Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/7/2004 11:35:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/7/2004 11:56:31 PM EST by GunSlinger75]
ok guys, I get pulled over for going 10 miles over posted speed limit. While writitng my ticket the officer asks the question about guns or drugs in the car, which I had neither and told him so. Officer then asked to searh vehicle, which I refused. Officer asks why I, and Itell him about my 4th admendment rigth and stuff, I am very respectfull through the whole process, no smart comments always saying sir ect.... After refusing twice he asks me to step out of the vehicle and pats me down. while he calls for back up. He explains that he belives I was hiding something because I countined 1 and half blocks before pulling over,( I never once took my hands off the wheel excapt to turn on ym turn signal) I told him I did this because there was no median on the side of the road so I continued ahead to a safer place to pull over where we would not be in the way of traffic. ( thought I was being considerate of his safety and mine) I slowed down and turned on my signals showing I was pulling over as soon as he turned on his lights. His back up arrived and they tried to convince me to consent too search, which I still refused. After about 30 minutes and their supervisor arriving I was allowed too leave.
My question is did I have to exit my vehicle and allowed my self to be searched for commiting a traffic infraction, or could I have refused that also?

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 11:40:53 PM EST
It was a Terry frisk. They were within their rights to search you, FOR WEAPONS only. They need probable cause to search for other things.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 11:55:26 PM EST
When you say weapons only, does that mean if they dont feel a weapon in my pockets they can not empty them?
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 11:55:35 PM EST
BULLSHIT This was not a Terry stop. This was a roust. If he had a founded suspicion justifying investigative detention and therefore a pat-down, it existed at the beginning of the stop, and not at the end. How could he be concerned for his safety at the conclusion of the encounter, as he was about to (or already had) hand you the ticket and leave? He was trying to fabricate a basis for a search or arrest. File an internal complaint, and consider suing. You, sir, have met a JBT.
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 11:55:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
It was a Terry frisk. They were within their rights to search you, FOR WEAPONS only. They need probable cause to search for other things.



I don't see it that way.

The officer has to have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the person to be searched

1) Is about to, just did, or currently, committing a crime.
2) Is armed.

Officers on traffic stops are within their authority to have occupants of a vehicle exit the vehicle, or stay in the vehicle, as a normal part of a traffic stop.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 12:06:52 AM EST
I stand corrected. Someone here said a Terry frisk could be done at the officers discretion.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 6:31:23 AM EST
A TERRY STOP and a TERRY FRISK are two seperate and different issues. One does not automatically justify the other. Discretion has nothing to do with it.

This was not a Terry Stop because the stop was made based upon the Officer observing a violation...thus... per the US Supreme Court.... it was in effect and ARREST, although not what is considered a "Custodial Arrest", an Arrest none the same. A Terry Stop is based on Reasonable Suspicion, a lesser level than Probable Cause, in which a crime has been, is being, or is about to be comitted.

Under a TERRY STOP, a TERRY FRISK can only take place if the Officer can articulate WHY he/she feels that you are armed or pose a specific threat. Just because an Officer has a legal right to stop you via a Terry Stop, he/she does not automatically have legal grounds to pat you down.

A TERRY FRISK IS NOT A STANDARD LEGAL POLICE PRACTICE !! IT MUST BE BASED UPON A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT A PERSON IS ARMED. However, many Officers will do it out of habit, etc.

Many LEO's have difficulty with Terry, even seasoned officers. I train new Officers to be fully aware of the limitations under Terry so they won't screw up a case and/or lose evidence. There are other legal creative ways to get consent to a pat down.

Under your circumstances, you were correct to refuse a search, that is your right. Under your circumstances, you are required to exit your vehicle if asked, again the courts have ruled this a "reasonable request" that is lawful.

Bottom line.... IF YOUR FACTS ARE CORRECT, your 30 minute detention and pat down appears to have been a violation of your rights. This is what gives all of us in LE a bad name.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Consent Searches provide a "valuble service to the public" as it allows the public to become actively involved in assisting LE Officers to quickly dispell any suspicions they may have concerning illegal activity.

YOU DO WANT TO ASSIST LE IN DISPELLING ANY DOUBTS ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, DON'T YOU ?
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 7:22:59 AM EST
You were right to not give consent to the search. Nothing wrong for standing up for your rights.

