Getting Pulled over w/ Gun in car

[WinChoke]

Yes, the badge is enough.

The badge isn't reason enough; we're both humans before he was a LEO.

It is your personal choice to create a potentially difficult scenario.

Me, I have been been given more breaks and fair treatment from LEOs than I actually deserved.

My little brother is a detective with a city PD in NC and is currently in training at the Academy with the FBI.

I do feel that LEOs should be treated with the same courtesy you would expect if you can imagine yourself as a LEO.

 

[chasekerion4]

Yes, the badge is enough.

The badge isn't reason enough; we're both humans before he was a LEO.

It is your personal choice to create a potentially difficult scenario.


.............snip..........
I do feel that LEOs should be treated with the same courtesy you would expect if you can imagine yourself as a LEO.

For you it might be, but for me, in the scenario I outlined, it is not enough. Just because someone was hired and given a badge by someone who might not deserve a badge himself does NOT give them the authority to abuse it. I will not tuck because the LEO is rogue.

And just as you might think I would be creating a "potentially difficult scenario" I might think someone else is creating one by telling a LEO "I'd prefer not discussing my personal business." There is no right or wrong; these are opinions (on everyone's part). It's right if you get the right LEO, it's wrong if you get the wrong LEO. Aside from that, our debate about it is almost useless.

And if you feel they should be treated with courtesy, I would assume you expect the same. Don't waste my time on a bogus stop and I'll treat him/her very kindly.

We agree to disagree. Isn't America great?

 

[dross]

"Am I free to go?" clarifies that you are, in fact, still being detained, even if not actually under arrest. This prevents the officer from later saying in court that he was not detaining you, you were "just talking" with each other. There may be other minutiae involved as well of which I'm not aware.

"Be courteous but not friendly." means that you return to him exactly the treatment you would expect from him-professionalism. He is NOT your friend and your relationship is at the very least slightly adversarial due to the power dynamic and due to the fact that he can and quite possibly will be taking actions that will cost you a buttload of money. Still, you expect to be called "Sir", you expect to have your reasonable and legal requests honored, i.e. "Excuse me, officer, but the reason for my erratic lane change is that it feels like my blood sugar is getting low, and I was reaching for a hard candy to help fix it, when the (wrapped) candy fell on the floor. I'd like to get that now, please." This as opposed to getting a case of diarrhea of the mouth and babbling at him about anything and everything-where you're going, what you're doing, etc., as if you can trust him to "have your back". Ever notice in the Miranda warning, it says, "...Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."?
It does not say "...for or against you..." because anything the officer hears you say that would be exculpatory will be regarded as "hearsay" in court, while anything incriminating will become evidence.

The issue of whether or not you are armed or whether or not he has your permission to search your vehicle has been covered ad nauseum here. Put simply, if it's not something you'd tell the guy next to you in line, or it's not something you'd let the guy next door do, just because he asked, it's not something you have any reason to allow a LEO to do. (the only exceptions to this in re: information I can think of involve you handing over your license, registration, and proof of insurance and your LTCH on request. Obviously, you have to follow his lawful orders. In reality, you have to follow his unlawful orders, too, or eat sidewalk with a knee in your back, but at least with those, you have recourse later.)

I might not answer the question of my destination directly, but I would not obviously avoid it.. an answer of, "the store" or "nowhere special" suffices just as well, and while I would not lie, I might choose that precise moment he asks the question to change the destination I had in mind, if I have some reason to not wish to say.

As for "how high", see my comment above about his lawful or even unlawful orders.

Finally, if you do choose to go into "dick mode", he probably will, too, and he has the presumption of honesty from the courts. This will not bode well for you, I think, so you may want to reconsider that decision.

You're correct, their job does suck, many times. I'm not going to make it harder, but I'm also not going to voluntarily allow them to make my life harder because that's the job they chose to do.

I'm not a cop, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a judge. I am an American citizen, however, and before that, a human being with rights that no one, badge, poofy wig, or black robe notwithstanding, has the right to take from me. Our Constitution guarantees those rights, and the judge and the LEO both swore to uphold that Constitution. I'm just holding them to their oaths.

Blessings,
Bill

You said this very well.

