Do You Have Any Drugs or Weapons in the Car?

[Don Gwinn]

Nicely put, Mike.

RR, Malone's post was relevant. He was suggesting that you may be "begging the question" by posting the traditional illustration of that fallacy, "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

His point is that you ask what we suggest given that "this is required and department policy and officers must do each and every one of the steps above." That is begging the question, because it's not at all clear that that is a given. In fact, all our LEOs on TFL seem to be saying that it is not true.

Malone's illustration is probably the best way of demonstrating this fallacy. Asking "have you stopped beating your wife" is foolish--first you must establish that your opponent ever beat his wife.


Are you by chance from Illinois?

[jmlv]

WITH THE NJSP. The police in NJ for the most part are antigun. Especially the state police. Most of them don't know the law and figure if they don'r like it its illegal. (they tried to arrest a friend of mine once for possision of hollowpoints - He had a 22 rifle and was legally hunting groundhogs with the landowners permission.
He litterally had to show the trooper the page in the hunting regs which allowed him to use the hollowpoints for hunting (22 shorts) to avoide arrest! good thing for him he had them with him. NJ is not a nice place for gun owners. If you follow the rules for other states you WILL get arrested. Ray has posted over in lock & load the Official rules from the NJSP office. Print a copy follow it and keep the copy with you in case of a stop. Do NOT admit you have guns in the vehicle unless you absoultly have too. Keep all gun stuff concieled as well - don't ask don't tell. Its simply safer that way.
After over 20 years of dealing with this I finually got out. Its good to be free. Now if we can only keep rendell out of the govonors office life will be great!

[Gusgus]

Conorach,
Darn, don't take things so personal. I'm not referring to you, other TFL LEOs, or anyone in your respective or neighboring departments.

As jmlv has already attested, what I stated where FACTS. Facts that we NJ gun owners have to put up with on a daily basis. Unless you've lived here during the past 10 years, you have no idea, nor do you have any right to doubt what I state.

But of course, I must just be some crazed militia type or drug freak who loves LEO bashing? Right? What I stated just couldn't possibly be true, now could it? I must be hallucinating, or better yet, I must have something to hide.

Tell you what. The next time your department needs to come to Jersey, to pickup a prisoner, how about you volunteering? Word is, that the NJSP will demand that you unload and lock up your service firearms in the trunk of your cruiser, for the duration of your visit. Real fun. Might even run the number, to make sure your service side arm is legit. Now there you are. Poisoner in the back seat, and unarmed. But why worry? He's cuffed, right, and it's only an hour to the border. Why would you possibly need to be armed?
Fact or Rumor? Can't tell you for sure, but I've been told of this policy on two separate occasions by local LEOs whom I trust and respect, and of course, they would never repeat it if it wasn't documented fact, now would they?

Edited to add
Sorry Mike, I guess I did just what I accused you of, and took your post a little personal. It gets very tiring when you live with this crap and abuse day in and day out, and those from other states don't believe you. Well dude, you can believe what you want, but it really is that bad here.

[Keith_Yorktown]

I think we can all agree that what is true in some peoples neck o' the woods is not true in other peoples neck o' the woods...

When traveling with firearms, DONT ASSUME NOTHING...

There are several well maintained sites that follow the laws concerning traveling with firearms, I suggest you use them.

I also suggest that you become intimately familiar with the laws in your particular state.

[mrat]

Someday you will wake up to the fact that there is a growing number of your "brothers in blue" that simply feel that no "civilian" should own a firearm.

Guess what? There is a growing number of citizens that feel that no "civilian" should own a firearm. This will effect firearm ownership FAR MORE than a minority of anti gun cops. Every poll I have seen states that LEOs are FAR MORE pro RKBA than private citizens. Now I will agree with you that the number of pro RKBA LEOs will continue to decline, but this is due to LEOs being recruited from the citizenry which will continue to become more anti RKBA.

I am sorry that you live in an anti state but put blame where it belongs. I know that blaming LEOs for everything is easy but it is a waste of time. So maybe us LEOs on TFL are not the only ones that need to wake up.

[Futo Inu]

A few possibilities:

"Officer, that depends on how you define 'weapon' ". I have a screwdriver which can be used as a weapon. I have a tire iron which can be used as a weapon. The car itself can be used as a weapon. I have a gun which can be used as a weapon. Is that what you mean?"

