Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Carrying a gun while traveling?

Started by Aeschere, October 01, 2009, 09:46:35 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PearlHarbor

If I really thought I needed a handgun to defend my family and self, I wouldn't make the trip.

But hell, maybe you'll get the chance to shoot somebody.

Kilgor

Quote from: Pigsknuckles on October 02, 2009, 02:34:39 pm
I'm from Oklahoma where notification is required. I have had two contact situations with police while I was carrying. Both times, I handed the officers both my license, and permit.  They both exhibited noticeable relief when they saw the permit. Once they knew I was carrying, and where the weapon was, we calmly took care of our business, and were on our way.

That has been my experience in most cases too.  However, being bent over my car and forcibly disarmed by an Elkins, AR police officer in front of my neighbors after giving him my permit changed my mind about notification where not legally required.

If I were a threat to him I would not have told him I was armed nor gone through the hassle of getting a permit. 

Thank you Officer Brown.  Anyone that knows him can kick him in the ass for me.
Northwest Arkansas gardening and critter raising:

http://www.backyardfreshfoods.com/

Ā 

Kilgor

Quote from: PearlHarbor on October 02, 2009, 02:41:10 pm
If I really thought I needed a handgun to defend my family and self, I wouldn't make the trip.

But hell, maybe you'll get the chance to shoot somebody.

No darn Sherlock.  If I knew where I would need a gun, I would be somewhere else.  Unfortunately thugs don't make appointments.
Northwest Arkansas gardening and critter raising:

http://www.backyardfreshfoods.com/

ark525

I got pulled over for speeding in South TX near Laredo this past March.  Deputy didn't bat an eye when I handed over my CCL along with my information.  In fact, I think my prompt cooperation and notification of the weapon, unnecessary or not, directly influenced him into giving me a warning rather than a citation.


Pigsknuckles

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 02:41:30 pm
That has been my experience in most cases too.  However, being bent over my car and forcibly disarmed by an Elkins, AR police officer in front of my neighbors after giving him my permit changed my mind about notification where not legally required.

If I were a threat to him I would not have told him I was armed nor gone through the hassle of getting a permit. 

Thank you Officer Brown.  Anyone that knows him can kick him in the ass for me.

Unfortunately, there is always going to be the occasional Barney Fife. Too bad there is nothing that can be done at the time without worsening the situation.
"the ox is slow, but the Earth is patient"

losthawg68

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 02:20:19 pm
To search a vehicle an officer must obtain permission, lawfully arrest the person and search incident to the arrest, or be able to articulate probable cause that a crime was committed and evidence is in the vehicle. 

In the last case, prosecutors appreciate the officer getting a signed warrant before a search...

You DO have a right to privacy in your car,  Do NOT EVER give permission for a search regardless of how innocent you are.  If they could search your car without your consent, they would have already done it and would not ask permission.

when given written a citation you are "legally under arrest" whether they take you to jail or not.  all an officer needs to search is probable cause and that is never hard to prove for a law enforcement officer in court whether he finds anything or not.

back on subject to the OP, just cooperate and let him know that it is there and 99.9% of the time you'll be fine.
Re:  I just came into some money...
Quote from: cosmodrum on April 01, 2011, 01:34:40 pm
Why money...didn't have a sock or tissue handy?

Quote from: Slacker on August 14, 2012, 10:57:10 pm
God Damn you Lost....

Iwastherein1969

this thread is proof positive this country has gone to hell since the days I could jump in my father's ol' pickup truck and drive to the woods with my Ithaca 20 gauge pump and go squirrel hunting until dark-thirty.....its a different world and not one that I prefer
The long Grey line will never fail our country.

BloodRedHog

Quote from: Iwastherein1969 on October 02, 2009, 04:56:15 pm
this thread is proof positive this country has gone to hell since the days I could jump in my father's ol' pickup truck and drive to the woods with my Ithaca 20 gauge pump and go squirrel hunting until dark-thirty.....its a different world and not one that I prefer

Indeed
Handling all your mortgage and home financing needs...

OneTuskOverTheLineā„¢

Quote from: justanotherdisappointedfn on October 01, 2009, 11:09:48 pm
That doesn't make much sense. How could you possibly use a weapon that you weren't able to have with you?

