Posted on 09/06/2001 2:54:58 AM PDT by kattracks
CNSNews.com) - Do you have a loaded gun in your car?
A federal appeals court in Denver says police may ask that question, even if the officer has no reason to suspect the driver has a weapon with him.
"The terrifying truth is that officers face a very real risk of being assaulted with a dangerous weapon each time they stop a vehicle," the full court said in its ruling, issued Wednesday.
The case stems from a traffic stop in 1999, in which an Oklahoma Highway patrol officer stopped a car at a seatbelt checkpoint and asked the driver if he had a gun in his pickup truck. The driver said yes; police searched the vehicle, and they found illegal drugs. A trial judge threw out the drug evidence, calling the drug discovery the result of an illegal search. Prosecutors appealed; a three-judge panel agreed that the search (and gun question) was unconstitutional; and now the full appeals panel has taken the rare step of reversing the three-judge-panel's ruling.
Wire services report the ruling applies only to the six states in the 10th U.S. Circuit, including Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas.
I noticed the story didn't illustrate anything at all. As far as the title and the text goes it's nonsense, a cop can ask someone anything he wants. There are no restrictions on what he can ask. Thanks for the doc.
If you are ever stopped for any reason and you have a gun on you, always hand the officer your driver's license and your Concealed Carry License. It will tell the officer three things
1) You are probably armed.
2) You are probably not a fugative from justice.
3) You are obviously willing to cooperate.
I have never gotten pulled over in the three years I have had mine, so I have never gotten to do this. Seems like decent advice, though.
Tucker [the cop] asked Holt if "there was anything else that [Tucker] should know about in the vehicle." Id. at 42. Holt stated, "I know what you are referring to" but "I don't use them anymore." Id. Upon further questioning by Tucker, Holt indicated that he had previously used drugs, but "hadn't been involved with them in about a year or so." Id. at 43. Tucker then asked Holt for consent to search his vehicle. Holt agreed.
The gun question is irrelevant. The cop asked if he could search the vehicle, and the driver/owner consented. Simple, legal and moral.
Why do so many people consent to searches when they KNOW illegal items will be found and an arrest executed???
Well, sometimes it's a good thing to read the opposition's playbook.
Seatbelt checkpoints are a handy way for the cops to go on a fishing expedition. It's a shame. They are being put into a position of being even MORE disliked and mistrusted, having to play these kinds of piddly-assed games, when they could be out doing the job they were 'hired'/trained for...being cops and 'catching' bad guys, being the heroes in blue who help the hurt, and the victimized. Being a cop USED to be a noble, respectable and awe-inspiring vocation. Too many laws/silly laws/unConstitutional laws and too many sheeple have turned the profession into something that is getting to be a shame.
Sir you are dead wrong, Police are legally allowed to lie to suspect in the course of an investigation!
Mike, That's almost the right idea, but not the best. The ONLY way to survive is to simply not answer any questions you don't think you should, but physically cooperate peacefully, and make it perfectly clear that any searches or seizures are AGAINST YOUR WILL.
Asking for a badge number is synonymous with, "Officer, please spray me with pepper spray and take me to jail."
The guy slathered all over himself trying to give the cops what they wanted. He gave up his rights voluntarily, and look where it got him.
Should be a lesson for RKBA'ers, subpoena'd reporters, and taxpayers everywhere.
Though the public perception w]may be this makes our officers safe, does it really? The public perception is that anything that can be done to discourage the ownership of firearms must necessarily be a good thing. However, a criminal by definition will lie about the existance of his stolen gun, and has the predisposition to uuse it if he is pressed on the subject. Is it necessary to treat all gun owners as criminals in order to apprehend this man? No, better that the police be clued in by suspicious things, such as a stolen vehicle or perhaps the man matches the description of a known fugitive, rather than treating all gun owners as criminals.
Dragnets are appropriate when a known fugitive is on the run in the area, and special measures must be taken to apprehend him. Please understand that I have no problem with the police setting up a roadblock and telling me as I roll down my window, "Excuse me sir, an escaped criminal is on the loose. Have you seen this man?" and shows me a picture. This is the proper use for a check-point. Check points are not to become a regular feature of public life, for the petty purpose of seeing than I have my safety belt fastened.
So they admit that they set-up a BS checkpoint so as to search his vehicle. Since when can they do that (and admit that's what they did and get away with it)?..
I'd tell him I was in a hurry and didn't have the time. If that didn't work, I'd still refuse to let him search, saying that he didn't have the right to. Let him search, he'd fine nothing anyways. Then I'd sue...
Answer:"That is one of your business."
Then what...search the car?
I was just checking my "Law officers pocket manual" for 2001, listen to this.
"Once you have made a legal stop of a vehicle for a traffic offense, you automatically have the right to order the occupants to exit the vehicle."-this I knew.
Heres one: "Just as with Terry stops, a motor vehicle stop must be reasonable in duration. A police officer who has stopped a motor vehicle for a traffic violation may detain the motorist no longer than it takes to issue a citation. Any further detention is permissible only if fresh suspicion develops during the stop." "For example, you stop a motorist for speeding. After checking the driver's license and vehicle registration papers, you issue the driver a speeding ticket. There is a trend among courts to rule that the encounter must end at this point."
"Courts disagree about whether a police officer may ask a motorist who has been stopped for a traffic offense about matters unrelated to the purpose for the stop, such as whether the motorist is carrying drugs or weapons, or whether the motorist would consent to a search." (heres where I may have given some bad data)
"Find out if the courts in your jurisdiction have ruled on this question."-apparently this court in the post ruled in favor.
"The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Ammendment does not require you to inform a motorist that he or she is free to leave prior to requesting consent to search. (*more bad data from me*) In the context of a motor vehicle stop, the general rule applies; A consent to search is valid if, under all of the circumstances, it is VOLUNTARILY (emphasis mine) given."
Heres a little more on checkpoint searchs. "You may not make random, arbitrary stops of automobiles on the public roadways. However, brief, systematic stops at highway roadblocks and checkpoints can be constitutional."
"The rule against random stops applies whether your purpose is to investigate a suspected crime or just to check the motorist's documents or the condition of his vehicle. Thus, before you can stop a vehicle on a public roadway, ordinarily you must observe specific facts giving you at least a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle or its occupants are in violation of some law."
However, the Supreme Court has ruled that police may establish highway checkpoints at which vehicles are stopped without individual suspicion, in order to check motorists for signs of drunken driving. Such stops must be brief. Every vehicle need not be stopped; however, field officers may not excersize any discretion in deciding whom to stop but, instead, must use some neutral selection system. Courts generally require that such stops be conducted according to a detailed plan devised by supervisory officers, that care be taken not to make motorists fearful or surprised, and that motorist's safety be protected. Your jurisdiction may have other requirements as well, or it may forbid sobriety roadblocks on state constitutional grounds."
"The US Supreme Court has agreed to review a case during its 2000-2001 term that presents the question whether police may use a program of systematic stops at roadblocks to enforce drug laws."
Confused yet???? LOL. Note it says to check for driving under the influence, now seat belt checkpoints?? We dont have that, (that I'm aware of LOL) must be different states are getting whacky.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.