LE Contacts: Rights and Powers [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : LE Contacts: Rights and Powers


Sam Spade
02-03-2009, 19:56
Remember to follow the Rules and TOS when replying...

RussP
***********************************************************************************
What can LE do to you or with you in the normal types of encounters? What's the authority to do that stuff? What are your rights?

My old thread died when the server changed over. Not because I like you guys :cool:, but because I'm going through notes in preparation for some stuff, I re-present the basics.

I've limited myself to federal law, and where possible to SCOTUS decisions. These represent the floor of your rights---an individual state may restrict LE further than the US Constitution does, but the individual state cannot allow LE more power than the USC permits. And since we're a widespread board, this stuff will be more applicable than purely state law/decisons. Finally, most of the focus is on public encounters, on account of this being CI and all.

First, let's categorize the encounters. There are three basic types: (1) The purely consensual contact; (2) The investigative detention; (3) The arrest. There are some archaic folk who want to categorize things only in two, saying that you're either free to leave or you're under arrest. Sorry, but SCOTUS doesn't see things that way, and hasn't since 1968. There are three categories.

The consensual contact is exactly that: purely consensual on both sides. Cops can make contact with anyone they want, can talk to people about anything they want, can ask people for/about anything they want. If the cop's in a place where he has the right to be, then the other stuff follows. There's no legal requirement to tell you that you're free to leave, though that's one factor that the courts look at in determining voluntariness on your part. SCOTUS wrote in Ohio V Robinette 519 U.S. 33 (1996):
The Fourth Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. The Amendment's touchstone is reasonableness, which is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. Of course, since this is purely consensual, you're also free to ask for/about anything you want. If you're wondering what your status is, just ask: "Officer, am I free to leave?"

From FL v Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (internal citations ommitted)The appropriate test is whether, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter...

Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask the individual questions, ask to examine identification, and request consent to search luggage, provided they do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.As Bostick says, he can ask you questions, he can ask you for ID, he can ask for your consent to search or be frisked. The key word in all of that is "ask". You can agree to answer or refuse, but you probably can't lie and claim that it's protected/free speech.

Again, this is purely consensual. That means that the officer can't issue any commands in any way. No verbal orders: "Come here". No visual orders, like lights and siren. No coercion, as seen by a reasonable person. I'm not talking just about blatant stuff like pointing guns or blocking your path. For instance, if you give him your ID, you're not free to go while he's still holding onto it--a reasonable person would generally expect that back.

And from US v Drayton 536 U.S. 194 (2002)
Held: The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches. (...)
When Lang (Spade: That's the LEO involved) approached respondents, he did not brandish a weapon or make any intimidating movements. He left the aisle free so that respondents could exit. He spoke to passengers one by one and in a polite, quiet voice. Nothing he said would suggest to a reasonable person that he or she was barred from leaving the bus or otherwise terminating the encounter, or would indicate a command to answer his questions. There were ample grounds to conclude that their encounter was cooperative and not coercive or confrontational. There was no overwhelming show or application of force, no intimidating movement, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exits, no threat, and no command, not even an authoritative tone of voice.
As long as the cops keep it consensual, they can ask you for permission on 'most anything. Evidence that crops up along the way is completely admissible.

As a side note that doesn't really fit well anywhere, cops get to do a bunch of stuff before they even contact you. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your license plate: it belongs to the state, and cops can check it, can do a computer check of the registered owner and so on without any need to get your permission, and without any suspicion whatsoever. The only catch is that they have to be doing it for a LE-related purpose.

Sam Spade
02-03-2009, 19:56
The next step up from a consensual encounter is a temporary detention, most commonly called a "Terry stop". No, you're not under arrest. No, you're not free to leave. Traffic stops very closely mirror Terry stuff in terms of LE authority, but they're a big area that I'm posting separately.

The Terry stop takes its name from Terry v Ohio (392 U.S. 1) a 1968 case. There, an experienced cop saw three guys that just weren't acting right. Based on his training and exerience, he believed that a crime (a robbery) was about to occur, so he detained the three. Based on his training and experience, he thought that Terry might be armed, so he frisked him.

First, no doubt about it: The guy was seized and his clothing was searched. From Terry:
It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly.

But that's not to say that those LE actions must be unreasonable. SCOTUS upheld both the detention (Terry stop) and the frisk (Terry frisk, or pat-down) as seizures and searches that were reasonable under the 4th Amendment. Let's remember here that the 4th doesn't require warrants for all seizures and searches, only the ones that are unreasonable otherwise.

In this type of situation, the cop has to have "reasonable suspicion", sometimes called "reasonable articuable suspicion" that the individual has, or is, or is about to commit a crime. That's for the stop. He must then have reasonable suspicion that the guy stopped is both armed and dangerous in order to conduct a frisk.

What's reasonable suspicion? It's something more than a mere hunch. There have to be articuable facts that something's going on. Terry, again:
...in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.

All this stuff may turn out to be entirely innocent, that doesn't make it a bad stop or a bad frisk. The cop doesn't have to be right, he just has to be reasonable. He doesn't even need to be mostly right. "Mostly right" is a preponderance of the evidence, 51%, and is a far higher standard of proof. Whether something is reasonable or not is looked at in terms of the totality of the circumstances, and with the officer's training and experience (not yours) in mind. Factors in justifying a frisk can include the time of day, the location, the lighting, the crime under suspicion, the clothes you're wearing, your language, nervousness, body language indicating either fight or flight, whether or not you've been evasive or have lied and so on.

I mentioned "in terms of the officer's training". You're new to this, and that guy over there just looks hinky. That's a hunch, or mere suspicion. I've done this a while, and I know what a prison tat looks like. I notice that his right pocket is lower than his left. I can articulate that he's paying a lot of attention to individuals, but ignores groups. Even if everything is innocent, I'm the one who has reasonable suspicion to stop this guy, and can articulate why he might be armed.

What's a frisk? As shown above, it *is* a search (some cops still don't like to say that, 40 years later, but they're just speaking jargon), but one that's limited to outer clothing, areas where the individual can access weapons. The cop can't manipulate things to figure out what they are, and he can't retrieve or hold things that aren't weapons. That said, many, many things can be used as weapons. More Terry:
The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.

Socks then shoes: Order matters. LE has to have a valid Terry stop before they can do a valid Terry frisk. If the seizure of the person is unconstitutional, then the fruits of the seizure are out, too. This doesn't apply if the search is consensual.

Now as shocking as this sounds, sometimes cops are wrong. If it's a good-faith mistake of fact (NOT law), then the stop is still probably good. So if he misreads your license plate, then stops you because it doesn't match the car you're driving, it's good. No SCOTUS decision on this one, but the 5th, 9th and 10th Circuits, that I know of, say so. For example:`A mistaken premise can furnish grounds for a Terry stop, if the officers do not know that it is mistaken and are reasonable in acting upon it.' United States v. Shareef,100 F.3d 1491, 1505 (10th Cir. 1996) and quoted in US v Garcia-Acuna 175 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999)

Once you're detained, the officer can hang onto you for a reasonable period to complete his investigation. Federally, there is NO bright-line time limit for this. That's over in US v Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985): (...)The Court of Appeals' decision would effectively establish a per se rule that a 20-minute detention is too long to be justified under the Terry doctrine. Such a result is clearly and fundamentally at odds with this Court's approach in this area.

In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.
If, for instance, you're on the side of a deserted road and the drug dog is 90 minutes away, then you'll sit for 90 minutes, or as long as the stop officer has reasonable suspicion that you've got dope in there. If I stop you because you match the description of a robber and the witness is 50 minutes away, then you'll sit there, unless you make my suspicion evaporate. Now the K9 can't stop at the groomer's and the witness can't grab a bite to eat on the way over for the show-up. That wouldn't be a diligent pursuit of our investigation into you. This is one reason I keep saying that it may indeed be to your advantage to talk to the cops roadside. If you alibi yourself, or if you let me look into your trunk and there's no stolen stereo there, you'll be on your way more quickly. But if you want to wait, that's your right.

What else can the cops do? IF your state has a law that supports it, they can demand that you identify yourself. No, you can't lie and claim that it's free speech, or somehow else protected. Yes, you can be arrested and booked if you fail to provide your truthful name. That's NOT the same thing as "papers please"; there is no state whatsoever in the US that requires you to carry official papers, and LE can't demand them. We're talking Terry stops here, but if you're driving, yes, you have to have a license. That was decided in Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court of NV, Humboldt Cty. 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
An identity request has an immediate relation to the Terry stop’s purpose, rationale, and practical demands, and the threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself, changing neither its duration nor its location.

Notice something that's going on in almost all of these cases: The Supreme Court is doing a balancing act (they use "balance" repeatedly) between your rights and a compelling government interest. That keeps coming up.

Sam Spade
02-03-2009, 19:57
Traffic stops are probably the number one reason for police/citizen encounters. Because of their nature, established over generations, they are NOT a situation where you're automatically considered as "arrested" or "in custody". That means several things. It means that LEOs don't have to read you Miranda before asking how fast you thought you were going. It also means that LE can't search you as they would if you were in custody. Like Terry stops, you're detained.

