Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:27 AM
Whitwabit Whitwabit is offline
US Veteran
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 1,351
Liked 2,660 Times in 1,302 Posts
Default

Went thru one in Arizona but they were looking for illegals I think .. they made everyone slow down and then they pulled everyone over in two lanes .. a sheriff standing with his dog in the middle of the road looked in the back of my Jeep and waved me through all the other vehicles with trunks were pulled off the road and the trunk opened .. and a couple cars the people were standing in the front of the car with all the doors open .. they had 3 dogs one in the road and 2 by the stop cars .. must have been 20 to 30 of them .. well armed with some kind of very short barrel AR style rifles .. it was dark about 10:30 we had eaten a very late supper and was heading back to the hotel ..

Saw on the TV news the next day they had caught a van with illegals in and think it was from that stop ..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #52  
Old 03-23-2017, 07:53 AM
hostler hostler is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southcentral PA
Posts: 605
Likes: 173
Liked 968 Times in 367 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dben002 View Post
Originally Posted by cgt4570 View Post
While I would never antagonize or provoke any LEO, I would never volunteer any info that wasn't asked at a checkpoint that violates the Constitution!

Yes in NC state law dictates you inform...if you don't and they happen to run your drivers license for any reason it comes back as being registered to a Concealed Carry Licensed person.....
This is the problem with having that information on the DL, if you aren't carrying at the time of the stop you don't have to say anything about it but because the officer sees that you have a CCL he is expecting to hear you inform.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #53  
Old 03-23-2017, 08:22 AM
dben002's Avatar
dben002 dben002 is offline
US Veteran
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Triad Area North Carolina
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 1,184
Liked 2,027 Times in 826 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hostler View Post
This is the problem with having that information on the DL, if you aren't carrying at the time of the stop you don't have to say anything about it but because the officer sees that you have a CCL he is expecting to hear you inform.
Indeed, and I for one gladly pass that information on. Traffic stops for officers are stressful enough as they really have no idea what they may encounter during one.

Any information I can provide to make their stop less stressful or more friendly I am happy to do. I have nothing to hide, and try to follow all NC CC laws and traffic laws.

Hopefully they have run my tag before approaching so they at least know I'm not a wanted criminal, have no traffic violations and probably pose no threat.

There have been many traffic stops where all parties involved did not get home safely so anything I can do to help I will......
__________________
Hipcocked45
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #54  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:12 AM
T2C's Avatar
T2C T2C is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: CONUS
Posts: 112
Likes: 40
Liked 81 Times in 39 Posts
Default

I've read countless threads on the internet concerning Search and Seizure and at this point all I'll do is read about that specific topic.

I teach CCW students to carry identification, DL, Insurance Card, etc., in a pocket on the opposite side from where they carry a firearm. It avoids the awkward situation of having to reach near the firearm to produce the documents that need to be carried while driving.

As a retired LEO, I believe that every able bodied citizen that owns firearms should carry one in their vehicle if not on their person. Even if a LEO is close, response time can be measured in minutes and a firearm is usually needed within a few seconds.

LE cannot be everywhere at once and a person may find themselves in a situation where a firearm is needed to protect their family and themselves. I feel there is a moral obligation that an able bodied person accept some responsibility for their own safety.
__________________
Train to win

Last edited by T2C; 03-23-2017 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #55  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:30 AM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

I was pulled over by the police one evening a few months back, while driving my wifes car. In HER car I don't have a means of securing a firearm when I'm away from it, and since I was only going to Krav Maga and back home, I wasn't carrying.

When the officer got to the car my hands were at 10 & 2, the engine was off, and the dome light was on.
The conversation went like this:
Him: Good evening sir, do you know why I stopped you?
Me: No, but first, I'm required to tell you that I have a CPL and am not carrying.
Him: Thank you for carrying. You were doing 49 in a 30 zone. The speed limit changed when you crossed 10 mile rd.
Me: I didn't realize that.
Him: License and registration please. (I retrieve them). Where are you headed in such a hurry?
Me: Headed home from Krav Maga class. I'm sweaty and anxious for a shower. I live about 2 miles from here.
Him: Alright. I'll be right back
(waiting)
Him: This was a picture perfect stop because you did everything right. I'm not ticketing you, but slow down a little, and remember the change in speed limits here.
Me: Thank you officer! Have a safe night.
Him: You too, sir!

