Inform the officer or not when concealed carry?

[NavyLCDR]

From YOUR personal perspective, no.
But one has to wonder why you choose to make a LEO's job more complicated.

I'm not making LEO's job more complicated at all. The game rules are laid out in the 4th Amendment. No probable cause = no ability to search without a warrant. It's that simple. I am not making anything more complicated, I am simply playing by the rules. If the cop doesn't like the rules and doesn't want to play by the rules, they are the ones creating complications not me. The rules are simple - I am going 12 mph over the speed limit, I pull over immediately when I see the flashing lights, I give my driver's license to the officer who checks it out - WHY IN HELL WOULD THE COP HAVE ANY REASON TO SEARCH MY TRUNK? What idea does he get in his head that causes him to feel the need to search my vehicle.

For the record, I have never been asked for consent to any search. Even when I was stopped for DUI 21 years ago - yes that's right, I'm no angel, the cop did not feel the need to search my vehicle. The only time I have been frisked was that one incident before he put me in his car, in the front seat, with handcuffs on. My vehicle, my home, and nothing else of mine has ever been searched.

I prefer to work WITH law enforcement and make their job as easy as possible. If that means submitting to a search so they can get back to catching bad guys, so be it.

So do I. Heck, I came around a curve doing 52 in a 40 because I forgot to reset my cruise control. There's the sheriff sitting at the grocery store running radar. I didn't even wait for him to pull out and turn on lights. When I saw him, I immediately turned on my hazard lights, and pulled onto a side road off the main road and waited for him! He ran my driver's license, thanked me for stopping and we went our merry ways. Had he asked me if he could look in my trunk... NO WAY! Why? Because there is NO REASON for him to think there is anything illegal in there!

Wrong.
The LEO doesnt know a damned thing about you PRESENTLY.
Most felons werent felons at some previous point in time...THEN they broke the law.
For all this LEO knows you could have killed someone TODAY and have them in your trunk.
You seem to think they are mind readers, which is asinine.

And for some reason, you have this opinion that EVERYONE is a suspect until proven otherwise! You feel the need to show police your innocence. Your thinking is the reason that police states exist.

btw if you arent guilty of anything then a search shouldnt matter.
Im starting to wonder if a few of you here might actually be WORRIED about a search more than this garbage about 'giving up' rights.

I am worried about WHY the cop wants to do the search? They have no reason to desire to search my vehicle. This claim that you have that ANYBODY could have a body in the trunk, therefore cops SHOULD search the trunk just in case there is a body in there is asinine and is the basis for the establishment of a police state.

Again, when I get pulled over for speeding, I immediately stop with the flashing lights, I immediately hand over my ID, registration, and insurance. The cop checks it all out, WHY IN HELL IS THERE ANY REASON TO WANT TO LOOK IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR?!?

 

[S&W645]

Im sorry but this outlandish line is simply bull ****.
There is no 'giving up' any rights by WILLINGLY allowing a search.
That is backwater hick tough guy Rambo BS...nothing more.

There wont BE any court, pal, because I dont have anything in my car that any cop can arrest me over. How about you? You seem a bit concerned, quite honestly.

So there is nothing to DEFEND in court.

Easy enough.

Hate to say it but dirty cops have been known to plant things during a search. So you just gave up this: Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I'm not making LEO's job more complicated at all.

That depends on the situation.

The game rules are laid out in the 4th Amendment.

The 4th is to keep abuse out of the picture.
How are you being abused by submitting to a search....UNLESS you have something to hide?

No probable cause = no ability to search without a warrant.

Correction.
The ability is there with permission.

It's that simple. I am not making anything more complicated, I am simply playing by the rules.

Please. Lets not stroke our egos here.
You COULD allow the search, assuming you dont have drugs or a dead body in the trunk, and make things go quicker than being a nut and forcing the cops to detain you and get a warrant.

If the cop doesn't like the rules and doesn't want to play by the rules, they are the ones creating complications not me.

The cop doesnt know you, friend.
And if youre acting like that nut in the video youve given him cause to be suspicious.

The cop asked to search for a reason, if and when they do ask...meaning its likely you did something to warrant the request.
Either you ARENT a lawbreaker and you make it go quickly so the LEO can make sure you arent hiding anything illegal...or you can be detained if he believes there is just cause to believe you are doing something illegal...even if you arent...and make you wait until he gets a search warrant.

