Tenn. Trooper Steals Guns During Stop

[IndyMonkey]

Sorry I read your post wrong.

Having your "back" is great but not when it forces you to compromise the Truth or doing what is Right. I think that compromise is made often enough to make a lot of people leery of the men in blue. Chicago PD comes to mind.

Things would be so much better if these men and women would start to view themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcement Officers. It might start to cut away some of the badge heavy mentality that is prevalent in law enforcement.



This is pretty sad that we would think this way. There should be NO balance whatsoever. The number of lying arrestees should completely overwhelm the number of "cover their own" police officers.


mrjarrell, keep on posting and I'll be happy to make up my own mind if it has any merit.

 

[Wild Deuce]

... if these men and women would start to view themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcement Officers. ...

Not a word there about calling them anything.

I don't want to feel anything. My feelings are irrelevant. I would rather they think of themselves as something other than law enforcement (regardless if that is what they are called or not). How they think of themselves and how they view their profession will, on the other hand, have a tangible effect on how they deal with ther fellow citizens.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So just calling them something else makes you feel better?

Having your "back" is great but not when it forces you to compromise the Truth or doing what is Right. I think that compromise is made often enough to make a lot of people leery of the men in blue. Chicago PD comes to mind.

Things would be so much better if these men and women would start to view themselves as Peace Officers instead of Law Enforcement Officers. It might start to cut away some of the badge heavy mentality that is prevalent in law enforcement.



This is pretty sad that we would think this way. There should be NO balance whatsoever. The number of lying arrestees should completely overwhelm the number of "cover their own" police officers.


mrjarrell, keep on posting and I'll be happy to make up my own mind if it has any merit.

He didn't say that calling them something else would make a difference, he said that if they viewed themselves differently, it might, and I agree, but it would also take the non-LEO public viewing them as they did when police officers were known as peace officers; as they did when you saw and knew "Officer Friendly" because you saw him walking his beat and he knew you as well, not because you were a troublemaker but because you were someone he saw when he was on duty and he took the time to talk with you, not because he was looking to bust you but because he was a person and so were you and people who see each other often sometimes make small talk. You knew that if you were in trouble, the guy in the blue uniform was the one who would help you.

Somewhere along the way, that familiarity has gone away and with it, the officers' connection to their community. The us vs. them thing has crept into society's view of LEOs and like any unknown, they are untrusted. It makes a vicious circle of distrust.

I would like to know that if I got pulled over somewhere, I could expect reasonable, fair, lawful treatment. So far, in the few instances I've been pulled over, that's exactly what happened. I show respect (not deference, just civil respect) and I get it in return. The last time I was asked about firearms in my car, I answered honestly, "Yes, my pistol is in the case..." and I told him where. That was the last that was said of it. He never ran my LTCH and the length of time he had my license makes me think it unlikely that he even ran that. It wouldn't matter to me if he had run both, except that I was running late for where I was going, which is the reason he pulled me over in the first place, and the reason it would not have mattered to me is not that I had nothing to hide (I don't, but....) but because as I see it, he was doing his job, the job he was hired to do. He did it professionally and the reason he was doing it at all around me is because *I* had been speeding. That's not his fault, it's mine. I knew the law, I knew what I was doing, and I didn't much like that I'd been pulled over, but if I'm going to be angry with someone, in that situation, it's the guy I see not in the rear view mirror, pulled up behind me with his emergency lights on, but rather the one I see in the vanity mirror on my visor.

OTOH, if he had ordered me out of the car, accused me of a crime, etc., etc., I understand that I'm not going to "win" on the side of the road. His lawful authority places that position with him. Mr. Freeman, Esq. would have received a phone call, however, and after he and I met to discuss my case, the officer's department head and I would have met as well, or alternatively, I would have handled it through the courts.

I'll show respect and good manners to those who show them to me. That method has worked well for me so far. If that is not others' experience, I cannot say why, but I'd think it's likely the fact that the guy in the blue uniform is not "a cop", he's a human being and just like every single one of us, he's going to have good days and bad days. If he keeps his bad day to himself, hopefully my actions and reactions will help improve his outlook. If he takes it out on me when I've not caused it, he's probably going to have to get used to having more bad days, and it's my hope that they'll begin with him being addressed not as "Officer" but as "Mr."