Real cops work traffic for two reasons (no, not a tangent). First, they're correcting poor driving behavior and therefore attending to their community caretaker role. Second, they're fishing. Every stop is a reason to interview, a free look into parts of the car, a free check for warrants and so on. (Take the "quota" argument elsewhere, I'm steering somewhere.) So, if a cop decides that you look hinky, he may very well look for a reason to stop you. This is usually, not always, successful. IOW, there are two separate things going on: The reason he stopped you, and the reason he looked at you to start with.

SCOTUS says that it doesn't matter why he was looking to start with, unless he's being outrageous and doing something like racially profiling. You have no expectation of privacy when you violate traffic law, even when that's just a "pretext" to pull you over, find out who you are and see if there's a roach clip hanging from your keychain. The law is Whren v US 517 US 806 (1996).As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.
One of the things that LE can NOT do is stop you merely to inspect your license and registration. Yes, driving is a privilege, not a right, and yes, the state gets to regulate the roads. BUT, the cops have to have some reason to believe that there's a violation. The case is Delaware v. Prouse 440 U.S. 648 (1979)
Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

And by the way, LE can do a Terry stop on you while you're driving, just as they can when you're walking. Waiting for the violation, however small, is just a belt-and-suspenders approach to contacts. If the cops choose to do a Terry stop on your car, the same rules about the totality of the circumstances apply and so on. US v Arvizu 534 U.S. 266 (2002) laid it out:
Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by Stoddard and the District Court Judge, Stoddard had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity. Because the “balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security,” tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer’s action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity “may be afoot,”. In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the “totality of the circumstances” of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting legal wrongdoing.
Again, with the balancing act.

Once the stop is made, the officer can do many things for safety reasons. He can move you a short distance off the road into a parking lot. He can move you a short distance to a better lit area. He can order you or your passengers out of the car. Pennsylvania v Mimms 434 U.S. 106 (1977) established that for the driver: The order to get out of the car, issued after the respondent was lawfully detained, was reasonable, and thus permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The State's proffered justification for such order -- the officer's safety -- is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being, at most, a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.
Maryland v Wilson 519 U.S. 408 (1997) did the same for the passenger:
In summary, danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. While there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there is for ordering the driver out, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal. We therefore hold that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.
Some tin-foilers will point to the progression of cases I'm using and say that it proves a gradual erosion of our liberty. Nonsense. SCOTUS puts out a decison, but they're only supposed to deal with the facts in the case presented. Then the trial courts try to apply it. They frequently goof, and SCOTUS comes back and deals with the tangential issue. The above is an example: The state has a weighty and compelling interest in safety, so they get to reposition the driver for the brief duration of the stop. Some defense lawyer comes along and says that we gotta let his client go---he was the passenger, not the driver, and SCOTUS never said it was cool to move him around. SCOTUS takes the case and says, "What, are you stupid? The goal is the same, the danger is the same (or higher), the intrusion is the same....of course the cop can move the passenger, too". Back to the point of the thread....

As in my first post, he can do *less* coercive things, like ask for consent to search you or your car. By that I mean that he's asking, not ordering.

The Terry doctrine gets extended to you in and around your vehicle, too. For one example, if the LEO has reasonable suspicion that there are weapons in the car and he can articulate a danger---the armed and dangerous two-prong again---he can "frisk" your passenger compartment, looking in places where there might be weapons and securing them as reasonably needed. Should he come up with dope or other evidence of a crime while doing this, it's wholly admissible. The base law is Michigan v Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983):
The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances.
The language mirrors Terry, as it should: a balancing act between your rights to be free from government intrusion and the government's compelling need to not get its agents killed. A limited search, going only where weapons can be. Reasonable suspicion as the level of proof. Suspects dangerous and having access to weapons. The factors of lighting, clothing, attitude, body language and so on are all on point as well.

So for all of the threads where the CCW guy gets disarmed on traffic, that case is the root authority for it. That you're armed is pretty much a given. Your bumper stickers, holsters or equipment laying around, statements, computer returns and so on can also provide a reasonable belief of that. That there's a danger is almost a given: "Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous..." and to that we add the environmental factors, indicators from your person and maybe the "real" reason that you got stopped.

In a pretty recent case, Brendlin v California, 551 U.S. ___ (2007), SCOTUS ruled that the passenger has been seized for 4th Amendment purposes as well as the driver. This gives him standing to object to the stop. Cops have already been able to pull passengers out and so on. The decision in AZ v Johnson 555 U. S. ____ (2009)confirms that they can do the limited frisks on passengers as well, if the same standards of proof as in Terry are being met. This is really pretty well settled law: AZ v Johnson was 9-0, and Ginsberg (formerly of the ACLU) wrote the decison.

One thing that has to be brought up: If the .gov has the legal, Constitutional authority to do something, then they have the legal, Constitutional authority to use reasonable force to make it stick. The central case in this is Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.
(...)
Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.
(...)
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: "Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers," violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

What this means practically is that the suspect gets to decide the level of force that the officer is going to use. The more he resists, the bigger the response is going to be. It's not a butt-whupping for some silly misdemeanor, it's a whupping because he's resisting a lawful arrest.

Sam Spade
02-03-2009, 19:57
"Arrest" is one of those words that get passed around quite a lot. You often end up with people meaning quite different things. You're arrested if you're not free to leave. You're arrested if you're booked. You're arrested if you're _____. It's made a bit worse because "arrest" isnt in the 4th Amendment; "seizure" is.

An arrest, or being "in custody" is when your freedom to move is restrained in a significant manner. If you're in your car talking to the police, you're probably not in custody. If you're taken to the station in handcuffs without your consent, you're probably in custody. If you're in handcuffs in the back of a police car, you're probably in custody. For this custody to be lawful, it has to be based on probably cause (sorry, I had to) that is, probable cause that you have committed a crime. As an aside, cops can morph a lawful detention into an unlawful arrest when they use too much force, take too long, move you too much and so on.

So what's probable cause? I still run into to plenty of people who think that it means "more likely than not". This is incorrect. Probable cause is a lower level of proof than the preponderance of the evidence, so PC is somewhere lower than 50%. A general rule tossed out is "if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant." Dumbra v US 268 U.S. 435 (1925). For what we're talking about---CCW contacts with the police---if the cops see you do it, they have probable cause. You should notice that the 4th Amendment makes no distinction between the level of proof needed to search or to seize.

When you're in custody, what are your rights? Generally, all those Miranda things kick in WRT interrogation. If you're not interrogated, those things don't matter. You still have the freedom to give or deny consent to searches, but the state will have a little more work to do to show that the consent wasn't coerced.

The police powers are expanded when you move from detained to in custody. They can now conduct a detailed search of your person and the area area within your immediate control for evidence or contraband. Absoultely they can take any weapons that you may have access to.
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969):
An arresting officer may search the arrestee's person to discover and remove weapons and to seize evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction, and may search the area "within the immediate control" of the person arrested, meaning the area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.
New York v Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981):
The search of respondent's jacket was a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest, and hence did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The jacket, being located inside the passenger compartment of the car, was "within the arrestee's immediate control" within the meaning of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , wherein it was held that a lawful custodial arrest creates a situation justifying the contemporaneous warrantless search of the arrestee and of the immediately surrounding area. Not only may the police search the passenger compartment of the car in such circumstances, they may also examine the contents of any containers found in the passenger compartment. And such a container may be searched whether it is open or closed, since the justification for the search is not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the container but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have.

Now, there are a number of states with offenses that are legally misdemeanors, that is they're arrestable, put him in full custody things, but the cops have the option of issuing summonses and not taking the guy to the pokey. SCOTUS clarified the expectations in Chimel with Knowles v Iowa 525 U.S. 113 (1998) and essentially prohibited searches incident to citation for traffic. (Knowles runs about a page, so I'm not grabbing excerpts.)

The latest addition to 4th Amendment issues is Arizona v Gant 556 U. S. ____ (2009). Here, the court reined in police powers. Under Belton, above, it has been pretty common practice to search the passenger compartment after an arrest is made. SCOTUS says that was too expansive of a reading. The purpose of the search is to secure evidence that might be destroyed or weapons that might be grabbed. If the guy is in cuffs in the back of your car, just how is he going to grab anything? (In Belton, there were more people than cops, and it was physically impossible to secure them all.) The current read is that the cops can go back into your car to retrieve evidence related to the arrest, but only that. So, if you're going for reckless driving, there isn't going to be a Gant search---no evidence to be found. If you're going for DUI, there probably is going to be a search---highly likely that there are bottles, bar receipts or what-have-you. That's not to say that the cops can't get into your car some other way, such as PC, or something that's in plain view, or so on. Their words (out of order, but it sets up my point better):

This Court rejects a broad reading of Belton that would permit avehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest even if there were no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at thetime of the search. The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel’s exception authorize a vehicle search only when there is a reasonable possibility of such access.They go on to say that LE was treating Belton too much as an entitlement, and not looking at specific circumstances. Interesting roll-back of government powers, and even Scalia joined in the majority.

But, still, no warrant is required to search the car. In fact, LE doesn't even need PC that the car contains evidence of your crime:Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believethat the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

So, if you're in a full-custody arrest, the cops get you, your clothing and your containers They no longer get the passenger compartment of your car with all of its containers, unless they have some other justification for a search.

Sam Spade
02-03-2009, 19:58
reserved for a party of four :wavey:

VB14
02-03-2009, 20:25
Oh these are good stuff. I'm tagging this. Can't wait to see the rest.

