Guillermo
member
me too
LEO harassed my wife about CCW this morning
- Thread starter mopar92
- Start date
- Status
me too
Gtimothy
Member
I carry my CCW and Retired Military ID right behind my DL. If/when I get pulled over, I hand all three to the officer. On more than one occasion my Military ID got me a warning instead of a ticket. I would venture to guess, that most LEO's appreciate the courtesy and, as one poster stated, it can be a conversation starter. It costs nothing to hand over the documents and be polite! You never know what kind of douch bag that they had to deal with before you! On the other hand, if he doesn't know the law where he is working, he needs to be educated before IA has to check on him! Just my 2 cents!
dprice3844444
member
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
SCOTUS rolls back police search authority at traffic stops
Here's some good news for liberty-loving drivers:
The US Supreme Court today issued a rare pro-4th Amendment decision to restrict vehicle searches incident to arrest. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court held in Arizona v. Gant that "Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
The majority lamented that "Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that:
Law enforcement officers face a risk of being shot when-ever they pull a car over. But that risk is at its height at the time of the initial confrontation; and it is not at all reduced by allowing a search of the stopped vehicle after the driver has been arrested and placed in the squad car.
Bottom line, said the court: "Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies."
Though Gant is a relatively narrow ruling, one hopes it portends a renewed commitment to basic Fourth Amendment protections which have been battered and abused by the Court recent years.
RELATED: See the SCOTUSWiki page on the case.
SCOTUS rolls back police search authority at traffic stops
Here's some good news for liberty-loving drivers:
The US Supreme Court today issued a rare pro-4th Amendment decision to restrict vehicle searches incident to arrest. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court held in Arizona v. Gant that "Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
The majority lamented that "Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result."
In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that:
Law enforcement officers face a risk of being shot when-ever they pull a car over. But that risk is at its height at the time of the initial confrontation; and it is not at all reduced by allowing a search of the stopped vehicle after the driver has been arrested and placed in the squad car.
Bottom line, said the court: "Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies."
Though Gant is a relatively narrow ruling, one hopes it portends a renewed commitment to basic Fourth Amendment protections which have been battered and abused by the Court recent years.
RELATED: See the SCOTUSWiki page on the case.
Apocalypse-Now
Member
ok, then if it isn't, the officer's behavior would make absolutely no sense-unless we're not getting the whole story here. i'm not jumping to conclusions about the officer's actions without the whole, verified story. sorry. i don't believe "officer excessive force" stories i hear on the news either, for the same reason.
or it didn't happen like he said. i love how everyone's jumping to conclusions in this thread. yeah, he'll win a big suit against that cop. the lady at walmart was rude to me the other day and hurt my feelings. i should sue too. hilarious.
Last edited:
Guillermo
member
Apocalypse-Now
To compare a flagrant violation of Constitutionally protected rights to someone being rude is indicative that you do not care about government officials overstepping their authority.
Very sad.
To compare a flagrant violation of Constitutionally protected rights to someone being rude is indicative that you do not care about government officials overstepping their authority.
Very sad.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Apocalypse-Now said:
Actually, that's not true at all. You absolutely did:
Apocalypse-Now said:
Actually, it does fit into a pattern, not far outside of the norm. Many officers don't see that many concealed carry permits -- they tend to have few opportunities to interact with folks carrying lawful concealed weapons as those folks tend to be far more law-abiding than the average. (Ironically, also far more law-abiding than the average for cops! ...but that's a different thread.) Just as we often read of officers giving bad or unlawful advice regarding permits and carrying of weapons, we see where they themselves can get mixed up in a mistake because they simply don't know these laws well.
If this was a drug bust or a theft or assault, the average cop would be pretty familiar with the pertinent statutes -- because they deal with those matters daily. They don't deal with concealed carriers daily and often have no clear understanding of the laws involved. It just doesn't come up.
So, while there are some officers who WILLFULLY step on the rights of CCW folks because they're out to express their displeasure that others (beside them-self) may go armed or to establish "dominance," there's no need to ascribe to malice what is very easily explained by ignorance.
Look, my own county here in gun-loving PA issues (or did, anyway) a guide to carrying when someone first gets their LCTF. And, that document -- given out by the Sheriff's office -- contains mistakes and overstatements which do not match PA law. Sad, but true. Maybe some of it is willful -- the sheriff may indeed WISH folks would obey his idea of what the law should be -- but most of it is simple ignorance.
You know, a lot of suits or motions filed against law enforcement officers and/or agencies simply seek an official statement of policy change, and/or the department taking steps to educate their officers in the correct application of a law. It isn't always about winning a million dollar lawsuit.
Now that's an absurd straw-man argument and you should be embarrassed to have made it.
Last edited:
N003k
Member
Apocalypse-Now said:
So, let me get this straight, you're willing to jump to the conclusion that she was in the wrong by not presenting her permit right away, without confirming the laws yourself, or really reading the thread and noticing that that didn't violate the law, or in other words, not making sure it's a full verified story. On top of that you believe a violation of her civil rights is a just punishment for failing to present said permit.
However if it's the officer in the wrong, then you absolutly refuse to believe the story unless it's 'verified'? Since you refuse to believe a news station, does that mean you basically will refuse to believe the story unless the officer himself comes on here and admits to it?
It's common sense that since they're human, police officers do screw up sometimes. Sometimes they do it maliciously, sometimes by mistake, either way though, they need to be held responsible...and they should DEFINITELY be held to the same standard, if not a higher one, than a citizen. That means the burden of proof should be equal or lesser as far as I'm concerned due to the trust placed in them.
If you're willing to believe the citizen is at fault in a situation given the information provided, your corrected notions should be enough to believe the officer at fault too.
That all said, believe it or not, I'm getting a criminal justice degree, and actually want to BECOME an officer, so, trust me, I'm not a cop hater or basher.
Deanimator
Member
Nor do you know what kind you're dealing with then and there. That being the case, why INTRODUCE an excuse for misbehavior if the law doesn't REQUIRE it?
Apocalypse-Now
Member
no. however, everyone else in te thread is obviously jumping to the conclusion that the officer is at fault, as everyone is crying "lawyer up!"
i don't know what really happened, do you?
Apocalypse-Now
Member
touche. i did jump to that conclusion based on my incorrect belief that showing the permit is required in TN. now that i know it's not, i am no longer buying the story, as explained why in my post#132.
Deanimator
Member
The last time I checked, there was no physical law of nature which required people's behavior to "make sense", much less make sense to YOU.
There's no SENSIBLE explanation for the behavior of Officer Daniel Harless as caught on video... THREE times. Does that mean that those incidents didn't happen?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So...you're jumping to another conclusion, then?
Guillermo
member
Unless the OP is making the whole thing up the officer was wrong.
Period.
There is no question.
And he should not have a badge.
Obviously Apocalypse doesn't care about out of control cops.
Maybe if he had a loved one pulled over by Officer Harless he would have another opinion.
Period.
There is no question.
And he should not have a badge.
Obviously Apocalypse doesn't care about out of control cops.
Maybe if he had a loved one pulled over by Officer Harless he would have another opinion.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
All right hold on... time out. This is getting a bit heated. It looks like all possible "sides" of the debate have been aired.
Let's let the matter stand until the OP gets back to us with an update.
Mopar92 -- when you have pursued the matter and gotten some official response, send me a Private Message and I'll reopen the thread so you can post your results.
Let's let the matter stand until the OP gets back to us with an update.
Mopar92 -- when you have pursued the matter and gotten some official response, send me a Private Message and I'll reopen the thread so you can post your results.
- Status
