Boy I'd love an answer back to this one....... LEO or lawyers!

[Big Dog]

This should be good and I'm all ears. I continue to learn!

GunLawyer response ..............

The response to "do you have any weapons?" doesn't have to be "I don't have to tell you that", it can be "what's going on, are you looking for someone?" or it can be "I don't have anything illegal on me or in my car".

If the officer DEMANDS a straight answer, that's the time to explicitly assert your rights, to ask if you're under arrest, to state that you are going to leave, to wonder out loud where your Miranda warning was.

Cops serve an important function, I don't see any point in making their jobs harder just for the sake of being a dick, but if I'm the target of a warrantless search or if I'm being deprived of important civil rights, then it's also important that cops be reminded of how things are supposed to work from time to time. If they can't get a warrant, they can't sidestep the process by asking me what they would find if they searched me. I have a 5th Amdt right against self-incrimination in addition to my 4th Amdt right against improper searches and seizures, plus I have the right to Due Process. All of these rights are stripped away if I have to tell him that I have a gun, and he summarily takes it into custody for "safety" reasons.

SigForum member ...................

Well if you are going to take the advice of a guy off the net because his name is “Gun Lawyer” you might want to get his contact info so you can call him from central booking to defend you.

First if an officer asks if you have any weapons in the car and you try to sidestep them with an indirect answer you can almost bet he will DEMAND a straight answer. A traffic stop is not an arrest but you are being “temporarily detained,” in which case you can not simply leave when you want to, and being that it is not a physical arrest Miranda warnings are not needed. But if you want to believe Gunlawyer001 go ahead and try to drive away from a traffic stop before the LEO tells you you can leave and see what happens.

Also might want to look up the legality of a Terry search. To make a long story short an LEO has the right to search a suspect or in this case the driver of a car during a stop WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST if the officer feels that the person is up to no good. Further the LEO has the right to perform a quick pat down and search of the suspect for officer safety if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Now if I were to ask if you were armed and you sidestepped my question, I asked again more directly and you tried to sidestep again, that in and of itself is enough reasonable suspicion to believe you are armed.

[CZ40P]

Sounds like a badge heavy response from a goon on the other side of that thin blue line. Who cares what he thinks.

[LastManOut]

Further the LEO has the right to perform a quick pat down and search of the suspect for officer safety if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Now if I were to ask if you were armed and you sidestepped my question, I asked again more directly and you tried to sidestep again, that in and of itself is enough reasonable suspicion to believe you are armed.

I asked this question once or twice before without getting an answer, what gives the LEO the right to "feel safe" around another "equal under the law" citizen more than I would want to feel safe around anyone else that is armed?

If the LEO is going to ask me to disarm, should not I have the right to ask him to disarm? We are both citizens and both legally armed. Sure cops get shot, but citizens are abused by cops as well. How do the LEO's rights trump mine?

[Big Dog]

And another chimes in ..................

Big Dog ............
So what if I have a gun legally with all appropriate license, you still don't have any reason to detain for PC. It appears your a little on the strong side and the reason we have issue with some LEO's. What good is it for you to know I have a gun legally after you find out other than something inappropriate? To seize?

Obviously another LEO ............

I may not be able to detain you for PC, but I can detain you for officer safety, which will then allow me to secure the weapons and search for others. Either way, I prefer a notification, because if I spot it and they haven't told me about it, things get racheted up to another level. If they tell me about it, I ask where it is and don't do anything else unless they're going with me for some reason.

Here's the thread ............... Traffic Stop Notification

[fingers80002]

OOOOH, Please provide a link to this!!!!!!!!!

[fingers80002]

You beat me to it!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to jump through their hoops.
So , the officer safety issue pops up again.

Yeah, that is an issue with a person LEGALLY exercising their RIGHTS!

[GunLawyer001]

.......

First if an officer asks if you have any weapons in the car and you try to sidestep them with an indirect answer you can almost bet he will DEMAND a straight answer. A traffic stop is not an arrest but you are being “temporarily detained,” in which case you can not simply leave when you want to, and being that it is not a physical arrest Miranda warnings are not needed. But if you want to believe Gunlawyer001 go ahead and try to drive away from a traffic stop before the LEO tells you you can leave and see what happens.

Also might want to look up the legality of a Terry search. To make a long story short an LEO has the right to search a suspect or in this case the driver of a car during a stop WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST if the officer feels that the person is up to no good. Further the LEO has the right to perform a quick pat down and search of the suspect for officer safety if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Now if I were to ask if you were armed and you sidestepped my question, I asked again more directly and you tried to sidestep again, that in and of itself is enough reasonable suspicion to believe you are armed.

