LEO harassed my wife about CCW this morning

[Deanimator]

When statements are made such as, I would inform just to be safe, or on principle, or because some of the leo's are pricks, I get confused, whose safety or principles are you talking about?

What it is is a tacit admission that they don't trust, and in fact fear the police, but don't have the gumption to come out and say so.

If you're so afraid of your local police that you feel the need to impose upon yourself extra-legal "rituals" of self-abnegation to appease them, that's a clear indication that there are SERIOUS problems with your police force that need to be addressed, and NOT through Stepin Fetchit style bowing and scraping.

 

[mljdeckard]

BSA1,

Terry is the most abused decision by police. Terry allows an officer to frisk for weapons only when they have reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed. In this case, the suspect neither committed a crime, nor gave any indication that she was armed. Many officers are incorrectly trained to understand that they can get away with frisking anyone by saying that they thought they were armed, absent any reasonable suspicion to back it up. They do it until a judge beats them down. Just because they get away with it for a long time doesn't mean it is legal, ethical or moral.

The same applies to a vehicle search. There is a different standard due to their mobile nature, but that standard is not; "I can search any car I want to anytime I want to because they are mobile."

This woman gave neither an indication that she was armed nor any indication that any crime of any sort had been committed. Being in a state database that says you have a carry permit is NOT probable cause nor reasonable suspicion.

If you have all that education and you still don't understand these things, maybe you should ask for your money back.

 

[Guillermo]

I would consider it my duty to pursue the matter.

It is VERY unlikely that this is an isolated incident.

More likely it is like tracer rounds, you only see ever tenth one.

I suggest that you get the dash cam, hire a lawyer and make this guy walk the plank.

 

[Black Butte]

Slap this guy across the face with the proverbial leather glove and demand that honor be satisfied.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I was told in my CCW class in TN that we did not have to tell the Leo that we were either carrying or supply the ccw card.

Did you notice that your CCW instructor was no where to be found when your wife was on the side of the road?

but it's annoying how uneducated cops can be at their occupation. That's like a paint store worker not knowing how to use a hammer or pry opener

Or a permit holder who doesn't know whether or not he's supposed to inform the police of his permit status?

In short, even though the cop was out of line it is still your responsibility to be well versed on the law in your state regarding your permit.

Not sure if I'd bother meeting with the sherrif because I'm not certain anything would change as a result. If you had a stick to go with the carrot maybe

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

brickeyee - Barney Fife, Deputy Sheriff, Mayberry, RFD

One round in your pocket can be referred to as 'Condition Fife.'

I had a guy call me "Barney" one day when he saw that I carried a revolver. His amusement faded somewhat when I set both revolvers on the counter followed by 4 Safariland Comp 2 speedloaders and 4 Bianchi Speed Strips. It may have been the Gerber Guardian that he never saw until it appeared next to the speed strips that freaked him out. He asked me if I was expecting trouble. My response: "If I was expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle."

The officer in the OP's post was wrong, abusive, and deserves to be disciplined. If he and the sheriff's office get sued in addition, it's all good.

ECS

 

[BSA1]

mjdeckard,

I get the impression that you are hostile towards LEO's and you are insulting me because I posted that I believe the officer was within his rights to search her.

The key is whether there was a "reasonable suspicion" on the part of the officer. And he is only one that can justify his actions. We can only form a opinion based on limited information by a third party.

However being legally right is not the same as using good judgement which certainly seems to be the case.

I am sorry that you have had negative experiences with the Police. I also see the police use tactics today I consider illegal but the courts have upheld the use of them.

 

[Bubba613]

The key is whether there was a "reasonable suspicion" on the part of the officer. And he is only one that can justify his actions. We can only form a opinion based on limited information by a third party

What in the OP would give 'reasonable suspicion" that a crime had been committed? Between his cordial greeting and his abusive behavior the only change mentioned was his running her license and discovering her HCP. Having an HCP is not suspicious of committing a crime. The opposite.

 

[Guillermo]

BSA

If the facts are as they have been presented it was a bad search as there was no reasonably articulated suspicion.

Just because he has a badge doesn't mean he can search her car for no reason.

Sadly it appears that he is going to be allowed to continue violating Constitutionally protected rights.

