Searches for guns

R

RHarris

New member
If a gun in a locked case is seen in a vehicle, either by accident or when searched by law enforcement for traffic stops, etc., can they require you to unlock and open the case? What exactly would be "probable cause" in such a situation?

A few years ago, I was stopped for speeding one night and had a shotgun in the back seat. The LEO didn't see it, but at the time I thought the proper thing to do was tell him about it. I ended up standing between my vehicle and the police car for about ten minutes (in cold wind with no coat) until another officer arrived. Then the whole ticket part was pretty much routine, but the other officer examined the firearm and called in the serial number to see if it was stolen or something (it was not of course). While I was sitting in the police car getting the ticket written, I also noticed the other officer was searching through things in my vehicle. This did bother me, but I had nothing to hide and figured complaining about it would just make the situation more difficult. The officers were quite courteous though. I understand that officers are concerned for their safety, but fail to understand why the search was necessary. Shouldn't a search warrant be necessary for any such search, with or without probable cause? Last time I checked, the Fourth ammendment was not limited to Houses. I now travel with firearms in locked containers. While not required in my state, I figure it will look good if stopped. But can they require me to unlock it for them? If I refuse, what could happen?
 
IMO, he cannot search your car without either probable cause, a search warrant or your permission. When you volunteered the information about the shotgun, you instantly gave him probable cause to search your vehicle.

IMO, a locked case within your vehicle would require a search warrant for the officer to inspect it. It would also have to list what the officer suspects he will find in it.

IMO, the best thing to do to avoid this in the future is don't speed! ;) Keep your car legal, obey the laws of the road, use your turn signals, in other words, don't make a target of yourself. If you *are* pulled over, keep your mouth shut, don't volunteer any information, be polite. If you give permission for a search of your vehicle, that is your decision, and you can rescind it at any time and the officer must stop.

JMO.

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Stories like these make one wish for a beartrap - I mean, a BIG beartrap - under the rags in the trunk . . .
 
"An armed society is a polite society", and a very law abiding one.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Not knowing the FULL details of this incident (other than what the poster has submitted), the following should be noted:
1- As an LEO, I am entitled to search anything in the vehicle which would constitute an area REACHABLE by the driver/ defendant as a safety measure to me during a stop.
2- Departmental policy, if this vehicle is to be towed, is to fully search the vehicle prior to the tow for the purposes of documenting the contents of the vehicle so that the owner cannot come back later and say "where is my gold plated thingamajig worth a million bucks that was there when you towed my car". Not on the tow report? sorry..wasn't there pal. CYA for us as LEO's.
As I said, we dont know the full details on this incident based on what the poster has given us.
 
Check out Carroll V. United States (routinely referred to as the Carroll Doctrine) which allows officers to search motor vehicles (and other non-stationary means of travel, ex. an RV not on bricks in the yard, houseboats) with probable cause. As long as probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of crime is within the vehicle, a police officer may search it as if he has a warrant, INCLUDING all LOCKED containers. Basically, due to the mobility of the vehicle, a warrant is not needed.
 
I find it both amazing and distressing discovering the huge numbers of people in the various gun forums that don't have a clue to how far we've moved into a police state. The Bill of Rights is a standing joke to LEOs nation wide, they've become the Kings servants. I read a few days back that our own DOJ has taken the position that we as Americans (peasants) are not allowed to own firearms. Emerson vs U.S....Anyone see ANY cops rushing to arrest the traitors that trample our God given rights. NOPE! henry
 
Thanks for the additional input, Cincy.

I had heard of a law in some southern state that says your car is an extension of your home. If anyone knows about this please post the info. My only question about this is whether the state law would supercede the Carroll Doctrine.

As far as a locked container goes, I don't think that there's any law that would force a citizen to open it for anyone! Something about self-incrimination comes to mind. Of course the law could certainly confiscate it as part of the tow inventory as oulined by tcsd1236 above.


