So I got pulled over recently and the police officer noticed that there were a couple of .40 bullets in my console.  He asked me if I was carrying a handgun, and I replied that I wasn't, and that I had been to the range the day before and that there was a hole in my ammo bag (which happens to be true).  I wasn't rude to him, figuring he was just trying to do his job and be safe.

End result, he ended up searching my truck and of course finding nothing.

Now I'm not all that mad about it, but it was a pain in the ass.  The question is (particularly aimed at the TX LEOs onboard), did he really have any kind of real legitimate cause to put me through the trouble?  I have no outstanding tickets nor warrants, and no violent or gun-related offenses on my record.  I wasn't speeding and the only reason he pulled me over is that my registration sticker was expired (I showed him the new one, which I hadn't put on yet).

It was pretty much clear that just letting him toss the car was quicker than arguing with him about it.  I'm still a bit ticked, however.

there was a LEO on here a while back in a discussion about legality of handguns and searches in vehicles, and he said they can perform what they call an "inventory" which is basically just a search that doesn't need a warrant.

I don't understand what he hoped to accomplish by seaching, other than if you had it, you would of been lying, not sure what level of a crime that is.

more and more LEO's are becoming more agitated with the idea of civilians carrying weapons.  I know cause some are in my family and that's the vibe they give, doesn't matter if you stress to them the foundations of firearm ownership in this country, they as a whole don't like the idea of you having something to point at them.  More and more.....a police state.

Quoted: there was a LEO on here a while back in a discussion about legality of handguns and searches in vehicles, and he said they can perform what they call an "inventory" which is basically just a search that doesn't need a warrant.

I think the inventory search is only applicable if your vehicle is being towed.  For example, you are pulled over for failure to signal, the arresting officer thinks you are hiding something, you refuse permission to search, he arrests you (which he can do for failure to signal), then in the process of towing your car he's allowed to do an inventory search.

My understanding is that an inventory search is performed subsequent to arrest, and prior to the vehicle being impounded in the event that the suspect does not have someone available to remove the vehicle from the scene on their behalf.  The intent is to protect the arresting officer, such that the suspect doesn't later claim, "what happened to the 2 dozen gold Rolex's that were in the back seat?"

I have had my vehicle "tossed" before for simply blowing a yellow light, and got a free trip to Central Lockup [N.O.] in the process, after having been yanked from said vehicle and cuffed & stuffed.  All charges including the traffic citation were later dropped when it was verified that I was indeed not the suspect fleeing the scene of a felony assault in a similar make/model vehicle.  One can beat the rap, but not always the ride.

Disclaimer:  I am neither BAR-licensed legal counsel nor LEO.

Since UCW is still against the law in Texas.... I would imagine that seeing pistol caliber ammunition in plain view would give PC to a search.

You can argue all day long whether the new law on UCW would protect you or not..... but people are still getting arrested for it regardless.

Quoted: Since UCW is still against the law in Texas.... I would imagine that seeing pistol caliber ammunition in plain view would give PC to a search. You can argue all day long whether the new law on UCW would protect you or not..... but people are still getting arrested for it regardless.

ppsstt-- if he didn't see a weapon, which he didn't, then it would be concealed, not UCW. The ammo is NOT a gun. Therefore no probable cause.

Also-- the new law protects one if its concealed (w/ the other requirements). The old law still applies if he does not meet the requirements of the new law, it just makes the definition of "traveling" vague and up to case law and judge/jury opinion...

Quoted: Since UCW is still against the law in Texas.... I would imagine that seeing pistol caliber ammunition in plain view would give PC to a search.

Not if I am on the Appeals Court. Seeing a lawful item in someone's vehicle is not grounds for a search. Can they search Wal-Mart when they see handgun ammo there?  What next, a magazine with front-page add on how to conceal carry? How about a bottle of aspirin? Does that allow PC for drug search?

the times are a changin....  I remember when this was a no-no...

Quoted: Quoted: Since UCW is still against the law in Texas.... I would imagine that seeing pistol caliber ammunition in plain view would give PC to a search. You can argue all day long whether the new law on UCW would protect you or not..... but people are still getting arrested for it regardless. ppsstt-- if he didn't see a weapon, which he didn't, then it would be concealed, not UCW.

ppsstt-- UCW - Unlawful Carrying Weapons.  Concealed or not has no bearing.  Unless you are referring to the new definition of the "presumption of traveling".... which we ARE NOT debating here.  This is a PC issue.

