pcosmar
member
translation;
Everyone in any vehicle is a potential smuggler.
Innocence must be proven.
Personal true story. RV stop in ILL.
- Thread starter BBQJOE
- Start date
- Status
Everyone in any vehicle is a potential smuggler.
Innocence must be proven.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
That assertion's not well founded.
Time to go to school: http://www.flexyourrights.org/
Just say no is the soundbite, but one really has to understand things like probable cause, the plain view doctrine, Terry frisks and so on to be able to determine whether one is the subject of a fishing expedition, which is an unreasonable search, or a reasonable search, which doesn't _always_ have a warrant attached to it.
A cop who sees you holding a knife to someone does not have to get a warrant to search for a knife.
jimmyraythomason
Member
"1. Don't let them in the door. Being friendly to cops is fine on a personal level. Not when it gets down to business. We're talking about liberty and justice, here." AMEN, brother,AMEN!
Daniel T
Member
Jeff,
Please clarify something if you would. Illinois law says (pertinent parts bolded):
Is it case law that says "not immediately accessible" means unloaded? If so, then why is unloaded spelled out in section (iii) but not in (i) or (ii)?
Edit: saw isp2605's answer earlier. Apparently there's another pertinent law? Is the one I posted above just poorly written in that it includes redundant verbiage?
Please clarify something if you would. Illinois law says (pertinent parts bolded):
Is it case law that says "not immediately accessible" means unloaded? If so, then why is unloaded spelled out in section (iii) but not in (i) or (ii)?
Edit: saw isp2605's answer earlier. Apparently there's another pertinent law? Is the one I posted above just poorly written in that it includes redundant verbiage?
Im283
Member
from my own personal experience I say do not trust the police when they are looking into your business. They are out to make arrests at most any cost.
Truth and what is moral and right really does not come into play.
I honestly cannot come up with one experience in my 49 years that was made better by a Cop being involved.
A good day is one when you do not have to speak to them or acknoweldge their existence.
Truth and what is moral and right really does not come into play.
I honestly cannot come up with one experience in my 49 years that was made better by a Cop being involved.
A good day is one when you do not have to speak to them or acknoweldge their existence.
Last edited:
Daniel T
Member
If that was true, they just would have arrested the OP instead of letting him go. How does that fit into your simple world view?
I'm going to take a wild-ass guess and say that a hard-ass interpretation of "not immediately available" means not available to anyone without having to exit the vehicle, like in a trunk or a towed trailer.
Note that even when in a locked case, the weapon must be unloaded. So, I don't think the safe gets a pass, since it's just a big, locked case. IMO. Not saying it should be that way, but...
K
Note that even when in a locked case, the weapon must be unloaded. So, I don't think the safe gets a pass, since it's just a big, locked case. IMO. Not saying it should be that way, but...
K
MrTuffPaws
Member
There's your problem.
pcosmar
member
True, but if he sees you holding a knife to a loaf of bread, there is no reason to assume you are doing anything but having lunch.
IF the stop was for a signal light, there is NO reason to enter the vehicle.
There is no reason to do anything but speak to the driver about the signal.
Anything else is fishing.
CountGlockula
Member
Good story but...
Lesson to be learned:
Even though you're groggy, unfocused and tired from a long drive in an RV, NEVER lie to a cop.
That's one thing that they hate: Lies. Just be fully focused when a cop comes around. Don't be nervous and don't expect the worse. Be calm and collected.
Glad you came out OK, but next time tell them the truth.
Lesson to be learned:
Even though you're groggy, unfocused and tired from a long drive in an RV, NEVER lie to a cop.
That's one thing that they hate: Lies. Just be fully focused when a cop comes around. Don't be nervous and don't expect the worse. Be calm and collected.
Glad you came out OK, but next time tell them the truth.
The word lie means the intent to decieve I think that the intent is lacking here. The weapons had nothing to do with the taillight and were none of the cop's damn business.
The true moral of the story is never treat a cop like a human being. He will just see it as weakness and try to use it against you.
Jefferson
The true moral of the story is never treat a cop like a human being. He will just see it as weakness and try to use it against you.
Jefferson
CountGlockula
Member
Let's look at it in LEO's point of view.
OK.