If you have an Arkansas concealed weapon permit, and who doesn't, you're good to carry one in your vehicle as long as it's kept out of plain sight. In ANY jurisdiction if you get pulled over and don't notify the officer that you have a concealed weapon in the vehicle if they ask, and they will ALWAYS ask if they intend to search, you will be arrested, permit or not.


This is correct, but don't VOLUNTEER that you have a firearm, and don't VOLUNTEER to let them search. Let them ASK. If they ask then be honest. I have carried a firearm in my vehicle since I was 19. I have only killed 7 or 8 road rage'rs thus far.. And one nun, but she should have walked a little slower with that collection bucket.. I thought she was trying to rob me..

Just kidding.. Don't give me grief if you or your family is a victim of road rage. My joke did not make it happen. Also, No nun's were harmed in the creation of this lie.
Quote from: capehog on March 12, 2010...
My ex wife had a pet monkey I used to play with. That was one of the few things I liked about her

quote from: golf2day on June 19, 2014....
I'm disgusted, but kinda excited. Now I'm disgusted that I'm excited.

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: Table Rocker on October 02, 2009, 01:52:37 pm
Never said it was illegal hawgballuvr, the point of my post that those officers were just looking for something to bust me for. Guy in his 20s with out of state tags driving through at night, that's why I was pulled over. Two cops pulled in behind me because of my 'license plate' bracket? Nice use of manpower there.
BS. You broke the law. Thats why you were pulled over. End of story. Law states that the license plate must be visible. That means 100% visible, not partially covered up. To say it was a bogus reason to pull you over is wrong. Its a law, period. And it is always nice to have back up at night, no matter the reason for the stop or where you are. No such thing as a routine traffic stop.
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


HawgBallLvr

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 02:20:19 pm
To search a vehicle an officer must obtain permission, lawfully arrest the person and search incident to the arrest, or be able to articulate probable cause that a crime was committed and evidence is in the vehicle. 

In the last case, prosecutors appreciate the officer getting a signed warrant before a search...

You DO have a right to privacy in your car,  Do NOT EVER give permission for a search regardless of how innocent you are.  If they could search your car without your consent, they would have already done it and would not ask permission.

YOU ARE 100% WRONG. The probable cause is obtained when you break the law. The vehicle search is done for officer safety. By you breaking the law they have the right to search wether you say its ok or not. They ask to see what you will say and to see how you answer. No matter what you say they will search your car anyway.
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


Whataboarā„¢

Quote from: hawgdavis on October 01, 2009, 09:52:38 pm
If you get stopped let the officer know about it . They appreciate It.
That's what we always do. The officers do indeed appreciate your honesty.
We've never had a problem when handling it that way.
"Daddy. When you and mommy first met, did you love yourself first or did mommy love you first?'' _ our then 7-year-old daughter.

Table Rocker

October 02, 2009, 05:31:04 pm #62 Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 05:34:17 pm by Table Rocker
If I broke the law why no warning or citation? The bracket covered the very top of the capital A on the old license plates, you could read every thing clearly, so save me the legal definitions.

It was a BS stop because of the reasons I listed and it backfired.

Ā 

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: Table Rocker on October 02, 2009, 05:31:04 pm
If I broke the law why no warning or citation?

It was a BS stop because of the reasons I listed and it backfired.
Police dont have to issue a summons or give you a warning when they stop you. He told you why he stopped you. Its a BS complaint from you and it backfired because youre wrong. You cant argue with the law.
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


PorcineSublime

Quote from: Iwastherein1969 on October 02, 2009, 04:56:15 pm
this thread is proof positive this country has gone to hell since the days I could jump in my father's ol' pickup truck and drive to the woods with my Ithaca 20 gauge pump and go squirrel hunting until dark-thirty.....its a different world and not one that I prefer
I know this to be true. When I was in HS the guys who didn't bring a gun to school were the troubled ones. Everyone went hunting after school and most pickups came with gunracks and most gunracks were full. ;D
Sittin in the morning sun, I'll be sittin here when evening comes.

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 02:20:19 pm
To search a vehicle an officer must obtain permission, lawfully arrest the person and search incident to the arrest, or be able to articulate probable cause that a crime was committed and evidence is in the vehicle. 