The ammo is NOT a gun. Therefore no probable cause.

That is laughable.  All kinds of facts lead up to probable cause.  If you had to see the infraction itself - there would not be such a thing as PC - because the crime had already been witnessed.  Very similar to this would be - officer sees alumimum foil bits rolled up, often used for making crude pipes.  There is a smell of marijauna inside the vehicle.  The drivers eyes are bloodshot, and he is reacting strangely during the traffic stop.  These add up to PC to perform a search - at least in some officers eyes.  By your reasoning, he would have to see the bag of dope, and absolutely KNOW it is dope, before he could perform a search.  That is ridiculous.

Also-- the new law protects one if its concealed (w/ the other requirements). The old law still applies if he does not meet the requirements of the new law, it just makes the definition of "traveling" vague and up to case law and judge/jury opinion...

Blah blah blah - go read any of the other 3000 threads on this subject if you wanna debate that issue.

Quoted: Quoted: Since UCW is still against the law in Texas.... I would imagine that seeing pistol caliber ammunition in plain view would give PC to a search. Not if I am on the Appeals Court. Seeing a lawful item in someone's vehicle is not grounds for a search. Can they search Wal-Mart when they see handgun ammo there?  What next, a magazine with front-page add on how to conceal carry? How about a bottle of aspirin? Does that allow PC for drug search? the times are a changin....  I remember when this was a no-no...

I agree with you - and I want you on my jury!  But PC is always hotly contested, and ill defined.

So - let me ask you - what would you have done.  You are in the same situation - You are unarmed, ammo in plain view - officer explains he is going to search your vehicle.  Do you verbally explain that you do not consent, and request he get a warrant if he wishes to pursue a search?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Since UCW is still against the law in Texas.... I would imagine that seeing pistol caliber ammunition in plain view would give PC to a search. Not if I am on the Appeals Court. Seeing a lawful item in someone's vehicle is not grounds for a search. Can they search Wal-Mart when they see handgun ammo there?  What next, a magazine with front-page add on how to conceal carry? How about a bottle of aspirin? Does that allow PC for drug search? the times are a changin....  I remember when this was a no-no... I agree with you - and I want you on my jury!  But PC is always hotly contested, and ill defined. So - let me ask you - what would you have done.  You are in the same situation - You are unarmed, ammo in plain view - officer explains he is going to search your vehicle.  Do you verbally explain that you do not consent, and request he get a warrant if he wishes to pursue a search?

I am also old and wise enough to know when and where to pick your your battles, and on the side of the road with a cop is not one of them. More than likely TXRabbitBane gave consent, and the search was legal. So 1) never give consent, 2) if cop says he is going to search your car, just lodge your disapproval, because he is going to search your vehicle. I guess you could ask him to get his supervisor's opinion, but that might not happen. Then he searches, finds nothing and I am on my way with the least amount of disruption. Welcome to the Real World.

Quoted: more and more LEO's are becoming more agitated with the idea of civilians carrying weapons.  I know cause some are in my family and that's the vibe they give, doesn't matter if you stress to them the foundations of firearm ownership in this country, they as a whole don't like the idea of you having something to point at them.

Here is one to get flamed by..



Tell them that they should have known that when they took the job and thus that burden befalls them.

Quoted: Quoted: there was a LEO on here a while back in a discussion about legality of handguns and searches in vehicles, and he said they can perform what they call an "inventory" which is basically just a search that doesn't need a warrant. I think the inventory search is only applicable if your vehicle is being towed.  For example, you are pulled over for failure to signal, the arresting officer thinks you are hiding something, you refuse permission to search, he arrests you (which he can do for failure to signal), then in the process of towing your car he's allowed to do an inventory search.

Can you tell him, don't bother inventorying, if anything is lost, you won't file a claim with the city?

Fact is, in the end I did give consent.  Although I did not feel that there was any reason to search my vehicle, and told the officer so, I knew there was nothing to find and that in the end it would be less of a hassle to let him take care of business.

From a "rights" standpoint, this kind of sucks, in my opinion.  I had nothing to gain by raising a stink.

I try and support law enforcement, but in this case I really think the cop just gave me a hard time for the sheer pleasure of flexing his muscles.

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I wanted to add one more thing.

