What is it with all the LEO threads?

This is a discussion on What is it with all the LEO threads? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by TBob Have you ever read the Terry decision? Yup. And a good number of subsequent cases. FWIIW, I absolutely approve of the ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 96

Thread: What is it with all the LEO threads?

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by TBob View Post
    Have you ever read the Terry decision?
    Yup.

    And a good number of subsequent cases.

    FWIIW, I absolutely approve of the "pat down for LEO safety."

    Source please for "By contrast, civilians mistakenly kill about 30 innocents/year".

    I can point to far more 30 innocents shot a year by civilians.

    I suspect that, you intended "permit holders mistakenly kill about 30 innocents/year."

    However:

    1) an LEO's engagement with a BG vs. a civilian's engagement with a BG are apples vs. oranges. As a civilian, I don't have to engage a BG, unless I or some other innocent is in imminent danger. The ratio of raw numbers LEOs' engagements with a BG vs. civilians' engagement with a BG has to be so skewed as to make any "x" vs. "y" raw number comparison a joke.

    2) As Va is an OC Commonwealth, our LEO run into far more legally armed citizens than just "permit holders."

    3) Any LEO run into far more armed citizens than just those who carry legally, I suspect.

    4) suggest you also read Pennsylvania v Mimms and Michigan v Long.

    5) a traffic stop is not a "consensual conversation." The officer has stopped someone violating a traffic law. Cite a single case, where a stopped-someone-violating-a-traffic-law "Traffic Stop" was deemed not to justify a Terry-style pat down. [Note: only report "traffic stops" and exclude all cases where an LEO conducted an "Investigatory Stop" of an automobile based on a tip, etc -- such as JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA]
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Terry while frequently referred to is not the only relevant case. Many folks refer to Terry as that is the one that initially set a standard. And you are right in Terry there had been no offense commited when the officer initiated contact. In a traffic stop an officer has witnessed someone violating a traffic law. Apples and oranges.
    As far as what officers can do as far as a search on a traffic stop what might be a better case is Pennsylvania v Mimms in which SCOTUS affirms the officers right to order someone out of the vehicle. Or Michigan v Long regarding the search of the passenger area of the vehicle and the admissibility of contraband discovered during the search for weapons.
    Thank you for your cogent reply on the applicable precedents. Mimms is a particularly distressing precedent limiting a citizen's 4th Amendment rights. I find the dissent persuasive in that he demolishes the myth of unreasonable danger to the LEO during routine traffic stops.

    I would like to extend this exchange to legal concealed carry. Both Mimms and Long dealt with illegal weapons. I believe that St. John v. McColley, et al., (2009) in the USDC of NM, along with Florida v. J.L. (SCOTUS, 2000) and State v. Casad (Washington Appellate, 2004) clearly set precedents that legal possession of a firearm does not give the police license to detain, disarm, search, or otherwise harass individuals legally carrying. All those cases dealt with open carry, but the principle clearly extends to licensed concealed carry. Some states like Texas make "voluntary" disarmament of a licensee by an LEO part of the conditions for concealed carry, but in light of the aforementioned cases, I believe that may not stand up in a federal court challenge. AFAIK, no one has taken the route yet.

    What primarily concerns me is the LEO power trips I see on various forums, sometimes even on this site. Statements like "I'm in charge and will do what I want during a stop. Too bad if you don't like it." don't inspire confidence in some LEO's decision-making capabilities or their knowledge of the precedent-setting cases that limit their power to violate the 2nd and 4th Amendment rights of citizens. In Afghanistan, the senior military leadership has set ROEs that are far from conducive to our troops going home at the end of the day. Yet we do it because we signed up to get the job done and follow orders in the process. Some will not come home, and we all hate that beyond words, but they knew the risk when they signed up. No one likes it, but that's reality. We don't get to set out own rules. I try to look at LEOs in a similar way, and that's been my limited experience with them. However, it's pretty obvious to me from some LEO forum posts as well real world incidents that some LEOs make their own rules without accountability. I saw one LEO write that he had forgotten more complaints against him than another LEO with whom he disagreed ever got. That's a mark of pride for an LEO? Unlike the military, LEOs can feel free to trade in the uniform if they can't do their job within constitutional limits and respect for the citizenry they swore to serve.

