"Sir, do you have any weapons in the vehicle"?
- Thread starter dodging230grainers
- Start date
- Status
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
sans authoritas said:
And what qualifies you as an expert on LE tactics?
I can tell you this much, I do take the assumption that everyone is armed. If I ask the question it is probably for a reason, perhaps something I thought I saw in the driver's hand, or under his leg, or whatever the case may be... It may be because I already have probable cause on a more severe criminal violation, and was already intending to take the party out of the car (in that last case, the subject protects his safety as well as mine... If he tells me he is wearing a gun it is better than if I discover it when I think he is reaching for it).
By the way, the criminals often do tell the truth on this matter.
I will tell you this much, if I ask a question and get a lie, you will go to jail.
If I ask the question and get the truth (and no major law violation has occured) you won't have any problems. I've let plenty of guys slide on minor stuff because they were honest with me.
And, if I ask an officer-safety related question like the one posed in this thread, and get a gut full of attitude from the subject of the stop, they will likely come out of the car, and they will likely be patted-down for my safety... as was allowed in the ruling from Terry v Ohio. A cover officer will also likely be en route to the scene at some point during this stop...
Also, keep in mind that folks who play citizen A-hole (because it is "their right") are often the ones who don't get any breaks. A person who didn't have proof of insurance may have been getting off with a warning, and their actions during the stop may have talked them into a ticket and notice of suspension on their driver's license.
Either action is allowable from a law enforcement perspective, and it is simply a matter of officer discretion. Who would you give the break to, and who would you cite if you were the officer?
Like anything else in life, how you treat your fellow man can say a lot about how you are treated in return. Even while the officer completely follows the letter of the law, the outcome can be vastly different for you, depending on your attitude.
It isn't ego, as has been suggested in this thread, it is human nature. And officers are also human.
Also, asking the question that was proposed in that ACLU video promises a ticket from me, under most conditions... If I walk up to a car on a traffic stop and someone is dumb enough to start our contact by asking "am I being detained, or am I free to go?", then I figure they deserve a ticket. If you weren't being detained, you wouldn't have been pulled over. If I haven't finished the stop, you are still being detained. This is common sense... It is easy to recognize when someone is trying their best to throw on the attitude with us, and we often legally respond by hitting them in the pocket book!
(By the way, there are no absolutes. If you broke the law, you may get a cite, and you may get a warning. But, it sure can't hurt to stack the cards in your favor. I say this as a citizen first, and an officer second. And, I practice what I preach in the rare instance where I have been pulled over for speeding, etc)
Last edited:
Phil Lee
Member
I was asked the question once in Mississippi when stopped by a police officer who mistook my car for a similar one that passed me speeding.
My response was not so wise as "am I being detained?" Instead, I said I have nothing to say on that matter. I had a handgun in the trunk being transported legally -- unloaded and in a locked case in the locked trunk.
An officer wouldn't have been able to detect the gun without a search with a warrent forcing the trunk open and the case open.
Still, I gave him a response that preserved my rights.
He did take me out of the car while he checked whether I was wanted. After a few minutes, I was on my way with no ticket.
I believe the right approach is polite and assertive of rights, but it isn't necessary to be cute about it or legalistic.
Just remember you are not obliged to tell officers anything (unless you are legally carrying concealed). Remember that the laws concerning having firearms are a patchwork. Finally, remember that in some states, (e.g., Maryland), Mr. Police Officer is not your friend if you are transporting a firearm.
Be polite, respond to lawful orders, do not threaten, and keep your mouth shut is prudent policy.
My response was not so wise as "am I being detained?" Instead, I said I have nothing to say on that matter. I had a handgun in the trunk being transported legally -- unloaded and in a locked case in the locked trunk.
An officer wouldn't have been able to detect the gun without a search with a warrent forcing the trunk open and the case open.
Still, I gave him a response that preserved my rights.
He did take me out of the car while he checked whether I was wanted. After a few minutes, I was on my way with no ticket.
I believe the right approach is polite and assertive of rights, but it isn't necessary to be cute about it or legalistic.
Just remember you are not obliged to tell officers anything (unless you are legally carrying concealed). Remember that the laws concerning having firearms are a patchwork. Finally, remember that in some states, (e.g., Maryland), Mr. Police Officer is not your friend if you are transporting a firearm.