Right this second there is a broken charging handle on my dashboard waiting to be sent back to a vendor.  Does that also constitute grounds to give me a hard time?

Quoted: Sorry to reply to my own post, but I wanted to add one more thing. Right this second there is a broken charging handle on my dashboard waiting to be sent back to a vendor.  Does that also constitute grounds to give me a hard time?

No.

Most cops are too stupid to know what those are.  

If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway.  Cops abuse, misuse and bend the law how they see fit to get their way and there's nothing you can do about it.  Welcome to our police state.

Quoted: If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway.  Cops abuse, misuse and bend the law how they see fit to get their way and there's nothing you can do about it.  Welcome to our police state.

They have to write a written report of a search, and list the probable cause used to search.  This is state law, from what I have read in the statutes.  At least if you felt PC wasnt there, you could complain to the dept and it could be reviewed.

Typical.  One of the most important rights you have, and none of you has a clue how it works. (Though one comes close).  Educate yourselves instead of whining about the "police state'.

BTW:  I have more important things to do than screw around over ammo or broken charging handles  in the car.

As an aside,  police certainly WILL recognise a charging handle.  After all, they are trained to disassemble their OWN AR's.

Quoted: Typical.  One of the most important rights you have, and none of you has a clue how it works. (Though one comes close).  Educate yourselves instead of whining about the "police state'. BTW:  I have more important things to do than screw around over ammo or broken charging handles  in the car. As an aside,  police certainly WILL recognise a charging handle.  After all, they are trained to disassemble their OWN AR's.

Once again, John chimes in calling everyone uneducated without offering any knowledge on the issue.

What a guy.


IF there is something they need to know, fucking say it.

TXL

Quoted: If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway.  Cops abuse, misuse and bend the law how they see fit to get their way and there's nothing you can do about it.  Welcome to our police state.

Oh yeah you know us all.  Why don't you STFU and stop speaking for everyone whom you think you know.  

Well....now that this has gotten off topic and the FU@% LEO stuff has come out, let's try to re-focus and answer the question!  I am LEO 1st off and NO, I don't think he had any PC to believe you comitted a criminal offense.  Was kind of you to allow him to do so, but don't know all of the circumstances etc...but from what you have stated, I would see no need to search the vehicle, unless there had just been a crime comitted in the area etc (totality of the circumstances).... Did you ask why his reasoning was? Just curious.

In regard to inventory search, they are done after arrest, before you tow the vehicle. I actually have a good story on that one....Thanksgiving day, a Reserve Deputy observes 4 hispanic males exiting a vehicle on the side of the road, as he pulls up, they jump into another car and speed off.  The owner of the car runs up and tells Deputy that they just broke into his truck. Deputy persues them, long story short, we arrest them for burglary of vehicle.  As I am inventorying the vehicle, readying to have towed, I open the trunk and find an air compressor, pillow case loaded with PlayStation2, DVD Player and several other things...along with a camera with a ladies address on it....Sgt goes to that address and finds the door kicked in. Dispatch also advised us that there was another pending burglary of hab call where some of the same items that I found in the car were taken from...ended up charging them with 2 Burg of Hab and 1 Burg of Vehicle.  

PC is not vague!!!  It is very clear, either you have PC or you leave it the HELL ALONE, or find yourself in Fed Court!  In regard to the statement by bigkracka that "If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway" is just plain ignorance or stupidity! If you have an officer that does not have PC to search and does not get consent if no PC, you will find a cop that won't have a job long!!

Quoted:
Quoted:
Typical.  One of the most important rights you have, and none of you has a clue how it works. (Though one comes close).  Educate yourselves instead of whining about the "police state'.

BTW:  I have more important things to do than screw around over ammo or broken charging handles  in the car.

As an aside,  police certainly WILL recognise a charging handle.  After all, they are trained to disassemble their OWN AR's.

Once again, John chimes in calling everyone uneducated without offering any knowledge on the issue. What a guy.

And here you are again, just insults and not offering any knowledge of your own. Predictable as rain..
Lewis,  do you HONESTLY think this search and seizure thread  is going to be any different from the other couple of thousand search and seizure threads?  I'm not their keeper, and I'm not calling anyone stupid that has not already amply demonstrated that fact.  I can explain the process all you want.  No one is ever going to listen.

