Authority of LEO

This is a discussion on Authority of LEO within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SIXTO Your both wrong. Reasonable suspicion is whats needed to search a vehicle; probable cause is needed for arrest. Reasonable suspicion gets ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 92

Thread: Authority of LEO

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    Your both wrong. Reasonable suspicion is whats needed to search a vehicle; probable cause is needed for arrest.
    Reasonable suspicion gets the police an investigative stop, not a search.

    See: United States v Quinn (815 F. 2d 153 (1987); United States v Bloomfield (40 F. 3d 910 (1994)

    Probable cause is still required for the search. Once probable cause is established, the car can be searched without a warrant under the automobile exception to warrant requirement.

    See: United States v Friend (50 F. 3d 548 (1995)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Member Array jdivence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest Ohio
    Posts
    363
    I trust that all of you out there are law abiding citizens, that being said you should never let the police over step there bounds. I believe in the constitution. Meaning we have the right to carry, we also have protection from illegal searches and we are innocent until proven guilty. last week I i was pulled over and as Ohio law states i declared that i have legal right to carry a gun. the officer asked that i keep my hands on the wheel while he went back to his car with my license and registration I followed this command simply because i didn't want his to get scared and start shooting. this is just common scenes. now i would not have surrendered my gun unless i was being placed under arrest. I advise that you know the laws in your area and follow them. do not be fooled into thinking that because he has a badge that the cop is right.

  4. #63
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    followed this command simply because i didn't want his to get scared and start shooting. this is just common scenes.
    Common scenes? What the heck are you talking about? I have never heard of a cop getting scared and shooting just because someone told them that they had a gun permit.

    now i would not have surrendered my gun unless i was being placed under arrest
    I beleive that the cop has a right to secure your gun or run the serial number. Refusing to give up your gun when he asks for it is cause for revocation of your permit in this state. It is not the same in your state?

    BTW...welcome to the forum.
    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
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,720
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Reasonable suspicion gets the police an investigative stop, not a search.

    See: United States v Quinn (815 F. 2d 153 (1987); United States v Bloomfield (40 F. 3d 910 (1994)

    Probable cause is still required for the search. Once probable cause is established, the car can be searched without a warrant under the automobile exception to warrant requirement.

    See: United States v Friend (50 F. 3d 548 (1995)
    We are talking about apples and oranges...

    A warrant is not needed for all types searches, such as a search incident to arrest; like we are talking about here. If the vehicle is not part of the initial contact or arrest, then yes, probable cause would be needed to secure a search warrant for said vehicle.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  6. #65
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,440
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Common scenes? What the heck are you talking about? I have never heard of a cop getting scared and shooting just because someone told them that they had a gun permit.

    I beleive that the cop has a right to secure your gun or run the serial number. Refusing to give up your gun when he asks for it is cause for revocation of your permit in this state. It is not the same in your state?

    BTW...welcome to the forum.
    HotGun....I believe that was a typo, I think he meant to say "common sense"

    agree with you about the refusal to disarm, same here in Texas LEO may disarm during interaction if officer believes it is a safety issue


    agentmel Ok, so the US Constitution says no unreasonable searches and seizures. Who defines unreasonable? The cop on the scene? A judge? Corrupt politicians? Certainly not me. Cops are just as prone to corruption as anyone else, and judges are probably more so than most. Power corrupts, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. The power to order others around is no different.

    And yes, if the search is unreasonable my civil rights are absolutely, positively being violated, even if in a minor way. I am being forcibly detained (even if just for a few minutes), just for the heinous crime of exercising the rights "guaranteed" to me by the Constitution.

    So, according to the previous post, I should allow a LEO to cuff me for reasons he feels are adequate, yet I would and should employ any and every force at my disposal to prevent being captured by anyone else. I agree that the LEO is much less likely to take my wallet or try to kill me, but the violation is a matter of degree only. The hugely disproportionate power of the police compared to the general public prevents this from happening very often, which many would say is a good thing, but the more we roll over for any tyranny, no matter how small, the more we'll get.

    Many of us are glad that Thomas Paine never wrote: "if you are detained by a British soldier and he requests to search your cart, if you have nothing to hide you should consent or request that he not, but in no case should you resist. Resistance leads to liberty, which most men are too stupid or irresponsible to exercise."

    Mel


    I personally find the power corrupts comment insulting, great job of painting with broad brush. Are some cops on a power trip? sure; Do some cops make honest mistakes in working cases? sure; do inexperienced cops do some things incorrectly? sure. But to state things as you have is overboard.

    Who defines unreasonable.....court cases that say whether or not a search/seizure/arrest were legal according to the law/Constitution...thats who.
    LEO are educated on how they are to conduct searches/seizures arrests, what things lead to suspicion, what things are building blocks for probable cause and when to arrest.

    I am being forcibly detained
    well, if the officer believes you need to be detained for an investigation, then yeah....you'll be detained for a time deemed reasonable to conduct the investigation, perfectly legal

    I'm not saying that we should look the other way when a LEO oversteps their legal authority, on the contrary. They should be held to a higher standard because of their training and granted authority, and rightfully so IMO. In the academy we got drilled every day for week in search/seizure/arrests class. It was made very clear to us what would happen if we violate people's civil rights. I don't plan on making that mistake, nor will I let the power granted to me corrupt my brain and my use of such power.
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  7. #66
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,631

    Good grief

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Yes, indeed. We were never a democracy and most people are too ignorant of the issues and candidates to make an informed decision. The states can determine their electors however they choose. There is no 'right' tovote for the President.

    Similarly, the Founders never intended for the people to elect Senators. They were to have been appointed by the states.

    We have certainly strayed far from our Constitutional roots. But wasting a vote is no way to further or cause.

    (By the way, the ACLU is an anti-American organization.)

    Buddy SD, just when I think you and I are making some progress, you pop in a gem like "the ACLU is an anti-AMerican organization."

    Good grief.

    At least we can agree on the electors.

  8. #67
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    WOW...

    I have to agree with Self Defense on this one...

    The ACLU is a rabid antigun organization that epouses socialism and pretty much stands up for wrong in lots of cases.
    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/

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...The ACLU is a rabid antigun organization that epouses socialism and pretty much stands up for wrong in lots of cases.
    +.95

    IMO the United States (regardless of party) walks a line between capitalist and socialist depending on the issues involved.

    Otherwise I must agree about the ACLU. I don't even know if it involves the issues they choose to side with. It is the very reasoning (or lack of reasoning) for the directions they often take.

    For example (and relevant to this forum) they are more then capable of stating they support the total ban of firearms as a way of defending the right provided to the citizens of the United State as detailed in the 2nd. That is just something I can't reason with.

    What I'm trying to say, I read a lot of leftist and right-wing literature. At least I can understand the points they are trying to make. Often with the ACLU, I'm at a total loss. They ACLU (to me) is like the propaganda of another country. From my point of view, they are just Unamerican sometimes.

  10. #69
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    I disagree with the ACLU on a number of things, in particular the 2nd Amendment and capital punishment, and agree with them on a number of things, the 1st Amendment, for example.

    They've done an awful lot of good, and some not so good, but the "anti-American" vitriol is typical of the fringe, which brands as such any group, law or part of the Constitution which happens not to line up with its narrow viewpoint.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  11. #70
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,631

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    WOW...

    I have to agree with Self Defense on this one...

    The ACLU is a rabid antigun organization that epouses socialism and pretty much stands up for wrong in lots of cases.
    Do you think Libertarian Presidential candidate, former U.S. Congressman, former Federal Prosecutor, and pro 2A legislator, Bob Barr of Georgia would have worked for them if your characterization were correct?

    Of course not.

    Since libertarianism and socialism are opposite ends of the political spectrum, the validity of your assertion about the character of the ACLU seems quite unlikely. In fact, it is plain out misguided.

  12. #71
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    Of course there are some people in that organization that do have a clue. If it weren't for them the ACLU would have run completely and totally berserk. Those with a clue either realize the error of their ways and quit it, or if they have any morals at all, they just look the other way and ignore what they see.

    I know a half dozen lawyers that donated their time to the ACLU when they were young, thinking that it was the charitable thing to do. As they matured, they saw it for what it was and quit it.

    Misguided huh? If you think so, so be it.
    If you call advancing a GLBT agenda every chance they get, standing up for profanity in the arts,English and every media there is, trying to erase even the mention of Christianity in history and every day society, spending millions of dollars on the abolition of Christmas displays in town squares all over the country,and standing up for ONLY what advances their goals, then call me misguided.They even stand against the BOY SCOUTS for crying out loud.

    Knowing a few lawyers that are members of the ACLU they are the kind of people that make the lawyer jokes a reality. Those fools would sell out their mothers to make a buck, they only come out in the dark, and they represent the vilest form of humans that their are. They are rapid ANTI-GUNNERS and do not want you or me to be able to defend ourselves with a gun, or anything else for that matter because it could cut into their business of making money from predators.

    What little the ACLU does do is vastly outweighed by the wrong that they do.
    If the average person had a clue about how sorry they really were, they would go on a campaign to round them all up and send them all to Russia, where they could work for Putin and his KGB cronies and live happily ever after. In short, they stand for most things that I am against. I do realize that they aren't all bad and do some things right, but hey, even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then.

    These are not people that I would want sitting at my dinner table.

    I could go on and on but you should get my drift by now. If I told you what I really thought of them, I would be instantly banned and any and posts that I have ever written would instantly disappear.

    If y'all want to believe that they are more good than bad, want to support their vehemently anti-gun agenda and fly the flag of the ACLU every chance you get, so be it, that is your prerogative and I wish you well.

    Have a great day..
    Last edited by HotGuns; August 28th, 2008 at 12:57 PM.
    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/

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    What's a GLBT agenda?
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  14. #73
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,868
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    What's a GLBT agenda?
    Whoops my mistake.

    I am really not "up" on that trash like the ACLU is. So knowing that they champion the cause for the further erosion of morality here in the USA, I went to Wikepeidia of all places and checked it out and of course the definition was there as I had suspected. I had forgotten that they also championed the cause of the NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)

    It should be LGBT.(Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender), just another group that the ACLU actively endorses.

    But you already knew that right?

    Anyhow, so that we dont stray from the original topic, thats all Im gonna say about that.
    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/

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    . . . standing up for profanity in the arts,English and every media there is, trying to erase even the mention of Christianity in history and every day society, spending millions of dollars on the abolition of Christmas displays in town squares all over the country,and standing up for ONLY what advances their goals, then call me misguided.They even stand against the BOY SCOUTS for crying out loud.
    What you're describing are fundamental First Amendment issues, the first, regarding freedom of expression and the second regarding establishment of religion (which we recently hashed out in another thread).

    Freedom of expression, whether profane or not, is protected by the First Amendment. If you don't like it, don't listen, read or view.

    Establishment of religion by government is prohibited by the First Amendment, but free exercise is protected. So as long as a governmental institution (such as a public school) isn't involved, there's no problem with any religious displays. You can have a 40 foot tall Wiccan banner waving over your shopping mall, or a bright red crescent on your house, or cut a cross in your cornfield.

    The case against the Boy Scouts was about whether or not they had to comply with state anti-discrimination statutes. SCOTUS, in a narrow interpretation, ruled 5-4 they didn't have to comply.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    . If the average person had a clue about how sorry they really were, they would go on a campaign to round them all up and send them all to Russia, where they could work for Putin and his KGB cronies and live happily ever after. In short, they stand for most things that I am against. I do realize that they aren't all bad and do some things right, but hey, even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then.
    I don't think that Putin would want a bunch of free speech advocates working for him.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Whoops my mistake.

    I am really not "up" on that trash like the ACLU is. So knowing that they champion the cause for the further erosion of morality here in the USA, I went to Wikepeidia of all places and checked it out and of course the definition was there as I had suspected. I had forgotten that they also championed the cause of the NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association)

    It should be LGBT.(Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender), just another group that the ACLU actively endorses.

    But you already knew that right?

    Anyhow, so that we dont stray from the original topic, thats all Im gonna say about that.
    Actually, I wasn't familiar with the initialization. I should have looked it up before asking the question. I wasn't throwing stones.

    I am opposed to discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, orientation, and religion. I've probably left something out, but you get my drift.

    FYI, the ACLU didn't defend the practices of NAMBLA, any more than they defended the practices of the KKK, but they defended the right of free speech. A cornerstone of the principle of free speech is that even unpopular speech be protected.
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Sports Authority(Huntsville) has ammo!
    By bigo5552000 in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 14th, 2009, 07:00 PM
  2. Mayor nickels admitted he lacks ban authority
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 16th, 2008, 03:57 PM
  3. port authority question
    By flip_floppin in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 28th, 2008, 07:42 PM
  4. Questions for LEO on police/civil authority
    By bigiceman in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 10th, 2008, 09:55 PM
  5. The Perverse Need For Authority?
    By Euclidean in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 21st, 2005, 01:40 PM

Search tags for this page

do i need to bar my windows for ffl

Click on a term to search for related topics.