The question was raised why Esrice posted in this thread rather than just ignore it. I've not discussed it with him, but my guess would be that he did so not because INGO's staff is "pro-LEO" nor because we are "anti-LEO", as we are neither... it is however, not conducive to the atmosphere Fenway wants here, though, to have a consistent anti-government bent to the forums. The other possibility I would guess would be because he had a question and asked it rather than assuming he knew the answer. Interestingly enough, based on the communication I've gotten from other members, not all nor even most of whom are LEOs, there are quite a few members here who've noticed that direction in a few peoples' posts.

LEOs are just doing a job, folks, a job in which most of them (at least most of the ones I know) take great pride in doing well. Those that do it poorly, such as this TN trooper is accused of doing should not be doing it anymore. Those that do take pride in a job well done should be praised for doing so (as should anyone who does a good job), not lumped in with the bad solely because they wear a similar uniform.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

"Tenn. Trooper Steals Guns During Stop"

Misleading Title. The officer gave receipts for the the items confiscated. This is not stealing. Agree or disagree with the Trooper's interpretation of the law, his intent wasn't to steal the guns. Such misrepresentation is a fine example Yellow Journalism.

What a bunch of BS. If a hoodlum walked in to your home when you were out and confiscated your goods against your will in violation of the law, do you really think a farking piece of paper itemizing them is making it better? Legal?



It absolutely is stealing to take what isn't yours in violation of the law. Handing over a "Hey, I took this" paper doesn't change that.

 

[serpicostraight]

And here I thought it was because I was smart enough not to get hammered when I go out in public.

If I want to tie one on....I'll do it at home. That's because I'm cheap though. It kills me to pay that much for beer in a bar.

I always limit myself to two beers if I'm out. And if I drink ANYTHING with alcohol in it...I don't drive. I let someone who hasn't been drinking drive. Always have a designated driver...it keeps you out of jail. Or at least it has worked for me.

yea the prices are steep these days at a bar. and the designated driver thing does work most of the time. if i have one beer i dont drive. but i heard the courts had to make a ruling a few months back that the pi law was not meant for cops to stop cars with sober drivers and arrest passengers who had been drinking. was it that hard to figure out?

 

[j706]

yea the prices are steep these days at a bar. and the designated driver thing does work most of the time. if i have one beer i dont drive. but i heard the courts had to make a ruling a few months back that the pi law was not meant for cops to stop cars with sober drivers and arrest passengers who had been drinking. was it that hard to figure out?

I doubt to many passengers get arrested for PI when they have a sober driver. Now you take a intoxicated driver with intoxicated passengers,they are all going for a ride. Or a sober driver and a loud obnoxious passenger and the passenger is going for a ride. And for what it is worth,anyone that is intoxicated to the point they generate a run/complaint in a public place or in public view are going.

I do not tolerate intoxicated people whooping and hollering,or walking around with open containers,passed out, or in general bringing attention to themselves on my shift. A guy stumbling home from the bar at 0300 on the sidewalk and not causing problems is not a problem IMO and might even get a ride home.

 

[vitamink]

keep in mind as well, the original article posted was from the guy who had his guns "stolen". You don't get to hear the other side, and accept his side as truth. Whenever people get locked up, more an more they go on an internet crusade to get support. The key is when you get locked up and you are presented with all the evidence against you, you now know all the moves they're gonna make so you can fabricate your story accordingly. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it happens often.

Just an example:

A friend of mine is a cop and got into a big argument with his wife, as he recently locked up her friend's husband. The cop couldn't remember the particulars of the case with the limited information his wife provided. His wife was yelling at him for being so absurd as to lock a guy up for PI who is a college graduate, good standing member of society, and the father of 3 kids. She then doubted all of the cop's other arrests as being "good" arrests as he obviously made a such big mistake in this case. His wife explained that her friend's husband was shopping at the mall and stumbled in the bathroom after dropping his cell phone, some dumb macho cop approached and asked, "have you been drinking?". This pillar of the community stated "yes, i had 2 beers" as he would never lie to the police. The cop, fueled on steroids and memories of getting his butt kicked in highschool, locked him up for PI in a public bathroom. As his wife described the guy, the cop began to remember, and even said his name as it was still fresh in his head, to which his wife confirmed the man's identity. The cop then began telling "what really happened" and what really happened was this:

