Traffic stop, officer confiscated my firearms.

[j706]

Not all cars have video. Even if that one did there is no requirement for the video to be archived. I never keep video unless it involves a arrest where it would help with the case. Don't count on any video.

I was reading back through this thread and noticed quite a few things. You talked about being put in cuffs and no miranda warning. This involved a person that was intoxicated as well as armed. It would be reasonable to have cuffed you up until things were sorted out. No miranda was needed. If you are arrested and questioned without being read your warning's it is not some violation of law. It just means that anything you said during that time would likely be kicked.

You also mentioned what cop stops a fishing boat. Well...lots of them. Many, many people coming back from the lakes are intoxicated.

You said the cop did not even turn his lights on until he was out of town. That makes absolutely no difference at all where he lights you up at. He could stop you two county's away if he wanted to. Research Lashley vs. State 745 N E. 2nd 254 In. App. 2001 and or State vs. Russ 480 N. E. 2nd 248 In. app 1985

You have mentioned PC on a couple of occasions. You might want to research 34-28-5-3 Good faith belief is the requirement for a traffic stop.

And "Since when does a small town cop call the prosecutor at home on a Saturday night"? All the time is that answer. A small town cop probably more than others. Not only do they call the prosecutor they also call judges at home. I have done both more times than I can recall.

Trailer light brakes- you are required by law to have at least one working trailer brake light. I am not sure where your ISP friend got that from but he could not be more wrong.When you get into equipment requirements they are confusing. Certain trailers and such can be and are considered vehicles under parts of tittle 9 codes. A few years ago the law was changed to even require tail lights and brake lights for ANYTHING towed. But boat trailers and such that require registration have to have working tail lights, a working license plate light and brake lights.

You also mentioned that since you had already been charged that placing any additional charges would be unlikely. You really truly need to get that out of your mind. It can happen and does in fact happen a lot. You can bet the farm if you happen to draw the ire of someone in the PO they will sure do it. Everyone is entitled to go before the court and present a defense and folks should when the circumstances call for it. But I kinda feel you are flirting with fire on yours.

I stand by my earlier statement that you might want to really swallow your pride and pay the thing when you appear. You seem like a decent guy to me but the fact remains you used some poor judgement and got popped for it. They let you off easy IMO. Heck they didn't even tow your truck!!! Thing it over real well sir.

 

[Bigum1969]

What a thread...a great read for the past hour.

All judgement aside (I must admit I agree with what the LEOs and others are saying), you might want to strongly consider just letting this go. You are playing with fire considering you could face a lot more than what you ended up with.

 

[Hayseed_40]

it is strange how those dash cams malfunction at just the right time.

If a dept puts the cameras in the cars, there is probably a policy in that they have to be used all the time. The problem is that they are full of gremlins and do not always work. You would also be surprised how efficiently they are handled. I know personally one dept (digital video) that the LEO's cannot touch the videos except to name and catalog them. They are automaticaly downloaded and stored - they cannot be changed.

The whole cmera conspiracy is a BS theory.

Most LEO like the cameras - it can save the good ones from conspiracy theories and those that like to play the race card. To me, it made quite a few OWI cases - the video is always better than the book.

 

[j706]

If a dept puts the cameras in the cars, there is probably a policy in that they have to be used all the time. The problem is that they are full of gremlins and do not always work. You would also be surprised how efficiently they are handled. I know personally one dept (digital video) that the LEO's cannot touch the videos except to name and catalog them. They are automaticaly downloaded and stored - they cannot be changed.

The whole cmera conspiracy is a BS theory.

Most LEO like the cameras - it can save the good ones from conspiracy theories and those that like to play the race card. To me, it made quite a few OWI cases - the video is always better than the book.

I like having them. We have no policy where we have to use them and we can save or delete at our desecration. Many people seem to think they are in police cars to watch over our actions. They would be incorrect. They are in cars to protect us from BS complaints and to help build cases if need be. IMO it would take a pretty un trusting agency to use them in any other way. I could not/would not work for a place like that. But I know they are out there. Heck I know one agency in the southern part of the county I work in that has to ask permission to assist another agency or even to go pee!! Jeeezzzz wouldn't that be a lovely place to work.