Thanks!

RussP
02-03-2009, 20:45
Thanks Sam...

noway
02-03-2009, 21:00
fwiw:


The next step up from a consensual encounter is a temporary detention, most commonly called a "Terry stop". No, you're not under arrest. No, you're not free to leave. Traffic stops very closely mirror Terry stuff in terms of LE authority, but they're a big area that I'm posting separately.



Yo do know a "arrest" is not neccesary mean ; "in hand cuffs" and it bad to make relationship to "terry stop". Terry stop was about interpetation of search and seizure by the courts and was it ( terry vrs oh ) in-violation of his 4th amendment rights.

1337-G
02-04-2009, 00:18
Thanks for putting that up Sam :)

rvrctyrngr
02-04-2009, 06:52
Great info, Sam. Thanks.

WIG19
02-04-2009, 07:46
reserved for a party of four :wavey::wavey: OK, I'll cover the tip!

Here's the tip:

Sticky this thread NOW so it is not buried under a thread which is buried under a thread. It will be easier for those who need to find...

I do like the way you address Hiibel - which does come up in WI periodically being only OC - WI having their own law as many do, but specifying that "stand & identify" would fall under RAS, not a consensual contact. The upshot is that the most likely reason for a contact would be the presence of the gun which, while not causing RAS by itself, does apparently let the officer have Terry concerns I believe.

Many thanks (again) Sam!

:patriot:



BTW, did you cover such issues as officer must have their hat on, probably cause, and not following the subject through 7 jurisdictions?

:rofl:

RussP
02-04-2009, 08:44
...Sticky this thread NOW so it is not buried under a thread which is buried under a thread. It will be easier for those who need to find... For a while...

Brown Hawk
02-04-2009, 09:03
All right, Sam. The 4th is 10 hours old! Where is the rest of it?

I second the sticky motion, and I'm thinking that he'll cover probably cause soon. :supergrin:

Hawk

ETA: Dang, Russ, you're moving fast today!

rvrctyrngr
02-04-2009, 10:41
BTW, did you cover such issues as officer must have their hat on, probably cause, and not following the subject through 7 jurisdictions?

:rofl:

Durnit, WIG, I wanted to ask about the hat! :tongueout:

Meh....it's a moot point around here, anyway. Our JBTs don't wear covers.

Furyataurus
02-04-2009, 11:06
IN, before page 2:rofl:

LittleRedToyota
02-04-2009, 14:51
great post, and thanks for making it.

i do have a question, though...

but you probably can't lie.

where do you get that on a federal level?

i believe some states make it a crime to lie to a police officer, but not all. but i thought you were sticking to the federal level, and i have never heard anyone before claim it is illegal on a federal level to lie to a police officer.

Sam Spade
02-04-2009, 18:51
(You can't lie)

where do you get that on a federal level?

i believe some states make it a crime to lie to a police officer, but not all. but i thought you were sticking to the federal level, and i have never heard anyone before claim it is illegal on a federal level to lie to a police officer.
I may have phrased that poorly. I meant to say that you have no right to lie; it's not some form of free speech. Changed it to reflec that approach. Am I making sense?

txinvestigator
02-04-2009, 19:14
Great posts Sam. Please be sure to include that people should not try to be sidewalk lawyers. Assert your rights, such as not giving consent to search, if you wish, but never interfere or try to resist or stop an officer.

Rights are protected in court.

Looking forward to more good reading.

Tailhunter
02-04-2009, 19:41
Sam,

Did you say that they can not stop you just to check for license. They do that here all the time. 4 or 5 cop cars have the road blocked and cars backed up on both sides. If you don't want to wait, they send a car after the "runner". What gives?

LittleRedToyota
02-04-2009, 19:48
I may have phrased that poorly. I meant to say that you have no right to lie; it's not some form of free speech. Changed it to reflec that approach. Am I making sense?

i see. yes, that makes sense, and i agree.

Sam Spade
02-04-2009, 19:58
Sam,

Did you say that they can not stop you just to check for license. They do that here all the time. 4 or 5 cop cars have the road blocked and cars backed up on both sides. If you don't want to wait, they send a car after the "runner". What gives?

That's a checkpoint, and it's operated under a different set of rules. DUI or safety checkpoints are run under Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The major difference is that they must NOT be done with the primary purpose of criminal enforcement. The cop in Prouse was looking for people violating the law. Checkpoints must be primarily aimed at road safety, which the court sees as a different thing.

Second, the stops on the road just checking DL and registration were essentially random. Random stops of citizens are not acceptable. The checkpoint is supposed to stop people in such a manner as to remove that taint. The guys that turn around can't be stopped for turning, but can be stopped if they violate another traffic law.

Here's a list of relevant federal cases (a wee bit of bias) and commentary: http://www.roadblock.org/federal/casefed.htm

LittleRedToyota
02-04-2009, 20:09
Sam,

Did you say that they can not stop you just to check for license. They do that here all the time. 4 or 5 cop cars have the road blocked and cars backed up on both sides. If you don't want to wait, they send a car after the "runner". What gives?

i'm not sam, but until he responds, here is some homework for ya.

a case you want to look at is Delaware v. Prouse. in that case (relying on several other cases), SCOTUS ruled that systematic driver's license checkpoints are constitutional if they meet certain requirements.

also, here is a web page that talks a little about that case and other cases related to various types of checkpoints.

http://www.virginiacops.org/News-Resources/articles/News%2008/aug08/trafficstops.htm

New U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Approves "Informational" Checkpoint

By Julie A. Risher, Public Safety Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina


A January decision of the U.S. Supreme Court sheds new light on the constitutionality of vehicle checkpoints, specifically "informational" checkpoints. This column reviews that case, Illinois v. Lidster, and vehicle checkpoints in general.
Checkpoint Challenged
On August 30, 1997, Detective Vasil spent a few hours standing in the middle of the eastbound lanes of busy North Avenue wearing an orange reflective vest. He stopped each vehicle that passed for only 10-15 seconds to hand the driver a flyer that read: "Fatal hit and run accident. Assistance needed in identifying the vehicle and driver involved in this accident, which killed a 70-year-old bicyclist." Vasil asked drivers only what they had seen there the previous week. The officer hoped that one of the drivers was regularly on the road at this time and might have information about the fatal accident.

Suddenly, a vehicle in line swerved and almost struck Vasil, who jumped out of the way. When he approached the driver, Vasil smelled alcohol on the driver's breath and noticed that his speech was slurred. Another officer performed sobriety tests. After the tests, officers arrested the driver, Robert S. Lidster, for driving while impaired.

At trial, Lidster challenged his arrest and evidence from the stop, arguing that the information-seeking checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court, relying on Indiana v. Edmond.1 (In Edmond, the U.S. Supreme Court had disapproved a drug checkpoint, finding that it constituted an unreasonable seizure.2) The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, however, and upheld the information-seeking stop as constitutionally reasonable.

To understand why the Lidster checkpoint is constitutional when the drug checkpoint is not requires review of the Court's decisions involving stops not based on individualized suspicion. The Court has recognized limited circumstances in which the Fourth Amendment's usual requirement of individualized suspicion does not apply, but all stops must be reasonable. To determine reasonableness, courts balance the public interest the stop serves and the individual's right to be free from governmental interference.

The Court has allowed certain vehicle checkpoints without individualized suspicion. Whether a vehicle checkpoint is reasonable depends on (1) the gravity of the public concern, (2) the degree to which the seizure addresses or advances the public concern, and (3) the severity of interference with individual liberty.3 Using these factors, the Court has approved vehicle stops at border checkpoints and driver's license and registration checkpoints under specific circumstances. The Court has limited law enforcement, however, by holding that checkpoints created for general crime control (including drug enforcement) are not constitutional. Illinois v. Lidster provides the latest guidance on where the constitutional line lies when officers have no particularized suspicion.

Border Patrol Checkpoints
The Court analyzed a permanent immigration checkpoint 66 miles north of the Mexican border.4 A uniformed agent visually screened all northbound vehicles, directing some to a secondary checkpoint to answer questions about citizenship and immigration status for three to five minutes. The Court considered that the extremely important national policy limiting immigration could only be served by interior checkpoints, because the vast border cannot be controlled effectively. Further, this interest outweighs the checkpoint's minimal intrusion on driver privacy. The agent's plain-view visual inspection was not a search. Even if a driver were stopped, he only answered a question or two and produced a citizenship document. Consequently, the checkpoint was constitutionally valid.

Driver's License Checkpoints
The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard prohibits officers from randomly stopping vehicles to check driver's licenses and registration.5 In Delaware v. Prouse, a patrolman stopped a vehicle without reasonable suspicion to check the driver's license and registration. He seized marijuana in plain view. Addressing the stop's constitutionality, the Court noted that the public interest in ensuing that motorists are licensed and cars are registered justified the checkpoint's slight intrusion on motorists. In Prouse, however, the officer had unbridled discretion regarding which cars to stop, making the checkpoint unconstitutional. By contrast, license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.

Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoint stops without individualized suspicion are constitutional.6 Considering a checkpoint program to detect drunk drivers, the Court noted that each stop lasted approximately 25 seconds. Officers directed any driver who showed signs of insobriety to the side and administered field tests; intoxicated drivers were arrested. The Court held that the magnitude of the government's interest in eradicating the increasing problem of drunken driving outweighed the slight intrusion the stop imposed on all motorists.

