Terry Stop Hypothesis for Lawyers

Status
Not open for further replies.
. . . but if you decide for whatever reason to ask if he has a weapon and he flat-out refuses to answer, I agree that should raise your suspicions, and would probably serve as justification for a Terry frisk and vehicle search.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Terry pat, but not the vehicle search. Since their is some level of indication the person might be armed, (because of the existence of the CHL combined with the refusal to answer a specific question about weapons, if that were the case) then a Terry pat doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the purposes of officer safety. The legal threshhold for a quick weapons pat is pretty low, as I understand it.

Not answering questions does not weigh in at all in justifying a vehicle search because of the 5th amendment.

How am I doing Wagonman? ;)
 
Dogs, the why doesn't matter as far as the law. It matters that you are committing the violation. It might mitigate the enforcement but not the illegality.
Click to expand...
You lost me there... The weapon is being legally carried by a citizen legal to own a firearm. In Fla. I am legally allowed to tote a fully loaded and functional firearm anywhere in my vehicle except "on the person" without a CCW permit.

Back to my last post, the presence of a legal firearm in the vehicle but not held by me really has no relevance on a simple traffic stop... If you do ask if I have a weapon I will list all of them including my fists and elbows... But your curiosity or fear shouldn't result in a show and tell session as your safety is secure with it left alone where it is, just like my safety is insured so long as yours stays in the holster...

Brent
 
Kodiak, I wOuld reread Terry if I were you. Terry allows me to be reasonably inquisitive in my dealings with the public.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your interpretation of "reasonable" is different than mine. As I stated, I will answer your questions and do so politely. I have nothing to hide. However, there will be a complaint filed if you go beyond what I term "reasonable". There will be a civil action filed if you go beyond the legal definition.

If you push the envelope into demanding a search, the answer will be "No". If you threaten or intimidate or lie to try and force me to allow a search, there will again be a civil action.

Don't take that personally - the "you" is entirely generic.

I don't think most cops would use criminal means to effect a search or shakedown, but we both know that some will. Police are representative of the population as a whole and so there are likely to be as many criminals with badges as there are in the general population.

I'm not trying to be a cop-basher. I like and respect cops and think they do a fine job for little reward. If you treat me with respect and courtesy, I'll take my ticket and go on my way with a nod and a smile. I don't want to make your job any harder than it already is.
 
At this time, I would like to remind everyone, that the interpretation of "reasonable" (and the resultant "reasonable man" standard) is a legal fiction determined by the courts.

It is not your definition, nor mine, or any dictionary you care to use. It is the definition that the courts have opined and will use in examining what Wagonman (and all LEOs) does.

The courts have found that questions (fishing) not directly related to the traffic stop, but related to officer safety, are reasonable.
 
Dogs, I was refering to the traffic violation not the issue of the weapon.

Antipitas, you are indeed correct. The hundreds of machine guns, the hundreds of keys of Peruvian marching powder.
etc you have at home are not fair game on a T-stop. Things that can affect
my safety are reasonable for me to inquire about.

If you push the envelope into demanding a search, the answer will be "No". If you threaten or intimidate or lie to try and force me to allow a search, there will again be a civil action.
Click to expand...

I don't threaten or intimidate people. But, I use the carrot and the stick approach if I feel the need to search a vehicle. The carrot being Terry and the stick being Gant. This can either be a traffic stop or an arrest. Because if I pull you over I have my PC for an traffic arrest. It doesn't have to be a ticket it can be arrest with a search prior to me towing your vehicle.
 
Last edited:
I don't threaten or intimidate people. But, I use the carrot and the stick approach if I feel the need to search a vehicle. The carrot being Terry and the stick being Gant. This can either be a traffic stop or an arrest. Because if I pull you over I have my PC for an traffic arrest. It doesn't have to be a ticket it can be arrest with a search prior to me towing your vehicle.
Click to expand...

You can't arrest someone then search their vehicle. Once the suspect is arrested you can no longer demonstrate a continuing threat. Reread Gant:


Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle inci-dent to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believethat the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Click to expand...

How might a person arrested access their vehicle after arrest and what evidence of the offense of arrest (traffic violation) might you find by searching the vehicle?

Remember in Gant the Supreme Court said the search was unreasonable.

If you would arrest someone for a traffic ticket just to search their vehicle you have no business with a badge. By your own admission you do threaten and intimidate by threatening people with arrest for traffic violations just to search their vehicle. You have also admitted a willingness to search vehicles in violation of the law.
 