I can understand where the officer was coming from in regards to you taking a while to stop for him.

Personally, I try to wait until the target vehicle is in a good place to pull over before initiating a vehicle stop. If the driver doesn't pull over right away, I start thinking that they might be trying to hide something. if they turn onto a side street or parking lot I start thinking that they might be trying to setup an ambush situation.

Did the officer ask for his supervisor to come out, or did you?

You mentioned nothing about the officers demeanor. How did he act during this encounter? If he was professional and reciprocated your politeness, then I would say that he was just trying to do a good job.



Link Posted: 10/8/2004 9:47:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
BULLSHIT This was not a Terry stop. This was a roust. If he had a founded suspicion justifying investigative detention and therefore a pat-down, it existed at the beginning of the stop, and not at the end. How could he be concerned for his safety at the conclusion of the encounter, as he was about to (or already had) hand you the ticket and leave? He was trying to fabricate a basis for a search or arrest. File an internal complaint, and consider suing. You, sir, have met a JBT.



What he said

If he was gonna pat you down, he shoulda done it at the beginning of the stop. If he had PC to search, he would not have asked for consent.

The guy sounds like a JBT who gives us all a bad name, if it went down the way you said it did.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 10:11:46 AM EST
This is just pushing the rule of what you can get away with. Obviously he is not up on case law.
In order for it to be a free and voluntary consent search you must be free to go. Ie the ticket already written and the officer tell you that you are free to go. Anything short of that the courts have rled that the coersion factor sets in. Many people think that police can search what ever/when ever they want. The Supreme court ruled we did not have to tell them different. A few months ago I stopped a car for traffic violations including a licence plate off another vehicle being displayed. The occupants actions, words and stories not matching raised the level to an investigative level. I asked the female passenger at that time if she had anything I needed to know about abd she handes me a baggie
of marijana, a baggie of meth, and a loaded hypo which she stated was filled with meth. Was I going to pat her down? no way. But she assumed I would so she gave it up. She was already on probation for drugs so she is going to the wall on this one.

The same thing happened to me about 15 years back. I was stopped basically becaus I was white and drove through a black neighborhood. The officer made his contat and everything went fine. Then he wanted to search my vehicle. I told him no. I didnt have anything to hide but I value my rights. His first word were then I will arrest you for obstruction. My response was asked him if he had ever heard of US title 18 section 247, violation of civil rights under color of law. He said are you an attorney?
I said no and adviced him to get in touch wit his Sgt., who was one of my students at the college
where I insructed law enforcement. In a few seconds he came back and appologised but was pissed.
He wanted to know why did I not tell him who I was? I asked what difference that would of made and left. It still pisses me off until this day.

Your officer clearly violated your 4th amendment rights by seizing your person (at least by your account) with out probable cause. However there may be factors such as time/location etc which could of given p/c that you do not know or the officer did not articulate to you.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 12:44:50 PM EST
The fact that criminals started carrying weapons in all kinds of different shapes also works in our favor as LEOs. We have the right to frisk you during a detention if you give us some reason to believe that there maybe a weapon on your person. During the search if we feel something that we can not %100 discredit as a weapon we can remove it. Do some pipes feel the same as a pocket knife? sometimes

I can see where his suspicion might rise throughout the encounter with you. What's your criminal history look like (if any?) Perhaps he was just being a jerk or perhaps theres a little more to the story.. his side that we do not know of.

Did the officer write your ticket at your window as your story seems to indicate? That's poor practice, and he couldnt be all too concerned with officer safety standing at your window with both hands occupied.
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 5:33:10 PM EST
Well to answer some of your questions, No I have no criminal history at all, And I did not request for the supervisor to come to the scene. And the officer was polite until I refused his search it was then the he became a "stand offish" (if that is word). It was while he was writing the ticket he asked too search the vehicle, when I refused he went back to his car, I asume to run me and check for warrants. When he returned from his car he asked to search again, and I refused again. It was at this time I was asked to exit the vehicle and was patted down, during this pat down his back up arrived. While his back and himself talked I was ordered to keep my hands on the hood of his car. The back up officer also went Around my car with his flash light scanning the complete interior of my vehicle, while the ticketing officer questioned me on why I refused search. I believe the back up officer was lookign for something in plain site too allow the search. The stop occured an night about 11:00, while I was in route to a friends house. The road is a semi-rural road on the edge of town. The stop in all took about 1 hour, half hour of it was spent with my hands on the hood of the squad car. Today I noticed a couple gun Magazines are sitting in my back seat ( the kind you read). I believe the officer saw these and used as a basis too see if I was armed.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 9:04:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By GunSlinger75:
Today I noticed a couple gun Magazines are sitting in my back seat ( the kind you read). I believe the officer saw these and used as a basis too see if I was armed.



