Terry Stop Hypothesis for Lawyers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wagonman said:
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure. I agree that having a CHL would be like a good guy membership card. But, like I said the roadside is not the place for constitutional challenges. YMMV
Click to expand...

I simply can not understand that reasoning. I'm not carrying a knife either. Should I tell the officer about the knife that I'm not carrying? I mean, that's a deadly weapon that I DON'T NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY!

Should I tell the officer that I have a motorcycle license but I don't have my helmet with me?


"Non-disclosure" of something that IS NOT, is a ridiculous concept.


To think that some one will have it in their mind to tell a police officer about a weapon that they're NOT carrying is absurd. Do you really believe that the guy who got a carry permit in 1975 and has never carried a day in his life is going to remember that he should tell an officer about his permit when he gets pulled over in 2010?
 
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure.
Click to expand...

For the record, in the same state (Texas), an unlicensed (non-CHL) person who can legally own a firearm can carry a firearm in the car and is not required by law to disclose it to police.

I think that statute would probably be relevant in this discussion.
 
The point I am making is that as a Cop if I find something out via the computer that you didn't disclose that would raise my suspicion level. I am not saying that it is required I am just giving you my real world perspective. If you are not required and don't want to disclose God bless. But, there can be consequences. Which would probably be a minor delay while I search your vehicle and you to ascertain if there are any other things you failed to disclose unless you had a reasonable story as to why you failed to be forthright in answering my questions. Because if I were in a jurisdiction that had CHL that issue would be in my battery of inquiries.

I really don't get the screaming before you are injured with this topic.

As for the failure to disclose a weapon in the car on a T-stop. If I find out about it you can play roadside lawyer all you want, my guess you are about to have a bad hair day.

This isn't about RKBA this is about being reasonable. If you are legit why play games with the Copper.
 
You seem to think that not mentioning being a CHL holder *while not carrying* is "playing games with" the cop?

And you say that not mentioning my CHL (even when I'm not carrying) will earn me a delay while you search me, my car and ask me further questions. Where the hell do you get off justifying the searches? Because I didn't let you know that I'm *not* carrying?

Do you really think that every traffic stop involving a CHL holder needs to start off with the holder announcing that they possess a CHL and whether they are currently carrying or not?

After hearing you say this again and again, and disbelieving that you could *really* mean what I think you're saying, I'm flabbergasted to realize that you actually mean it.

Please don't take this as a personal insult - it's just how I'm perceiving you across the internet, but you're coming across like a petty, power-mad jackbooted thug.
 
In Texas, I believe that if you do not have a CHL and you have a weapon in the vehicle, the weapon has to be secured outside of one's arm reach. And while currently, Texas does not require you to notify a LEO that you have a CHL, I believe that it is in one's best interest to do so. I would prefer for the LEO to know up front about my CHL rather than to find out about it after the initial FTF meeting. I believe that the Texas LEO's would prefer to know up front also. I look at it as a simple courtesy that helps to move the FTF meeting along.
 
The point I am making is that as a Cop if I find something out via the computer that you didn't disclose that would raise my suspicion level. I am not saying that it is required I am just giving you my real world perspective. If you are not required and don't want to disclose God bless. But, there can be consequences. Which would probably be a minor delay while I search your vehicle and you to ascertain if there are any other things you failed to disclose unless you had a reasonable story as to why you failed to be forthright in answering my questions. Because if I were in a jurisdiction that had CHL that issue would be in my battery of inquiries.

I really don't get the screaming before you are injured with this topic.

As for the failure to disclose a weapon in the car on a T-stop. If I find out about it you can play roadside lawyer all you want, my guess you are about to have a bad hair day.

This isn't about RKBA this is about being reasonable. If you are legit why play games with the Copper.
Click to expand...

And there you have it from the horse's mouth.

I really don't get the screaming before you are injured with this topic.
Click to expand...

Well it is an illegal search afterall so, yes. You will hear a lot of screaming and at the end of the day it constitutes an abuse of power. THe sad thing is I agree with you. Do a voluntary disclosure and everyone will be happier, if only to be practical about it.
 
