Gun ownership probable cause to for search and seizure?

[theDoctorisIn]

If I get pulled over, and the cop sees me seeming to hide something under the seat, that's not a crime.

But it is probable cause to search the car.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I get pulled over, and the cop sees me seeming to hide something under the seat, that's not a crime.

But it is probable cause to search the car.

I am not sure that is ipso facto PC. In any case, the crime would be suspicion of drugs based on the furtive movements of the suspect. Here what was the PC? What was the crime?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I guess this is how I see it: I get stopped by cops fairly often, for no reason. It happens - police make mistakes, and I'm a very tall guy with long hair and large beard and I get "profiled" as a pothead all the time.

I don't whine about it on the internet, and if I did, you guys would justifiably mock me for it.

But as soon as you add guns to the mix, you guys start clutching your pearls and whining like bitches about a cop being mean to a guy.

I would bitch just as much about LE using appearance alone as means of probable cause to induce search and seizure..

I am certainly going to bitch when I see lawful firearms compliance and registration as means of probable cause. This gentleman did what liberals cry for...submitted to the ultimate background check and registration. They want to then use his compliance as a means of criminalizing him.

All the more reason distrust the liberal when he says we just want sensible back ground checks.

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess this is how I see it: I get stopped by cops fairly often, for no reason. It happens - police make mistakes, and I'm a very tall guy with long hair and large beard and I get "profiled" as a pothead all the time.

I don't whine about it on the internet, and if I did, you guys would justifiably mock me for it.

But as soon as you add guns to the mix, you guys start clutching your pearls and whining like bitches about a cop being mean to a guy.

I would bitch just as much about LE using appearance alone as means of probable cause to induce search and seizure..

I am certainly going to bitch when I see lawful firearms compliance and registration as means of probable cause. This gentleman did what liberals cry for...submitted to the ultimate background check and registration. They want to then use his compliance as a means of criminalizing him.

All the more reason distrust the liberal when he says sensible back gorund checks.

There is no such thing as a sensible background check. It is all nonsense.

 

[Vox]

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything we're talking about.

But it didn't contradict, had you read the article she said I DON'T KNOW it could be in the glove box or center console.

It was in neither, so they seized control of his spouse, children and dismantled his vehicle with no probable cause of anything but lawful ownership and compliance (FOPA interstate travel provisions notwithstanding). But I said it was in NJ instead of Maryland. You homed in on the most salient point. Masterful.

Relevancy - There is law preventing LE from gathering this type of info on lawful purchasers and owners. Interstate reciprocity of CCW is not a means of probable cause absent criminality.

He said that it wasn't in the car.

She said that it could be in the car.

The officer took that as a "contradiction".

The other information is entirely irrelevant, because no information about gun purchases was "gathered".

The fact that the man had a CC permit is public information, and most certainly linked to his Driver's License - which is how the officer knew he owned a gun.

so? was he under arrest? under on-going investigation? under suspicion of committing a crime?

what's the big problem with contradiction? husband and wife remember almost everything differently.

why the heck did the cop need to search for the gun if the guy has a lawful permit to have it? Even if there were ten times more contradictions?!?

 

[jon_berzerk]

During a traffic stop, can the police search my car and frisk me?

In general, the police are allowed to search and frisk you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you are armed during a traffic stop. This is not an illegal search and seizure. In addition to frisking for weapons, the police can also pat you down for contraband material, like drugs. A recent Supreme Court ruling altered the laws that allow a police officer to search a car after a traffic stop. The Court ruled that a search of the passenger compartment of a car is only allowed if either:

The driver/arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search (meaning that the police cannot search your car if you are arrested in the back of the squad car), or
It is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest (meaning the police cannot search your car for weapons unless they arrested you for a violent crime or illegal weapon possession).
My car was towed and impounded, can the police search it?

In short, yes. If the police have towed and impounded your car, they have the authority to search your vehicle. This search can be as comprehensive as the police wish and will most likely include opening any locked compartments or boxes found within your car. It does not matter what your car was towed and impounded for, it could be for something as simple as a parking violation or as serious as auto-theft. Regardless, the police can search your car if it has been impounded.

Police cannot tow and impound your car for the sole purpose of searching it, however. Police are required to follow strict procedures when it comes to these types of searches.

Illegal Search and Seizure FAQs - FindLaw

 

[R.C. Christian]

I guess this is how I see it: I get stopped by cops fairly often, for no reason. It happens - police make mistakes, and I'm a very tall guy with long hair and large beard and I get "profiled" as a pothead all the time.

I don't whine about it on the internet, and if I did, you guys would justifiably mock me for it.

But as soon as you add guns to the mix, you guys start clutching your pearls and whining like bitches about a cop being mean to a guy.

So in other words, you're a sheep and you don't have the guts to stand up for your constitutional rights when you're pulled over or profiled for looking like a hippie. Wow.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But it didn't contradict, had you read the article she said I DON'T KNOW it could be in the glove box or center console.

It was in neither, so they seized control of his spouse, children and dismantled his vehicle with no probable cause of anything but lawful ownership and compliance (FOPA interstate travel provisions notwithstanding). But I said it was in NJ instead of Maryland. You homed in on the most salient point. Masterful.

Relevancy - There is law preventing LE from gathering this type of info on lawful purchasers and owners. Interstate reciprocity of CCW is not a means of probable cause absent criminality.

He said that it wasn't in the car.

She said that it could be in the car.

The officer took that as a "contradiction".

The other information is entirely irrelevant, because no information about gun purchases was "gathered".

The fact that the man had a CC permit is public information, and most certainly linked to his Driver's License - which is how the officer knew he owned a gun.

so? was he under arrest? under on-going investigation? under suspicion of committing a crime?

what's the big problem with contradiction? husband and wife remember almost everything differently.

why the heck did the cop need to search for the gun if the guy has a lawful permit to have it? Even if there were ten times more contradictions?!?

Because un-secured guns, even legally owned ones, make cops very uncomfortable during traffic stops.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I guess this is how I see it: I get stopped by cops fairly often, for no reason. It happens - police make mistakes, and I'm a very tall guy with long hair and large beard and I get "profiled" as a pothead all the time.

I don't whine about it on the internet, and if I did, you guys would justifiably mock me for it.

But as soon as you add guns to the mix, you guys start clutching your pearls and whining like bitches about a cop being mean to a guy.

So in other words, you're a sheep and you don't have the guts to stand up for your constitutional rights when your pulled over or profiled for looking like a hippie.

Bitching and whining on the internet isn't "standing up" to anyone or anything.

Please.

 

[Spoonman]

its a sad day in America when a constitutional right is just cause for search and seizure

 

[OODA_Loop]

Because un-secured guns, even legally owned ones, make cops very uncomfortable during traffic stops.

Yes the guy could have pulled his door panels off or popped his hood and went into the engine compartment during the traffic stop he and his family were locked in police cruisers during.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I guess this is how I see it: I get stopped by cops fairly often, for no reason. It happens - police make mistakes, and I'm a very tall guy with long hair and large beard and I get "profiled" as a pothead all the time.

I don't whine about it on the internet, and if I did, you guys would justifiably mock me for it.

But as soon as you add guns to the mix, you guys start clutching your pearls and whining like bitches about a cop being mean to a guy.

So in other words, you're a sheep and you don't have the guts to stand up for your constitutional rights when your pulled over or profiled for looking like a hippie.

Bitching and whining on the internet isn't "standing up" to anyone or anything.

Please.

You'd be amazed what social media can do when people who love their constitutional rights lock into something. I'm 6-8, and have long hair. If a cops pulls me over for no reason he bettered damn well have a reason for doing so. I'm not going to puss out like you and post the kind of yellow striped garbage you just did.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Because un-secured guns, even legally owned ones, make cops very uncomfortable during traffic stops.

Yes the guy could have pulled his door panels off or popped his hood and went into the engine during the traffic stop he and his family were locked in police cruisers during.

Well, if that's true, then they actually have a case, according to the link jon_bezerk provided.

And they should sue. I wish them all the luck in the world.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So in other words, you're a sheep and you don't have the guts to stand up for your constitutional rights when your pulled over or profiled for looking like a hippie.

Bitching and whining on the internet isn't "standing up" to anyone or anything.

Please.

You'd be amazed what social media can do when people who love their constitutional rights lock into something. I'm 6-8, and have long hair. If a cops pulls me over for no reason he bettered damn well have a reason for doing so. I'm not going to puss out like you and post the kind of yellow striped garbage you just did.

Are you one of those people who think they post here to fight the good fight?

 

[SwimExpert]

The "probable cause" was created when the wife's story contradicted the husband's.

Requiring the driver to step outside of the vehicle for the sake of locating the man's gun was unconstitutional. The car was pulled over for a traffic violation. The cop had no right to detain the car beyond the scope of issuing a traffic citation. Requiring the man to step outside of his vehicle goes beyond that scope.

 

[Vox]

He said that it wasn't in the car.

She said that it could be in the car.

The officer took that as a "contradiction".

The other information is entirely irrelevant, because no information about gun purchases was "gathered".

The fact that the man had a CC permit is public information, and most certainly linked to his Driver's License - which is how the officer knew he owned a gun.

so? was he under arrest? under on-going investigation? under suspicion of committing a crime?

what's the big problem with contradiction? husband and wife remember almost everything differently.

why the heck did the cop need to search for the gun if the guy has a lawful permit to have it? Even if there were ten times more contradictions?!?

Because un-secured guns, even legally owned ones, make cops very uncomfortable during traffic stops.

unsecured? what the heck does it mean?

he had the right to have a gun.

would it be better to have it on his belt?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

so? was he under arrest? under on-going investigation? under suspicion of committing a crime?

what's the big problem with contradiction? husband and wife remember almost everything differently.

why the heck did the cop need to search for the gun if the guy has a lawful permit to have it? Even if there were ten times more contradictions?!?

Because un-secured guns, even legally owned ones, make cops very uncomfortable during traffic stops.

unsecured? what the heck does it mean?

he had the right to have a gun.

would it be better to have it on his belt?

He has the right to carry a concealed gun in the state of Florida - not in Maryland.

 

[Geaux4it]

“I know the laws and I know the rules,” Filippidis says. There are, after all, ways gun owners can travel legally with firearms through hostile states. “But I just think it’s a better idea to leave it home.”

Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

Face red, eyes shining, John pounds his knees. “And he wants to put me in jail. He wants to put me in jail. For no reason. He wants to take my wife and children away and put me in jail. In America, how does such a thing happen? ... And after all that, he didn’t even write me a ticket.”

I'm starting to think liberals are really setting themselves up badly. Gun ownership is going to be the next civil rights movement.


Jackson: Gun owner unarmed, unwelcome in Maryland

 

[Geaux4it]

That's not what happened.

He asked the wife if the gun was in the car, and she said that it might be in the glove box or the center console.

That's why the car was searched - because the husband and the wife's stories didn't match.

Let's start with, he had no probable cause to stop the car to begin with. Second it is not against the law to own a gun. Third there was no reason to think he had a loaded gun in the car. Fourth even if he did he didnt need to be treated like a criminal.
Fucking commie state. Screw them.

1. We don't know if he did or not, the article left those details out.

2. No shit. What does that have to do with anything?

3. Of course there was - he ran the ID, and saw that he had a CC permit.

4. Even if your gun is legal, a cop is going to make sure it's secure when pulling you over. That's common sense.

#4 I have been asked if I was carrying my weapon and I would say yes and that was the end of it. I got the ticket anyway but not another word about my gun. And that was in Kalifornia.

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

He said that it wasn't in the car.

She said that it could be in the car.

The officer took that as a "contradiction".

The other information is entirely irrelevant, because no information about gun purchases was "gathered".

The fact that the man had a CC permit is public information, and most certainly linked to his Driver's License - which is how the officer knew he owned a gun.

so? was he under arrest? under on-going investigation? under suspicion of committing a crime?

what's the big problem with contradiction? husband and wife remember almost everything differently.

why the heck did the cop need to search for the gun if the guy has a lawful permit to have it? Even if there were ten times more contradictions?!?

Because un-secured guns, even legally owned ones, make cops very uncomfortable during traffic stops.

Bullshit.
The guy was a permit holder. The incidence of permit holders shooting cops during traffic stops is, let me check, yeah zero. None. He should have seen he had a law abiding citizen and waived him on.
The whole thing came because he was a "armed men are either cops or criminals" kind of cop. I.e. an asshole and goose stepper.