In the last case, prosecutors appreciate the officer getting a signed warrant before a search...

You DO have a right to privacy in your car,  Do NOT EVER give permission for a search regardless of how innocent you are.  If they could search your car without your consent, they would have already done it and would not ask permission.
Here is your guidance for your above mentioned incorrect understanding of the law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

Vehicular Searches .--In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States 55 that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant. 56   


Initially the Court limited Carroll's reach, holding impermissible the warrantless seizure of a parked automobile merely because it is movable, and indicating that vehicles may be stopped only while moving or reasonably contemporaneously with movement. 57 Also, the Court ruled that the search must be reasonably contemporaneous with the stop, so that it was not permissible to remove the vehicle to the stationhouse for a warrantless search at the convenience of the police. 58   


The Court next developed a reduced privacy rationale to supplement the mobility rationale, explaining that ''the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.'' 59 '''One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.''' 60 While motor homes do serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and while their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence ''readily mobile.'' 61   


The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle 62 and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ''articulable and reasonable suspicion'' Supp.5 of traffic or safety violation orsome other criminal activity. Supp.6   By contrast, fixed-checkpoint stops in the absence of any individualized suspicion have been upheld. 64 Once police have validly stopped a vehicle, they may also, based on articulable facts warranting a reasonable belief that weapons may be present, conduct a Terry-type protective search of those portions of the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden. 65 And, in the absence of such reasonable suspicion as to weapons, police may seize contraband and suspicious items ''in plain view'' inside the passenger compartment. 66   


Once police have probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, they may remove it from the scene to the stationhouse in order to conduct a search, without thereby being required to obtain a warrant. ''[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.'' 67 The Justices were evenly divided, however, on the propriety of warrantless seizure of an arrestee's automobile from a public parking lot several hours after his arrest, its transportation to a police impoundment lot, and the taking of tire casts and exterior paint scrapings. 68 Because of the lessened expectation of privacy, inventory searches of impounded automobiles are justifiable in order to protect public safety and the owner's property, and any evidence of criminal activity discovered in the course of the inventories is admissible in court. 69   


It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein. 70 But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers. 71 Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected to warrantless searches based on probable cause, the same rule now applying whether the police have probable cause to search only the containers 72 or whether they have probable cause to search the automobile for something capable of being held in the container. 73   
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


hawgbawb

Quote from: hawgdavis on October 01, 2009, 09:52:38 pm
If you get stopped let the officer know about it . They appreciate It.
But don't point it at them.
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

HogSophist

Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 02, 2009, 05:28:17 pm
YOU ARE 100% WRONG. The probable cause is obtained when you break the law. The vehicle search is done for officer safety. By you breaking the law they have the right to search wether you say its ok or not. They ask to see what you will say and to see how you answer. No matter what you say they will search your car anyway.

read more law, then get back to me.

I assure you this is incorrect in the State of Arkansas, and all other States.

Its always good to be correct when trying to bust someone out.

try again.
signature removed by Hogville staff. (but Erie's quote revived because I missed it)


In an era where there are over $70 trillion in future obligations, beyond the debt,   taking up practices in budgeting that are tantamount to saying 'And then in 2040, a magic dragon will sh*tpoopy $100 trillion and fix our problems'  simply isn't wise. --ErieHog

Kilgor

Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 02, 2009, 05:28:17 pm
YOU ARE 100% WRONG. The probable cause is obtained when you break the law. The vehicle search is done for officer safety. By you breaking the law they have the right to search wether you say its ok or not. They ask to see what you will say and to see how you answer. No matter what you say they will search your car anyway.

You are incorrect and probably a moron.
Northwest Arkansas gardening and critter raising:

http://www.backyardfreshfoods.com/

justanotherdisappointedfn

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 02:15:02 pm
Nope.  Arkansas code does not require officer notification.  The Arkansas State Police guidelines say that you should, but this carries no force of law, and is not backed up in the Arkansas code.

Oklahoma and Texas do require it.

Here's a great website that should answer most questions:

http://handgunlaw.us/  Just click on the state you want to know about.

