A question about a traffic stop

If you are not required to tell them then dnt. They have no right to remove your property or search your vehicle without your consent. Allowing them to do so only encourages more abuse of the 4th amendment. heres a sight that is devoted to your rights. watch their vid on youtube. i cnt post the link because im on a school computer right now.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/
 
Traffic stop policies vary among law enforcement agencies

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/stop.htm

Traveling on Texas Roadways with Concealed Handguns

Traffic stop policies vary among law enforcement agencies. Your local police department or sheriff's office can tell you what to expect if stopped while carrying a handgun within their jurisdictions.

Texas Department of Public Safety troopers will ask you:

* Whether you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun
* Whether you have the gun with you
* Where the gun is located

A trooper may disarm a licensee anytime he or she feels that safety is at risk. The trooper will return the gun at the end of the traffic stop when the threat to safety has passed.

When stopped by a law enforcement officer, DPS recommends that you:

* Keep your hands in plain sight
* Cooperate fully with the police officer
* If you have a gun with you, tell the officer as soon as possible
* Don't make any quick movements, especially toward the weapon
* At night, turn on your vehicle's dome light

You can contact the Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau at :

REGULATORY LICENSING SERVICE MSC 0245
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
PO BOX 4087
AUSTIN TX 78773-0245
Phone: (512) 424-7293 or (512) 424-7294
Helpline: (800) 224-5744
 
Fix the real problems rather than futzing around the edges of it.

Do we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.
 
Fix the real problems rather than futzing around the edges of it.

Do we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.
Click to expand...


Arizona vs Johnson: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Arizona_v._Johnson
 
Do we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.
Click to expand...

Why is that nuts in and of itself? The police perform a public safety function, ... do they not?

I am willing to bet that a burnt-out brake/taillight has created more than one accident with injuries and fatalities in the past. In fact, a faulty tail light will not pass any state's vehicle safety inspection that I am aware of. To me, it seems like the proper thing for a LEO to do is to notify the motor vehicle operator of a safety issue with his/her vehicle IMMEDIATELY... hence the pull over.
 
I hope I just didn't miss a response to this but.......Here is VA if you have a permit it is tied to your vehicle tag. When a cop pulls you over and runs your plates it will come back that you have a permit to carry. I was in my buddy's car and he got pulled over. The cop walked up and stopped at the rear corner panel and asked if he was carrying. My buddy wasn't at the time. The cop then walked up and chatted with us. So what that means is even if someone else is driving your vehicle the cops are going to ask if you are carrying at the time when they stop you.
 
So what that means is even if someone else is driving your vehicle the cops are going to ask if you are carrying at the time when they stop you.
Click to expand...
May ask. Cop never asked if I was carrying when he stopped me, and I was carrying...

The cop walked up and stopped at the rear corner panel and asked if he was carrying
Click to expand...
Again, this baffles me. Why take more precautions with someone with a permit? Im not saying let your guard down, I would just personally feel more safe knowing they had a CCW...
 
o we really want armed government agents stopping citizens solely because they have a tail light burned out? Thats nuts in and of itself. Answer is cop writes down license number and you get a letter in the mail telling you to fix your tail light. No need to pull you over at all. This is something that has to be changed at the legislature level.
Click to expand...

Minor traffic violations have led to great arrests, traffic enforcement is good probable cause to investigate suspicious people.

I have never heard of anyone thinking that legitimate traffic stops are wrong. :confused::eek:
 
they just run your plate on their on board computer and if the vehicle is registered in your name and you have a CCW
Click to expand...

The CCW permit does not come up when the LEO runs your DL and tag in Florida. I have been stopped several times and the LEO was not aware that I had CCW. On one stop I gave the LEO my DL, Insurance card and CCW permit. He handed the CCW permit back and simply said "I don't need this".

Chuck
flaguns.com/phpBB3/index.php
 
I have never heard of anyone thinking that legitimate traffic stops are wrong.
Click to expand...
Unless you think many/most traffic laws are wrong...

The one time I was pulled over I thought was legitimate, because bars had just closed and he wanted to see if I was driving drunk. He got me on a technicality, and still gave me the ticket :mad:
Tax collectors, the lot of them...

Anyway, the point is I know some good cops. And the good cop stories I hear about dont involve pulling people over for stupid things and harassing them about having a legally possessed weapon in the car...
 
"That said, I would think that in a CCW jurisdiction having a legit CCW would not be a precursor to a "Terry" search."

The presence of a CCW holder in a vehicle is not a precursor to a Terry Search.

(Old) Terry Search of a Vehicle Guidelines:

General:
In Terry v. Ohio, the SCOTUS held that a LEO could perform a frisk of a suspect if, during a lawful stop, the LEO has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that suspect might be presently armed and dangerous. The rational supporting the frisk of a suspect's person has been extended to include vehicles.

