Driving into town a couple days ago, I went through a driver's license checkpoint manned by two of our NC State Troopers. The young trooper who approached my vehicle looked to be in his early 20's. It went like this:

HIM: Good morning sir, may I see your license?

ME: (with both hands on the wheel) Yes, but first let me tell you that I
have a concealed carry permit, and my gun is to my right,
beside the console. My license is in my right hip pocket.

HIM: OK, I appreciate you telling me, and I appreciate you carrying. You
might save my life someday.

ME: You never can tell.

HIM: (after checking my license) Have a good day, sir.

ME: Thanks, you too.

Not the first time I've been thanked by a LEO for carrying...

Good job!! I thank you for carrying too!! I might be driving through NC one day and you might save my life too.

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

On the way to HERE I would hope!

Correct, not legal. Not even for DUI checks.

Nope, not even if they do it for every vehicle "just to make it fair".

Before everyone jumps on me with numerous "case law" decisions, I know that courts have ruled them legal. Even so, it is a clear violation of the 4th amendment:
This amendment is as simple as the second and has been just as trampled on. It is clear that without probable cause, they can't search you, for ANYTHING.

This kind of search is exactly why the 4th was included in the bill of rights. Over the years the courts have allowed this kind of thing because it's popular with the terrified public. Random searches are illegal and don't prevent any crime.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now.

You handled it well and so did the police officer. I wish everyone could be that reasonable.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Rastoff....if i show this post to the Kernersville PD will you post my bail?...lol

__________________
Hipcocked45

For what it's worth, the supreme court has ruled DUI check points to be unconstitutional but acceptable for the "common good", which makes them legal in most states unless that state doesn't feel that way.
I've never heard of a state that conducts random DL checkpoints.

The state of CT does this ALL OF THE TIME!!

...fixed it for ya!

US Supreme Court: Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (No. 88-1897)

Held: Petitioner's highway sobriety checkpoint program is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 448-455.

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Interestingly, although Sitz was a MI case, DWI checkpoints are not "legal" in MI. MI took the case all the way to the Supreme Court and then changed it's mind: "Mmmmm, nah, we're not going to do those here..."

Same happened.to me in Kernersville NC last fall.

After informing him of the weapon on my person he asked "Is it loaded".
I said yes..he said "good never carry an empty weapon"....

We laughed and he checked my DL and tag and said stay safe and i was on my way..

Has happened twice and both times were without any problem at all.

__________________
Hipcocked45

I handled my only LEO interaction since CC'ing the same as you. These were the Tribal Police in Cherokee, NC, and they were equally polite.

Of course, and old woman driving with a handicapped placard hanging from the rearview mirror probably doesn't fit the profile that sets off alarm bells.

I looked all over, but don't see the handicapped placard!!

(Just kidding!!! Couldn't help it!! Remembered this picture from the bicycle thread!!)

Best Regards, Les

__________________
SWCA 3084, SWHF 495, PGCA 3064

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.

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.

The old woman with the handicapped placard could/should set off alarm bells, because that very same placard notes it's to be removed from the mirror bracket while driving. And I reckon the judge would dismiss the charge, and scowl fiercely at the officer who wrote her up for such an offense----unless he was recently reelected. Then, all bets are off!!

Ralph Tremaine

I know, I know, I'm a reckless scofflaw.

Then, when i remove it, I forget to re-display when parking, and get dinged. Luckily, the officials in charge have been understanding, and pulled the tickets.

Glad to hear the above stories. If I'm ever stopped by an officer I hope for the same outcome.

"Driver license" checkpoints? They're illegal as far as I know. Are you sure it wasn't a DUI checkpoint?

Never mind, I guess maybe they are legal....but they shouldn't be....

Yep, in NC they're "legal." All my interactions with Leo in NC have been equally pleasent.