Most people, myself included don't like to be put on the spot or be questioned. It is tough for some to prepare themselves when the situation arises. ESPECIALLY when a form of authority come to play. And it seems that a lot of us are not humble enough to obey the authorities. But one thing for sure....
It's their job to question.
And treating a law enforcement officer...who has volunteered to sacrifice their time, effort and family to be trained (academy, self-defense, firearms, memorize state laws, psychological exams, background check, and graduate)...and become a full fledged professional to take his own life from the worst of the worst and even the innocent....as a non-human being is just a way to label them as the "enemy".
People, we need to appreciate the human effort and ride things out. It seems a lot of us are crying over spilled milk. "Oh, the cop came in my home destroyed everything, questioned me and my family, treated me like a criminal, etc." Boo-hoo. Cowboy up and be responsible for your mistakes. Stop blaming others or the "Us vs. Them" mentality.
Bring it on.
OK.
Most people, myself included don't like to be put on the spot or be questioned. It is tough for some to prepare themselves when the situation arises. ESPECIALLY when a form of authority come to play. And it seems that a lot of us are not humble enough to obey the authorities. But one thing for sure....
It's their job to question.
And treating a law enforcement officer...who has volunteered to sacrifice their time, effort and family to be trained (academy, self-defense, firearms, memorize state laws, psychological exams, background check, and graduate)...and become a full fledged professional to take his own life from the worst of the worst and even the innocent....as a non-human being is just a way to label them as the "enemy".
People, we need to appreciate the human effort and ride things out. It seems a lot of us are crying over spilled milk. "Oh, the cop came in my home destroyed everything, questioned me and my family, treated me like a criminal, etc." Boo-hoo. Cowboy up and be responsible for your mistakes. Stop blaming others or the "Us vs. Them" mentality.
Bring it on.
Autolycus
Member
Yes we are not humble. He allowed the officer to come into his home for the health and safety of the officer and the officer took advantage of that.
I understand it is their job to question us. Just as it is my job as a citizen to make sure the government and its agents do not abuse us or violate our rights.
You make LEOs sound like some noble knights in shining armor who will protect us poor townsfolk from the barbarian hill people and dragons. This volunteer service they do, are they getting paid? What about retirement and pension?
Yes so the cops came into your home and destroyed it because the law they are enforcing is poorly written and not very clear. Nor did the original poster lie to the officer when he said he did not have any guns the officer had to worry about. So we should allow police to come into our homes and destroy them because we made a small mistake? Or we did not understand a poorly written law? If so then what happens when they dont enforce the law in a correct manner or make mistakes?
So far the only crime the original poster is guilty of is having a broken taillight. Good thing 6 squad cars came out and stopped those criminals. I am sure all of us in Illinois are much safer to the heroic men and women of Law Enforcement for this bang up job.
No its not. Their job is to investigate and punish after a crime. Any precrime actions are a violation of the very basic presumption of innocence.
They are the enforcement arm of those who work hard every day to strip us of our basic rights. That makes them a domestic enemy of the constitution.
Are you LAPD?
If you are clean up your own damn house before you presume to dictate to others.
Jefferson
Ok, everyone on here that thinks the police did anything wrong, is being very unrealistic. The officer stopped the vehicle on a traffic violation. (Does anyone think that non-working tail lights are not traffic violations? If you do your'e wrong because I do not want to rear end someone because thier tail lights don't work). Then the officer asked permission to enter the VEHICLE. A vehicle is defined as any motorvehicle that can readily be moved. Obviously since you were traveling the the RV is defined as a vehicle, not a home. To which vehicles are subject to easier search criteria (I'll get to that in a second). If you allow an LEO to enter the vehicle (regardless of the stated reason) the officer has the right to sieze anything in plain view, or use anything you say about things that are in plain view against you to develop reasonable suspicion and or probable cause. Thus, the fact that you lied to him about any weapons being present would constitute reasonsable suspicion.
Here's the deal. The famous Terry vs Ohio case stated that LEO's can conduct a "frisk" of a person, (and this has been interpreted to include vehicles that are readily movable) if the officer has articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion to believe that a weapon exists on thier person, or in the vehicle. This officer I definately believe had reasonable suspicion after the revolver was produced after the occupant lied about it's presence. However, I would believe that the officer probably had reasonable suspicion after he was told no weapons existed, and then observed a knife above the visor.
