How to act during a traffic stop

[bigandy1966]

To play devil's advocate... How would the officer know you were a "good guy" exercising his rights? All he knows is that he asked a simple question about possessing weapons... and got an evasive answer which now has him suspecting that he's dealing with an armed "bad guy".

My point... choose your words carefully.

What if he said "Why yes Officer Freindly, I have a legally carried firearm in my possession, in a secure holster, where it will remain for the duration of this encounter for the safety of ALL persons involved. Here sir, is my licsense to carry fire arms concealed about my person. No you may not take possesion of it to "run the numbers " to see if it is legally in my possesion against an illegal database. Nor may you take possession of said firearm in the interest of YOUR safety.
Now Officer Friendly, what is the reason for our pleasant little discussion this evening?" And as to youeasking a simple question. We see time and time again answering "yes" brings about a plethora of rights violations by many of your less educated or strongly opinionated coleagues.
Where if there is a minimal amount of information, and I am not wanted for any criminal warrants, then you must deduce that I am a law abiding citizen and innocent o any crimes. And unless you have suspicions of any crime being committed by me you do not have any reason to search my car. And either write me a ticket or let me leave

[Deleted]

Actually the question as posed above made no mention of weapons. Am I, as a reasonable person, supposed to assume that when asked "is there anything in the car I should be concerned about" that the officer meant weapons? When a question as opened ended as that is asked, any answer given could be viewed as evasion and a reason to be viewed with suspicion.

If you answer "yes" then you immediately put the officer on guard, if you answer "no" then could think you're lying, if you assert your rights, then you're being evasive. So tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?

Ahh...My bad. Then since its a matter of perception, to me the correct answer would be "no there is not".

But as I have pointed out many times before...

Questions outside the nature of the stop itself are a No-no.... Lopez Case

[markshere2]

Ahh...My bad. Then since its a matter of perception, to me the correct answer would be "no there is not".

But as I have pointed out many times before...

Questions outside the nature of the stop itself are a No-no.... Lopez Case

And thank you for pointing that out.

And I have been hassled by local folks asking fishing questions and telling lies.
"When I hit my siren, I saw you duck your head like you were feeling ashamed or guilty. What are ashamed of?"

Kinda irritated me that deputy fife is playing those stupid games.

[ungawa]

To play devil's advocate... How would the officer know you were a "good guy" exercising his rights? All he knows is that he asked a simple question about possessing weapons... and got an evasive answer which now has him suspecting that he's dealing with an armed "bad guy".

My point... choose your words carefully.

I didn't ask you to play Devil's advocate, I asked for the meaning of your response. You seemed fairly delighted that you came up with a reason to do something. Can you please respond to the initial question?

[Deleted]

I didn't ask you to play Devil's advocate, I asked for the meaning of your response. You seemed fairly delighted that you came up with a reason to do something. Can you please respond to the initial question?

I thought my response was pretty clear... and it's the same one I always give when it's suggested that one be evasive with the police. A cop with half a brain is going to be able to articulate Terry when you do so. You can tell the truth, lie, or be evasive... and deal with the results go or or bad. But is you are evasive and get called on it you have no one to blame but yourself.

[freesoul]

WOW what a lotta crap.

Of course, I expected no less. The courts have held that it's OK for cops to lie to suspects. Little of that crap is mandated by law.


As soon as you are pulled over, you under suspicion of ...something.

MY advice:
Signal Officer Friendly (OF hereafter) that you will be pulling over with a turn signal.

Pick a wide place to pull over so OF doesn't have his donutty ass hanging out in traffic.

Engine off, flashers on, window down some, and interior light on if its dark out.

Don't reach around and grab stuff in the car, wait for the discussion.

Hands @ 10 and 2 on the wheel.

Be polite, but don't bend over for OF.

When OF asks for documents, reach up and unclip the insurance and registration from the visor.

I picked the visor to store my documents, so OF has no excuse to lie about seeing something illicit in the glovebox / console.