There's the reasonable suspicion for a frisk. Maybe the ofcr did not see it right away. Sounds like he was being thorough to me. A lot of drugs and paraphernalia are found during consent searches. And a lot of law abiding citizens get their vehicles searched. If we had x-ray vision it wouldn't be an issue.

I'll give the ofcr the benefit of the doubt since we're only hearing one side of the story.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 9:18:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By AHansen:

Originally Posted By GunSlinger75:
Today I noticed a couple gun Magazines are sitting in my back seat ( the kind you read). I believe the officer saw these and used as a basis too see if I was armed.



There's the reasonable suspicion for a frisk. Maybe the ofcr did not see it right away. Sounds like he was being thorough to me. A lot of drugs and paraphernalia are found during consent searches. And a lot of law abiding citizens get their vehicles searched. If we had x-ray vision it wouldn't be an issue.

I'll give the ofcr the benefit of the doubt since we're only hearing one side of the story.



So now you can't read a certain type of magazine with out worrying about being searched. Maybe if there were some "knitting" magazines in the back seat that would constitute a search as well. You know you can use those knitting pins as weapins too.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 10:23:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 10:34:21 PM EST by AHansen]

So now you can't read a certain type of magazine with out worrying about being searched. Maybe if there were some "knitting" magazines in the back seat that would constitute a search as well. You know you can use those knitting pins as weapins too.hr


Reasonable suspicion is all that's needed for a Terry Frisk. Gun mags in the back of the car could lead a reasonable person to believe that the driver is into guns. Any other questions?

I don't know why some people are so up in arms about this. If you drive and commit a traffic violation don't be surprised to get pulled over. A thorough officer will check for drugs, DUI, stolen property, stolen vehicle, etc. and there's a thousand ways people try to conceal those things. One of them is to look/act like a law abiding citizen. Today's dirtbags don't always look the part. I'd rather upset a few good guys and get some bad guys than never get the bad guys because I'm too afraid of hurting someone's feelings.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 1:23:12 AM EST
You know I sat here for 5 minutes typing a response but then deleted it and said fuck it. If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to violate an otherwise law abiding citizens rights then continue on. I guess while you have their drivers license you make it a point to write their address down so you can go and search their house after you shift. After all you did find that bondage porno in the trunk after the first search and they might have someone held against their will at their house.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:10:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By badeffect10:
If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to violate an otherwise law abiding citizens rights then continue on.



We're not talking about law abiding citizens. We're talking about somebody that has already broken the law.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:16:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 5:18:11 AM EST by ColtM4]

Originally Posted By GunSlinger75:
Well to answer some of your questions, No I have no criminal history at all, And I did not request for the supervisor to come to the scene. And the officer was polite until I refused his search it was then the he became a "stand offish" (if that is word). It was while he was writing the ticket he asked too search the vehicle, when I refused he went back to his car, I asume to run me and check for warrants. When he returned from his car he asked to search again, and I refused again. It was at this time I was asked to exit the vehicle and was patted down, during this pat down his back up arrived. While his back and himself talked I was ordered to keep my hands on the hood of his car. The back up officer also went Around my car with his flash light scanning the complete interior of my vehicle, while the ticketing officer questioned me on why I refused search. I believe the back up officer was lookign for something in plain site too allow the search. The stop occured an night about 11:00, while I was in route to a friends house. The road is a semi-rural road on the edge of town. The stop in all took about 1 hour, half hour of it was spent with my hands on the hood of the squad car. Today I noticed a couple gun Magazines are sitting in my back seat ( the kind you read). I believe the officer saw these and used as a basis too see if I was armed.