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
If nothing else, being compelled to open a locked container would constitute a 5th Amendment violation: by opening it, you are providing testimony against yourself.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Know your local laws about firearms and interactions with officers and also
go to www.aclu.org and look for their bust card and download it.[/quote]

That's at http://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal/bustcardtext.html



------------------
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
 
Well, it seems simple enough to not speed, obey traffic laws, etc., but sometimes being stopped is not avoidable. A tail light can burn out at any time. That can justify a "routine" stop. Furthermore, some LEO's will stop vehicles when they feel like it. I'm not trying to upset any LEO's out there and not trying to create some new conspiracy, but it does happen. More than once, I have been stopped late at night while traveling or getting off work. Obviously, they were looking to bust drunks. Of course they need a "reason" to stop someone. They would say they saw "swerving" and immediately asked if alcohol was recently consumed. No alcohol had been consumed in these situations and no "swerving" had occured. Proving "swerving" didn't happen is difficult especially when the LEO "saw" it. Each time this has resulted in the saying the alphabet and touching the nose routine, which with no alcohol consumption resulted in "have a good night". I am not trying to bash LEO's. The point is, one can be stopped for any reason at anytime. It is not reasonale to suggest someone simply avoid driving a 2:00 AM when all the bars have just closed and he has just gotten off work. I just wonder if in a potential situation like this in the future some LEO might "feel" endangered and see an NRA sticker or something else indicating I may own firearms and somehow "feel" justified to search my belongings.

I don't mean to make to big of a deal out of all of this. There are probably a lot of answers to some of the things I have just stated. I am a still a little confused about a firearm in a locked case. Most cases containing firearms obviously contain firearms. If an LEO finds one of these things while searching, I fail to see what justification there is in opening the case and examining it, unless somehow this clearly puts him in "danger" which is difficult to envision. Some may say to "find out if it is stolen", but what about any other item in the vehicle that could be stolen? What about a gold watch on the arm or even the fancy coat someone might be wearing? When I was stopped, and informed them ahead of time I had a firearm, why did the serial number have to be called in to "see if it was stolen".
 
cincy:wasn't going to get into the "probable cause" issue, simply bringing up routine searches, since the probable cause debate could fill the band width. Thanks for bringing up Carroll though
 
I'd have to agree with Erick. The judiciary over the years has caused far more harm through political activism than all the LEO's combined. See the problem here is that there are always differences in people. The vast majority are good decent folks, both Judges and LEO's. LEO's get the most press as they are on the front lines and it only takes that one exception to give the barrel a bad rap. But getting rid of that that one bad apple takes care of the problem. Whereas, in the judiciary, one bad apple with their decision, can stink up the whole works for years. In addition, other than Supreme Court decisions we don’t often hear on the news about rulings.

In my studies of the 2nd it is interesting to note that the closer one gets to the drafting of the constitution the more the judges favored the true meaning of the 2nd. Reading their opinions one can see the bias of those judges who were afraid of private gun ownership. It stands out like a sore thumb.

Any judge in any court in my opinion who when deciding a 2nd amendment case, espouses the collective doctrine is either ignorant or a political activist. In either case their decision is ill legitimate.

There is only one way to solve this problem and that is we need to get involved and watch these judges. If they make a string of similar decisions contrary to the constitution, we need to put pressure on our reps to impeach them. Seems the legislative branch has ignored their power to check the judiciary branch by impeachment. Why? It is because we the citizens have not insisted that they do. I can think of only one judge who was ever impeached in this manner. Her name was Bird. For years in CA this Judge effectively overturned the death penalty, against the law and the will of the people. It took the people yelling at their reps in the state legislature to finally get rid of this bogus Judge.

I’ve thought about this problem quite a bit. Some of my suggestions that we need to do are:

1. in a jury trial get rid of this so called jury selection that allows the courts to fill the box with those who will vote their way. Make the jury a selection by random lot… period.
2. Inform the juries that they have a right to base their vote not only on the facts in the case but also judge on the law.
3. At the appeals level and upwards, all the way to the Supreme Court, have new judges elected by the people, thereby doing away with the appointment process. Don’t know if this would work or not, but we need to get rid of the system we have wherein judges are appointed because their rulings are based upon their political belief’s rather than the rule of law. If this is not the case, then why are so many people on both sides concerned over the next president and who he will appoint to the Supreme Court?
4. Make it easier for the legislative branch to impeach judges who rule contrary to the constitution. Sure there are some cases where there is a lot of gray and a judge should not be impeached for a case like this. But as in the Hickman vs. Block case, the unconstitutionality of this decision was so obvious, all of these judges should have been impeached.


Well just some random thoughts.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top