck and be relieved of his daily shift).


I said "That is terrible. Dont you have better things to be doing with your time? Like stopping murders, robberies, rapes, etc."

He said "It is unrealistic to have officers out searching for lawbreakers. Most of the criminals that I catch are stopped for simple things, like having a tail light out or turning right on red."

I agree with him, but I can see where intentionally fishing can be beneficial to the career and pocket book of officers who obviously dont care about law and who think they can manipulate people who are ignorant to the process of law. Fortunately my neighbor maintains (and I believe him) that he doesnt do this. Some officers, however, im not so sure of. *cough*

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Wait, we have a RIGHT not to answer questions. You cannot use that against us, that is not being "difficult", and case law supports that.

A resident attorney on INGO once said..
Look up the Washington and Richardson cases..

Another point here is that you are not pulling the driver over for a crime, you are pulling them over for a traffic stop. You have to have SOLID reasonable suspicion to escalate that beyond a traffic stop into searching the car. If this were not the case, why are you trained to go on "fishing expeditions" and to try and get PERMISSION to search a car, if RS is so easy to prove? Why? Because it isn't. Once that citizen says "sure you can search my car" then ANYTHING you find is admissible(as I understand it).

Terry also says, as I pointed out..

Your scenario does not fit that description..

Please answer this question, if you dont mind..

Absolutely not, PC does not exist solely based on the vehicle having a sticker of any kind on it. But to expand on your question, lets say the GD sticker is there and there are also stickers of pot leafs. If you were the officer making the stop wouldn't it alert you to look for dope if you did develop PC to make the stop? Here is another example Last year I stopped a truck that had four guys in it for speeding, as I walked up to the truck I observed three dead deer in the back, wouldn't this cause the reasonable person to believe that there were firearms in the vehicle and that an extra level of caution should be used?

 

[IndyGunner]

But to expand on your question, lets say the GD sticker is there and there are also stickers of pot leafs. If you were the officer making the stop wouldn't it alert you to look for dope if you did develop PC to make the stop?


I observed three dead deer in the back, wouldn't this cause the reasonable person to believe that there were firearms in the vehicle and that an extra level of caution should be used?

It would tell me that they support or partake in marijuana. But until I can tell that they are high, have red eyes, or smell, I dont have enough probable cause to search the vehicle. Id ask, but if they told me "im not answering anymore questions" I would call and ask for a warrant, or write them for whatever I stopped them for and take off.

Yes, an extra level of caution should be used. No one said to disregard the nra sticker or the LTCH... doesnt mean you can illegally harass or search them. Not to mention there is no license needed for long guns, and if anyone has any felonies or are on paroll, it will come up on your computer.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

So I guess the question is... do I want to tell you I legally have a firearm after showing you my LTCH and invite an opportunity for you to pull me out of my car and disarm me for no reason... or should I legally exercise my right to not speak considering you have no probable cause to detain or disarm me, which somehow gives you probable cause?


*not a cop hater, many neighbors and good friends of mine are distinguished vet officers. I just disagree with your viewpoints and am engaging in conversation*

Think about this for a second, If you are armed, I stop you, we converse and you inform me you are armed, I ask you to please place your weapon in the trunk until after I leave. It this really a seizure under the fourth amendment, is it an unreasonable request, did I disarm you by fore or the threat thereof?

 

[Roadie]

There is precedence for this in other parts of the country, it is just a matter of time before it is challenged here..

Take ESTEP v. DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS..

"The answer to that question is no for several reasons. The
presence of the NRA sticker in the vehicle should not have raised
the inference that Estep was dangerous and that he might gain
immediate control of a weapon. Regardless of whether there is some
correlation between the display of an NRA sticker and gun
possession, placing an NRA sticker in one's vehicle is certainly
legal and constitutes expression which is protected by the First
Amendment. A police officer's inference that danger is afoot
because a citizen displays an NRA sticker in his vehicle presents
disturbing First and Fourth Amendment implications."