The cop is off duty shopping at the mall as well and decides to go to the bathroom. As he pushes through the first door he hears noises coming from inside the bathroom that sounds as if someone is enjoying a really good poop. As he pushes through the second door, he says out loud, "what the ****?". In front of him is a guy on his knees with his mouth open and another man standing over him furiously masturbating into his mouth. The guy on his knees takes off running past the officer and the guy standing attempts to run but can't get far because his pants are around his ankles. The cop cuffs the man who happens to be his wife's friend's husband. While he's questioning the guy still in the bathroom a stall door opens and a young kid comes out and says that he locked himself into the bathroom and was scared to leave. The guy at first told the officer that he didn't do anything wrong as he heard that this bathroom had a very high rating from [noparse]http://www.squirt.org/[/noparse] which rates public bathrooms for that type of behavior and to lock him up would be a hate crime. The cop advised that acts committed in a public place no matter what the sexual orientation are illegal. The guy then started being belligerent saying, he'd have this cops job, ect ect. The guy was charged and sent off to jail and he bailed out immediately. The pros. office dropped all the charges except PI as their witness was from another state and his parents refused to drive him back. So in effect he was only charged with PI. He was then able to make up his, dumb macho cop scenario and went with that.

 

[rambone]

Infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Check.
Search & seize without a warrant. Check.
Deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Check.
Criminalize people for benign activities; lacking victim, motive, intent, or damage. Check.
Fail to defend and uphold the Constitution. Check.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Check.
Search & seize without a warrant. Check.
Deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Check.
Criminalize people for benign activities; lacking victim, motive, intent, or damage. Check.
Fail to defend and uphold the Constitution. Check.

Claim of infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Check.
Claim of search & seize without a warrant. Check.
Claim of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Check.
Claim of criminalization of people for benign activities; lacking victim, motive, intent, or damage. Check.
Claim of failure to defend and uphold the Constitution. Check.

Fixed. The simple fact that someone is accused of something does not make it fact. Don't miss my point here: If the trooper is guilty of doing the things of which he's accused, I hope he's stripped of his badge, the citizen's property is returned, and the now-former trooper is held accountable in civil court for his actions that exceeded his qualified immunity. Until it's proven in court, though, all it is is accusations. I've not even heard of the accusation being presented in court as yet, so if you have a link to that happening, please do post it. With such an open and shut case, why would the allegedly wronged party not avail himself of his Constitutionally protected right to petition his government for a redress of grievance..... unless perhaps the case is not so open and shut as we have been led to believe?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[public servant]

Claim of infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Check.
Claim of search & seize without a warrant. Check.
Claim of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Check.
Claim of criminalization of people for benign activities; lacking victim, motive, intent, or damage. Check.
Claim of failure to defend and uphold the Constitution. Check.

Fixed. The simple fact that someone is accused of something does not make it fact. Don't miss my point here: If the trooper is guilty of doing the things of which he's accused, I hope he's stripped of his badge, the citizen's property is returned, and the now-former trooper is held accountable in civil court for his actions that exceeded his qualified immunity. Until it's proven in court, though, all it is is accusations. I've not even heard of the accusation being presented in court as yet, so if you have a link to that happening, please do post it. With such an open and shut case, why would the allegedly wronged party not avail himself of his Constitutionally protected right to petition his government for a redress of grievance..... unless perhaps the case is not so open and shut as we have been led to believe?

Blessings,
Bill

Jesus, Bill...it was in the media. It has to be true...doesn't it?

I'm amazed by the number of people here that jump to conclusions.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Jesus, Bill...it was in the media. It has to be true...doesn't it?

Yep. Must be true. it was in the paper.

Anyone want to tell me why Harry Truman's so happy to hold up that paper?. Might also want to research the dates of President Dewey's term of office.

 

[rambone]

If my posts appear to be biased, they can be barred as evidence in the trial.

Till then... thank G** another gun is off the streets and in the Government's hands. Doesn't feel like confiscation when it is done slowly.

 

[vitamink]

keep in mind as well, the original article posted was from the guy who had his guns "stolen". You don't get to hear the other side, and accept his side as truth. Whenever people get locked up, more an more they go on an internet crusade to get support. The key is when you get locked up and you are presented with all the evidence against you, you now know all the moves they're gonna make so you can fabricate your story accordingly. I'm not saying this is the case here, but it happens often.