My problem with this officers actions are :

1. He only ordered you to exit the vehicle and conduct the pat frisk afteryou refused to consent to the search of your car and quite frankly after what appears to be 30 min had gone by.

2. The fact that they kept you there for and hour half of which with your hands on the hood out in traffic( a possible danger to you)seems exessive and possibly retaliation for your refusing consent on the vehicle search.

This is an LEO which does not like to have is authority checked or questioned. I've worked with many just like that and I can tell you that they are as much a problem to other LEO's as to the public. These are the same kinda guys that violate peoples civil rights or use unnecassary or exessive force and expect you ( his partner) to back him up (lie for him).

You may want to lodge a complaint against this officer and his supervisor who allowed it after notification. If this type of action is left unchecked he will continue to do this.

You may want to go to the mayors office/county executive or internal affairs and lodge a complaint. Another avenue you have is to file a civil rights violation with the local FBI Office.

Sorry this had to happen to you.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:22:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:

Originally Posted By badeffect10:
If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to violate an otherwise law abiding citizens rights then continue on.



We're not talking about law abiding citizens. We're talking about somebody that has already broken the law.



I guess I should have been more clear. I realize that the intial stop was for speeding or other minor traffic infraction. Is a minor traffic violation even considered a misdeamenor??(serious ?) But should that give law enforcent the right to TRY and pin something greater on you just for a minor traffic violation where from the outside of the vehicle everything else looks fine?
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:39:37 AM EST
If they really want to pull you out and frisk you, they probably can do it and get away with it. That's why, if you're carrying something you "shouldn't" - don't have it on your person, have it hidden in your car. You think a jury will convict a cop when he says "I just did it for my safety?"

A deputy who taught a Stressfire class I attended told me this - If you don't have anything in your car (duh) and they ask to search, tell the cop they can search everything EXCEPT the glove box (or trunk or briefcase on the floor, etc). They will become very interesed in that area. The conversation may go something like this...

Cop: "why, what's in the glovebox"
You: "Nothing"
Cop: "Then why can't I search it"
You: "I told you, nothing is in there"
Cop : "Then you won't mind if I have a look myself"
You: "Yes I would mind. Besides, I've told you there is nothing in there. Why do you need to look there?"
Cop: "Very well, I think you're hiding something, I'm going to have a K-9 unit come by and run around the outside of your car"
You: "He's not going to find anything, you're just wasting both our time and my tax dollars. I'd really like to go now"
Cop: "I can't let you go until the K-9 is done"
You : "Ok, but there really is nothing in there"

[k9 arrives, sniffs around car, sniffs glove box finds nothing]

Cop: "Well the K-9 found nothing, but I still think you're hiding something"
You: "I'm not, there is nothing in there"
Cop "then let me take a look"
You: "FINE! Just look in the goddamned glove box if it will make you happy"
Cop [proceeds to glove box, and opens it, now expecting to find 15 kilos of coke, 12 AK-47s, a stash of child porn, and proof that the CIA really killed Kennedy. Upon discovering a couple of pens, owners manual, map and some left over ketchup from McDonalds he gets pissed and embarrassed at the same time]
Cop: "Now why didn't you let me serach, there was nothing in there"
You: "I told you that, why didn't you belive me? May I go now?"

Oh, the other way to do it is this - do not let them serach that specific area no matter what. Completely refuse, have a supervisor called out. Eventually, they will let you go. however, they will follow you, and contact LEOs down the road to stop you for ANY infraction at all and try to search again. When they do, give them permission to search the car EXCEPT a different area (if you said glovebox last time, say trunk this time)

repeat until your sides hurt from laughing so much

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:54:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 5:56:20 AM EST by badeffect10]
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 4:22:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/10/2004 4:24:15 PM EST by thesacrifice]

Originally Posted By badeffect10:
You know I sat here for 5 minutes typing a response but then deleted it and said fuck it. If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to violate an otherwise law abiding citizens rights then continue on. I guess while you have their drivers license you make it a point to write their address down so you can go and search their house after you shift. After all you did find that bondage porno in the trunk after the first search and they might have someone held against their will at their house.



nobodys rights were violated, troll

To the original author. I think most should agree, that an HOUR is too long of a stop, you getting out of your car and a frisk takes what.. a minute tops?
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 4:41:27 PM EST

To the original author. I think most should agree, that an HOUR is too long of a stop


Understatement of the year. Sounds like harrasment and abuse of power to me. Some cops just don't understand this Country has an innocent until proven guilty stance, not the other way around. To the good cops everywhere, thank you. To the cops that abuse the trust granted you, shame on you.

r/s

Dan
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 7:29:59 AM EST
Based on what you say, it seems to me that they were looking for someone or a car that matched your description. It happens.

