Pulled Over While Carrying Concealed (A Cop's Perspective)

[1032JBT]

I believe I see it more and more these days as well. However, I don't think it's a wariness of cops, per se, that I am seeing, but rather a wariness of the government in general.

The LAST thing I want to do is bring up politics. However, with the current administration's agenda, we are losing freedoms at a faster rate than ever before in American history. Thus, the fight has begun for the individual to try and retain as much of their freedoms as possible.

Unfortunately, since cops have direct contact with civilians, they receive the butt end of this indignance.

Well if using the current government administration is the excuse most people want to use for lashing out at cops it's a failed excuse. The vast majority of cops (I know of none that I work with) despise the current administration so lashing out at them serves no purpose. I think it's more plausible that people are using it as an excuse for some percived injustice they feel from some prior incident involving LEO.

 

[Glock21]

In contrast to the officers "what do you have to loose" attitude, I have to ask, "what do I have to gain?"

If it's the law that I inform, I will. If not, I'm not going to utter the word "gun" to a police officer - that's just something I can see no good coming from. At best, it will be a neutral exchange. At worst, I'm dragged from the vehicle, faced down and cuffed. No thanks.

 

[rhart]

Thanks for sharing. Its nice to hear a good cops view of it. I however am going to agree with Ranger on this. I am not voluntering any information that could cause some dumb ass to go into bad cop mode. I treat them with respect just as I want to be treated. If he asks, I will tell him, and happily show him my LTC
This is the same reason I dont usually open carry. Its just waving a flag saying look everybody! I have a gun! First thing in everybodies mind is, "I wonder if he's a bad guy?"

 

[ATM]

...First thing in everybodies mind is, "I wonder if he's a bad guy?"

The actual bad guys don't wonder.

 

[bglaze]

If you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide????????? And remember, I'm not demanding I'm asking.

I have nothing to hide. It's just none of your business.

 

[ATM]

I'm not ignoring, I'm doing a mime impression.

 

[finity]

The LAST thing I want to do is bring up politics. However, with the current administration's agenda, we are losing freedoms at a faster rate than ever before in American history.

So...since it was the LAST thing you wanted to do but you did it anyway...

Can you please tell me EXACTLY & PRECISELY what this administration has done to cause you or I to "lose freedoms at a faster rate than ever before in American history"?

 

[1032JBT]

 

[finity]

If you are doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?????????

Then I guess that if we use your criteria we should just dispose of those pesky 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the Bill of Rights.

You shouldn't have a problem with wiretaps...because you've got nothing to hide.

You should have a problem being forced to testify against yourself...because you've got nothing to hide.

You shouldn't have a problem with the police entering your home for any reason at anytime...because you've got nothing to hide.

You shouldn't have a problem with the government reading your mail...because you've got nothing to hide.

Who needs a public trial (or a trial at all) because if you've got something to hide then you're guilty of SOMETHING anyway & should pay the consequences. I'm sure the police & judges could be completely trusted to handle that part of justice without having to go through the trouble of a "trial".

I don't think I want to live in "your" America.

And remember, I'm not demanding I'm asking.

Sorry excuse. You know as well as anyone (or should considering your occupation) that there is a fine line between the two where the police are concerned. You hold all the cards. You have all the power over that persons freedom & financial security. Most people are so intimidated by police authority they are too scared to not answer. Others don't know that they don't HAVE TO answer.

To use peoples fear & ignorance against them for the furtherance of state power is just...well..wrong (using a stronger term is probably appropriate but frowned on here).

 

[JDonhardt]

Dont ask. Dont tell.

 

[Glock21]

Then I guess that if we use your criteria we should just dispose of those pesky 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the Bill of Rights.

You shouldn't have a problem with wiretaps...because you've got nothing to hide.

You should have a problem being forced to testify against yourself...because you've got nothing to hide.

You shouldn't have a problem with the police entering your home for any reason at anytime...because you've got nothing to hide.

You shouldn't have a problem with the government reading your mail...because you've got nothing to hide.