Just an example:

A friend of mine is a cop and got into a big argument with his wife, as he recently locked up her friend's husband. The cop couldn't remember the particulars of the case with the limited information his wife provided. His wife was yelling at him for being so absurd as to lock a guy up for PI who is a college graduate, good standing member of society, and the father of 3 kids. She then doubted all of the cop's other arrests as being "good" arrests as he obviously made a such big mistake in this case. His wife explained that her friend's husband was shopping at the mall and stumbled in the bathroom after dropping his cell phone, some dumb macho cop approached and asked, "have you been drinking?". This pillar of the community stated "yes, i had 2 beers" as he would never lie to the police. The cop, fueled on steroids and memories of getting his butt kicked in highschool, locked him up for PI in a public bathroom. As his wife described the guy, the cop began to remember, and even said his name as it was still fresh in his head, to which his wife confirmed the man's identity. The cop then began telling "what really happened" and what really happened was this:

The cop is off duty shopping at the mall as well and decides to go to the bathroom. As he pushes through the first door he hears noises coming from inside the bathroom that sounds as if someone is enjoying a really good poop. As he pushes through the second door, he says out loud, "what the ****?". In front of him is a guy on his knees with his mouth open and another man standing over him furiously masturbating into his mouth. The guy on his knees takes off running past the officer and the guy standing attempts to run but can't get far because his pants are around his ankles. The cop cuffs the man who happens to be his wife's friend's husband. While he's questioning the guy still in the bathroom a stall door opens and a young kid comes out and says that he locked himself into the bathroom and was scared to leave. The guy at first told the officer that he didn't do anything wrong as he heard that this bathroom had a very high rating from [noparse]http://www.squirt.org/[/noparse] which rates public bathrooms for that type of behavior and to lock him up would be a hate crime. The cop advised that acts committed in a public place no matter what the sexual orientation are illegal. The guy then started being belligerent saying, he'd have this cops job, ect ect. The guy was charged and sent off to jail and he bailed out immediately. The pros. office dropped all the charges except PI as their witness was from another state and his parents refused to drive him back. So in effect he was only charged with PI. He was then able to make up his, dumb macho cop scenario and went with that.

In the news today someone else got locked up in the same bathroom that this story took place in. This time it was the BMV commissioner.

"An undercover officer said he saw Miller in the men's room stall with his pants at his ankles. And, he said Miller invited the officer to engage in sexual activity. That's why police were at Claypool Court, downtown -- due to complaints of lewd behavior inside a public men's restroom."

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Check.

Wrong. If the law in Tennessee says you have to have a permit to have a handgun on your person or in your vehicle and you don't, you commit a crime when you do. When I travel and I'm going to take a gun with me I check the gun laws (not a web site) to see if I can legally carry or not. I keep everything in a lock box with the keys out of range because I know that under no circumstance may an officer open a locked box on a traffic stop, unless they have an actual search warrant or the car is being impounded and they are inventorying contents and they have the key. There is no obligation whatsoever to open a locked box or disclose the contents of one during an adhoc probable cause search.

Search & seize without a warrant. Check.

Wrong. The officer asked if the driver had weapons in the car. Response yes. The officer asked if the driver had a permit. Response no. Probable cause established. No warrant required, go to jail without passing go and collecting $200.

LEOs don't need probable cause to ask a question. Just don't answer it or say "not that are covered under Terry". If you tell them you have something and it may not be lawful for you to possess it in their state you'll probably get jacked.

In any event the driver opened the trunk for him. There can be no illegal search and seizure when the search is done by consent.

Deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Check.

Wrong. Due process doesn't happen on the street. It happens through the court system. He got his property back. He was afforded due process.

Criminalize people for benign activities; lacking victim, motive, intent, or damage. Check.

Wrong. There's a law. LEOs enforce laws. Part of the job description. LEOs assessment was that the law had been broken.

If you don't like Tennessee's gun laws move there and vote for legislators that will change them.

Fail to defend and uphold the Constitution. Check.

Wrong. Sworn to uphold and Constitution and laws.

The driver would have prevented the whole situation by not answering the question or answering that there were no weapons that qualify under Terry. Driver screwed up and wants it to be system's fault.

I don't like what happened to this guy, but to say it's the LEO's fault is just flat out cop-bashing. The guy told the LEO he was committing a crime in Tennessee. He had no reason to answer the cop's questions, but he chose to. Contrary to what you see on TV, as soon as you open your sewer you are incriminating yourself.

It's simple. When you travel to another state you are travelling to another Sovereign state with different laws than ours. It's incumbent on you to understand the laws where you are travelling; not the other way around.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The driver would have prevented the whole situation by not answering the question or answering that there were no weapons that qualify under Terry. Driver screwed up and wants it to be system's fault.