Hours and hours later...yeah, you DID cause the issue to be drawn out longer than it needed to be since all you had to do was allow the search.

 

[Lakeland Man]

On this issue, I have to agree with NavyLT. Now understand that its a rare thing for a soldier to agree with a squid.

:laugh:

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Hate to say it but dirty cops have been known to plant things during a search. So you just gave up this: Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ok, this is where I can see an issue....but do you actually think if a cop wants to plant something hes going to need to do a search FIRST?

All he has to do is saying he saw something during the stop in your backseat that made him think you were carrying drugs and he'll get his search anyway.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

The rules are simple - I am going 12 mph over the speed limit, I pull over immediately when I see the flashing lights, I give my driver's license to the officer who checks it out - WHY IN HELL WOULD THE COP HAVE ANY REASON TO SEARCH MY TRUNK? What idea does he get in his head that causes him to feel the need to search my vehicle.

Probably wouldnt in that case.
Quit trying to control the discussion...we arent talking ONLY about situations where you are just speeding.
When I allowed the search I was halfway across the state, sitting in my car in a quiet neighborhood reading a roadmap.
The folks who lived there see a strange car sitting in front of their house with a man in it just hanging out there. There certainly was just cause for suspicion in this case.
Had I just been speeding they wouldnt likely have asked to search the car.

For the record, I have never been asked for consent to any search. Even when I was stopped for DUI 21 years ago - yes that's right, I'm no angel, the cop did not feel the need to search my vehicle. The only time I have been frisked was that one incident before he put me in his car, in the front seat, with handcuffs on. My vehicle, my home, and nothing else of mine has ever been searched.

hmmmmm.

So do I. Heck, I came around a curve doing 52 in a 40 because I forgot to reset my cruise control. There's the sheriff sitting at the grocery store running radar. I didn't even wait for him to pull out and turn on lights. When I saw him, I immediately turned on my hazard lights, and pulled onto a side road off the main road and waited for him! He ran my driver's license, thanked me for stopping and we went our merry ways. Had he asked me if he look in my trunk... NO WAY! Why? Because there is NO REASON for him to think there is anything illegal in there!

Again, quit pretending that SPEEDING is the ONLY thing that can cause a stop.

And for some reason, you have this opinion that EVERYONE is a suspect until proven otherwise! You feel the need to show police your innocence. Your thinking is the reason that police states exist.

What I know is that traffic stops are one of the main ways cops catch bad guys.
If I can make their day a little less aggravating or save them some time I'll do it.
And please, pal...try this BS with someone else.
Cooperating with law enforcement hasnt got a damned thing to do with martial law.

I am worried about WHY the cop wants to do the search? They have no reason to desire to search my vehicle. This claim that you have that ANYBODY could have a body in the trunk, therefore cops SHOULD search the trunk just in case there is a body in there is asinine and is the basis for the establishment of a police state.

This is such a BS line.

*IF* the LEO is BAD he CAN and WILL find a reason to search your car, pal.
All they have to do is claim they saw something in your back seat that justified and immediate search and plant something during that search.
If they ASK if they can search its HARDLY a case of BAD cops, friend.

Youre about as paranoid as they come.

Again, when I get pulled over for speeding, I immediately stop with the flashing lights, I immediately hand over my ID, registration, and insurance. The cop checks it all out, WHY IN HELL IS THERE ANY REASON TO WANT TO LOOK IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR?!?

AGAIN...STOP PRETENDING THAT SPEEDING IS THE ONLY TYPE OF STOP!!!!

 

[Ruger357SP101]

So are:

• landscapers
• check forgers
• pastry chefs
• serial killers

And I'm not giving up 1,000,000,000th of one part of one iota of ANY right of mine to ANY of them.

Your contempt for the 4th and 5th amendments does not constitute a reason for me to waive a single right, or part thereof.

REALLY?
so when was the last time one of those fine folks put their lives on the line during a traffic stop ?
When was the last time one of them was shot dead trying to enforce the law?

If youre going to make a point, at least try to keep your arguments coherent and on topic.

 

[NavyLCDR]

On this issue, I have to agree with NavyLT. Now understand that its a rare thing for a soldier to agree with a squid.

:laugh:

Could be worse.... you could be a jarhead agreeing with a squid!