"May you search? Sorry, but my lawyer advised me to never consent to searches, even though I have nothing to hide."

"Do I have a gun? Absolutely, yes. Next question."

"Do I have 'drugs or weapons' ? Hmmm. Weapons yes, but drugs no."

Quote:
"Can't a person take the "Fifth" in response to such a question?" Absolutely. It is better to say nothing or "I'm not going to respond to that" than it is to lie. As to the can I search, the appropriate response is "No, you may not" if you don't want the LEO to search. If you have the time, and don't mind then by all means say yes.

"Or does doing automatically trigger "reasonable cause" for a search?" Absolutely, positively NOT, if it goes to court. As a practical matter, sure it will raise suspicions. But 90% of the time, with a well-trained officer, saying "I refuse to answer that question" will result in him ultimately letting you go, after some huffing and puffing and you waiting around, unless he can find SOME evidence of some wrongdoing, or a warrant or whatever. Saying "I decline to answer that question" is far better, BTW, than saying "I decline to answer that question since it might incriminate me".

[Coronach]

Gusgus-

Never took it personally. I was just making a point. BTW, I think mrat made the point of the hour...you have far more to fear from politicians and voters who are anti-RKBA than from a few cops who are (admittedly, they're ot there). A cop who is antiRKBA can huff and puff and generally wizz in your wheaties, but unless you are violating a law, its an annoyance. Now, get some grabber in elected office, or (worse) have your local voters vote anti, and its now time to look out.

Mike

[RHarris]

FWIW, since I live in St. Louis City, I have a habit of locking all firearms in their cases (city ordnance) for transport. I suspect that this is more than most areas require.

Bogie:
This is interesting. The state of Missouri has a preemption law. There is no state law requiring firearms be in a locked anything. If St. Louis has a city ordinance that says this, it is in violation of state law. Do you have a reference to this or did someone tell you?

While it certainly might be practical to have a firearm in a locked case in some places (espicially places like St. Louis), it simply cannot be required.

Some LEO's in St Louis might believe there is such an ordinance and might possibly act accordingly.

Of course this wouldn't be the first time a city (especially St. Louis) disregarded state law or an LEO didn't know the law.

[RR]

This wasn't an anti-LEO thread. I never referred to it as "abuse." The rationale for such questions/actions are many:

1. Officer's protection.
2. Remove illegal firearms from the streets.
3. Recover stolen firearms.
4. It is a very successful tactic and has resulted in many arrests and convictions for drug and weapon offenses.
5. It is a small inconvenience that keeps the community safer.

I "deal" with more LEOs indirectly than most of the LEOs that posted on this board. I have done "ride alongs" with LEOs. I also counsel LEOs and have LEOs as clients.

You LEOs who posted "it ain't happening" should take a reality pill because you ain't got a clue. Our cities are under siege, our prisons are full, our streets are roamed by gangbangers who are truly predators. A good percentage of our population is taking some type of psychotropic drug. A traffic stop IS a potential life threatening situation. The "good ole boy" community cop is fading away. The politics in police departments is unbelievable-in Milwaukee, the police chief is suing the mayor!

But apparently some LEOs on this board live in Mayberry. Hey, hows Barney?

[Coronach]

LOL!

Uhm...don't exactly work in Mayberry. We have gangbangers and predators up to our ears here, thanks, and whaddayaknow, they are often armed. I'll still stand by the assertion that I have never heard of any department that requires its officers to ask that question each and every time.

Have I asked that same question to a motorist? Yes. Have I received an answer in the affirmative that didn't bother me in the slightest? Yup. Have I received an answer in the negative that, by the person's nervous behaviour, eyes darting to the passenger seat, sudden clenching of the steering wheel, and general deer-caught-in-the-headlights look, bothered me quite a bit? Yup.

The difference, however, is that I ask the question when I have a sense that this person might be a critter, and I want to know what I'm dealing with. And its not just the verbal response he gives that I'm interested in, its his non-verbal cues, too.

Does this question get asked? Sure it does. It just doesn't get asked all the time. We're cops, not airport screeners.

