Flat tire and a cop stops situation. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Flat tire and a cop stops situation.


Harper
07-29-2012, 20:58
So someone my dad works with got a flat tire on the way home from work recently. While he was working to change it a cop pulls up behind him. The guy thinks the cop pulls up to make sure he's ok or help but the cop came up and asked for license and proof of insurance. The cop goes to his car and comes back and asks 'where's the gun?' (he has a permit). The guy says he doesn't have one on him and the cop pushes the issue and asks to search the car. Another patrol car pulls up and they search the entire car and find nothing. They leave but by that time the guy has to change the tire in the dark. This happened in TN.

This of course raised some questions:
What right does LE have to ask for anything in this situation? They have to have a reason to pull someone over but what if they're already stopped like in this case?

What about searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry? Is that an illegal search? What if they found one?

ReyFufuRulesAll
07-29-2012, 21:14
Something tells me there's more to this story...

Harper
07-29-2012, 21:23
Something tells me there's more to this story...

Not to my knowledge.

The reason I posted isn't to share an interesting story or accuse anyone of anything. The real question is what is legal and what you should do in a situation like this.

ReyFufuRulesAll
07-29-2012, 21:35
Not to my knowledge.

The reason I posted isn't to share an interesting story or accuse anyone of anything. The real question is what is legal and what you should do in a situation like this.

Depends on a state by state basis. Here in WI, you do not have to declare a concealed weapon unless the officer asks. In that case, it is worth it to remember that cops deal with BS and liars all day. I find it way easier to be polite.

On the other hand, whether you choose to allow the officer to search your car is completely your call. Regardless, politeness goes a long way torwards how your experience goes. Sometimes, cops are *******s just like everybody else, but that is seldom the case IMHO.

larry_minn
07-29-2012, 21:44
Some Officers are PITA. This Officer may have had a reason. We don't know. Maybe a call about a guy in a similar car?

NEOH212
07-29-2012, 21:45
If they want to search my car they can get a warrant. While I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to prove either.

It's just like random drug tests. It's ridiculous I have to prove I don't do drugs just because other people do drugs. I'm not a criminal, I don't part take in criminal activity, as such, there is no reason I should have to prove I'm not doing something illegal if I've done nothing illegal nor have been seen doing anything illegal.

I'm not against law enforcement in any way but I just have to get this out.

In reference to this story, assuming there is nothing more to it and it happened exactly the way it's written, it's absolutely ridiculous that someone should have to show ID and all the rest if they are on the side of the road changing a tire on their vehicle.

If there weren't any violations witnessed or any crimes committed/reported, then people should be left alone. Since when is someone a criminal and have to prove their innocence when there is no reason to assume they are guilty of anything?

Caver 60
07-29-2012, 22:11
I had a similar, but positive experience a few years ago. My wife, children, and I were returning from a friends wedding, when we experienced a flat rear tire. There was a wide paved highway shoulder, so I pulled off and was in the process of starting to change the tire.

Of course I was still dressed in the suit (minus jacket) that I had worn to the wedding. Highway patrol car pulled in behind me with emergency lights on. The officer got out of the car and finished changing the tire for me. He never asked for anything but to help me change the tire.

I thanked him and we proceeded on our way. That's a nice way to handle things IMO.

SouthernBoyVA
07-30-2012, 06:03
The fellow should not have consented to the search for one thing. Hopefully, he got their names and will report this incident to their superiors. Did he record it?

Patchman
07-30-2012, 06:12
You mean the cops just stopped for no reason and asked him for license and registration and then asked to search his car? All the while he's standing there with a jack and a lug wrench? They didn't even tell him "oh, we just wanted to make sure you weren't stripping this car or something?"

This is why every car should have a couple of cans of those fix-a-flats. Minimize your exposure time on the side of the road.

Gallium
07-30-2012, 06:16
So someone my dad works with got a flat tire on the way home from work recently. While he was working to change it a cop pulls up behind him. The guy thinks the cop pulls up to make sure he's ok or help but the cop came up and asked for license and proof of insurance. The cop goes to his car and comes back and asks 'where's the gun?' (he has a permit). The guy says he doesn't have one on him and the cop pushes the issue and asks to search the car. Another patrol car pulls up and they search the entire car and find nothing. They leave but by that time the guy has to change the tire in the dark. This happened in TN.

This of course raised some questions:
What right does LE have to ask for anything in this situation? They have to have a reason to pull someone over but what if they're already stopped like in this case?

What about searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry? Is that an illegal search? What if they found one?


As someone else said, there is more to the story, and to add, you were not there. Did the person who had the encounter relate the incident to you? Or did they relate it to your dad, who in turn told you?

If dude told your dad, and dad told you, you are asking US to provide insight based on a 3rd or 4th hand story.

For starters:

1. State police, or local police?

2. Interstate, county highway or local thorough fare?

3. Did he consent to the search?

4. Was his vehicle obstructing traffic flow, or did it create a potential safety/traffic hazard?

5. Did he indeed have his driver license and proof of insurance?

6. LE (just like you and me) always have the right to ASK anything they want to ask. You need to focus therefore on what is mandated by your state for you to provide in official LE interactions. In some states, having plates on your vehicle means implicit acceptance of specific terms and conditions - one of which might be producing proof of insurance on request from LE.

The points I raised are just some of the things you did not present in your post, surely you can understand when someone says you've painted an incomplete picture.

What state do you live in? Do you have a driver license and a vehicle registered to you?

- G

RussP
07-30-2012, 08:13
Gallium's post covered everything, but here's my version...So someone my dad works with got a flat tire on the way home from work recently. While he was working to change it a cop pulls up behind him. The guy thinks the cop pulls up to make sure he's ok or help but the cop came up and asked for license and proof of insurance. The cop goes to his car and comes back and asks 'where's the gun?' (he has a permit). The guy says he doesn't have one on him and the cop pushes the issue and asks to search the car. Another patrol car pulls up and they search the entire car and find nothing. They leave but by that time the guy has to change the tire in the dark. This happened in TN.It would be helpful if we knew everything said between your dad's friend and the officers. Since we don't have that, everyone here is going to fill in the gaps with what they think might have been said. Don't take it personal, please.This of course raised some questions:
What right does LE have to ask for anything in this situation?


They have to have a reason to pull someone over but what if they're already stopped like in this case?


What about searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry?


Is that an illegal search?


What if they found one?
It isn't that LE has the right to ask. They can ask anyone anything. "Are you enjoying changing that tire?" "May I see your license and proof of insurance?" It is up to state law and/or the person asked to answer or provide the requested information. You need to check Tennessee code for those requirements.


Stopping behind a vehicle on the side of the road should not be unexpected. They may be checking on whether the driver needs assistance, whether a tow truck is needed, any number of wellness reasons. Seeing someone in the process of changing a tire is a pretty good indicator of the problem. There is also the chance a similar vehicle is one they are interested in for other reasons.


Here is where we get into "unknown information" territory.What did your dad's friend say when asked if the car could be searched? "Yes," "No," "Why," what did he say? If he said "Yes," end of discussion.

As for "searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry," again, we don't know what conversation they had about why he didn't have a gun if he had a license to carry.

But, yes, with his consent they can search.


This all depends on whether he gave consent.


Now, if they had found a firearm, it would depend on where they found it. In the driver's compartment, he could be in serious doo-doo.

Harper
07-30-2012, 11:06
The fellow should not have consented to the search for one thing. Hopefully, he got their names and will report this incident to their superiors. Did he record it?

He didn't record it.

You mean the cops just stopped for no reason and asked him for license and registration and then asked to search his car? All the while he's standing there with a jack and a lug wrench? They didn't even tell him "oh, we just wanted to make sure you weren't stripping this car or something?"


To the best of my knowledge, yes exactly.

Gallium's post covered everything, but here's my version...It would be helpful if we knew everything said between your dad's friend and the officers. Since we don't have that, everyone here is going to fill in the gaps with what they think might have been said. Don't take it personal, please.
It isn't that LE has the right to ask. They can ask anyone anything. "Are you enjoying changing that tire?" "May I see your license and proof of insurance?" It is up to state law and/or the person asked to answer or provide the requested information. You need to check Tennessee code for those requirements.


Stopping behind a vehicle on the side of the road should not be unexpected. They may be checking on whether the driver needs assistance, whether a tow truck is needed, any number of wellness reasons. Seeing someone in the process of changing a tire is a pretty good indicator of the problem. There is also the chance a similar vehicle is one they are interested in for other reasons.