I, as a free citizen, give, through my collective consent with my fellow free citizens, who must make rules that allow free citizens to live together - I give enormous powers to the police. Freedom for security - it's a thrown around phrase - but every time a cop stops me, it's an example of how I've traded some freedom for security. I loathe the power police have over me as a necessary evil. I also understand they have a tough job - but one they had to volunteer for and stand in line to get. I will give them respect and deference as is their due as one who has volunteered to stand a watch. I expect the respect and deference as is my due as a free citizen who pays for their living.

They enforce society's rules. They should follow them to the letter. Every time they use their authority to demand something more than the letter of the law - like, "why are you carrying a gun," is a serious violation of my freedom, and one I did not hire thme to do.

 

[finity]

As for the search thing, again, why not? You have nothing illegal right? Saying no guarantees drama. First, you're gonna wait for a supervisor, or wait anyway while he searches because as said, if LEO doesn't need a warrant, they're gonna do it anyway. I might ask "why" to try and solicit his reasoning for wanting to search, but refusing is just another version of a pissing contest, one in which you will likely be on the losing end of.

While I agree that all of these posts are opinion, I have to say I think the above part of your opinion is dangerous to everyone's rights.

We should never let it get established in the publics mind that we should agree to a search "because we have nothing to hide". Eventually that becomes the standard (if it hasn't already in some places) & then if someone does deny the search request then that now is PC for a search because they must have something to hide. At that point they don't need a warrant.

Dangerous precedent...

You can be polite & cooperative without being too cooperative & throwing your (& maybe our) rights in the toilet.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...I believe you should be extra polite to LEO's when being pulled over legitimately, but to waste my time on an illegitimate stop is an abuse of authority and I'm not going to sit, tail tucked, while it happens. It goes back to being treated how you want to be treated. Treat me fairly and vice versa. Why would I be courteous to someone who comes up to me with a blatant lie? Why should you either? The badge isn't reason enough; we're both humans before he was a LEO.

Yes, the badge is enough.

It is your personal choice to create a potentially difficult scenario.

Me, I have been been given more breaks and fair treatment from LEOs than I actually deserved.

My little brother is a detective with a city PD in NC and is currently in training at the Academy with the FBI.

I do feel that LEOs should be treated with the same courtesy you would expect if you can imagine yourself as a LEO.

Winchoke, if I'm reading you correctly, and it's very possible I'm not, you're saying on the one hand that LEOs should be treated with the same courtesy any of us would expect as one, but you're also saying that the badge is enough reason to be courteous to someone you know just told you a baldfaced lie. That's a big contradiction, unless you don't expect to be treated with any courtesy at all.

We all know that police are allowed to lie to "suspects" (and by inference and statement from some of our officers here on INGO, that category applies to anyone with whom the officer has any professional interaction.) That statement does not mean that they all do, or even that those that do always do. That said, however, I'm slightly more forgiving of it if it's used to obtain a confession of some heinous crime (your accomplice Mary already told us about the kiddy porn videos you took) than if it's used, as noted in post #41, just to make an excuse for a stop. (the officer in question claimed that no signal was used so he could see who the driver of the truck was. Once he determined it was the father, not the son with whom he'd had dealings, the turn signal problem magically disappeared.)

Speaking for myself, if someone tells me a blatant lie, I'm not going to be inclined to be civil and polite. If I am to a LEO who's just lied to me for no good reason, it's only because he has the power to #%&* up my whole day, at the very least.

That is not respect, it is fear, and the quote is oft-repeated:

People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.

I look forward to your clarification. TIA.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JosephR]

It seems everyone has handed you enough rope Chase and I'm going to sit back and watch you hang yourself with it for once.

Mouth, meet foot...

 

[rhino]

For what it's worth, my list is my interpretation of how my friend the lawyer suggested I conduct myself during an encounter with law enforcement persons. Yeah, it's opinions. However, consenting a warrentless search is both stupid and damaging to all of our rights. Nothing good can possibly come of it, especially if you have nothing to hide and you have committed no crimes. I've yet to meet an attorney who would advise anyone to consent to a warrantless search (probably because even the few dumb lawyers can grasp a concept that simple).

