Why should I answer questions like:
Where are you going?
What are you doing here?

etc...

This is a free country, the government has no legal basis to ask me any of those questions.

back 40: I agree with you 100%!  Respect works both ways.  Police(and all public servants) must remember that they work for us.  They are not military and we are not civilians.  We are CITIZENS, citizens of the USofA and of our states.  We all have individual rights, guaranteed by the US Constitution.  These rights include the right to bear arms.  This not a rant against LEOs, many of my closest friends are police officers.  Getting back to topic, I don't think it is anyone's business where I just came from, where I'm going, why I'm carrying cash money or whether or not I have a gun in my car(perfectly legal in Florida).  Just give me a ticket if you think I broke the traffic laws and I'll se ya in court.

Police have no right to know where you are going, unless they have a REASONABLE believe to belive that a crime has been committed.  IE, you are in a dark alley with your lights off at 3am.  Or parked in front of a bank with a shotgun and ski mask in the back seat.

If you are pulled over, be friendly.  But the MOMENT that the cop starts asking questions like "Where are you going?"  Simply refuse to answer.  Aswere politely?  Sure, "Officer, where I am going is none of your business."

I do not wish top flame either, but in GA we can make a stop and detain for about 20 minutes or so (there was a ruling on the timing somewhere in the 21-25 minute range, forgot the case and the exact times) asking questions before the stop is constituted as a custody/arrest. This is what the courts here have upheld and thus far no appeals that I have heard about.

Police do have a right to ask general questions, such as your name, address, DOB, where are you coming from, where are you going..... you know there is crime on the streets ....

One night about 9PM I made a stop for a guy running a red light. I asked his name and his address. Then I asked him for his license. Guess what they didn't match. Moments later a dispatch came out for an Armed Robbery..guess who was already in custody.

When you refuse to answer general questions an officer's curosity is aroused and he looks harder at you and your vehicle. Where he may have given you a break on an equipment violation, now he may decide not to, that way he will have a permanent record of the stop in case something else goes on in the area. As far as an LEO is concerned if you have nothing to hide you will answer general questions. But like you said 'some of it' is your choice, do I desire a ticket or not.

The reason an LEO has the right to ask these questions is because of crime or suspected crime in the area (look outs, bolos,,,).....

Most will not ask these types of questions unless something has just happened in the area or you or your car match the 'general' description of a suspect.

What I use to do is ask you name and address. Then I would ask for your driver's license..
.. they had better match or I have more questions and the right to ask them. With every miss answered question it gives reason to ask another until the point of incarceration and then miranda.

I agree with you 100% it does work both ways. I use to work IA...actually I may be going back into it....and use to fire/discipline cops for the very thing you are talking about. At my last Dept ALL traffic stops were recorded so there is no back stepping out of it...you are being filmed and a Mic is on the officer.

If you are carrying a weapon and it is in plain sight then an officer may run the weapon to see if it is stolen in GA. He has the right to unload it and hold it until the traffic stop is complete for his own safety.

If I see a large amount of cash visible on the front car seat I can ask you why you have the money as it gives rise to a possibility that you may be about to purchase drugs from another source. This is legal in GA.

On one case a deputy from our county actually stopped a guy carrying I think $45,000 (this may be off a thousand ot two, but somewhere in this area.) The officer asked whose money is that, as it was in plain sight on the passenger seat? The driver said I don't know?

DAH!

He was let go but the money confiscated, it wasn't his. He was advised to bring the person who owned the cash back to the Office and it would be returned to him with proof of ownership. He never returned. He was a drug mule and we caught him a few weeks later with some dope...allot of it.

AWWWWRIGHT!  I'm moving to GA!

Got me

.....Its legal to ask the question, not buy the drugs...better stay where you are at.

Good Laugh though.

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this fray, and I'm sure it's pointless, but I can't believe what I'm hearing.

To clarify my beliefs, I think there is a big difference between ETHICAL or LAWFUL and LEGAL.  It was legal for Hitler to kill thousands of jews - he passed a bill legally declaring it.  It does not make it ethical or lawful.  The greatest law of our land is our Constitution.  It clearly deliniates any power the Federal government has.  I believe many of the laws we have today are in direct violation of our Constitution (which hasn't been discarded or overthrown last time I checked).  As an officer, carrying out these Unconstitutional laws may be legal, but it is neither lawful or ethical.  It seems some of that may be blurred in what was stated above.

