Traffic stop - trooper asked about guns

[Scutter01]

All my other posts have been deleted because they were thought to be "making negative blanket statements about all LE" which i understand the mods have to draw the line somewhere. However the above quote has been addresed a couple times as being untrue I happen to have personal experience with this issue.

You haven't been here long enough yet to have seen some of the vehemently anti-LEO diatribe on INGO. We're trying to put a stop to it, hence why your comments were removed. You didn't relate any personal experiences in your previous posts, which is why they were removed. They were blanket statements directed at all LEO.

Disclaimer: i am not making negative comments about LE, I am stating FACTS

Facts are fine. Allegations and innuendo are not. I would still prefer that your complaints be addressed with the particular LEO or department that you claim violated your rights and not use those experiences to proclaim on INGO that all LEO are evil.

 

[Bubba]

Dross, I think your whole post was nicely stated. And I think you hit the nail on the head. So much of it is about your perception. Officers deal with the worst people on a day to day basis. My step father was in law enforcement, and mainly dealt with juvenile criminals. After a few years, he started to look at his own kids as Juvenile criminals even at home. It's a job that can spill over big time.

To heck with that. I only work retail and I think everyone is a Juvenile criminal.

The reason I quoted this portion was because I have had the same experience. I have actually had more contact with police than most people I know simply because of odd circumstance throughout my whole life. I have had genuinely nice guys, and I've had guys that were not so nice. I think the term "unwarranted rudeness" is a VERY fine choice of words. That really is what it is. Yeah, I understand that maybe this guy had a bad day/night, but in my opinion, their job is to be professional and courteous, and this is coming from a person that is close to a few LEO's.

(responding to Dross' comment about rudeness is a relatively larger number of LEO than other professions)In all fairness, I believe I have had a fair bit more contact with police than most of the generally law-abiding people my age, and I have had just the opposite experience. I honestly can't think of any encounter with LE that made me feel uncomfortable or offended. Some have made me feel like I was just "some guy" but by and large I've felt like I've been treated courteously and I do my best to return that courtesy.

 

[mrjarrell]

No, there is no link between your LTCH and your BMV information. They are two separate systems. The State Police use the same system as my department and we are only alerted to warrants, protection orders and license suspensions.

TN is the only state that combines BMV and LTCH information on a return.

An officer can ask any question he fills pertains to the stop, his safety or just to ask. You may do the same and ask anyone entering your car or home if they are carrying drugs or guns. You must remember that this is a question, not a request. You can always advise the officer that you believe it is none of his business or say nothing and just set there if you feel inclined. Myself and any good officer would look farther into a stop where the driver says nothing compared to someone who actually talks. Saying nothing tells me you have something to hide.

So that whole "right to remain silent" is a crock, huh?

 

[pftraining_in]

I also have to wonder. Do LEOs confiscate tire irons, knives, baseball bats, hockey sticks, or anything else that MIGHT be used to inflict harm? If not, that combined with the 4th Amendment, makes seizing my weapon on shaky legal ground, would it not?

Which is more dangerous to an officer seated in a car during a traffic stop, a object that can send projectiles at 1,000 +/- fps through intermediate barriers and can be used at any position including seated in a car or an object you have to be with in touching distance and typically standing to use effectively?

 

[pftraining_in]

So that whole "right to remain silent" is a crock, huh?

I do believe that you are misquoting me. I advised you can set there and say nothing. Just don't be surprised if the stop is investigated farther than only a traffic violation. The fifth amendment is for protection from self incrimination, if you are legally in possession of a firearm then why would it be covered under the 5th?

 

[SouthBendIN]

i've seen plenty of videos online of LEO dash cams during traffic stop. The LEO is in their patrol car writing the ticket and all of a sudden the traffic violator gets out of their car guns blazing.

 

[Glock21]

As I understand it, you are under no obligation to inform an officer you are carrying in IN when pulled over. The exact opposite is true in state like Utah.

I quote someone else with the below statement, and it in no way is a reflection of what I would or wouldn't do personally:

"If I know I'm under no obligation to inform, my answer to the question "Do you have any guns in that car" is: Of course NOT. If it should ever become an issue, my stance is that I thought the officer asked me if I was "having fun in the car." There was a bunch of traffic noise and I simply misunderstood."

 

[R3ydium]

Which is more dangerous to an officer seated in a car during a traffic stop, a object that can send projectiles at 1,000 +/- fps through intermediate barriers and can be used at any position including seated in a car or an object you have to be with in touching distance and typically standing to use effectively?