You are confused. If a cop pulls you over in Arkansas and asks you if you have any weapons in your vehicle and you lie to him then he consequently finds one , you are going to jail. CCW or no CCW. End of discussion.

Kilgor

October 02, 2009, 08:10:02 pm #70 Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 08:11:58 pm by Kilgor
Quote from: justanotherdisappointedfn on October 02, 2009, 08:02:42 pm
You are confused. If a cop pulls you over in Arkansas and asks you if you have any weapons in your vehicle and you lie to him then he consequently finds one , you are going to jail. CCW or no CCW. End of discussion.

I am not confused.  It is true that giving false information to a peace officer can get you prosecuted, though it rarely happens.  That said, you have a 5th amendment right and are under no obligation to answer any questions.

However, that is not what we were discussing.  In exchange for the privilege of obtaining a license, holders of concealed weapons licenses agree to be bound to certain regulations that the average citizen is not.  In Oklahoma and Texas you MUST inform an officer of your weapon as soon as contact occurs.  In Arkansas you must provide your license upon request.  You have no obligation to inform the officer that you are armed.  The onus is on him/her to specifically ask for your license.  It's a fine point, but one that does exist.
Northwest Arkansas gardening and critter raising:

http://www.backyardfreshfoods.com/

justanotherdisappointedfn

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 08:10:02 pm
I am not confused.  It is true that giving false information to a peace officer can get you prosecuted, though it rarely happens.  That said, you have a 5th amendment right and are under no obligation to answer any questions.

However, that is not what we were discussing.  In exchange for the privilege of obtaining a license, holders of concealed weapons licenses agree to be bound to certain regulations that the average citizen is not.  In Oklahoma and Texas you MUST inform an officer of your weapon as soon as contact occurs.  In Arkansas you must provide your license upon request.  You have no obligation to inform the officer that you are armed.  The onus is on him/her to specifically ask for your license.  It's a fine point, but one that does exist.

The we agree but are just saying two different things, actually not even that because I agree IF the police do not ask if you are carrying you are under NO obligation to tell them, but I have NEVER heard of a police officer searching anyone without first asking if that person has any weapons or anything else they want to declare. it doesn't happen, that's Police101 you ask for your own safety. Therefor it stands to reason that any time a police officer has found a weapon on your person, including in your vehicle, they have first asked you if you had any, and shouldn't be surprised when they find it.
Quote from: Table Rocker on October 02, 2009, 05:31:04 pm
If I broke the law why no warning or citation? The bracket covered the very top of the capital A on the old license plates, you could read every thing clearly, so save me the legal definitions.

It was a BS stop because of the reasons I listed and it backfired.

So unless a cop issues a citation or arrests you a stop was bogus? LOL - Couldn't possibly have been that the guy decided to give you a break and just let you go on what is admittedly a minor violation?

Here's what almost assuredly happened in your case. The police came upon a vehicle that they couldn't quite read the plate. He decided to investigate hoping for a bigger arrest, yes it happens, upon investigation he decided you were clean and cut you a break on the minor violation that he pulled you over for to begin with.

So you claim the cop was an [CENSORED] when in fact that "[CENSORED]" probably cut you a $100 break.

ToddW

Quote from: ROAD HOGG on October 01, 2009, 10:06:34 pm
You can carry a load concealed hand gun in Texas. Your vehicle is an extension of your home as viewed under TX Law. Many Texans carry daily.

This is completely true.  I carried on a daily basis while i lived in Texas.  I'm not sure the Arkansas laws though since i moved back to the state.
I bleed Cardinal, Go Hogs!

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: HogSophist on October 02, 2009, 07:24:12 pm
read more law, then get back to me.

I assure you this is incorrect in the State of Arkansas, and all other States.