BTW, I was in the Army National Guard from 1984 to 1988. In 1984 I went to Army Basic Training at Ft. Dix, NJ at the tender age of 17. In 2008, I returned to Ft. Dix as a Navy LT for ground combat training prior to deploying to Iraq. We were in exactly the same group of buildings, eating in the same chow halls as I was 24 years earlier!

 

[Lakeland Man]

Could be worse.... you could be a jarhead agreeing with a squid!

BTW, I was in the Army National Guard from 1984 to 1988. In 1984 I went to Army Basic Training at Ft. Dix, NJ at the tender age of 17. In 2008, I returned to Ft. Dix as a Navy LT for ground combat training prior to deploying to Iraq. We were in exactly the same group of buildings, eating in the same chow halls as I was 24 years earlier!

I went to Basic at Ft. McClellan in April of 84. OSUT for MP School as well. I passed through Dix on my way to Alabama. I was back at Dix again a year later for a week. I'm originally from NJ.

I know this is off topic for this thread, but we were very near to each other at the time.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Hate to say it but dirty cops have been known to plant things during a search. So you just gave up this: Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To be fair, Ruger357SP101 did not give up his rights. He WAIVED his rights. For the time being his 4th Amendment rights are still intact, he just chooses to not exercise them.

The problem is that when enough people waive their 4th Amendment rights (or they don't even know they exist), some LEO's get used to it and consider it normal. Then, when the person comes along who values their 4th Amendment rights and exercises them, those LEO's are taken aback by it and have a problem with it. No LEO should have any problem at all if someone chooses to exercise their rights and it is abhorrent to think that a person exercising Constitutional rights is somehow worthy of suspicion or the "additional attention" of LEO.

 

[S&W645]

Ok, this is where I can see an issue....but do you actually think if a cop wants to plant something hes going to need to do a search FIRST?

All he has to do is saying he saw something during the stop in your backseat that made him think you were carrying drugs and he'll get his search anyway.

If he has no access to the inside, he can't put something in there. Exterior plants are thrown out as they had access.

And as I drive a pickup truck with with high back seats and dark tinted rear windows, trying that tactic would get him discredited in any court. He can not see anything in thru the rear window. And no LEO should be dumb enough to stand any further forward than the vehicle's front door post until after your license has been run. And that is with me being a law abiding citizen.

Only time I have consented to a vehicle search is entering/leaving a military/gov't installation.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

To be fair, Ruger357SP101 did not give up his rights. He WAIVED his rights. For the time being his 4th Amendment rights are still intact, he just chooses to not exercise them.

'waived' I can deal with.

The problem is that when enough people waive their 4th Amendment rights (or they don't even know they exist), some LEO's get used to it and consider it normal.

I know what my rights are. I make it a point to understand the laws that affect me.
I CHOOSE to allow a search where it is warranted and the officer is professional and polite about it. I have nothing to hide.

Then, when the person comes along who values their 4th Amendment rights and exercises them, those LEO's are taken aback by it and have a problem with it. No LEO should have any problem at all if someone chooses to exercise their rights and it is abhorrent to think that a person exercising Constitutional rights is somehow worthy of suspicion or the "additional attention" of LEO.

Then that is on the individual officer.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

If he has no access to the inside, he can't put something in there. Exterior plants are thrown out as they had access.

Not exactly true.
A crooked cop could SAY that he saw something in the backseat which warranted an immediate search and then plant that something there.
Dont say it cant happen because Ive read a case or two where it has happened just like that.

And as I drive a pickup truck with with high back seats and dark tinted rear windows, trying that tactic would get him discredited in any court. He can not see anything in thru the rear window. And no LEO should be dumb enough to stand any further forward than the vehicle's front door post until after your license has been run. And that is with me being a law abiding citizen.

Only time I have consented to a vehicle search is entering/leaving a military/gov't installation.

How many cars do you see with tinted window ? maybe 1 in 500 ?

As I said...*IF* youre dealing with a crooked LEO hes going to know what he has to do to frame you. He wont have to POLITELY ASK if he can search your car.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

To prove a point about cops making up crap...

Lots of years ago I was pulled over at 2am in an area with cops who were notorious for bogus traffic stops.
When the female officer got to my door I asked her why she pulled me over.
She says the crack in my windshield was the reason.
BULL !
That 'crack' was one single line at the very bottom of the window and when the wipers were down completely hidden from outside the car.
She expected me to believe she saw this small 'line' on a dark road that was behind a wiper ? Sorry, not buying it.