"Police do have a right to ask general questions, such as your name, address, DOB, where are you coming from, where are you going..... you know there is crime on the streets ...."  

I can also legally ask you if you mind if your wife sleeps with me.  Your ability to ask a question says NOTHING about my obligation to answer it.  Although not explicity illegal, one must wonder about an issue of honor.  I would certainly never ask you the above question out of respect.

"One night about 9PM I made a stop for a guy running a red light. I asked his name and his address. Then I asked him for his license. Guess what they didn't match. Moments later a dispatch came out for an Armed Robbery..guess who was already in custody."

If we locked up, say, white people wearing blue shirts, we might catch some wanted people as well.  The end does not justify the means.  Just because it may have worked does not make it right.

"When you refuse to answer general questions an officer's curosity is aroused and he looks harder at you and your vehicle. Where he may have given you a break on an equipment violation, now he may decide not to, that way he will have a permanent record of the stop in case something else goes on in the area. As far as an LEO is concerned if you have nothing to hide you will answer general questions. But like you said 'some of it' is your choice, do I desire a ticket or not."

This is the same veiled threat and faulty logic I have seen many LEOs demonstrate here.  Pardon me, but I find this very offensive.  If I don't bend over for whatever Unconstitutional or unethical treatment I may get from an officer (how DARE I?!?) I will be harassed!?!?  What else do you call an officer LOOKING for something to pursue purely because you insulted their authority (in their mind).  This is abuse of power.  I sure hope you do not engage in such abuse.  

Further, the concept that I must have something to hide if I don't cooperate is foolish.  FOOLISH.  It's a justification for an officer to save his/her hurt pride (again, the lack of respect for their authority you're demonstrating) and harrass you.  We need you to post naked pictures of your wife here - we need to know.  What?  You won't do it??  You must have something to hide!!  I, as an American, value my privacy and FREEDOM.  Freedom means my ability to travel freely (without having to explain where I'm going or randomly showing my papers...).  Privacy means you can't come in my house or look through my belongings without probable cause.  What's next?  A camera in my toilet - because you just need to know?  

"The reason an LEO has the right to ask these questions is because of crime or suspected crime in the area (look outs, bolos,,,).....

Most will not ask these types of questions unless something has just happened in the area or you or your car match the 'general' description of a suspect."

Sorry, but that's BULLSHIT.  I don't believe I have EVER fit the description of a bank robber, but I'm almost always asked intrusive questions like that.  If this was only used when the citizen meets the description of a felon, it would be a very rare event.  Unfortunately, it's not.  

"If you are carrying a weapon and it is in plain sight then an officer may run the weapon to see if it is stolen in GA. He has the right to unload it and hold it until the traffic stop is complete for his own safety."

Wow.  That's quite a mouthful.  Perhaps you can explain what the probable cause is to suspect a firearm is stolen or used in a crime just because you see it?  I open-carry every day.  It's my Right (as in Constitutional) and legal (acknowledged by my State).  How can you justify intruding on citizen's Rights like that?  

I would also like to understand why a police officer has any more Right to Keep and Bear Arms than a citizen?  What's the difference between a citizen and a police offcer's Rights?  None.  Show me where it's in the Constitution.  You, sir, have no more or less Right to wear your sidearm than I do.  Unless I have made threatening statements or given you some reason to reasonably consider me a threat (or committed some crime), you have NO RIGHT to disarm me.  Is your safety more important than mine?  Maybe an LEO should consider armed citizens assets for a change.  We do, after all, stop more crime than all of you put together.

Sorry if this comes off as controversial.  Much of what you said obviously bothers me.  Hopefully even the smallest amount of what I've suggested will sink in on someone.  I consider it my OBLIGATION to confront anti-Constitutional attitudes - particularly among those we've elected to enforce our Constitution.  I'm also dismayed by the socialist attitudes often displayed among American gunowners - the most freedom-loving bunch of people on this planet.  If we don't understand the concept, all is lost.    

    Black Fox

That can't be true.  If it was, you'd be here in California with us. [;)]

Black Fox,

Great posts.  I often struggle with practical handling of an encounter with LE and strict constitutionally based guidlines on when and how to invoke rights.  MHO, I think the unbridled excercise of "technical" rights often will deminish the import of the underlying constutional guarantee.  Of course, it's a judgement call by the individual.  I err on the side of cooperation if the questioning is general.  If I felt LE was overstepping bounds, I might politely tell him so and inform him the conversation is over.  