"Too stupid to recognise a charging handle"  THAT is a moronic statement.  Some folks just prefer to be willfully ignorant.  Clarence Darrow himself couldn't sway them.  Nowhere is that more apparent that in these types of threads.  

this happened to me a bout 2 years ago.when he asked if he could search i said no,bein the ass i can be at times.he had called my license in no warrants or such. i was kinda tired of hearin about all the unlawful searches and such and was determined to wait em out or make em get a warrant.after about 10 minutes the county cop came back to the end of the truck were i was sittin and said you are free to go.have a nice day.i'll never consent when im not doin anything wrong.

Quoted: PC is not vague!!!  It is very clear, either you have PC or you leave it the HELL ALONE, or find yourself in Fed Court!

I would say this is only true when you find something on a criminal, make arrest, he has good attorney and you had bad PC. Illegal searches on law-abiding citizens rarely go to court (such as this one), because law-abiding citizens rarely complain unless they suffer some sort of damages. Sadly in America, Case Law on most rights is made by guilty parties arguing before the court, not innocent people. I think lawyers have a phrase for it, "bad facts make bad law", or something similar.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Typical.  One of the most important rights you have, and none of you has a clue how it works. (Though one comes close).  Educate yourselves instead of whining about the "police state'. BTW:  I have more important things to do than screw around over ammo or broken charging handles  in the car. /snip Once again, John chimes in calling everyone uneducated without offering any knowledge on the issue. What a guy. And here you are again, just insults and not offering any knowledge of your own. Predictable as rain.. /snip

John, let's face it, your opinions have historically been somewhat contrary to the majority here.....not necessarily a bad thing as this is a discussion forum after all, and it is no secret that the prevailing attitude is pretty far to the right.

That being said, please do humor us on "how it works" so that we can become more enlightened.  Failure to do so would essentially put you in the exact catergory as that which you accused TxL of.

Thanks.

Here is one more tidbit. If you are in DFW and have been watching the news, you know more and more cities are towing illegal vehicles. No insurance, no registration, no inspection, etc., instant tow. Which means inventory search. Probably would not have affected TxRabbitBane since he had valid sticker in his possession and could have slapped it on real quick getting his vehicle into compliance, but you can see the trend here.

Take the whole search issue off the table, nobody wants to pay $100+ + time to get a towed vehicle back over a minor issue like regs/ins/insp stickers, etc. So make sure your vehicle is in compliance.

Quoted: Here is one more tidbit. If you are in DFW and have been watching the news, you know more and more cities are towing illegal vehicles. No insurance, no registration, no inspection, etc., instant tow. Which means inventory search. Probably would not have affected TxRabbitBane since he had valid sticker in his possession and could have slapped it on real quick getting his vehicle into compliance, but you can see the trend here. Take the whole search issue off the table, nobody wants to pay $100+ + time to get a towed vehicle back over a minor issue like regs/ins/insp stickers, etc. So make sure your vehicle is in compliance.

That reminds me, my inspection is due this month...great suggestion, avoid the "contact" in the first place.

Quoted: Quoted: If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway.  Cops abuse, misuse and bend the law how they see fit to get their way and there's nothing you can do about it.  Welcome to our police state. Oh yeah you know us all.  Why don't you STFU and stop speaking for everyone whom you think you know.

 Well fuck you too.  Never claimed to "know" any of you, but I have met quite a few over the years and been in the front seat many times.  I've seen how you guys operate first hand.   Sure not all officers are like that but the majority I met were.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway.  Cops abuse, misuse and bend the law how they see fit to get their way and there's nothing you can do about it.  Welcome to our police state. Oh yeah you know us all.  Why don't you STFU and stop speaking for everyone whom you think you know.    Well fuck you too.  Never claimed to "know" any of you, but I have met quite a few over the years and been in the front seat many times.  I've seen how you guys operate first hand.   Sure not all officers are like that but the majority I met were.

I've met a few as well, and a few that you wouldn't think would do an illegal search, but will if they had the chance.