    In my experience, concealed and even open carriers overwhelmingly start out supporting the police. After reading the "screw you I'll do whatever I want to ensure MY safety" comments, I've personally come to question my previously high assessment of LE. As always, YMMV.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

  4. #63
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,875
    After reading the "screw you I'll do whatever I want to ensure MY safety" comments, I've personally come to question my previously high assessment of LE. As always, YMMV.
    And therein lies the problem that seems to be the general point of discussion is most, if not all LEO threads, so much so that people have been banned from this site because they could not get over an issue they had with the police at some time in their lives.

    You read the" screw you I'll do whatever I want" in a post and it colors your perception of LEO's. Why?

    Its just one guy stating his opinion and whether it be a good opinion, or a bad one the way you see it and judge it, it colors your previously high assessment of LE.

    Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. Lets say that an LEO has a very bad experience with a man driving a Blue Ford truck. He initiates a traffic stop on you, and you happen to be driving a Blue Ford truck, and his prior experience with them colors his perception of YOU, so he treats you like the first guy in the Blue Ford truck. Is it fair to you? Of course it isn't. You don't know him, he doesn't know you, yet he may treat you like the last guy in a Blue Ford truck that tried to kill him, so he orders you out a gunpoint and makes you lay on the hot pavement with your hands outstretched,simple because his perception of drivers in Blue Ford trucks.

    Its wrong, unethical,unprofessional, yet it is the very thing that many,many poster do on various websites out there in cyberspace, but somehow its OK to for someone to bash cops all over the U.S. because he had a bad experience with one where he lives. We have had many so called "discussions" on this site even, that got shut down because they turned in to general cop bashing free for alls and that will not happen here. People bash cops because when they were a kid,they felt like a cop abused their authority and they are still upset by it....30 years later, or some guy argues with the way a cop does things in NYC, without realizing that things may be a bit different and call for different technique in Mayberry.

    I deal with cops quite a bit. This morning I ate breakfast with several different ones from a different agency at IHOP at 2:00 am this morning. One of them I would rather not eat with. He doesn't color my perception of cops, he only colors my perception of him.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  5. #64
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by TBob View Post
    I would like to extend this exchange to legal concealed carry. Both Mimms and Long dealt with illegal weapons. I believe that St. John v. McColley, et al., (2009) in the USDC of NM, along with Florida v. J.L. (SCOTUS, 2000) and State v. Casad (Washington Appellate, 2004) clearly set precedents that legal possession of a firearm does not give the police license to detain, disarm, search, or otherwise harass individuals legally carrying. All those cases dealt with open carry, but the principle clearly extends to licensed concealed carry. Some states like Texas make "voluntary" disarmament of a licensee by an LEO part of the conditions for concealed carry, but in light of the aforementioned cases, I believe that may not stand up in a federal court challenge. AFAIK, no one has taken the route yet.
    Also see: GOODMAN v. COMMONWEALTH http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...wp/1971061.pdf

    “Absent some disqualifying status (being a felon, juvenile, or drug possessor) or situs (being in a place where weapons are forbidden), it is not a crime to possess a weapon.”
    In Virginia, simply carrying (CC or OC) does not justify a classic "Terry Stop." If I am walking down the street carrying a gun, the officer must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that I have broken a law, to preform a classic "Terry Stop." He is not obligated to tell me at the time. However, it needs to be creditable when reviewed by the courts.

