Traffic stop - trooper asked about guns

[R3ydium]

Again, where does the line get drawn? I'm a student of history and the parallels between the current state of our country and that of a certain other world power in the 1930s has me concerned.

On topic:



Off Topic:
Srtsi4wd,

Do you by chance Drive an SRT, or an SI ?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Interesting how "for officer safety" sounds very much like "do it for the children".

A nice little politically-correct catch phrase to get people to comply regardless of its true intentions.

QFT, but in fairness, I think most likely the majority of officers really do think they're doing it for their safety. I imagine it must be difficult to break out of that mold into which they've been stuffed in training that puts any and all actions taken as being for their safety. I know that even from my first days in EMT clsses, I was taught that your first priority is yourself, then your partner, and the patient and others come last. Reasoning: There is nothing more useless than a dead EMT or medic. You have to be alive to help others. The difference, of course, is that we don't limit what others can do to save ourselves except in very, VERY limited circumstances. On my service, that means that I can forcibly restrain someone only once they have attempted to harm me or my partner. If they are to have restraints applied outside of those circumstances, it takes a cop to do it.

Again, though, this applies only to the service that employs me. Other services may allow more. (I recall hearing that the City of Detroit issues their medics sidearms, for example, but I don't know if that's true or not.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rhino]

Anyway, the salient point is that the first thing the trooper said when he approached her car was, "Do you have any guns in there?"

"I have nothing illegal in the vehicle."

 

[GlockRock]

"I have nothing illegal in the vehicle."

I'm not disagreeing with you or saying that you're wrong, but what would be your response when asked again if you have any guns in your vehicle?

 

[Kcustom45]

"I have nothing illegal in the vehicle."

"I didn't ask you if you had anything illegal in your vehicle, I asked do you have any firearms in the vehicle."

 

[rhino]

I'm not disagreeing with you or saying that you're wrong, but what would be your response when asked again if you have any guns in your vehicle?

Same question gets the same truthful answer.

I'm trying to program myself with lawyer-suggested behaviors and responses.

 

[henktermaat]

"I didn't ask you if you had anything illegal in your vehicle, I asked do you have any firearms in the vehicle."

I'm betting that you're right - it would only excalate things as the hypothetical mr. power-hungry officer realizes you aren't laying down like the rest of the sheep.

 

[dburkhead]

"I didn't ask you if you had anything illegal in your vehicle, I asked do you have any firearms in the vehicle."

"Am I legally required to answer that question? Am I free to go?"

 

[cce1302]

"Am I legally required to answer that question? Am I free to go?"

I like that answer a lot.

 

[Kcustom45]

"Am I legally required to answer that question? Am I free to go?"

"Noooo.....you're not legally required to answer that question. No you are not free to go. Sit tight, keep your hands up on the steering wheel and I will be right back with your ticket."

Also not that it really matters to you, but I would probably call for a backup unit. So you might end up sitting there a little longer than normal until I got some backup before I came back with your citation.

 

[roscott]

would you hand them all over to the cop?

I don't think that it's right for the cop to ask for any of them, but I don't think I'd give him all of them, either.

I worry about this, though. My concern would be that if I hand over one, and allow him to think that's all of them, if he searches me or my vehicle, he'll find the other(s), and suddenly he looks at me as a lying, gun hiding thug, doubtless awaiting my opportunity to shoot him.

I know several LEOs, and I respect them and their job, and I enjoy their company. I find it difficult, however, when interacting with LEOs on a professional level, to establish any sort of personal character on my part.

To put it bluntly, I feel like I'm already looked at as an offender, and I can't seem to find any way to work my way back to citizen status, no matter how many times I call the officer "sir", and no matter how much I try to comply.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Anyway, the salient point is that the first thing the trooper said when he approached her car was, "Do you have any guns in there?"

"I have nothing illegal in the vehicle."

I would wonder if basically any answer other than "yes" or "no" (or some variation on that theme: a clear, unambiguous affirmative or negative, would "arouse suspicion" based on the point made upthread that officers talk to people all day and most have no problem volunteering whatever information the officer wants and often more, thus anyone refusing to speak or to answer the question asked is unusual, out of the ordinary, and otherwise is not a "fish swimming among the fish".

I am fairly certain that a court should find that refusal to answer a question is not probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed. The problem we have is that if you answer anything but "no", some think the officer is perfectly justified in jacking you up, whether that means demanding your firearm, taking your firearm, or searching your car.

I asked several months back if the issue is "officer safety", why not have the driver exit the car, leaving his firearm in it? (although preferably, he would not have to do that either) I was quickly told that I could expect to be shouted back into the car if I attempted to exit it, so it seems that as a citizen, I have a choice of allowing the officer to disarm me and demand that I expose myself to whatever search s/he deems appropriate or refuse and have it forced on me with a warrant, should I happen to be pulled over by one of the few who considers upholding unConstitutional laws as being of greater importance than upholding the Constitution that provides the basic framework of our legal system. I do have recourse, later, if the court doesn't decide that the "officer safety" excuse or whatever trumped-up accusation comes to mind to supposedly justify the search.