<flame suit=on>I bet jadams951 is one too...</flame suit=off>

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway.  Cops abuse, misuse and bend the law how they see fit to get their way and there's nothing you can do about it.  Welcome to our police state. Oh yeah you know us all.  Why don't you STFU and stop speaking for everyone whom you think you know.    Well fuck you too.  Never claimed to "know" any of you, but I have met quite a few over the years and been in the front seat many times.  I've seen how you guys operate first hand.   Sure not all officers are like that but the majority I met were. I've met a few as well, and a few that you wouldn't think would do an illegal search, but will if they had the chance. <flame suit=on>I bet jadams951 is one too...</flame suit=off>

Well that raises the count to two in this thread that are ignorant fu&^*rs that think they know everything.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you do not consent to the search they will "find" a reason to search anyway.  Cops abuse, misuse and bend the law how they see fit to get their way and there's nothing you can do about it.  Welcome to our police state. Oh yeah you know us all.  Why don't you STFU and stop speaking for everyone whom you think you know.    Well fuck you too.  Never claimed to "know" any of you, but I have met quite a few over the years and been in the front seat many times.  I've seen how you guys operate first hand.   Sure not all officers are like that but the majority I met were. I've met a few as well, and a few that you wouldn't think would do an illegal search, but will if they had the chance. <flame suit=on>I bet jadams951 is one too...</flame suit=off> Well that raises the count to two in this thread that are ignorant fu&^*rs that think they know everything.

Ok... so I am counting you, and who was the 2nd? Its good that you are admitting you don't know shit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Typical.  One of the most important rights you have, and none of you has a clue how it works. (Though one comes close).  Educate yourselves instead of whining about the "police state'. BTW:  I have more important things to do than screw around over ammo or broken charging handles  in the car. /snip Once again, John chimes in calling everyone uneducated without offering any knowledge on the issue. What a guy. And here you are again, just insults and not offering any knowledge of your own. Predictable as rain.. /snip John, let's face it, your opinions have historically been somewhat contrary to the majority here.....not necessarily a bad thing as this is a discussion forum after all, and it is no secret that the prevailing attitude is pretty far to the right. That being said, please do humor us on "how it works" so that we can become more enlightened.  Failure to do so would essentially put you in the exact catergory as that which you accused TxL of. Thanks.

Okay, since you are the first to ask civilly.  I thank you for that.  The first thing to realize is,   there are two levels.  Probable Cause (PC)  and Reasonable Suspicion. (RS)  The latter being a lower standard, it often leads to developing PC.  

Next, you have to realize, NEITHER of these apply in Rabbit's case.  The officer asked for and Rabbit gave permission.  He already has a justifiable contact with Rabbit on a separate infraction.  If Rabbit had just said "no" he would have been on his way at that point.

As far as the visible ammo itself,  I really can't see that as PC. But, as I said, PC is not needed in this case.

I do this quite a bit with gangbangers/druggies.  After a traffic stop, I ask:  "Got any dope or weapons in the car?  No? Mind if I look and see?".   90% of the time they have, and 90 % of the time they let me, just like Rabbit.  

As for inventory searches, those come into play pretty much in two situations.  Either a vehicle used in a crime or abandoned, (getaway/stolen  car) in which case it becomes evidence.  Or, an accompanying arrest in which the car and contents become custodial property (for safekeeping) DWI's are a good example of this. Once I arrest someone I become responsible for everything they have with them.  

Just a note, inventories don't have to be just on cars.  An arrested subject's pockets or backpacks are inventoried too.  Pretty much any property that goes with an arrest is inventoried, documented, and stored for safekeeping.  Heaven help you if you arrest some homeless guy with two duffel bags of dirty clothes.

Inventories are for my protection.  I'm not looking for evidentiary value from it.  We even videotape them.   You'd be amazed how many folks lose $30K worth of stuff when you tow their car.  If I find dope or stolen property,  it's quite admissible.  Even if it's hidden under all the "Rolex watches"      

Lastly, one note.  The only times my political outlook differs from the Arfcom  mob is pretty much in "police" and "Kill them all"  tinfoil type threads. I rarely ever post in anything else.  You'd be amazed how conservative I am politically.  

A little off topic suggestion here.  Having ammo, gun parts, shooting gear or NRA/gun club stickers in plain view is just plain dumb.  Police are not the only one's looking into your car, and  thieves are not above a quick smash and grope just to see if you DO have a gun in the car to go with that hunting decal.  Vehicles are NOT secure storage contaners.  Might as well lay your guns out in the front yard and save the window glass.

tag

Wow, I love when a topic that has potential for good answers gets shit on by "the police are out to get us all crwod"

Quoted: "Too stupid to recognise a charging handle"  THAT is a moronic statement.

Whoa now!  That was a joke - and I apologize if I offended any LEO's.  I just meant that it is far easier to recognize ammo, than a charging handle.