 

[Dead Duck]

You gave up your rights and driving privilege the second you opened that beer and turned that key. Lick your wounds and and take it like a man. You got caught, deal with it. Stop trying to get away with something you know was wrong in the first place. The gun issue is just collateral damage. Consider yourself lucky. Sounds like the cop gave you a break.


D.U.I. - "D" does not stand for Drunk.
Knowing your own limits and body weight-vs-alcohol content argument is all Bull.

"Under the Influence" - Period
This could mean anything, not just alcohol. Drugs, Caffeine, Hormones, Anger, Bacon Withdrawals, Stupidity, Love.
Anything that can Influence you, and impair your driving.

All this talk about legal limits with the breathalyzer. Its just a tool for the courts and the officers to get the boneheads off the roads.

Sound like your upset with the officer for doing his job when you should be upset with yourself for not doing yours.
How many people do we all know that's been killed or injured by a drunk driver?
Too many. Easy fix - Don't do it.



Thank God that Baconbreathalyzers don't exist.

 

[serpicostraight]

I like having them. We have no policy where we have to use them and we can save or delete at our desecration. Many people seem to think they are in police cars to watch over our actions. They would be incorrect. They are in cars to protect us from BS complaints and to help build cases if need be. IMO it would take a pretty un trusting agency to use them in any other way. I could not/would not work for a place like that. But I know they are out there. Heck I know one agency in the southern part of the county I work in that has to ask permission to assist another agency or even to go pee!! Jeeezzzz wouldn't that be a lovely place to work.

so each individual cop can decide to save or destroy evidence?

 

[Benny]

I like having them. We have no policy where we have to use them and we can save or delete at our desecration. Many people seem to think they are in police cars to watch over our actions. They would be incorrect. They are in cars to protect us from BS complaints and to help build cases if need be. IMO it would take a pretty un trusting agency to use them in any other way. I could not/would not work for a place like that. But I know they are out there. Heck I know one agency in the southern part of the county I work in that has to ask permission to assist another agency or even to go pee!! Jeeezzzz wouldn't that be a lovely place to work.

I'm completely shocked that you would want to have the video to cover your own ass, but wouldn't work for a department that wouldn't allow you to delete video when you break the law. Shocked I tell you.

 

[newtothis]

I'm completely shocked that you would want to have the video to cover your own ass, but wouldn't work for a department that wouldn't allow you to delete video when you break the law. Shocked I tell you.

Lol, digital video analog can eat up a lot of space on a hard drive. Considering that most places still use some variation of a video tape setup, my sensibilities arent going to be offended if the officer only decides to tape if he gets a radio call for a felony stop or stops someone that has a history of resisting LE or just being a general PITA.

Personal preference.

 

[KG1]

I like having them. We have no policy where we have to use them and we can save or delete at our desecration. Many people seem to think they are in police cars to watch over our actions. They would be incorrect. They are in cars to protect us from BS complaints and to help build cases if need be. IMO it would take a pretty un trusting agency to use them in any other way. I could not/would not work for a place like that. But I know they are out there. Heck I know one agency in the southern part of the county I work in that has to ask permission to assist another agency or even to go pee!! Jeeezzzz wouldn't that be a lovely place to work.

Upon reading the part hi-lighted in bold then would it be correct for me to assume that it would be totally proper for an average citizen to be afforded the same courtesy and beable to record video and or audio of any Leo interaction for their own protection and to obtain evidence of any improper conduct? Would'nt you agree?

 

[Fargo]

I like having them. We have no policy where we have to use them and we can save or delete at our desecration.

It isn't quite at your discretion. If you are deleting things you know or should know are evidence in a pending or even potential criminal action, there are consequences ranging from suppression of evidence, to mandatory dismissal of cases for discovery violations, to contempt actions, to criminal charges for obstruction of justice, to the feddies getting involved for civil rights violations.

Remember, as soon as a judge thinks the police are acting with any but the noblest of intentions as regards evidence, things do not go well for the state or its witnesses (you).

Best,

Joe

 

[j706]

It isn't quite at your discretion. If you are deleting things you know or should know are evidence in a pending or even potential criminal action, there are consequences ranging from suppression of evidence, to mandatory dismissal of cases for discovery violations, to contempt actions, to criminal charges for obstruction of justice, to the feddies getting involved for civil rights violations.

