Common sense interaction with LE

[NavyLCDR]

Certainly Flan's video of a traffic stop is rather calm and innocuous compared to Navy's videos, which illustrate the investigatory aspect of police work, after the fact. The traffic stop and just following the LEO's wishes are, IMO, common sense for the safety of both of you and the LEO, and, in states where you must show CCWP, a legal sense.

Correct. However, during the traffic stop what we are discussing is offerring information that is not asked for nor required by law to give and usually not related to the traffic stop at all, and answering questions not related to the traffic stop.

An example I gave in an earlier thread: let's say you are stopped for speeding in Seattle. You offer to the police officer your CPL and inform them you have a concealed handgun. He asks you to exit the vehicle so he can retrieve your firearm for officer safety and asks you if there are any other weapons. You answer, well, I have this pocket knife my wife gave me for Christmas. Officer asks for that too. You give it to him. Blade is over 3.5" long so it is illegal to possess in Seattle. Now you have lost your knife due to confiscation of contraband and get fined for illegal possession of a dangerous knife bacause you didn't know that law existed in Seattle and you told the officer about the gun that likely would never have come up/been asked about if you didn't offer the info.

And that's one of the problems: is it possible for you to know every state, county and city statute that you might be subject to? Why take the chance of confessing to a violation that you might not even know is a violation?

I have never been asked about a firearm/weapon, and I used to have quite a speeding problem so I am well experienced in traffic stops.

 

[kelcarry]

Correct. However, during the traffic stop what we are discussing is offerring information that is not asked for nor required by law to give and usually not related to the traffic stop at all, and answering questions not related to the traffic stop.

An example I gave in an earlier thread: let's say you are stopped for speeding in Seattle. You offer to the police officer your CPL and inform them you have a concealed handgun. He asks you to exit the vehicle so he can retrieve your firearm for officer safety and asks you if there are any other weapons. You answer, well, I have this pocket knife my wife gave me for Christmas. Officer asks for that too. You give it to him. Blade is over 3.5" long so it is illegal to possess in Seattle. Now you have lost your knife due to confiscation of contraband and get fined for illegal possession of a dangerous knife bacause you didn't know that law existed in Seattle and you told the officer about the gun that likely would never have come up/been asked about if you didn't offer the info.

And that's one of the problems: is it possible for you to know every state, county and city statute that you might be subject to? Why take the chance of confessing to a violation that you might not even know is a violation?

I have never been asked about a firearm/weapon, and I used to have quite a speeding problem so I am well experienced in traffic stops.

Hey Navy: Excellent point on knife. I live in a must inform state so I assume you agree that I--da da--must inform. I guess my question would be, does the LEO have the right to ask me about other weapons (knife) and do I have to answer him? As you say, I may feel I am doing the right thing and can then find myself in trouble by essentially waiving my rights by giving in to his request, which he is not entitled to ask. This is hypo anyway since I do not carry a knife, but I have had a cannister of bear spray in car, which is not legal because of volume of content. PS: Been told, at least in Charleston County by investigator for prosecutor that if I were to use the spray in an imminent danger situation, I would not be charged--better the spray (illegal) than discharging a firearm (legal)--makes everyone's life easier.

 

[Treo]

IMO A "common sense" interaction would be to stick strictly to the topic at hand. In my last three interactions with the police (all three were State Patrol) the cop walked up to the car and said "My name is officer so and so of the Colorado State Patrol. The reason I pulled you over was speeding. (one time it was failure to yield the lane) I clocked you at... I will be/ won't be citing you for your speed today." before they even hasked for my license and such. So, there wasn't any room for the "gotcha games". I handed over the paperwork, got my ticket (or didn't) and got back on the road.

I don't volunteer any information and i don't answer any questions they aren't asking.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Hey Navy: Excellent point on knife. I live in a must inform state so I assume you agree that I--da da--must inform. I guess my question would be, does the LEO have the right to ask me about other weapons (knife) and do I have to answer him? As you say, I may feel I am doing the right thing and can then find myself in trouble by essentially waiving my rights by giving in to his request, which he is not entitled to ask. This is hypo anyway since I do not carry a knife, but I have had a cannister of bear spray in car, which is not legal because of volume of content. PS: Been told, at least in Charleston County by investigator for prosecutor that if I were to use the spray in an imminent danger situation, I would not be charged--better the spray (illegal) than discharging a firearm (legal)--makes everyone's life easier.