Being evasive and outright lying to the Police is enough for reasonable suspicion. Because, if I ask you if there are weapons in the the car which is usually after i ask for your license and insurance and you are evasive or I happen to find said weapon in vehicle in the course of my investigation you will have a bad hair day. However, if you inform me "yes, I have a properly secure weapon in my vehicle" I would say fine just stay away from it. and continue on with the traffic stop. I would expect that if I were in a jurisdiction that has CHLs I would inquire as to that in my initial questioning so this takes the disclosure issue off the table so it all gets boiled down to "Do I lie to the Cops or don't I?"

No I don't think that every T-stop HAS to have the CHL announce his status I am just saying that evasion is something that makes me curious. As I paraphrase SVO courtesy begets courtesy.
 
We're not talking about "lying" or "being evasive". We're not even talking about a case where there are weapons in the car.

We're talking about you searching a motorist, searching his car, and peppering him with questions, all because he was unarmed and therefore didn't see the need to lead off the conversation by announcing his CHL.

As Maromero said, you're well into "illegal search" and "abuse of power" territory now.
 
Wagonman, I commend you for your restraint on this thread. I thought the Jack-booted comment was over the top, in this case. Usually it's ME going into my righteous indignance about civil rights, etc.

Anyway, I truly am curious, as to how you would deal in an LE environment like AZ, or AK, where any (not-disqualified) person can carry openly or concealed.

You can certainly ask if there are weapons in the car or on their person, but if it's not illegal, and there is no reason to disbelieve the answer, what do you do, besides let it go, and stay on your toes per normal?
 
Good question. I have worked for 13 years in a jurisdiction where possession of a gun is Prima Facie evidence of a crime, so, I would adjust my interview script accordingly I would guess. I always assume everyone is armed anyway so SA wouldn't change.

He wouldn't be leading off the interview I would in the manner I have stated.

The old dictum "An armed society is a polite society" leaps to mind.

None of my bloviating should leave anyone with the impression that I am against CCW or RKBA, nothing could be further from the truth. I am just sharing my "expert" opinion on Police/citizen interaction. Frankly, I would probably bust your stones about not being armed when you can/should be.
 
Anyway, I truly am curious, as to how you would deal in an LE environment like AZ, or AK, where any (not-disqualified) person can carry openly or concealed.
Click to expand...

I've been stopped when I'm carrying and stopped when I'm not carrying. If I just have a gun in the car, I don't bring it up. If I'm actually carrying on my person I do bring it up. In the incident when I was stopped while carrying (speeding), the trooper just "OK, thanks!" then went back to run my license, registration, etc.

If the cop had asked me turn over my handgun, I'd have done so of course, but I'd have also considered the trooper to be a jerk.
 
WagonMan said:
Being evasive and outright lying to the Police is enough for reasonable suspicion. Because, if I ask you if there are weapons in the the car which is usually after i ask for your license and insurance and you are evasive or I happen to find said weapon in vehicle in the course of my investigation you will have a bad hair day.
Click to expand...

Outright lying about something that doesn't exist.:rolleyes: What a concept.

I guess it would be prudent for me to keep a written record of every traffic violation that I've ever had so that you don't "find something out via the computer that -I- didn't disclose".

I'll start reciting it as soon as you walk up to the window...

"Officer, I'd like you to know about the gun that I'm NOT carrying with me today, it's at home in the safe. I'd also like you to know that I was ticketed for failure to obey a traffic device on December 18th 1986 and also on....."

I mean, I wouldn't want you to find something in the computer that I don't disclose.


I guarantee you. G U A R A N T E E You, that if you searched my car because I did not disclose to you a gun that I WAS NOT CARRYING, it would be YOU having a bad day after my lawyer talked to your Chief. I would stop at nothing short of your career if it were up to me.
 