Remember, as soon as a judge thinks the police are acting with any but the noblest of intentions as regards evidence, things do not go well for the state or its witnesses (you).

Best,

Joe

I disagree 100% with you on this one. The video would only be evidence if it had footage of a crime or something to that effect. In car videos are not designed or intended to be used as a big brother lookout for a officers every action, at least not in agency's that have even a little bit of trust in their officers. Whats next? A video that records the entire shift that has to be archived for eight years? Where do you draw the line?

 

[ATM]

Hey, what happened to the j706 I remember?

I have nothing to hide from anyone...

Who are you and what have you done with j706?

 

[lrahm]

I disagree 100% with you on this one. The video would only be evidence if it had footage of a crime or something to that effect. In car videos are not designed or intended to be used as a big brother lookout for a officers every action, at least not in agency's that have even a little bit of trust in their officers. Whats next? A video that records the entire shift that has to be archived for eight years? Where do you draw the line?

Videos are great but, when it comes to archives on video and audio recordings when is enough, enough. If you look at this case in particular who would think that it could possibly go this far. And it still might not. Videos sometimes are only kept for a given period of time and then recycled. My department doesn't even have cameras.

It would be nice if we all have video cameras but at some point when do officers become officers. I am not saying that they should be or act like thugs (I am against that). There is no place in law enforcement for verbal or physical abuse but officers should not play to the camera. They should be able to tell a person that they are out of line or feel that they are stretching the truth. The police does not normally run into law abiding citizens. If we took a survey right now, I wonder what the percentage of people on this forum has even been in contact with an officer other than the range. 95% of the people we run into on a daily basis have been in previous encounters. Tonight I had one stabbing. I had delt with this person 5 previous times in the last month. He won't be berated while I am there. I'll see him again next week and talk to him like normal.

Cameras are a good tool, so are witnesses, victims and suspects. (also had a theft, suicide attempt and two motorcycles that wrecked while trying to elude the police) To stop and spend a few minutes at a convenience store would be a joy for some officers and just a passing for people who don't deal with the other side of the public.

TTravis, I am not lumping you in the mix that I described above. If it appears that way, I apologize. I wish you the best in your case.

 

[ultraspec]

Not all cars have video. Even if that one did there is no requirement for the video to be archived. I never keep video unless it involves a arrest where it would help with the case. Don't count on any video.

I was reading back through this thread and noticed quite a few things. You talked about being put in cuffs and no miranda warning. This involved a person that was intoxicated as well as armed. It would be reasonable to have cuffed you up until things were sorted out. No miranda was needed. If you are arrested and questioned without being read your warning's it is not some violation of law. It just means that anything you said during that time would likely be kicked.

You also mentioned what cop stops a fishing boat. Well...lots of them. Many, many people coming back from the lakes are intoxicated.

You said the cop did not even turn his lights on until he was out of town. That makes absolutely no difference at all where he lights you up at. He could stop you two county's away if he wanted to. Research Lashley vs. State 745 N E. 2nd 254 In. App. 2001 and or State vs. Russ 480 N. E. 2nd 248 In. app 1985

You have mentioned PC on a couple of occasions. You might want to research 34-28-5-3 Good faith belief is the requirement for a traffic stop.

And "Since when does a small town cop call the prosecutor at home on a Saturday night"? All the time is that answer. A small town cop probably more than others. Not only do they call the prosecutor they also call judges at home. I have done both more times than I can recall.

Trailer light brakes- you are required by law to have at least one working trailer brake light. I am not sure where your ISP friend got that from but he could not be more wrong.When you get into equipment requirements they are confusing. Certain trailers and such can be and are considered vehicles under parts of tittle 9 codes. A few years ago the law was changed to even require tail lights and brake lights for ANYTHING towed. But boat trailers and such that require registration have to have working tail lights, a working license plate light and brake lights.

You also mentioned that since you had already been charged that placing any additional charges would be unlikely. You really truly need to get that out of your mind. It can happen and does in fact happen a lot. You can bet the farm if you happen to draw the ire of someone in the PO they will sure do it. Everyone is entitled to go before the court and present a defense and folks should when the circumstances call for it. But I kinda feel you are flirting with fire on yours.