Agreed, I can see the logic behind that

I do believe that you are misquoting me. I advised you can set there and say nothing. Just don't be surprised if the stop is investigated farther than only a traffic violation. The fifth amendment is for protection from self incrimination, if you are legally in possession of a firearm then why would it be covered under the 5th?

I also agree with the logic here. I believe the 5th is largely misunderstood.

 

[samot]

You haven't been here long enough yet to have seen some of the vehemently anti-LEO diatribe on INGO. We're trying to put a stop to it, hence why your comments were removed. You didn't relate any personal experiences in your previous posts, which is why they were removed. They were blanket statements directed at all LEO.
Understood..

Facts are fine. Allegations and innuendo are not. I would still prefer that your complaints be addressed with the particular LEO or department that you claim violated your rights and not use those experiences to proclaim on INGO that all LEO are evil.

Understood
Sir, i am in no way trying to proclaim all LEOs are evil, my issue with these LE departments happened over ten years ago. But to have someone on this board chime in & say you cant be arrested for resisting unless you use force is absolutly untrue. Just wanted a few of you to see it from my point of view..particulary when this subject really hits home.

 

[Glock21]

i've seen plenty of videos online of LEO dash cams during traffic stop. The LEO is in their patrol car writing the ticket and all of a sudden the traffic violator gets out of their car guns blazing.

And?

Perhaps they should start asking everyone if they molested any children lately? Or brushed their teeth today? Or paid their income taxes?

The right to own and carry a gun is a Constitutionally protected right. And I don't think any of us would be comfortable with police asking us what church we go to, what the last book we read was, or what the subject matter of our last letter to our Congressman was, during a traffic stop.

As a police trainer, I certainly understand "officer safety", but all that question is is fishing expedition. No proper criminal will answer it truthfully, and will still get out of their car guns blazing if that's what they're of a mind to do.

 

[dross]

No, there is no link between your LTCH and your BMV information. They are two separate systems. The State Police use the same system as my department and we are only alerted to warrants, protection orders and license suspensions.

TN is the only state that combines BMV and LTCH information on a return.

An officer can ask any question he fills pertains to the stop, his safety or just to ask. You may do the same and ask anyone entering your car or home if they are carrying drugs or guns. You must remember that this is a question, not a request. You can always advise the officer that you believe it is none of his business or say nothing and just set there if you feel inclined. Myself and any good officer would look farther into a stop where the driver says nothing compared to someone who actually talks. Saying nothing tells me you have something to hide.

This is the type of comment I hear and read from LEOs that bothers me. As far as I know, I'm required to show you my license, my registration, and to follow your lawful orders. You are required to have a reason to stop me, and a reason to investigate further. If you ask me where I'm going, I ought to be able to say, "None of your business," though I think most of us know that in the real world that's going to invite trouble. Not saying anything shouldn't give you reason to search further, but you're admitting that it will.

Are you suggesting that if I don't answer anything you ask of me, that now you have reason to "look farther"? Are you suggesting that if I refuse to answer your questions, I can only legally refuse to answer if I believe that something I say will incriminate me? How about if I'm not sure what will incriminate me, so I follow the personal rule of not saying one word more to an officer than what I'm required to by law?

You know the law better than the average citizen. You should know what you're able to ask and what your'e not able to ask. The citizen is often confused between what's an order and what's a request, and frankly, I've heard enough comments from LEOs to believe that's a situation that is encouraged, because it works in your favor. Now you're saying that if I choose to say nothing to questions you can't legally force me to answer, I can expect you to search deeper into the stop for something I MIGHT be doing wrong, that you never had reason to suspect me of until I didn't answer you?

I have a huge problem with your point of view.

 

[Roadie]

This is the type of comment I hear and read from LEOs that bothers me. As far as I know, I'm required to show you my license, my registration, and to follow your lawful orders. You are required to have a reason to stop me, and a reason to investigate further. If you ask me where I'm going, I ought to be able to say, "None of your business," though I think most of us know that in the real world that's going to invite trouble. Not saying anything shouldn't give you reason to search further, but you're admitting that it will.

Are you suggesting that if I don't answer anything you ask of me, that now you have reason to "look farther"? Are you suggesting that if I refuse to answer your questions, I can only legally refuse to answer if I believe that something I say will incriminate me? How about if I'm not sure what will incriminate me, so I follow the personal rule of not saying one word more to an officer than what I'm required to by law?