Be polite, respond to lawful orders, do not threaten, and keep your mouth shut is prudent policy.
Last edited:
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Coyote, Kevin,
When have I ever advocated being arrogant or anything other than polite on the highway? I won't be rude to an officer. I won't say, "I know my rights! I pay your salary!" on the highway. That would be phenomenally imprudent.
While a lot of individual palm readers might be, to most accounts, great people, their field as it stands now is a joke.
The same goes for 50% of "police work," that enforces anything besides laws that protect the individual life, liberty and property of other people. Not, "Oh, you have an empty beer can in your car, you obviously are not drinking, but the law is the law, and I'm getting your license suspended." Such is the law in at least one state. Or, "You have an illegal weapon which I had no reason to suspect you are going to use for any ill purpose, but merely possessing this inanimate object is against the law, so you're going to prison." Or, "You legally have 20 gallons of sealed hard alcohol in your car, enough to slosh a city block, but I'm taking you in for that half-ounce of marijuana you have, which is far less dangerous to anyone, because it's against the law!" (No, I have never used, and never intend to use non-prescribed or anything but OTC drugs.) Can you see why I would have no respect for anyone who would enforce such laws, yet do on a daily basis? No matter how individual officers may conduct themselves, your field as a whole is based, in great part, on enforcing regulations with non-existent or stupid logic behind them. If you don't understand why that makes me and others very angry, and if you think that having taken an oath to enforce stupid laws gets you off the hook for that, because you're "Just following orders," then I'm done speaking with you. There is no longer any point.
But if you do a search on some of my posts, especially on "Rivieri," you might see why I have a particular dislike of the field as a whole: you don't see people getting away with abhorrent behavior on a regular basis in any other field. Threatening to make up reasons to take people to jail, (this officer's dashcam uh, "malfunctioned.") Headlocking and taking a non-violent pre-pubsescent skateboarder to the ground because he said, "Dude, chill out" to an cop whose ego couldn't take that crushing blow from a 14-year old punk. A non-violent college student getting tackled and tasered for the dangerous action of speaking out of turn. And this B.S. happens on a daily basis, and they get away with it. In two cases, they didn't. But only because those recording devices saved them. In the case of the tasered college student, what saved them was the fact that everyone approved of such asinine, animal use of violence, except for those who stood by, bleating, "Why-y-y-y... why are you doing this? What did he d-o-o-o?" I'll continue speaking out about it until everyone wakes up: those who perform such actions, and those who let it happen.
coloradokevin wrote:
"Letting something slide" should not be about you or your feelings, Kevin. It's about the law and what is just.
coloradokevin wrote:
You just admitted that it ceased to be about the law and justice, but rather, about your feelings. Those charges are a "tit for tat" for your wounded pride. That's a problem, Coloradokevin.
coloradokevin wrote:
Wow. Just wow. First, that's not how the driver initiates the conversation. He initiates the conversation by saying, "Afternoon, officer, why'd you pull me over?" And if politely asking that question, or the question, "Am I free to go?" "merits" a ticket (on what count?) there are problems. And those problems are not on the part of the one who asked the questions, either.
-Sans Authoritas
When have I ever advocated being arrogant or anything other than polite on the highway? I won't be rude to an officer. I won't say, "I know my rights! I pay your salary!" on the highway. That would be phenomenally imprudent.
While a lot of individual palm readers might be, to most accounts, great people, their field as it stands now is a joke.
The same goes for 50% of "police work," that enforces anything besides laws that protect the individual life, liberty and property of other people. Not, "Oh, you have an empty beer can in your car, you obviously are not drinking, but the law is the law, and I'm getting your license suspended." Such is the law in at least one state. Or, "You have an illegal weapon which I had no reason to suspect you are going to use for any ill purpose, but merely possessing this inanimate object is against the law, so you're going to prison." Or, "You legally have 20 gallons of sealed hard alcohol in your car, enough to slosh a city block, but I'm taking you in for that half-ounce of marijuana you have, which is far less dangerous to anyone, because it's against the law!" (No, I have never used, and never intend to use non-prescribed or anything but OTC drugs.) Can you see why I would have no respect for anyone who would enforce such laws, yet do on a daily basis? No matter how individual officers may conduct themselves, your field as a whole is based, in great part, on enforcing regulations with non-existent or stupid logic behind them. If you don't understand why that makes me and others very angry, and if you think that having taken an oath to enforce stupid laws gets you off the hook for that, because you're "Just following orders," then I'm done speaking with you. There is no longer any point.