I can't tell you how many frigging white vans I had to stop and check out during the "sniper" spree here a while back. People were calling them in left and right.

Saturday (responding to a gun brandishing call) we stopped a car based on a witnesses description (i.e. witness said "that's the car" and pointed to it specifically, so we pulled it over). We do a felony stop, search occupants and car and find nothing. Witness says "well, those aren't the guys" after we spend damn near 30 minutes on them.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 1:09:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 3:38:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By MP906:

Originally Posted By badeffect10:

Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:

Originally Posted By badeffect10:
If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to violate an otherwise law abiding citizens rights then continue on.



We're not talking about law abiding citizens. We're talking about somebody that has already broken the law.



I guess I should have been more clear. I realize that the intial stop was for speeding or other minor traffic infraction. Is a minor traffic violation even considered a misdeamenor??(serious ?) But should that give law enforcent the right to TRY and pin something greater on you just for a minor traffic violation where from the outside of the vehicle everything else looks fine?



Umm, how do you think we find drugs and numerous other forms of illegal activity? It doesn't fall out of the sky. It is the traffic code my friend.

I'm a Trooper, so besides work accidents, that is all I do (stop cars for traffic violations). I also write 3 times as many warnings as tickets, because usually I'm just looking to talk to folks and investigate possible criminal activity. Especially at night, I stop cars for 3-4 over the speed limit, crossing the centerline(however slight), etc.

Having said that, if someone refuses a search, you either call a K-9 or let them go, you don't sit there and bug them until they consent.

99.9% of people just consent, whether they have any contraband or not. There are TWO types of people that refuse searches. 1. Criminals who have been busted before and have smartened up(most don't smarten up). 2. People really into "protecting their rights", have a copy of the Constitution in their right pocket, and hang out in the General discussion forum on AR15.com.

It is usually pretty easy to tell the difference. For one, if you have any training at all, you can read people's stress signals.






Thanks for your take on the matter and your rationale behind it. I guess I would be the guy that is really into protecting his rights. I know officers have a tough job and its hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad. I was having a bad night it reguards to my previous reply. I appreciate your informative reply and not just throwing the troll symbol around like one other person has. Stay safe.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 3:37:45 AM EST
I dont know why people keep pulling over for these cops, I mean the best way to avoid them is to just run from them. Ive tried this on several occasions and its worked.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 9:37:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By AHansen:
Reasonable suspicion is all that's needed for a Terry Frisk. Gun mags in the back of the car could lead a reasonable person to believe that the driver is into guns. Any other questions?




Assuming you're in law enforcement, I really hope your employer isn't self-insured. If it is self-insured, they're going to be naming a property tax increase after you one day. That said, I do have a question:


Gun mags in the back of the car could lead a reasonable person to believe that the driver is into guns.


So what? A Terry stop requires a founded suspicion that a crime is being, has been, or is about to be committed. Not, as you seem to think, a reasonable suspicion of anything at all. When a cop sees the name plate on the trunk, he acquires a founded suspicion that the operator is driving a Chevrolet. When he gets a look at the driver, he may develop a founded suspicion that both of the guy's parents were white. Assuming that possession of a copy of Guns & Ammo leads to the conclusion that the possessor is "into guns," it still doesn't amount to an actionable suspicion of wrongdoing, and doesn't justify a Terry stop or any other action by the officer, except maybe "Hey, is that the October issue? I haven't seen that yet. Are you done with it?"
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 6:59:57 PM EST

99.9% of people just consent, whether they have any contraband or not. There are TWO types of people that refuse searches. 1. Criminals who have been busted before and have smartened up(most don't smarten up). 2. People really into "protecting their rights", have a copy of the Constitution in their right pocket, and hang out in the General discussion forum on AR15.com.


Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:03:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 7:03:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 7:03:27 PM EST by Glock918]
locked
Top Top