In another instance I had to call the police to a rental property of ours where there was a problem encounter with a neighbor.
When the officer arrived the first thing I told them was that I had a cpl and was carrying.
The Sgt. said "thank you for telling me and thank you for knowing to tell me". Technically, Michigan law does not require me to inform, since I was not pulled over, but in the *spirit* of the law I want the officers informed and at ease.

It has been my experience, without exception, that the police are happy to have legally armed citizens in society and don't feel threatened by them at all. A local big city Police Chief is a friend of mine (since high school), and each time we see each other he ask - "are you a good American?" ...meaning, are you exercising your right to carry? I just smile, because he already knows the answer.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Last edited by Protected One; 03-24-2017 at 07:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #56  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:59 AM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post

Another example, if someone calls the cops as says: "My name is John Doe and my number is 234-4565 and the guy in line at the DWI checkpoint in Green Chevy with the dent in the left door has a bail of marijuana in the trunk", that's probable cause for a warrantless search.
Sounds sketchy.

Is the "someone" a confidential informant with an established record of providing reliable information to LE, regarding criminal activity?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-23-2017, 10:01 AM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Kodiak,

The standard for searching the inside of a car for weapons within reaching distance of the driver or passengers is the same standard for a "Terry Search", or "stop and frisk". That standard is the lower standard of "reasonable suspicion", not "probable cause".
Really? Things have certainly evolved, if this is true. So LE can conduct a limited search of any vehicle, on any traffic stop, for weapons within reach of driver/passengers?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-23-2017, 10:39 AM
gonerydin gonerydin is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 679
Likes: 371
Liked 859 Times in 372 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwheelzip View Post
Oh no, my checkered past as a biker chick comes back to haunt me!

Nice! A 1971 Yamaha XS-1B (650) was my first motorcycle 45 years ago.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #59  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:31 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve912 View Post
Really? Things have certainly evolved, if this is true. So LE can conduct a limited search of any vehicle, on any traffic stop, for weapons within reach of driver/passengers?
Actually, things have evolved the "other" way. It's harder for cops to search cars (incident to arrest anyway) since AZ V. Gant.

No, they can't search any vehicle on a typical traffic stop, they have to at least have "reasonable suspicion" that the driver or passenger may be armed and possibly dangerous. This is a lower standard than "probable cause" but it's still more than "search anyone we want".

For example, if he pulls someone over for a traffic violation and the guy doesn't want to pull over right away and keeps driving for an unreasonable distance and the officer sees the guy making "furtive movements", or in other words, moving around in a way that is consistent with hiding something under the seat. That may be enough for a Terry search depending on the officer's experience, how he perceived it, other factors, and how he articulates everything.

I would tell that guy to get out of the car and probably look under the seat. I would at the very least ask him why he didn't stop sooner, what he was hiding under the seat, where he was coming from, where he was going, make him get out of the car and see what I could see without going into the car myself. That's if I didn't just go ahead and search.

Or I might ask him some other stuff to see how he behaved, where he looked, etc. And if he had any passengers, my partner or backup, if I had any, would ask the passenger the same questions while he was separated from the driver, then we would compare notes and decide what to do next.

Also, Terry V. Ohio was a case from 1968, so it's not like things have been much different since then. And Terry has always been the same for searching people as it has for searching people in cars. As far as evolving...back in those days, before video cameras, cell phone cameras, etc... If a cop wanted to search your car, you car was getting searched and you could reinstall the back seat yourself after they left... That's the way the did it in my neighborhood anyway..... Some people seem to think that cops nowadays are more "jackbootery" than back then, and that the typical cop was Andy Griffin. Not so. Cops have never been more professional, educated and accountable as they are today, in general.

Last edited by RSanch111; 03-23-2017 at 02:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #60  
Old 03-23-2017, 02:45 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve912 View Post
Sounds sketchy.

Is the "someone" a confidential informant with an established record of providing reliable information to LE, regarding criminal activity?
No, but the person is a NAMED informant who provided his phone number. That's enough. If he was an UN-named informant, ie. the "anonymous phone call", the police would have to corroborate the information before acting on it, but they COULD act as long as they corroborated the info. For example, if the ANONYMOUS caller said: "Joe Smith is going to leave his house tomorrow at 9:00am. He's going to go to 345 Elm Street and meet a guy in a blue Chrysler. The guy in the Chrysler is going to give Joe a black bag containing a kilo of cocaine. Then Joe is going to take it and drop it off at his dope house at 867 Spruce Street. If the cops watch Joe and he does all that stuff as described, that's plenty to search the car for a black bag with a kilo of cocaine in it, anywhere in the car (but nowhere else) where a bag of that size may be hidden.