Bold added. That's the most important part, and he makes it a throwaway line, and gets it wrong. What a cop "feels" means nothing, except to his wife and/or therapist. What he concretely observes, on the other hand, is important.

When you're stopped by a cop because you were exceeding the speed limit, or because your inspection sticker expired yesterday, that's not enough for you to lose your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, or your 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search & seizure.

Furthermore, refusing to talk to a cop, or refusing to answer his questions, is simply an exercise of your rights, and does not give the cop grounds for a search. Lying is a different matter. But if refusing to spill your guts on demand were enough for a Terry search, then the 4th Amendment would mean nothing, because any cop could "feel" that you were up to no good and then either search you without a warrant or an articulable basis for believing that criminal activity was afoot, or else demand that you tell him what he would find if he conducted that search.

Forget about guns, what if every cop has a laundry list of questions that he uses for every traffic stop? "Do you have any drugs on you, do you cheat on your taxes, have you violated any traffic laws that I didn't see, do you intend to break any laws this year, do you have impure thoughts about any co-workers...." Then, of course, any sign of hesitation or evasion would justify a full search, right?

And I didn't advise anyone to hit the gas and drive off in the middle of a traffic stop, I advised people to define the parameters of the interrogation. If the cop is fishing for reasons to justify a search, he's wasting your time, he should give you the ticket and move on. Hand him your license, registration, proof of insurance, and decline to engage in his Q&A. Telling him that you're ready to drive away is a means of moving the custodial interrogation along.

Just because cops have the power to screw with you doesn't mean that they have the right to screw with you, and the more times that you call them on it, the fewer times they'll try it. Any cop who tells you that your attitude will result in you getting shot or you getting arrested, should be fired and perhaps prosecuted. Arrogant cops are the reason that so many people no longer respect cops.

[LittleRedToyota]

a few thoughts:

1. i'm sure gunlawyer was not suggesting driving away from a traffic stop. he was probably either talking about a ped stop where you are not being detained or, if a traffic stop, just asking "am i free to go?"

2. terry requires RAS that the person is armed *and dangerous*, not just armed. (though the courts...especially lower courts...do seem to have no problem peeing all over people's rights in the name of "officer safety". so i don't doubt that this officer may have had terry searches upheld where he did not actually have RAS of the person being dangerous.)

3. simply not answering questions that you are not required to answer does not provide RAS of squat.

[Big Dog]

Bold added. That's the most important part, and he makes it a throwaway line, and gets it wrong. What a cop "feels" means nothing, except to his wife and/or therapist. What he concretely observes, on the other hand, is important.

When you're stopped by a cop because you were exceeding the speed limit, or because your inspection sticker expired yesterday, that's not enough for you to lose your 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, or your 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search & seizure.

Furthermore, refusing to talk to a cop, or refusing to answer his questions, is simply an exercise of your rights, and does not give the cop grounds for a search. Lying is a different matter. But if refusing to spill your guts on demand were enough for a Terry search, then the 4th Amendment would mean nothing, because any cop could "feel" that you were up to no good and then either search you without a warrant or an articulable basis for believing that criminal activity was afoot, or else demand that you tell him what he would find if he conducted that search.

Forget about guns, what if every cop has a laundry list of questions that he uses for every traffic stop? "Do you have any drugs on you, do you cheat on your taxes, have you violated any traffic laws that I didn't see, do you intend to break any laws this year, do you have impure thoughts about any co-workers...." Then, of course, any sign of hesitation or evasion would justify a full search, right?

And I didn't advise anyone to hit the gas and drive off in the middle of a traffic stop, I advised people to define the parameters of the interrogation. If the cop is fishing for reasons to justify a search, he's wasting your time, he should give you the ticket and move on. Hand him your license, registration, proof of insurance, and decline to engage in his Q&A. Telling him that you're ready to drive away is a means of moving the custodial interrogation along.

Just because cops have the power to screw with you doesn't mean that they have the right to screw with you, and the more times that you call them on it, the fewer times they'll try it. Any cop who tells you that your attitude will result in you getting shot or you getting arrested, should be fired and perhaps prosecuted. Arrogant cops are the reason that so many people no longer respect cops.

Thank you very much!

[Big Dog]

Getting interesting, I have a lawyer/deputy engaged over there!