But if you do a search on some of my posts, especially on "Rivieri," you might see why I have a particular dislike of the field as a whole: you don't see people getting away with abhorrent behavior on a regular basis in any other field. Threatening to make up reasons to take people to jail, (this officer's dashcam uh, "malfunctioned.") Headlocking and taking a non-violent pre-pubsescent skateboarder to the ground because he said, "Dude, chill out" to an cop whose ego couldn't take that crushing blow from a 14-year old punk. A non-violent college student getting tackled and tasered for the dangerous action of speaking out of turn. And this B.S. happens on a daily basis, and they get away with it. In two cases, they didn't. But only because those recording devices saved them. In the case of the tasered college student, what saved them was the fact that everyone approved of such asinine, animal use of violence, except for those who stood by, bleating, "Why-y-y-y... why are you doing this? What did he d-o-o-o?" I'll continue speaking out about it until everyone wakes up: those who perform such actions, and those who let it happen.
coloradokevin wrote:
"Letting something slide" should not be about you or your feelings, Kevin. It's about the law and what is just.
coloradokevin wrote:
You just admitted that it ceased to be about the law and justice, but rather, about your feelings. Those charges are a "tit for tat" for your wounded pride. That's a problem, Coloradokevin.
coloradokevin wrote:
Wow. Just wow. First, that's not how the driver initiates the conversation. He initiates the conversation by saying, "Afternoon, officer, why'd you pull me over?" And if politely asking that question, or the question, "Am I free to go?" "merits" a ticket (on what count?) there are problems. And those problems are not on the part of the one who asked the questions, either.
-Sans Authoritas
Last edited:
coyotehitman said:
A most excellent example of the attitude police should NOT have. Their job is to enforce the law WITHOUT prejudice, and they should not delight in giving people what they "have coming to them". Their actions should be based on the law, NOT the "attitude" of the citizen.
coyotehitman said:
Who YOU label? Again, not the place of the police. They're not in the "labeling" business. What happened to "protect and serve"? You're not out there to make yourself feel good, and you're certainly not providing guidance or a "role model" (at least not a positive one) by basing your actions on your perception of the citizen's "attitude". I'll admit it's difficult, but a positive role model is one who maintains decorum externally AND internally at all times, even in the face of perceived "attitude". Anything less is just a bad cop.
Harpo
Blackbeard
Member
Ok, I have a question. Suppose Mr. LEO asks if you have any weapons in the car, and you say yes, without giving any details. Is this probable cause to search the vehicle?
jjduller1946
Member
Thoughts on Cops and Weapons
I am sure this subject comes up regularly - and since I check into today’s posts when I check into to THR, I see what has the THR crowd 'talking".
I also get a sense of who we have in the THR community. A diverse crowd clearly: from current and former LEA to current and former military (myself included here) and hunters, shooters, and even some 'Black Helicopter' folks.
I was pulled over in Tampa a few years ago when I pulled out of an archery range at twilight and failed to turn on my lights. I had a bow in clear view in the back of my SUV and had a mix of weapons in the car (40 cal auto, 357 revolver, 30-06, and a muzzleloader; all in a case. (I was planning on going to the range the following day.)
Anyway, the officers approached my car, saw the bow and retreated to his car - I presume to call in to check if I was had anything interesting in their data base. Both officers then carefully approached my car with flashlights checking out the cargo compartment and inside of the car. They asked if I had any weapons in the car and I ran down the inventory.
Both officers were pretty young and I felt they were reasonably concerned about officer safety. I responded with respect and in a short time we were discussing the merits of the 40 cal over their 9 mm. I left with a warning about the lights and they probably left the encounter saying something like, "Glad he was one of the good guys!"
Now in VA I have recently received my CWL. As I understand, when an officer pulls me over he will routinely run my license and his dispatcher’s database will inform him that I have a CWL.
I would expect him/her to ask then if I was carrying for his own safety. And I will let them know if I have a weapon. I do not recall anything in the law that requires me to announce to him before we start discussing why I was pulled over that I am armed. I think if he was acting nervous or in any way indicated that he was concerned I would let him/her know so we could get that off the table.