Let's expand on this a bit now that it seems to be getting back on topic.  

Hypothetical situation:  A CHL holder is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction [non-felony], and as required by law, declares to the officer that he has a weapon in the vehicle.  The officer has the legal right to disarm the individual.  Is this considered consent to search the entire vehicle, or to simply secure the declared handgun?

Add another stupid fucker to this list that thinks we have real problems
brewings in regards to the police state mentality of the average cop.

I know for a fact of the problems, first my wife - being an attorney -
has seen the inner workings of several police depts in north Texas.  
Second, I have first hand knowledge of the "behind closed doors" attitudes of
many cops.  I have seen first hand the corruption and police state
mentality that exist.  The topics we are discussing are not some
"hypothetical" for me.  

I recognise there are many cops who are decent and trying to do a good
job.  But, those of you that thank people like me have no reason
to be concerned are deluding yourselves.

nevermind

Quoted: Let's expand on this a bit now that it seems to be getting back on topic.   Hypothetical situation:  A CHL holder is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction [non-felony], and as required by law, declares to the officer that he has a weapon in the vehicle.  The officer has the legal right to disarm the individual.  Is this considered consent to search the entire vehicle, or to simply secure the declared handgun?

No it's not considered consent to search the entire vehicle only to secure the weapon while dealing with the CHL holder in whatever capacity.  

But, others on here, will lead you to believe we will use it to get consent or do whatever we want since we are all JBT's.

>Sobecause you have "knowledge" of all this stuff, guess that means that you can lump us all togather?

So are you telling me I should put aside 43 years of observations? Are you going to tell
me that over the last few decades we have not seen a turn in this country whereby
joe average has more and more reasons to be concerned when he has
an "encounter".  

And yes, we would all do well to judge groups of people based upon their
observed group behavour.

>Your comment at the end of your post is just CYA because you dont want to come out and say
>that you think we are all that way right???

Well, it was an honest observation.  Had we had this conversation 25 years ago I would
have obsearve that MOST LEO's are honerable and obsearve basic "rights"
of people.   I guess in the sense that I was stating my beliefs so that you don't get all defensive
about my statements then, sure it is a CYA statement.  


Now, can you give me an honest answer to the question "Should joe average, like
myself, be concerned about the direction law enforcement is going in this country?"

Or are you telling me that I am way off base and just full of it.  I recongnize I just
might be full of shit, but again, 43 years of obsearving things suggest otherwise.


Also, I think it is apropriate to "judge" professional organizations based upon
broad obersvations of their collective actions.  Each officer is a reflection of
a system which allows him to act the way he does.  In a similar manner
I think officers should not allow the bad apples to exist, they ARE
a reflection on you.  Their continued and increased visibility suggest, to
me at least, the fact that the good guys in the system are allowing
the to act inappropriately.

Go ahead, rip me a new asshole and tell me how I am a cop hater.

Quoted:
Also, I think it is apropriate to "judge" professional organizations based upon
broad obersvations of their collective actions.  Each officer is a reflection of
a system which allows him to act the way he does.  In a similar manner
I think officers should not allow the bad apples to exist, they ARE
a reflection on you.  Their continued and increased visibility suggest, to
me at least, the fact that the good guys in the system are allowing
the to act inappropriately.quote]

So can we judge your wife on the actions of other lawyers, or doctors on the actions of other doctors, or electricians, or the guy who cleans the windows on the skyscrapers in Dallas?  

>So can we judge your wife on the actions of other lawyers, or doctors on the actions of other doctors, or electricians, or
>the guy who cleans the windows on the skyscrapers in Dallas?

ABSOLUTELY!

At least to the degree that she is in some small way responsible for practicing her trade honerably both
to help ensure her integrity and that of her peers.  I would assume she would report a judge that
is taking kick-backs to settle cases.   If nothing else I can form an impression of what a profession
will allow by looking at what it allows those of the trade to get away with.  

By the way
you picked two great professions to use as analogies - Drs and Lawyers.  People make
assumptions about Drs and Lawyers  everyday based upon the actions of other Drs
and Lawyers.

Is this wrong?  Am I way off base?

This seems very common sense to me.  I mean there is a de facto fact that people
form an impression of you - and your peers - when they have encouters with you
proforming your trade.  This is true even if you don't belive it.  Ever heard of the
phrase, "Not your fault, but it is your problem."  There is a similar thing at work here.