I will engage in polite discussion with OF up until I get asked any leading questions regarding my behavior.

If asked about anything OF shoud be concerned about, my answers is "there's nothing illegal in my car.

AT that point, I politely explain that I will decline to answer any questions until I have legal counsel with me.

I DON'T
1) volunteer information about what I have in the car such as a gun, unless I am asked to step out and my carry piece is on me or in the vehicle. At that point I will inform that
a. I have a ltcf
b. have a legal gun holstered.

2) locate the papers in the same place as a gun / knife / object that could possibly be mistaken for a weapon or drug paraphernalia.

3) act like a dick

4) be a doormat for OF

5) consent to a search.

Zing..... and the hook is set. 5 fingers on the hood boy...

In all seriousness... A cop half worth his salt will have a field day with you evading that question.

Is it your job to try to find reasons to search people not reasonably suspected of criminal activity or is it your job to punish people who try to exercise their rights?

I can't think of a valid or honorable reason for your reaction.

The best method IMO is to not answer, we all have a right to remain silent but people are brainwashed to think that they have to answer a cops questions.

Remain silent, or answer a question with a question: Am I free to go? Am I suspected of a crime? Am I being detained?

Calm assertion of rights is the key.

[staylo]

Perhaps the best course of action would be to ask the officer the reason for the stop before you answer any questions, which would then put on record the scope of the investigation, and then to tell the officer immediately that you will not be answering any questions about anything outside of the scope of the original investigation. That way you don't seem suspicious if you refuse to answer a particular question. The courts seem to be split on whether or not it is constitutional for officers to ask questions outside of the original scope of a traffic stop(such as, are there any drugs or weapons in the car?), but one thing they seem to agree on is that the person being investigated should know that they don't have to answer that question. I would think that would make it more difficult for an officer to articulate reasonable suspicion if you stated upfront that you would not be answering any questions outside of the original scope. Or, you could simply tell the officer that due to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 5th Amendment you will be asserting your Fifth Amendment rights immediately and then simply shut up. I am not a lawyer so this is simply opinion, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot after reading so many bad encounters between people carrying in their vehicles and law-enforcement officers who stop them for a traffic stop. I am trying to balance not aggravating the officer(hey, I'm still hoping he'll let me off with a warning right?!) with protecting my constitutional rights to not be pulled out of the vehicle and disarmed for "officer safety".

[Deleted]

The courts seem to be split on whether or not it is constitutional for officers to ask questions outside of the original scope of a traffic stop(such as, are there any drugs or weapons in the car?),

They are actually quite clear. Here is the language from Lopez which is the current case that has standing in Pennsylvania:

"In this case, we reach a similar result. Corporal Martin reviewed Lopez's license, registration and rental papers and concluded that they were in order. No objective circumstances suggested that Lopez or his wife had committed any crime more serious than the failure to cross the tow chains. Therefore, after Corporal Martin explained the violation, his authority was limited by both state and federal law, to issuing a citation or warning.

Without returning the documents, however, based on his "policeman's intuition," Corporal Martin questioned Lopez regarding the origin, destination, purpose and duration for traveling and renting the Ryder truck. Preliminary Hearing Transcript, August 2, 1989, 16-18; R.R. at 16A-18A. In addition, Corporal Martin asked Lopez whether he could look inside the truck and whether he was transporting any drugs, alcohol or weapons. Corporal Martin admitted at the preliminary hearing that this series of questions were unrelated to the purpose of the initial stop. Absent reasonable grounds to suspect an illegal transaction in drugs or other serious crime, the officer had no legitimate reason for detaining Lopez or for pursuing any further investigation of him, hence, the detention ceased to be lawful at this point. Thus, in accord with Guzman,*we find that Corporal Martin's continued detention and investigation of Lopez constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; consequently, the evidence seized should have been suppressed."