Here is where we get into "unknown information" territory.What did your dad's friend say when asked if the car could be searched? "Yes," "No," "Why," what did he say? If he said "Yes," end of discussion.

As for "searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry," again, we don't know what conversation they had about why he didn't have a gun if he had a license to carry.

But, yes, with his consent they can search.


This all depends on whether he gave consent.


Now, if they had found a firearm, it would depend on where they found it. In the driver's compartment, he could be in serious doo-doo.


He consented to the search but I wanted to know what would happen if he refused.

Why would he be in serious doo-doo? Just because he didn't notify the cops when they asked?

Batesmotel
07-30-2012, 11:26
Something like this happened in Utah. Cops were on were lookout for a silver Chevy truck. They pulled the wrong truck over and asked for documents which were provided including his CCW. Everything was OK to this point.

Then they asked for the gun. He did not have a gun with him but they searched the truck anyway. After they found nothing they left all his crap scattered on the side of the road for him to clean up.

The claim was that showing a CCW was the same as giving permission for the search for a firearm.

Patchman
07-30-2012, 11:33
He consented to the search but I wanted to know what would happen if he refused.

If he refused, nothing would have happened. Unless the LEO already had probable cause, in which case they would detain the car, request a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and upon getting the warrant, search the car.



Why would he be in serious doo-doo? Just because he didn't notify the cops when they asked?

First, I didn't post the post you're responding to, is so I'm not sure what the poster meant by his statement.

BUT, as you first posted, he already told the cops he didn't have a gun with him. If they suddenly found one inside his car... What happens next would, I guess, depend on that state's CCW law or penal law.

Patchman
07-30-2012, 11:40
Off topic, but this post is exactly why in our legal system, hearsay is not allowed as evidence. Second or third hand information is not allowed because the "witness" would just repeat what he/she heard ("hearsay") and when asked to clarify, just answer "that's what I heard..." or "...as far as I know."

Gallium
07-30-2012, 12:05
Harper,

I ask again:

What state are you in? Same state as where this occurred?

Also, do you carry a gun? Do you have a permit?

If you are so motivated, you can most likely get information of the stop from the agency that conducted the stop. My hunch is that what is in that report would be a few light years different from what was related to you. If that is the case, how do you, how do we resolve the differences in narrations of what happened?

- G

RussP
07-30-2012, 12:15
5. Now, if they had found a firearm, it would depend on where they found it. In the driver's compartment, he could be in serious doo-doo.why would he be in serious doo-doo? Just because he didn't notify the cops when they asked?...first, i didn't post the post you're responding to, is so i'm not sure what the poster meant by his statement.

but, as you first posted, he already told the cops he didn't have a gun with him. If they suddenly found one inside his car... What happens next would, i guess, depend on that state's ccw law or penal law.Thanks, patchman, that is the answer.

Are you asking on behalf of your dad's friend, your dad, or yourself?

rednoved
07-30-2012, 12:27
It's just like random drug tests. It's ridiculous I have to prove I don't do drugs just because other people do drugs. I'm not a criminal, I don't part take in criminal activity, as such, there is no reason I should have to prove I'm not doing something illegal if I've done nothing illegal nor have been seen doing anything illegal.


I've always found that nobody does anything illegal, until they do something illegal. :supergrin:

Patchman
07-30-2012, 12:29
I've always found that nobody does anything illegal, until they do something illegal. :supergrin:

No, everything is legal and OK to do until they get caught. :supergrin:

Harper
07-30-2012, 13:01
If he refused, nothing would have happened. Unless the LEO already had probable cause, in which case they would detain the car, request a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and upon getting the warrant, search the car.





First, I didn't post the post you're responding to, is so I'm not sure what the poster meant by his statement.

BUT, as you first posted, he already told the cops he didn't have a gun with him. If they suddenly found one inside his car... What happens next would, I guess, depend on that state's CCW law or penal law.
Thanks

Off topic, but this post is exactly why in our legal system, hearsay is not allowed as evidence. Second or third hand information is not allowed because the "witness" would just repeat what he/she heard ("hearsay") and when asked to clarify, just answer "that's what I heard..." or "...as far as I know."

And it's also why glocktalkers shouldn't treat every thread like they are trying a case.

Harper,

I ask again:

What state are you in? Same state as where this occurred?

Also, do you carry a gun? Do you have a permit?



Yeah, I'm in Tennessee. I have a permit but don't(can't) always carry.

Bren
07-30-2012, 13:05
This of course raised some questions:
What right does LE have to ask for anything in this situation? They have to have a reason to pull someone over but what if they're already stopped like in this case?

Without knowing any more about the guy, what they did seems pretty stupid (but 100% legal). On the other hand, I've never known of that to happen in the real world - I've heard of cops injured and killed trying to help people fix a car on the side of the road, but never one pulling up and randomly asking to search.

However, assuming that's the whole story - they can ask for consent to do anything they want...just like a homeless guy sitting on the guardrail can ask for consent to search his car or a school bus driver can stop by and ask for consent to search his car - asking for consent, without detaining him, requires no law enforcement authority and no legal justification.


What about searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry? Is that an illegal search? What if they found one?

If he consents to the search, they can search for bubble gum and grocery coupons.

Bren
07-30-2012, 13:08
Not to my knowledge.

The reason I posted isn't to share an interesting story or accuse anyone of anything. The real question is what is legal and what you should do in a situation like this.

Yes, it's legal. What you should do is say, "no" if you don't want them to search. How hard is that?

Bren
07-30-2012, 13:12
If he refused, nothing would have happened. Unless the LEO already had probable cause, in which case they would detain the car, request a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and upon getting the warrant, search the car.


Not unless that's your state law - Under federal law and all state law I've heard of, if they have probable cause to search the car, they would not get or need a warrant. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

here's a whole article on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception).

Gallium
07-30-2012, 13:23
Thanks



And it's also why glocktalkers shouldn't treat every thread like they are trying a case.



Yeah, I'm in Tennessee. I have a permit but don't(can't) always carry.

Many of the folks here who respond have seen literally, hundreds of posts that assert one thing, and then upon further examination, a set of facts that do not mirror what was initially posted.

If you are likewise in TN, and you have a permit, it would greatly behoove you to be somewhat familiar with what actions the police can, and do take against you, what actions you can lawfully take in return, and what remedies are available to you (and the police) if things don't unravel the way one or both sides is happy with.

*there is not a trace of malice in my post...it is advice from the heart).

Patchman
07-30-2012, 13:44
Not unless that's your state law - Under federal law and all state law I've heard of, if they have probable cause to search the car, they would not get or need a warrant. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).


Ooops. :embarassed:

You're right, of course.

Patchman
07-30-2012, 13:57
Off topic, but this post is exactly why in our legal system, hearsay is not allowed as evidence. Second or third hand information is not allowed because the "witness" would just repeat what he/she heard ("hearsay") and when asked to clarify, just answer "that's what I heard..." or "...as far as I know."



Thanks

And it's also why glocktalkers shouldn't treat every thread like they are trying a case.


Nobody is trying a case, but (some) readers do like to know as much as possible about BOTH sides of the story. Especially if one is asking other posters for their opinions.

Retelling a second or third hand story ("Hearsay") is how a party-of-the-first-part get a one sided story into the discussion. And when someone asks to clarify (ie: attempt to get BOTH sides of the story), the party-of-the-first-part's reply is "that's what I heard" and/or "as far as I know." Totally useless. Unless the point is to get a one-sided story introduced.

Above post not directed at the OP. These one sided stories happen all too often on GT.

RussP
07-30-2012, 14:09
And it's also why glocktalkers shouldn't treat every thread like they are trying a case.Many of the folks here who respond have seen literally, hundreds of posts that assert one thing, and then upon further examination, a set of facts that do not mirror what was initially posted.As Gallium and Patchman say, we tend to question stories in here, find any missing details before offering opinions. It isn't meant to be a negative reflection on the story teller.

Harper
07-30-2012, 14:25
Nobody is trying a case, but (some) readers do like to know as much as possible about BOTH sides of the story. Especially if one is asking other posters for their opinions.

Retelling a second or third hand story ("Hearsay") is how a party-of-the-first-part get a one sided story into the discussion. And when someone asks to clarify (ie: attempt to get BOTH sides of the story), the party-of-the-first-part's reply is "that's what I heard" and/or "as far as I know." Totally useless. Unless the point is to get a one-sided story introduced.