Why this practical approach?  IMHO, the majority of LE are not jack-booted thugs who are out to harass me.  Plus, if the officer seems cool, I don't mind shooting the sh*t with him/her.  I deal with them everyday in a courtroom and, for the most part, feel like I can get along with the majority of them in my area- even though I'm on the otherside of the courtroom often arguing that they overstepped constitutional boundries on behalf of my client (and yes, I only make the argument if I feel it's founded and based on current contitutional law).

Are there some bad apples?  You bet, as with any profession, mine included.

I will answer your two posts, but after that I will drop out of it because it seems fruitless.

As far as asking questions, you do have the right not to answer, but it will raise the suspicions of the officer and thus he will begin to look closer at all that is around him. If his stop was legal in the first place then he HAS THE RIGHT to write you a ticket for your violation. He aslo has the right to continue to check your vehilce and record and write tickets on any equipment violations he sees. This is not a violation of your rights, but you having violated the law and him writing you tickets for the same. He can write and ticket or give an warning and let you go, it is up to him.


The man I wrote about violated the law, before I found out he was an Armed Robber. He gave a false name. He lied to a LEO. All this is against the law.


Your Quote: This is the same veiled threat and faulty logic I have seen many LEOs demonstrate here.  Pardon me, but I find this very offensive.  If I don't bend over for whatever Unconstitutional or unethical treatment I may get from an officer (how DARE I?!?) I will be harassed!?!?  What else do you call an officer LOOKING for something to pursue purely because you insulted their authority (in their mind).  This is abuse of power.  I sure hope you do not engage in such abuse.

An officer has the right to write a ticket for whatever is wrong with your vehicle. If anyone has insulted authority is the the offender driving an unsafe vehilce and being a possibel thresat to all those around him. SO you the unsafe driver are the one that is abusing the poswer while the LEO if he is doing his job correctly will documnet the infractiond and give an warning or write a ticket.

Your Quote: Further, the concept that I must have something to hide if I don't cooperate is foolish.  FOOLISH.  It's a justification for an officer to save his/her hurt pride (again, the lack of respect for their authority you're demonstrating) and harrass you.  We need you to post naked pictures of your wife here - we need to know.  What?  You won't do it??  You must have something to hide!!  I, as an American, value my privacy and FREEDOM.  Freedom means my ability to travel freely (without having to explain where I'm going or randomly showing my papers...).  Privacy means you can't come in my house or look through my belongings without probable cause.  What's next?  A camera in my toilet - because you just need to know?  

Driving a vehicle is a PRIVELEDGE and NOT A RIGHT. That is the way the law defines it. You DO NOT have the right to drive as you please, when you please or how you please. There are laws to regulate all this.

If an officer stopped you for a violation then he has the probabe cause. I do not know where the house, the wife, or the toliet all enter into this, we were talking about traffice stops and miranda...I guess your mind is just fixated ......and you need to seek other help for that.




[/quote]

Your Quote: but I'm almost always asked intrusive questions like that.

With your writing on this post I can see why. I'm beginning to wonder how many times you have been locked up.

General questions are not considered intrusive by the Supreme Court. THey are part of general police proceedures and are lawful.


"If you are carrying a weapon and it is in plain sight then an officer may run the weapon to see if it is stolen in GA. He has the right to unload it and hold it until the traffic stop is complete for his own safety."

YOUR QUOTE: Wow.  That's quite a mouthful.  Perhaps you can explain what the probable cause is to suspect a firearm is stolen or used in a crime just because you see it?  I open-carry every day.  It's my Right (as in Constitutional) and legal (acknowledged by my State).  How can you justify intruding on citizen's Rights like that?  

As stated for the officers own safety. I can run the VIN and the Tag on your vehicle also, it is the law whether you like it or not.

I would also like to understand why a police officer has any more Right to Keep and Bear Arms than a citizen?  What's the difference between a citizen and a police offcer's Rights?  None.  Show me where it's in the Constitution.  You, sir, have no more or less Right to wear your sidearm than I do.  Unless I have made threatening statements or given you some reason to reasonably consider me a threat (or committed some crime), you have NO RIGHT to disarm me.  Is your safety more important than mine?  Maybe an LEO should consider armed citizens assets for a change.  We do, after all, stop more crime than all of you put together.