    However, traffic stop is different. The officer has stopped someone who has violated a law. In Virginia, that alone created the authority for a pat-down and disarming for the officers safety.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  6. #65
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    5) a traffic stop is not a "consensual conversation." The officer has stopped someone violating a traffic law. Cite a single case, where a stopped-someone-violating-a-traffic-law "Traffic Stop" was deemed not to justify a Terry-style pat down. [Note: only report "traffic stops" and exclude all cases where an LEO conducted an "Investigatory Stop" of an automobile based on a tip, etc -- such as JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA]
    I've already answered most of your questions in my recent comment. I totally disagree with your personal interpretation of the Terry decision. Terry itself precludes a pat down search for a routine traffic stop. Terry only allows a pat down under very narrow circumstances:

    We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other's safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might have been used to assault him.
    So again I say that Terry didn't initiate a free-for-all for LEOs to violate citizens' 2nd and 4th Amendment rights. The stopping officer doesn't *normally* have any reason to believe the individual stopped is presently dangerous, therefore failing the most basic test of Terry. Nor does the LEO have a basis for "reasonable fear for his own or others' safety" as required. The LEO also must be able to clearly articulate what "unusual conduct" led to such a search, and must conduct the pat down immediately to back up his claim of a safety issue. A routine traffic stop fulfills none of these requirements.

    But as I posted a few minutes ago, Terry involved ILLEGAL weapons. The courts have repeatedly held that police may not detain, disarm, search, or otherwise harass a legally armed citizen solely based on the individual exercising their 2nd Amendment rights within the law. I cited a few such cases in my previous comment. I believe that there's also a case somewhere in SW VA now working its way through the legal system (can't find it right this second). In a more direct answer to your question on traffic stop-related cases, the limits to Terry have been decided in many cases. Searches for weapons should always be predicated on a reasonable belief that a suspect may be threatening. "The Terry case created an exception to the requirement of probable cause, an exception whose 'narrow scope' this Court 'has been careful to maintain.'6 Under that doctrine a law enforcement officer, for his own protection and safety, may conduct a pat down to find weapons that he reasonably believes or suspects are then in the possession of the person he has accosted. Nothing in Terry can be understood to allow a generalized [444 U.S. 85, 94] 'cursory search for weapons' or, indeed, any search whatever for anything but weapons. The 'narrow scope' of the Terry exception does not permit a frisk for weapons on less than reasonable belief or suspicion directed at the person to be frisked, even though that person happens to be on premises where an authorized narcotics search is taking place." Justice Sterwart, YBARRA v. ILLINOIS, 444 U.S. 85 (1979). KNOWLES v. IOWA negated an Iowa law that gave police just the powers that you assert during traffic stops. The SCOTUS found the law an "unacceptable breach of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches." I doubt that they'd find differently if a VA LEO took it upon himself to make such a law for themselves. Arizona v. Grant also seems on point.

    In VA, there's no requirement to notify when carrying concealed. I used to think that I would, but have since changed my mind. Yes, you will find out when you run the license, but that doesn't entitle a Terry pat down or the disarming of the carrier as best I can tell from the federal court decisions I cited earlier. However, I will write to the state attorney general's office seeking clarification on the issue since you are so insistent. I'd like to have the answer in hand just in case.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,962
    Quote Originally Posted by TBob View Post
    I would like to extend this exchange to legal concealed carry. Both Mimms and Long dealt with illegal weapons. I believe that St. John v. McColley, et al., (2009) in the USDC of NM, along with Florida v. J.L. (SCOTUS, 2000) and State v. Casad (Washington Appellate, 2004) clearly set precedents that legal possession of a firearm does not give the police license to detain, disarm, search, or otherwise harass individuals legally carrying. All those cases dealt with open carry, but the principle clearly extends to licensed concealed carry. Some states like Texas make "voluntary" disarmament of a licensee by an LEO part of the conditions for concealed carry, but in light of the aforementioned cases, I believe that may not stand up in a federal court challenge. AFAIK, no one has taken the route yet.
    Well I would have to disagree with you on Florida v J.L. and say that is off point here. J.L. was not yet sixteen years old and could not legally have posessed the handgun he was caught with. Also he was hanging out at a bus stop, not a traffic stop. From the last paragraph of the opinion:
    We speak in today's decision only of cases in which the officer's authority to make the initial stop is at issue. In that context, we hold that an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability of the kind contemplated in Adams and White does not justify a stop and frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a firearm.
    (emphasis added)
    And from Adams v Williams (SCOTUS 1972) we have:
    The Court recognized in Terry that the policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect. "When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others," he may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. 392 U.S., at 24 . The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, 1 and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose. Id., at 30.
    (emphasis added)
    As far as the other two cases you cite I am not familiar with them, but since I am not in New Mexico or Washington, neither applies to me at this point.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #67
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    You read the" screw you I'll do whatever I want" in a post and it colors your perception of LEO's. Why?