It really saddens me that our LEOs that are sworn to uphold the Constitution would use an expression of the First Amend, to violate the Fourth Amend because the citizen is exercising the Second Amend..

 

[Roadie]

Absolutely not, PC does not exist solely based on the vehicle having a sticker of any kind on it. But to expand on your question, lets say the GD sticker is there and there are also stickers of pot leafs. If you were the officer making the stop wouldn't it alert you to look for dope if you did develop PC to make the stop? Here is another example Last year I stopped a truck that had four guys in it for speeding, as I walked up to the truck I observed three dead deer in the back, wouldn't this cause the reasonable person to believe that there were firearms in the vehicle and that an extra level of caution should be used?

You are comparing actual physical (potential) evidence, to a sticker, an expression of the First Amendment?

You REALLY think these are the same thing??

 

[Bill of Rights]

Roadie, it is not just the refusing to answer that gives RS it is the totality of the circumstances. Someone with nothing to hide would answer this question when asked unless it is their intent to be a smart butt. I to would like for an atty to look at this. See in Washington v. Ind, the officer messed up by restraining the driver, once he done this Terry would not apply because the subject is no longer a threat to the officer. If he was not restrained the officer would have been able to articulate that the gun even though legally possessed caused an officer safety issue.

FCSD, the "if you have nothing to hide" argument has been thoroughly exhausted; I don't have to have nothing to hide, government has to prove that I DO have something to hide. Rights > Powers. If asked, I'll answer you honestly and forthrightly: I have a LTCH in my wallet. This doesn't answer if I'm armed, of course, but it does satisfy the point about which you're asking. Also, you say you'll secure the pistol in the driver's trunk. The driver has every right to refuse to open his trunk, and once you've determined he holds a valid LTCH, you have no further need or authority over that firearm. Confiscating it, even briefly, after that point is exceeding your authority.
I'm not being a smart***. I know what my rights are and their source just as well as I know what your powers are and their source.

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted amongst men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Enough officers have trampled on those rights in favor of their powers (even when used correctly) that people are, forgive the pun, gunshy about revealing the LTCH or their firearm to an officer, having read the stories of officers returning the pistol field-stripped with the bullets in a baggie for no good reason.

Enough citizens have been wrongly disarmed and left helpless as the officer drove off that good, law-abiding, and peaceable people don't want to have it happen to them. Wanting to be able to defend themselves, rather than left an undefended victim is not a defiance of your authority, it is their God-given right. You wouldn't stand for it if you were subjected to it; why should they?

I don't fault you for what training and experience you've had. I'm sure you're following it, probably to the letter. Consider the DoI and the Constitution, as amended, however, please, and your practice as a police officer in light of those documents and your oath of office. You don't have to answer on here. I think you'll find that the training that leads to those suspicions fails a Constitutional challenge.

Like I said, you don't have to answer this on INGO. Just think about it, please.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

Think about this for a second, If you are armed, I stop you, we converse and you inform me you are armed, I ask you to please place your weapon in the trunk until after I leave. It this really a seizure under the fourth amendment, is it an unreasonable request, did I disarm you by fore or the threat thereof?

Once the LTCH is confirmed, you have no legal interest in the firearm any more.. at least, that is the consensus of several of our resident attorneys...

Will you leave your gun in the trunk to make ME feel safer?

 

[KG1]

Roadie, it is not just the refusing to answer that gives RS it is the totality of the circumstances. Someone with nothing to hide would answer this question when asked unless it is their intent to be a smart butt. I to would like for an atty to look at this. See in Washington v. Ind, the officer messed up by restraining the driver, once he done this Terry would not apply becouse the subject is no longer a threat to the officer. If he was not restrained the officer would have been able to articulate that the gun even though legally possesd caused an officer safety issue.