I used to shoot matches with a couple of US Secret Service agents stationed in Indy. We talked about things like this, and they agreed with me that it was stupid to let them into your house or your vehicle without a warrant (they did a lot of identify theft investigation). They also told me that the people who refused to consent to searched were the people we they knew were not guilty anyway, and the people who consented tended to be the ones with something to hide. The psychology is that guilty people mistakenly believe they are incriminating themselves by refusing a search because it makes them look like they have something to hide. Non criminals who know their rights do not suffer under the burden of this nonsense.

 

[paddling_man]

This has been posted before but I think it is an excellent time for a repost:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik]YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE[/ame]

 

[Bill of Rights]

While I agree that all of these posts are opinion, I have to say I think the above part of your opinion is dangerous to everyone's rights.

We should never let it get established in the publics mind that we should agree to a search "because we have nothing to hide". Eventually that becomes the standard (if it hasn't already in some places) & then if someone does deny the search request then that now is PC for a search because they must have something to hide. At that point they don't need a warrant.

Dangerous precedent...

You can be polite & cooperative without being too cooperative & throwing your (& maybe our) rights in the toilet.

Damn, Jeff... I don't know if this means people are going to start thinking of me as a liberal or of you as a libertarian, but we're in agreement here, too. (Inside joke, guys: that's not true of either of us)

For those who think that "because I have nothing to hide" is a good reason to allow a search, try this little scenario:

Your 11- or 12-year-old daughter has just started middle school and is very proud to now be in a school with lockers... She keeps hers very neat and clean, however, one day, they decide to have the drug dogs sniff the hallways. That proves mostly fruitless, but there's been a tip to someone that there are drugs at the school that day.

Would you have a problem with a policewoman performing a "cavity search" on your little girl to prove she hasn't got drugs hidden somewhere about her person?

After all, if she has nothing to hide....

As Jeff said, "Dangerous precedent." When we allow one violation of our human rights, our fundamental, God-given rights, that slope becomes very slippery, very quickly.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chasekerion4]

It seems everyone has handed you enough rope Chase and I'm going to sit back and watch you hang yourself with it for once.

Mouth, meet foot...

Without you here, we've had a really good discussion. In my short couple months here, I have noticed that you are the forum instigator. You talk so much **** trying to get a rise out of people. You talk down to people, you talk to them like they are children and you are the one person here who "knows it all." Even resorting to calling another poster names based on his screen name.

The reality is that you don't KNOW anything. You interpret and spew chunks of your theories. And yes, sir, they ARE theories, as YANAL, just as most of us aren't either.

There is no "foot in mouth" here to be done. The only FACTS (I know you're only worried about facts) are that the rest of us are having civil conversation and you come in here and take a right in the middle of what would be a great conversation/debate.

I can't speak for your first several hundred posts, but your last several dozen have been nothing more than argumentative with anyone and everyone who doesn't subscribe to the EXACT same theories as you do.

I understand this post might be looked down upon by the mods, and to them I apologize. But I am not going to argue back and forth with you via PM about how rude and brash you are.

I certainly don't expect you to debate civilly.

But I do expect you, JosephR, to give me another bad 'rep' because you don't like what I'm saying here.

And now, I'm going back to the topic the rest of us were discussing.

 

[JosephR]

You forget, I have been engaging in this discussion as much as you and just because I haven't attempted to answer or respond to much of what you said- it doesn't mean I haven't been productive.

And no, I am not a lawyer. That doesn't mean that what I say isn't true. It doesn't mean I haven't seen this discussion elsewhere where it had been debated for months until the appropriate people put it to a rest once and for all. You can try to learn and appreciate some of the things I've read or you can continue to ignore them. I don't really care what you do.

Without you here, we've had a really good discussion. In my short couple months here, I have noticed that you are the forum instigator. You talk so much **** trying to get a rise out of people. You talk down to people, you talk to them like they are children and you are the one person here who "knows it all." Even resorting to calling another poster names based on his screen name.

The reality is that you don't KNOW anything. You interpret and spew chunks of your theories. And yes, sir, they ARE theories, as YANAL, just as most of us aren't either.

There is no "foot in mouth" here to be done. The only FACTS (I know you're only worried about facts) are that the rest of us are having civil conversation and you come in here and take a right in the middle of what would be a great conversation/debate.

I can't speak for your first several hundred posts, but your last several dozen have been nothing more than argumentative with anyone and everyone who doesn't subscribe to the EXACT same theories as you do.

I understand this post might be looked down upon by the mods, and to them I apologize. But I am not going to argue back and forth with you via PM about how rude and brash you are.