Ok, so a frisk of a vehicle is defined as a search of the passenger compartment anywhere a weapons could reasonably be, as well as any unlocked containers. So here's what I think happened.
1. LEO lawfully pulls over RV for traffic violation
2. LEO asks for permission to enter vehicle.
3. LEO observes weapons (or items that could be reasonably used as such)
4. LEO asks if any more weapons are present
5. LEO is lied to
6. LEO again asks if anymore weapons are present (being more specific to include firearms)
7. Low and behold the occupant states that he has a .22
8. LEO ASKS if the occupant can retrieve the .22 (occupant did not have to comply)
9. Based upon the fact that the occupant was being evasive or outright lying, the LEO at this point had reasonable suspicion to believe that more weapons are present in the vehicle and might pose a danger to him.
10. Based upon this the LEO orders all occupants outside in order to conduct a "frisk" of the vehicle, in which he finds yet another weapons, which was lied about.
11. LEO now has probabl cause to search the ENTIRE vehicle.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the poster, he allowed the officer in his vehicle, then lied about the presence of weapons. I think I would have done the same thing if I were the LEO
Here's the deal. The famous Terry vs Ohio case stated that LEO's can conduct a "frisk" of a person, (and this has been interpreted to include vehicles that are readily movable) if the officer has articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion to believe that a weapon exists on thier person, or in the vehicle. This officer I definately believe had reasonable suspicion after the revolver was produced after the occupant lied about it's presence. However, I would believe that the officer probably had reasonable suspicion after he was told no weapons existed, and then observed a knife above the visor.
Ok, so a frisk of a vehicle is defined as a search of the passenger compartment anywhere a weapons could reasonably be, as well as any unlocked containers. So here's what I think happened.
1. LEO lawfully pulls over RV for traffic violation
2. LEO asks for permission to enter vehicle.
3. LEO observes weapons (or items that could be reasonably used as such)
4. LEO asks if any more weapons are present
5. LEO is lied to
6. LEO again asks if anymore weapons are present (being more specific to include firearms)
7. Low and behold the occupant states that he has a .22
8. LEO ASKS if the occupant can retrieve the .22 (occupant did not have to comply)
9. Based upon the fact that the occupant was being evasive or outright lying, the LEO at this point had reasonable suspicion to believe that more weapons are present in the vehicle and might pose a danger to him.
10. Based upon this the LEO orders all occupants outside in order to conduct a "frisk" of the vehicle, in which he finds yet another weapons, which was lied about.
11. LEO now has probabl cause to search the ENTIRE vehicle.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the poster, he allowed the officer in his vehicle, then lied about the presence of weapons. I think I would have done the same thing if I were the LEO
Ok, everyone on here that thinks the police did anything wrong, is being very unrealistic.
The officer stopped the vehicle on a traffic violation. (Does anyone think that non-working tail lights are not traffic violations? If you do you're wrong because I do not want to rear end someone because thier tail lights don't work).
Then the officer asked permission to enter the VEHICLE. A vehicle is defined as any motorvehicle that can readily be moved. Obviously since you were traveling, the the RV is defined as a vehicle, not a home. To which vehicles are subject to easier search criteria.
If you allow an LEO to enter the vehicle (regardless of the stated reason) the officer has the right to sieze anything in plain view, or use anything you say about things that are in plain view against you to develop reasonable suspicion and or probable cause. Thus, the fact that you lied to him about any weapons being present would constitute reasonsable suspicion.
Here's the deal. The famous Terry vs Ohio case stated that LEO's can conduct a "frisk" of a person, (and this has been interpreted to include vehicles that are readily movable) if the officer has articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion to believe that a weapon exists on thier person, or in the vehicle. This officer I definately believe had reasonable suspicion after the revolver was produced after the occupant lied about it's presence. However, I would believe that the officer probably had reasonable suspicion after he was told no weapons existed, and then observed a knife above the visor.
Ok, so a frisk of a vehicle is defined as a search of the passenger compartment anywhere a weapons could reasonably be, as well as any unlocked containers. So here's what I think happened.