 

[BSA1]

The Supreme Court has never seen fit to define what exactly "reasonable suspicion" is. This is why we have such a wide gray area in this area. I would certainly hold a officer with 20 years experience to a higher standard than a rookie police officer.

Insults to my college education not withstanding (Hey, it was the best education I could afford to buy) I am merely pointing out how vague the law can be when judging a officer's actions. Nor nothing in my comments should be interperted to mean I think the officers actions were correct.

 

[Guillermo]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the officer has to have a "reasonably articulated suspicion"

Tell me BSA, what crime did the cop think was being committed?

 

[henschman]

Terry is the most abused decision by police. Terry allows an officer to frisk for weapons only when they have reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed. In this case, the suspect neither committed a crime, nor gave any indication that she was armed.

Don't forget the "dangerous" part! The Terry line of cases requires that before a pat-down, an officer must have reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that a supsect is both ARMED and DANGEROUS. Simply suspecting that someone is armed does not automatically lead to a conclusion that they are dangerous... there must be specific and articulable facts that would lead an officer to a determination that the person is dangerous as well.

This distinction has become even more important since the ruling in Terry was issued back in the 60s, at a time when most states outlawed the carry of weapons... now almost every state provides a way for citizens to legally carry a firearm in public, so it certainly wouldn't be reasonable to suspect that someone is even breaking any law, much less that they are dangerous, just because they are armed.

In the instant case, the Terry search requirements are clearly not met. First off, there weren't even any specific and articulable facts to lead the cop to believe that the OP's wife was even armed at all (the mere fact that someone has a permit to carry a gun would not be RS that they are actually carrying a gun at any particular moment); and there certainly wasn't anything he could point to that would indicate she is dangerous, on a routine traffic stop in which she is completely cooperative.

So yes, the cop most certainly did violate the law. Talking to an attorney who specializes in governmental torts/civil rights would be a very good idea, to discuss your options.

 

[WinThePennant]

I tell you what, I am sick and tired of always having to bend over backwards just so LEOs can "feel safe" or know that I'm "concerned about their safety" when it comes to anything from walking past them on the street to being pulled over for driving five over.

Dealing with LEOs is becoming quite the public hazard, is it not? The drill now is that when you're pulled over, be sure to always refer to the officer as "Sir." Don't even think about taking your hands off the steering wheel. Or, better yet, just go ahead and keep both of them hanging outside the rolled down window. Don't you dare make a "furtive movement" (whatever the heck that is). Be sure to provide more information and documentation than required, and by all means let the police search your vehicle because you shouldn't have anything to hide.

Whenever I am pulled over by a LEO, I can tell you that I am not at ALL concerned about their safety. I am, however, concerned about my safety.

I'm a little tired of seeing the buzz-cuts in uniform pushing people around simply because they can.

 

[Guillermo]

I'm a little tired of seeing the buzz-cuts in uniform pushing people around simply because they can.

Is it happening more...or is it the internet letting us know about everything?

 

[Bonesinium]

Is it happening more...or is it the internet letting us know about everything?

Tough to say. I'd like to think it is just that we see and hear about it more because of technology and the fact that everyone has a camera on their phone, or can post online for everyone to see, but I don't necessarily think that is the case...

If you are going to exercise your 2nd Amendment right, don't willingly give up your 4th, 5th, or even 1st Amendment right just because you are confronted by police. They have no authority outside of the law. They cannot make up their own laws. You have no obligation to follow their illegal demands.

 

[BHP FAN]

It's time to lawyer up. I have an opinion, and so does everyone else [there's an old saying about that] but you need to get serious, and that means a lawyer.

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

you're wife didn't show a policeman her ccw as required by law in TN, then was patted down (appropriately) for the officer's safety, and you're upset with the officer?

if a male LE officer knows there's a very good chance someone has a gun on them, i don't think there are many that would do the politically correct thing and wait for a female officer to arrive thereby putting their lives at risk. as for the car search-consider it a lesson taught for her not showing her permit, which can be revoked for such things, btw, and it was nice the officer didn't proceed with that.

i'm not a LE officer myself, but this is clearly not a case of abuse of power.

It's time to lawyer up. I have an opinion, and so does everyone else [there's an old saying about that] but you need to get serious, and that means a lawyer.

gimme a break. hopefully you don't spill your own hot coffee on yourself, for mcdonald's sake.