This is the issue that comes up from time to time "If you have nothing to hide then why not answer the question? or why not just let them search your vehicle?" The reason some of us chose not to does'nt automatically mean we are trying to be a wise guy or that we have something to hide. Beleve it or not we may be just trying to protect our rights and not be railroaded by an overzelous LEO that has the power to maybe abuse thier authority and make our lives a living hell if they choose to do so. And the reason that we take offense to the "cop hater" label is because most of the time it's thrown around when some of us raise issues about our rights or tend to try to point out the issues with bad cops or bad policies and nothing more. See, we don't hate all cops and speaking for myself I have respect for good honest law abiding LEOs that don't try to jam their authority down our throats just because they think they can. Just as you have stated that you don't know of someones intentions when you pull them over so you err on the side of caution and safety, we also don't have the luxury of knowing automatically who is gonna be a good cop or a bad one when we are approached so we tend to do the same. That could just possibly be the reason that we are reluctant to answer questions or not agree to be searched and nothing more. It's that simple.

 

[Rookie]

Thank you for your response.
I'm going to start by saying that I'm not a cop hater, but I do not like cops that act as though their badge is the winning card. I will take you to task on any statement I question, and, as long as you're willing to give an answer other than "I said so" and at least be willing to consider other views, you will have my respect. Example, Kutnupe14 and I are at opposite ends in at least one belief, but I still believe he is doing his job with people's rights in mind, so he has my respect.

With that being said, let's get to it.

You believe that people shouldn't refuse to answer your questions? If someone invokes their 5th amendment right, they are hiding something? If I choose to not answer your question, which has nothing to do with the infraction I'm guilty of, couldn't it mean that I don't want to play go fish?

One of your statements raised a question. If I do answer that I have a firearm and I do show my LTCH, will you still disarm me? If I refuse to answer, which is my right, why do you feel the need to take my property after I show my LTCH?

Lie to the police = crime, IC please.

 

[Rookie]

Think about this for a second, If you are armed, I stop you, we converse and you inform me you are armed, I ask you to please place your weapon in the trunk until after I leave. It this really a seizure under the fourth amendment, is it an unreasonable request, did I disarm you by fore or the threat thereof?

Yes, it is an unreasonable request. I have done nothing that warrants removal of my property. If I wanted it in the trunk, I would have put it there myself. Think about this, if I were a cop and flashed my badge, the gun wouldn't be an issue, correct? Why am I different? Didn't I have to have a background check to prove I am a law abiding citizen?

 

[KG1]

Man this turned into a hot LZ here for abit... Smoke'n!!!!

 

[Roadie]

The bottom line here is that it is a statistical FACT that Licensed gun owners are among the most law abiding citizens in this country.

Only 0.26% of all criminals convicted in TX are CHL holders..
Only 0.25% of all gun deaths in the US since 2007(excluding self defense) are the cause of someone licensed to carry..

You are statistically safer with an LTCH carrier, than with a non-LTCH holder. Your treatment of LTCH holders is therefore statistically, and logically, un-called for.

I have made this challenge before, and IIRC it has gone un-answered.

Can you show me ONE case in Indiana(heck, in the US) where a citizen has shown their LTCH(CHL, CHP, etc) to LE on a traffic stop, and THEN shot them? Just one...

 

[FCSD 23-18]

@ Rookie as far as lying being a chargeable crime, I misspoke in the heat of the moment but I do feel that the act of lying during my investigation would warrant an obstruction charge under
IC 35-44-3-3 Version a
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.100-2010, SEC.6. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.102-2010, SEC.2.
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
(3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop;
commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b).

@ Rookie In the field I would never say "if you have nothing to hide" I just used that verbage in our conversation. I believe it was you that brought up the 5th issue, don't forget that there are questions that you are compelled to answer such as identifying information. The fifth is kind of like Miranda in that it doesn't really attach until the two prong test is met. 1. Are you the subject of a criminal investigation 2. Are you in a custodial situation. I'm going to do some research but I thought that a person was required to present his Carry License upon the request of Law Enforcement. Not sure on that one but I'm going to talk to the prosecutor about it tomorrow. Going to bed guys, you wore me out. Ill talk more about this with you tomorrow..