General Crime Control Checkpoints
Vehicle checkpoints for general crime control are constitutionally unreasonable.7 At an Indianapolis checkpoint to detect unlawful drugs, each driver was briefly stopped and asked to produce a driver's license and registration. The officer looked for any signs of impairment and conducted a plain view examination of the car. A narcotics detection dog walked around the outside of each vehicle. Each stop was conducted in the same manner and lasted five minutes or less. The Court concluded that a roadblock to check for narcotics was an investigation for general criminal activity. The Court noted:

We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized ever present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime. Informational Checkpoints
Illinois v. Lidster asks, Are information-seeking checkpoints constitutional?8 The Court answered Yes, concluding that the substantial interest in solving a serious crime outweighed the minor intrusion the stop imposed on motorists. Applying the balancing test, the Court noted that the government's interest in solving a deadly hit-and-run accident is a grave public concern, and the checkpoint's purpose was not general crime control but investigation of a specific, particular crime. The checkpoint was narrowly tailored to advance the government interest (same location as the crime, about one week after the crime, and at approximately the same time of day). Finally, stops were extremely brief, systematic, and limited in scope to a request for information. There is no Fourth Amendment prohibition on officers simply asking citizens in a public place for voluntary cooperation in providing information. Rejecting the argument that allowing information stops would result in a proliferation of checkpoints, the Court pointed to the limitations of police resources and community intolerance of traffic interferences as inherently limiting forces.
Although the Fourth Amendment permits information-seeking checkpoints, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure still applies to the procedures used:

The crime about which information is sought must be serious.

Checkpoints must be narrowly tailored (location, time of day, and duration) to the investigative purpose.

All checkpoint stops must be brief and systematic; arbitrary stops are unconstitutional.

Officers may not stop vehicles to conduct generalized interrogation.
Information-seeking checkpoints are an important tool for law enforcement. Witnesses may not realize that they have useful information.9 Ours is a mobile society; notifying drivers about crimes may be the only way to reach potential witnesses in some cases. However, agencies should diligently follow the Court's guidance during checkpoints (stops without individualized suspicion) to avoid converting a useful law enforcement tool into an unreasonable (and therefore unconstitutional) stop.
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of research intern Christina E. Foglio, Wake Forest University School of Law.

1 Illinois v. Lidster, 779, N.E.2d 855 (Ill. 2002), overturned by Illinois v. Lidster, -U.S.-(2004).
2 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41 (2000).
3 Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 (1979).
4 United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 566, 546 (1976).
5 Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
6 Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 455 (1990).
7 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
8 Illinois v. Lidster, -U.S.-(2004).
9 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973).


From The Police Chief, vol. 71, no. 3, March 2004. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.

Tailhunter
02-04-2009, 20:49
Cool, Thanks guys.

Gunnut 45/454
02-05-2009, 00:18
Sam
Thanks for showing how much our rights have been degraded over time! I guess that 's what we get when the lawyer ease meaning is applied to the straight forward wording of our Constitution. Cause if you look at the totality of what you posted we are no longer are presumed innocent but are guilty until we prove our innocence. Sam don't take this a punking you I'm punking the ones that have preverted what our founding fathers wrote-who if you know history were very learned and brillant men. They toiled over the Constitution for four years to ensure what they wrote was what they ment, to take all whats if out-plain simple english, easily defined!

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

unreasonable As defined by websters:1 a: not governed by or acting according to reason <unreasonable people> b: not conformable to reason : absurd <unreasonable beliefs>
2: exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation <working under unreasonable pressure>
ó
probable As defined by Websters:1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof <a probable hypothesis>
2 : establishing a probability <probable evidence>
3 : likely to be or become true or real <probable outcome

cause As defined by Websters:1 a: a reason for an action or condition : motive b: something that brings about an effect or a result c: a person or thing that is the occasion of an action or state ; especially : an agent that brings something about d: sufficient reason <discharged for cause>
2 a: a ground of legal action b: case
3: a matter or question to be decided
4 a: a principle or movement militantly defended or supported b: a charitable undertaking <for a good cause>

Plain simple english to me! Very easy for the layman to understand- Unless you see or are told by a court (warrented)that the law has been violated you have no right to stop/search or seize. If you read the history of the 4th it was to stop the government from coming into your house/stopping you on the street and seizing your property with out a lawful need. But as we know by what the lawyers/courts have done to prevert the meaning of the 4th we are now where we are at. Presumed guilty!

WIG19
02-05-2009, 06:56
Carry Issues FAQ. Restricted Area: Don't Click This Link!!! (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=802120)- Post #122x :thumbsup: So that's what you do behind that curtain! All this time I just thought you were changing clothes in a phone booth.

:patriot:

WIG19
02-05-2009, 07:01
Second, the stops on the road just checking DL and registration were essentially random.I think you mentioned to me once that a military base gate checkpoint would be a proper example of the rationale for & way to do it. Not random, there's a compelling interest for the checkpoint (base security) and everyone gets treated the same (until the introduce a reason to be treated differently, like being wasted or being on a watch list).

:patriot:

Sam Spade
02-05-2009, 08:04
Sam
Thanks for showing how much our rights have been degraded over time! I guess that 's what we get when the lawyer ease meaning is applied to the straight forward wording of our Constitution. Cause if you look at the totality of what you posted we are no longer are presumed innocent but are guilty until we prove our innocence. Sam don't take this a punking you I'm punking the ones that have preverted what our founding fathers wrote-who if you know history were very learned and brillant men. They toiled over the Constitution for four years to ensure what they wrote was what they ment, to take all whats if out-plain simple english, easily defined!

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
(...)

Plain simple english to me! Very easy for the layman to understand- Unless you see or are told by a court (warrented)that the law has been violated you have no right to stop/search or seize. If you read the history of the 4th it was to stop the government from coming into your house/stopping you on the street and seizing your property with out a lawful need. But as we know by what the lawyers/courts have done to prevert the meaning of the 4th we are now where we are at. Presumed guilty!
Except for that word "unreasonable"...

See, Customs was doing warantless searches in 1789. The vehicle exception to the search warrant requirement, aka "the Carroll Doctrine" dates from 1925. Now the casual reader might say, "Aha! Prohibition!", but they'd only be partly right. When you read the 1925 decision, you'll see it quoting things like Boyd v US, an 1886 decison: The first statute passed by Congress to regulate the collection of duites, the Act of July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. 29, 43, contains provisions to this effect. As this act was passed by the same Congress which proposed for adoption the original amendments to the Constitution, it is clear that the members of that body did not regard searches and seizures of this kind as 'unreasonable,' and they are not embraced within the prohibition of the amendment. Carroll goes on to quote other law and decisons from the early 1800s.

Carroll even quotes common law: In cases of misdemeanor, a peace officer like a private person has at common law no power of arresting without a warrant except when a breach of the peace has been committed in his presence or there is reasonable ground for supposing that a breach of peace is about to be committed or renewed in his presence.' Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 9, part. III, 612.
What is that "about to be committed" if not the root of Terry?

To show the conflict in "reasonable" with another example: If you decide to beam radiation in all directions, including through my house and even my body, I think it's reasonable for me to take a look at that. SCOTUS disagrees, and says I need a warrant to examine your cell phone transmissions.

So IMVHO, the vast majority of search and seizure decisions are very much in line with original intent. I assure you that constables in the early Republic were disarming those they took to jail and that movable property was being checked for contraband without warrant. What I've posted tend to show SCOTUS dealing with changing conditions: Is an automobile more like a horse & wagon or like a structure? Are cell phone communications more like a letter or like a shouted message? The others deal mostly with definitions and refinements: When that automobile is parked at home, is it still like the horse and wagon? (No, it takes on the protection associated with the home.) When the government uses force in a seizure, is it a 4th Amendment issue? Is someone seized upon command or when they yield to authority?

That said, I think there are some really bad decisions. Illinois v Gates is one. Arizona v Gant, about to be released, may be another one. So for how much our 4th Amendment rights have been eroded since 1790...not all that much. I'd challenge someone to name a right held then that's significantly different now. (Can't use Gates, I already did.)

No, I'm not feeling attacked; I appreciate good discussion and a chance to learn.

Sam Spade
05-11-2009, 16:28
Updated to include Arizona v Gant, and what that means as to cops searching your car. Post #4.

TreverSlyFox
05-11-2009, 17:57
Excellent thread!

badge315
05-11-2009, 19:17
Very informative, but I have some questions...

Now as shocking as this sounds, sometimes cops are wrong. If it's a good-faith mistake of fact (NOT law), then the stop is still probably good.

What if you're detained/arrested for something that isn't against the law? I suppose a good example would be getting hassled for open carry in states where it is legal, but I have been lectured by LEOs several times thoughout my career as a P.I. claiming that I'm required to notify them when working in their jurisdiction when I know for a fact (I have a written legal opinion from the FL Div. of Licensing general counsel) that no such obligation exists.

there is no state whatsoever in the US that requires you to carry official papers, and LE can't demand them.

That's good to know, because I have heard LEOs in Florida adamantly claim that adults are required to carry ID with them at all times.

The police powers are expanded when you move from detained to in custody. They can now conduct a detailed search of your person and the area area within your immediate control for evidence or contraband.

