Video of Bad stop of CCW holder in Ohio

[CelticSire]

But neither Terry v. Ohio or Michigan v. Long allows frisks without reasonable suspicion. It might not sound like much of a distinction, but it is what makes us different from Nazi Germany or Red China.

I'm well aware of the distinction, having taught Constitutional law as it applies to Search and Seizure. I never stated that it was allowed without reasonable suspicion. I never said that what the officer did in this case was a frisk, nor did I state that what he did was legal. The statement was made that police officers cannot frisk vehicles. I was simply providing proof that they can, and do.

 

[redlevel]

I'm well aware of the distinction, having taught Constitutional law as it applies to Search and Seizure. I never stated that it was allowed without reasonable suspicion. I never said that what the officer did in this case was a frisk, nor did I state that what he did was legal. The statement was made that police officers cannot frisk vehicles. I was simply providing proof that they can, and do.

I was sure you were aware of the distinction. I posted what I did for the edification of some who apparently were not aware. I certainly wasn't lecturing you. Sorry if it sounded that way.

 

[redlevel]

And, no, the mere fact that the individual possesses a License to Carry, CHL, CWP, or any other LEGAL right to carry a weapon does not constitute that suspicion. In fact, in Texas, no permit is required to carry a firearm in a vehicle. So even the presence of a handgun BY ITSELF would most likely would not be considered reasonable suspicion.

Thanks for making those points. No permit is required to carry a firearm in a vehicle in Georgia, either.

There are jurisdictions in Georgia where officers think that the presence of a firearm constitutes a reason to prone and handcuff the occupants, conduct a thorough search of the vehicle, and refuse to allow the legal carrier to load his weapon.

 

[cshoff]

Never argued that. I am right though, and I like the view from the horse. Never said cops weren't bound by RAS or PC. Guess you're too busy typing a response to read what I said about it.

I think it had more to do with being busy trying to point you in the right direction seeing how you seem to like to stand on both sides of the fence.

That's alright. I don't mind. Nothing I haven't had to do before.

Hope your next traffic stop goes well.
Bob

Thank you. I would expect nothing less.

 

[CelticSire]

Sorry if it sounded that way.

No offense meant, none taken.

There are jurisdictions in Georgia where officers think that the presence of a firearm constitutes a reason to prone and handcuff the occupants, conduct a thorough search of the vehicle, and refuse to allow the legal carrier to load his weapon.

Unfortunately, there are in Texas as well. I had one case where the Officer's "probable cause" for calling for backup and searching the vehicle was the fact that the driver had a CHL. Didn't have a weapon with him, just had a CHL.

 

[Moonman]

Now the President of Canton City Council says he's received over 100 emails about this and thinks the people have a problem. He made no mention of the officer or his conduct. Maybe the people of Canton, Ohio need to look at replacing and filling a few positions in government.

 

[jtpur]

Yes, you did. I'm not saying that what the officer did made sense, I'm not saying that it was a frisk, and I'm not saying that how he did what he did is logical by legal standards, officer safety standards, or any other standards. In fact, it wasn't a frisk under any standards that I can think of. However, the statement was made that police officers cannot frisk vehicles. I was simply clarifying that yes, police officers can and do legally frisk vehicles. In fact, putting, or intending to put, an individual back into the frisked vehicle is part of what constitutes a legal frisk, and yes, it has to be based on reasonable, articulable suspicion. And, no, the mere fact that the individual possesses a License to Carry, CHL, CWP, or any other LEGAL right to carry a weapon does not constitute that suspicion. In fact, in Texas, no permit is required to carry a firearm in a vehicle. So even the presence of a handgun BY ITSELF would most likely would not be considered reasonable suspicion.

k I read what I wrote and I did use "frisk" I think we are jousting semantics. I meant frisk as in frisk a person.......when i said you dont frisk a car.......wanna call it a frisk, ok but frisking a person has a different meaning to me..lets agree that based on the correct legal grounds an officer can "look into a vehicle' to make sure there are no weapons that can be used to harm the officer.......I would not choose frisk but you can and Im ok with it.

 

[sheriffoconee]

As far as the officers SEARCH of the car...and it WAS a search....you can change the words to something more pleasing, but it WAS a search none the less.....
MY view of the tape is that immediately after the stop he went to the passenger side and ordered the two passengers (pimp and hooker, so he says) out and started rummaging through the car....period...all the while ranting about this and that.....
Now, what THEORY of law authorizes that behavior???????

 

[CelticSire]

k I read what I wrote and I did use "frisk" I think we are jousting semantics. I meant frisk as in frisk a person.......when i said you dont frisk a car.......wanna call it a frisk, ok but frisking a person has a different meaning to me..lets agree that based on the correct legal grounds an officer can "look into a vehicle' to make sure there are no weapons that can be used to harm the officer.......I would not choose frisk but you can and Im ok with it.