Illinois V. Gates was the case that illustrated what could be done or not done with an anonymous informant.

But now I'm doubting myself on the "named informant for a search of a car..." I think you're right with the named informant, he has to have provided credible info. in the past. I was thinking of a Terry search for weapons. The word of a named person is enough for a terry stop, ie. "My name is John Doe, my number is 234-3345 and that guy in the red jacket at the bus stop has a gun.....or the "credible info previously" might be to just get a SEARCH WARRANT on his word alone. I'll look it up later. Too much thinking for me today....

I think I'm right though, because a car is inherently mobile and thus fulfills "probable cause plus exigent circumstances" for a search for contraband without a warrant. So I'm thinking as long as the police can ID the person who tells them there's a pound of cocaine in the car, they can stop and search and deal with the person who may have lied later.

BUT, the probable cause for this search will be judged on the "totality of circumstances". How did the informant know there was cocaine in the car? Did he have a reason to lie? Was he in a position to see it? How did he describe it? Etc. Suppose a car wash attendant, for example, looked into the trunk of a car and saw what he thought was a bomb...or a body.... Should the police let the car get away from them or should they stop it and look and then get a warrant for any further searches or stops later?

Same goes for entering a house with no warrant and exigent circumstances. Can I kick the door based on an anonymous call? No. Can I kick the door if someone says: "This is Mary Spignelli (to get away from the generic smith and jones...) and I live at 3453 Kosciusko street. My neighbor next door in the blue house ran out of the house in her robe and her husband ran after her with a knife and dragged her back into the house..." Then I can kick the door without a warrant.

And the "rules" are different for entering and searching a house as opposed to a car as opposed to a person. You have more of an expectation of privacy in your house than you do in your car. Thus, the rules are tighter for entering and even tighter for searching a person's residence than their car.

Last edited by RSanch111; 03-23-2017 at 03:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-23-2017, 10:27 PM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post

For example, if he pulls someone over for a traffic violation and the guy doesn't want to pull over right away and keeps driving for an unreasonable distance and the officer sees the guy making "furtive movements", or in other words, moving around in a way that is consistent with hiding something under the seat. That may be enough for a Terry search depending on the officer's experience, how he perceived it, other factors, and how he articulates everything.

I would tell that guy to get out of the car and probably look under the seat. I would at the very least ask him why he didn't stop sooner, what he was hiding under the seat...
I'd be thinking the grounds for Terry frisk would be limited to the individual's person, and wouldn't extend to the vehicle--once individual is out of vehicle, his access to whatever is *in* the car is curtailed and ceases to present an immediate threat to the officer.

I'm more than ten years out from keeping up with case law--so Terry scope may well have evolved.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-23-2017, 11:20 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve912 View Post
I'd be thinking the grounds for Terry frisk would be limited to the individual's person, and wouldn't extend to the vehicle--once individual is out of vehicle, his access to whatever is *in* the car is curtailed and ceases to present an immediate threat to the officer.

I'm more than ten years out from keeping up with case law--so Terry scope may well have evolved.
That would make sense, but as far as I know, you can still "Terry Search" a car. I guess because the guy could always shoot you after he got back in..... But it's interesting because in AZ V. Gant, which was only a few years ago, searches of a vehicle incident to arrest were gutted. The cops have to show a continuing threat or a need to preserve evidence to search a car incident to arrest once the driver and passengers have been secured. So now we can only inventory "search" after an arrest....No more tossing the car "incident to arrest".