If you were arrested for, let's say public intoxication/disorderly conduct on your front porch, would the police then be able to search your home, claiming it as an area within the offender's 'immediate control'?

MySiK26
05-11-2009, 19:31
i vote to sticky this as well, thanks for the info!

bug
05-11-2009, 19:46
Thanks for putting in all the work on this...
Now i have to reread this 2 more times.

RussP
05-11-2009, 20:04
i vote to sticky this as well, thanks for the info!Hey, guess what?

It is stickied along with several other worthwhile reads... http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10910894#post10910894

:cool:

MySiK26
05-11-2009, 20:07
Hey, guess what?

It is stickied along with several other worthwhile reads... http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10910894#post10910894

:cool:


Thanks!! :wavey:

Sam Spade
05-11-2009, 20:24
What if you're detained/arrested for something that isn't against the law? I suppose a good example would be getting hassled for open carry in states where it is legal, but I have been lectured by LEOs several times thoughout my career as a P.I. claiming that I'm required to notify them when working in their jurisdiction when I know for a fact (I have a written legal opinion from the FL Div. of Licensing general counsel) that no such obligation exists.
False arrest is a deprivation of civil rights under color of law, and is a quick way into a 1983 suit. It should be easy to find an attorney that's up on the implications---this is a fast-growing type of lawsuits, at least partly because the attorney gets his fees paid by the .gov, even if you only get $1 in damages. (And then he takes 33 cents from you....)
If you were arrested for, let's say public intoxication/disorderly conduct on your front porch, would the police then be able to search your home, claiming it as an area within the offender's 'immediate control'?
The whole home? No. See Chimel up above. That case dealt directly with that issue.

RussP
01-21-2010, 19:09
Time to bring this to the top...

glocked-up
01-21-2010, 22:28
Interesting reading Sam.

I was stopped by the police in my out of state car. I pulled over gave my DL and insurance answered his questions and asked why he pulled me over. He said the tint on my windows was not legal in this state. To which I replied I was not aware of that but it is legal where Im from and I am only passing thru to my destination.

Anyways, he asked me to come back to his patrol car with him. I did not want to do that but felt if I didnt it would make things worse so I did.

I sat with him in his patrol car while he ran my DL while he gave me the third degree with a camera running.

If I would have politely declined to go to his patrol car. Would I have been forced to? Am I legally obligated to follow him there? What are your thoughts or experiences on this?

No problem with the stop at all. No problem with the tint isnt legal in his state but I did not like sitting in his car being grilled and filmed.

What section would this fall under?

Sam Spade
01-22-2010, 14:24
If I would have politely declined to go to his patrol car. Would I have been forced to? Am I legally obligated to follow him there? What are your thoughts or experiences on this?

He can move you where he wants for his safety, if you refuse, he can use reasonable force to make it stick. See Post #3 for the Supreme Court decisions.

(I don't put unknowns in my front seat, for a long list of tactical reasons. That's a bit beyond the scope of the thread, but there have been related threads on CT.)

kensteele
01-22-2010, 21:22
Thanks for the post. You never can read this type of information too often.

packsaddle
01-22-2010, 22:11
If, for instance, you're on the side of a deserted road and the drug dog is 90 minutes away, then you'll sit for 90 minutes, or as long as the stop officer has reasonable suspicion that you've got dope in there.

Maybe in your state.

There isn't a Prosecuting Attorney in Texas that would touch THAT one.

RussP
01-22-2010, 22:43
Maybe in your state.

There isn't a Prosecuting Attorney in Texas that would touch THAT one.Really? You this how?

packsaddle
01-23-2010, 05:28
Texas case law.

RussP
01-23-2010, 05:42
Texas case law.For referencing by our Texas members, how about citing some of the cases.

Thanks

Misty02
01-23-2010, 07:38
Thank you for posting this. Very interesting, some I knew, some I didnít. Of course, now I have to go and read more on those cases that are new to me. Tagged to come back for a refresher whenever needed.
.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Sam Spade
01-23-2010, 11:43
Maybe in your state.

I've limited myself to federal law, and where possible to SCOTUS decisions. These represent the floor of your rights---an individual state may restrict LE further than the US Constitution does, but the individual state cannot allow LE more power than the USC permits. And since we're a widespread board, this stuff will be more applicable than purely state law/decisons.

:wavey:

Sam Spade
01-23-2010, 12:14
For referencing by our Texas members, how about citing some of the cases.

ThanksBut because Russ is a great guy...

http://www.8thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=62964

Roadside detention of 2 hours upheld. A series of TX cases are referenced in the decision, none of which contradict SCOTUS or the OPs. So at the least, it's not as slam-dunk as packsaddle says.

But as always, the reader should find out what's going on in his jurisdiction. Posting rules for 57 :whistling: different states would take the thread from general understanding of how our nation is set up into the mire of minutiae so loved by lawyers. My goal was a primer, not a written argument for some guy's specific appeal.

Super Trucker
01-23-2010, 13:16
Thanks for the info Sam Spade.

alba666
01-23-2010, 13:41
So, at what point in the process does LE have the right to open or demand locked containers in vehicles to be opened? I have 3 different situations when an operator is placed in custody:


If LE has the keys to a locked container (i.e. obtained from operator upon full body search), under what circumstances can LE open the container?
If a combination lock exists on the container, can LE compel the operator to open the container. If this order is legal and the operator refuses, what are the consequences?
When can LE forcibly and destructively open the container?

I have seen pictures of locked containers on here that have labels advising LE that consent is not given to open the container and that a search warrant is required. Under what conditions are these notices binding on LE?

David Armstrong
01-23-2010, 17:46
Maybe in your state.

There isn't a Prosecuting Attorney in Texas that would touch THAT one.

Don't know about PA's touching stuff, but regarding if one can be held in Teas for 90 minutes while waiting for the dog to show up, that is pefectly legal assuming the stop/detention meet the traditional reasonableness grounds.

David Armstrong
01-23-2010, 17:50
So, at what point in the process does LE have the right to open or demand locked containers in vehicles to be opened?
In its simplest format, whenever there is probable cause to believe contraband is located in those containers.
I have seen pictures of locked containers on here that have labels advising LE that consent is not given to open the container and that a search warrant is required. Under what conditions are these notices binding on LE?
Again, in the simplest form, they are not binding and have no bearing on anything provided LE has probable cause to conduct the search.

Sam Spade
01-23-2010, 18:22
To add a bit to David's answer:

If LE has the keys to a locked container (i.e. obtained from operator upon full body search), under what circumstances can LE open the container?
If a combination lock exists on the container, can LE compel the operator to open the container. If this order is legal and the operator refuses, what are the consequences?
When can LE forcibly and destructively open the container?


LE can open the container with consent, with a warrant, or when the search of the container incident to the arrest of the holder fits Carrol, Chimel and Gant. Specifics matter: what I can do with the Altoids box in your pocket is different from what I can do with your briefcase is different from what I can do with you center console.
Excellent question. This one is still developing, especially with regard to compelling disclosure of passwords. The "they can't compell" argument goes to self-incrimination. The suspect giving the combination is a statement which shows possession of the contents, and that may require Miranda. As I said, developing. As for refusal to open the container when the order is legal...
If the state has the authority to order something, it has the authority to use reasonable force to make it happen. Some of this is going to depend on the container; a glovebox falls under the vehicle exception. A briefcase likely does not (it can be seized and held pending a warrant).

RonboF117
01-24-2010, 02:02
Sam, great thread ... thanks for putting it together.

Two Questions.

1. Concerning checkpoints, what's your opinion on the stops the LAX airport police have done on vehicles going in? I haven't been stopped myself but have seen others while driving by and read some "high profile" cases that were printed in the newspaper such as http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-09-la-airport-guns_N.htm ?

"LOS ANGELES (AP) — A motorist with 16 guns and at least 700 rounds of ammunition in his pickup was arrested Friday at a vehicle checkpoint as he entered Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said.
The weapons and ammunition were in a container in the back of the man's truck, which was stopped by airport police officers at a major entrance to the passenger terminals area, said airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles.

The 47-year-old man's identity was not immediately released.

Only one of the weapons, a revolver, was loaded, airport police Sgt. Jim Holcomb said.

The man was arrested for investigation of felony transporation of an assault rifle, he said.

Police initially reported that 37 weapons were found in the truck. Castles said that count was an estimate based on the number of containers in the truck, which did not all contain weapons.

Holcomb said there was no indication the man was out to do any harm at the airport and was apparently there to pick up someone.

"He just made a very bad decision and should not have been carrying those weapons," Holcomb said.

Airport police routinely set up vehicle checkpoints at roads leading into the airport's central ring roads, but Castles said it is rare to find so many weapons at once.

The FBI, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Los Angeles Police Department are investigating whether the weapons were properly registered."

I remember one paper posted his explanation for the weapons (returning from the range or bringing weapons to a place to secure them (his house or a friend's).


As a side note: The LAX airport police even recommended in writing those with CCW permits not drive on to the airport property while carry.

2. Also, have you seen any fallout from the border checkpoint in AZ or NV a year or so ago where the Border Police said the drug dog "hit" on the guy's car before it stopped? The driver wasn't carrying anything illegal, asked to have the dog sniff his vehicle again so he could see the "found" reaction, and the BP refused. Words were exchanged and the guy ended up getting tased and drug out the window. From the case I read, it was thrown out because it was supposed to be a border stop and not a drug stop.