I don't like what happened to this guy, but to say it's the LEO's fault is just flat out cop-bashing. The guy told the LEO he was committing a crime in Tennessee. He had no reason to answer the cop's questions, but he chose to. Contrary to what you see on TV, as soon as you open your sewer you are incriminating yourself.

It's simple. When you travel to another state you are travelling to another Sovereign state with different laws than ours. It's incumbent on you to understand the laws where you are travelling; not the other way around.

If I understand it correctly, neither Terry nor Tennessee law matter a whit in this case, SFUSMC.
The story, as reported by the man who claims it happened to him, is that he was traveling from VA (an open-carry state in which no permit is required) to CO, where he lives and needs no permit for the same reason.

Per FOPA, with the firearms unloaded and locked in the trunk, the driver's described conduct was in full compliance and not in any way unlawful:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 926A
§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. (Source: United States Code: Title 18,926A. Interstate transportation of firearms | LII / Legal Information Institute)

Now granted, all of this depends on the account of the driver being factual, but presuming he's disclosing all relevant facts, I'd say the trooper was in the wrong. If he's not being truthful, (and we can't know since we don't have the trooper's side of the story,) all bets are off.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

If I understand it correctly, neither Terry nor Tennessee law matter a whit in this case, SFUSMC.
The story, as reported by the man who claims it happened to him, is that he was traveling from VA (an open-carry state in which no permit is required) to CO, where he lives and needs no permit for the same reason.

Per FOPA, with the firearms unloaded and locked in the trunk, the driver's described conduct was in full compliance and not in any way unlawful:

Now granted, all of this depends on the account of the driver being factual, but presuming he's disclosing all relevant facts, I'd say the trooper was in the wrong. If he's not being truthful, (and we can't know since we don't have the trooper's side of the story,) all bets are off.

Blessings,
Bill

I understand 926A. But as you said, in any event there are still facts that must be established that 926A applies. Did he stop in TN rendering 926A no longer applicable? Did he really travel from CO to VA? Just because he said he was going from A to B doesn't mean he in fact was. Bad thing about criminals - they lie and screw it up for everyone. Not saying he was a criminal, but it has to be investigated.

Now claiming the dog hit on a drug search was silly. I see where he was trying to go - that the dog hit therefore there were drugs present at some point therefore the driver was not a proper person. Whatever. -1 for that move.

Also as you said, non of us were there. We don't know what was said, how it was said, etc. Officer descretion is the keyword here.

It's all part of an evidence gathering and presentation to a prosecutor to determine if charges are brought. Charges weren't brought. Driver got his guns back. System worked as designed. Maybe not as we would like, but as intended.

Moral of the story: Keep your mouth shut. Freedom isn't free.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I understand 926A. But as you said, in any event there are still facts that must be established that 926A applies. Did he stop in TN rendering 926A no longer applicable? Did he really travel from CO to VA? Just because he said he was going from A to B doesn't mean he in fact was. Bad thing about criminals - they lie and screw it up for everyone. Not saying he was a criminal, but it has to be investigated.

Now claiming the dog hit on a drug search was silly. I see where he was trying to go - that the dog hit therefore there were drugs present at some point therefore the driver was not a proper person. Whatever. -1 for that move.

Also as you said, non of us were there. We don't know what was said, how it was said, etc. Officer descretion is the keyword here.

It's all part of an evidence gathering and presentation to a prosecutor to determine if charges are brought. Charges weren't brought. Driver got his guns back. System worked as designed. Maybe not as we would like, but as intended.

Moral of the story: Keep your mouth shut. Freedom isn't free.

Presuming for the sake of the discussion that everything is as reported by the purported victim:

IIRC, he was pulled over for the tint on his windows, so he didn't stop at all until he was compelled to by the cherries and berries behind him.
As for whether he was really enroute from VA to CO, neither we nor the officer has any way of knowing or any reason to know. It would be different if there was some evidence to indicate that this was a lie that was readily available... maybe he was seen and reported by radio to have left not VA but MD, in which case he would not have been in compliance, but in which case he would have been stopped long before Tennessee! To look at this any other way would necessitate stopping EVERYONE on the road regularly to verify their origin and destination and that they had no weapons. Godwin's Law notwithstanding, the phrase, "Ausweiss, bitte?" comes to mind.

