Self-Defense Tip:

[1-LM]

Do Not consent to a police search of your car or home.



Self-Defense Tip: Do Not Consent To A Police Search of Your Car - The Truth About Guns

It has become a hallmark of advice from lawyers: do not give consent to police to search your vehicle or your home. If they had probable cause to search, they don’t need to ask. Politely refuse to give consent. Believing that you “have nothing to hide” is escapist fantasy in today’s world of overlapping amd vague laws. Are you certain that the pretty bird feather that your daughter picked up on your walk and left under the back seat . . .

isn’t from a common owl or hawk? Possession of an owl or hawk feather is a federal crime. Did an empty .22 shell slip out of your range bag and under the seat of the car? It’s a crime in D.C. In this case, Chris Johnson, NFL player, has a Florida concealed carry permit. When he was pulled over (DWB?), he thought he had “nothing to hide.” From nfl.com:


NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported that the 29-year-old was pulled over for rolling through a stop sign, per a source close to the player. The police officer asked to search his car. Johnson cooperated, as he had nothing to hide. The police found his licensed and registered firearm under a book bag under his seat instead of locked up in the car.

In a later version of the story, the New York Daily News publishes a different tale. In this version, the police officer says that when he came up to the window of Chris Johnson’s car and looked inside he saw the handle of the pistol between Johnson’s feet. This version is a little more supportable for the “open carry” charge, but Florida has a“brief and open” display exception in their concealed carry law that seems tailor made for such situations.

The “open carry” charge seems quite a stretch, either way. If the officer had to search the vehicle to find the firearm, it was clearly concealed, and Johnson was not violating the law because he has a concealed carry permit. If the officer could only see the firearm by coming up close to the window and looking in, it is quite a stretch to say that he was openly carrying the firearm, under the “brief and open” display exception.

Officers who ask to search your car are trained to make the request casual and seeming off the cuff. Do not expect the officer to ask “do you surrender your 4th amendment rights to protection from unreasonable searches?” in an official tone of voice.

The request is likely to start off low-key and informal. “Do you mind if I have a look in your car?” is a common approach. Intimidation may be used if you make a polite refusal. “If you don’t let me look in your car, I will have to get a warrant, and then you will be in trouble,” may be stated in a more threatening manner.

The answer to all these requests should be the same: no, I do not give consent to search my car. I do not surrender any of my constitutional rights. Am I free to go? It’s even better if you record these interactions with the police. (The ability to record police in the public performance of their duties has been ruled a first amendment right.) That way there will be no “he said/she said” as seems to be developing in the Johnson case.

Johnson is vulnerable because he is subject to extra-judicial punishments from the NFL. The NFL is owned by powerful people who fully endorse the disarmist agenda. His career may be significantly hurt for daring to exercise his second amendment rights.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

 

[Arc Angel]

In light of your refusal to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights the search warrant an officer would be forced to obtain MUST state: Exactly 'What' he is looking for as well as the reason, 'Why' (the probable cause) he wants to have a look. His search is, then, limited to exactly, 'What' the warrant says, as well as exactly, 'Why' the search was initiated. ANYTHING ELSE an officer might find is INADMISSIBLE in court.

So, yes! Always require an inquisitive officer to, 'go the extra mile' with you. Never give a nosey police officer a free and unrestricted opportunity to search either your home or your vehicle. If you're asked, 'Why' you won't consent to a search, all ya got 'a say is, 'I value my privacy; and, right now, I don't think it's a good idea for me to allow you to satisfy your curiosity.' If pressed you might add, 'The Constitution says I don't have to; and I trust the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.'

I'll go you one better: If you ever open your front door to find a cop (or cops) standing there DO NOT invite him in. If he asks to come in, make some sort of excuse; e.g.: 'The place is a mess right now!' or 'I'd say, 'Yes'; but we have a dog!' and continue to refuse entry. Ask him what he wants. If you have to excuse yourself for a moment in order to put on a jacket to continue the conversation, TELL HIM SO; and, if the cop(s) won't wrap things up right away, then be sure you close and lock the door the moment you walk away from it. The police do NOT make social calls; so, in short, do whatever you can to get rid of him (or them) as quickly as possible.