Can the police use random checkpoints in North Carolina? | MINICK LAW

Sent from my SM-T377V using Tapatalk

__________________
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome

The Sitz case in Michigan went to the Supreme Court. As I recall, the rationale was that the reason DUI checkpoints were legal was because society's right to be free from drunk drivers outweighed the right of drivers to be free from the relatively minor inconvenience of the stop. As long as the stops weren't arbitrary or random. They had to be every car or every tenth car, etc. There are no states where "random" stops are constitutional.

When it comes to driver license checkpoints, I think the case is Brown V. Texas. In that case a guy was stopped and contraband was found in plain view. Trouble was, they never contested the constitutionality of the initial stop. If that made it to the US Supreme Court, ie. the license checkpoint aspect, I think the court would have said "nope".

We'll have to wait for someone to get busted for something major that's worth appealing and appealing for ten years or so to get a high court ruling on that one. But based on their rational for DUI checkpoints, I'd say they'd rule against driver license checkpoints. If it ever gets to that point...I don't think society's right to be free from unlicensed or suspended drivers outweighs the inconvenience of the stop.

The ironic thing about Sitz was that in Michigan, the appealed it all the way to the supreme court, saying that DUI checkpoints should be legal. After the high court ruled in FAVOR of Michigan, Michigan changed it's mind and said: "Nope, they're not legal." So the state that appealed the case and made it "legal" in the rest of the land, changed course and said: "Yeah....but not here after all....."

PS: Rastoff, cops don't need probable cause to search your car for weapons, they only need "reasonable suspicion". Anything they find after that is fair game. Also, in the vast majority of circumstances with a car, cops don't need "probable cause plus exigent circumstances". The "car" part is presumed, in most cases, to equal "exigent circumstances". So probable cause is enough...Unless they have the lower standard of "reasonable suspicion" for weapons.

In most other cases, cops need either a warrant or probable cause PLUS exigent circumstances for a search to be valid. When they have a warrant, the search is presumed to be valid. When they DON'T have a warrant, the search is presumed to be INvalid and the cops have to show that they had an accepted exception to the search warrant rule. Google; Exceptions to the search warrant rule and exclusionary rule.

Checkpoints are legal in all the states I've lived in as long as they stop and at least do a cursory check on every vehicle.

My last "offense" (yes, I did something not illegal in my home state, but illegal where I live now) went much the same. Discussion turned form my offense to the range bags in the back, and getting stuff out for show and tell. I got a verbal warning, but the officer stops at the same coffee shop on Saturday, so he'll remember me if I trangress again.

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!

__________________
Chris
SWCA #2243 SWHF #292

Understandable, but you might want to take into consideration the fact that NC law requires that you furnish that specific information whether you are asked or not.

NC isn't a "must inform" state, is it?

Yes, it is.

In NC, if stopped by L/E you are required to notify them you are carrying, or have a firearm in the passenger area of the car.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

§ 14-415.11.  Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.

(a)        Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law. The person shall carry the permit together with valid identification whenever the person is carrying a concealed handgun, shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer, and shall display both the permit and the proper identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer. 



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

__________________
Improvise, Adapt, Overcome

You're right RSanch111, it does say reasonable. I think stopping, or arresting my progress, without some probable reason specifically about me, is unreasonable.

I agree, stopping people just to check for their ID is unreasonable. I think requiring a patron of a drinking establishment to submit to a breathalyzer as they leave, reasonable. I do not find stopping random people on the road, just to "see" if they're intoxicated, reasonable.

Unfortunately, "reasonable" is extremely ambiguous. Also unfortunately, it's everywhere in the law. As long as reasonable people sit back and allow the courts to make unreasonable rulings, we'll continue to deal with this stupidity.

PMRet and the policeman he met are both reasonable people. That is obvious by how their encounter played out. The establishment that requires that policeman to stop random people is not reasonable and should be disciplined as well as schooled on the meaning of liberty.

I'll leave this alone now.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

While I don't necessarily agree with the premise of licence checks, I took the approach that the young trooper was "just doing his job", "following orders", or whatever you want to call it. He was very respectful, and I tried to be, as well.