We are in full agreement re: the dog hit on the "drug search".

Did he get his property back? I missed that part, if so. The question was asked before, though, I think in this thread: How should he "keep (his) mouth shut"? The trooper asked him point blank, "Do you have any drugs or weapons in the car?" If he sits there and refuses to answer, he's going to raise more suspicion, and I know you're not advising that he should have lied to the trooper. Of his three possible choices, tell the truth, say nothing, or tell a lie, I don't see that either of the latter two as viable choices. I could see the possibility of him politely, civilly refusing to open the trunk, a la "Officer, with respect, I decline to open my trunk. If you want to look in there, you'll need a warrant or you'll need to perform an unlawful search. The key is in the ignition, but I do not consent to a search of my vehicle.", but you and I both know that if the trooper claimed the dog hit on the car for drugs, he would have done the same to claim PC for the search.

I don't necessarily have reason to believe that the purported victim is being entirely truthful nor that he is lying. I simply don't know. Growing up, though, I was often asked, "What's the percentage?", meaning what benefit does the person claimed to have performed an action derive from the action in question. What's the percentage for the trooper to pull over this citizen for the tint on his windows, perform an unlawful search, confiscate his property, and in general, give him a bunch of trouble? Revenue for the window tint violation? Fishing expedition? Just didn't like his Colorado license plate?

Conversely, what's the percentage for the citizen accusing the trooper of wrongdoing? He had the trooper's name, so I think it's obvious he was pulled over. Maybe revenge for the wrong of stopping him for a silly thing like that? Maybe the notoriety of having his story repeated all over the internet (Warhol's 15-minutes-of-fame theory) Maybe a gun-rights activist trying to change the law by "drawing the foul"? Any or all of these could apply, but he stands to personally benefit. The trooper does not. It is possible the trooper was unaware of or had forgotten FOPA's provision for interstate transport of an unloaded firearm, in which case this would have the possibility of being entirely truthful and at the same time, entirely free of malice, but the thing that comes to mind for me is that we are often told that ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. That should work both ways, IMHO. If the trooper is ignorant of 926A, that does not give him license to violate it.

The problem lies in the double standard: the non-LEO-citizen is held responsible for obeying all laws in any jurisdiction he might find himself, but the LEO is not held responsible for knowing all the laws of his own jurisdiction where he works 40 or so hours every week. FOPA's been federal law for a bunch of years. You'd think a highway patrolling trooper would be conversant with its provisions and how they relate to his own state laws. (and I've argued before that there's no way any person can possibly know all the laws. Res ipsi loquitor that we have too da*n many laws!)

Again, the above is based on the presumption that the driver was 100% truthful and factual in his account of the events of this case. That's not a given, but that's the only accounting of what happened available to us.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Presuming for the sake of the discussion that everything is as reported by the purported victim:

IIRC, he was pulled over for the tint on his windows, so he didn't stop at all until he was compelled to by the cherries and berries behind him.
As for whether he was really enroute from VA to CO, neither we nor the officer has any way of knowing or any reason to know. It would be different if there was some evidence to indicate that this was a lie that was readily available... maybe he was seen and reported by radio to have left not VA but MD, in which case he would not have been in compliance, but in which case he would have been stopped long before Tennessee! To look at this any other way would necessitate stopping EVERYONE on the road regularly to verify their origin and destination and that they had no weapons. Godwin's Law notwithstanding, the phrase, "Ausweiss, bitte?" comes to mind.

We are in full agreement re: the dog hit on the "drug search".

Did he get his property back? I missed that part, if so. The question was asked before, though, I think in this thread: How should he "keep (his) mouth shut"? The trooper asked him point blank, "Do you have any drugs or weapons in the car?" If he sits there and refuses to answer, he's going to raise more suspicion, and I know you're not advising that he should have lied to the trooper. Of his three possible choices, tell the truth, say nothing, or tell a lie, I don't see that either of the latter two as viable choices. I could see the possibility of him politely, civilly refusing to open the trunk, a la "Officer, with respect, I decline to open my trunk. If you want to look in there, you'll need a warrant or you'll need to perform an unlawful search. The key is in the ignition, but I do not consent to a search of my vehicle.", but you and I both know that if the trooper claimed the dog hit on the car for drugs, he would have done the same to claim PC for the search.