TheGreatGonzo
01-24-2010, 06:47
Sam Spade,
Amazingly excellent thread. Thanks!
Gonzo

DanaT
01-24-2010, 14:19
This has been an interesting read.

1) I find it interesting that you suggest that person talks to police and so give an alibi and will let them go. This video seems to make more sense to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc. How many times have people actually talked you out of arresting them? How many times have you used what people have voluntarily said during either a Terry stop or a consensual contact against them?

2) Regarding excessive force. This one I find just laughable. Tazers are the biggest abuse items police have gotten a hold of. I have never been tazered, arrested, or for that matter in trouble. But, I do watch COPS. Find it just bizarre how 8 cops seems to feel the need to taze some guy. They spray him with mace (which makes natural reaction to wipe eyes and mucas membranes). Then 6 cops all jump on him while with a boot on the head screaming "quit resisting". If this is how police act when they know they are on TV how do they act when not on TV?

That said, a police officer disarming a CCW person during a stop is probably the safest for both parties involved. If a police officer fears being shot, he is much more likely to draw and fire. An innocent move could be mistaken for an aggressive move. In most places I think after the stop was determined that no laws were broken I believe most LE will return the weapon. There have been cases were LE have their own ideas of what laws should be.

Also, I know that I bashed on the excessive force, but really, LE have a very difficult job. Lets be honest here. Some of the those guys need more force used on them so they get the point. However, that is not legal (which is different from what is needed).

In general, I believe most LE are good people trying to do the right thing and wont knowingly go after an innocent person. But they also have a duty to investigate even if that makes an innocent person uncomfortable.

On the question with the boxes. It seems that per your statement that if you didn't have a reason to believe that the box (especially if it was locked) was part of the stop, you have very little reason to open it because your safety is not in question. It seems that a trunk would be very off-limits too.

But lets face the real facts. You can stop me and search my car. You will find some cheetos that the kid dropped. If I am going to range you will find what guns and ammo i have (and it will be very obvious). Maybe the kleenex I just used to blow my nose. An empty starbucks cup. I really would think it is quite boring for you. If it was a matter of we are going to sit and play games or i let you search my car, I am not sure which I would take. You wouldn't find anything in my car (well, again, cheetos, etc) so why not let you search. However, I may just feel like having fun and make you jump through every possible probable cause hoop there is and then we will see each other in civil court when you find nothing. I will get a settlement for $50K to make it go away (trust me I know the games, my wife is HR for a police department and they settle all the time, it is cheaper to settle many things than hitting the 10'oclock news).

Ok, my bedtime.

-Dana

Sharky7
01-24-2010, 16:46
This has been an interesting read.

1) I find it interesting that you suggest that person talks to police and so give an alibi and will let them go. This video seems to make more sense to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc. How many times have people actually talked you out of arresting them? How many times have you used what people have voluntarily said during either a Terry stop or a consensual contact against them?

2) Regarding excessive force. This one I find just laughable. Tazers are the biggest abuse items police have gotten a hold of. I have never been tazered, arrested, or for that matter in trouble. But, I do watch COPS. Find it just bizarre how 8 cops seems to feel the need to taze some guy. They spray him with mace (which makes natural reaction to wipe eyes and mucas membranes). Then 6 cops all jump on him while with a boot on the head screaming "quit resisting". If this is how police act when they know they are on TV how do they act when not on TV?

That said, a police officer disarming a CCW person during a stop is probably the safest for both parties involved. If a police officer fears being shot, he is much more likely to draw and fire. An innocent move could be mistaken for an aggressive move. In most places I think after the stop was determined that no laws were broken I believe most LE will return the weapon. There have been cases were LE have their own ideas of what laws should be.

Also, I know that I bashed on the excessive force, but really, LE have a very difficult job. Lets be honest here. Some of the those guys need more force used on them so they get the point. However, that is not legal (which is different from what is needed).

In general, I believe most LE are good people trying to do the right thing and wont knowingly go after an innocent person. But they also have a duty to investigate even if that makes an innocent person uncomfortable.

On the question with the boxes. It seems that per your statement that if you didn't have a reason to believe that the box (especially if it was locked) was part of the stop, you have very little reason to open it because your safety is not in question. It seems that a trunk would be very off-limits too.

But lets face the real facts. You can stop me and search my car. You will find some cheetos that the kid dropped. If I am going to range you will find what guns and ammo i have (and it will be very obvious). Maybe the kleenex I just used to blow my nose. An empty starbucks cup. I really would think it is quite boring for you. If it was a matter of we are going to sit and play games or i let you search my car, I am not sure which I would take. You wouldn't find anything in my car (well, again, cheetos, etc) so why not let you search. However, I may just feel like having fun and make you jump through every possible probable cause hoop there is and then we will see each other in civil court when you find nothing. I will get a settlement for $50K to make it go away (trust me I know the games, my wife is HR for a police department and they settle all the time, it is cheaper to settle many things than hitting the 10'oclock news).

Ok, my bedtime.

-Dana

http://pressstartvg.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/awesome-cat-awesome-demotivational.jpg?w=500&amp;h=400

RussP
07-23-2010, 06:48
Seems like a good time to bring this out for discussion again.

Please remember the Rules and TOS when posting.

If you post and then can't find your post later, that means you did NOT follow the Rules and TOS. :wavey:

Matthew Courtney
07-23-2010, 18:40
I may have phrased that poorly. I meant to say that you have no right to lie; it's not some form of free speech. Changed it to reflec that approach. Am I making sense?

It is a federal crime to lie to a federal LEO. Ask Martha Stewart, she can explain it better than I can.

Matthew Courtney
07-23-2010, 19:06
Very informative, but I have some questions...



What if you're detained/arrested for something that isn't against the law? I suppose a good example would be getting hassled for open carry in states where it is legal, but I have been lectured by LEOs several times thoughout my career as a P.I. claiming that I'm required to notify them when working in their jurisdiction when I know for a fact (I have a written legal opinion from the FL Div. of Licensing general counsel) that no such obligation exists.



That's good to know, because I have heard LEOs in Florida adamantly claim that adults are required to carry ID with them at all times.



If you were arrested for, let's say public intoxication/disorderly conduct on your front porch, would the police then be able to search your home, claiming it as an area within the offender's 'immediate control'?


Detaining for something that is not a violation of the law could easily be a criminal act on the part of the officer, unless the officer has a lawful reason for the detention. While open carry is legal in many areas, if people are calling 911 reporting a disturbance, the police may need to look into the matter. A clerk who got robbed at gunpoint the week before may make a report to police that is more enthusiastic than it need be.

In other words, the police do not need an actual crime - they only need a reasonable belief that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed - and that reasonable belief may come from people who are over-reacting, unreliable, or who are reporting a legal activity in a way that causes police to believe that there is an actual crime.

Most responding police will get things sorted out pretty quickly, but getting indignant when innocent activity alarms the unenlightened to the extent that the police are called out is immature and does not help our cause.

I would put anyone who open carries and then resents the attention of law enforcement in the same category as young women who go out scantily clad and resent the attention of young men. They can talk about what should be 'til the cows come home, but resenting gravity won't do any good either.

DanaT
07-24-2010, 04:54
It is a federal crime to lie to a federal LEO. Ask Martha Stewart, she can explain it better than I can.

This one I just don't understand. People have a right against self incrimination. So I am assuming all they can say is "I have no statement"?

To make matters a little more unclear, does making the false statements only come into play if the person knows they are talking to a Federal LEO? This means that if the Federal LEO is undercover, then can the lying charge be applied?

Extrapolation this, lets say a Federal LEO testifies to something in court in favor of the prosecution and the person has a jury find them not guilty. This means that there was insufficient present for the jury to find the statements of the LEO to be more truthful than the defendants version. Wouldn't by definition all prosecution witnesses be guilty of "obstruction of justice".

I just do get the charge. I would think you would have to be found guilty of another to be charged with lying to Federal LEOs because they must prove in court you lied. On the flip side if they charged you with lying, and you were found not guilty, by definition, the other side must be lying about their version of events.

-Dana

kensteele
07-24-2010, 09:52
This one I just don't understand. People have a right against self incrimination. So I am assuming all they can say is "I have no statement"?

To make matters a little more unclear, does making the false statements only come into play if the person knows they are talking to a Federal LEO? This means that if the Federal LEO is undercover, then can the lying charge be applied?

Extrapolation this, lets say a Federal LEO testifies to something in court in favor of the prosecution and the person has a jury find them not guilty. This means that there was insufficient present for the jury to find the statements of the LEO to be more truthful than the defendants version. Wouldn't by definition all prosecution witnesses be guilty of "obstruction of justice".

I just do get the charge. I would think you would have to be found guilty of another to be charged with lying to Federal LEOs because they must prove in court you lied. On the flip side if they charged you with lying, and you were found not guilty, by definition, the other side must be lying about their version of events.

-Dana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements

Bill Lumberg
07-24-2010, 10:02
If you're innocent, truthful and straightforward answers are your best response. If you're a criminal, you're better off only talking to your attorney.

DanaT
07-24-2010, 10:27
Ok. Reading that, I get the reason why court testimony is not covered because it is perjury.

That said, lets move slightly different, in many interrogations the whole story is not presented and excerpts are taken.