I used to drink and drive routinely, and in those bad old days just seeing a cop car put me on edge. Now if I see lights in the rear view mirror, I do a quick inventory of my driving and usually figure out why I am getting pulled. This happened a few months ago in an stretch of road where the speed drops from 45 to 35 for no apparent reason. I did not notice the change and I got a ticket for 45 in 35 and left the encounter irritated. I think I would have gotten this quota ticket even if I was a blond 20 year old with big hooters. But life is not always the way I want it.
These folks get shot during routine stops and while cops know some in their midst are insecure losers who give them a bad name (we all have a small percent of these in any profession, IMHO), I assume they are good guys and gals who put their lives on the line every day.
So I have sympathy and start any encounter with an attitude that is based on respect for the profession. I can say I have left some of these encounters with a ticket that was deserved but I felt was a chicken**** quota ticket. Most have been because I exceeded the speed limit, did not come to a full stop at a stop sign, drove on the shoulder to get around a traffic jam, drove without an up-to-date state inspection, etc.
So fellow shooters, my thought is to try to treat these uncomfortable situations by strarting out with an attempt at mutual respect and understanding that the officers should be concerned about their safety and those of us getting pulled over are not happy about the prospect of a ticket!
I am sure this subject comes up regularly - and since I check into today’s posts when I check into to THR, I see what has the THR crowd 'talking".
I also get a sense of who we have in the THR community. A diverse crowd clearly: from current and former LEA to current and former military (myself included here) and hunters, shooters, and even some 'Black Helicopter' folks.
I was pulled over in Tampa a few years ago when I pulled out of an archery range at twilight and failed to turn on my lights. I had a bow in clear view in the back of my SUV and had a mix of weapons in the car (40 cal auto, 357 revolver, 30-06, and a muzzleloader; all in a case. (I was planning on going to the range the following day.)
Anyway, the officers approached my car, saw the bow and retreated to his car - I presume to call in to check if I was had anything interesting in their data base. Both officers then carefully approached my car with flashlights checking out the cargo compartment and inside of the car. They asked if I had any weapons in the car and I ran down the inventory.
Both officers were pretty young and I felt they were reasonably concerned about officer safety. I responded with respect and in a short time we were discussing the merits of the 40 cal over their 9 mm. I left with a warning about the lights and they probably left the encounter saying something like, "Glad he was one of the good guys!"
Now in VA I have recently received my CWL. As I understand, when an officer pulls me over he will routinely run my license and his dispatcher’s database will inform him that I have a CWL.
I would expect him/her to ask then if I was carrying for his own safety. And I will let them know if I have a weapon. I do not recall anything in the law that requires me to announce to him before we start discussing why I was pulled over that I am armed. I think if he was acting nervous or in any way indicated that he was concerned I would let him/her know so we could get that off the table.
I used to drink and drive routinely, and in those bad old days just seeing a cop car put me on edge. Now if I see lights in the rear view mirror, I do a quick inventory of my driving and usually figure out why I am getting pulled. This happened a few months ago in an stretch of road where the speed drops from 45 to 35 for no apparent reason. I did not notice the change and I got a ticket for 45 in 35 and left the encounter irritated. I think I would have gotten this quota ticket even if I was a blond 20 year old with big hooters. But life is not always the way I want it.
These folks get shot during routine stops and while cops know some in their midst are insecure losers who give them a bad name (we all have a small percent of these in any profession, IMHO), I assume they are good guys and gals who put their lives on the line every day.
So I have sympathy and start any encounter with an attitude that is based on respect for the profession. I can say I have left some of these encounters with a ticket that was deserved but I felt was a chicken**** quota ticket. Most have been because I exceeded the speed limit, did not come to a full stop at a stop sign, drove on the shoulder to get around a traffic jam, drove without an up-to-date state inspection, etc.
So fellow shooters, my thought is to try to treat these uncomfortable situations by strarting out with an attempt at mutual respect and understanding that the officers should be concerned about their safety and those of us getting pulled over are not happy about the prospect of a ticket!
frankie_the_yankee
Member
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Not that I've noticed.