Requirements:
There are two for a lawful "frisk" of a vehicle for weapons: (1) A LEO must have lawfully stopped the vehicle that is the subject of the "frisk." Like the investigative detention of a person, this element requires that the LEO have a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot and that the driver or passenger is involved. (2) The LEO must have a reasonable belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.

Scope:
If the requirements are satisfied, a LEO may frisk the person, as well as the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle and any unlocked containers in the passenger compartment. Note: While the LEO cannot generally "frisk" locked containers, some federal courts have begun to allow this practice. Note 2: Trunks are generally not allowed to be frisked, though the issue of frisking trunks with "pass through" features or alterations are being considered.

New - (See below)

Hope that helps - Erik
 
Last edited:
"I have never heard of anyone thinking that legitimate traffic stops are wrong."

I'd wager that a significant portion of ticket receiving individuals, but not the majority, believe them to be wrong.
 
I'd wager that a significant portion of ticket receiving individuals, but not the majority, believe them to be wrong.
Click to expand...

LOL
I guess that would be the case.

I think some are confusing "revenue" stops with real Police stops
 
There is a bit of new stuff to consider with the January Decision in Arizona v. Johnson, as it regards Terry Stops.

The Supreme Court held that:
  • the first condition of Terry v. Ohio, i.e. a lawful investigatory stop, is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation;
  • police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity; and
  • to justify a pat-down of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.

Notice that the initial investigatory stop (first condition) need not be (statutorily) criminal. Just needs to be a lawful investigatory stop.
 
Ah, thank you for the update. Between Arizona v. Gant and Arizona v. Johnson, the times they are a changin'.
 
And I'm behind in my reading. I have yet to fully digest Gant. Even though it appears fairly straight forword, the devil is always in the details. :rolleyes:
 
I'll add my story here,

I was pulled over last week cause my brake light was out. I work at a car dealership, and was in a dealership owned car.

I handed over my drivers license, auto salesmans license, and ccw permit.

He asked if i was armed, i told him it was in a lockbox under my seat. He thanked me for informing him, and ran my licenses

(that took like 10 minutes, but he told me because there's somebody with same birthday and similar last name, and very similar physical characteristics, who's wanted for several felonies in virginia. Explains why it always takes 3-4 hours for my background checks to clear when i buy a gun:barf:)

He gave me my licenses, told me to have a nice night and went on his way.

He did also tell me that their systems do inform them if the tag or license is registered to somebody with a carry permit.
 
Traffic stops

This is a little off subject as I live if California and don't have a carry permit.
Many years ago my wife and I went shooting. We were on our way home. I had a .22 rifle in a gun rack ,back window of my pickup. A sheriff pulled me over "Because I could see that is no bb gun there" I pointed to my S&W Model 19 in a pistol case on the seat between my wife and I. I said well, if you are concirned about a .22, that's a .357 in this case. I was pointing to it, hands were not near the zipped case at all. He jumped back and put his hand on the butt of his pistol and asked me to hand it to him. I complied and before taking it he asked me to take it out of the case. I looked at him, thinking about how nervous he seemed to be and asked him if maybe he should take it out. He relaxed a bit and agreed with me. He took my gun back to his car and ran the numbers. In those days a lot of cops were carrying that gun and he told me he wanted to make sure that it wasn't a stolen cops gun.
He handed me back my gun and praised me for having my ammo in the back of my pickup, guns in the front in plain sight.
I'm sure that this whole thing happened because we were just entering our neighborhood, It was our 1st. home and in one of the poorer neighborhoods in the area.
My point is, I was complying with the law. I was curtious and respectful and this guy was so nervous I can imagine things getting ugly real fast if I had done anything wrong.
 
Legal in Ohio and I could see myself doing the same thing as the officer in your situation did, if your actions or her senses called for it. Officers are often targets and a wide variety of clues lend themselves to making an Officer more aware or even suspicious of things and people around them, often times the general public is not aware of those things. Try to look at it as an Officer who was being cautious and not insulting or belittling to you. I am very pro 2nd Amendment and believe every person who has not forfeited the right to have a weapon through their actions is provided the opportunity to possess and carry under the 2nd Amendment and I also believe a targeted group like Law Enforcement Officers should be afforded the right to protect themselves, within reason, while keeping the rest of us safe (even those who they pull over for a California Roll).
 
Has anyone noticed that when you apply for the carry license they will keep it in tandem with your driver's license number? Of course (as in 'gotta be' in my reasonable comprehension) the information is connected.

Edited to add how this is on topic:
It is reasonable to think that when you get pulled over in a traffic stop that the information will be displayed, if not easily accessible by the LEO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top