(Be blunt if you have to; there's no crime in saying something like, 'I don't want you inside my home.' You might even tell the officers that you're suspicious of their intentions, or simply don't trust them. There are, after all, plenty of, 'dirty cops' out there who have a general contempt for society, consider themselves to be public, 'overlords', and are just waiting to make another, 'bust'. I've met them; and I'm sure that many other people have too.)

If this means sitting by the side of the road for a couple of hours, or being forced to take a ride, 'downtown' then things have degenerated to the point where you can (and should) demand to be mirandized (Which the police are NOT going to be anxious to do without the strongest of suspicions.) Just keep on demanding to be either released from custody, or mirandized! If you are mirandized, then, the police officer has formally declared his intention to arrest you; and, now, HE is on shaky legal ground. You, on the other hand, don't have to (and should not) say another single word.

 

[Eidolon]

In light of your refusal to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights the search warrant an officer would be forced to obtain MUST state: Exactly 'What' he is looking for as well as the reason, 'Why' (the probable cause) he wants to have a look. His search is, then, limited to exactly, 'What' the warrant says, as well as exactly, 'Why' the search was initiated. ANYTHING ELSE an officer might find is INADMISSIBLE in court.

So, yes! Always require an inquisitive officer to, 'go the extra mile' with you. Never give a nosey police officer a free and unrestricted opportunity to search either your home or your vehicle. If you're asked, 'Why' you won't consent to a search, all ya got 'a say is, 'I value my privacy; and, right now, I don't think it's a good idea for me to allow you to satisfy your curiosity.' If pressed you might add, 'The Constitution says I don't have to; and I trust the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.'

I'll go you one better: If you ever open your front door to find a cop (or cops) standing there DO NOT invite him in. If he asks to come in, make some sort of excuse; e.g.: 'The place is a mess right now!' or 'I'd say, 'Yes'; but we have a dog!' and continue to refuse entry. Ask him what he wants. If you have to excuse yourself for a moment in order to put on a jacket to continue the conversation, TELL HIM SO; and, if the cop(s) won't wrap things up right away, then be sure you close and lock the door the moment you walk away from it. The police do NOT make social calls; so, in short, do whatever you can to get rid of him (or them) as quickly as possible.

(Be blunt if you have to; there's no crime in saying something like, 'I don't want you inside my home.' You might even tell the officers that you're suspicious of their intentions, or simply don't trust them. There are, after all, plenty of, 'dirty cops' out there who have a general contempt for society, consider themselves to be public, 'overlords', and are just waiting to make another, 'bust'. I've met them; and I'm sure that many other people have too.)

If this means sitting by the side of the road for a couple of hours, or being forced to take a ride, 'downtown' then things have degenerated to the point where you can (and should) demand to be mirandized (Which the police are NOT going to be anxious to do without the strongest of suspicions.) Just keep on demanding to be either released from custody, or mirandized! If you are mirandized, then, the police officer has formally declared his intention to arrest you; and, now, HE is on shaky legal ground. You, on the other hand, don't have to (and should not) say another single word.

Some good , some bad

If you're asked, 'Why' you won't consent to a search, all ya got 'a say is, None of your business, am I free to go ?

I'll go you one better: If you ever open your front door to find a cop (or cops) standing there DO NOT invite him in. If he asks to come in, tell him no. Ask if he has a warrant and if he says no tell him "Good day" and shut the door.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Avoid the initial step also, don't tell the cop about any permits/licenses and especially firearms that you are not required by law to tell them about. Telling the officer about a lawfully carried firearm when not required by law to do so is only an invitation. Whether or not the officer accepts the invitation - there certainly is no need for you to offer it.