I played along, she ran my license came back and sent me on my way.
No big deal.
Point being is she WANTED to pull me over, didnt have any excuse to, but then found one once she got to my car.
Granted she wasnt a crooked cop, but had she been she'd easily have found a way to do whatever she would have intended on doing just like she found an excuse to have pulled me over.

 

[Deanimator]

I CHOOSE to allow a search where it is warranted and the officer is professional and polite about it. I have nothing to hide.

How do you KNOW it's warranted?

Police are ALLOWED to lie during the course of an investigation.

I'm not waiving my rights for a total stranger with unknown and UNKNOWABLE motives.

You might want to look up the name "Kathryn Johnston".

 

[Lucenut]

Police

I am just astonished by Ruger's interpretation of the role of law enforcement bureaus. To believe that it's the LEOs job to conduct traffic stops as a tool to solve crimes is laughable. Traffic stops are to stop violations of traffic laws (presumably to make driving safer).

This is very telling folks. I believe there are millions of police-state zombies like Ruger in all walks of life.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I CHOOSE to allow a search where it is warranted and the officer is professional and polite about it. I have nothing to hide.

How do you KNOW it's warranted?

Because the police were polite and professional when they asked! Geez, Deanimator, haven't you been keeping up? :biggrin:

The definition of warranted is simple to me.... it means they have a warrant signed by a judge in their hands. (With the exception of the Terry frisk and search for immediately accessible weapons associated with the Terry frisk.)

 

[Ruger357SP101]

How do you KNOW it's warranted?

Why dont you try READING sometime....a mind is a terrrible thing to waste.
I gave MY example of what happened in the 80s during a stop.
It WAS warranted because for all they knew I was some stalker from halfway across the state.

Police are ALLOWED to lie during the course of an investigation.

...yawn...

I'm not waiving my rights for a total stranger with unknown and UNKNOWABLE motives.

Then DONT.
just dont pull your BS lines with me. I know better.

You might want to look up the name "Kathryn Johnston".

And you might want to get off the dope so the paranoia might go away sometime soon.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I am just astonished by Ruger's interpretation of the role of law enforcement bureaus. To believe that it's the LEOs job to conduct traffic stops as a tool to solve crimes is laughable. Traffic stops are to stop violations of traffic laws (presumably to make driving safer).

1. youre a liar. I never SAID that cops are allowed to do stops just to check. In fact I gave a very good example of a cop who did WRONG by pulling me over without just cause then making up an damned excuse to have pulled me over.

2. The FACT is that a LOT of felons are picked up every year during routine traffic stops.
Why?
Because felons are too stupid to obey even the simplest of laws so they speed and do other things that get them pulled over.

Again...you folks need to learn to READ what is said instead of shoving your BS into peoples words

This is very telling folks. I believe there are millions of police-state zombies like Ruger in all walks of life.

No, what is telling is the fact that some of you paranoid delusionals apparently either cant READ...or you cant help yourself but to insert your own agenda into someone elses statements so you can make a pitiful attempt to justify your paranoia.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Because the police were polite and professional when they asked! Geez, Deanimator, haven't you been keeping up?

just another example of a backwoods redneck who apparently doesnt know how to read...or has serious comprehension issues.
Ive made it very clear what my example of 'warranted' is.
Not that I have to even have a reason to allow a search, my paranoid friend.
I can and will allow one anytime I feel to. How doyou like that?

The definition of warranted is simple to me.... it means they have a warrant signed by a judge in their hands. (With the exception of the Terry frisk and search for immediately accessible weapons associated with the Terry frisk.)

warranted; "to serve as or give adequate ground or reason for"

A man from halfway across the state sitting in a quiet neighborhood in front of someones house he doesnt know, looking around not really doing much of anything except reading something...yeah. thats 'suspicious' by default and anyone of you here who wouldnt be suspicious is clearly not nearly as paranoid as youre trying to play off here, and completely lacking in common sense.

Yeah, someone called the cops. They came, explained that someone had called about a suspicious car. The cops asked politely if they could search, I agreed given the situation to put everyones mind at ease. They searched, found nothing, thanked me for being cooperative and explained that it might not be a good idea to just randomly park like I did because someone in a neighborhood like that would call just like that person had.

Sounds fine to me, but hey, I dont see cops as the enemy like some of you here clearly do.