Again, perhaps I am way off base.  No doubt someone will set me straight.  ;)

Quoted: Quoted: there was a LEO on here a while back in a discussion about legality of handguns and searches in vehicles, and he said they can perform what they call an "inventory" which is basically just a search that doesn't need a warrant. I think the inventory search is only applicable if your vehicle is being towed.  For example, you are pulled over for failure to signal, the arresting officer thinks you are hiding something, you refuse permission to search, he arrests you (which he can do for failure to signal), then in the process of towing your car he's allowed to do an inventory search.

Resons to search

Incident to arrest
tow
plain view
consent
exigent circumstances
warrant


I think there are a couple more dont recall off the top of my head

Quoted: Quoted: Let's expand on this a bit now that it seems to be getting back on topic.   Hypothetical situation:  A CHL holder is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction [non-felony], and as required by law, declares to the officer that he has a weapon in the vehicle.  The officer has the legal right to disarm the individual.  Is this considered consent to search the entire vehicle, or to simply secure the declared handgun? No it's not considered consent to search the entire vehicle only to secure the weapon while dealing with the CHL holder in whatever capacity.   But, others on here, will lead you to believe we will use it to get consent or do whatever we want since we are all JBT's.

Beat me to it.  

Keep in mind, anything a police officer does during a contact is broken down into separate events with specific burdens that have to be met.  Your CHL for example is a totally separate issue from whatever infraction you committed or whether your vehicle is searched.  It helps to visualize the whole deal as a flow chart.  Information gained from questions/observations sends you in certain directions. The "CHL flowchart" does not apply to the "vehicle search" flowchart.  

There is a LOT of misinformation floating around this site about police procedures, usually spread by drama queens.  I'd be lying if I said this does not piss me off.

Quoted: Let's expand on this a bit now that it seems to be getting back on topic.   Hypothetical situation:  A CHL holder is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction [non-felony], and as required by law, declares to the officer that he has a weapon in the vehicle.

You are not legally obligated to "declare" anything. You required to display your CHL and DL when confronted as specified under GC411.205. I only point this out because one of the first arrests of a CHL was a guy who declared and did not display.

BTW, I found the above "how it works" post by JIA to be an excellent example of "how it works" in the real world, and "how it should work" when nonLEOs ask questions of LEOs on this forum. If we could just skip to the facts and avoid the bashing, we would all be a lot better educated.

Piss you off? John You have turned out to be the absolute enemy of any police officer on this board. Your absolute unfailing ability to be an asshole and to prove even the worst cop-haters to be exactly correct on all counts is unbeleivable. You couldn't be a worse example of a bad  cop if you were a character in a comic book. You have regularly said and done shit that should have cost you  your job. You have already lost any respect or appreciation by anybody that reads more than one of your posts of the "way" you  handle the public.  All of that said, I really don't care if you are pissed off. Until you and you buddies that everyday stick a gun in our face and tell us" respect my authoritah" , learn to police yourselves and actually learn the law you supposedly enforce then shut the hell up...I hope you stay pissed, now you know how we feel.  I know you are still going to run your trap so explain this officer...How the hell is it beneficial to tow my car because my registration is expired?  I am out of work, I can't get work without my car. My car does not turn into a safety hazard because the date is passed by one month.  It does not suddenly become a clear and present danger to the public....no, it is all about revenue isn't it? you little greedy tax collector you. You are exactly the type of person that the founders of this country warned about and went to war against...little greedy revenuers.....remember the Boston Tea Party John?  People like you were the enemies of this nation then and you still are........

Quoted: Piss you off? John You have turned out to be the absolute enemy of any police officer on this board. Your absolute unfailing ability to be an asshole and to prove even the worst cop-haters to be exactly correct on all counts is unbeleivable. You couldn't be a worse example of a bad  cop if you were a character in a comic book. You have regularly said and done shit that should have cost you  your job. You have already lost any respect or appreciation by anybody that reads more than one of your posts of the "way" you  handle the public.  All of that said, I really don't care if you are pissed off. Until you and you buddies that everyday stick a gun in our face and tell us" respect my authoritah" , learn to police yourselves and actually learn the law you supposedly enforce then shut the hell up...I hope you stay pissed, now you know how we feel.  I know you are still going to run your trap so explain this officer...How the hell is it beneficial to tow my car because my registration is expired?  I am out of work, I can't get work without my car. My car does not turn into a safety hazard because the date is passed by one month.  It does not suddenly become a clear and present danger to the public....no, it is all about revenue isn't it? you little greedy tax collector you. You are exactly the type of person that the founders of this country warned about and went to war against...little greedy revenuers.....remember the Boston Tea Party John?  People like you were the enemies of this nation then and you still are........