I thought after I stated this wasn't first hand that the hearsay part was assumed and this was completely one sided. The guy could of been covering parts of his story, been an ass, made the whole thing up; it doesn't matter. I wanted to know what my rights were and opinions on what one should in the event that they find themselves in a similar situation. I almost didn't post this because I figured it would turn out this way. I thought of posting as a hypothetical but it would probably end the same way.

Patchman
07-30-2012, 14:46
As I said, my posts aren't directed at you. We get so many one sided stories.

Yeah, I suppose we could let one-sided posts go. But wouldn't it be better to teach posters to think critically before they post a second or third hand story?

Have the posters learn to ask, and know the answers to, the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and WHY before they post.

RussP
07-30-2012, 14:48
So someone my dad works with got a flat tire on the way home from work recently. While he was working to change it a cop pulls up behind him. The guy thinks the cop pulls up to make sure he's ok or help but the cop came up and asked for license and proof of insurance. The cop goes to his car and comes back and asks 'where's the gun?' (he has a permit). The guy says he doesn't have one on him and the cop pushes the issue and asks to search the car. Another patrol car pulls up and they search the entire car and find nothing. They leave but by that time the guy has to change the tire in the dark. This happened in TN.

This of course raised some questions:
What right does LE have to ask for anything in this situation? They have to have a reason to pull someone over but what if they're already stopped like in this case?

What about searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry? Is that an illegal search? What if they found one?Not to my knowledge.

The reason I posted isn't to share an interesting story or accuse anyone of anything. The real question is what is legal and what you should do in a situation like this.He didn't record it.

To the best of my knowledge, yes exactly.

He consented to the search but I wanted to know what would happen if he refused.

Why would he be in serious doo-doo? Just because he didn't notify the cops when they asked?Thanks

And it's also why glocktalkers shouldn't treat every thread like they are trying a case.

Yeah, I'm in Tennessee. I have a permit but don't(can't) always carry.I thought after I stated this wasn't first hand that the hearsay part was assumed and this was completely one sided. The guy could of been covering parts of his story, been an ass, made the whole thing up; it doesn't matter. I wanted to know what my rights were and opinions on what one should in the event that they find themselves in a similar situation. I almost didn't post this because I figured it would turn out this way. I thought of posting as a hypothetical but it would probably end the same way.The part in bold is why I asked this question:Are you asking on behalf of your dad's friend, your dad, or yourself?which you did not answer until your last post.

Had you started with, "Something happened to a friend of my dad's and I want to know what my rights would be under the same circumstances." Then you tell the story. Then ask the questions in the first person, "I" and "me", instead of "he." That way we know the answers are for your benefit.

:cool:

JW1178
07-30-2012, 15:31
Sounds like a bit of a shakedown.

I believe it, some cops do this. "Law abiding citizen not doing anything wrong huh, we'll see about that". I've been on the receiving end of one of those searches. I was about 17 and I was at a park with my GF at the time, just talking, the park was still open. Cop pulled up, asked what we were doing, said a lot of drug use in the area so he wanted to search. I asked "why" and he cussed me out, so I let him search. When he found nothing he said "you're clean, you can go" and I being a 17 year old said "yeah whatever, I know" he said "you little ****, I could have found something if I wanted to". What was that supose to mean? To me it meant "I could have planted something" If he had my life would have gone much differently I am sure. I guess I should learn to cooperate with the police's demands, despite me "rights", I have learned my lesson, just like all people who live in oppressive police states.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe most LEO's do the right thing and don't do this, but there are a few out there. Usually the agency ends up catching them and getting rid of them, but there are a few out there. I do believe that a lot of cops are controlling, egotists, and narcistic, but not all.

IndyGunFreak
07-30-2012, 16:56
Seems there is a LOT more to the OP than what's been described, but who knows.

I had something kinda similar about 7yrs ago, but with a far different result. I got a flat on the highway during rush hour. I popped my trunk, got my spare, jack, etc.. when I got the flat tire off, a Trooper pulled in behind me. I know by then I was flashing like crazy. He just sat in his car (which was appreciated because of Indiana's "Move Over" law it meant idiots were slowing way down or getting out of the lane that was right behind me). I just waived to him and he sat there till I was done. When I was done and had everything in my trunk, I turned and waived again and drove off.

I wondered if there had been a report that there was a "man with a gun" on the side of the highway. But it was a non-issue.

IGF

JuneyBooney
07-31-2012, 00:21
If they want to search my car they can get a warrant. While I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to prove either.

It's just like random drug tests. It's ridiculous I have to prove I don't do drugs just because other people do drugs. I'm not a criminal, I don't part take in criminal activity, as such, there is no reason I should have to prove I'm not doing something illegal if I've done nothing illegal nor have been seen doing anything illegal.

I'm not against law enforcement in any way but I just have to get this out.

In reference to this story, assuming there is nothing more to it and it happened exactly the way it's written, it's absolutely ridiculous that someone should have to show ID and all the rest if they are on the side of the road changing a tire on their vehicle.

If there weren't any violations witnessed or any crimes committed/reported, then people should be left alone. Since when is someone a criminal and have to prove their innocence when there is no reason to assume they are guilty of anything?

I agree with your thoughts. :cool:

NEOH212
07-31-2012, 00:48
I've always found that nobody does anything illegal, until they do something illegal. :supergrin:

Or, until enough BS laws are passed to make everything illegal.....:whistling:

Bren
07-31-2012, 05:14
If they want to search my car they can get a warrant. While I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to prove either.

Searching a car doesn't require a warrant. If they have PC to get a warrant, they can search without the warrant, so either they can do a warrantless search, or they can't search at all.

Dexters
07-31-2012, 06:09
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

DustyJacket
07-31-2012, 06:15
I've always found that nobody does anything illegal, until they do something illegal. :supergrin:

Everybody in here is innocent....... :rofl:

(Quoted from Shawshank and many other shows)

Drain You
07-31-2012, 06:25
I've been approached by police officers a few times while changing a flat. Usually they just get out and check you out then drive away. The ones at night are courteous enough to park behind me with their lights on until I finish.

beatcop
07-31-2012, 18:14
The story is third hand, so any hairball response will arise.

I passed a car that was broken down in cruiser...was going somewhere and driver missing...10 minutes later THAT car was put out as a robbery suspect. Glad I didn't give the crook a ride and have that come over the air. Bottom line: crooks break down just the same as everyone else.

So the car may be technically "parked" on the highway illegally? The cop may decide it's a hazard and want to tow it...who knows, depends on State statutes.

There's likely more to this.

I have stopped for people changing tires and seen holsters poking out the bottom of coats on two ocassions. You never know who your dealing with. The whole "where's the gun?" thing is strange.

Paul53
07-31-2012, 21:34
OP, I understand what you're asking, but there's so much room for details, like:

Parked near a prison changing the tire?

Tire flattened by bullet hole?

"Pigs suck" bumper sticker?

Maybe there was something happening locally (armed robbery?) causing the 2 LEO's to be in the neighborhood?

Too many variables. I've met a few Beavis cops, but the majority are just average Joes doing an impossible job. I let them do what they want, makes them happy, then they go their way. I wouldn't and couldn't do their jobs. A split second decision means having the public and politicians crawling up your katookas for ten years, or worse, your dead. If a cop is a real Beavis to me, I have a sit down with the chief about it.

NMPOPS
07-31-2012, 23:21
The guy just asked a simple question and based only on what he told us. No they did not have PC to search and if I were him I would have told the officers that I would supply them with DL and Ins. as soon as I finish changing my tire.

I have stopped to help many a stranded motorist and this issue has never come up. They could've found out all they needed in conversation while helping change the tire!

cadillacguns
08-01-2012, 03:06
It happened to me...............flat tire on I-70 eastbound Indianapolis just past Keystone Rural exit, my G-22 "Trunk Gun" sits above the spare donut tire in my SUV. I had just opened the rear passenger side door and was taking stuff from the trunk to put on that sides rear seat when a ISP (Indiana State Police) Trooper materialized out of nowhere and asked if things were OK? I had the Glock-22 loaded but in its Glock case, in my hand, face to face as we were. No, I said, just bad luck to get a flat here on the highway. The Trooper never said a word about the "Obvious" contents of the Glock case, and actualy helped me change the tire a year ago on a hot August afternoon.