The LEO has the right to ask anything he wants to, 1st Amendment. No, you do not have to answer him, especially since you have an alleged illegal item in your car, refusing to answer questions concerning your possession of weapons would be covered under the 5th amendment. If the officer develops reasonable and articulable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous during a legitimate stop, they may frisk you for weapons and search the area of the vehicle immediately accessibly from which a weapon may be obtained without a warrant or consent.

 

[santa]

Hey Navy you used to have a leadfoot? My wife still does. Anyway regarding some of those people who were recently arrested in NYC for handgun law violations. Excluding the airport situations it occured to me that while people who visit another area should aquaint themselves with the law there, if these people had not asked a LEO about the gun they were carrying they would NOT have been arrested. IMHO this is a good example of honest people who BELIEVE that they are law abiding and THINK that cooperating with LEO is a must, and land up paying the price.

 

[newokie03]

Cops are public employees, nothing more, nothing less.

I wouldn't waive my rights for somebody at the BMV or for the guy who mows the lawn at city hall. I'm certainly not waiving my rights for a cop.

The police themselves have destroyed whatever trust I ever had in them. If they don't like it and want to blame someone, they should look in the mirror.

I doubt you're a lawyer. How do you know IF your rights are being violated?

I don't want ANYTHING to do with the police. That's why I go out of my way to obey the law. If, contrary to my best efforts, I end up in an involuntary encounter with police, I exercise EVERY right I have for my own protection. If the cop doesn't like that, sucks to be him.

deantomato,
I am a public employee, nothing more, nothing less. I am not in law enforcement, not in fire fighting, just a plain old public servant. I wonder where your anal-retentive attitude toward law enforcement come from? Have you been arrested? Been illegally detained? Been abused by a law enforcement officer? Who are you going to call when your home gets broken into while you are away........the garbage collectors? I understand that there are dirty cops out there, of that there is no doubt. That being said, I don't know what field you are in, but I can guarantee that there are people in your field that are shady at best. You need to remember that many of the men and women in blue are veterans that gave their blood for those very same rights that you espouse to not want to give up. Trust me that no one I served with would ever ask or expect you too. Basically what I am saying is that unless you can show documented evidence of your rights being stripped, please give it a rest. Otherwise, you try to do their jobs and put yourselves in their shoes on a daily basis.

C

 

[Deanimator]

deantomato,
I am a public employee, nothing more, nothing less. I am not in law enforcement, not in fire fighting, just a plain old public servant. I wonder where your anal-retentive attitude toward law enforcement come from? Have you been arrested? Been illegally detained? Been abused by a law enforcement officer? Who are you going to call when your home gets broken into while you are away........the garbage collectors? I understand that there are dirty cops out there, of that there is no doubt. That being said, I don't know what field you are in, but I can guarantee that there are people in your field that are shady at best. You need to remember that many of the men and women in blue are veterans that gave their blood for those very same rights that you espouse to not want to give up. Trust me that no one I served with would ever ask or expect you too. Basically what I am saying is that unless you can show documented evidence of your rights being stripped, please give it a rest. Otherwise, you try to do their jobs and put yourselves in their shoes on a daily basis.

C

I guarantee you that no IT consultants are either going to forcibly detain me on the street, nor will they try to forcibly enter my home. If they do, they stand an excellent chance of being SHOT, and the law will be 100% behind me. Contrast this with police going either to the wrong address, or as in the case of Katherine Johnston, obtaining a search warrant via perjury. You don't get to shoot THEM, regardless of the danger they present to you, through incompetence or malice.

Why are you so defensive of cops? Did you have a relative who was a cop who got caught doing something wrong? See how that works? It's just the mirror image of your "argument" that's not an argument, nor a refutation of documented police misconduct.