Its always good to be correct when trying to bust someone out.

try again.
Here is your guidance for your above mentioned incorrect understanding of the law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

Vehicular Searches .--In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States 55 that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant. 56   


Initially the Court limited Carroll's reach, holding impermissible the warrantless seizure of a parked automobile merely because it is movable, and indicating that vehicles may be stopped only while moving or reasonably contemporaneously with movement. 57 Also, the Court ruled that the search must be reasonably contemporaneous with the stop, so that it was not permissible to remove the vehicle to the stationhouse for a warrantless search at the convenience of the police. 58   


The Court next developed a reduced privacy rationale to supplement the mobility rationale, explaining that ''the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.'' 59 '''One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.''' 60 While motor homes do serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and while their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence ''readily mobile.'' 61   


The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle 62 and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ''articulable and reasonable suspicion'' Supp.5 of traffic or safety violation orsome other criminal activity. Supp.6   By contrast, fixed-checkpoint stops in the absence of any individualized suspicion have been upheld. 64 Once police have validly stopped a vehicle, they may also, based on articulable facts warranting a reasonable belief that weapons may be present, conduct a Terry-type protective search of those portions of the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden. 65 And, in the absence of such reasonable suspicion as to weapons, police may seize contraband and suspicious items ''in plain view'' inside the passenger compartment. 66   


Once police have probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, they may remove it from the scene to the stationhouse in order to conduct a search, without thereby being required to obtain a warrant. ''[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.'' 67 The Justices were evenly divided, however, on the propriety of warrantless seizure of an arrestee's automobile from a public parking lot several hours after his arrest, its transportation to a police impoundment lot, and the taking of tire casts and exterior paint scrapings. 68 Because of the lessened expectation of privacy, inventory searches of impounded automobiles are justifiable in order to protect public safety and the owner's property, and any evidence of criminal activity discovered in the course of the inventories is admissible in court. 69   


It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein. 70 But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers. 71 Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected to warrantless searches based on probable cause, the same rule now applying whether the police have probable cause to search only the containers 72 or whether they have probable cause to search the automobile for something capable of being held in the container. 73   

Try again....
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


Ā 

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 07:58:29 pm
You are incorrect and probably a moron.

Here is your guidance for your above mentioned incorrect understanding of the law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

Vehicular Searches .--In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States 55 that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant. 56   


Initially the Court limited Carroll's reach, holding impermissible the warrantless seizure of a parked automobile merely because it is movable, and indicating that vehicles may be stopped only while moving or reasonably contemporaneously with movement. 57 Also, the Court ruled that the search must be reasonably contemporaneous with the stop, so that it was not permissible to remove the vehicle to the stationhouse for a warrantless search at the convenience of the police. 58   


The Court next developed a reduced privacy rationale to supplement the mobility rationale, explaining that ''the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.'' 59 '''One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.''' 60 While motor homes do serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and while their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence ''readily mobile.'' 61   


The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle 62 and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ''articulable and reasonable suspicion'' Supp.5 of traffic or safety violation orsome other criminal activity. Supp.6   By contrast, fixed-checkpoint stops in the absence of any individualized suspicion have been upheld. 64 Once police have validly stopped a vehicle, they may also, based on articulable facts warranting a reasonable belief that weapons may be present, conduct a Terry-type protective search of those portions of the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden. 65 And, in the absence of such reasonable suspicion as to weapons, police may seize contraband and suspicious items ''in plain view'' inside the passenger compartment. 66   


Once police have probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, they may remove it from the scene to the stationhouse in order to conduct a search, without thereby being required to obtain a warrant. ''[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.'' 67 The Justices were evenly divided, however, on the propriety of warrantless seizure of an arrestee's automobile from a public parking lot several hours after his arrest, its transportation to a police impoundment lot, and the taking of tire casts and exterior paint scrapings. 68 Because of the lessened expectation of privacy, inventory searches of impounded automobiles are justifiable in order to protect public safety and the owner's property, and any evidence of criminal activity discovered in the course of the inventories is admissible in court. 69   


It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein. 70 But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers. 71 Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected to warrantless searches based on probable cause, the same rule now applying whether the police have probable cause to search only the containers 72 or whether they have probable cause to search the automobile for something capable of being held in the container. 73   

Thanks for the name calling. Shows how much class you have.
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


Table Rocker

Quote from: justanotherdisappointedfn on October 02, 2009, 08:18:48 pm
The we agree but are just saying two different things, actually not even that because I agree IF the police do not ask if you are carrying you are under NO obligation to tell them, but I have NEVER heard of a police officer searching anyone without first asking if that person has any weapons or anything else they want to declare. it doesn't happen, that's Police101 you ask for your own safety. Therefor it stands to reason that any time a police officer has found a weapon on your person, including in your vehicle, they have first asked you if you had any, and shouldn't be surprised when they find it.
So unless a cop issues a citation or arrests you a stop was bogus? LOL - Couldn't possibly have been that the guy decided to give you a break and just let you go on what is admittedly a minor violation?

Here's what almost assuredly happened in your case. The police came upon a vehicle that they couldn't quite read the plate. He decided to investigate hoping for a bigger arrest, yes it happens, upon investigation he decided you were clean and cut you a break on the minor violation that he pulled you over for to begin with.

So you claim the cop was an ******* when in fact that "*******" probably cut you a $100 break.



I'm pretty sure I never called the cop a (insert whatever vulgar word you inserted) I was just stating the obvious. This happened in McAlester, OK on a major interstate, where no doubt those cops have seen Arkansas plates. My bracket covered maybe a 1/4" of the capital A in Arkansas, to say it was impairing the ability to identify the plate is freaking laughable but buy that BS if you want. I was a 25 year old driving an all black Trailblazer, at 9 pm on a Friday, with out of state tags, that's why I was pulled over because of the bracket. You think a grandmother driving a cadillac at noon on a Sunday with the same bracket and tags gets pulled over? No. You think if I had an OU license plate bracket over an Oklahoma plate I would've been pulled over? No, I see those all the time in Oklahoma. I know why I was pulled over, give me all the legal jargon you want but at least I don't have my head in the sand. I didn't give the cop any grief, in fact, I left the bracket on for another two years, made the same drive over 20 times and never got pulled over for it, weird!

aloha_kid

Quote from: farmermike on October 02, 2009, 09:52:36 am
i can speak from experience that you better not be carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle in illinois, it's a felony carry and conceal or not.  i got lucky and didn't get the felony, but i sure didn't enjoy being handcuffed in the sleet and freezing rain while the trooper ran my license.  i had spoken to a missouri trooper earlier in the day about the same thing and he told me it was legal in missouri.  i have also been pulled over in louisiana and told by an officer it was legal there.

Whats not a felony in Illinois, unless you're running for office.

Boarsnest

Quote from: PearlHarbor on October 02, 2009, 02:41:10 pm
If I really thought I needed a handgun to defend my family and self, I wouldn't make the trip.

But hell, maybe you'll get the chance to shoot somebody.

A local farmer had a flat on his pickup only a few miles from his home last summer. He was changing the tire when two men robbed him at gun point and beat him. The point is you never know what can happen.

HogSophist

October 02, 2009, 09:50:47 pm #78 Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 09:53:03 pm by HogSophist
Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 02, 2009, 08:23:30 pm
Here is your guidance for your above mentioned incorrect understanding of the law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

Vehicular Searches .--In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States 55 that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant. 56   


Initially the Court limited Carroll's reach, holding impermissible the warrantless seizure of a parked automobile merely because it is movable, and indicating that vehicles may be stopped only while moving or reasonably contemporaneously with movement. 57 Also, the Court ruled that the search must be reasonably contemporaneous with the stop, so that it was not permissible to remove the vehicle to the stationhouse for a warrantless search at the convenience of the police. 58   


The Court next developed a reduced privacy rationale to supplement the mobility rationale, explaining that ''the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.'' 59 '''One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.''' 60 While motor homes do serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and while their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence ''readily mobile.'' 61   


The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle 62 and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ''articulable and reasonable suspicion'' Supp.5 of traffic or safety violation orsome other criminal activity. Supp.6   By contrast, fixed-checkpoint stops in the absence of any individualized suspicion have been upheld. 64 Once police have validly stopped a vehicle, they may also, based on articulable facts warranting a reasonable belief that weapons may be present, conduct a Terry-type protective search of those portions of the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden. 65 And, in the absence of such reasonable suspicion as to weapons, police may seize contraband and suspicious items ''in plain view'' inside the passenger compartment. 66   


Once police have probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, they may remove it from the scene to the stationhouse in order to conduct a search, without thereby being required to obtain a warrant. ''[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.'' 67 The Justices were evenly divided, however, on the propriety of warrantless seizure of an arrestee's automobile from a public parking lot several hours after his arrest, its transportation to a police impoundment lot, and the taking of tire casts and exterior paint scrapings. 68 Because of the lessened expectation of privacy, inventory searches of impounded automobiles are justifiable in order to protect public safety and the owner's property, and any evidence of criminal activity discovered in the course of the inventories is admissible in court. 69   


It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein. 70 But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers. 71 Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected to warrantless searches based on probable cause, the same rule now applying whether the police have probable cause to search only the containers 72 or whether they have probable cause to search the automobile for something capable of being held in the container. 73   

Try again....

Dear lord. your understanding is so sparce, it just isnt worth the effort. I guess you ran out of loan money after the first semester of law school?

Your own 'google' search that turned up supports that fact that your post was wrong. Your inability to understand that speaks volumes.


signature removed by Hogville staff. (but Erie's quote revived because I missed it)


In an era where there are over $70 trillion in future obligations, beyond the debt,   taking up practices in budgeting that are tantamount to saying 'And then in 2040, a magic dragon will sh*tpoopy $100 trillion and fix our problems'  simply isn't wise. --ErieHog

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: HogSophist on October 02, 2009, 09:50:47 pm
Dear lord. your understanding is so sparce, it just isnt worth the effort. I guess you ran out of loan money after the first semester of law school?

Your own 'google' search that turned up supports that fact that your post was wrong. Your inability to understand that speaks volumes.



Oh..... OK........ I guess me being a Law Enforcement Officer and a Criminal Justice Degree doesnt have anything to do with what I know. Youre wrong. Have a good day.
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


HawgBallLvr

Quote from: 2ndhogmendmet on October 03, 2009, 12:51:36 am
I think you need to remove probably from that sentance.
And you need to learn to spell. Its SENTENCE......
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


aloha_kid

Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 02, 2009, 05:28:17 pm
YOU ARE 100% WRONG. The probable cause is obtained when you break the law. The vehicle search is done for officer safety. By you breaking the law they have the right to search wether you say its ok or not. They ask to see what you will say and to see how you answer. No matter what you say they will search your car anyway.
When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?

The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:

    * An individual is stopped for police questioning while walking down the street.

    * An individual is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, and the police officer searches the vehicle's trunk.

    * An individual is arrested.

    * Police officers enter an individual's house to place him or her under arrest.

    * Police officers enter an individual's apartment to search for evidence of crime.

    * Police officers enter a corporation's place of business to search for evidence of crime.

    * Police officers confiscate an individual's vehicle or personal property and place it under police control.

Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement's legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:

    * A valid search warrant;

    * A valid arrest warrant; or

    * A belief rising to the level of "probable cause" that an individual has committed a crime.


http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/criminal_rights_police/search_seizure.html

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/496/arizona_supreme_court_limits_car_searches

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html#4

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: aloha_kid on October 03, 2009, 12:30:36 pm
When Does the Fourth Amendment Apply?

The legal standards derived from the Fourth Amendment provide constitutional protection to individuals in the following situations, among others:

    * An individual is stopped for police questioning while walking down the street.

    * An individual is pulled over for a minor traffic infraction, and the police officer searches the vehicle's trunk.

    * An individual is arrested.

    * Police officers enter an individual's house to place him or her under arrest.

    * Police officers enter an individual's apartment to search for evidence of crime.

    * Police officers enter a corporation's place of business to search for evidence of crime.

    * Police officers confiscate an individual's vehicle or personal property and place it under police control.

Potential scenarios implicating the Fourth Amendment, and law enforcement's legal obligation to protect Fourth Amendment rights in those scenarios, are too numerous to cover here. However, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has:

    * A valid search warrant;

    * A valid arrest warrant; or

    * A belief rising to the level of "probable cause" that an individual has committed a crime.


http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/criminal_rights_police/search_seizure.html

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/496/arizona_supreme_court_limits_car_searches

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html#4

Scroll up and re-read.
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


HogSophist

Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 03, 2009, 11:46:59 am
Oh..... OK........ I guess me being a Law Enforcement Officer and a Criminal Justice Degree doesnt have anything to do with what I know. Youre wrong. Have a good day.