 

[Scimmia]

you're wife didn't show a policeman her ccw as required by law in TN, then was patted down (appropriately) for the officer's safety, and you're upset with the officer?

if a male LE officer knows there's a very good chance someone has a gun on them, i don't think there are many that would do the politically correct thing and wait for a female officer to arrive thereby putting their lives at risk. as for the car search-consider it a lesson taught for her not showing her permit, which can be revoked for such things, btw, and it was nice the officer didn't proceed with that.

I don't know what you've been reading, but it's been mentioned over and over in this thread that she was NOT required by TN law to show her permit. This officers CO even admitted that.

If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd have seen that. This simple fact pretty much negates your entire post.

 

[Sam1911]

you're wife didn't show a policeman her ccw as required by law in TN, then was patted down (appropriately) for the officer's safety, and you're upset with the officer?

Wow. Please make sure you actually understand the law before you make a judgment like this.

The OP's wife isn't required to show her permit, unless directly requested by the officer. SHE DID NOTHING WRONG, here. PERIOD.

How was patting her down "appropriate"? The stop was almost concluded. She had given no signs of being EITHER armed, nor dangerous. What was the reasonable suspicion which prompted the officer to need to pat her down?

Ownership of a concealed carry permit is not indicative of ANY crime in progress, nor of that person being "dangerous." In fact, it rather suggests the opposite.

if a male LE officer knows there's a very good chance someone has a gun on them, i don't think there are many that would do the politically correct thing and wait for a female officer to arrive thereby putting their lives at risk.

Putting their lives at risk? Really? If an officer has some reason to believe that their life will be at risk if they approach this car (again), then they will stay in their own vehicle, call for backup, and wait for it to arrive. Not approach the person alone and physically interact with them. Frisking for weapons on a suspected-dangerous person is a risky thing to do. Having at least another officer present with gun drawn would be the right approach if the officer really believes this person is armed AND dangerous. Not go ask them to exit the car and then get within contact distance and pat them down -- just to see if maybe they'll turn on him and try to kill him. That doesn't make sense.

A one-on-one frisk like this reads entirely as an intimidation and/or fishing expedition tactic. A true suspicion of danger would dictate a completely different way of handling the situation.

... as for the car search-consider it a lesson taught for her not showing her permit, which can be revoked for such things, btw, and it was nice the officer didn't proceed with that.

Again, no. No it can't and no, he couldn't have. Because the law doesn't say anything like that.

And I think your first clause here is extremely telling, of both the expected "citizen" mindset, and the probable mindset of the officer: Consider the car search "a lesson."

A search is NOT supposed to be something done as a punitive measure, an intimidation technique, or to "teach" anyone "a lesson" to respect the officer's authority or to behave in a certain way. It is for officer safety, period.

When we say, "this act wasn't conducted according to law, but understand and accept that he was trying to teach you a lesson to divulge any and all information that might be interesting to him..." -- well, that's why these things continue to happen.

Know the law. Follow the law. Know your rights. DEFEND your rights.

 

[Guillermo]

It is a little scary just looking at the number of people that do not understand the law and/or think it is ok for a cop to search a car for no reason.

Since Mopar hasn't commented since his post saying he spoke to the chief, I suspect that the cop is going to be free to continue to abuse Constitutionally protected rights.

 

[HOOfan_1]

as for the car search-consider it a lesson taught for her not showing her permit

Maybe he could have maced her, or pistol whipped her....is that a lesson taught, or is that further violation of civil rights, just like the car search was?

 

[mljdeckard]

If someone insists that the police follow set precedent and The Constitution when they do their jobs, it doesn't mean they are anti-cop. It means they are pro-freedom.

If the above story justifies a search, it means any cop can search anyone, anytime they want to.

 

[Salmoneye]

Since Mopar hasn't commented since his post saying he spoke to the chief, I suspect that the cop is going to be free to continue to abuse Constitutionally protected rights.

Or his attorney (that everyone told him to get) has told him (and correctly so), to stop posting the facts of this case on the internet...

 

[Guillermo]

Or his attorney (that everyone told him to get) has told him (and correctly so), to stop posting the facts of this case on the internet

Salmoneye is correct

This is a distinct possibility.

I stand corrected and cautiously optimistic.

 

[Salmoneye]

I hope I'm correct...