    Its just one guy stating his opinion and whether it be a good opinion, or a bad one the way you see it and judge it, it colors your previously high assessment of LE.
    Ah, that this were true. I quoted one in particular, but it expressed the sentiment of many more. Some even expressed disdain for LEOs that didn't agree with the "disarm them all" mantra. Very interesting exchanges over several LEO-centric forums.

    FWIW, I've never had a bad encounter with an LEO. I've also never lost an engine in flight, but I know it happens and trained extensively for it. I spent a lot of time on forums defending LEOs and what looked like good shoots. However, there is another side as well and we all see it and know it.

    I believe that disarming legal CC folks during routine traffic stops based on convenient interpretations (or misinterpretations) of Terry doesn't add to public confidence. I'm not bashing, just making an observation and arguing from real court cases. If you think that I'm stepping over some line, I'll shut up and go away. It's your forum, not mine.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

  9. #68
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    In Adams v. Williams, I believe that you highlighted the wrong portion. Traffic stops don't get that far because they cannot clear:

    The Court recognized in Terry that the policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect. "When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others," he may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. 392 U.S., at 24 .
    Again those inconvenient phrases "hostile subject" and "presently dangerous" creep in. A legally armed concealed or open carrier is not a "hostile subject" or "presently dangerous" on the face of the situation unless some aggravating circumstance is present. I don't see how anyone can make the leap to officer safety when none of the required criteria set in Terry is present in a routine traffic stop. That's even setting aside that Terry, Adams, and others deal exclusively with illegal firearms. That's not the case with legal CC or open carriers.

    Understand about NM and WA, but they are federal cases and citable as precedents in other districts. The show the sense of the federal bench in the common matter decided.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

  10. #69
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    I don't see how that case is remotely relevant. Are we talking about implied consent for DWI?

    In Virginia, simply carrying (CC or OC) does not justify a classic "Terry Stop." If I am walking down the street carrying a gun, the officer must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that I have broken a law, to preform a classic "Terry Stop." He is not obligated to tell me at the time. However, it needs to be creditable when reviewed by the courts.
    Absolutely agree.

    However, traffic stop is different. The officer has stopped someone who has violated a law. In Virginia, that alone created the authority for a pat-down and disarming for the officers safety.
    Absolutely disagree. Terry does not give police license to pat down or disarm unless its strict criteria are met. A routine traffic stop doesn't come close. Can you clearly articulate how a legally armed individual is "presently dangerous", or LEO's the basis for a "reasonable fear for his own or others' safety"? I'd like to hear your reasoning, as these are the standards set in Terry and used in subsequent decisions. The state disagreed with those assessments in the case of legal carriers when they granted the permit and acknowledged the right. I'm not saying that someone couldn't provide some *other* reason that would make them "presently dangerous", but I don't see how simply being legally armed during a traffic stop surmounts the Terry barrier.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

  11. #70
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,875
    I believe that disarming legal CC folks during routine traffic stops based on convenient interpretations (or misinterpretations) of Terry doesn't add to public confidence
    I believe that you are right.

    But what is public confidence? Its different everywhere you go. What may be considered as routine, by a cop in say, Massachussetts, may be very unroutine for a cop in Arkansas. Disarming a CC person in Mass. may be an everyday occurance there that people expect and no one gives a second thought to, but if I did it here for the same reason that they do here, you can bet that I'd be called up on the carpet for it.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  12. #71
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I believe that you are right.