Who needs a public trial (or a trial at all) because if you've got something to hide then you're guilty of SOMETHING anyway & should pay the consequences. I'm sure the police & judges could be completely trusted to handle that part of justice without having to go through the trouble of a "trial".

I don't think I want to live in "your" America.



Sorry excuse. You know as well as anyone (or should considering your occupation) that there is a fine line between the two where the police are concerned. You hold all the cards. You have all the power over that persons freedom & financial security. Most people are so intimidated by police authority they are too scared to not answer. Others don't know that they don't HAVE TO answer.

To use peoples fear & ignorance against them for the furtherance of state power is just...well..wrong (using a stronger term is probably appropriate but frowned on here).

I'm out of rep for you.

Well said!!!!

 

[pig957]

Are you sure about that?

You're right! Now that I'm back on my meds, I can think clearly now.

 

[Stainer]

Then I guess that if we use your criteria we should just dispose of those pesky 4th, 5th and 6th amendments in the Bill of Rights.

You shouldn't have a problem with wiretaps...because you've got nothing to hide.

You should have a problem being forced to testify against yourself...because you've got nothing to hide.

You shouldn't have a problem with the police entering your home for any reason at anytime...because you've got nothing to hide.

You shouldn't have a problem with the government reading your mail...because you've got nothing to hide.

Who needs a public trial (or a trial at all) because if you've got something to hide then you're guilty of SOMETHING anyway & should pay the consequences. I'm sure the police & judges could be completely trusted to handle that part of justice without having to go through the trouble of a "trial".

I don't think I want to live in "your" America.

Ok, I see your point, and trust me I am in no way shape or form in the business of violating anyone's rights. Trust me, no one(not a thug nor the best citizen in the nation) is worth me losing my credibility or career over. I believe my statement got taken out of context a little bit, we were talking about small talk on a traffic stop and went to violating 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights. While yes they can be one in the same, it is not in this case. I do not force a statement nor do i use any form of coercion.

Sorry excuse. You know as well as anyone (or should considering your occupation) that there is a fine line between the two where the police are concerned. You hold all the cards. You have all the power over that persons freedom & financial security. Most people are so intimidated by police authority they are too scared to not answer. Others don't know that they don't HAVE TO answer.

I believe someone not being informed is a sorry excuse. We live in a world of information and technology. If you are implying that I read every citizen every constitutional right they have while on a traffic stop, i believe you are being unreasonable. The power I have was trusted to me by the citizens I am sworn to protect, and the mere fact that you would imply that I use this power to force people to violate their rights, frankly disgusts me.

To use peoples fear & ignorance against them for the furtherance of state power is just...well..wrong (using a stronger term is probably appropriate but frowned on here).

Flat out, the fact that you would make a statement like this, makes me sick! Just as this guy does. Turn in your gun and chalk | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

 

[Glock21]

I believe someone not being informed is a sorry excuse. We live in a world of information and technology. If you are implying that I read every citizen every constitutional right they have while on a traffic stop, i believe you are being unreasonable. The power I have was trusted to me by the citizens I am sworn to protect, and the mere fact that you would imply that I use this power to force people to violate their rights, frankly disgusts me.



Flat out, the fact that you would make a statement like this, makes me sick! Just as this guy does. Turn in your gun and chalk | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

I would suggest that anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution shouldn't use a citizens ignorance of it as a tool against them.

It's that persons job to defend the rights of those in their charge, not find a way to skirt them.

 

[bglaze]

I would suggest that anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution shouldn't use a citizens ignorance of it as a tool against them.

It's that persons job to defend the rights of those in their charge, not find a way to skirt them.

I agree with you.

But the norm is sometimes quite the opposite. Police often lie to citizens and ask citizens to give away their rights in the name of "good police work." The citizens, in many cases, are completely unaware that they have a right to disagree and/or refuse the officer of whatever it is they are being asked to do or say. Most believe that if an officer asks for something, they are compelled by law cooperate. It is the nature of good law abiding people to want to prove their innocence at all costs. They will give away many of their rights (allow searches, answer questions, etc...) just to prove they are innocent and abiding by the law.

Unfortunately, they are often taken advantage of by police in this way.