Glockrunner
08-01-2012, 05:48
I thought after I stated this wasn't first hand that the hearsay part was assumed and this was completely one sided. The guy could of been covering parts of his story, been an ass, made the whole thing up; it doesn't matter. I wanted to know what my rights were and opinions on what one should in the event that they find themselves in a similar situation. I almost didn't post this because I figured it would turn out this way. I thought of posting as a hypothetical but it would probably end the same way.
In SC were I live, we don't have to produce our CWP unless we have a firearm concealed on us. Otherwise the CWP stays put.
All law abiding citizens are allowed to carry locked and loaded, a firearm in the vehicle as long as it is properly stowed.

With that said I presume the LEO in question must have seen something like maybe an ammo box, empty holster, empty shell casing, or any item that lead him to believe this person owned or had access to, a firearm. Even a book about shooting, stickers on the bumper etc might have aroused the question.

Not being familar with TN CWP laws I don't know what information is available to the LEO's during a stop either (So carry or not, I would most likely present mine with ID when asked) but I thing the LEO has the right to start an investigation when you are stopped along any road possibly creating a safety hazard for the public. I also believe asking for ID is the begaining of a said investigation.

So, assuming something sparked the question (by the LEO) about a firearm, and the stopped operator refused to answer the question in an affirmative manner like, in the safe at home or words to that affect: that left the LEO with nothing better to do think that there was a possible gun in the car.

Again, I am just assuming all that but I bet is isn't too far from the truth, as I see it from your intial question.

Having had several encounters along miles of roads in our US, each have been a pleasure except two. I find most all the LEO's to be doing what they must be trained to do. All were friendly and helpful in most everyway especially when help was needed. And I do have stickers on the vehicles that elude to the fact that I like Glocks or firearms in general.

SgtScott31
08-03-2012, 13:09
I will add my .02 since I've been a TN LEO for 10+ years.

#1 - If we have PC we don't need a warrant to search a vehicle (patchman). Do some research regarding the Carroll doctrine. I know one might try to make the argument that the vehicle wasn't mobile at the time and a warrant was the right route to go, but that could be decided by a judge during a TROE 104 suppression hearing if something illegal was found.

#2 - I have to look into this, but I'm pretty sure THP can request to see a driver's license without RS.

#3 - If it wasn't THP and there wasn't an offense committed, then "no," the driver would not have to produce his license. I'm curious if the officer saw an obstructed and/or expired plate or some other non-moving infraction to validate a traffic stop. I would also want to know if his front lights were on. Once the lights come on, it turns the encounter into a seizure. Though the TN Supreme Court has recently said that officers can also conduct a "stop" under a "community care taking" function such as checking the welfare of a driver/occupants.

#4 - LEOs in TN know when someone has a valid handgun carry permit because we will see it when we run your driver's license. TN is not a state where you are required to notify. Though under TN law you ARE required to surrender the weapon at the request of the LEO. The LEO should have a reason for taking it involving his safety and/or the safety of others. I can tell you that in most cases judges have no problems with officers taking a HCP's weapon during a traffic stop. In their eyes, officer safety has priority over hurting the feelings of a HCP holder during a stop. I don't know many officers that do it though. As long as you let them know on the front end, most are cool with it. I know of one trooper that has put it in the trunk of the holder's vehicle during the stop.

#5 - If he had a valid HCP he can have it anywhere in the vehicle or on his person. If he didn't have a HCP, then having it within reach would be illegal.

I will agree with the others that there is ALWAYS two sides to every story. In most cases, one will make themselves out to be the biggest victim of police because that tends to be the trend. Not that I'm saying it happened here, but as long as I've been in this business, I never go with one side.

writwing
08-03-2012, 20:20
Some Officers are PITA. This Officer may have had a reason. We don't know. Maybe a call about a guy in a similar car?

Those cops were not a PITA, they violated the persons rights.

SgtScott31
08-03-2012, 20:55
Those cops were not a PITA, they violated the persons rights.

Based on his side of the story ALONE.

MarinePride
08-03-2012, 22:19
Never consent to a police search. Make them get a warrant.

Bigpoppie50
08-03-2012, 22:54
Something tells me there's more to this story...I doubt if there is anything more because I have had the same thing happen to me here in good old North Carlolina.

Harper
08-03-2012, 23:08
I will add my .02 since I've been a TN LEO for 10+ years.



Thank you.

Misty02
08-03-2012, 23:49
Never consent to a police search. Make them get a warrant.

I agree. However, while I may not consent to a search of my vehicle or home, Iím not stopping them either. I may not hand over my key, but I will also make no attempt to hide or stop them from taking them.

The side of the road is not a place where I would like to engage in an argument, more so when I donít have all the facts at my disposal to know if it is an illegal search. Even if I had all the facts it is possible I may not be able to make the determination. However, as long as Iím being asked, the answer will most likely be ďnoĒ.

.

Bren
08-04-2012, 05:24
Never consent to a police search. Make them get a warrant.

Making them get a warrant to search a car isn't legally possible. They don't need a warrant.

Bren
08-04-2012, 05:26
With that said I presume the LEO in question must have seen something like maybe an ammo box, empty holster, empty shell casing, or any item that lead him to believe this person owned or had access to, a firearm. Even a book about shooting, stickers on the bumper etc might have aroused the question.


Before you presumed that, you presumed the story was true. It does not sound at all like a true story, even before the "heard iot from a guy who heard it from a guy" part.

writwing
08-04-2012, 08:04
Based on his side of the story ALONE.

When the leo presents his side of the story I will weigh the testimony. Until he does, the guys rights were violated.

writwing
08-04-2012, 08:06
Making them get a warrant to search a car isn't legally possible. They don't need a warrant.

You seem suspiciously unconcerned about this. Are you an leo or a member of the aclu?

LApm9
08-04-2012, 12:06
My SOLE reservation about consenting to a vehicle search comes from a pair of bad experiences some friends of mine had when they did so. These incidents occurred in the '70s, when the drivers were in their twenties. "Out of state" plates and county police in both cases. I heard the account from both persons first hand.

Both situations began with minor traffic violations. The drivers were than asked if the car could be searched and consent was given. In one case the question was "can I look in around inside your car a little?".

In both cases all the contents of the vehicle were deposited on the roadside and even the seats were removed. In one case a second car came up later and they even removed the dashboard.

Nothing was found in either case. The officers left the scene without helping in any way to restore the vehicles. The second vehicle had to be towed.

I have NEVER had an unpleasant encounter with a police officer, but these two occurrences make me really hesitant to consent to a search.

RussP
08-04-2012, 12:42
You seem suspiciously unconcerned about this. Are you an leo or a member of the aclu?Hell, he's worse than that. He's a former cop turned lawyer...:faint:


:cool:

Misty02
08-04-2012, 12:47
Hell, he's worse than that. He's a former cop turned lawyer...:faint:


:cool:


:rofl::rofl: Thanks a lot!


:rant:Iím really thankful it was just water I was drinking.

.

bdhawk
08-04-2012, 13:08
search your own car yourself, first.

let me explain....

when i was in high school i bought a '63 kharman gia convertable, in a very pretty blue. a friend and i went to a nearby town for a HS football game. we did not know why, but several local, county, and state gendarmes pulled us over with their revolvers drawn and their big, mag light, flashlights that hold six D sized batteries. i swear, they had everyone but the coast guard in on this coordinated stop.

we had to spread 'em on the hood of the police cruisers while they searched my car. they did not find anything but six condoms and a playboy magazine, all of which i did not know was in the car. they were hidden in a cubby behind the back seat. heck, i did not even know that storage erea was there. there could easily been some other kind of contraband which i did not know was hidden. i bought the car, just north of san francisco, so no tellin' what could have been hidden in the car.

turns out someone else, with another blue convertable sport type car had murdered someone, a couple of days earlier. he was still at large.

they finally let us go, without even an apology. i did not trust the condoms, but i did end up with a free eight month old playboy.

SgtScott31
08-04-2012, 14:40
When the leo presents his side of the story I will weigh the testimony. Until he does, the guys rights were violated.



Wow, imagine that. Someone automatically takes the side of a person's statement on an anonymous internet forum over the LEOs....what a surprise...