Police "threaten" people in interrogation. Many times they make false promises to get a person to admit to something (if you doubt this read many of the LEO post on GT).

When presented to a jury it is much different if an LEO presents "I told the suspect that I would let him go if he admitted to the crime and then he confessed" than if the LEO presents "during the contact the suspect confessed to me".

It seems to me, that in this situation that the following would apply

"falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact"

There is a material fact that the confession was obtained based upon a perceived deal with the LEO and then the LEO conceals this fact later.

Personally, I think this whole statute of Making False Statements is BS.

-Dana

Sam Spade
02-21-2011, 13:06
:bump:

Matthew Courtney
02-21-2011, 14:53
This one I just don't understand. People have a right against self incrimination. So I am assuming all they can say is "I have no statement"?

To make matters a little more unclear, does making the false statements only come into play if the person knows they are talking to a Federal LEO? This means that if the Federal LEO is undercover, then can the lying charge be applied?

Extrapolation this, lets say a Federal LEO testifies to something in court in favor of the prosecution and the person has a jury find them not guilty. This means that there was insufficient present for the jury to find the statements of the LEO to be more truthful than the defendants version. Wouldn't by definition all prosecution witnesses be guilty of "obstruction of justice".

I just do get the charge. I would think you would have to be found guilty of another to be charged with lying to Federal LEOs because they must prove in court you lied. On the flip side if they charged you with lying, and you were found not guilty, by definition, the other side must be lying about their version of events.

-Dana

In the Martha Stewart case, all that was proven was that she answered similar questions two different ways after being asked the same things dozens of times over a multi-month period. The Feds didn't have to prove which statement was a lie, much less that any statement was an intentional lie, only that because the statements were in conflict, one of them must have been a lie.

Do not talk to the police without your lawyer.

I believe that no obstruction of justice type charge, including lying to the ploice, should be sustainable unless and until a jury finds someone guilty of some other crime. How can it be obstruction of justice without an underlying crime?

Mayhem like Me
02-21-2011, 15:26
In the Martha Stewart case, all that was proven was that she answered similar questions two different ways after being asked the same things dozens of times over a multi-month period. The Feds didn't have to prove which statement was a lie, much less that any statement was an intentional lie, only that because the statements were in conflict, one of them must have been a lie.

Do not talk to the police without your lawyer.

I believe that no obstruction of justice type charge, including lying to the ploice, should be sustainable unless and until a jury finds someone guilty of some other crime. How can it be obstruction of justice without an underlying crime?

So you think it is OK to lie in deposed testimony on an insider trading investigation?

nikerret
02-21-2011, 18:04
tagged.

Good refresher. Thanks

DanaT
02-21-2011, 20:48
So you think it is OK to lie in deposed testimony on an insider trading investigation?

There is a big difference between lying and telling the same story differently.

I would bet if ANYONE on this board was asked to tell the same story 7 times in the course of 7 days, that there would be inconsistancies.

It has even been shown in study's in criminal justice classes in universities that they stage a crime (i.e. someone bursting into the classroom unexpected and doing something percieved to be illegal) and then ask the class simple questions. Half of the people can't even get the color of a short correct.

So, yes, I agree to shut the mouth to police. They are not on your side if they want to question you (most of the time).

-Dana

Kith
03-28-2011, 21:43
Nothing to add, just want to bump this great resource back to the first page.

Maybe it could get stickied?

RussP
03-29-2011, 00:48
Thanks Kith.

Yes, it can be stickied for a while.

OldCurlyWolf
03-30-2011, 00:07
In the Martha Stewart case, all that was proven was that she answered similar questions two different ways after being asked the same things dozens of times over a multi-month period. The Feds didn't have to prove which statement was a lie, much less that any statement was an intentional lie, only that because the statements were in conflict, one of them must have been a lie.

Do not talk to the police without your lawyer.

I believe that no obstruction of justice type charge, including lying to the ploice, should be sustainable unless and until a jury finds someone guilty of some other crime. How can it be obstruction of justice without an underlying crime?

Pay attention to the questions. Refuse to answer a question more than one time.

fmfdocglock
04-24-2011, 08:48
A couple of questions regarding arrest and injury:

I am a 50+ yo, 6'2" veteran, 215 lbs, not overweight, some martial arts. I have also been seriously injured due to auto accidents (other drivers fault). It is difficult, it not impossible to tell that I am, in effect, diasabled. PS:I have never been cuffed, arrested, or detained. Very clean record.

Lets say a person with health problems is being detained, cuffed, etc.

The first words out of my mouth would probably be "be careful, I don't want to get hurt" or some equivalent. Or on explanation of my injuries as in "I have had surgery on my arm. please don't cuff me with my hands behind my back."

What is the LE responsiblity at that point?

SgtScott31
04-29-2011, 00:44
A couple of questions regarding arrest and injury:

I am a 50+ yo, 6'2" veteran, 215 lbs, not overweight, some martial arts. I have also been seriously injured due to auto accidents (other drivers fault). It is difficult, it not impossible to tell that I am, in effect, diasabled. PS:I have never been cuffed, arrested, or detained. Very clean record.

Lets say a person with health problems is being detained, cuffed, etc.

The first words out of my mouth would probably be "be careful, I don't want to get hurt" or some equivalent. Or on explanation of my injuries as in "I have had surgery on my arm. please don't cuff me with my hands behind my back."

What is the LE responsiblity at that point?

The LE's "responsibility" is to apply the appropriate safety techniques in handcuffing and/or detainment. He is not obligated to take everything you tell him into consideration and treat you like an eggshell. With that said, if it appears you're telling the truth and you're compliant, I'm sure you will find a bulk of LEOs will take your conditions into account and possibly handcuff you in the front, keep them a tad looser, or not use them at all. Your scenario has far too many variables to give you an accurate answer, but obviously the best thing is to avoid this situation altogether. In short form, the LEO is under no obligation to treat you any differently because of any physical disabilities. He is there to investigate a crime and if he feels there is a safety concern where handcuffs are necessary, he can use whatever he has at his disposal to keep him and others safe. I've had plenty of arrestees give me grief about red rings on their wrists after applications of handcuffs. This occurs with everyone, even when the handcuffs are loose. I always lock them so they don't tighten up and I make sure that I can fit a finger between the cuff and the wrist. It is my departmental policy to handcuff every arrestee behind their back. If someone has mentioned a shoulder/arm injury, I may use two sets of cuffs so that their arms do not have to be close together and I have on occasion cuffed people in the front, although normally not advised. You have to remember that people lie and we don't know you from Adam. It's nothing personal, but every officer's goal is to make it home safe to their family at the end of the night.

Gimp
02-19-2012, 16:43
From a guy who knows:

As big a red flag as one can attach to "exigent circumstance" should also be attached to the words "a reasonable person". If a confrontation with a LEO is imminent, Bros...clean up your expression first of all! If you've been arguing with your wife (or watever) and you answer your door red-faced, you will not be regarded as a reasonable person, and the flipside of that word comes into play. "The measure of whether officers are justified in taking aggressive control (a takedown) of a subject is whether a reasonable person would believe it necessary." (Quoted directly from the court decision I lost.)

Once you decide to dispute that judgement, you are the one without the badge and you are the "unreasonable" one. Unless you are willing (and wealthy enough) to make of yourself a test case, offer no officer the excuse to consider you unreasonable! If you have the chance, wash your face. Approach them (or meet their approach) with a friendly smile and a polite word, and unless you sincerely believe the LEO is not just out of line but is severely violating your rights, be NICE, be cooperative and do not challenge their authority or their reasons.

Just as an aside, from events observed in which I did not take part...
ESPECIALLY, do not grow a pair just because your gal is watching. What happens next will not impress her.

I sincerely hope I haven't antagonized the staff again with this. I'm just sharing experience and advice.


[edited to add:]

I do appreciate your thread, and the benefit of your insight, Sam. Thank you, sincerely.

knoxvegasdaddy
06-06-2012, 22:58
marked for later reading

clancy
06-07-2012, 20:09
Sam,

Did you say that they can not stop you just to check for license. They do that here all the time. 4 or 5 cop cars have the road blocked and cars backed up on both sides. If you don't want to wait, they send a car after the "runner". What gives?

I can say from first hand experience here in my part of NYS that the state police commonly pull motorcycles over to check for licenses. I get stopped about once a week, and it is always the same thing, " do not get off your motorcycle, do not put down the kickstand, keep our hands on the handle bars, let me see your license, registration and insurance card."

And more than a couple of times, "Shut up, I am asking the questions, I can do whatever i want, who do you think the judge is going to believe, me or you?"

Last Sunday there was a roadblock set up about a mile from my house, cars were being let through, and every motorcycle was pulled over. And yes, I was one of them. I counted 33 bikes, all lined up alongside the road, while they were being checked. How do you explain that in accordance to what you posted about the police not being able to stop just to check for licenses?

Sharky7
06-07-2012, 20:34
I can say from first hand experience here in my part of NYS that the state police commonly pull motorcycles over to check for licenses. I get stopped about once a week, and it is always the same thing, " do not get off your motorcycle, do not put down the kickstand, keep our hands on the handle bars, let me see your license, registration and insurance card."

And more than a couple of times, "Shut up, I am asking the questions, I can do whatever i want, who do you think the judge is going to believe, me or you?"