 

[Rookie]

Indiana code 35-47-2-24 doesn't specifically state you have to show your LTCH, but it's pretty obvious your LTCH is your get out of jail card since carrying a handgun is illegal without an LTCH.

The only time I'm REQUIRED to show ID is if I'm guilty of an infraction or ordinance violation, correct?

 

[ryknoll3]

I'm curious...

In light of State v. Richardson, if one were to be all nicey-nice (read cooperative) with a cop and hand him his LTCH along with his driver's license at the outset of the traffic stop, would this forbid the officer from inquiring any further about weapons in the vehicle, as long as you weren't otherwise behaving in a manner to give the officer RAS that they could be in danger?

I'm thinking of this as our magic force-field against weapon seizure. Of course the cop could take your gun anyways, and you would have to sue in court, but I wonder how this would turn out given the court case mentioned above?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Think about this for a second, If you are armed, I stop you, we converse and you inform me you are armed, I ask you to please place your weapon in the trunk until after I leave. It this really a seizure under the fourth amendment, is it an unreasonable request, did I disarm you by fore or the threat thereof?

To me it is an unreasonable request, if I wanted it in the trunk I would of put it there. Which I sometimes do with long guns or with handguns that I am not carrying for defense. Also as Bill mentioned, I will not be opening my trunk willingly. I will not willingly allow a plain view search of my trunk, by forcing me to open it so you can place my firearm inside you have violated the 4th amendment for unreasonable search.

You have mentioned Terry several times, but you have left out several parts. One being that the officer has to have RAS that there is a crime being committed, and also that the officer has to have RAS that the person is armed AND dangerous. Other than the original reason that you pulled a person over(which is not usually a crime, most traffic stops are a civil infraction not criminal), what about a bumper sticker or a person exercising their rights gives you RAS that a crime is afoot? Or that a person is dangerous? Other than a danger to your authority.

A person exercising their rights is not suspicion of a crime, whether that be refusing a search or exercising their 5th amendment rights.

@ Rookie as far as lying being a chargeable crime, I misspoke in the heat of the moment but I do feel that the act of lying during my investigation would warrant an obstruction charge under
IC 35-44-3-3 Version a
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.100-2010, SEC.6. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.102-2010, SEC.2.

I believe it was you that brought up the 5th issue, don't forget that there are questions that you are compelled to answer such as identifying information. The fifth is kind of like Miranda in that it doesn't really attach until the two prong test is met. 1. Are you the subject of a criminal investigation 2. Are you in a custodial situation. I'm going to do some research but I thought that a person was required to present his Carry License upon the request of Law Enforcement. Not sure on that one but I'm going to talk to the prosecutor about it tomorrow. Going to bed guys, you wore me out. Ill talk more about this with you tomorrow..

No offense intended and please do not take any. But please tell me you are a special or reserve deputy? Or perhaps an explorer? Nothing wrong with those. But it scares me if you are a full deputy.
The IC you mentioned does not have to do with lying. There is one regarding it, but that is not it. And the IC that covers it, most likely would not apply for a traffic stop, at least according to a attorney(and a LEO) or two here on INGO.

The only question that I know a person has to answer is to ID themselves if they are suspected in good faith by an officer of committing an infraction or ordinance violation. They can ID themselves with a state issued ID/DL or verbally with their name/dob/address. They are not required to answer any other thing, if they are stopped in a vehicle and they are the driver they have to provide registration and proof of insurance.

Other than that they are not required to provide ID. iirc there is a case here in IN (sorry can't remember the case, perhaps someone can help me out) where the police demanded ID of a witness. They refused and were arrested for failure to ID. They were convicted but it was thrown out on appeal because a person has the right to refuse to answer.

Nothing in IC states that I have to show a LEO my LTCH and it is not a crime to not do so. But I can be arrested for carrying without a license if I do not, but charges will be dropped and all records expunged when I show it to the prosecutor per IC.