There are thousands of said stories where it turned out much more happened and the LEO was well within his rights to search. Not saying it's the case here, but if you've been in the law enforcement business long enough and watch 90+% of cases in the general sessions docket get plea bargained because they were in fact GUILTY, you would likely start to give a little more weight to the LEO's testimony/credibility. That's not to suggest that officers don't lie or there isn't ones out there that do things illegally, but if I was a betting man, the one lying in most cases (not all) is the non-LEO. That impression is never expressed across the media because criminals lying every day wouldn't make good ratings. Go sit in general sessions for a month or do a few ride-a-longs and we'll see who you begin to believe when it comes to the majority who may be stretching/fabricating a story. I get lied to every day. From traffic stops, to domestic situations, to drug possession. The arrestees range from career offenders to school teachers. When they get caught, no matter the violation, they lie. It's human nature. So excuse me if I am hesitant to believe the guy 100% who was telling the story to the OP in this situation.

Those LEOs who violate the law or abuse the rights of others will get caught eventually. They always do. I'm happy it happens because I don't want them tarnishing the badge I wear every day.

NMG26
08-04-2012, 15:08
The cop goes to his car and comes back and asks 'where's the gun?' (he has a permit). The guy says he doesn't have one on him and the cop pushes the issue and asks to search the car. Another patrol car pulls up and they search the entire car and find nothing. They leave but by that time the guy has to change the tire in the dark. This happened in TN.


They did not search him?

If they asked my I would have had it 11 o'clock appendix.

That is why you should always carry. The situation would have went much better.


:cool:

Misty02
08-04-2012, 16:05
Wow, imagine that. Someone automatically takes the side of a person's statement on an anonymous internet forum over the LEOs....what a surprise...

There are thousands of said stories where it turned out much more happened and the LEO was well within his rights to search. Not saying it's the case here, but if you've been in the law enforcement business long enough and watch 90+% of cases in the general sessions docket get plea bargained because they were in fact GUILTY, you would likely start to give a little more weight to the LEO's testimony/credibility. That's not to suggest that officers don't lie or there isn't ones out there that do things illegally, but if I was a betting man, the one lying in most cases (not all) is the non-LEO. That impression is never expressed across the media because criminals lying every day wouldn't make good ratings. Go sit in general sessions for a month or do a few ride-a-longs and we'll see who you begin to believe when it comes to the majority who may be stretching/fabricating a story. I get lied to every day. From traffic stops, to domestic situations, to drug possession. The arrestees range from career offenders to school teachers. When they get caught, no matter the violation, they lie. It's human nature. So excuse me if I am hesitant to believe the guy 100% who was telling the story to the OP in this situation.

Those LEOs who violate the law or abuse the rights of others will get caught eventually. They always do. I'm happy it happens because I don't want them tarnishing the badge I wear every day.

Even if it is all 100% true odds are we (or the driver in this case) will not know the entire story behind the reason the officer stopped to question this particular driver. If it were to happen to me I would not know (or expect to be told) if my vehicle (or I) matched the description of one they were looking for. I know I have the right to not consent to a search. I would also believe I have done nothing illegal. However, that doesnít necessarily translate into the search being illegal either.

If at the end of the day it turns out it was indeed an illegal search and done without my consent I may have a legal recourse on my side if there were any damages. I just donít see how the person stopped can make that determination at that time and place.

.

beatcop
08-04-2012, 17:09
You seem suspiciously unconcerned about this. Are you an leo or a member of the aclu?

He may be making subtle reference to case law in his statement....a lot of brief, but accurate statements are misinterpreted by the folks who have not had the benefit of actual training.

beatcop
08-04-2012, 17:17
Hairball responses to a 3rd hand story....interesting to see the thought processes of posters though.

-Police can and will ask for consent whenever they want...refuse if you so desire.

-If I pull up behind you I will run your plate and possibly the name of the registered owner prior to approach. Stolen cars break down.

Patchman
08-04-2012, 17:21
You seem suspiciously unconcerned about this. Are you an leo or a member of the aclu?

Hell, he's worse than that. He's a former cop turned lawyer...:faint:


And worse than that, he's also .mil. And seems to be proud of it!

SgtScott31
08-04-2012, 20:10
Even if it is all 100% true odds are we (or the driver in this case) will not know the entire story behind the reason the officer stopped to question this particular driver. If it were to happen to me I would not know (or expect to be told) if my vehicle (or I) matched the description of one they were looking for. I know I have the right to not consent to a search. I would also believe I have done nothing illegal. However, that doesnít necessarily translate into the search being illegal either.

If at the end of the day it turns out it was indeed an illegal search and done without my consent I may have a legal recourse on my side if there were any damages. I just donít see how the person stopped can make that determination at that time and place.

.

Completely agree Misty. If it was an illegal search anything found would be tossed (in a suppression hearing). The DA would likely not even pursue the charge because he/she would know it was a bad search. If damages occurred and the person could show that the officer was malicious, reckless, etc, he/she would likely have a state tort claim and/or a federal 1983 claim. It's very difficult to prove either standard when coming against a LEO, but with technology growing every day(such as video/in-car cameras, etc), it's harder for the crap-head LEOs to keep their job if they're doing things illegally. I hope it's stopped sooner than later. Nothing boils my blood worse than a crooked LEO.

I think a lot here forget that once that stain is set on the LEO that he did something illegal, the dept will not want him on the street and the DA's office will not want to prosecute any of his cases. If his credibility is done, then his cases are done. It's a headache that many prosecutors will not want to deal with.

MarinePride
08-04-2012, 20:51
Making them get a warrant to search a car isn't legally possible. They don't need a warrant.

So what is my course of objection then if the fourth amendment is null and void in the present day?

Taking away what this country was founded upon is not the answer here, don't you see that? Illegal search is just that, it is illegal without probable cause. Probable cause is made up in a lot of instances. Cops don't have the moral high ground anymore with all of the unjustified taserings and beatings going on.

Not everyone is guilty of something and the cops these days have that "us vesus them" mentality. Hey cops out there, do you want your children to grow up in what this country has turned into?

The constitution is being ignored and trumped as an obstacle to the state at every turn. The individual is dead.

Bruce M
08-04-2012, 21:02
So what is my course of objection then if the fourth amendment is null and void in the present day?


...

The Fourth Amendment is null and void in the present day... I don't suppose anyone happens to know when the case (Carroll v. U.S.) that essentially decided that in many cases a search warrant is not required for an automobile by chance?? :whistling:

Misty02
08-05-2012, 09:08
So what is my course of objection then if the fourth amendment is null and void in the present day?

Taking away what this country was founded upon is not the answer here, don't you see that? Illegal search is just that, it is illegal without probable cause. Probable cause is made up in a lot of instances. Cops don't have the moral high ground anymore with all of the unjustified taserings and beatings going on.

Not everyone is guilty of something and the cops these days have that "us vesus them" mentality. Hey cops out there, do you want your children to grow up in what this country has turned into?

The constitution is being ignored and trumped as an obstacle to the state at every turn. The individual is dead.

As I see it, our course of objection, if we were the subject of what we believe to be an illegal search is to not consent to the search and be very vocal (not physical) about it. I will not give up my rights as a citizen of this country but I also pray I maintain my wits about me while exercising them.

Letís assume for a second that what was stated in the OP is 100% accurate and the person with the flat tire did absolutely nothing wrong. Letís further assume that officers in the area had a partial vehicle description that matched his that was seen leaving the scene of a crime. The officer stops, investigates, clears the driver and the vehicle and continues. From the view point of the driver his rights were violated as he knows for a fact he broke no law, he didnít consent to the search but they searched anyway. If he were to press the issue with superiors thereafter he may (or may not) be informed of the reason for the stop and the search. Depending on many details both would have likely acted within the law and appropriately.

My question, how do you know that a search is illegal and without probable cause, while youíre stopped on the side of the road? In order to know that you would have to know the entire story, that usually doesnít come out until after the fact when all the pieces of the puzzle get put together. What usually happens when you donít consent to a search (actually vocalize that you donít) and itís later determined there was no probable cause for such a search? The way the legal system is set up anything discovered will become inadmissible because it was obtained illegally. Heck, Iíve personally seen that one pulled when the officer did nothing illegal and the criminal walked.

Now, are there bad and corrupt officers out there? I havenít personally met one, but I know they exist. Bad people exist in all walks of life. There may also be officers that are not bad but at a particular point and time lose their common sense due to fear or other factors. How do you know who you are dealing with while at the side of the road? How far are we willing to take an argument with an armed individual (badge or not)? Personally, Iím willing to deny consent and even insist a supervisor be brought to the scene. Beyond that, my sense of preservation is a tad greater than my stubbornness (I hope).