I'm not as sharp on the subject as I used to be either. For years of taking promotions tests, one of the better books we had to read was: "Briefs of Leading Cases In Law Enforcement". Every couple of years they would come out with a new edition. Great book. Much more valuable information than the HUGE books on 20th Century Policing and the obligatory book on diversity that everyone had to read for the past 10-20 years. I actually got something out of the constitutional law books and this was/is a good one: Half.com: Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement by Jeffery T. Walker and Rolando V. del Carmen (2015, Paperback, Revised)(9780323353984): Rolando V. Del Carmen: Books

Last edited by RSanch111; 03-23-2017 at 11:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-24-2017, 12:45 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 14,710
Likes: 2,926
Liked 17,102 Times in 6,271 Posts
Default

I find this discussion interesting. I can see a clear difference of opinion between LEOs and regular citizens.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #64  
Old 03-24-2017, 01:12 PM
bigwheelzip's Avatar
bigwheelzip bigwheelzip is offline
Absent Comrade
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 12,990
Likes: 17,229
Liked 41,503 Times in 9,146 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonerydin View Post
Nice! A 1971 Yamaha XS-1B (650) was my first motorcycle 45 years ago.
Cool, thanks. That Yamaha was my first bike too, and I loved it, but traded it for a Nighthawk 750 to keep up with my husband's bike. Can't ride my own bike anymore because of health, but have the Honda in mothballs, since I can't bear to part with it.

Apologies for thread drift, can't control the bike rush.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #65  
Old 03-24-2017, 02:01 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
I find this discussion interesting. I can see a clear difference of opinion between LEOs and regular citizens.
When it comes to the law, once the court rules, it's less about opinion than 2+2=4. It's usually pretty objective from the police side. There are all kinds of rulings that the police tend to disagree with but the good cops don't take it personally. It's just the tools they give us....and the tools they taketh away. You either live with it or find a way to work around it, preferably a legal way to work around it.

For example..... I read a report one time where dispatch sent the police to a gas station for a possible robbery in progress. Caller described 2 Black males getting out of a car parked toward the rear of the station. When they got out, they pulled masks over their faces and went it. Something must have scared them off because they left, took the masks off and drove away in a car which was described by the caller.

Cops stopped the car, saw the masks inside and got the guys out of the car. Asked them: "You have any guns on you?" One guy said: "Just this one..." and handed the cop a loaded pistol!

They were obviously a hold-up crew and I think some or all of them had records for armed robbery too.

Prosecutor kicked the case because it was a bad stop. Neither the cops nor the dispatcher ever identified the caller so the stop was based on an anonymous tip with no corroboration.

They could have easily worked around the anonymous call by conducting a "pretextual traffic stop", which are plenty legal. Anything hanging from the mirror would have been a reason for a stop, fail to signal, speed, broken tail light, license plate light, no seatbelt, taking a turn too fast.... If you can't find a valid reason to make a traffic stop on just about anyone you want, you're not much of a cop....

Last edited by RSanch111; 03-24-2017 at 02:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-24-2017, 02:16 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 14,710
Likes: 2,926
Liked 17,102 Times in 6,271 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
Prosecutor kicked the case because it was a bad stop. Neither the cops nor the dispatcher ever identified the caller so the stop was based on an anonymous tip with no corroboration.
An anonymous tip is not a valid "reasonable suspicion" claim? Weird. If the caller had given a name would that make it a valid reason to stop?

Obviously not everyone sees things the same way. As I've stated, I'm opposed to the road block type of stops. It's my opinion that it violates the 4th amendment. But we all have opinions and I know the courts don't agree with me.

However, if I call the police with information like in your story, I see that as valid probable cause. Now, in that case, I see no reason to arrest unless there are outstanding warrants. They had masks and a gun. They didn't take any action with them. Unless there was some kind of transportation illegality with the gun, what had they done wrong? Even so, the stop was valid and not based on a hunch.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-24-2017, 03:14 PM
Mals9's Avatar
Mals9 Mals9 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 185
Likes: 1
Liked 232 Times in 105 Posts
Default

Years ago when Missouri allowed gambling I would run into a DWI checkpoint at the intersection of the interstate and the road the casino is on. One night I come to the check point and am waiting my turn when I noticed the officers pointing at my car, They called to each other and then started laughing. It dawned on me that I was driving my mom's care with personal plates that read "mom of 9". I could see the humor in a 24 year old man behind the wheel.

Mals
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #68  
Old 03-24-2017, 03:43 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
An anonymous tip is not a valid "reasonable suspicion" claim? Weird. If the caller had given a name would that make it a valid reason to stop?

Obviously not everyone sees things the same way. As I've stated, I'm opposed to the road block type of stops. It's my opinion that it violates the 4th amendment. But we all have opinions and I know the courts don't agree with me.