I advocate that people obey the law. That I don't exempt cops REALLY bothers some people.

A cop who objects to me invoking my rights (especially recording, where legal) is clearly up to no good.

Oh yeah, and before I forget:

• Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
• Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
• Police have no physical ability to protect individuals.

When you're in danger right now, either protect yourself or just don't get protected at all.

Anybody who tells you different is a liar.

 

[Flanmedic51]

deantomato,
I am a public employee, nothing more, nothing less. I am not in law enforcement, not in fire fighting, just a plain old public servant. I wonder where your anal-retentive attitude toward law enforcement come from? Have you been arrested? Been illegally detained? Been abused by a law enforcement officer? Who are you going to call when your home gets broken into while you are away........the garbage collectors? I understand that there are dirty cops out there, of that there is no doubt. That being said, I don't know what field you are in, but I can guarantee that there are people in your field that are shady at best. You need to remember that many of the men and women in blue are veterans that gave their blood for those very same rights that you espouse to not want to give up. Trust me that no one I served with would ever ask or expect you too. Basically what I am saying is that unless you can show documented evidence of your rights being stripped, please give it a rest. Otherwise, you try to do their jobs and put yourselves in their shoes on a daily basis.

C

Wow, great post and reference to our vets. I haven't been back to the forum for about a week due to the incessant anti-cop rhetoric. But I saw these recent posts in the topic forums. You'll have to excuse Deanimator...I'm guessing he's not a cop and as many have done here, have keyed in on some generalized falsehoods of how LEOs operate and conduct their duties. The biggest reason why I'm replying to your post is to clarify what Dean wrote. He stated LEOs don't have a legal duty to protect or physical ability...well, thats false. Oh, and he said if anyone disagreed with that, they are lying...well, all I can say is, is that I'm not. There are Duty to Act statutes and rules that LEOs have to follow that WOULD put them at liability if they DIDN'T react/respond in protecting an individual or their property. Thats pretty much a nationwide thing just as someone operating an ambulance and they would HAVE to stop if they came across an accident. Duty to Act and protect. This isn't my opinion here, I have 12 years public safety experience. But if folks don't want or are unwilling to talk to a LEO, thats their right I suppose. But with nothing to hide as a law abiding citizen, I have no issue talking to a LEO...even casually. The NRA a while ago talked about misinformation coming from blogs not unlike this one, a lot pertaining to HR 822. People blogging information that was false or putting their own spin on it. Just beware! Sorry if this was wordy, good day!

 

[SGB]

Wow, great post and reference to our vets. I haven't been back to the forum for about a week due to the incessant anti-cop rhetoric. But I saw these recent posts in the topic forums. You'll have to excuse Deanimator...I'm guessing he's not a cop and as many have done here, have keyed in on some generalized falsehoods of how LEOs operate and conduct their duties. The biggest reason why I'm replying to your post is to clarify what Dean wrote. He stated LEOs don't have a legal duty to protect or physical ability...well, thats false. Oh, and he said if anyone disagreed with that, they are lying...well, all I can say is, is that I'm not. There are Duty to Act statutes and rules that LEOs have to follow that WOULD put them at liability if they DIDN'T react/respond in protecting an individual or their property. Thats pretty much a nationwide thing just as someone operating an ambulance and they would HAVE to stop if they came across an accident. Duty to Act and protect. This isn't my opinion here, I have 12 years public safety experience. But if folks don't want or are unwilling to talk to a LEO, thats their right I suppose. But with nothing to hide as a law abiding citizen, I have no issue talking to a LEO...even casually. The NRA a while ago talked about misinformation coming from blogs not unlike this one, a lot pertaining to HR 822. People blogging information that was false or putting their own spin on it. Just beware! Sorry if this was wordy, good day!

However you're not a LEO.

 

[Flanmedic51]

However you're not a LEO.

Meaningful response....interesting that you know so much about me all the way down in FL.

 

[Treo]

This topic has been done to death.

In my experience those who do inform tend to be a little more authoritarian and tend to favor tighter restrictions on handgun permits.