Re-read Terry v. Ohio regarding frisks and the subsequent Michigan v. Long regarding vehicle searches. They both basically set a lower standard for "reasonable suspicion" in the case where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the subject may be armed. The searches aren't used predominantly for evidence-gathering the way other searches are - they're used out of concern for the officer's safety.
Click to expand...

But remaining silent isn't reasonable suspicion for a Terry search:

If the officer asks if you have a gun? If you have one on you and it is illegal you have three options:

1. Incriminate yourself

2. Lie to the officer (which is a crime in most jurisdictions)

3. Remain Silent

I would argue that any evidence discovered because of a search of a suspect who refused to answer questions would be inadmissable. You have to have more than just "he refused to answer my questions" as the basis for your Terry search.
 
vran, I think you and I are on exactly the same page! So will you entertain my opinion regarding my Fla law that includes the CD to include my vehicle... So do I have to volunteer I am armed? If a cop comes to my house and asks, I will tell 'em to buzz off... So why volunteer the info in my mobile extension of my home? And if I do admit to having a gun in my car, why would I have to submit it upon request to an officer? If a cop is at my house door and wants me to hand over my firearm/s, he would get a little more colorful version of the aforementioned "buzz off"...

Brent
 
Because if I pull you over I have my PC for an traffic arrest. It doesn't have to be a ticket it can be arrest with a search prior to me towing your vehicle.
Click to expand...

Right. If I don't quail in fear of your badge and surrender my civil liberties, you'll arrest me, tow my vehicle away and probably gut it in a search costing me thousands of dollars, an arrest record, etc? For a traffic ticket...

I have zero respect for that kind of cop. None, nada, zip. The average criminal operates on a higher moral plane.

Now we have an entire nation being run by the same Chicago mob.
 
Maestro, so you are stating that the arrest is basically a bogus way to gain entry under the guise of "inventory" assessment of the vehicle of a person who may be getting arrested for a failed tag light?

Pretty neat way to circumvent the citizens' constitutional civil rights...
NEATO!!!... NOT COOL!
Brent
 
I have a huge problem with bogus arrests just to circumvent the 4th amendment by "inventory".


In Knowles v. Iowa the supreme court said:

Once Knowles was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person of the offender or in the passenger compartment of the car.
Click to expand...


So under Gant an arrest for a traffic violation would not warrant a search unless the officer could show that the suspect could still access the vehicle which is hard to do when in the back of a squad car.
 
No Dogs it isn't. When I arrest someone I have to safeguard their belongings. So I administratively tow and inventory the vehicle. It is not a bogus arrest it is me playing by the rules the SCOTUS lays down. Like I said I have PC when I pull you over to arrest you so it's up to you whether it's a ticket or a physical.
 
Like I said I have PC when I pull you over to arrest you so it's up to you whether it's a ticket or a physical.
Click to expand...

You may be able to get away with that in a corrupt hole like Chicago, but it isn't going to play well in many other places. You'd find yourself out of a job.
 
No Dogs it isn't. When I arrest someone I have to safeguard their belongings. So I administratively tow and inventory the vehicle. It is not a bogus arrest it is me playing by the rules the SCOTUS lays down. Like I said I have PC when I pull you over to arrest you so it's up to you whether it's a ticket or a physical.
Click to expand...

It is a bogus arrest. You are arresting someone for a minor traffic offense just to search their car.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you arrest a citizen for a traffic INFRACTION not a CRIME, you put your self into the realm of seriously out of control rogue officer and anything you find "inventorying" my ride will be deemed inadmissible with any decent defense attorney pointing out during the evidentiary hearing, the heinous abuse of power just so you can get yer rocks off looky looing my stuff...

Sorry to say it but I am glad to have you prove that there are cops out there like those many folks try to tell me do not exist...:mad:

Why terry stop the average guy or search a car at random when you need to be walking the beat in Chicago doing walk ups (YES WALK UPS NO PATROL CAR) on the inner city thugs and do your part to get the illegal guns from the hands of those not allowed to have them? You might just get a little peruvian marching powder off the street too.

If ya'll were doing your part to protect and serve, your fine mayor may not be after even more intrusive guin laws that only limit the honest man!

Brent
 
Where is the "corruption"

1, I observe traffic violation

2, I curb said vehicle

3, offender is evasive in answering my questions and uses his discretion to not allow me to search his vehicle.

4, I use my discretion to instead of a warning or at most a ticket to physically arrest the offender.

5, instead of leaving his vehicle in a lane of traffc I tow his vehicle to secure it. Since I am responible I have to inventory everything in the vehicle to make sure there isn't a briefcase full of money missing when he retrieves his vehicle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top