However, if I call the police with information like in your story, I see that as valid probable cause. Now, in that case, I see no reason to arrest unless there are outstanding warrants. They had masks and a gun. They didn't take any action with them. Unless there was some kind of transportation illegality with the gun, what had they done wrong? Even so, the stop was valid and not based on a hunch.
I'm opposed to "road block" stops too, except for VERY exigent circumstances, like maybe for an abduction or to catch an dangerous felon they know is in a certain place..

Anyway, yeah, the anonymous nature of the tip made it a bad stop since that's all they relied upon. If the guy would have given his name, it would have been a good stop. What's to stop someone from planting a pound of dope and a gun in your car and then calling the cops and saying: "That guy has a pound of dope and a gun in his car." If they got the name of the caller, they could confront him when you say: "That's not MY dope and gun!"

But, if the police corroborate the anonymous call, it's good. For example if they tell the cops what you're going to do in the FUTURE, they can use that to make a good stop after they confirm that the anonymous tipster knew what you were going to do in the future.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #69  
Old 03-24-2017, 09:28 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 14,710
Likes: 2,926
Liked 17,102 Times in 6,271 Posts
Default

The reason I ask about the anonymous call is because there are times when a person wants to be anonymous. How then can a person make the anonymous call if they know the police can't follow up on it?

Hmmm, I see both sides of this story. It's a poser for sure.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-24-2017, 09:42 PM
TTSH TTSH is offline
Junior Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: MA
Posts: 7,707
Likes: 13,905
Liked 9,470 Times in 4,391 Posts
Default

I'm just upset the no cop who has ever stopped me has ever asked if I was carrying despite the fact that my license to carry is supposed to show up on their cop car computers.

Apparently, I don't look like much of a threat to anyone anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 03-24-2017, 09:58 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
The reason I ask about the anonymous call is because there are times when a person wants to be anonymous. How then can a person make the anonymous call if they know the police can't follow up on it?

Hmmm, I see both sides of this story. It's a poser for sure.
The cops could try to "get in" through sheer guile and good coppery. If that doesn't work, that's just another one that got away. Lots of cops don't bother asking the dispatcher: "Do we know who the complainant is?" And it usually doesn't matter. But...sometimes it does...... Usually, an anonymous person will call in a drunk driver or something minor and the cops will follow them until they do something to justify a traffic stop.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-25-2017, 10:39 AM
Steve912 Steve912 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 4,172
Liked 2,327 Times in 1,194 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
That would make sense, but as far as I know, you can still "Terry Search" a car. I guess because the guy could always shoot you after he got back in.....
Maybe? IIRC Terry was focused on "of immediate threat" potential, but like anything else, 'immediacy' is something to be decided upon. "Much speculation is afoot, here."


Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
But it's interesting because in AZ V. Gant, which was only a few years ago, searches of a vehicle incident to arrest were gutted. The cops have to show a continuing threat or a need to preserve evidence to search a car incident to arrest once the driver and passengers have been secured. So now we can only inventory "search" after an arrest....No more tossing the car "incident to arrest".
[/url]
The "pre-storage agency inventory". Useful and appreciated by tow operators, as well.

Haven't found a decent detailing of circumstances of the encounter with Gant, but from what is described (he was out of car when arrested, arrest was for outstanding warrant on suspended DL, and vehicle was parked on private property) the court decision seems reasonable---there were aspects of the encounter that "de-linked" (my term) the vehicle from Gant's arrest, and apparently no grounds to store (and inventory) the vehicle.

Variations to those aspects would likely have rendered a different conclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-25-2017, 12:48 PM
427mach1's Avatar
427mach1 427mach1 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,875
Likes: 1,566
Liked 2,652 Times in 761 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
If you can't find a valid reason to make a traffic stop on just about anyone you want, you're not much of a cop....
Probably true but somehow I think that violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment and reeks of a police state mentality....
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-25-2017, 02:29 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 427mach1 View Post
Probably true but somehow I think that violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment and reeks of a police state mentality....
I don't think so. If you don't want the police to use your broken license plate light as an excuse to stop you to run your driver license, do a thorough pre-drive check of your car....

I'm pretty sure several STATES have "outlawed" pretextual stops, like Washington State maybe, or at least developed their own exclusionary rule to exclude any evidence seized as a result of a pretextual stop, but that opens a whole can of worms... You think a cop is going to admit he stopped someone for speeding ten over because he matched the description of an armed robber that was given by an anonymous caller?