An officer has this right again by the laws. If I stop you and I see your gun and I will disarm you. If you resist you will go to jail. Palin and simple.


Sorry if this comes off as controversial.  Much of what you said obviously bothers me.  Hopefully even the smallest amount of what I've suggested will sink in on someone.  I consider it my OBLIGATION to confront anti-Constitutional attitudes - particularly among those we've elected to enforce our Constitution.  I'm also dismayed by the socialist attitudes often displayed among American gunowners - the most freedom-loving bunch of people on this planet.  If we don't understand the concept, all is lost.

Constitutional not Socialist. I enforce the laws given to me. I have let far more people go for traffic stops than I have ever arrested. But for those who gave me a hard time and disrespected authority I enforced the lawe to its fullest, legally and will contune to do so.
If a citizen will disrespect authority at the lowest level than what are they doing at the other levels. Crimes begets crime.



    Black Fox[/quote]

I understand all this about wanting to make sure your rights are enforced.  In the long run, you may win in court.  But what does it hurt to be cordial unless you have something to hide?  Why be confrontational?  Most of the time the experience will be much more pleasant if you are nice about the whole thing.  If you try being cordial and then things go to hell, then you can start exercising your rights.  I am not going to give up my constitutional rights any more than anyone else, but why make everything a hassle.

Hey, guys, anyone been listening to the news lately? The Supremes have just handed down a decision that makes all this previous advice moot. Hot off the press [Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408]. Gal in Texas was pulled over. Cop saw that her kids weren't wearing their seat belts. For whatever reason, because he was a seat belt zealot or she gave him some lip, he hauled her out of the car, cuffed her and took her to jail.
Now, having placed her under a full custodial arrest, the Supremes have previously said that the cop has the right to do (1) a search "incident" to the arrest, i.e., whatever is on your person or within your reach or control. In a vehicle arrest, they can also do a (2) "inventory search), i.e., do everything but dismantle your car. So, point is, if you tell the cop who pulled you over for a broken tail light that "yeah I do mind if you look in the trunk", s/he will say, "ok, you're under arrest", hook you up, and search anyway.
   Now, what's the logical extension of this ruling? Cop knocks on your door at 2 a.m., says that someone has called in that your music is playing too loud, by the way, do you mind if he comes in and looks around? You say, yes, I do. He says "ok, you're under arrest for disturbing the peace", comes in and starts looking through your house. Think I might go buy some heavy duty Reynolds Wrap, cause I need a new hat.

Suggestion:  If the law requires you to notify the LEO, then do so, otherwise...

Law abiding citizen are not the LEO's enemy's.  We will do what is required to follow the law and will not attack a LEO.

In some places, once you announce to the LEO, that you have a firearm, they are required to retreive, render unusable (disassemble), verify everything is on the up and up.  Once there are no problems, they will then uncuff you, provide you your firearm, still unusable and allow you to go on your way.  The problem is, you just wasted 30-45 minutes of your time, the LEO and the 3 or 4 other backup LEO's time.

Don't put yourself in a position to create more problems.  Keep it simple and to the point.  Treat people as you want to be treated, etc.

Here is the complete ruling:

Clarifying the extent of police power in roadside stops, the Supreme Court held yesterday that officers can arrest and handcuff people even for minor offenses punishable by a fine. The justices ruled against a driver who was arrested and handcuffed for failing to wear a seat belt.

Such arrests do not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable search, the court declared Monday. In the 5-4 ruling, which could affect anyone who drives a car, the justices said such an arrest does not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures.

Police generally can arrest anyone they see breaking the law, the court said.

The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures." A lower court had ruled that Gail Atwater could not sue over her arrest because the officer did not violate her constitutional rights.

Atwater was driving her two children home from soccer practice in 1997 in Lago Vista, Texas, when she was stopped by a police officer who noticed the three were not wearing seat belts. Atwater told the officer "My children and I do not believe in wearing seat belts."

Texas law allows police officers to make arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding. The officer arrested Atwater, handcuffed her hands behind her back and took her to the city police station. A friend looked after her children and her pickup truck was towed away.

Atwater's mug shot was taken and she was released after posting bond. She later pleaded no contest to the seat belt offense and paid the maximum $50 fine.

Atwater and her husband, Michael Haas, sued the city and the police officer, saying the arrest violated her constitutional rights.