Last Sunday there was a roadblock set up about a mile from my house, cars were being let through, and every motorcycle was pulled over. And yes, I was one of them. I counted 33 bikes, all lined up alongside the road, while they were being checked. How do you explain that in accordance to what you posted about the police not being able to stop just to check for licenses?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rKIDKd0rxwc/T7XYuHlEB_I/AAAAAAAAAQw/IIdapkJKS34/s1600/369-pink-polo-collar-cool-story-bro-image.png

clancy
06-08-2012, 14:48
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rKIDKd0rxwc/T7XYuHlEB_I/AAAAAAAAAQw/IIdapkJKS34/s1600/369-pink-polo-collar-cool-story-bro-image.png

It is not a "story", bro. I guess some people won't admit that not all cops are above reproach, never break the law, and always follow the rules.

Doc8404
06-08-2012, 19:11
I can say from first hand experience here in my part of NYS that the state police commonly pull motorcycles over to check for licenses. I get stopped about once a week, and it is always the same thing, " do not get off your motorcycle, do not put down the kickstand, keep our hands on the handle bars, let me see your license, registration and insurance card."

And more than a couple of times, "Shut up, I am asking the questions, I can do whatever i want, who do you think the judge is going to believe, me or you?"

Last Sunday there was a roadblock set up about a mile from my house, cars were being let through, and every motorcycle was pulled over. And yes, I was one of them. I counted 33 bikes, all lined up alongside the road, while they were being checked. How do you explain that in accordance to what you posted about the police not being able to stop just to check for licenses?

you are correct about 90% of the NYSP....and 99% of them don't know **** about gun or magazine laws! And might I add, I have many that are friends...and TRY to educate them on pre-ban stuff...but their hierarchy passes bum scoop!

RussP
06-08-2012, 19:47
Folks, this thread is not the place to ***** about your negative experiences with law enforcement.

Please stay on topic.

deadmanglocking
06-17-2012, 20:45
Tagged


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
08-24-2012, 21:39
Bump for new members

TBO
11-25-2012, 10:49
btt

...

RussP
07-26-2013, 17:42
Bump for new members

Sam Spade
07-26-2013, 19:39
Wow. 2009. Where has the time gone?

TBO
07-26-2013, 20:38
Like sand through the hour glass...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

LAWDOGKMS
07-26-2013, 22:09
I can say from first hand experience here in my part of NYS that the state police commonly pull motorcycles over to check for licenses. I get stopped about once a week, and it is always the same thing, " do not get off your motorcycle, do not put down the kickstand, keep our hands on the handle bars, let me see your license, registration and insurance card."

And more than a couple of times, "Shut up, I am asking the questions, I can do whatever i want, who do you think the judge is going to believe, me or you?"

Last Sunday there was a roadblock set up about a mile from my house, cars were being let through, and every motorcycle was pulled over. And yes, I was one of them. I counted 33 bikes, all lined up alongside the road, while they were being checked. How do you explain that in accordance to what you posted about the police not being able to stop just to check for licenses?

Maybe encounters like this are common in your neck of the woods. Here in N/TX, crotch rocket riders have become a serious nuisance. Mass numbers of bikers shutting down highways, taunting LE etc...and no plates on the bikes so they can't be identified when they run: http://youtu.be/L_bFKtx42AM

RagnarDanneskjold
07-26-2013, 22:15
Ok, 1st and foremost, thanks for putting the time in on this thread. I'm familiar with most of what you've prevented, but this is about the neatest, most on point, and most compact assembly of it I've seen yet.

2nd, I wanted to point out something that should be included up top and isn't. We all hope that when stopped our license, registration, and insurance are in good order, that nobody has accused us of anything without our knowing, that a red-light camera ticket didn't get lost in the mail... But just in case, two things that should be covered are: A) When can you impound my vehicle, and... B) Inventory search pursuant to impound.

RagnarDanneskjold
07-26-2013, 22:17
Hey, guess what?

It is stickied along with several other worthwhile reads... http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10910894#post10910894

:cool:

I get a note that I can't access that page?

Disregard, I found it. For others who might be lost, look under carry issues, Commonly discussed, presently at bottom of stickies for this sub-forum.

SCmasterblaster
07-27-2013, 16:34
I got stopped once here in the 14th state. The LEO asked if I was armed. When I told him about my G17, he merely asked me to not touch it.

RagnarDanneskjold
07-29-2013, 17:52
Ok, 1st and foremost, thanks for putting the time in on this thread. I'm familiar with most of what you've prevented, but this is about the neatest, most on point, and most compact assembly of it I've seen yet.

2nd, I wanted to point out something that should be included up top and isn't. We all hope that when stopped our license, registration, and insurance are in good order, that nobody has accused us of anything without our knowing, that a red-light camera ticket didn't get lost in the mail... But just in case, two things that should be covered are: A) When can you impound my vehicle, and... B) Inventory search pursuant to impound.

Shameless bump. :whistling:

Sam Spade
07-29-2013, 18:06
Shameless bump. :whistling:

I'll see what I can do when I get back to a real keyboard and my references.

G115BA
07-30-2013, 09:33
Say nothing ask for a lawyer.

void *
07-30-2013, 13:39
Sam,

Really like the post - and that you put direct cites & links to the Supreme Court cases. Really good, thanks!

Booker
07-31-2013, 16:06
A question about the Terry Frisk and the interior of your car.

If the Officer has me exit the vehicle, how can anything hidden in the vehicle pose a threat to the officer?

How can the officer Terry Frisk the interior of the car with me still inside?

I believe the courts have over reached on this issue!

Mayhem like Me
07-31-2013, 17:24
A question about the Terry Frisk and the interior of your car.

If the Officer has me exit the vehicle, how can anything hidden in the vehicle pose a threat to the officer?

How can the officer Terry Frisk the interior of the car with me still inside?

I believe the courts have over reached on this issue!

Well allow me to retort...


If you are not under arrest the officer may have to leave you unattended or let you get back in the vehicle to leave where you would have access to it..


Just look at videos available of officers shot or ambushed on the second approach to a vehicle stop.


I believe the courts may be wiser than you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

SgtScott31
07-31-2013, 22:06
I stopped a permit holder today. He pointed to the glove box when he handed me his carry permit. I told him to leave it there and thanks for letting me know. No ticket.

Just thought I would mention it... :wavey:

Mayhem like Me
08-01-2013, 05:23
I stopped a permit holder today. He pointed to the glove box when he handed me his carry permit. I told him to leave it there and thanks for letting me know. No ticket.

Just thought I would mention it... :wavey:

Sooo you were the guy that stopped Zimmerman ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

RussP
08-01-2013, 05:50
Sooo you were the guy that stopped Zimmerman ?:wavey:

Do not start discussing that here, please.

There is a thread already open in The Okie Corral: George Zimmerman stopped for speeding in Texas (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1497514)

Thanks...

:cool:

Booker
08-01-2013, 10:24
Well allow me to retort...


If you are not under arrest the officer may have to leave you unattended or let you get back in the vehicle to leave where you would have access to it..


Just look at videos available of officers shot or ambushed on the second approach to a vehicle stop.


I believe the courts may be wiser than you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

If that were the case, then wouldn't the leo, at every stop, have the occupants exit, Terry frisk everyone, search the interior of the car, keep them out of the car for the duration of the stop, then issue the citation or warning, before allowing them to return to the vehicle?

Still sounds like a fishing trip!!! Is the In Plain Sight Doctrine still around or is the court still erodeing our rights on nearly every decision?

TBO
08-01-2013, 10:28
Every contact is different /unique.
How man traffic stops have you performed ?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Mayhem like Me
08-01-2013, 10:33
If that were the case, then wouldn't the leo, at every stop, have the occupants exit, Terry frisk everyone, search the interior of the car, keep them out of the car for the duration of the stop, then issue the citation or warning, before allowing them to return to the vehicle?

Still sounds like a fishing trip!!! Is the In Plain Sight Doctrine still around or is the court still erodeing our rights on nearly every decision?

Depends how do you explain plain sight.

And no I don't get everyone out of every car I stop, but when I need to I do.

A working knowledge of what a good police officer does on a violator stop would be a good start, do you have that knowledge available .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

SgtScott31
08-01-2013, 20:24
LEOs will need to be able to articulate that someone in the vehicle is armed OR dangerous in order to conduct a search for weapons.

LEOs do not need RS or PC to have driver or passengers exit the vehicle during a stop (PA v. Mimms / MD v. Wilson).

Sam Spade
08-01-2013, 21:06
LEOs will need to be able to articulate that someone in the vehicle is armed OR dangerous in order to conduct a search for weapons.

Beg pardon, it's "and", not "or". Terry is quoted in post 2, Long is quoted in post 3. Both of them use "and".

SgtScott31
08-02-2013, 09:39
Beg pardon, it's "and", not "or". Terry is quoted in post 2, Long is quoted in post 3. Both of them use "and".

You are correct. It was reiterated in AZ v. Johnson by SCOTUS not too long ago. My bad. :)

RussP
08-31-2014, 14:44
I'm bumping this to the top for new member...:wavey:

Do take time to read through the thread just to make certain your comment or question hasn't been addressed or answered already.

Thanks...

Oh, and please, please, abide by the admonition in blue in Post #1. :cool: