Dealings with police

[Seismic Sam]

As I sit here under the West end of the Broadway bridge among the beer cans, Night Train bottles (Shippy is SUCH a litterbug!!) and the smell of old cigar butts and pee, I do notice a distinctly fishy odor wafting in from somewhere...

[Lunchbox]

As I sit here under the West end of the Broadway bridge among the beer cans, Night Train bottles (Shippy is SUCH a litterbug!!) and the smell of old cigar butts and pee, I do notice a distinctly fishy odor wafting in from somewhere...

It took me a while to see what you were saying there, however not really sure how one should take that?

Darn your puns and innuendo.

[CraigJS]

Xscream, are you a lawyer?

[farmerj]

[Xscream]

Xscream, are you a lawyer?

I am not, but I know people that have been on both sides of this situation (police officers accused and the public claiming 4th amendment violations).

For those interested, research the supreme court case of Chimel vs. California. The supreme court sided with the state of CA that anything accessible by the driver while operating a motor vehicle may be searched without a warrant. Wyoming v. Houghton expanded this to all passengers of a car.

So what about things outside of the drivers and passenger's control? Probable cause is all the officer will need to search your car. The suspects behavior, reaction time, eye dilation, skin tone, respiration rate or even the response to a question is all that is required. So basically, the forth amendment doesn't do too much to protect your car from searches if you are operating it on public roads.

[bstrawse]

Xscream, are you a lawyer?

I am not, but I know people that have been on both sides of this situation (police officers accused and the public claiming 4th amendment violations).

For those interested, research the supreme court case of Chimel vs. California. The supreme court sided with the state of CA that anything accessible by the driver while operating a motor vehicle may be searched without a warrant. Wyoming v. Houghton expanded this to all passengers of a car.

So what about things outside of the drivers and passenger's control? Probable cause is all the officer will need to search your car. The suspects behavior, reaction time, eye dilation, skin tone, respiration rate or even the response to a question is all that is required. So basically, the forth amendment doesn't do too much to protect your car from searches if you are operating it on public roads.

Chimel only applies to search incident to a lawful arrest. Chimel was also about an arrest in a home, not in a vehicle. It only grants an officer to search the immediate area around the person that they are arresting when they are making a lawful arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimel_v._California

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)[1], is a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1969. In the case, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in their home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they can search the area within immediate reach of the person. The rule relating to searches incident to a lawful arrest established in this case is known as the Chimel rule. ⋅

Houghton is not an extension of Chimel - it's about the warantless search of a passenger's container in a vehicle. Houghton doesn't even reference Chimel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_v._Houghton

Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but justified under the automobile exception as an effect of the car.

Chimel is a fairly foundational 4th amendment case because it established the boundaries for search incident to a lawful arrest. Other, later, cases modified those boundaries.

[LePetomane]

The internet is rife with videos of encounters where police officers see a CC permit (intentional or unintentional) during a traffic stop. The solution is simple: keep it in a separate part of your wallet so the police don't see it. Routinely they ask for drivers license, registration and proof of insurance. Give them that and nothing more. Anything more is inviting a conflict.

[photogpat]

The internet is rife with videos of encounters where police officers see a CC permit (intentional or unintentional) during a traffic stop. The solution is simple: keep it in a separate part of your wallet so the police don't see it. Routinely they ask for drivers license, registration and proof of insurance. Give them that and nothing more. Anything more is inviting a conflict.

I'm going to go ahead and refute that with nothing more than my anecdotal experiences, and those of the others I've talked to and heard about. I've been stopped twice while carrying (once for speeding, once for no stop at a stop sign). Both times I handed my D/L and Carry permit to the officer. Both times the officer (once a State Trooper, once local PD) asked where it was, and asked me to leave it there and not touch it. In neither case did the officer want to search my vehicle after learning there was a firearm, and both officers thanked me for my courtesy. In neither case did I get a ticket.

IANAL, but the presence of a firearm in a car being carried in accordance with the terms and conditions of a MN Carry Permit isn't a valid justification for a search. IMHO, there is nothing to be lost by volunteering your carry permit to an officer. Bear in mind, by no means am I suggesting you submit to an unwarranted search of your person or vehicle either.

[farmerj]

the one time I got stopped for speeding and was carrying, I had my pistol sitting on the seat next to me. Granted I was also in my national guard uniform too.


The trooper asked if I had a permit. Yes sir. Slow it down SGT. Thanks sir. And that was the end of it.

I had pulled off the road into a field entrance since we were in a small rural highway with no safe spot for either of us to stop on the shoulder. I had to travel almost 1 1/2 miles to do it and the entire time I had my flashers on letting him know I KNEW he wanted me to stop.

[jshuberg]

I've been pulled over twice for speeding in recent years

In both occasions I was carrying. I made a point, before even being asked for my license, to tell the officer that I had a carry permit. He then asked if I was carrying, and I told him it was on my right hip. I didn't get a ticket, but did get a written warning the 2nd time. This seems to be a pretty common story, and if this were Vegas I'd put money on disclosing your permit voluntarily ends up better for you more often than not.

I'd be careful about phrasing it. I wouldn't recommend saying something like "I have a pistol permit" and then start turning to get your wallet. Don't ever say gun, or pistol, or firearm - those may cause an unintended reaction. Say carry permit, and make a point not go to your wallet or glove box until you are asked for your ID, and then tell the officer what you're doing before reaching over. Traffic stops can be a very dangerous situation for LEOs. It's best to be as polite and honest and up-front with them as possible. Pulling off the highway as far as possible, even off the pavement onto the grass if you can is a courtesy that could be the difference between a ticket and a warning.

[Heffay]

Man, you guys sure do get pulled over a lot. Have you ever tried not speeding around cops?

[Holland&Holland]

Man, you guys sure do get pulled over a lot. Have you ever tried not speeding around cops?

Does that work?

[TH3180]

Man, you guys sure do get pulled over a lot. Have you ever tried not speeding around cops?

If I don't speed by them, then they'll notice my tabs are overdue.

[snlit3]

Unless you're 50+ I don't think I'd bring it up. Being young with a permit they will almost always dick with you.

[plblark]

I'm not 50+ (38 though) and have a 50/50 experience with similar situations. The officer in Saint Bonni who tagged me 57 in a 2 mile stretch where it was 45 appreciated my informing him but ticketed me anyway. The Trooper who had me dead to rights going too way too fast issued me a warning.