I certainly don't expect you to debate civilly.

But I do expect you, JosephR, to give me another bad 'rep' because you don't like what I'm saying here.

And now, I'm going back to the topic the rest of us were discussing.

 

[chasekerion4]

While I agree that all of these posts are opinion, I have to say I think the above part of your opinion is dangerous to everyone's rights.

We should never let it get established in the publics mind that we should agree to a search "because we have nothing to hide". Eventually that becomes the standard (if it hasn't already in some places) & then if someone does deny the search request then that now is PC for a search because they must have something to hide. At that point they don't need a warrant.

Dangerous precedent...

You can be polite & cooperative without being too cooperative & throwing your (& maybe our) rights in the toilet.

I probably should have expanded that post. I haven't ever been put in that situation of a search, so it's hard to say what I would do. You make a very good point, though, about setting a standard of rights violations.

What I know for certain is that, if asked, I wouldn't just say "go ahead and look." I know I would ask why based on the simple fact that I'd like to have it later for when I complain to the chief or whoever.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, if they CAN search and WANT to search, we all know they will. In my experience, a pleasant encounter with LEO starts with attitude and even "friendliness".

Maybe that's why I've never been asked if they could search my vehicle.

 

[Smitty506th]

I was pulled over last week. He was leaning almost in my window. I opened my glove box and there were my 2 extra mags and registration. When I was pulling out my license I had to move my LTCH. He didn't say anything and I know he wasn't looking. He seemed to be having a bad day and was very complacent. An LEO friend of mine said that if he sees vet plates he just assumes there is a weapon in the vehicle. Guess the guy that pulled me over wasn't in that mind set. He didn't ask and I didn't tell. If for some reason I would have to move the weapon I would tell someone, if I didn't have to then why would it be any of their business.

 

[jstwrit]

Speak up!

I'm a new-b. Love the site. My friends who are LEO's say they like to know up front without delay. I'll go with what they prefer and try not to get pulled over in the first place.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"Yes" if you honestly know. Chances are you do know, and lying about it isn't a good idea. It may surprise some people, but California stops are not legal. I did say "speeding" one time, and he said "no, you have a taillight out". I was speeding, but he apparently didn't care.

So... I don't know what a 'California stop' is. Would anyone care to enlighten me?

other than that, I have nothing much to add.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm a new-b. Love the site. My friends who are LEO's say they like to know up front without delay. I'll go with what they prefer and try not to get pulled over in the first place.

to

Please do not take this post as the biting sarcasm that may come across. It is not intended as such.

I'd like to know up front behind which overpasses and over which hilltops they're hiding out on the interstate, too, but that doesn't mean anyone's going to tell me so I can slow down and not get pulled over. Just because an officer or anyone else prefers something doesn't mean they have a right to it.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[chasekerion4]

So... I don't know what a 'California stop' is. Would anyone care to enlighten me?

other than that, I have nothing much to add.

California Stop is the act of NOT stopping, just casually slowing down and rolling through without coming to an actual "stop"

 

[Ness2k]

So... I don't know what a 'California stop' is. Would anyone care to enlighten me?

other than that, I have nothing much to add.

A rolling stop. I know more than one person who has complained about getting pulled over for not coming to a complete stop.

 

[thompal]

Actually, there isn't a check mark. The only way I know you have a permit is
1) I see it when you open up your wallet to get your license
2) You tell me
3) I run your name and DOB through the case request system to check the ISP database.

When I was a cop in Tennessee there actually was a notation on DL responses that said if someone was an LTCH holder. I have yet to encounter that in Indiana.

So, when an officer goes back to his car after getting your license, I assume he is running your name for outstanding warrants, and it will show up there? Or, does he have to specifically search for it??

For the vast majority of officers, who are reasonable and sincere, I would prefer to just tell them up front so we all are comfortable. BUT, there is also a minority of officers who just really want to 'exercise their authority,' and I hesitate to even tell them. The obvious difficulty is in knowing which type of person you are dealing with (from BOTH perspectives).

 

[Denny347]

So, when an officer goes back to his car after getting your license, I assume he is running your name for outstanding warrants, and it will show up there? Or, does he have to specifically search for it??

No it is not automatic. It is a specific type of a search that we don't usually use.