Under North Carolina law I was required to inform him that I was armed, and so I did. Again, he didn't make the law. Besides, both my license and my weapon were at my right hip, and I wanted to make sure he knew I was reaching for my license.

The fact that he appreciated me carrying reflects the same attitude I have encountered with virtually every LEO I've spoken with on the subject. That, to me, is a good thing...

Texas used to do license checks quite frequently when I was younger. Every vehicle on a particular road would be stopped and the driver asked for a license. At some point that stopped, as I recall due to some court decision or other.

The only checkpoints I'm aware of in Texas now are the immigration checkpoints near the Mexican border. These aren't conducted by police officers, but rather by CBP. I, like many, believe these to be unconstitutional, but evidently the courts have ruled otherwise, so I stop and answer the questions along with everyone else. "Are you an American citizen?" Yes. "Is everyone else in the vehicle citizens or legal residents?" Yes. Then once the drug sniffing dog finishes its job, "Please proceed. Have a nice day." No ID is asked for or shown.

I imagine they catch more drug smugglers this way than they do illegal border crossers.

Hmm . . . random thought/question. I am always armed at the checkpoints, but have never informed the officer. Texas law requires that we inform law enforcement if we are stopped. I suppose I have technically broken the law several times. I just never really thought about it before. I guess next time I had better tell them just in case.

EDIT
Doing a bit of research I found that they are not authorized to enforce state law, so I'll just keep my mouth shut.

Do you ever look around the inside of your car before you answer that one? Next time, when they ask that, toward the direction of your trunk: "Javier, are you a citizen?? Knock once for yes, two for no!"

That's one part that makes checkpoints "reasonable". They DON'T stop random people. If the stops were random or arbitrary, they WOULD be unconstitutional seizures. The court determined in Sitz that the stops were reasonable in the effort to protect the public from drunk drivers as long as they stopped every car, or every tenth car, etc. I think the reason why license checkpoints are still being considered "constitutional" is because they haven't been challenged yet. In Brown V Texas, the initial reason for the stop (license checkpoint) was never challenged at the lower levels so the Supreme Court didn't address it. Mr. Brown had a ****** lawyer. I'm not even a lawyer and that's the first thing I would have challenged.

Curious if there is some sort of safety campaign or MADD fundraiser this time of year. I work night shift and drive past an Illinois State Police station on my way to work and for the last few years just about every Saturday night in March and April they are running checkpoints there. Never see it any other time of year, just March and April.

What would a MADD fundraiser have to do with it? The feds release grant funds around this time of year for DWI enforcement... Maybe around St. Pat's Day? Also for 4th of July, Memorial Day, etc.

Maybe MADD awards or recognition would be a better term. Wouldn't that help with Fed grants to get special recognition from groups like that.
And it has nothing to do with holidays right now, they have it set up almost every Saturday night for about a two month period in March and April.

I have no idea... Around here, the MADD awards are usually just given to guys who arrest the most drunks or departments with some kind of innovative victims' assistance program, etc. I don't think it has anything to do with an organized effort to arrest drunks. Departments don't HAVE to use their federal traffic enforcement money on any particular day or weekend as long as they participate in mandated days, like 4th of July, New Years Eve, etc.

Doesn't it make a difference that you are driving a motor vehicle on a publicly-funded roadway? To me, driving on a public roadway is a privilege, not a right, and therefore I am subject to a bit more scrutiny such as driver's license checks, etc.. ???

Men, I am 70 years old, and have learned a few things. I have worked thousands of hours with the S.C.H.P. From my personal experience it is never a good idea to argue your point beside the highway, that's what the court is for. MOST of the time in this county the court will discount points or fines or both. Unless the trooper tells the Judge you gave him a hard time. Then it's Katy barred the door.

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 ..

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

I find this discussion interesting. I can see a clear difference of opinion between LEOs and regular citizens.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

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....

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.

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

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.

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....."

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.