[staylo]

They are actually quite clear. Here is the language from Lopez which is the current case that has standing in Pennsylvania:

I guess I was speaking more at a national level. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that Bostick and Childs contradict the case you cited, which is why I stated the courts seem to be split. SCOTUS seems to have even ruled in contradiction to the case you cited as well.

Source: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...13&context=ulj

(this is very long so I just pulled a few snippets that seemed relevant)

II. THE CIRCUIT SPLIT AND THE SUPREME COURT STANCE

The issue this Note addresses emerges from the internal debate
among the en banc judges of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
in Childs. Here, police officer James Chiola stopped a vehicle
because it had a severely cracked windshield. Passenger Tommie
Childs's obvious nervousness struck Chiola as strange. Childs's
nervousness led Chiola to stray from questions about the windshield
to questions about drugs. The issue before the court was
whether Chiola exceeded the permissible scope of questioning and
thereby created an impermissible seizure under the Fourth
Amendment.

QUESTIONING DURING TRAFFIC STOPS

The Seventh Circuit held that an officer may question freely as
long as the additional questions do not detain a person longer than
necessary to investigate the original reason for the stop. Under
this view, police questioning outside the scope of the original reason
for the stop does not create an unreasonable seizure unless it
actually prolongs the stop.

In contrast, the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held that
questioning must fall within the scope of the original justification
for the stop, unless the officer discovers circumstances giving rise
to an independent justification for questions outside that scope.
Otherwise, the questioning may create an unreasonable seizure
under the Fourth Amendment.

B. The Supreme Court and Robinette

In Robinette, a police officer stopped a driver for speeding.
The officer performed a routine license and registration check, but
before letting the driver leave, he asked, "One question before you
get gone: Are you carrying any illegal contraband in your car? Any
weapons of any kind, drugs, anything like that?" The driver
said, "No," and then the officer asked for and received consent to
search the vehicle. The search turned up marijuana and other
narcotics.

The defendant moved to suppress this evidence at the prosecution
for possession. The lower court denied the suppression motion,
but the appellate court reversed and the Supreme Court of
Ohio affirmed the reversal. The Supreme Court of Ohio held
that after the officer, "had determined in his own mind not to give
Robinette a ticket, the detention then became unlawful.' The
court held that officers must inform suspects of their right to refuse
to consent.

The Supreme Court reviewed the issue, noting that reasonableness
is the "touchstone" of the Fourth Amendment and that reasonableness
is measured by "examining the totality of the
circumstances.' Citing Bostick, the Court stated that it has "consistently
eschewed bright-line rules" in Fourth Amendment
cases.' Accordingly, the Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court
and remanded for further proceedings.'

[elweasel]

I heard this on KYW1060

Philadelphia Lawyers To Host Town Hall To Educate Community On How To Interact With Police
October 19, 2014 4:00 AM
By Cherri Gregg

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — The killing of unarmed Black men by police in Ferguson, Missouri, Staten Island, New York and in other American cities this year have raised questions within communities of color. A group of lawyers is hosting a town hall this week, to provide some answers.

The “Know Your Rights” Town Hall will answer questions like, what to do if police stop and frisk you, what to do if cops ask to search your car and when and where it’s appropriate to film police.

“Often times when a police officer pulls someone over, they may have some biases based on the kind of car the person’s driving, the color of their skin, how they’re dressed, and their age.”

Monique Myatt-Galloway is President of the Barristers Association of Philadelphia. The group of lawyers is hoping to empower the community with information.

“To make sure that if a police officer stops you, who is not necessarily going to treat you fairly, ways that you can diffuse the situation right away.”

Tuesday’s town hall includes a panel discussion with representatives from the ACLU, the police department, DA’s office and more.

The event takes place at 7 p.m. on Tuesday at Bright Hope Baptist Church.

It still annoys me when the news media keeps saying "unarmed" man. An unarmed can be just as dangerous as an armed, especially if the man is 6 foot something and close to 300lbs.

I will see if I can attend but tomorrow I need to fight city hall in a different matter so much of my time is being taken up with that. If I am able to attend I will report the meeting. Should be interesting.