Again, not in my experience. From what I can tell, I would say that only a relatively small percentage of people have "ego problems".
Be careful to avoid projecting here.
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
(Texas)
Very very wrong. You are ONLY required to show the CHL if you ARE carrying. So by default if you show the CHL the officer knows you are carrying. You DO NOT have to show the CHL if you are not carrying concealed.
Previously addressed here but I wanted to post the actual statute so any confusion will be clear. Amazing how many Texas CHL holders don't know the law around it.
Amazing....
frankie_the_yankee
Member
Hitman can answer for himself, but I suspect it's because he thinks to himself, "Aha! Another rock lawyer. This is gonna be fun."
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
It's all right, Frankie. I knew I was walking into your question-trap and would get sniped at for responding, no matter how I answered you. Just look up "humility." Show me a perfectly humble person, and I'll show you someone without an ego problem. There are very few perfectly humble people. I hope neither of us think we are perfectly humble.
-Sans Authoritas
-Sans Authoritas
frankie_the_yankee
Member
Old Dog writes:
What I have noticed is that for people who live on top of big pointy rocks, everything in life looks like a "slippery slope."
So a cop practicing basic street survival by asking (and gauging your reaction to being asked) if you have any weapons in the car suddenly morphs into an agent of Stalin.
I'd like for some of these "rock lawyers" to spend some time pulling over cars with 3 or 4 people in them on lonely roads in the middle of the night with backup 10 or 15 minutes away.
What I have noticed is that for people who live on top of big pointy rocks, everything in life looks like a "slippery slope."
So a cop practicing basic street survival by asking (and gauging your reaction to being asked) if you have any weapons in the car suddenly morphs into an agent of Stalin.
I'd like for some of these "rock lawyers" to spend some time pulling over cars with 3 or 4 people in them on lonely roads in the middle of the night with backup 10 or 15 minutes away.
dodging230grainers
Member
wow. I never thought a basic question would spark one of THR's lengthiest LEO threads 
I've read almost everyone's replies, and I realize at this point that simply answering the LEO's questions truthfully in a state like TX usually won't give me any trouble.
I guess if a cop is truly corrupt enough to tell me to get out of the car and search my vehicle without asking, or with faulty cause, then I've got bigger problems, and should just keep my mouth shut until I have a lawyer with me.
I do find it sort of sad that many LEO's would regard legal speak as "back talk" or "smart-assing".
I've read almost everyone's replies, and I realize at this point that simply answering the LEO's questions truthfully in a state like TX usually won't give me any trouble.
I guess if a cop is truly corrupt enough to tell me to get out of the car and search my vehicle without asking, or with faulty cause, then I've got bigger problems, and should just keep my mouth shut until I have a lawyer with me.
I do find it sort of sad that many LEO's would regard legal speak as "back talk" or "smart-assing".
remember that cops can lie to you with impunity, but the reverse is not so.
tell them what you will.
"none of your business" comes to mind. but since cops seem to think everything is their business these days, that might not be the simplest answer.
perhaps a business card that says "I have no contraband", and "I consent to no searches of my person or vehicle".
perhaps a local attorney would print up some business cards with his name and address on one side and the above text on the other.
tell them what you will.
"none of your business" comes to mind. but since cops seem to think everything is their business these days, that might not be the simplest answer.
perhaps a business card that says "I have no contraband", and "I consent to no searches of my person or vehicle".
perhaps a local attorney would print up some business cards with his name and address on one side and the above text on the other.
frankie_the_yankee
Member
coyotehitman writes:
Bravo, sir! Those are two of the most well-written paragraphs I have ever seen on this board. Well done.
Bravo, sir! Those are two of the most well-written paragraphs I have ever seen on this board. Well done.
frankie_the_yankee
Member
I remember that video too. The cop was completely out of control. For instance, he threatened on more than one occassion (documented on video) to fabricate charges against the kid.
Not analogous at all to what we are talking about here.
Ummm.....no they actually don't. Look up the stats. Being a cop is nowhere near as dangerous they claim. Kind of like the whole "Protect and Serve" thing is a farce. Look up Warren v. District of Columbia, you will see they have no duty to protect anyone. Thye know about this too as evidenced by this article from Police Chief Magazine.