I don't necessarily have reason to believe that the purported victim is being entirely truthful nor that he is lying. I simply don't know. Growing up, though, I was often asked, "What's the percentage?", meaning what benefit does the person claimed to have performed an action derive from the action in question. What's the percentage for the trooper to pull over this citizen for the tint on his windows, perform an unlawful search, confiscate his property, and in general, give him a bunch of trouble? Revenue for the window tint violation? Fishing expedition? Just didn't like his Colorado license plate?

Conversely, what's the percentage for the citizen accusing the trooper of wrongdoing? He had the trooper's name, so I think it's obvious he was pulled over. Maybe revenge for the wrong of stopping him for a silly thing like that? Maybe the notoriety of having his story repeated all over the internet (Warhol's 15-minutes-of-fame theory) Maybe a gun-rights activist trying to change the law by "drawing the foul"? Any or all of these could apply, but he stands to personally benefit. The trooper does not. It is possible the trooper was unaware of or had forgotten FOPA's provision for interstate transport of an unloaded firearm, in which case this would have the possibility of being entirely truthful and at the same time, entirely free of malice, but the thing that comes to mind for me is that we are often told that ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. That should work both ways, IMHO. If the trooper is ignorant of 926A, that does not give him license to violate it.

The problem lies in the double standard: the non-LEO-citizen is held responsible for obeying all laws in any jurisdiction he might find himself, but the LEO is not held responsible for knowing all the laws of his own jurisdiction where he works 40 or so hours every week. FOPA's been federal law for a bunch of years. You'd think a highway patrolling trooper would be conversant with its provisions and how they relate to his own state laws. (and I've argued before that there's no way any person can possibly know all the laws. Res ipsi loquitor that we have too da*n many laws!)

Again, the above is based on the presumption that the driver was 100% truthful and factual in his account of the events of this case. That's not a given, but that's the only accounting of what happened available to us.

Blessings,
Bill

I don't advocate lying to the police. Ever.

I would put the quesiton of drugs and weapons in a different context. If asked if you have any drugs in the car, the answer is most certainly yes. Cigerettes? Coffee? Soda? Asprin? Gasoline? These are all drugs. However, we assume that the question is do you have any illegal drugs, not any drugs at all.

Same thing goes for weapons. If asked if there are any weapons in the vehicle one could fairly assume that the real question is are there any illegal weapons in the vehicle. If the weapon is securely locked up or not within reach you have no illegal weapons. If you are uncormfortable you can respond according to what you understand the question to be.

As far as 926A goes, the law doesn't say that you can take a gun anywhere. There are exempted classes. It says under certain circumstances you may transport a weapon in a certain manner. You have the burden of proof that none of the exemptions that would make you ineligible pertain.

Most everything else you said is interesting commentary but irrelevent to the issue.The guy was pulled over. He talked when he shouldn't have. He allowed a search of his vehicle. He had property seized as a result of the search. When it was determined that no crime was committed his property was returned.

I don't disagree with your too many laws assessment. I don't like that the guy had his stuff taken. I would like to see a full unfettered right to carry everywhere. That doesn't exist. But given the law as written the LEO's actions don't rise to the level of unreasonable.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't advocate lying to the police. Ever.

I would put the quesiton of drugs and weapons in a different context. If asked if you have any drugs in the car, the answer is most certainly yes. Cigerettes? Coffee? Soda? Asprin? Gasoline? These are all drugs. However, we assume that the question is do you have any illegal drugs, not any drugs at all.

Same thing goes for weapons. If asked if there are any weapons in the vehicle one could fairly assume that the real question is are there any illegal weapons in the vehicle. If the weapon is securely locked up or not within reach you have no illegal weapons. If you are uncormfortable you can respond according to what you understand the question to be.

As far as 926A goes, the law doesn't say that you can take a gun anywhere. There are exempted classes. It says under certain circumstances you may transport a weapon in a certain manner. You have the burden of proof that none of the exemptions that would make you ineligible pertain.

Most everything else you said is interesting commentary but irrelevent to the issue.The guy was pulled over. He talked when he shouldn't have. He allowed a search of his vehicle. He had property seized as a result of the search. When it was determined that no crime was committed his property was returned.

I don't disagree with your too many laws assessment. I don't like that the guy had his stuff taken. I would like to see a full unfettered right to carry everywhere. That doesn't exist. But given the law as written the LEO's actions don't rise to the level of unreasonable.