To me, I would feel a similar sense of violation, the same as if my wife was peaked at by a peeping tom, if a cop were to "get one over on me" so to speak. I want freedom first and foremost. And I have nothing against cops or their work, but I am going to do my damnedest to know my rights and exercise them often.

 

[g00n24]

good read...that being said, I will not inform an officer if he pulls me over. It just adds un-needed tension to the situation. Unless the officer has me exit the vehicle for whatever reason...what he doesn't know won't hurt him. I just don't want to risk the chance of being harassed by a D-bag officer, no matter how unlikely that may be.

 

[Roadie]

Ok, I see your point, and trust me I am in no way shape or form in the business of violating anyone's rights. Trust me, no one(not a thug nor the best citizen in the nation) is worth me losing my credibility or career over. I believe my statement got taken out of context a little bit, we were talking about small talk on a traffic stop and went to violating 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights. While yes they can be one in the same, it is not in this case. I do not force a statement nor do i use any form of coercion.



I believe someone not being informed is a sorry excuse. We live in a world of information and technology. If you are implying that I read every citizen every constitutional right they have while on a traffic stop, i believe you are being unreasonable. The power I have was trusted to me by the citizens I am sworn to protect, and the mere fact that you would imply that I use this power to force people to violate their rights, frankly disgusts me.



Flat out, the fact that you would make a statement like this, makes me sick! Just as this guy does. Turn in your gun and chalk | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

I think sometimes it must be very hard to be a LEO, and on this board, because we are pretty hard on them. I would think that most of us, really do appreciate LEOs and the job they do.

That being said, we have all seen it, and/or experienced it ourselves. That simple traffic stop, where the Officer casually asks "Mind if I search your vehicle?". When a citizen replies "I don't consent to any searches" some LEOs see that as us being combative and will pull out the "Why, do you have something to hide?" line.

I am sorry, but at the risk of being added to the list of "cop bashers" I think this is the kind of thing alot of us are talking about. If there is no reasonable suspicion, then as a LEO, you KNOW that you have no right to search a vehicle, however, these questions skirt that legality, and allows you to do that search, does it not?

 

[finity]

Ok, I see your point, and trust me I am in no way shape or form in the business of violating anyone's rights. Trust me, no one(not a thug nor the best citizen in the nation) is worth me losing my credibility or career over. I believe my statement got taken out of context a little bit, we were talking about small talk on a traffic stop and went to violating 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights. While yes they can be one in the same, it is not in this case. I do not force a statement nor do i use any form of coercion.

"Force" & "coercion" are such non-specific words. You may not get out your "night-stick" & beat them up or water-board people to get them to talk, but the end result of "just asking" many times is the same. YOU are the paid professional. YOU are the one trained on the Constitution. YOU also know that YOU have the power to make their lives miserable & SO DO THEY.

It's not the "context" of your statement, it's the mentality behind the statement that's the problem. That systemic mentality is EXACTLY why the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments were added to the BOR. If you can't see why people would have a problem with a cop saying what you did then you need to spend a little more time on our founding history & the result of that kind of thought on totalitarian states.

I believe someone not being informed is a sorry excuse. We live in a world of information and technology. If you are implying that I read every citizen every constitutional right they have while on a traffic stop, i believe you are being unreasonable. The power I have was trusted to me by the citizens I am sworn to protect, and the mere fact that you would imply that I use this power to force people to violate their rights, frankly disgusts me.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem if you were forced to read every person their rights on EVERY encounter. I don't see why you're against it. Do you have to be somewhere more important? Is ensuring that EVERY person knows their rights that insignificant that it's not worth an extra couple of minutes of your time?

Flat out, the fact that you would make a statement like this, makes me sick! Just as this guy does. Turn in your gun and chalk | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

He seems pretty smart if you ask me.

If others are held accountable for their performance then why not LE? I can think of few other jobs that society needs to ensure that are done correctly & get results.

 

[Stainer]

First let me apologize to the OP for the thread jack. Was not my intention in the beginning but I feel it necessary to continue this thread for an informative sake. Let me also say that these are my views from my perspective, all LEOs are different in how they handle situations and I'm sure that there are many that disagree with what I do, it's a stylistic type of thing. That being said.......