    But what is public confidence? Its different everywhere you go. What may be considered as routine, by a cop in say, Massachussetts, may be very unroutine for a cop in Arkansas. Disarming a CC person in Mass. may be an everyday occurance there that people expect and no one gives a second thought to, but if I did it here for the same reason that they do here, you can bet that I'd be called up on the carpet for it.
    I think that the applicable term is "community policing standards"? I agree with your observation on perception, but don't believe that community standards trump the Constitution. We can all cite cases where behavior tolerated in particular communities was later ruled unconstitutional. Disarming a CC person at anytime, anywhere without aggravating circumstances meeting the high bar of Terry is simply wrong in my opinion based on the court cases which I have read. SCOTUS in McDonald just incorporated the 2nd Amendment, which should eventually level the playing field across the country. Unfortunately, good citizens will probably have to spend of their hard-earned treasure to make it so.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,962
    TBob I think part of the issue here is your interpretation of Terry vs my interpretation. Lets see if we can find a way to clarify.
    In Terry (off the top of my head, please feel free to correct) the situation was an officer observed Terry and others outside a business for a period of time. During that period the officer observed them they did not violate any laws. The officer based on his observations suspected Terry and friends were casing the business in preparation of a robbery. The officer then, without witnessing any laws broken stopped Terry and friends and searched them finding weapons.
    The SCOTUS opinion addresses the acceptable limits of stopping and searching a person suspected of criminal activity but not having been observed breaking any law.
    In Florida v J.L. the issue was again the search of someone who had not been observed breaking the law. J.L. was simply observed standing at a bus stop. The court specifically stated that this opinion only applies where there is a question of the initial stop.
    Neither of those cases involved a traffic stop.
    In the cases I cited (Mimms, Long,Williams) which involved actual traffic stops the court refers to Terry and clarifies the principles of Terry as they apply to vehicle stops. In these cases it is accepted that the officers were legally justified in stopping the defendants.
    Terry and J.L. had done nothing illegal, therefore the court strictly limits what officers can do.
    Mimms, Long, and Williams commited traffic violations allowing officers to be much more intrusive and exercise more control over the environment.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  14. #73
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by TBob View Post
    I However, I will write to the state attorney general's office seeking clarification on the issue since you are so insistent. I'd like to have the answer in hand just in case.
    If you have the status to get an AG oppinion, go for it.

    However see: http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/index.html

    The official opinions issued by the Attorney General are part of the duties of the office (see Code § 2.2-505). A person authorized by statute, such as a member of the General Assembly or state agency, can ask the attorney general for an official opinion on the law (members of the general public are not empowered to ask for opinions).
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  15. #74
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    TBob I think part of the issue here is your interpretation of Terry vs my interpretation. Lets see if we can find a way to clarify.
    In Terry (off the top of my head, please feel free to correct) the situation was an officer observed Terry and others outside a business for a period of time. During that period the officer observed them they did not violate any laws. The officer based on his observations suspected Terry and friends were casing the business in preparation of a robbery. The officer then, without witnessing any laws broken stopped Terry and friends and searched them finding weapons.
    The SCOTUS opinion addresses the acceptable limits of stopping and searching a person suspected of criminal activity but not having been observed breaking any law.
    Terry was indeed "casing" an establishment in a pattern that the observing LEO recognized as typical of preparation for a robbery. So, I agree that the decision was at one part about who can be stopped w/o having yet committed a crime. But, it was also about the barriers to a warrantless search of individuals. I believe that this latter issue is the part on which we disagree in interpretation. I'm bisecting the decision into the basis for a stop and then the basis for the search. The decision has been used both ways, and the courts have routinely reasoned separately from the two parts.

    In Florida v J.L. the issue was again the search of someone who had not been observed breaking the law. J.L. was simply observed standing at a bus stop. The court specifically stated that this opinion only applies where there is a question of the initial stop.
    Neither of those cases involved a traffic stop.
    Agreed. But, they do lay out some limits on warrantless searches.