I stand by my earlier statement that you might want to really swallow your pride and pay the thing when you appear. You seem like a decent guy to me but the fact remains you used some poor judgement and got popped for it. They let you off easy IMO. Heck they didn't even tow your truck!!! Thing it over real well sir.

Glad someone else laid it out for him besides me....

What a thread...a great read for the past hour.

All judgement aside (I must admit I agree with what the LEOs and others are saying), you might want to strongly consider just letting this go. You are playing with fire considering you could face a lot more than what you ended up with.

The sad part is that the pros could possilby pull this thread up and question him about it. I would venture to guess that wouldnt work out to well for him

 

[finity]

You gave up your rights and driving privilege the second you opened that beer and turned that key.

Umm...no.

You don't "give up your Rights" until you're convicted in a court of law. EVEN THEN you still maintain the vast majority of your Rights.

You don't give up your driving priviledge until the same. There really is a reason why there are "legal" limits not just some arbitrary number that ol' Dead Duck might want to come up with. It looks as though your "limit" would be "never". As in if you've EVER taken a drink then you shouldn't be "priviledged" to drive.

"Under the Influence" - Period
This could mean anything, not just alcohol. Drugs, Caffeine, Hormones, Anger, Bacon Withdrawals, Stupidity, Love.
Anything that can Influence you, and impair your driving.

It's a good thing that you don't make the driving laws. If you did then There isn't a person who's alive that could meet those requirements.

So have you ever driven under the influence? Of anger, hormones, stupidity, or...? I bet you have. I know I have. I assume you're still driving.

How dare you put us all at risk by "driving under the influence"?

Sound like your upset with the officer for doing his job when you should be upset with yourself for not doing yours.

So either he wasn't drunk, therefore, he did his "job" by staying under the limit (whatever limit you want to make it) since he didn't get arrested for it or he was drunk & the cop didn't arrest him for it so the cop would definitely not have been doing his job.

The problem as I see it is that the cop decided to ARBITRARILY confiscate his gun.

If he was drunk then, fine, arrest him for it. If he's not going to be arrested then leave the guy alone (aside from the possibly questionable infractions).

If I have 1 beer at dinner can a cop simply unilaterally decide on his own that I'm too drunk & then confiscate my gun & tow my car with no other evidence than he saw me leaving the restaurant?

If that's the way things are then I want to welcome you all to the great state of Police. I hope you enjoy your stay.

 

[Benny]

The sad part is that the pros could possilby pull this thread up and question him about it. I would venture to guess that wouldnt work out to well for him

Ask T .Lex about that.

Too bad for T .Lex, the internet searching phenom, Liberty Sanders isn't an idiot.

 

[indytechnerd]

So have you ever driven under the influence? Of anger, hormones, stupidity, or...?

Yes, all 3 at the same time. You just described high school for most men on this forum.

 

[Dead Duck]

Umm...no.

You don't "give up your Rights" until you're convicted in a court of law. EVEN THEN you still maintain the vast majority of your Rights.

You don't give up your driving priviledge until the same. There really is a reason why there are "legal" limits not just some arbitrary number that ol' Dead Duck might want to come up with. It looks as though your "limit" would be "never". As in if you've EVER taken a drink then you shouldn't be "priviledged" to drive.

It's a good thing that you don't make the driving laws. If you did then There isn't a person who's alive that could meet those requirements.

So have you ever driven under the influence? Of anger, hormones, stupidity, or...? I bet you have. I know I have. I assume you're still driving.

How dare you put us all at risk by "driving under the influence"?

So either he wasn't drunk, therefore, he did his "job" by staying under the limit (whatever limit you want to make it) since he didn't get arrested for it or he was drunk & the cop didn't arrest him for it so the cop would definitely not have been doing his job.

The problem as I see it is that the cop decided to ARBITRARILY confiscate his gun.

If he was drunk then, fine, arrest him for it. If he's not going to be arrested then leave the guy alone (aside from the possibly questionable infractions).

If I have 1 beer at dinner can a cop simply unilaterally decide on his own that I'm too drunk & then confiscate my gun & tow my car with no other evidence than he saw me leaving the restaurant?

If that's the way things are then I want to welcome you all to the great state of Police. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Yes - This is the key to the whole thing. You said it right there. The evidence is that you had that beer. One beer to you and many others may not be much but why drink it if you know you’re going to be driving? Just don't do it. It's not cool!
Shouldn't matter if one was born Irish with a beer for a baby bottle and you function better after a 12 pack. Still "Driving Under the Influence".

If beer doesn't influencing us, then why do we drink at all? It does, and that IS why we drink.

The tests and limits are made as Tools to help cops in the field and set boundaries in court for the penalties. These numbers are a little flexible at the officers and the courts discretion because people react differently at the same limits.
That is all the legal part. I'm mainly concerned about the human factor. From a biology standpoint. The physical and mental state of a mushy organism as it operates a thousand pounds of steel.

I know there is this whole world out there of drinking at bars with friends then driving to the next one and so on. (I agree that some chicks look prettier when your buzzed, Like my X.) Drink away - have a good time - but don't touch that car because that's the common that you'll have with many out there.

Cop sees a light out or you swerved to avoid that bunny or a car hits yours. All can involve the police, you, and now your stinky alcohol breath - you know the rest and your life now gets very complicated - fast.
Could have been avoided. (Just hit the bunny)

You wouldn't want me making the laws, I'd be like Judge Dread and blow up the cars as the keys start towards them.
Actually I would fizzle out most all the laws and have just one. Don't Drive Stupid. This may be vague but it covers it all. And yes this includes driving angry, happy, and whatever influences you can think of that may affect your driving. If these influences don't affect your driving, than great, if they do, then wait awhile.

Before turning that key, you need to be level headed and focused because it’s a huge responsibility your about to take on and if you don't feel that, then you need to step away until you do. It shouldn't be up to police, it’s up to us to curb our own actions before they interact with others.

You want to multitask and use your cell phone while adjusting the radio while drinking your morning beer while putting on your lipstick while eating bacon while driving your car. If you can do it, fine. Is it responsible - NO, it’s Stupid.

You want to talk rights and privileges? I've been the first on scene and used a shovel to scrape up what was left of people's rights and privileges. Sometimes the parts get mixed up; they get bagged just the same. What really sucks is when you recognize the cars and you know the victims involved. Some are victims from the moron that hit them and the moron is the victim from what influence him and his own stupidity. Also, Could have been avoided.

"Shock" can also be an influence used to take your guns - Link below

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...our_gun_but_not_your_ammo-12.html#post1979812

Sorry for the bacon references but I'm eating some as I'm typing this and yes, I'm TUI of bacon.
Bacon is my Favorite Food Group!

 

[Fargo]

I disagree 100% with you on this one.

Feel free to disagree; my post doesn't express my opinion of what should be, it expresses my understanding of the law on the matter.

The video would only be evidence if it had footage of a crime or something to that effect.

Yeah, hence the part in my post where I said "If you are deleting things you know or should know are evidence in a pending or even potential criminal action," . My post did not refer to not preserving all video, just to preserving video that is actual or potential evidence.

In car videos are not designed or intended to be used as a big brother lookout for a officers every action, at least not in agency's that have even a little bit of trust in their officers.

Video serves many purposes, one of which is protecting officers and another of which is to hold officer's accountable. However, purpose has nothing to do with my post and was never referenced in my post. My post was about what the law requires of LE agencies as regards preserving evidence.

Whats next? A video that records the entire shift that has to be archived for eight years?

Nobody said anything of the sort. Once again, you are legally obligated to preserve video which you know, or in some cases should have known, was evidence.

Where do you draw the line?

I don't draw the line; the law does as described above.

Joe

 

[Fargo]

The sad part is that the pros could possilby pull this thread up and question him about it. I would venture to guess that wouldnt work out to well for him

Why is that "sad"? If people want to go around a confess to breaking the law in a public forum, why should that not be admissible?

This is nothing like Liberty Sander's case where what was admitted was evidence not relevant to an element of the case which was put forward for purely prejudicial reasons in violation of the rules of evidence.

Best,


Joe