Please don't misconstrue and think I am arguing for the sake of argument. I'm not. But, there are important legal differences in question here. Looking into a vehicle is a plain view search, whether it be for weapons, evidence, or contraband. That has a different scope than a frisk. You cannot frisk for evidence or contraband, only weapons. And I didn't choose the term frisk as it relates to what we're talking about, the SCOTUS did. It may seem like "semantics", but it's not. Each term has clear legal definitions and can't be changed to fit the circumstances. That's the crux of the problem. As sheriffoconee asks, what legal grounds did the officer have to conduct a search? Absolutely none. Initially he did have legal grounds, based on the totality of the circumstances, to conduct a frisk of the occupants and the vehicle. He elected to conduct a search of the vehicle instead. That is one of the myriad problems the officer will face as part of the outcome of this. Had the officer conducted a proper frisk, any evidence he obtained as a result of that would be admissible. Had he found drugs, an illegal weapon, etc, based on what he did in the video, the very first thing any defense attorney would do based on this video would be filing a motion to suppress, and from my experience, it would almost certainly be granted. Wouldn't have mattered if it was a roach in the ashtray or three dead bodies in the trunk, all of it becomes fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

[sheriffoconee]

Please don't misconstrue and think I am arguing for the sake of argument. I'm not. But, there are important legal differences in question here. Looking into a vehicle is a plain view search, whether it be for weapons, evidence, or contraband. That has a different scope than a frisk. You cannot frisk for evidence or contraband, only weapons. And I didn't choose the term frisk as it relates to what we're talking about, the SCOTUS did. It may seem like "semantics", but it's not. Each term has clear legal definitions and can't be changed to fit the circumstances. That's the crux of the problem. As sheriffoconee asks, what legal grounds did the officer have to conduct a search? Absolutely none. Initially he did have legal grounds, based on the totality of the circumstances, to conduct a frisk of the occupants and the vehicle. He elected to conduct a search of the vehicle instead. That is one of the myriad problems the officer will face as part of the outcome of this. Had the officer conducted a proper frisk, any evidence he obtained as a result of that would be admissible. Had he found drugs, an illegal weapon, etc, based on what he did in the video, the very first thing any defense attorney would do based on this video would be filing a motion to suppress, and from my experience, it would almost certainly be granted. Wouldn't have mattered if it was a roach in the ashtray or three dead bodies in the trunk, all of it becomes fruit of the poisonous tree.

Exactly, if he had found Casey Anthony's confession and the gloves OJ wore, they would have been tossed.....my Judges would NEVER EVEN SEE THAT TAPE..the DA would toss it LONG before it got that far...no matter what he found.....
Bad police work (if that was even considered police work) makes BAD law.....Good cops know that...other cops could care less....

 

[cmort666]

Now the President of Canton City Council says he's received over 100 emails about this and thinks the people have a problem. He made no mention of the officer or his conduct. Maybe the people of Canton, Ohio need to look at replacing and filling a few positions in government.

His published comments also indicate that he's VIRULENTLY against concealed carry.

 

[CelticSire]

His published comments also indicate that he's VIRULENTLY against concealed carry.

"This is, in my judgment, a symptom of this arming, literally the arming, of a population with handguns. And the flooding of handguns into our communities."

And...

"If you allow the kind of carry concealed weapons laws that are in existence in Ohio, and they're all over United States, you're going to have the same problems over and over again and death will result."

Here's a link to the story.

Canton City Council Prez More Upset About Gun Laws Than Irate Cop | The Truth About Guns

 

[ladder13]

I guess I'll remove Canton, Oh as one of my must see cities

 

[jtpur]

Please don't misconstrue and think I am arguing for the sake of argument. I'm not. But, there are important legal differences in question here. Looking into a vehicle is a plain view search, whether it be for weapons, evidence, or contraband. That has a different scope than a frisk. You cannot frisk for evidence or contraband, only weapons. And I didn't choose the term frisk as it relates to what we're talking about, the SCOTUS did. It may seem like "semantics", but it's not. Each term has clear legal definitions and can't be changed to fit the circumstances. That's the crux of the problem. As sheriffoconee asks, what legal grounds did the officer have to conduct a search? Absolutely none. Initially he did have legal grounds, based on the totality of the circumstances, to conduct a frisk of the occupants and the vehicle. He elected to conduct a search of the vehicle instead. That is one of the myriad problems the officer will face as part of the outcome of this. Had the officer conducted a proper frisk, any evidence he obtained as a result of that would be admissible. Had he found drugs, an illegal weapon, etc, based on what he did in the video, the very first thing any defense attorney would do based on this video would be filing a motion to suppress, and from my experience, it would almost certainly be granted. Wouldn't have mattered if it was a roach in the ashtray or three dead bodies in the trunk, all of it becomes fruit of the poisonous tree.