We all heard the OC exchange between a member here and a police officer that was completely unhinged, had his weapon drawn and by the accounts of the member had it aimed at him. This individual continued to taunt the officer through the entire exchange. He almost went from being right to being dead-right.

With todayís technology there is little we do outside our home that is not recorded, all that information becomes available to your attorney should an officer violate your rights (that includes his dash-cam recording).

The bottom line is that our rights continue to be eroded; our privacy is less and less each day. I donít know if we can ever turn to the clock back on those, if we can it will most likely start at the voting booth, not while on the side of the road. I wonít lie; the odds of us succeeding donít look that good. Many seem to value more the safety they perceive the government can offer than the rights of the individual. However, that is a bigger picture than the one being discussed in this thread.

Do not give up your individual rights; do not consent to the search, insist a supervisor be brought to the scene. Stand up for your rights and fight for them when and where it makes a difference and your odds for success are better stacked in your favor.


.

Darkangel1846
08-05-2012, 09:17
So someone my dad works with got a flat tire on the way home from work recently. While he was working to change it a cop pulls up behind him. The guy thinks the cop pulls up to make sure he's ok or help but the cop came up and asked for license and proof of insurance. The cop goes to his car and comes back and asks 'where's the gun?' (he has a permit). The guy says he doesn't have one on him and the cop pushes the issue and asks to search the car. Another patrol car pulls up and they search the entire car and find nothing. They leave but by that time the guy has to change the tire in the dark. This happened in TN.

This of course raised some questions:
What right does LE have to ask for anything in this situation? They have to have a reason to pull someone over but what if they're already stopped like in this case?

What about searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry? Is that an illegal search? What if they found one?


Why do cops do what they do? who knows maybe there was an incident where a guy working on his car robbed people who stopped to help. Maybe they were looking for someone and your car matched. Maybe thats how some drug deals were going down....last but not least maybe the LEO was just bored and wanted something to do....or was just a jerk. There are a million stories....your friends story, the cops story,the by stander story, and the real story.:wavey:

Sharky7
08-05-2012, 10:34
I don't know why people still spin their wheels with threads like these. It's not worth getting worked up over a "friend of a friend of a friend" type story where the details are suspect and minimal.

There could be all kinds of things going on here - the guy with the broken down car could have a tear drop tattoo and wearing gang colors. We don't know.

For people freaked out by police stopping to help a motorist, check out "Community Care-taking." Doing some research on this type of case law will help you understand the status of a motorist assist type stop.

Misty02
08-05-2012, 11:06
I don't know why people still spin their wheels with threads like these. It's not worth getting worked up over a "friend of a friend of a friend" type story where the details are suspect and minimal.

There could be all kinds of things going on here - the guy with the broken down car could have a tear drop tattoo and wearing gang colors. We don't know.

For people freaked out by police stopping to help a motorist, check out "Community Care-taking." Doing some research on this type of case law will help you understand the status of a motorist assist type stop.

Because even if it is 100% hypothetical we can all learn from it and modify our reaction to certain events/situations by taking a second to think beyond the ďright nowĒ?

Things arenít always what they seem, even when we believe we know what is going on.

.

Sharky7
08-05-2012, 12:21
Because even if it is 100% hypothetical we can all learn from it and modify our reaction to certain events/situations by taking a second to think beyond the ďright nowĒ?

Things arenít always what they seem, even when we believe we know what is going on.

.

I am not referencing you or others who look at it objectively and not take it as pure fact. Threads like these turn emotional for a lot of people - they allow their biases to drive their view and they fill in the blanks on what was not in the original story. They spin their wheels getting upset about a story that may or not be even remotely close to the truth.

Even the bias of the original "friend" comes into play as they re-tell their stories to a friend who then re-tells it on Glocktalk. Now someone reading this on the internet takes it as a fact that it occurred as above said by the OP.

OmarR
08-05-2012, 12:57
What usually happens when you donít consent to a search (actually vocalize that you donít) and itís later determined there was no probable cause for such a search? The way the legal system is set up anything discovered will become inadmissible because it was obtained illegally.

Do not give up your individual rights; do not consent to the search.

As a former criminal justice major from San Diego State Univ, I had many night classes where my professor's day job was being a current prosecuting district attorney. I don't know why they taught 2 nights a week. Love of the game? Partial law school loan forgiveness?

But they would always emphasize that the WORST thing you could possibly do as a citizen was to waive your rights. If you consented to search, than RS and PC were not needed by the officer..they had your permission. And since RS/PC were not needed, arguing inadmissibility in court was an option no longer available to you.

The right to remain silent was the most powerful tool available to a citizen. My teachers couldnt count how many times they scored a conviction, especially a plea bargain/no trial needed, based on the condemning words of the defendant.

The only right they found permissable to waive was your right to a speedy trial. Unless you didnt want to give your defense attorney the proper time to prepare your defense.

Misty02
08-05-2012, 13:57
I am not referencing you or others who look at it objectively and not take it as pure fact. Threads like these turn emotional for a lot of people - they allow their biases to drive their view and they fill in the blanks on what was not in the original story. They spin their wheels getting upset about a story that may or not be even remotely close to the truth.

Even the bias of the original "friend" comes into play as they re-tell their stories to a friend who then re-tells it on Glocktalk. Now someone reading this on the internet takes it as a fact that it occurred as above said by the OP.

The main purpose to get involved in a thread here is to learn from it. To put our ideas out there and have others challenge it while telling us why our thought process is erroneous and what the possible consequences of such actions could be. Getting emotional usually leads to people digging in their heels and closing themselves to what others can teach, but even those that get emotional ababsorb some of the information being shared.

We all have biases and few of us have the experience and/or knowledge to be able to see all the possible alternatives as well as their possible consequences. Donít give up on us, share, tell us where we are wrong and why. You may not always get the satisfaction of knowing you made one of us see the light, but more people than you think read/listen. It just takes a bit to process it all at times. Days, weeks or months down the line what you taught someone today will be recalled and will assist them in making a better/more informed decision (that person could be me).

Have a little faith. :)
.

Misty02
08-05-2012, 14:23
As a former criminal justice major from San Diego State Univ, I had many night classes where my professor's day job was being a current prosecuting district attorney. I don't know why they taught 2 nights a week. Love of the game? Partial law school loan forgiveness?

But they would always emphasize that the WORST thing you could possibly do as a citizen was to waive your rights. If you consented to search, than RS and PC were not needed by the officer..they had your permission. And since RS/PC were not needed, arguing inadmissibility in court was an option no longer available to you.

The right to remain silent was the most powerful tool available to a citizen. My teachers couldnt count how many times they scored a conviction, especially a plea bargain/no trial needed, based on the condemning words of the defendant.

The only right they found permissable to waive was your right to a speedy trial. Unless you didnt want to give your defense attorney the proper time to prepare your defense.

That one may be the most difficult one of them all. We all know about it but many wonít have the ability to exercise it.

My father, who I believe is the wisest man on earth, has predicted (since I was 4 years old) my demise one day would be related to my mouth. Of all the lessons he tried to teach me, knowing when to shut up has been the hardest; heís still trying though. :embarassed:

.

nomadcrna
08-06-2012, 01:15
Some states do NOT have the motor vehicle exception. In any case, the officer must still be able to articulate probably cause, a traffic violation is not enough.

Unless the officer can articulate that the person changing a tire has committed an offense, it was a consensual encounter and the person could have told him to pound sound.

QUOTE=Patchman;19252178]Ooops. :embarassed:

You're right, of course.[/QUOTE]

nomadcrna
08-06-2012, 01:17
The still need probably cause to search. A warrant also needs probable cause.
Did they see drugs in plain sight? That would be probable cause.
Having a CCW permit is NOT probable cause.


Making them get a warrant to search a car isn't legally possible. They don't need a warrant.

nomadcrna
08-06-2012, 01:21
Having magazines, ammo box, empty case is not probable cause for a search.

In SC were I live, we don't have to produce our CWP unless we have a firearm concealed on us. Otherwise the CWP stays put.
All law abiding citizens are allowed to carry locked and loaded, a firearm in the vehicle as long as it is properly stowed.

With that said I presume the LEO in question must have seen something like maybe an ammo box, empty holster, empty shell casing, or any item that lead him to believe this person owned or had access to, a firearm. Even a book about shooting, stickers on the bumper etc might have aroused the question.

Not being familar with TN CWP laws I don't know what information is available to the LEO's during a stop either (So carry or not, I would most likely present mine with ID when asked) but I thing the LEO has the right to start an investigation when you are stopped along any road possibly creating a safety hazard for the public. I also believe asking for ID is the begaining of a said investigation.