The high court majority rejected her argument that police should not have arrested her for a crime that would carry no jail time.

"The arrest and booking were inconvenient to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

Souter was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented.

The appeals court said the arrest was reasonable because the officer had reason to believe Atwater violated the law and the arrest was not carried out in an "extraordinary manner."

The states have widely varying policies on whether police can arrest people for minor offenses. Some states allow officers to arrest people for offenses punishable only by a fine, while others prohibit it. Some states let officers arrest someone they witness committing a misdemeanor offense only if the offense is considered a breach of peace.

As an LEO, I agree with you. Unless I feel unusal about a situation/traffic stop I normally do not ask if they have guns in the vehicle. If you ask, their eyes normally move to its location and you can take the appropriate action--you'd be surprized how well this works.

If a gun is in the truck it is of no threat to me, the officer, and I really have no problem with it. But if it is in plain view or I see it in the glove box, while they are reaching for the insurance card, then I am going to do some more investigating. Not to harass, but for my personal protection.

Even in a unusual situation: to date I have never dismantled a gun. Normally I ask them to open the truck and I place the gun back there --with thier permission--- and the clips or at least bullets in the glove box. I'm in no immediate threat now and all they have to do is reload the weapon when they desire.

There are several times I have stopped people on the way to the range, did my job (you know they have 10 guns in the back seat...and no I did not run them...they were on the road to the range within a mile of it....), and then we discuss guns....on the side of the road. Actually one of my best shooting partners and I met that way--I wish I owned his Sako Sniper weapon--.

If someone tells me they have a gun and they are on the way to the range or have a permit...if this is all volunteered then I normally say great...have a nice day...enjoy the range.....the volunteering of things such as this go a long way to aiding the LEO in the stop. I say notmally, because there 2 times I can remember that I stopped burglars..that gave me a similar story, but they were so nervous ......well they were arrested accordingly.

DocSwat writes:

"Police do have a right to ask general questions, such as your name, address, DOB, where are you coming from, where are you going..... you know there is crime on the streets ...."

Of course they do, and you have every right NOT to answer their questions.

I always laugh when I see the cops on TV tell a material witness, "You had better come down to the station with us.  You are either a witness or a suspect."

Ok, I have nothing to say at all, goodbye, and walk away.  Unless they arrest you, you are free to walk away.  I will NEVER tell a cop where I am going or coming from, ticket or not.  It's none of their business.  I'm sure this is not a problem for a white guy in Georgia.  But for a black man, or any colored person in Kali, it is.  If I were a black man, I would NEVER answer ANY cops questions about anything without a lawyer present.

Hey, our job is not to make your job easier, it's to protect our ass.  In Texas, I'll tell the cop whatever he wants to know.  In Kali, any info you give can and possibly will lead to a car search, who needs it?

Go back and read Ticonderoga's post(s) and then read Magic's. If you want to be guaranteed a ticket follow Ticonderoga's advise. If you would prefer to give yourself at least a 50% chance of not getting a ticket listen to Magic.

Police officers are like anyone else. If you act like a jerk with them they will return in kind.

The only thing I differ with Magic on is the question as to why I stopped you. My feelings were always if I ask and you say well, yes, you stopped me because I was speeding then there is no reason for me to write it down on a little piece of paper so you will remember and understand. LEO's hate "whome's". You ran that stop sigh back there sir, "who me?" You were speeding, "who me?"
I always liked to think that if I stopped you for a legitimate violation and let you off with a warning you would remember and appreciate it. In the future you might be a little more careful because I gave you a break in my baliwick. On the other hand if after you have been cooporative and I write you a ticket the next time you are in the area you will look around to see if I'm around and if not commit the same violation but worse this time....to get even. I've parked drunks (with a clean driving record) cars for them in the past and asked the dispatcher to call their wife to come and get them. They are in a lot more trouble from the wife for having to come get their drunk ass in the middle of the night than anything the courts could do to them and it is not taking food off of their families table.

But my idea of traffic enforcement was not to place money in the pocket of the municiplcality. My idea of traffic enforcement was to make the streets as safe as possible. More times than not that is done by giving people a break.
But if you are an asshole with me I'm the one with the ticket book.......and can become very creative.
The point is I would always move Heaven and earth to save a cooporative and honest mans driving record and wallet. I will [i]find[/i] every ticket that can be written on an uncooporative persons car.