 

[S&W645]

Avoid the initial step also, don't tell the cop about any permits/licenses and especially firearms that you are not required by law to tell them about. Telling the officer about a lawfully carried firearm when not required by law to do so is only an invitation. Whether or not the officer accepts the invitation - there certainly is no need for you to offer it.

That is one place where Florida is ahead of Ohio. Florida does not require you to inform the LEO unless asked. Ohio requires you inform right from the start. But Ohio is ahead on open carry.

 

[S&W645]

Do Not consent to a police search of your car or home.



Self-Defense Tip: Do Not Consent To A Police Search of Your Car - The Truth About Guns

It has become a hallmark of advice from lawyers: do not give consent to police to search your vehicle or your home. If they had probable cause to search, they don’t need to ask. Politely refuse to give consent. Believing that you “have nothing to hide” is escapist fantasy in today’s world of overlapping amd vague laws. Are you certain that the pretty bird feather that your daughter picked up on your walk and left under the back seat . . .

isn’t from a common owl or hawk? Possession of an owl or hawk feather is a federal crime. Did an empty .22 shell slip out of your range bag and under the seat of the car? It’s a crime in D.C. In this case, Chris Johnson, NFL player, has a Florida concealed carry permit. When he was pulled over (DWB?), he thought he had “nothing to hide.” From nfl.com:


NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported that the 29-year-old was pulled over for rolling through a stop sign, per a source close to the player. The police officer asked to search his car. Johnson cooperated, as he had nothing to hide. The police found his licensed and registered firearm under a book bag under his seat instead of locked up in the car.

In a later version of the story, the New York Daily News publishes a different tale. In this version, the police officer says that when he came up to the window of Chris Johnson’s car and looked inside he saw the handle of the pistol between Johnson’s feet. This version is a little more supportable for the “open carry” charge, but Florida has a“brief and open” display exception in their concealed carry law that seems tailor made for such situations.

The “open carry” charge seems quite a stretch, either way. If the officer had to search the vehicle to find the firearm, it was clearly concealed, and Johnson was not violating the law because he has a concealed carry permit. If the officer could only see the firearm by coming up close to the window and looking in, it is quite a stretch to say that he was openly carrying the firearm, under the “brief and open” display exception.

Officers who ask to search your car are trained to make the request casual and seeming off the cuff. Do not expect the officer to ask “do you surrender your 4th amendment rights to protection from unreasonable searches?” in an official tone of voice.

The request is likely to start off low-key and informal. “Do you mind if I have a look in your car?” is a common approach. Intimidation may be used if you make a polite refusal. “If you don’t let me look in your car, I will have to get a warrant, and then you will be in trouble,” may be stated in a more threatening manner.

The answer to all these requests should be the same: no, I do not give consent to search my car. I do not surrender any of my constitutional rights. Am I free to go? It’s even better if you record these interactions with the police. (The ability to record police in the public performance of their duties has been ruled a first amendment right.) That way there will be no “he said/she said” as seems to be developing in the Johnson case.

Johnson is vulnerable because he is subject to extra-judicial punishments from the NFL. The NFL is owned by powerful people who fully endorse the disarmist agenda. His career may be significantly hurt for daring to exercise his second amendment rights.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

If the stop happened in Florida, the cops are on very shaky ground. The gun would not be in plain sight of anyone except for someone standing next to the driver's door in the cops version of the story. Private vehicle so it doesn't even require a license if the gun is "secured". Secured has been defined as holstered even if not on the person.

(3) LAWFUL USES.—The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes: (l) A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased or in a public conveyance when the weapon is securely encased and not in the person’s manual possession;

and

(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

 

[BC1]

Hi sir how are you today? Do you mind if take a I look in your car for anything I might be able to arrest you for?
.
Who would say yes?

 

[S&W645]

Hi sir how are you today? Do you mind if take a I look in your car for anything I might be able to arrest you for?
.
Who would say yes?

Not anyone who has any smarts.