Treo
member
QUOTE: " If a professional LEO has begun to question you about other things and is beginning to press you for answers, rest assured he/she already has the authority to take the action necessary to maintain the direction of the contact and is not merely fishing."
This would be a wonderful time to shut up & ask for a lawyer.
When I lived in Houston ( right around the crack of the dawn of time) the Harris County PD were known for KILLING people that screwed W/them , it wasn't done. Nice to see they've improved somewhat. That said , as always I advocate not saying one word more than than you are legally required to say to a cop.
Officer: Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?
You: I'm on my way to a target range ( you just took away his reason to ask why) I have a (some) rifles in the trunk.
Here in Colorado the officer has the legal right to inspect the chamber on any long gun in the car, so I'd let him.
If it went any farther, OR I got the " Why do you need/have a gun" question, I'd say I wasn't comfortable having the conversation W/ out a lawyer present & shut up.
This would be a wonderful time to shut up & ask for a lawyer.
When I lived in Houston ( right around the crack of the dawn of time) the Harris County PD were known for KILLING people that screwed W/them , it wasn't done. Nice to see they've improved somewhat. That said , as always I advocate not saying one word more than than you are legally required to say to a cop.
Officer: Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?
You: I'm on my way to a target range ( you just took away his reason to ask why) I have a (some) rifles in the trunk.
Here in Colorado the officer has the legal right to inspect the chamber on any long gun in the car, so I'd let him.
If it went any farther, OR I got the " Why do you need/have a gun" question, I'd say I wasn't comfortable having the conversation W/ out a lawyer present & shut up.
Last edited:
macadore
Member
I lived in East Texas in 1978 and drove a custom van. It had flower, ports for windows, and so on. I was constantly being stopped for 60 in a 55, 50 in a 45, and so on. Every time I got stopped, one officer got me in is car while the other one searched my vehicle. On night I was driving 55 (the speed limit at the time) on I20 when someone started tailgating me. I slowed down and the vehicle behind me slowed down. I got back up to 55 and the vehicle stayed on my tail. I did this for around 15 minutes and the vehicle stayed about 30 feet from my bumper. I finally sped up to 75, and here came the red lights. I demanded to be taken to the station, to call a lawyer, and to see a judge. The officer backed off and let me go. That was not a game, it was harassment. I sold the van in 1980 and replaced it with a pick-up. I haven’t been stopped and searched since then. There are good police and there are thugs with uniforms.
Thanks to those who corrected my misconception about the chl. I was repeating what I was told in my chl class three years ago.
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Always........
:: Looks at right and left biceps ::
;-)
:: Looks at right and left biceps ::
;-)
Titan6
member
Mine would most likely be visible so I guess I would say "Can't you see them?"
I have been pulled over, or in a vehicle that was pulled over on 4 different occasions when the LEO asked if we had any weapons in the car. I have always answered truthfully, and volunteered information as to weather or not they were loaded, and where they were.
I have done this because once an officer told me that he asks this question for "his own saftey" I do not try to make them nervous in any way because that may be dangerous.
since I have nothing to hide I am usually thanked for my honesty, and the added time is worth the respect the officer shows me from that point forward. I live in a somewhat small town, and expect to run into the same officer again.
As was said before:
be polite, be honest, be legal, and be proactive with your info: "Sir, I would like to inform you that I am legally carrying a loaded handgun"
they appreciate it in the end, if they have to find it, or see it through the window, it gets more complicated.
just my opinion, and thanks for reading
I have done this because once an officer told me that he asks this question for "his own saftey" I do not try to make them nervous in any way because that may be dangerous.
since I have nothing to hide I am usually thanked for my honesty, and the added time is worth the respect the officer shows me from that point forward. I live in a somewhat small town, and expect to run into the same officer again.
As was said before:
be polite, be honest, be legal, and be proactive with your info: "Sir, I would like to inform you that I am legally carrying a loaded handgun"
they appreciate it in the end, if they have to find it, or see it through the window, it gets more complicated.
just my opinion, and thanks for reading
frankie_the_yankee
Member
Of course not.
But doesn't it seem reasonable that someone who pulls people over for a living will have an ability to glean information from the way the person looks, sounds, and acts while responding to the question, whether they are lying or not?
If a cop pulls me over, I put the interior light on, put both hands on the wheel, and wait for him to approach. So he can see right off the bat that I am doing nothing whatsoever that could pose a threat to his/her safety.