I think it would be reasonable for a cop to look for a VALID reason to stop someone for an incidental suspicions if he doesn't have enough to stop for the offense he's really looking at, as long as the initial stop is valid. Should they have let Al Capone go because they really wanted him for racketeering and murder but could only get him for income tax at the time?

Another way to look at it: If people feel that the speeding stop to look at the guy's license is out of line, get rid of those violations that cops use to justify a pretextual stop.... Pretty much the entire traffic code....

And how would THAT conversation go in the police car.... "Hey, those guys in that Camaro look funny.....We're right next to them and they won't look over here. And they came out of that Chevy dealer lot and it's 2:00am..... And they're both wearing all black..... You want to stop them, they're speeding 5 over...?"

"No, we can't...."

"Why not?"

"Because we can only stop them for speeding if you really want to stop them for speeding and not to check them out because they're driving a new Camaro off the new Camaro lot at 2:00am and they're both wearing all black and they won't look at us. We can ONLY stop them for speeding if that was what you really wanted to stop them for.... They could just be looking at a different COLOR Camaro to buy because they don't like this one...."

"I'm going to drive us back to the station, after I stop this Camaro, and I'm going to tell the boss that I need a new partner because you're a moron. Be nice to the ladies in the garden club while you're hosting their community policing meeting....."

Last edited by RSanch111; 03-25-2017 at 02:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #75  
Old 03-25-2017, 02:44 PM
deputy584's Avatar
deputy584 deputy584 is offline
US Veteran
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 59
Likes: 397
Liked 102 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodiakco View Post
I believe you are wrong.

1. Other than check points(in NC), you can't be stopped.
2. You have a right to say no to a search of your vehicle when asked.
3. Unless they see something illeagl in plain view, they would have to get a warrant to search which is beyond reasonable suspicion.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
In NC we need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and probable cause to search it. If I see something in plain view or if I smell something that I can articulate is illegal then I have probable cause to search.

Driving in NC is privilege not a right, when you sign your drivers license you are agreeing to abide by all traffic laws.

When you enter NC from another state you fall under NC laws(same with every other state).

Last edited by deputy584; 03-25-2017 at 02:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 03-25-2017, 03:36 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
License Check License Check License Check License Check License Check  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 754
Likes: 490
Liked 779 Times in 311 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deputy584 View Post
In NC we need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and probable cause to search it. If I see something in plain view or if I smell something that I can articulate is illegal then I have probable cause to search.

Driving in NC is privilege not a right, when you sign your drivers license you are agreeing to abide by all traffic laws.

When you enter NC from another state you fall under NC laws(same with every other state).
You can't do a Terry search of a car in NC with reasonable suspicion? Are the standards there tighter than Federal standards?

North Carolina Defender Manual:
Quote:
Sw
eep of Interior of Vehicle.
Officers m
ay conduct a protective sweep of the
passenger com
partm
ent of a vehicle in area
s where a weapon m
ay be located—in other
words, they m
ay conduc
t a “vehicle frisk” but
not a search for evidence—if the officers
reasonably believe that the suspect is dange
rous and m
ay gain im
mediate control of a
weapon.
See Michigan v. Long,
463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (stating standard);
State v. Minor,
132 N.C. App. 478, 512 S.E.2d 483 (1999) (officer ha
d insufficient grounds to search car
for weapons);
Sta
te v. G
reen,
103 N.C. App. 38, 404 S.E.2d 363 (1991) (officer could not
look in glove com
part
ment of defendant’s ca
r as part of protec
tive weapons search;
officer had already placed defe
ndant in patrol car and de
fendant could not obtain any
weapon or other item
from car);
State v. Braxton,
90 N.C. App. 204, 368 S.E.2d 56
(1988) (facts did not warrant belief that susp
ect was dangerous and could gain control of
weapon).
http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Trai...r_Searches.pdf

Last edited by RSanch111; 03-25-2017 at 03:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For those with a C&R license Hrbster The Lounge 12 09-29-2016 09:02 PM
chl license frank abbruzzese Concealed Carry & Self Defense 4 12-09-2014 08:58 PM
Is PA cc license linked to drivers license? BillK01 The Lounge 22 11-18-2013 09:01 PM
C&R License boykinlp The Lounge 2 08-30-2009 03:21 PM
License Check Point in N.C. smitholdtimer Concealed Carry & Self Defense 34 08-01-2009 01:24 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)