Absent a legal requirement to do so, it’s ultimately your choice, do what works for you. I choose not to because IMO all it does is adds more time to the stop and gives the cop one more hassle to deal with.
In Colorado I am not required to inform the officer unless I am asked then I am required to surrender my permit w/ a valid ID. (CRS 18-12-204).

In Colorado my permit information is not tied to my driver’s license in anyway, the only way the cop is going to know I’m armed is if he sees it or asks me.

I don’t generally open carry. I have no objection; I just dress in a way that makes it impractical. If I am in my car my gun is generally on my right hip behind the seat belt I just don’t see the cop noticing it unless he has X-ray vision.

I carry my DL/registration/ proof of insurance in my wallet.

Bearing all that in mind this is how I handle a traffic stop.

As soon as the lights go on I take my wallet out of my pocket and have it in my hand I keep it in my hand until the stop is over, then I pull as far off the road as I can.

When that cop comes up to the car I have my hands in plain sight on the wheel w/ my wallet in my hand (no reaching for anything and giving the cop a chance to see my gun) I keep my wallet in my hand until the stop is over. I also turn the dome light on at night. IMO this negates the main rationale people give for informing, the cop isn’t going to notice my gun.

So, the cop asks for my papers I open the wallet, he can see everything I’m doing, and I hand him the documents and he does his thing and I’m on my way. No opportunity for him to notice any “suspicious bulges”. No reason for the cop to get nervous. No reason to prolong the stop.

If the cop asks me if I have any weapons in the car I say nothing and hand him my permit and go from there.
The only reason I would inform the cop w/out being asked is if he asked me to step out of the car.

In Colorado Springs that means I am almost certain to be patted down, so I hand him my permit before I get out of the car.

IMO “Showing respect” is nothing more than submissive urination, like a puppy that pees as soon as you touch it so you won’t beat it.

 

[SGB]

Meaningful response....interesting that you know so much about me all the way down in FL.

I asked, you refused to answer Mr "sheepdog". Your posts are pretty telling.

PS: I am former LE.

 

[Treo]

Can't let this one go.

He stated LEOs don't have a legal duty to protect or physical ability...well, thats false.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision, reinstating the District Court's order of dismissal. The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

You were saying?

 

[Flanmedic51]

Can't let this one go.



Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - New York Times




You were saying?

This is a 2005 article referencing the laxed laws of several States in regards to domestic violence and the strength that a PFA order holds. If a cop drives by and witnesses an armed robbery, he has a duty to act and respond to it. Such as he does to stop a speeding vehicle. Its everything under criminal and vehicle laws. Let's compare apples to apples please.

 

[Flanmedic51]

Meaningful response....interesting that you know so much about me all the way down in FL.

I asked, you refused to answer Mr "sheepdog". Your posts are pretty telling.

PS: I am former LE.

Certain aspects of my personal life I just refuse to disclose in a blog forum such as this. That simple. But you mustve been a great investigator Mr former LEO.

 

[SGB]

Certain aspects of my personal life I just refuse to disclose in a blog forum such as this. That simple. But you mustve been a great investigator Mr former LEO.

Pretty much the wannabe type of bs response I was expecting.

 

[Flanmedic51]

Certain aspects of my personal life I just refuse to disclose in a blog forum such as this. That simple. But you mustve been a great investigator Mr former LEO.

Pretty much the wannabe type of bs response I was expecting.

LOL! You're welcome.

 

[SGB]

LOL! You're welcome.

 

[Treo]

This is a 2005 article referencing the laxed laws of several States in regards to domestic violence and the strength that a PFA order holds. If a cop drives by and witnesses an armed robbery, he has a duty to act and respond to it. Such as he does to stop a speeding vehicle. Its everything under criminal and vehicle laws. Let's compare apples to apples please.

I'm sorry where, exactly, did you get your law degree?

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

You stated that dean's contention that police do not have a duty to protect was false. Clearly the statement is not false. let's compare what you actually said to the truth please

 

[Treo]

Pretty much the wannabe type of bs response I was expecting.

You expected something different from a poser (sorry I meant poster) who labels himself as a "Sheepdog"?