Dealing with the police

[ronin0829]

Maybe this will clear some things up, or maybe not...

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106(1977)-The driver can be ordered out of a vehicle, without suspicion, on routine traffic stops. The officer's safety greatly outweighs the inconvenience to the driver.

This means I can get you out and pat you down for weapons before I ask you any questions.

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 408(1997)-This case applied the Mimms case to the passengers. The same legitimate reasons an officer has to order the driver from the vehicle also applies to the passengers.

This means I can get everyone else out and pat them down also before I ask you any questions.

US v. Rice, No. 06-5138 (10 Cir. 2007)-[Officer] Weakley did not need reasonable suspicion to request identification from Rice [driver], run a background check on him, or remove Rice or any other passenger from the car. These actions are fully justified by officer safety concerns no matter how innocuous the traffic violation and need not be supported by additional reasonable suspicion.

This case re-affirmed the previous cases.

Also there is another case that I couldn't find that allows me to "pat down" the interior of a vehicle, meaning anywhere that any occupant could reasonably be expected to reach while in the vehicle, before allowing the occupants back in the vehicle.

Do I do these things on every traffic stop? No.

Could I do these things on every traffic stop? Absolutely.

If you appear more nervous than the average person does, or you give me conflicting statements, or I can articulate a reasonable suspicion based on time/place/circumstances you better believe I am going to do these things. My choice to do these things is based on the totality of the circumstances at that moment.

[Gun]

This means I can get everyone else out and pat them down also before I ask you any questions.

US v. Rice, No. 06-5138 (10 Cir. 2007)-[Officer] Weakley did not need reasonable suspicion to request identification from Rice [driver], run a background check on him, or remove Rice or any other passenger from the car. These actions are fully justified by officer safety concerns no matter how innocuous the traffic violation and need not be supported by additional reasonable suspicion.

This case re-affirmed the previous cases.

Please reread US vs Rice. An officer has to have RAS that the motorist, or passenger(s) be armed AND dangerous, which seem to be the case for Weakley patting down Rice.

I don't recommend that pat-down without the RAS.

[Tamara]

Why would the trooper ask you about something which is plainly visible and legally allowed to occur..?

Because not every cop is as cool as you. Yes, a lot of officers can be relaxed in the presence of of a firearm that is not under their control, and some are even firearms enthusiasts who could reasonably be supposed to enquire about the several thousand dollars in interesting and unusual antique firearms right there, but a disturbingly large number seem to have been successfully trained to react to the sight of a firearm anyplace other than in a police holster by going straight to Code Brown and Securing The Scene. It's completely understandable in light of the fact that they've had it hammered into their head that they could be the next Deputy Dinkheller any time they interact with the public.

On another tack, I personally know of more than one or two officers who make a point of running the serial numbers of any weapon they encounter in the course of their duties through the NCIC. In many urban departments, the only place officers see firearms are in the possession of cops or criminals, and the guy they just pulled over doesn't have a badge, so... While I understand why they are doing this, it did nothing to build a healthy rapport with the permit-holding citizens whose guns were cleared and taken back to the cruiser to "have their numbers run".

[MDS]

Just as an amusing data point, I have been pulled over twice by state troopers (once in GA and once in IN) when I had a pile of handguns plainly visible on the passenger seat. Neither time did the firearms even come up in our roadside conversation.

"You realize the speed limit here is still 55; it doesn't go back up to 70 for another mile and a half."

"Oh, sorry officer." ("...and aren't you going to ask me why there are a couple of antique Smiths and a Browning 1900 sitting in plain view right next to me? No? Okay, then.")

I was about to call you a liar, but then I realized I misread GA as CA. I don't know about IN, but that's not surprising in GA.

[voodoo_man]

In reference to vehicle investigations - during a vehicle stop ID should only be asked from the driver/operator and possibly the owner of the vehicle (if he/she is a passenger) without at least RS, but this is in combination with the already present PS for the actual stop of the vehicle. The caveat here is that you, as a drive of a vehicle or a passenger do not know what you are being stopped for, presumably. So therefore you have to comply with all commands given to you by the officers (this is a no-duh). The only times I have ever taken the passengers info during a vehicle investigation was when it was going to lead to an arrest (strong odor of alcohol/marijuana/etc), vehicle matched flash description for that involved in a crime (shooting/etc), or the passenger decided he was going to "wile out" and try to get out of the vehicle. At no time is any person allowed to exit the vehicle unless so instructed by an officer - this is #1 in all vehicle stops and it gives instant RS to frisk/handcuff.

Because not every cop is as cool as you. Yes, a lot of officers can be relaxed in the presence of of a firearm that is not under their control, and some are even firearms enthusiasts who could reasonably be supposed to enquire about the several thousand dollars in interesting and unusual antique firearms right there, but a disturbingly large number seem to have been successfully trained to react to the sight of a firearm anyplace other than in a police holster by going straight to Code Brown and Securing The Scene. It's completely understandable in light of the fact that they've had it hammered into their head that they could be the next Deputy Dinkheller any time they interact with the public.

On another tack, I personally know of more than one or two officers who make a point of running the serial numbers of any weapon they encounter in the course of their duties through the NCIC. In many urban departments, the only place officers see firearms are in the possession of cops or criminals, and the guy they just pulled over doesn't have a badge, so... While I understand why they are doing this, it did nothing to build a healthy rapport with the permit-holding citizens whose guns were cleared and taken back to the cruiser to "have their numbers run".

Please do not misunderstand over-zealousness with department policy. Locally we have to run every single gun through the checks via serial and the person via a permit system. It has to be done every time for every gun, more of a CYA/liability thing than a degradation of rights.

[David Armstrong]

Correct.




Correct.




And that really depends on the question being asked. In the case voodoo_man cited, the motorist can lie to the police (wasn't a fed),
twice if asked again. That does not give the officer cause to search his vehicle, unless this was the premise for the stop. Though the
motorist told the second officer that he did in fact have a fireman would not give cause for the officers to detain him for two hours.
Sorry, there is no justifying this action by law, and the motorist can most certainly raise a stink about it.

Sorry, but when you tell one officer one story then tell another officer another story that directly contradicts the story you just told the first officer, that is suspicious and can provide the basis for further investigation.

[voodoo_man]

Sorry, but when you tell one officer one story then tell another officer another story that directly contradicts the story you just told the first officer, that is suspicious and can provide the basis for further investigation.

It will provide basis for further investigation. A person who lies to the police is obviously hiding something.

Much easier if you are just honest right away - especially over something which is perfectly legal to begin with.

[Jac]

more of a CYA/liability thing than a degradation of rights.

Those aren't necessarily exlusive...

[voodoo_man]

Those aren't necessarily exlusive...

While that may sometimes be true, I assure you in this context there is absolutely no maliciousness. It is all about policy.

[cclaxton]

To be blunt, and with complete sincerity, do you really believe in the "don't talk to police" motto? It is right up there with "don't snitch" in terms of logic.

If an officer is speaking with you on the street in reference to anything above a summary - meaning misdemeanor or felony - if you just shutdown and do not answer any questions that is a HUGE red flag. You want to invoke your right to an attorney when you aren't even charged yet or even in handcuffs, then by all means be my guest. It really shows the lack of understanding many people have.

An officer can use "anything" I said prior to being read my Miranda Rights. Officers may also lie to me in the course of their investigation, which starts as soon as they arrive. If the officer wants to cuff me simply because I refused to say anything about the incident, then my attorney will be talking to him/her as to why. I would rather sit in a cell and wait for my attorney than be falsely charged or implicated in a crime I didn't commit.
CC