Police often lie to citizens and ask citizens to give away their rights in the name of "good police work."

Unfortunately, they are often taken advantage of by police in this way.

Like we haven't heard this story before. Let me describe it this way. Everyone goes grocery shopping. You buy a bag of apples. You may get 14 great apples, and that one bad one. It's the same in this profession and the same in any other profession. I'm sure everyone on this website has someone at work that doesn't perform like they wish they would and until that person does something way wrong, they aren't going to get fired.

To me, I would feel a similar sense of violation, the same as if my wife was peaked at by a peeping tom, if a cop were to "get one over on me" so to speak. I want freedom first and foremost.

As you should want your freedoms! Everyone should have their freedoms until proven that they are not worthy of them. However with the justice system, you must balance public safety and freedoms evenly in order for this great nation to survive. And that is a debate that will go on forever.

And I have nothing against cops or their work,

Thank you and that is appreciated

but I am going to do my damnedest to know my rights and exercise them often.

And you should and I encourage that!

I would suggest that anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution shouldn't use a citizens ignorance of it as a tool against them.

Agreed, and if I am asked I will gladly inform anyone of their rights within reason, obviously I cannot spend hours on a traffic stop explaining things unless my investigation is going well beyond traffic. But I most certainly will give citizens the low down and dirty when it comes to their rights.

It's that persons job to defend the rights of those in their charge, not find a way to skirt them.

Again, I agree and knowledge is power. I do not try to use this to my advantage.

I think sometimes it must be very hard to be a LEO, and on this board, because we are pretty hard on them.

No kidding, huh? But I like to keep you all informed from my perspective too. It's a two way street of thinking here.

I would think that most of us, really do appreciate LEOs and the job they do.

I believe most do as well and once again I appreciate that.

That being said, we have all seen it, and/or experienced it ourselves. That simple traffic stop, where the Officer casually asks "Mind if I search your vehicle?". When a citizen replies "I don't consent to any searches" some LEOs see that as us being combative and will pull out the "Why, do you have something to hide?" line.

Also know that in order for a LEO to ask this, you must either feel free to leave no matter what, or (in Indiana) they must inform you of your Pirtle warning.

I am sorry, but at the risk of being added to the list of "cop bashers" I think this is the kind of thing alot of us are talking about. If there is no reasonable suspicion, then as a LEO, you KNOW that you have no right to search a vehicle, however, these questions skirt that legality, and allows you to do that search, does it not?

If there is no other reason to search, no we don't have a right, unless we are given consent to search and they agree after being advised of pirtle. Do I feel these questions skirt that, not to me, because they are not forced to answer and if I have no right to get in the car, then I won't.

"Force" & "coercion" are such non-specific words. You may not get out your "night-stick" & beat them up or water-board people to get them to talk, but the end result of "just asking" many times is the same.

I don't see the comparison in any way shape or form. You are comparing physically causing someone pain to asking a simple question.

YOU are the paid professional.

Yup

YOU are the one trained on the Constitution.

Yup

YOU also know that YOU have the power to make their lives miserable & SO DO THEY.

I can only make it miserable if they have done something wrong to begin with.

It's not the "context" of your statement, it's the mentality behind the statement that's the problem. That systemic mentality is EXACTLY why the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments were added to the BOR. If you can't see why people would have a problem with a cop saying what you did then you need to spend a little more time on our founding history & the result of that kind of thought on totalitarian states.

I will read over that point in history again, but I am pretty clear on why it is there.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem if you were forced to read every person their rights on EVERY encounter. I don't see why you're against it.

Are you kidding me????? People get mad when they are stopped for less than 5 minutes, can you imagine what it would be like if I had to read them the entire constitution? You and I both know that is not practical. And when something calls for them to be advised of their rights, they are explained to them. If they do not understand, then it is taken as if they were never read and no statements can be given.

Do you have to be somewhere more important?