When he asks for my license and insurance, I tell him (per TX law) that I have a CHL and that I am carrying, and I produce the CHL along with my license. The most a cop has ever done at that point is ask me where the gun was.
The whole time, I am relaxed and calm. I don't need to be nervous because I am telling the cop the truth. The worst that can happen to me is that I get a ticket, which in the great scheme of things is not a big deal to me.
I suspect that the cop can sense this just as well as he can sense when someone is nervous, fidgety, lying, being evasive, or has something to hide.
I have never had the slightest hint of a problem.
But for comparison purposes, I'd like to relate what happened one day when I was NOT carrying, and so did not have to notify the cop about my CHL.
I was riding my Harley wearing a teeshirt, jeans, and a small leather fanny pack. The fanny pack was of the type specifically designed to conceal a small gun. It had a short length of chord sticking out of one of the zippers that you would pull to rapidly open the pack and access the gun. I'm sure it was clearly recognizeable to any knowledgeable person that is was a "gun pack."
But on this day I had no gun with me. All that was in the pack was a pack of smokes, a lighter, and my house keys.
So a state trooper pulls me over for speeding. (It was fully legitimate. I was going around 15 mph above the limit.) He asks me for my license and insurance and I give them to him. Now remember, because I wasn't carrying, TX law did not require me to disclose my CHL status, so I didn't.
The cop goes back to his cruiser for a few minutes. Then he and his partner both get out. He stays behind the driver's door of the cruiser while the partner slowly approaches me from my right rear. The cop loudly says, "Sir! Are you carrying a concealed weapon at this time?"
Of course I replied, "No I am not officer."
They then both approach me and the cop says, "Sorry sir. Your CHL came up on the screen when I ran you, so I had to ask."
I replied, "I would have declared the CHL right off the bat, but since I'm not carrying at the moment, I knew that under the law I was not obligated to. So I didn't. But it's OK. No harm, no foul."
Now remember that all this time I'm standing there with this "gun pack" around my waist in a crossdraw position. There's no doubt he knew what it was. And he never made the slightest move to pat me down or request to search it, or me, or anything.
They wrote me for speeding and we all parted ways.
Somehow, I have a tough time equating those guys with agents of Stalin. I felt I was treated with respect the whole time.
Another time (pre-CHL), I got pulled over for running a red light. When I pulled over I unhooked my seatbelt in anticipation of having to retrieve my license and insurance from my back pocket. So the cop asks me for the paperwork and I comply, and he than tells me that he stopped me for running the red light and for not wearing my seatbelt.
Now I knew darned well that I had been wearing my seatbelt while driving and had only removed it after I had stopped. And I told him so. And he said something like, "When you went through the intersection I could see that it was just looped over your shoulder like it is now and not properly hooked up."
To me, this was preposterous, and I was fully intending to plead not guilty if necessary and go to court with it. So, staring him straight in the eye, I told him, "Officer, you had a better view of me going through the intersection than I did, and if you think that I wasn't halfway through when the light went from yellow to red I'll take your word for it. But by the same token, I had a much better "view" of how my seatbelt was hooked up than you did, and I'm telling you that I was wearing it right up until I pulled over and stopped. I always wear my seatbelt."
And he said something like, "Well, it didn't look that way to me but I guess I'll let it go."
I figure he just pictured he and I testifying in court about it and saw "reasonable doubt" written all over it.
At any rate, Stalin would have been disappointed once again.
Treo
member
Texas cops just love loooove to play that tailgate game, I had one do it it to me just outside of Kileen. He got right on my butt in the fast lane so I changed lanes to let him pass , and he pulled behind me again ( it was dark & I couldn't see the light bars). At this point I figured it was some local trying to mess W/ me and I floored it. As soon as I hit 60 the lights came on,
I told the cop I thought he was somebody messing W/ me & was trying to get away from them. He let me go but the fact remains that I was doing nothing illegal when he decided to play his intimidation game.
I'm amazed that no one's claimed "cop bashing" yet
I told the cop I thought he was somebody messing W/ me & was trying to get away from them. He let me go but the fact remains that I was doing nothing illegal when he decided to play his intimidation game.
I'm amazed that no one's claimed "cop bashing" yet
- Status