    In the cases I cited (Mimms, Long,Williams) which involved actual traffic stops the court refers to Terry and clarifies the principles of Terry as they apply to vehicle stops. In these cases it is accepted that the officers were legally justified in stopping the defendants.
    No disagreement on the stopping part.

    Terry and J.L. had done nothing illegal, therefore the court strictly limits what officers can do.
    True, but not only for the stop itself. The decisions also limited warrantless searches.

    Mimms, Long, and Williams commited traffic violations allowing officers to be much more intrusive and exercise more control over the environment.
    Well, only Mimms directly involved a stop for a traffic violation, but each presents other issues. Mimms was primarily about whether the police could order the occupants out of the car. The legality of the actual stop was never questioned. The exit from the vehicle, however, set off the observation of a bump under Mimms' jacket, leading to an articulable, reasonable suspicion of danger which enabled a Terry pat down for a potential firearms violation. Such possible illegal possession of a firearm met the "presently dangerous" criteria. Indeed the court ruled: "The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."" But again, we're talking about an illegal firearm, not a legally armed civilian which presents no articulable reasonable suspicion that they are "presently dangerous" or a threat to anyone's safety. IMO, the mere fact that the state conducted background checks and issued an individual's permit or recognized their right to carry openly rebuts any "presently dangerous" finding without other aggravating circumstance.

    Adams v. Williams wasn't a routine traffic stop. The LEO had what the court deemed to be a reliable tip of illegal activity upon which he acted. The stop was conducted specifically to act on the tip and retrieve an illegally carried firearm, not for a traffic violation. Thus the court "recognizes, a policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons when he has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Here, the information from the informant had enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer's forcible stop of petitioner and the protective seizure of the weapon, which afforded reasonable ground for the search incident to the arrest that ensued." Doesn't seem on point to a routine traffic stop.

    In Michigan v. Long, note carefully how the Court opened their argument: "In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right "to neutralize the threat of physical harm," id. at 24, when he possesses an articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous." [my emphasis] Long wasn't a traffic stop, but the police coming upon the scene of an one-car accident (but yes, they had observed Long driving erratically). The police didn't pull Long over, he had already crashed in the ditch. Long appeared to be high and the police saw a hunting knife in his open car in plain view. The court never questioned the Terry pat down based on these facts. The crux of the case was the legality of finding other contraband while searching the rest of the vehicle for other weapons. Thus the bulk of the case appears off point, but the opening of the decision is directly on point. There must be an "articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous.

    While certainly a traffic stop involving a legal concealed or open carrier may reveal an armed individual (and legally so), it will not fulfill the "presently dangerous" criteria of Terry w/o aggravating circumstances. That's the whole point that I've been trying to make, although apparently poorly. There's no license in Terry for police to disarm a legal concealed or open carrier during a routine traffic stop. Recent case law runs in the opposite direction. You just can't clear the "presently dangerous" hurdle, from which it follows that you cannot get to the officer safety issue. If the officer cannot clearly articulate a suspicion that the legally armed citizen is presently dangerous, you cannot legally disarm them without their permission without violating the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

    Now, in Texas where you serve, notification is mandatory and I believe such potential disarmament at LE's prerogative is written into the CC statute. While I believe that it can be successfully challenged in federal court, it looks like you can indeed temporarily disarm a legal CC (OC is not legal in TX, right?) during a traffic stop. That's not the case here in VA. As I told DaveH, I will consult with the state attorney general on the issue. It will take me a while to put my letter together because I will want to cite appropriate case law in the question.

    Thank you again for your well-reasoned comments. Although this discussion isn't what I had in mind for today, it has been stimulating.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

  16. #75
    Member Array TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    N. Virginia
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    If you have the status to get an AG oppinion, go for it.

    However see: http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/index.html
    I don't anticipate a problem, but I appreciate your time and consideration in providing the link.
    "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them"
    - George Mason, American Statesman (1725-92)

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

backpage leo warnings

,

is pat down search legal in rotine traffic stop in florida

,

leo threads

Click on a term to search for related topics.