You know the law better than the average citizen. You should know what you're able to ask and what your'e not able to ask. The citizen is often confused between what's an order and what's a request, and frankly, I've heard enough comments from LEOs to believe that's a situation that is encouraged, because it works in your favor. Now you're saying that if I choose to say nothing to questions you can't legally force me to answer, I can expect you to search deeper into the stop for something I MIGHT be doing wrong, that you never had reason to suspect me of until I didn't answer you?

I have a huge problem with your point of view.

I have to agree with you here, and I too would like to hear some answers from MK18 and other LEOs.

Legally, I have a RIGHT to say nothing. Legally, saying nothing is not an admission of guilt. Legally, saying nothing, in and of itself, does NOT give an Officer reasonable suspicion.

 

[ocsdor]

As I understand it, you are under no obligation to inform an officer you are carrying in IN when pulled over. The exact opposite is true in state like Utah.

I quote someone else with the below statement, and it in no way is a reflection of what I would or wouldn't do personally:

"If I know I'm under no obligation to inform, my answer to the question "Do you have any guns in that car" is: Of course NOT. If it should ever become an issue, my stance is that I thought the officer asked me if I was "having fun in the car." There was a bunch of traffic noise and I simply misunderstood."

Whoever made this statement is giving some bad advice. Not answering a question is a right; lying to a LEO is illegal.

 

[pftraining_in]

We as law enforcement are hired to not only respond to crime but to prevent it. Had a OK trooper not looked farther into a minor traffic violation Timothy McVeigh could have went free. We are hired to not take everything we see or hear by face value and to look into the root of the situation. By saying nothing you may not give the officer reasonable suspension, but you do give him suspicion as to why a person that is legally going about their business will not talk. Officers interact with people all day that respond to them and even carry on a conversation, when a person does not respond, that is suspicious.

If you were a store owner and walked up to a customer that turned their back and refused to talk, would you not be suspicious of his action and their reason for being in the store. Are they there to rob you, steal or are they deaf or mute. How do you find this information out with out talking to the person or looking farther into the situation.

 

[Glock21]

Whoever made this statement is giving some bad advice. Not answering a question is a right; lying to a LEO is illegal.

Answering to the best of your knowledge is not lying - and misunderstanding a question is certainly not a crime.

Again, I'm not saying it's anything I would or wouldn't do, and it's absolutely not something I'm advising anyone else to do.But I also don't know how the words "gun" and "officer" used in the same sentence could lead to anything good happening to anyone.

We all make our own choices, and deal with the consequences.

 

[finity]

I have a huge problem with your point of view.

+1

 

[Glock21]

We as law enforcement are hired to not only respond to crime but to prevent it. Had a OK trooper not looked farther into a minor traffic violation Timothy McVeigh could have went free. We are hired to not take everything we see or hear by face value and to look into the root of the situation. By saying nothing you may not give the officer reasonable suspension, but you do give him suspicion as to why a person that is legally going about their business will not talk. Officers interact with people all day that respond to them and even carry on a conversation, when a person does not respond, that is suspicious.

If you were a store owner and walked up to a customer that turned their back and refused to talk, would you not be suspicious of his action and their reason for being in the store. Are they there to rob you, steal or are they deaf or mute. How do you find this information out with out talking to the person or looking farther into the situation.

The terrorist comparison is pretty dramatic - so some idiot tried to set his shoe on fire, but I still consider it an absolute affront to my rights and dignity to have to take my shoes off at the airport. I'll risk the shoe bombs, thank you very much.

I also don't like the store OWNER comparison. If you own a store, you reserve the right to serve or not serve whomever you wish, and to question or ask to leave anyone on YOUR PROPERTY. Police officers, contrary to popular LE folklore, do not OWN the highways, and they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, part of which is the Bill of Rights, as the supreme law of the land. Those rights still apply when they pull someone over, and they should be respected as such.

"The job of policeman is only easy in a police state" - Orson Wells

 

[jtmarine1911]

I really don't question the officer's decision to hold the gun while he did his paperwork. That really makes sense to me as a general practice. I know my wife is the least dangerous person in the world, but he doesn't know it.

I'm really only asking how the officer knew to ask about guns, or even if he knew. Was he taking a shot in the dark when he asked? Or did he already know about the LTCH?

RMCROB, I really don't think it is "how the officer knew to ask about guns", but more the light of recent events were there have been so many LEO's killed by armed people. Just like you said, you know my wife is the least dangerous person in the world, but he doesn't know it.