Name one thing I have ever done that would get me fired.  (I stopped reading at that point, the rest is just the usual drivel.)

Any mature adults with a serious question left?  I welcome them.    

Quoted: Quoted: Piss you off? John You have turned out to be the absolute enemy of any police officer on this board. Your absolute unfailing ability to be an asshole and to prove even the worst cop-haters to be exactly correct on all counts is unbeleivable. You couldn't be a worse example of a bad  cop if you were a character in a comic book. You have regularly said and done shit that should have cost you  your job. You have already lost any respect or appreciation by anybody that reads more than one of your posts of the "way" you  handle the public.  All of that said, I really don't care if you are pissed off. Until you and you buddies that everyday stick a gun in our face and tell us" respect my authoritah" , learn to police yourselves and actually learn the law you supposedly enforce then shut the hell up...I hope you stay pissed, now you know how we feel.  I know you are still going to run your trap so explain this officer...How the hell is it beneficial to tow my car because my registration is expired?  I am out of work, I can't get work without my car. My car does not turn into a safety hazard because the date is passed by one month.  It does not suddenly become a clear and present danger to the public....no, it is all about revenue isn't it? you little greedy tax collector you. You are exactly the type of person that the founders of this country warned about and went to war against...little greedy revenuers.....remember the Boston Tea Party John?  People like you were the enemies of this nation then and you still are........ Name one thing I have ever done that would get me fired.  (I stopped reading at that point, the rest is just the usual drivel.)

Liar. Typical for a JBT.

Quoted: You are not legally obligated to "declare" anything. You required to display your CHL and DL when confronted as specified under GC411.205. I only point this out because one of the first arrests of a CHL was a guy who declared and did not display.

Maybe "declare" wasn't the proper term for the context; as per 411.205 a CHL holder is required to "display" said license if a weapon is on or about his person [I am inferring that in the vehicle would qualify as "about"].  IMHO, it wouldn't be a bad idea to tell the LEO that you had a CHL, even if no weapon was present....it will come up on his PC anyway, when he runs the DL.

411.207 gives the LEO the authority to disarm the CHL holder; one would expect any reasonable LEO when displayed a CHL to inquire, "do you have a weapon on or about your person?" If the CHL holder were to respond negatively, when in fact, he was indeed "carrying" a concealed handgun, he would be guilty of perjury or whatever it is called when one lies to a civil servant.....generally a step in the bad direction.

At that point, it is up to the individual officer and the suspect to handle the situation in a mutually professional manner.

As long as you take a salary on the public dollar and keep spouting crap about taking legally owned weapons and  other shit that you have proudly stated on here, then you certainly do not deserve the uniform or any respect accorded to others of your profession.

I'm going to drift the thread slightly, as it deals with military law, which is different, vs. civilian law.

I was a 2nd balloon at an Air Force base in New Mexico, in my P/U truck, cruising the air to ground range and generally enjoying the desert.  Without dragging the story out, I was pulled over by Air Force cops (SP's), both A1C rank.  Ultimately my vehicle was searched.

In my tool box, I had exactly ONE 5.56 cartridge, live.  It had a LC headstamp and was identical to the stuff being issued by Uncle Sam to the troops.  I owned an AR15, but it was not with me.  The round was a leftover from a previous range session.

SP:  "This cartridge is GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, Lootenant!!  Please spread your legs and put your hands on the vehicle!"

ME:  "You've GOT to be shitting me!  I bought that at 'Bill and Ted's Excellent outdoor adventure' store downtown!"

SP:  "Remain calm, LT, you need to come with us.  This is THEFT OF GOVT PROPERTY!"

Cuffed and taken in to the station. With obvious triumph, I was presented to the MSGT in charge that day, along with the evil GI cartridge.  When my heinous crime was described, the poor MSGT just rolled his eyes, apologized, and made the SP's drive me back to my PU.  It was a very quiet ride!

Years ago, I'd be one of those super-cooperative types, and would probably give consent for search, but no longer.