To be clear, I am absolutely not cracking on the officers here, unless they are among those few to whom I referred. My problem is with the court system and the legislature who write the laws with more regard for some members of society than others, based on the person's employer.

Orwell was right: Some are more equal than others.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[cce1302]

"Noooo.....you're not legally required to answer that question. No you are not free to go. Sit tight, keep your hands up on the steering wheel and I will be right back with your ticket."

Also not that it really matters to you, but I would probably call for a backup unit. So you might end up sitting there a little longer than normal until I got some backup before I came back with your citation.

That's cool, because the goal is not to try to get out of a ticket that I deserve. If I was speeding, I probably know it, and know that I deserve the ticket. I have deserved both tickets that I got, and deserved speeding tickets when I got warnings instead, and deserved tickets when there weren't cops around to pull me over at all.
The goal is to keep from becoming illegally disarmed/searched/personal belongings seized/etc.

 

[Scutter01]

"Noooo.....you're not legally required to answer that question. No you are not free to go. Sit tight, keep your hands up on the steering wheel and I will be right back with your ticket."

The goal is not to get out of a ticket. If you're pulled over, you can assume that you've already got a ticket. The goal is to go home safely, ideally with none of your rights violated. Since you have no control over an over-zealous officer violating your rights, all you can do is assert your rights but still comply with his requests and/or orders and then take up the complaint later on with his department: "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle, but will comply with your order." or "Am I legally required to answer that question? Am I free to go?"

Let me repeat that: You cannot control whether or not your rights get violated. The officer can choose to escalate the stop at any time he chooses. He is in control of the situation whether you like it or not. Assert your rights, but comply anyway, then argue it in court later.


Stop thinking that you can talk your way out of a ticket and it makes the whole process a lot easier and a whole lot safer for both you and the officer, who also just wants to go home safely.

 

[cce1302]

The goal is not to get out of a ticket. If you're pulled over, you can assume that you've already got a ticket. The goal is to go home safely, ideally with none of your rights violated. Since you have no control over an over-zealous officer violating your rights, all you can do is assert your rights but still comply with his requests and/or orders and then take up the complaint later on with his department: "I do not consent to a search of my vehicle, but will comply with your order." or "Am I legally required to answer that question? Am I free to go?"

Stop thinking that you can talk your way out of a ticket and it makes the whole process a lot easier and a whole lot safer for both you and the officer, who also just wants to go home safely.

Hey, that's what I said! we gotta quit doing this.

 

[dburkhead]

"Noooo.....you're not legally required to answer that question. No you are not free to go. Sit tight, keep your hands up on the steering wheel and I will be right back with your ticket."

Also not that it really matters to you, but I would probably call for a backup unit. So you might end up sitting there a little longer than normal until I got some backup before I came back with your citation.

That, of course, would be your call. OTOH, well, as I am somewhat fond of quoting:

"If a man neglect to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example." Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Enforcing ones rights is worth a bit of inconvenience from time to time.

 

[Scutter01]

Hey, that's what I said! we gotta quit doing this.

Yeah, you posted while I was writing. Since you had the same comment, it's clear that you're a highly intelligent person.

 

[rhino]

I would gladly pay for a legitimate traffic citation and be delayed rather than meekly allow my rights to be violated. That's true if it gets me a ticket that might otherwise have been a warning had I complied with the attitude test.

 

[Scutter01]

That, of course, would be your call. OTOH, well, as I am somewhat fond of quoting:

"If a man neglect to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example." Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Enforcing ones rights is worth a bit of inconvenience from time to time.

A wise man, our Mr Holmes. However, I would replace "enforce" with "assert". When you are stopped, you are in no position to enforce anything. If you enter into an argument with an officer during a stop, you will lose. Assert, then let the courts decide if your rights were violated.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I worry about this, though. My concern would be that if I hand over one, and allow him to think that's all of them, if he searches me or my vehicle, he'll find the other(s), and suddenly he looks at me as a lying, gun hiding thug, doubtless awaiting my opportunity to shoot him.

I know several LEOs, and I respect them and their job, and I enjoy their company. I find it difficult, however, when interacting with LEOs on a professional level, to establish any sort of personal character on my part.

To put it bluntly, I feel like I'm already looked at as an offender, and I can't seem to find any way to work my way back to citizen status, no matter how many times I call the officer "sir", and no matter how much I try to comply.

^^THIS!

I don't get that feeling with most officers I know, but I do have it with some.

LEOs, this is the issue that most gets in the way of officer/citizen relations, IMHO. If we can find a way to address that, the negativity that has been directed unjustly at you here will start to diminish.

I know better than to think any of you can make this difference, this change alone, but you do have some access to people in your departments who might.

There are plenty of knuckleheads and mopes out there who earn this attitude from you, much as there are a few people in similar uniforms to yours who earn the JBT title, and unfortunately, that spills over. The main difference is that you guys have an organization that can address it's public image.

I don't know. Maybe I'm suggesting you seek the Golden Fleece or cut off the foreskins of a thousand Philistines. I would think, though, that if there is anything that can be done, that would likely be where it would start.

Blessings,
Bill