So, assuming something sparked the question (by the LEO) about a firearm, and the stopped operator refused to answer the question in an affirmative manner like, in the safe at home or words to that affect: that left the LEO with nothing better to do think that there was a possible gun in the car.

Again, I am just assuming all that but I bet is isn't too far from the truth, as I see it from your intial question.

Having had several encounters along miles of roads in our US, each have been a pleasure except two. I find most all the LEO's to be doing what they must be trained to do. All were friendly and helpful in most everyway especially when help was needed. And I do have stickers on the vehicles that elude to the fact that I like Glocks or firearms in general.

MKEgal
08-13-2012, 22:08
I would have had it 11 o'clock appendix.
For the vast majority of people, your appendix is on your right side.
2:00

As for the OP, I'm a bit surprised nobody has yet mentioned the video titled "don't talk to police". [Go look on YouTube.]
The first part is a law professor talking at warp speed, the second is an ex-LEO turned law student who starts out by basically saying "yeah, what he said" & goes on to explain some of the tricks he used over the years to get confessions.
You have the right to remain silent. Use it.

Also highly recommended are the videos from www.flexyourrights.org (http://www.flexyourrights.org) (also available on youtube) on how to handle various encounters with police.
Never consent to a search. If they have cause, they don't need consent. If they need your consent, they're just looking for anything they can possibly use against you.

youngdocglock
08-13-2012, 22:11
I would have given them my ID, seeing as i was driving a vehicle.

However the search.............NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I would have asked for a warrant, if none was presented i would have informed them that i did not consent to any search, if they did anyway, it would be payday in court.

drew4691
08-14-2012, 01:22
I've been pulled over before (speed) and when the sheriff ran my plates it informed him I have a CCW permit, so when he came up to me and started talking, he asked if I had my gun with me, to which I replied I did not. I was on my way to work which I cannot carry.
In Ohio if you are carrying, you must inform the officer. If you aren't carrying, you don't have to tell them you have a CCW permit.

Bren
08-14-2012, 05:30
At least we've sorted out "probably cause." Nomadcrna brought back an oldy but goody.

frizz
08-14-2012, 07:08
Here's a question: If you have a CCW license, but you aren't armed, is it a good idea to tell the cop before he runs your tag/license and finds out that you have one.

I'm looking at it from the practical standpoint of avoiding a "surprise" that could make the cop uncomfortable. If you say, "I am unarmed but I do have a CCW permit" is that a good idea or a bad idea?

Misty02
08-14-2012, 10:03
Here's a question: If you have a CCW license, but you aren't armed, is it a good idea to tell the cop before he runs your tag/license and finds out that you have one.

I'm looking at it from the practical standpoint of avoiding a "surprise" that could make the cop uncomfortable. If you say, "I am unarmed but I do have a CCW permit" is that a good idea or a bad idea?

If I lived in a state where that information shows up when either the plate or the DL is ran, I wouldnít even give it a second thought and just inform off the bat.


.

B.Reid
08-14-2012, 11:07
Never allow them to search your vehicle. They are just fishing for something to arrest you for. Make them get a search warrant.

broncobuddha1
08-15-2012, 11:18
I was always under the general impression that if they had to ask it meant they dont have probable cause? If they ask I'll politlely decline.

RussP
08-15-2012, 11:36
Never allow them to search your vehicle. They are just fishing for something to arrest you for. Make them get a search warrant.What do you carry in your car that would lead to your arrest?

What illegal items would law abiding, vetted concealed permit holders have in their cars that would lead to their arrest?

Oh, no, don't take that the wrong way. If you do not want your vehicle searched, say so, do not consent.

RussP
08-15-2012, 11:42
I was always under the general impression that if they had to ask it meant they dont have probable cause? If they ask I'll politlely decline.I believe asking and receiving permission is an easier, shorter report to write, less documentation. Someone in LE correct me if I am wrong.

RussP
08-15-2012, 11:43
If I lived in a state where that information shows up when either the plate or the DL is ran, I wouldnít even give it a second thought and just inform off the bat.


.:thumbsup:

Glockrunner
08-16-2012, 05:03
I "heard" sometime in my sixty years that the PD can't just run your tag but thay need a reason. In todays world, I suppose a need for assistance (like a flat tire along the interstate) is reason enough but I would question that. I understand the LEO calling in a tag number in case there is a problem later. But I guess life just isn't what it always appears to be and the SHTF simply because some good deed leads to bad choices by others.

No one has asked to ever search my vehicle but on places I go where you agree to a search by simply entering, like military bases. So, my vehicle has been searched with and without my presence numerous times. With that said, if I were simply doing my business along the side of the road and confronted, I would decline.

I would decline because to me it is an inapproperiate for an officer to attempt delay my travel plans in my opinion. He has the authority (granted by us citizens) to request my information and unless he can come up with a valid reason there is no reason to delay someone further.

I have been asked questions in the past by officers that didn't add up to the situation and vaguely replied like, "Why do you need to carry a gun?" Point is I have complied with the law, let's move on so we can both do our jobs/get on with life.

LEO's have enough resources to get you if they want you, there is no reason I know of to fish......

Misty02
08-16-2012, 06:14
:thumbsup:

It is funny; yesterday during class someone finally asked “the” question. My son’s friends asked me later during class why I shook my head as they know it is a question I ask officers often. I had two personal reasons for shaking my head at the question: (1) you don’t ask an officer for his personal opinion on something of that nature in a formal class setting in front of their supervisor and peers and (2) you don’t ask “what should a licensed person that is carrying do, inform during a traffic stop or not?”

My question is usually along the lines of “what would YOU do?” or “what would you recommend your wife or mother do?” I also want the reasons behind their response. I want a personal answer, not what they believe the official answer should be. I would also ask the officer, alone, after class. If I ask in front of another officer it is because I have a good idea as to who the other officer is and that is not someone for whom the answer would be modified. Additionally, if it is an officer I don’t personally know I don’t ask the question with a bunch of people around. Again, I want to know what they personally believe and their answer is to “me”, not one that is modified for other listeners they haven’t had an opportunity to assess (or if they had, they’re not completely comfortable around).

The same answer doesn’t apply to everyone in all situations. We’ve had officers answer “my” question and then turn to my son (BIG boy who looks like a body builder) and then add “….. YOU on the other hand…………”
.

larry_minn
08-16-2012, 10:25
What do you carry in your car that would lead to your arrest?

What illegal items would law abiding, vetted concealed permit holders have in their cars that would lead to their arrest?

Oh, no, don't take that the wrong way. If you do not want your vehicle searched, say so, do not consent.

Not a thing. But what good can come from it? What bad can? I tend to carry stuff in my cars/trucks that I might need. Criminals also may use some of these same tools.
Lets see Duct tape, firearm, flashlight, hammer,wrenches, pry bar, rope/wire, change of clothing, dark glasses.... In winter (fall to late spring) jackets/pants/gloves (from nitral to chopper mits) stocking caps...
Do I know all laws for every area??? I have a basic med kit with me. (all OTC or script) Thing is I only need the heavy stuff on occasion. So the script may be two yrs old. My understanding is its expired after a yr? So I am supposed to waste my (and Dr.s ) time to get new script every yr? Heck he does not even require me to see him. He knows situation, that I use less in 3 yrs then most in a month.

How about sudafed type stuff. (if you use it) You buy max allowed and stick one in car. Few weeks later you buy max again and get stopped. They search car and find the one package that fell behind seats. You are now arrested.

Has a Officer ever vacumed carpets/wiped down dash, mended rip in seats as a reward for letting them search? (course if they had equipment to test vacume that might be good idea) :)

There have been many Officers both here and in real world who have said. NEVER agree to search. But NEVER resist a search. (other then verbally) "I do NOT give permission for you to search my car" and try to get that on record. Deal with it in court.

SgtScott31
08-16-2012, 20:07
LEOs do not need a reason to run a license tag. The Automated License plate Recognition (ALR) system I have in one of our vehicles runs thousands of tags a day. There is no expectation of privacy involving a license plate and LEOs can run them without cause. Some issues can develop if someone is running them off-duty when it is not LE-related.


The still need probably cause to search. A warrant also needs probable cause.
Did they see drugs in plain sight? That would be probable cause.
Having a CCW permit is NOT probable cause.