I m lost I have no idea where you are going or coming from. I agree it was a search of the car.....I even think in my own opinion it was an illegal search... You dont crawl into a car under the guise of "plain view" you crawl into a car to retreive something you saw in plain view...i did not see him retreive anything I saw him conduct in my opinion an illegal search. It far exceeded anything of a "vehicle pat down or frisk" for weapons...can we at least agree on that.

 

[jtpur]

Well I just sent the good council President an email, telling him I was a retired cop and did not appreciate Officer Harless causing my own honor and conduct as an officer to be questioned. I also told him that I understood his disdain for those of us who carry concealed firearms and I promised him I would never come to Canton, (armed or not armed) and visit the Football HOF or any of the cities, restaraunts, bars, clubs or other retail establishments. I especially promised him that I would never, ever step foot into one of his crack invested neighborhoods where Im sure I would be accosted by a bunch of low life prostitutes pimps and other assorted criminals. They can have the whole city as far as Im concerned and from the looks of the video they are well on their way to taking over.

 

[CelticSire]

I m lost I have no idea where you are going or coming from. I agree it was a search of the car.....I even think in my own opinion it was an illegal search... You dont crawl into a car under the guise of "plain view" you crawl into a car to retreive something you saw in plain view...i did not see him retreive anything I saw him conduct in my opinion an illegal search. It far exceeded anything of a "vehicle pat down or frisk" for weapons...can we at least agree on that.

I think the confusion might be coming from the fact that you think I was calling what he did a frisk. Nope, no way, uh uh. A search, pure and simple, and an illegal one at that. My original intent was simply to explain that it was legally possible to frisk a car, and that a frisk and a search are two different things. So, yeah, we are actually in more agreement than you think.

 

[CelticSire]

Well I just sent the good council President an email, telling him I was a retired cop and did not appreciate Officer Harless causing my own honor and conduct as an officer to be questioned. I also told him that I understood his disdain for those of us who carry concealed firearms and I promised him I would never come to Canton, (armed or not armed) and visit the Football HOF or any of the cities, restaraunts, bars, clubs or other retail establishments. I especially promised him that I would never, ever step foot into one of his crack invested neighborhoods where Im sure I would be accosted by a bunch of low life prostitutes pimps and other assorted criminals. They can have the whole city as far as Im concerned and from the looks of the video they are well on their way to taking over.

You know, I am in 100% agreement with you on this. Unfortunately, I don't think he really cares what you, I, or any other law abiding citizen thinks. Just another example of a power-hungry politician who abuses his office for his own personal agenda.

 

[Moonman]

jtpur,
Send your comments to the Canton Repository newspaper so that others may benefit from your wisdom, and maybe VOTE wisely in the next election.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

My original intent was simply to explain that it was legally possible to frisk a car, and that a frisk and a search are two different things. So, yeah, we are actually in more agreement than you think.

Just so us layman can follow along... what is the difference between frisking/searching a car or person?

 

[CelticSire]

Just so us layman can follow along... what is the difference between frisking/searching a car or person?

Without resorting to legalese, here it is in a nutshell. There are three things that an officer can look for: weapons (something that can hurt you), evidence (instruments or fruits of a crime) and contraband (something that is illegal to possess). Let's talk person first. A frisk is a patdown of a person's outer clothing and is conducted for officer safety. It is based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, limited in scope, and restricted to looking for weapons. If evidence or contraband is found during a frisk, it will be admissible, but the discovery has to be inadvertent. Example: I'm frisking you for weapons, I feel something in your pocket that feels like a crack pipe, I ask you what it is, you say "A crack pipe", I can then retrieve it from your pocket. But at that moment, the frisk becomes a search. Let's say that I feel something that feels like a bag of weed, I ask what it is, you say "I like Italian food, that's my stash of oregano". "Can I get it or would you pull it out for me?" "Nope." Now I have to find more supporting evidence to develop probable cause to get into your pocket because the weed is not a weapon and I can't justify going into your pocket as a frisk. Frisking a vehicle is looking in a vehicle for weapons, and can only go into those areas where a driver or occupant has access to. You can't frisk a vehicle trunk, normally (there are exceptions). You have to have reasonable suspicion that the driver or other occupant is armed and dangerous, you have to frisk the driver and/or occupant(s) as well as the vehicle, and here is the key part: you have to intend to put one or more of the occupants back in the vehicle. Example: I stop you on traffic, have reasonable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous, I can frisk both you and your vehicle if I am intending on letting you back in the vehicle after the frisk. If I am intending on arresting you for the traffic violation or on warrants or for the crack pipe, for example, then you're not going to be getting back in the vehicle, so no frisk. That would evolve into a search incident to arrest situation.

And, take notice, that the reasonable suspicion is that you are armed AND dangerous. Armed, by itself, does not meet the standard of reasonable suspicion justifying a frisk.

P.S. To my fellow legal eagles, et al. Let's not confuse this with discussion of Carroll Doctrine, Arizona v. Johnson, Arizona v. Gant, Mapp v. Ohio, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum