Bingo. All too often, we have the idea that protecting our rights requires being offensive. The simple fact is that being courteous while not volunteering anything you may have done wrong in this or any other life goes a lot further to protecting your interests than taking a position that will make your attorney squirm like "and then I told him I wouldn't speak further." And if you act like you've got something to hide, you are much more likely to need said attorney.
Giving the "silent treatment" when pulled over
- Thread starter ready4shtf
- Start date
- Status
Bingo. All too often, we have the idea that protecting our rights requires being offensive. The simple fact is that being courteous while not volunteering anything you may have done wrong in this or any other life goes a lot further to protecting your interests than taking a position that will make your attorney squirm like "and then I told him I wouldn't speak further." And if you act like you've got something to hide, you are much more likely to need said attorney.
Nio
Member
I've always found it better to have a conversation rather than a confrontation.
Nio
Nio
TheFederalistWeasel
member
OHBWS = Occupying a Human Body While Stupid
Just be polite. Think of the cop as a clerk at a coffee shop. This person you are dealing with might engage in small talk with you, so just give him generic, non-specific, polite answers. Just don't be an ***hole. If you try to give him the "silent treatment" and hope that he will be professional enough to let it slide, well you might end up with a little spit in your cup. Don't know what the cop equivalent of "spit in your coffee" might be.
LightningJoe
Member
You don't have to be smart to pass the attitude test. But I guess you could fail it, if you're dumb enough to refuse to talk to the officer. The world if full of a$$holes. Nothing you can do about that. Just don't be one. Best you can do.
OHBWS = Occupying a Human Body While Stupid 
There's a lot of that going around.
There's been a lot of advice in this thread to not consent to searches. Could some of the LEO's on the board explain what happens when someone refuses to allow a search but you have a reason to believe the car needs to be searched?
Thanks.
There's a lot of that going around.
There's been a lot of advice in this thread to not consent to searches. Could some of the LEO's on the board explain what happens when someone refuses to allow a search but you have a reason to believe the car needs to be searched?
Thanks.
cherryriver
Member
Here's the problem with the "do you have any weapons?" question for us here in northeastern Illinois. Nearly all police officers in the greater Chicago area consider any possession of a firearm a crime, or a precursor to the commission of a crime. I'm not exaggerating- one of my good friends is a training officer of a 60-badge department and also a good 2A guy- but he knows his own officers think having a gun in a vehicle is a crime.
In many places in Cook County, it is, anyway, with the exception of the FOPA protection, which is virtually unknown by police.
Answering in the affirmative here is likely to result in handcuffs at a minimum and a full search, and if it stops there you will have been lucky.
Even being in full compliance with the statutes won't do it, because there is very little knowledge of firearm laws in local and county departments.
Actually, despite the lack of any civilian concealed carry law, Illinois law is not too stringent in terms of guns in cars. But few police officers know that or know what the law actually says. Over the years, I've made a point of casually asking a question or two of officers, not during legal encounters, and have been stunned to hear responses that indicate a complete lack of education on the statutes.
Again, referring to my training officer friend- he says I should maintain the "wingspan" rule- no gun, no matter the condition or encasement, may be within one's wingspan. When I point out that that is not what the statute says, he says it doesn't matter. See what I mean?
In the end, you're in a spot where you could be spending thousands of dollars on attorney fees and a substantial amount of time, even if you were in perfect compliance.
The fellow who won that large civil settlement against Du Page County a few years back was a glaring exception and fortunate, indeed.
I wish I knew what the answer was, besides moving to Indiana.
In many places in Cook County, it is, anyway, with the exception of the FOPA protection, which is virtually unknown by police.
Answering in the affirmative here is likely to result in handcuffs at a minimum and a full search, and if it stops there you will have been lucky.
Even being in full compliance with the statutes won't do it, because there is very little knowledge of firearm laws in local and county departments.
Actually, despite the lack of any civilian concealed carry law, Illinois law is not too stringent in terms of guns in cars. But few police officers know that or know what the law actually says. Over the years, I've made a point of casually asking a question or two of officers, not during legal encounters, and have been stunned to hear responses that indicate a complete lack of education on the statutes.
Again, referring to my training officer friend- he says I should maintain the "wingspan" rule- no gun, no matter the condition or encasement, may be within one's wingspan. When I point out that that is not what the statute says, he says it doesn't matter. See what I mean?
In the end, you're in a spot where you could be spending thousands of dollars on attorney fees and a substantial amount of time, even if you were in perfect compliance.
The fellow who won that large civil settlement against Du Page County a few years back was a glaring exception and fortunate, indeed.
I wish I knew what the answer was, besides moving to Indiana.
Powderman
Member
If I can articulate probable cause--not a scientific wild a** guess (SWAG) but real, tangible, probable cause, I will detain the occupants, inform them why they're being detained, and obtain a search warrant. If I believe that drugs are involved, then I call K9, and if there's a hit on the vehicle, same as above--detain, obtain the warrant, and then search.
If I do NOT have probable cause, but ask to search and am denied by the occupant/owner/driver of the vehicle, then it's "Have a nice day" and off you go. However, I will not ask permission to search unless I have a reason to do so.
To the poster who stated that citizen's rights mean nothing, be advised--the rights of citizens are held sacrosanct by any good cop. This means that we will fall over backward to NOT violate any rights.
To me, it simply means this: our rights are given by God, enumerated in our Constitution, and enforced by us. We will NOT trample on those rights--no good cop will. To do so violates those rights and the oaths we took as law enforcement officers.
Powderman
Member
See Chimel v. California.
The rule of thumb to be legal in transporting firearms is this: Unloaded, and cased in such a manner as to be inaccessible to the occupants of the vehicle. For rifles, pull the bolts out. For handguns, remove the cylinder or the slide assembly. Ensure that your ammunition is packaged securely and separately. Do NOT have your ammunition loaded in magazines.
That being said--and being a Chicago native--if I have reason to drive through Illinois, I gas up in the Quad Cities area, and drive STRAIGHT through without stopping. I also stay 3-5 mph below the speed limit. No sense tempting fate!
cloudedice
Member
@Powderman, thanks for being one of the good ones.
While I would NEVER give the silent treatment to a police officer, I would politely refuse to answer most of his questions. It is within my rights to do so, and as has been said many times on this board "A right not exercised, is a right lost."
It seems I have been posting this video a lot lately, but it is especially pertinent in this post. Yes it's by the ACLU, but they do support SOME of our rights.
While I would NEVER give the silent treatment to a police officer, I would politely refuse to answer most of his questions. It is within my rights to do so, and as has been said many times on this board "A right not exercised, is a right lost."
It seems I have been posting this video a lot lately, but it is especially pertinent in this post. Yes it's by the ACLU, but they do support SOME of our rights.
TheFederalistWeasel
member
If an officer asks to search just politely say no, you are not required to give an explination either. If the cops begins to play word games with you, making such statements like, well if you have nothing in the car to hide then you have nothing to fear if I search it right.
Don't get into a pissing match with them, just simply and politely restate your objection to the search, don't begin to spout case law or bellow about your 4th amendment right just politely say no.
Some of the interdiction classes I've been to promote the idea of asking even if you have solid PC to search w/o consent.
Some cops will do this just to gauge your reaction, plus if you give consent combined with PC it is supposed to make the search that much stronger.
I disagree all it does is give a good defense attorney an avenue to explore when they get you on the stand.
Motor vehicles are a much beaten area of the 4th amendment, one which the USSC has ruled on many times.
They say that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.
It's called the motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant, the case is Carroll v. United States. It was decided in 1925 by the USSC and still stands today.
Don't get into a pissing match with them, just simply and politely restate your objection to the search, don't begin to spout case law or bellow about your 4th amendment right just politely say no.
Some of the interdiction classes I've been to promote the idea of asking even if you have solid PC to search w/o consent.
Some cops will do this just to gauge your reaction, plus if you give consent combined with PC it is supposed to make the search that much stronger.
I disagree all it does is give a good defense attorney an avenue to explore when they get you on the stand.
Motor vehicles are a much beaten area of the 4th amendment, one which the USSC has ruled on many times.
They say that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.
It's called the motor vehicle exception allows an officer to search a vehicle without a warrant, the case is Carroll v. United States. It was decided in 1925 by the USSC and still stands today.
cherryriver
Member
Illinois' statute on the transportation of firearms in vehicles is an "or" succession of three qualifications: unloaded, or encased, or inaccessible.
(There is a misdemeanor law sentence buried deep in the Wildlife Code that that could be applied to any "loaded" condition.)
The FOPA requirements are a little more stringent, and are basically an "and" succession of the same conditions.
What the Unlawful Use of Weapons statute says is that a driver could keep a handgun encased on the seat beside him or herself.
What the reality is, is that if he or she does so and is caught doing so, he or she will be arrested. In the end, if the court system works, which it does not always do in Cook County, the driver would go free.
Thousands of dollars later.
In this area, even good cops frequently don't know the pertinent law, and they could then easily create a nightmare for an innocent person while acting in good faith. That was what I meant to illustrate with my training officer friend's position.
It so happens I have two Hoosier police officer friends through the gun club. Both are veterans, and supervisors with training responsibilities too, twelve and twenty-six years each. Neither will take a gun into Cook County, even though they know they may legally do so.
(There is a misdemeanor law sentence buried deep in the Wildlife Code that that could be applied to any "loaded" condition.)
The FOPA requirements are a little more stringent, and are basically an "and" succession of the same conditions.
What the Unlawful Use of Weapons statute says is that a driver could keep a handgun encased on the seat beside him or herself.
What the reality is, is that if he or she does so and is caught doing so, he or she will be arrested. In the end, if the court system works, which it does not always do in Cook County, the driver would go free.
Thousands of dollars later.
In this area, even good cops frequently don't know the pertinent law, and they could then easily create a nightmare for an innocent person while acting in good faith. That was what I meant to illustrate with my training officer friend's position.
It so happens I have two Hoosier police officer friends through the gun club. Both are veterans, and supervisors with training responsibilities too, twelve and twenty-six years each. Neither will take a gun into Cook County, even though they know they may legally do so.
Lucky
Member
TFW said:
Whoops I read that wrong the first time.
Are you sure about the weapons part, you can 'Terry frisk' a car?
Last edited:
TallPine
Member
Well if I ever get pulled over (haven't been in over 25 yrs) anywhere near my home, then there is a good chance I will know the officer by his or her first name. It would be really impolite not to speak friendly with them, since I sometimes work with them at wildfire incidents.
I'm not sure what I would say though, if asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle. Neither do I have a clue why they would even ask that in Montana, especially when there is a rifle readily visible in the back window rack.
Possible answers:
"Sure, how many do you need?"
or ... I could go on for about 20 minutes:
Let's see, there's a chainsaw (loaded with gas, btw), long handled single bit axe, shovel, tire irons, chains, big crescent wrench, pipe wrench, screwdrivers, 3/4" drive breaker bar, files with pointy ends, broom, numerous varied pieces of lumber including the six stakes in the pockets of the p/u bed, ................"
I'm not sure what I would say though, if asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle. Neither do I have a clue why they would even ask that in Montana, especially when there is a rifle readily visible in the back window rack.
Possible answers:
"Sure, how many do you need?"
or ... I could go on for about 20 minutes:
Let's see, there's a chainsaw (loaded with gas, btw), long handled single bit axe, shovel, tire irons, chains, big crescent wrench, pipe wrench, screwdrivers, 3/4" drive breaker bar, files with pointy ends, broom, numerous varied pieces of lumber including the six stakes in the pockets of the p/u bed, ................"
FieroCDSP
Member
I was pulled over once by a local cop (my hometown, but he didn't know me), right after I had finished firing my 22 near a creek. It's not a big deal, it's not private land that I know of, just one of those farm access roads that gets overgrown every year. So he pulls me over, probably for the crack in my winshield and the bent front license plate (Still on there, just a little bent on one side. Two completely different events.) I do the usual drill, pull over, roll down the window, hands visible, etc.
Cop:Good afternoon. License and proof of insurance please.
Me: :I hand it over and he goes back to run it. Comes back.
Cop:Where you heading today?
Me: I'm going to my parents. I was just out target shooting by the creek. The rifle's unloaded and locked in a case in the trunk, the ammo's up here.
Cop: Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I pulled you over because you have something hanging down underneath.
At this point I knew he had probably seen me pull off that access road, which thinking back, it was probably a good "insert crime here" spot, so I'd expect him to be suspicious. He was now trying to make up an excuse. I did, in fact, have a piece of e-brake hanger hanging down, but that was hardly a reason to stop me. Then again, my lower radiator support was also rusted and the rubber bumper that it rests on was also hanging down in the front, so that could have been it. Regardless, he let me go with a heads-up (not even a warning), having fulfilled his wonder as to whether I was a criminal.
I'm sure many of you are cringing at how little concern I have for giving the cops something to use against me. In another state, I might be more cautious, but in Ohio, our cops are usually courteous as long as you are to them. I had committed no crime (at worst my car could be considered a long list of fines), and I was transporting my rifle in a legal manner. I answered truthfully that I had been target shooting, and to intercept the inevitable question of the gun's condition in the car (you know he'd ask), I explained up front that it was secured properly and in a legal fashion.
Flame on if you like, but respecting the cop is usually easier than trying to find ways of not incriminating yourself for crimes you think they might wrongly try to pin on you.
Cop:Good afternoon. License and proof of insurance please.
Me: :I hand it over and he goes back to run it. Comes back.
Cop:Where you heading today?
Me: I'm going to my parents. I was just out target shooting by the creek. The rifle's unloaded and locked in a case in the trunk, the ammo's up here.
Cop: Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I pulled you over because you have something hanging down underneath.
At this point I knew he had probably seen me pull off that access road, which thinking back, it was probably a good "insert crime here" spot, so I'd expect him to be suspicious. He was now trying to make up an excuse. I did, in fact, have a piece of e-brake hanger hanging down, but that was hardly a reason to stop me. Then again, my lower radiator support was also rusted and the rubber bumper that it rests on was also hanging down in the front, so that could have been it. Regardless, he let me go with a heads-up (not even a warning), having fulfilled his wonder as to whether I was a criminal.
I'm sure many of you are cringing at how little concern I have for giving the cops something to use against me. In another state, I might be more cautious, but in Ohio, our cops are usually courteous as long as you are to them. I had committed no crime (at worst my car could be considered a long list of fines), and I was transporting my rifle in a legal manner. I answered truthfully that I had been target shooting, and to intercept the inevitable question of the gun's condition in the car (you know he'd ask), I explained up front that it was secured properly and in a legal fashion.
Flame on if you like, but respecting the cop is usually easier than trying to find ways of not incriminating yourself for crimes you think they might wrongly try to pin on you.
First off, never under any circumstances try to argue constitutional law on the side of the road. You will lose that arguement. The place to argue points of law is in court.
Case law states that permission to conduct a consent search may not be obtained through coersion. The officer should terminate the contact, issue a ticket, warning whatever and make it clear to the suspect that the stop is concluded and he is free to go before asking for consent to search. Here in Illinois, a 2003 State Supreme Court decision added the additional requirement that an officer must be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before he asks for consent to search at the conclusion of a traffic stop.
If I have probable cause to search the vehicle, a consent seach isn't an issue. If I have reasonable suspicion that I might find evidence of criminal activity in the car, but it doesn't reach the level of probable cause and the driver says no, I tell him to have a nice day and that's the end of the issue. Things like saying; "If you don't have anything in the car, why can't I look?" Will just cause El Tejon to have the case thrown out when he files a motion to suppress the evidence because it was illegally obtained. If you're really a dirtbag, I'll catch you later when I have probable cause. Taking a gun or a little dope off the street isn't worth ruining my reputation at the courthouse.
Jeff
David904
Member
You know... Traffic stops are probably one of the most potentially dangerous interactions (next to a domestic disturbance call) that cops deal with. As such, I like to make the officer feel as safe as possible. It tends to make things much nicer for everyone involved. I was even thanked by a female State Trooper for doing so - still got a ticket though. I deserved it and she reduced it a LOT so I figure it was all good.
Anyway, I handle getting stopped by turning on the cabin light, rolling down the windows, and having my hands in plain view on top of the steering wheel. As soon as the officer approaches, I immediately notify him or her that I am carrying a firearm. I say something along the lines of, "Good evening officer. Before we go any further, I need to inform you that I hold a CCW and am carrying a forearm on person. How would you like to proceed sir / ma'am?"
I have yet to be disarmed or hassled, and this has worked for me in CT, MA, FL. Courtesy and respectful interactions go a looong way. Just my .02.
David
Anyway, I handle getting stopped by turning on the cabin light, rolling down the windows, and having my hands in plain view on top of the steering wheel. As soon as the officer approaches, I immediately notify him or her that I am carrying a firearm. I say something along the lines of, "Good evening officer. Before we go any further, I need to inform you that I hold a CCW and am carrying a forearm on person. How would you like to proceed sir / ma'am?"
I have yet to be disarmed or hassled, and this has worked for me in CT, MA, FL. Courtesy and respectful interactions go a looong way. Just my .02.
David
Do you have any cases/reports here in Illinois that I could read where a gun owner was transporting a gun legally in their car and was arrested for it? I do have a copy of the ISP's transporting a gun brochure in my range bag just in case. Aside from that though if I'm traveling with guns they're in a case with loaded magazines in the seat next to me or behind me so I'd like to read it if its not just hear-say.
For all the police bad mouthing on the forums sometimes, I think thats a big part of it right there. Ultimately you're dealing with people trying to build a career and support themselves and their families. It seems like it would be downright foolish to risk that by trying to pull a fast one on someone.
Just out of my own curiosity I'm wondering what happens if someone is pulled over for a traffic stop and is asked if there are any weapons in the car and responds no while in fact there. Lets assume everything is legal and there is nothing about them the owner is trying to hide. For whatever reason they're discovered. In this instance I don't have a problem with the person's lie, but have no idea if it would still get them into hot water in IL.
I've been dealing with folks on the side of the raod for over 20 years. Most times it's been pleasant. Sometimes I've wound up at the bottom of the pile and trust me, that'sno fun. So my advice is treat the cop like you'd like to be treated. If you got pulled over for a violation or for some equipment defect chances are it can be worked out either there or in court. Don't screw yourself over by trying to make a political statement out of a headlight fix it ticket. Act like a man and you'll be treated like one. Act like Rosy O'Donnell and you'll see the other side.
The reason I asked what happens if you refuse to let a LEO search your car is I know the LEO will search your car if he has PC anyways and if the rational for refusing to allow the search is getting the subsequently discovered violation thrown out in court, maybe I should stick to the handgun and rifle forums we folks talk about guns and how to fix them.
Is this really a forum for teaching criminals how to avoid criminal charges?
Is this really a forum for teaching criminals how to avoid criminal charges?
TallPine
Member
Actions and possessions that are "criminal" in one state are perfectly legal and acceptable in others.
Sometimes I worry that just having MT license plates in a state like CA, IL, NJ, etc might be "probable cause" for a search
- Status