There are policies written into law in certain states (such as mine) that allow a LEO to disarm a permit holder during contact. I will know if the person has a permit to carry as soon as I run his/her DL information. If it's during an investigative stop (such as a traffic stop), I can disarm. That's not a search at all. It's state law. You have to remember that laws vary from state to state as does societal norms. What may be perfectly fine & acceptable in one area may cause significant alarm in another.


I would have given them my ID, seeing as i was driving a vehicle.

However the search.............NOT GONNA HAPPEN. I would have asked for a warrant, if none was presented i would have informed them that i did not consent to any search, if they did anyway, it would be payday in court.


Perfectly within your rights to refuse, but you honestly don't know all of the facts at hand. There could be other circumstances that exist that caused the officer to go further with the stop. We honestly don't know. I like some of the remarks among forum members in reference to a lawsuit and making big money in court. You honestly have no idea how hard it is to get a state tort claim or federal 1983 claim past qualified immunity protections. The officers really have to go out of their way to be malicious/reckless in the performance of their duties. While the media does post stories about lawsuits every day against LEOs and other government agents, why do you think the same media outlets never post a follow up concerning the story? Because there's rarely ever success.

I have to chuckle at the fishing expedition remark. We're just a bunch of brutes looking to arrest any law-abiding citizen that we can. The bottom line if we get in your vehicle, there's a reason behind it. I don't do interdiction work so I don't search a lot of cars. When I do search I have plenty of justification to do so, whether it involves a terry frisk for weapons (yes involving a vehicle), PC, search incident to arrest (within guidelines of Gant), or good ole plain view.

Like I mentioned in one of my other posts, who do you think officers are more concerned with, those who are willing to inform them of a weapon or those who want to keep them from knowing? While I understand there are certain areas in this country where there have been negative encounters between ill-informed LEOs and weapon laws, they are few and far between. Most LEOs know the laws, know when and where they can search, and know when they can disarm someone. If you think a LEO was wrong about how he handled you (and/or your weapon) during a stop, file a complaint following the encounter. Trying to be roadside laywer or getting into a p*ssing contest on the shoulder of the road is the last way to attempt to handle it.

Wake_jumper
08-16-2012, 20:39
Wow those TN guys are hard core. I blew a tire on a trailer a few years ago on I-35 near Wichita and a Kansas HP officer pulled in behind me, hit his lights and helped me change it. I really needed the help too. I didn't have a jack for the trailer, so he goes back to the trunk of his car and pulls out a floor jack.

wprebeck
08-16-2012, 20:56
I was always under the general impression that if they had to ask it meant they dont have probable cause? If they ask I'll politlely decline.

I didn't need it the last time I searched a guy's car. Asked anyway. Seemed the polite thing to do.

RussP
08-16-2012, 21:08
What do you carry in your car that would lead to your arrest?

What illegal items would law abiding, vetted concealed permit holders have in their cars that would lead to their arrest?

Oh, no, don't take that the wrong way. If you do not want your vehicle searched, say so, do not consent.

Not a thing. But what good can come from it? What bad can? I tend to carry stuff in my cars/trucks that I might need. Criminals also may use some of these same tools.
Lets see Duct tape, firearm, flashlight, hammer,wrenches, pry bar, rope/wire, change of clothing, dark glasses.... In winter (fall to late spring) jackets/pants/gloves (from nitral to chopper mits) stocking caps...
Do I know all laws for every area??? I have a basic med kit with me. (all OTC or script) Thing is I only need the heavy stuff on occasion. So the script may be two yrs old. My understanding is its expired after a yr? So I am supposed to waste my (and Dr.s ) time to get new script every yr? Heck he does not even require me to see him. He knows situation, that I use less in 3 yrs then most in a month.

How about sudafed type stuff. (if you use it) You buy max allowed and stick one in car. Few weeks later you buy max again and get stopped. They search car and find the one package that fell behind seats. You are now arrested.

Has a Officer ever vacumed carpets/wiped down dash, mended rip in seats as a reward for letting them search? (course if they had equipment to test vacume that might be good idea) :)

There have been many Officers both here and in real world who have said. NEVER agree to search. But NEVER resist a search. (other then verbally) "I do NOT give permission for you to search my car" and try to get that on record. Deal with it in court.Thank you, that's a very good response.

SgtScott31
08-16-2012, 21:41
Wow those TN guys are hard core. I blew a tire on a trailer a few years ago on I-35 near Wichita and a Kansas HP officer pulled in behind me, hit his lights and helped me change it. I really needed the help too. I didn't have a jack for the trailer, so he goes back to the trunk of his car and pulls out a floor jack.

I helped change two tires at the same time on two different vehicles once. I got gas for another motorist just last night. We're good guys in TN I promise!

MikeLadner
08-18-2012, 03:14
I "heard" sometime in my sixty years that the PD can't just run your tag but thay need a reason. In todays world, I suppose a need for assistance (like a flat tire along the interstate) is reason enough but I would question that. I understand the LEO calling in a tag number in case there is a problem later. But I guess life just isn't what it always appears to be and the SHTF simply because some good deed leads to bad choices by others.
.

You heard wrong.

brokenprism
08-20-2012, 22:00
Got stopped for speeding once by the Illinois State Police. Hot day, cop in vites me in, I sit in his passenger seat while he runs me. While we're waiting, another cop suddenly walks past us with a dog. the dog 'searched' my car with his nose but no one asked. They just did it Nothing there, I was let go with a warning (I should say so... ; )

tercel89
08-21-2012, 09:26
Not to my knowledge.

The reason I posted isn't to share an interesting story or accuse anyone of anything. The real question is what is legal and what you should do in a situation like this.

By what you said , word by word, sounds like he (your dad's friend) didnt have to show or allow a search period. Gonna send you a PM . That is if what you said is true and all he was doing was changing a flat tire and not causing a traffic hazzard nor in the roadway .

FMF Doc
08-22-2012, 18:45
I had a similar, but positive experience a few years ago. My wife, children, and I were returning from a friends wedding, when we experienced a flat rear tire. There was a wide paved highway shoulder, so I pulled off and was in the process of starting to change the tire.

Of course I was still dressed in the suit (minus jacket) that I had worn to the wedding. Highway patrol car pulled in behind me with emergency lights on. The officer got out of the car and finished changing the tire for me. He never asked for anything but to help me change the tire.

I thanked him and we proceeded on our way. That's a nice way to handle things IMO.

Now that is how it should go! I am not saying that cops should go around trying to put AAA out of business, but many need to be reminded that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.

SgtScott31
08-22-2012, 21:28
Now that is how it should go! I am not saying that cops should go around trying to put AAA out of business, but many need to be reminded that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.

There are many agencies that have policies that prohibit officers from doing unlocks or tire changes for obvious liability reasons. If the door gets damaged (during an attempted unlock) or the tire has some sort of malfunction, the first folks they're going to file suit against is the LEO and/or his agency.

FMF Doc
08-23-2012, 13:50
There are many agencies that have policies that prohibit officers from doing unlocks or tire changes for obvious liability reasons. If the door gets damaged (during an attempted unlock) or the tire has some sort of malfunction, the first folks they're going to file suit against is the LEO and/or his agency.

I get that, and where that is the policy I am alright with it. I said, I don't think they need to replace AAA but when appropriate and allowed, it is a nice touch. We do from our ambulance if we are crusing around between calls and it doesn't pose too much of a safety concern. But they ABSOLUTELY should not be giving people a hard time (boardering on harassment, I would have complained, and I work with cops daily and love them) while they are trying to fix a problem in an already difficult enough situation.

Chris Brines
08-23-2012, 21:25
So someone my dad works with got a flat tire on the way home from work recently. While he was working to change it a cop pulls up behind him. The guy thinks the cop pulls up to make sure he's ok or help but the cop came up and asked for license and proof of insurance. The cop goes to his car and comes back and asks 'where's the gun?' (he has a permit). The guy says he doesn't have one on him and the cop pushes the issue and asks to search the car. Another patrol car pulls up and they search the entire car and find nothing. They leave but by that time the guy has to change the tire in the dark. This happened in TN.

This of course raised some questions:
What right does LE have to ask for anything in this situation? They have to have a reason to pull someone over but what if they're already stopped like in this case?

What about searching the car for a gun he has the right to carry? Is that an illegal search? What if they found one?

Sounds to me like the cop was an Obama supporter....oh, did I say that out loud...oops...definitely not a believer in the right to keep and bear arms....and someone who thinks he is superior because of the badge on his shirt.