1. LEO lawfully pulls over RV for traffic violation
2. LEO asks for permission to enter vehicle.
3. LEO observes weapons (or items that could be reasonably used as such)
4. LEO asks if any more weapons are present
5. LEO is lied to
6. LEO again asks if anymore weapons are present (being more specific to include firearms)
7. Low and behold the occupant states that he has a .22
8. LEO ASKS if the occupant can retrieve the .22 (occupant did not have to comply)
9. Based upon the fact that the occupant was being evasive or outright lying, the LEO at this point had reasonable suspicion to believe that more weapons are present in the vehicle and might pose a danger to him.
10. Based upon this the LEO orders all occupants outside in order to conduct a "frisk" of the vehicle, in which he finds yet another weapons, which was lied about.
11. LEO now has probabl cause to search the ENTIRE vehicle.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the poster, he allowed the officer in his vehicle, then lied about the presence of weapons. I think I would have done the same thing if I were the LEO
The officer stopped the vehicle on a traffic violation. (Does anyone think that non-working tail lights are not traffic violations? If you do you're wrong because I do not want to rear end someone because thier tail lights don't work).
Then the officer asked permission to enter the VEHICLE. A vehicle is defined as any motorvehicle that can readily be moved. Obviously since you were traveling, the the RV is defined as a vehicle, not a home. To which vehicles are subject to easier search criteria.
If you allow an LEO to enter the vehicle (regardless of the stated reason) the officer has the right to sieze anything in plain view, or use anything you say about things that are in plain view against you to develop reasonable suspicion and or probable cause. Thus, the fact that you lied to him about any weapons being present would constitute reasonsable suspicion.
Here's the deal. The famous Terry vs Ohio case stated that LEO's can conduct a "frisk" of a person, (and this has been interpreted to include vehicles that are readily movable) if the officer has articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion to believe that a weapon exists on thier person, or in the vehicle. This officer I definately believe had reasonable suspicion after the revolver was produced after the occupant lied about it's presence. However, I would believe that the officer probably had reasonable suspicion after he was told no weapons existed, and then observed a knife above the visor.
Ok, so a frisk of a vehicle is defined as a search of the passenger compartment anywhere a weapons could reasonably be, as well as any unlocked containers. So here's what I think happened.
1. LEO lawfully pulls over RV for traffic violation
2. LEO asks for permission to enter vehicle.
3. LEO observes weapons (or items that could be reasonably used as such)
4. LEO asks if any more weapons are present
5. LEO is lied to
6. LEO again asks if anymore weapons are present (being more specific to include firearms)
7. Low and behold the occupant states that he has a .22
8. LEO ASKS if the occupant can retrieve the .22 (occupant did not have to comply)
9. Based upon the fact that the occupant was being evasive or outright lying, the LEO at this point had reasonable suspicion to believe that more weapons are present in the vehicle and might pose a danger to him.
10. Based upon this the LEO orders all occupants outside in order to conduct a "frisk" of the vehicle, in which he finds yet another weapons, which was lied about.
11. LEO now has probabl cause to search the ENTIRE vehicle.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for the poster, he allowed the officer in his vehicle, then lied about the presence of weapons. I think I would have done the same thing if I were the LEO
Autolycus
Member
Remember the LEO asked permission to enter because it was cold outside. He did not ask permission to enter for other purposes. I believe that the LEO should have asked permission to search. Having a knife in a mobile home or camper does not seem strange to me. But it was used by the officer as a reason to search the vehicle for other weapons.
TallPine
Member
I'm still confused ... just what is so suspicious about an RV with a bad tail light...?
Is this standard procedure now to demand entry to an RV rather than just speak with the driver?
"Just because they can" is not an adequate answer
Is this standard procedure now to demand entry to an RV rather than just speak with the driver?
"Just because they can" is not an adequate answer
Autolycus
Member
Notice it says he saw kitchen knives and then the cop saw the buck knife. Because a buck knife and kitch knives are unusual things to have in a mobile home or camper.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Autolycus
Member
An American is what I would call that citizen.
TallPine
Member
"Suspect" ...?
Honestly, the fact that I have had mostly good experiences with cops over the past five decades makes incidents like this seem doubly horrifying.
That, and the fact that I might not even be here today if it wasn't for long long ago a loaded gun was carried in an "RV" type vehicle.
- Status