Was there a court decision about temporarily seizing gun during a traffic stop?

[Kutnupe14]

LOL, I thought this was a question of law?

It is, and since you argue law, and I used to enforce... and given that neither are a judge, your standing carries no more weight than mine. The words are self-explanatory in Mimms, and given LE consistently do business in accordance with those words; the way you "think" business should be done, is nothing more than an argument based on your theory... unless you have a specific case to the contrary. If you have one, post it up. I'm patient.

 

[Fargo]

You are factually mistaken about what I do and how the criminal system works in Indiana but I'm not going to get into that on the board. If you want to case, go back and read Washington.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are factually mistaken about what I do and how the criminal system works in Indiana but I'm not going to get into that on the board. If you want to case, go back and read Washington.

You are apparently wrong about how the criminal systems works, unless you don't consider LE part of that system.

 

[Fargo]

Oh, I am all too aware of how LEis a part of the criminal system. I am also all too aware of the training that is given and the practices that many police department have.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, I am all too aware of how LEis a part of the criminal system. I am also all too aware of the training that is given and the practices that many police department have.

Yep, dumb cops all around reading stuff like this from a Supreme Court case:

"the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate"
-- there is little question the officer was justified. The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed, and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."

...and thinking what is said, is what is meant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Humor me...why would a citizen be mandated to exit his vehicle because of an expired plate. He was in violation for the plate, yes...but why ordered out? Is an expired plate sufficient to, in your mind, justify then a search of the individual and his vehicle? And the weapon wouldn`t have been visible unless ordered out of his vehicle for a simple expired plate...

Ask Fargo, It's from my dumb cop understanding that making a person exit a vehicle is a seizure, and yet that has also been held to considered a lawful order.

 

[Fargo]

Yep, dumb cops all around reading stuff like this from a Supreme Court case:



...and thinking what is said, is what is meant.

If the best you can do is try to manufacture an ad hominem that I never said, I don't think there's anything more to be said here. If I wanted to be insulting, Carmel PD continues to give ample material to work with, but you will note that I didn't reference any of it when you wanted to bring up the streets . I don't think that you're dumb, and I didn't say that you were dumb.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If the best you can do is try to manufacture an ad hominem that I never said, I don't think there's anything more to be said here. If I wanted to be insulting, Carmel PD continues to give ample material to work with, but you will note that I didn't reference any of it when you wanted to bring up the streets . I don't think that you're dumb, and I didn't say that you were dumb.

I'm sorry, you didn't say dumb.... just implied poorly trained.

 

[Fargo]

Heading to Mass, have a good Sunday.

 

[gregr]

I'm sorry, did you NOT want to comment on the words of one of the justices from the Mimm's case that I quoted? Maybe you didn't see it, so I'll post it again.

So? Courts get things wrong ALL the time, and they got it wrong here. That "bulge" in the pocket could have been anything. It`s a stretch to say it`s a firearm, and fishing expeditions are far from alright. And yet once again, he NEVER should have forced to exit his vehicle over a simple expired plate. Two things worry me very much, one being those who give cops a pass on virtually anything they do, and cops who do anything they "feel" is ok.

 

[rosejm]

And yet once again, he NEVER should have forced to exit his vehicle over a simple expired plate.

While I don't disagree on the 4th amendment issues being discussed here, I DO disagree with this statement.

The officer was permitted to remove the driver from an unregistered vehicle and have it impounded and/or towed. He could have issued a warning/ticket and let the driver continue, but he wasn't required to do so.

 

[Kutnupe14]

While I don't disagree on the 4th amendment issues being discussed here, I DO disagree with this statement.

The officer was permitted to remove the driver from an unregistered vehicle and have it impounded and/or towed. He could have issued a warning/ticket and let the driver continue, but he wasn't required to do so.

If you mean by walking, sure... not so much by driving.

 

[rosejm]

Of course he could have let them continue driving. I think we've all had some small amount of discretion giving to us at some point...
Sticker lost in the mail? Late?

Not required, but it's not unheard of either.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Of course he could have let them continue driving. I think we've all had some small amount of discretion giving to us at some point...
Sticker lost in the mail? Late?

Not required, but it's not unheard of either.

Where does the liability fall if the person with the unregistered vehicle who was stopped, drives away and kills a family of 4 in an accident?

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

Where does the liability fall if the person with the unregistered vehicle who was stopped, drives away and kills a family of 4 in an accident?

In 1977, probably not the cop. Today, everyone is to blame for everything.

 

[KLB]

I'm sorry, you didn't say dumb.... just implied poorly trained.

Feeling sensitive today Kut?

You are reading things into his words that I did not see, unless you are insinuating he said that any LEO that isn't also a lawyer is poorly trained.

 

[hopper68]

Of course he could have let them continue driving. I think we've all had some small amount of discretion giving to us at some point...
Sticker lost in the mail? Late?

Not required, but it's not unheard of either.

If it is illegal to drive a vehicle without a current sticker why would the officer allow them to continue breaking the law?

 

[rosejm]

Wow. I don't want to read any more threads complaining about being pulled over for exceeding the speed limit by 1 MPH or having 1 of 6 brake lights out or changing lanes without signaling.

Seems that it must be black and white with no room for common sense and officer discretion.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If it is illegal to drive a vehicle without a current sticker why would the officer allow them to continue breaking the law?

Officer discretion. Or should all cars that get stopped for a head/tail light out get impounded? After all it is illegal to drive a vehicle with those. Heck I got pulled over a couple of years ago for having expired tags, I thought my wife had ordered them. I was wrong. The officer didn't even give me a ticket let alone impound the vehicle. And I believe it was a ISP trooper.

 

[SSGSAD]

I think the better question is how many days a week have you spent on the street.

NOT meaning to stir the pot, but .....

WE have a WINNER !!!!!