Yes, traffic stops are a very small portion of what ewe do as LEOs. We are needed at Homicides, Missing persons, people shot, people stabbed, domestic disturbances, securing residence, taking reports of burglaries, thefts, stolen vehicles...... so to answer your question, yes there is somewhere more important.

Is ensuring that EVERY person knows their rights that insignificant that it's not worth an extra couple of minutes of your time?

couple of minutes is no problem unless something hot comes out in which the traffic stop will be ended immediately.

He seems pretty smart if you ask me.

If others are held accountable for their performance then why not LE? I can think of few other jobs that society needs to ensure that are done correctly & get results.

I agree but this goes back to the bad apple theory as stated a little earlier. When Michael Vick was arrested and suspended from the NFL it did the same thing to the NFL it gives everyone a bad rep and that's the same thing in Law Enforcement.

I can tell you that every police officer loves doing their job and helping people, that's why we do it. People have bad experiences with anyone they deal with. I have bad experiences with the cable company, is everyone that works at the cable company bad people? No.

I know this is a lot of information, But you guys asked so here are my responses. I hope it helps everyone.

 

[bglaze]

First let me apologize to the OP for the thread jack. Was not my intention in the beginning but I feel it necessary to continue this thread for an informative sake. Let me also say that these are my views from my perspective, all LEOs are different in how they handle situations and I'm sure that there are many that disagree with what I do, it's a stylistic type of thing. That being said.......





Like we haven't heard this story before. Let me describe it this way. Everyone goes grocery shopping. You buy a bag of apples. You may get 14 great apples, and that one bad one. It's the same in this profession and the same in any other profession. I'm sure everyone on this website has someone at work that doesn't perform like they wish they would and until that person does something way wrong, they aren't going to get fired.



As you should want your freedoms! Everyone should have their freedoms until proven that they are not worthy of them. However with the justice system, you must balance public safety and freedoms evenly in order for this great nation to survive. And that is a debate that will go on forever.



Thank you and that is appreciated


And you should and I encourage that!


Agreed, and if I am asked I will gladly inform anyone of their rights within reason, obviously I cannot spend hours on a traffic stop explaining things unless my investigation is going well beyond traffic. But I most certainly will give citizens the low down and dirty when it comes to their rights.



Again, I agree and knowledge is power. I do not try to use this to my advantage.


No kidding, huh? But I like to keep you all informed from my perspective too. It's a two way street of thinking here.


I believe most do as well and once again I appreciate that.


Also know that in order for a LEO to ask this, you must either feel free to leave no matter what, or (in Indiana) they must inform you of your Pirtle warning.


If there is no other reason to search, no we don't have a right, unless we are given consent to search and they agree after being advised of pirtle. Do I feel these questions skirt that, not to me, because they are not forced to answer and if I have no right to get in the car, then I won't.


I don't see the comparison in any way shape or form. You are comparing physically causing someone pain to asking a simple question.


Yup

Yup

I can only make it miserable if they have done something wrong to begin with.


I will read over that point in history again, but I am pretty clear on why it is there.


Are you kidding me????? People get mad when they are stopped for less than 5 minutes, can you imagine what it would be like if I had to read them the entire constitution? You and I both know that is not practical. And when something calls for them to be advised of their rights, they are explained to them. If they do not understand, then it is taken as if they were never read and no statements can be given.


Yes, traffic stops are a very small portion of what ewe do as LEOs. We are needed at Homicides, Missing persons, people shot, people stabbed, domestic disturbances, securing residence, taking reports of burglaries, thefts, stolen vehicles...... so to answer your question, yes there is somewhere more important.


couple of minutes is no problem unless something hot comes out in which the traffic stop will be ended immediately.



I agree but this goes back to the bad apple theory as stated a little earlier. When Michael Vick was arrested and suspended from the NFL it did the same thing to the NFL it gives everyone a bad rep and that's the same thing in Law Enforcement.

I can tell you that every police officer loves doing their job and helping people, that's why we do it. People have bad experiences with anyone they deal with. I have bad experiences with the cable company, is everyone that works at the cable company bad people? No.

I know this is a lot of information, But you guys asked so here are my responses. I hope it helps everyone.

Thanks for taking the time to answer each of these concerns from your perspective.