Wagonman, since as I've stated earlier, my state doesn't require any notice whatever if I'm not carrying concealed, I'd offer one other tidbit--I am not being smart about this, so please don't take it that way. Since my state attaches my CCP to my license plate, in all fairness, you have already been notified when you ran my plate. So I would want that you (or any other) as the officer to not play coy about it. That would constitute you're notice from me that I have a permit, and since I'm not informing, that means I'm not carrying. Now granted, I don't know your state, but the states I travel thru honor my permit and obviously to me, it's rules and regulations. To me it isn't worth the trouble from the police that are not on the same page, from a state that is not on the same page.



Peetzakilla, I surely doubt you'd be told why you/your car was being searched. That would be a little detail your lawyer would have to dig up. Lots of reasons could be named. Years ago, I was searched one night after an officer saw an unopened 12pk of beer on my back seat--made me lock the car up and call someone or he was gonna get me for 'intent to consume'. His words. My words were, sure I intend to consume it, the store clerk established that one a little earlier.....
 
Last edited:
I guarantee GUARANTEE you whatever I do on the street I am able to and will be able to justify to whomever you may think would be in the position of affecting my career. I have been doing this for way too many years not to be able to justify my actions.

I enjoy bloviating and I am sure that my report writing prose can and will hold me in good stead.

But, I believe that you are intentionallly missing my point to be argumentative.
 
Anybody making this statement fears me greatly.
Click to expand...
Why? I am no defender of Wagonman, in fact we've butted heads so severely I got warned about LE bashing once.

I guarantee GUARANTEE you whatever I do on the street I am able to and will be able to justify to whomever you may think would be in the position of affecting my career. I have been doing this for way too many years not to be able to justify my actions.
Click to expand...

You could take that statement two ways. The way I take it is that he first conducts himself in a way that's defensible, then articulates the report in a way that doesn't invite scrutiny.

You seem to think he's bragging about being a good liar. Am I wrong?
 
WagonMan said:
I believe that you are intentionallly missing my point to be argumentative.
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

You're saying that I would be lying to you by not telling you about a gun that I DON'T HAVE.

You're saying that my failure to tell you about a gun that I DON'T HAVE is reason to pull me from my vehicle and search me for the gun THAT I DON'T HAVE.


I'm telling you that you and your chief would hear from my lawyer. I don't care if you think that you can justify your actions.

If you can justify searching a car for failure to disclose a NONEXISTENT weapon then you can search a car for ANY reason. We both know that's not true.

You are COMPLETELY ignoring my points. What about the guy with the carry permit that has never carried in 30 years?

You claim to believe that having a carry permit puts the person in the "good guy club". Why would the person not being a mind reader change that assumption?

What is the rationale for believing that everyone with a permit is not only going to "think like a cop" but also think like YOU, since no officer that I've asked about this issue has agreed with you yet?
 
Last edited:
Remember, from his posts in here, Wagonman appears to talking about frisking an unarmed subject and searching his vehicle simply because the subject didn't notify him of the fact that he possesses a CHL (which is perfectly within the law in every state that issues CHLs). If that's not in fact what Wagonman is saying, I'd love to get a clarification.

I don't know what sixgun67 was saying, but when I hear a police officer describe a frisk/vehicle search scenario that I'm pretty sure would be ruled invalid and unconstitutional, and then proceeds to say that he'd have no problems justifying it to his superiors, that brings two possibilities to mind: Either he's planning on twisting the facts in his report, or he knows his superiors won't give a crap.
 
I guarantee GUARANTEE you whatever I do on the street I am able to and will be able to justify to whomever you may think would be in the position of affecting my career. I have been doing this for way too many years not to be able to justify my actions.

I enjoy bloviating and I am sure that my report writing prose can and will hold me in good stead.
Click to expand...

Which is why the rest of us should remember the golden rules of dealing with the police. Never give a policeman permission to search your home or vehicle. Keep your mouth shut beyond the words "Yes" or "No". If anyone in your vehicle has any type of recording device turn it on immediately and do NOT let the policeman know about it. Try and stay in front of the police units own camera and speak loudly enough that your words are recorded.

Most cops are decent guys just trying to do their job, but you never know when you'll run into the "other type".
 
Good points - it's scary to think about it, but if you run across a cop that has it in for you for some reason and is also willing to lie, all of your "protections" beyond what you're able to secure personally for yourself immediately go out the window.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top