great traffic stop encounter

[theo]

I am a criminal law student and as such know clearly my rights relating to the Bill of Rights and all other amendments of the U.S. Constitution. While I have the right to remain silent I chose not to. While I have the right not to have illegal searches performed and anything retrieved during those illegal searches, seized, I chose otherwise. If you cannot respect my choices, than you have no right to judge me. I consented to the lawful seizure of my firearm for the duration of the traffic stop by virtue of asking the police officer what he would like me to do.

Is that really you Barak. He was a Law Student once who also could care less about the constitution.

This is really sad that a Law Student will not pay attention to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. And people wonder why this country is going down the tubes.

Hopefully he bought you dinner first.

.

[longcall911]

I apologize to those who I've clearly offended or disrespected. I'm sorry that sharing my opinion and feelings with what I thought was a great community, was met with such strong obligation. I do know my rights, and I do demand them. However, I was taught at a young age to pick and choose your battles. If some have differing opinions I respect them but when I am reffered to as weak or having been sexually violated, I take offense to that. I am a criminal law student and as such know clearly my rights relating to the Bill of Rights and all other amendments of the U.S. Constitution. While I have the right to remain silent I chose not to. While I have the right not to have illegal searches performed and anything retrieved during those illegal searches, seized, I chose otherwise. If you cannot respect my choices, than you have no right to judge me. I consented to the lawful seizure of my firearm for the duration of the traffic stop by virtue of asking the police officer what he would like me to do. Some feel like being argumentative or disrespectful to a police officer but the man is simply doing his job. Again I apologize to those who I have offended, but for voicing my opinions on an open public forum, I will not.

No, I don't respect your choices and I have *every* right to judge you. I have the right to judge every person I come in contact with. I decide whether he is someone with my same values. I decide whether he has earned my respect or not. I decide whether he is allowed in my circle or not.

You do what you want but I suggest you stop listening to that liberal crap about "just make sure everyone feels good" and "please don't judge me". Start using your brain and stand up for yourself. You decided to trade your rights in exchange for getting out of a ticket, full knowing that you did something wrong.

Man up, son. In the future, stand for your rights. Don't feed the pigs. Pay your ticket and don't turn left there again. And most of all, don't post an encounter here and then cry about being criticized.

[sprrdhawk44]

I clicked on this thread thinking, "Maybe this really was a decent encounter. Perhaps he chatted with the Officer about his preference in 1911 triggers, and then was offered some hot cocoa."

And then I saw that there were 8 pages worth of discussion.

[Doughdaddy]

I do know my rights, and I do demand them.

Those are just words that have no meaning. Just like the Bill of Rights are to you and Obama, words with no meaning.

I am a criminal law student and as such know clearly my rights relating to the Bill of Rights and all other amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

You obviously do not know what they truly mean and you also obviously have NO BALLS to exercise them. If you did you would have written a much better encounter experience writing how you showed what you learned in law school. But like everyone says, there is a top 50% of a class and a bottom 50%. I now know which half you are in and that you are destined to be a prosecutor for New York City.

While I have the right not to have illegal searches performed and anything retrieved during those illegal searches, seized, I chose otherwise. If you cannot respect my choices, than you have no right to judge me. I consented to the lawful seizure of my firearm for the duration of the traffic stop by virtue of asking the police officer what he would like me to do.

You chose poorly. There's NOTHING legal about the seizure of your gun for a traffic stop where your only offence was going through a sign. You have every right to allow a cop to search and seize your stuff, but please don't flex your stupidity by telling us it is "lawful".



ETA: Your "Great Encounter would get a more positive reception and be better posted here: http://bit.ly/zxKKCD

[longcall911]

. . .
And then I saw that there were 8 pages worth of discussion.

We're just getting started.

[JasonK007]

I’m just guessing here. But my feeling is that the OP is fairly young and had been brainwashed by Liberals. The good news is that this site is full of stories that we can all learn from. There is also “constructive criticism” which is what I’m dishing out but is actually meant to help.

I’m just hoping that the next time you get pulled over and give up your rights “by choice” that you don’t get an Ahole cop that immediately drags you out of the car and points his muzzle at you for “officer safety” , because he or she feels that we bottom scum shouldn’t have guns, or because 1 year ago an officer died in the line-of-duty and is causing the other officers to be on edge.

[ray h]

If he allowed it to happen by saying, fine go ahead and search and go ahead and seize, then it was legal for the police to do it.
He is the one that decided what is legal for them to do by consenting to it. If he had said NO to the above, then yes, it would be an illegal search. His rights were not "violated" because he willingly gave them away. While I dont agree with his decision to do that, it is HIS decision to make, just as it was his decision to come here and explain to everyone about this fine example of an encounter in which he willingly surrendered his rights.
He deserves what he gets for both of those decisions.

[Doughdaddy]

If he allowed it to happen by saying, fine go ahead and search and go ahead and seize, then it was legal for the police to do it.
He is the one that decided what is legal for them to do by consenting to it. If he had said NO to the above, then yes, it would be an illegal search. His rights were not "violated" because he willingly gave them away. While I dont agree with his decision to do that, it is HIS decision to make, just as it was his decision to come here and explain to everyone about this fine example of an encounter in which he willingly surrendered his rights.
He deserves what he gets for both of those decisions.

How did he decide it was legal? They let us do that now at a stop?

It was not legal because asking where he was going/coming from was beyond the scope of the stop. Asking about guns also was beyond the scope. What right did the LEO have to ask where he was coming from or going? What bearing did that have? Asking about guns just because he answered from a gun range, what then gives the LEO the right to seize the guns? What crime was he investigating that made all this legal?

[ray h]

How did he decide it was legal? They let us do that now at a stop?

It was not legal because asking where he was going/coming from was beyond the scope of the stop. Asking about guns also was beyond the scope. What right did the LEO have to ask where he was coming from or going? What bearing did that have? Asking about guns just because he answered from a gun range, what then gives the LEO the right to seize the guns? What crime was he investigating that made all this legal?

He made it legal by playing along. LEOs can legally ask whatever they want to and they can legally search whatever he allowed them to and if he handed the firearm over to them, they can legally accept it.
If he had said no at any point, then they wouldnt be able to legally do much of what they did. Thats where his decision made the difference.

[twency]

He made it legal by playing along. LEOs can legally ask whatever they want to and they can legally search whatever he allowed them to and if he handed the firearm over to them, they can legally accept it.
If he had said no at any point, then they wouldnt be able to legally do much of what they did. Thats where his decision made the difference.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll just point out again

An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as the inquiries do not measurably extend the stop’s duration. -Arizona v. Johnson

I think this cop's actions measurably extended the stop's duration, and so converted the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure.

Now, there was no criminal charge resulting from the stop and no physical or emotional harm to the OP, so there's nothing to suppress at a criminal trial and likely too little for a successful §1983 civil suit (the OP doesn't even think he was harmed), but that doesn't mean his civil rights weren't violated.

Just because he said "yes" and went along with having his rights violated doesn't make the violation lawful.