Where he had been was established. There's no way to prove your intended destination. He was on a road headed toward Colorado. His driver's license presumably showed that as his home address. That wasn't the issue the trooper raised, though. The trooper confiscated his property, according to the story, because it is unlawful to carry a firearm in Tennessee without a permit. He was not carrying it, he was transporting it in compliance with 926A. You did make one claim that interests me, though: you claim the burden of proof is on him to show that he's not ineligible for the protections of 926A. It would seem to me that the burden of proof would be on his accuser because all evidence present showed him in compliance. The mere presence of a firearm somewhere in the vehicle, especially one not in plain view, does not provide any element of a crime. In fact, I just looked and while I don't recall when this case supposedly happened, I did find this law, as enacted by the State of Tennessee this past April:
Tennessee General Assembly » Legislation
Synopsis: Firearms and Ammunition - As enacted, allows person without handgun carry permit to transport rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle provided there is no ammunition in the chamber or cylinder and no loaded clip or magazine in the weapon or in close proximity to the weapon or any person. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

I still don't see his option other than to talk and to tell the truth to the trooper. We've had LEOs here explain that giving some kind of evasive answer raises their index of suspicion of wrongdoing and thus, makes them look harder to find it. The citizen did open the trunk himself, voiding any 4A protection he might have had, but the trooper had no reason to ask him to do it. The effect of the trooper standing there is intimidating, leaving little room for the assertion of his right to be secure in his possessions, papers, and effects. I still haven't seen it, but I'll go with your statement that the property was returned to its owner, though I'm sure at some level of inconvenience and/or cost to the owner that should not have needed to be incurred, whether him remaining in or returning to TN to secure it, or having to pay a CO FFL to receive it and re-transfer it to him.
If this (LEOs confiscating lawfully possessed property) is within the bounds of the law, of what use is 926A at all? At a minimum, the trooper should receive remedial education on the text, meaning, and import of 926A, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Where he had been was established. There's no way to prove your intended destination. He was on a road headed toward Colorado. His driver's license presumably showed that as his home address. That wasn't the issue the trooper raised, though. The trooper confiscated his property, according to the story, because it is unlawful to carry a firearm in Tennessee without a permit. He was not carrying it, he was transporting it in compliance with 926A. You did make one claim that interests me, though: you claim the burden of proof is on him to show that he's not ineligible for the protections of 926A. It would seem to me that the burden of proof would be on his accuser because all evidence present showed him in compliance. The mere presence of a firearm somewhere in the vehicle, especially one not in plain view, does not provide any element of a crime. In fact, I just looked and while I don't recall when this case supposedly happened, I did find this law, as enacted by the State of Tennessee this past April:
Tennessee General Assembly » Legislation
Synopsis: Firearms and Ammunition - As enacted, allows person without handgun carry permit to transport rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle provided there is no ammunition in the chamber or cylinder and no loaded clip or magazine in the weapon or in close proximity to the weapon or any person. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

I still don't see his option other than to talk and to tell the truth to the trooper. We've had LEOs here explain that giving some kind of evasive answer raises their index of suspicion of wrongdoing and thus, makes them look harder to find it. The citizen did open the trunk himself, voiding any 4A protection he might have had, but the trooper had no reason to ask him to do it. The effect of the trooper standing there is intimidating, leaving little room for the assertion of his right to be secure in his possessions, papers, and effects. I still haven't seen it, but I'll go with your statement that the property was returned to its owner, though I'm sure at some level of inconvenience and/or cost to the owner that should not have needed to be incurred, whether him remaining in or returning to TN to secure it, or having to pay a CO FFL to receive it and re-transfer it to him.
If this (LEOs confiscating lawfully possessed property) is within the bounds of the law, of what use is 926A at all? At a minimum, the trooper should receive remedial education on the text, meaning, and import of 926A, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

926A is an affirmative defense. Here's the case law. There's a bunch more out there.

Docket Nos. 08-1768-cv, 08-1895-cv. - TORRACO v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY NJ NJ II - US 2nd Circuit
- PEOPLE v. SELYUKOV - NY Justice Court
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092029p.pdf

You can't just read a paragraph out of a lawbook and decide what it means. It doesn't work that way.

Sea lawyers think they understand what they read and attempt to opine on it to the detriment of someone who listens to what they have to say because it sounded authoritative. In reality the law is nothing unless you apply the case law to it.

The trooper's not the one who should receive remedial education on the text, meaning, and import of 926A, IMHO.