I don't blame any officer for asking if you have any weapons or firearms in the vehicle and taking temporary action to insure his or her safety while they perform their duties. But then again, as this topic has shown, just about everyone of you all think they are just mindless robots controlled by a corupt government hell bent on disarming you!

The vast Majority of them are just your average Joe trying to do their Job and make it home to their families too!

 

[samot]

Police officers, contrary to popular LE folklore, do not OWN the highways, and they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, part of which is the Bill of Rights, as the supreme law of the land. Those rights still apply when they pull someone over, and they should be respected as such.

"The job of policeman is only easy in a police state" - Orson Wells

+1000

 

[Indy317]

Given Indiana's "force" requirement, I don't think a mere "no" is RLE, but perhaps if you wrestled with the cop or something stupid like that, then yes.

Do you happen to know what case this was? I know that they want force for the resisting part, but there is also other parts of the law:

IC 35-44-3-3 Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;

I have always wondered if "forcibly" applies only to resists, or if it also applies to obstructing and interfering. I guess if a person said no, the officer could go ahead and take the gun, wonder how that would hold up in court??

I agree with Kirk that it probably wouldn't fly if you simply declined to hand it over. IC states forcibly, if you forcibly resisted the officer taking it that's another thing altogether ie blade at 45 degree angle while putting your hand on it and shouting "YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY WEAPON" then that might stick.

As has been mentioned you are NOT under arrest at a traffic stop, therefore you would not be resisting arrest. And as has also been mentioned for a resisting charge it has to be force involved.

I am not sure about the forcibly issue. It does state "forcibly," but that doesn't paint the entire picture. It really states "forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes..." There is no comma after forcibly, so does that adverb apply to just resists, or does it also apply to obstructs and interferes? Proper grammar isn't my strong suite, so I have no idea if this sentence structure automatically applies the "forcibly" adverb to all three verbs, or just the first one.

If one is not free to leave, they are technically under arrest.

Understood
Sir, i am in no way trying to proclaim all LEOs are evil, my issue with these LE departments happened over ten years ago. But to have someone on this board chime in & say you cant be arrested for resisting unless you use force is absolutly untrue. Just wanted a few of you to see it from my point of view..particulary when this subject really hits home.

Technically you can be arrested and held for charges for _anything_ so long as the _officer_ believes s/he has probable cause. If the arrest and initial charges are so silly, the officer could be in serious trouble. In some cases, there are questions of if the actions fit the crime. What they were saying was that an Indiana appeals court has ruled on one aspect of the resisting law enforcement statue. I would like to find that case and read it, as I have charged people who didn't push away, but they did pull away while I was trying to handcuff them. However, I didn't say they resisted me, instead I wrote they interfered with me by pulling away as I was lawfully trying to handcuff them and place them under arrest.

I have to agree with you here, and I too would like to hear some answers from MK18 and other LEOs.

Legally, I have a RIGHT to say nothing. Legally, saying nothing is not an admission of guilt. Legally, saying nothing, in and of itself, does NOT give an Officer reasonable suspicion.

I could careless if someone answered me or not. That being said, depending on _many_ factors, my suspicion would be pushed up a notch if someone remained mute. Why? Because it is abnormal behavior, which honestly would make anyone suspicious. It would be like going to a retail store and when you go to exchange pleasantries, the clerk says nothing, or says very few words with a very non-emotional face. Now, if an officer wants to do more or whatever, as long as they follow the law, more power to them. The only thing extra they could legally do is call for a K-9 to go around the car. Not really ever dealing with K-9s, I can't say this is the law of the land in every state, some might require something more than just an officer wanting to do so.

Now, some may argue by not saying anything, they would be more likely to get a ticket. That may or may not be true, but I don't think it is right to give someone a ticket based on weirdness. What weirdness _might_ do is cause me to call for another unit, especially if there was a male saying nothing, a female in the vehicle who also was acting strange. I would want to make sure that neither party(ies) were in need of help and were afraid to speak-up. The fact is, I never ask about weapons. I flat out assume everyone is armed. As long as people do as I ask in terms of keeping their hands where I can see them, don't make strange movements, etc., I figure I am safe. When people start bending over, getting in the glove box, etc...that is when I go extreme cautious. If I see someone doing this, and I can't see their hands or what is in them, I usually go up on the passenger side to put more glass/metal between me and the driver. Given how many folks carry guns, pocket knives, pepper spray, etc., I feel it is in my best interest to go into the situation knowing the person has something that can cause injury to me.