It means you know enough to be wrong. I've done training to LEO's before, if you were there, you were not listening.

I really hope you are not a LEO, there will be some guy with a body in the trunk that walks because of your inaccuracy with regards to the law.
signature removed by Hogville staff. (but Erie's quote revived because I missed it)


In an era where there are over $70 trillion in future obligations, beyond the debt,   taking up practices in budgeting that are tantamount to saying 'And then in 2040, a magic dragon will sh*tpoopy $100 trillion and fix our problems'  simply isn't wise. --ErieHog

HawgBallLvr

Quote from: HogSophist on October 03, 2009, 01:09:38 pm
It means you know enough to be wrong. I've done training to LEO's before, if you were there, you were not listening.

I really hope you are not a LEO, there will be some guy with a body in the trunk that walks because of your inaccuracy with regards to the law.
Oh ok..... glad I wasnt in your class. And I am a LEO and no one has walked.. thanks for playing. NEXT...
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


HogSophist

Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 03, 2009, 01:16:33 pm
Oh ok..... glad I wasnt in your class. And I am a LEO and no one has walked.. thanks for playing. NEXT...

sulphur springs or johnson?
signature removed by Hogville staff. (but Erie's quote revived because I missed it)


In an era where there are over $70 trillion in future obligations, beyond the debt,   taking up practices in budgeting that are tantamount to saying 'And then in 2040, a magic dragon will sh*tpoopy $100 trillion and fix our problems'  simply isn't wise. --ErieHog

HawgBallLvr

2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


HawgBallLvr

HAHAHAH..... very wrong. More like Federal level. Nice try. Thanks for playing.


GO HOGS GO... BEAT A&M!!!!!!
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


HogSophist

Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 03, 2009, 06:22:08 pm
HAHAHAH..... very wrong. More like Federal level. Nice try. Thanks for playing.


GO HOGS GO... BEAT A&M!!!!!!

So you are a federal employee with an avatar that defaces a photo of the commander in chief.

very classy and smart.
signature removed by Hogville staff. (but Erie's quote revived because I missed it)


In an era where there are over $70 trillion in future obligations, beyond the debt,   taking up practices in budgeting that are tantamount to saying 'And then in 2040, a magic dragon will sh*tpoopy $100 trillion and fix our problems'  simply isn't wise. --ErieHog

deshahawg


HawgBallLvr

Quote from: HogSophist on October 04, 2009, 11:15:11 am
So you are a federal employee with an avatar that defaces a photo of the commander in chief.

very classy and smart.
I support the Office of the President of the US. That doesnt mean I have to agree with his beliefs. Nor do I have to agree on where he is taking the Country.
2010 Liberty Bowl Champions!!


HogSophist

Quote from: HawgBallLvr on October 04, 2009, 11:41:03 am
I support the Office of the President of the US. That doesnt mean I have to agree with his beliefs. Nor do I have to agree on where he is taking the Country.

With your vast legal knowledge, you might want to break out a copy of the Hatch Act and various amendments and take a close look at it.

If you are a LEO, and proffer the notion that 'no one has ever walked', you must be incredibly new. Even the best and most seasoned leo's that i know have had people walk.
signature removed by Hogville staff. (but Erie's quote revived because I missed it)


In an era where there are over $70 trillion in future obligations, beyond the debt,   taking up practices in budgeting that are tantamount to saying 'And then in 2040, a magic dragon will sh*tpoopy $100 trillion and fix our problems'  simply isn't wise. --ErieHog

DeltaBoy

Quote from: Kilgor on October 02, 2009, 02:35:05 pm
He had a valid Florida concealed weapons license, which allowed him to carry in 36 states.  He had gone through all the background checks, training, etc. 

Isn't it sad that he will spend a few years in prison away from his family just because he exercised his right to protect himself (albeit poorly)?  This is one reason NYC will not get my tourism dollars.

NJ, NYC, or Chicago will never see a dime of my tourism dollars.
If the South should lose, it means that the history of the heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers, will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
-- Major General Patrick Cleburne
The Confederacy had no better soldiers
than the Arkansans--fearless, brave, and oftentimes courageous beyond
prudence. Dickart History of Kershaws Brigade.