Mike

PS "...So, Edna...you're on your way to your 85th birthday party, thats great....do you have any weapons or drugs in the car? You do? ... Uh huh...your water pill...uh huh, blood pressure medicine... uh huh... uh huh..."

[Gusgus]

Well folks, I really don't remember blaming anyone. I was merely stating that these things DO happen as a matter of "crusader" policy. It may be unofficial and unpublished policy, but policy non the less.

RR asked what we would do in a certain situation. Board LEOs immediately laughed at the question, and assured RR that this does not happen. I pointed out that it happens on a regular basis here in Jersey, and immediately I'm branded a LEO basher.

OK, I'm sorry. I should have never said anything negative about anyone in blue, even if it was the truth. How dare I.

I now repent. It was all a figment of my imagination. Legal gun owners in Jersey do not get hassled on a regular bases by LEO. Nappan does not have to constantly defend NJ gun owners in court due to false arrest on trumped up gun charges. The US Justice Department did not really sue the NJSP for violating the civil rights of Jersey residents. And of course no one has ever had their home unjustly confiscated in the name of the war on some drugs, due to the possession of a totally legal Colt Match AR, even though no drugs where involved, and the arresting officers where shown that the gun was legal.

Yes sir. It never happened. I made it all up. And even if it where ever to happen in the future, I'm sure us subjects would have brought it upon ourselves. Sheeesh!

[Bogie]

My former favorite gunshop (owner died...) had a customer who lost a brand new Ruger O/U shotgun... He was downtown by the courthouse. He had the trunk of his car open, with the shotgun, still in the factory box, inside, with is briefcase open, etc., talking with someone. Cop walked past, saw the box, whipped out the cuffs.

Since STL city cops have a history of confiscation without receipt...

I just play it VERY safe. Usually have the bolts out of the rifles too - That way, if someone says my vehicle was going to be involved in a drive-by, whatever, I tell the ossifer to (1) break the dang lock off the case, and (2) tell me how the heck you could shoot someone with that...

Yeah, I'm paranoid...

[RR]

Coronach, I never said that the "question" Any drugs or weapons was asked each time. Rather, that if a traffic stop reveals a handgun, the serial number is run. Yea, Granny isn't asked. However, if Granny discloses that she has a handgun in the trunk, they will run the serial number (probably after they handcuff her to her walker

But if my son (in a few years) (or me if I havn't shaven and I am wearing scruffy clothes) is driving back from the range at 9:00 p.m. or so, in that area, and is stopped, the odds are he will be asked, and if he is truthful, he will, at the very least, be removed from his vehicle while the dirty deed is done.

Disclaimer-the above is not applicable in Mayberry Andy and Barney would offer a piece of Aunt Bee's apple pie to the critters.

*********************************************
Now you all can close your eyes, and tap your heels together, and you will be back in Kansas. This was all a bad dream-bad things only happen to bad people-who deserve it.

[mrat]

You LEOs who posted "it ain't happening" should take a reality pill because you ain't got a clue.

Um, maybe I missed it but I don't think any of the LEOs here stated that those questions don't get asked or serial numbers don't get run.

You stated:

THIS IS DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURE. THE OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO DO ALL OF THE ABOVE-EACH AND EVERY TIME.

The LEOs here stated that it was not REQUIRED, at least for the great majority of departments. I have never even heard of this being a policy requirement. If the above quote from your post is not what you meant to say I'm sorry.

[mrat]

I pointed out that it happens on a regular basis here in Jersey, and immediately I'm branded a LEO basher.

OK, I'm sorry. I should have never said anything negative about anyone in blue, even if it was the truth. How dare I.

Gusgus,
Oh come on! NO ONE called you an LEO basher. If a LEO on this board does not agree with something you are saying that does not equate to them calling you an LEO basher. I believe Cornach and I were the only LEOs to respond to your posts and neither one of us called you a basher. I even said I was sorry you live in an anti state, by the way I live in California which is close to becoming worse than New Jersey.

I stick by what I stated. You have more to fear from anti politicians and a populace that is becoming more anti gun. Where do you think LEOs in anti states get their marching orders from? Where do you think LEOs are recruited from?

If you don't like the LEOs here to disagree with you, if you think that equates to LEOs calling you names, just say it and I will try my best not to respond to your posts.

Disclaimer: If you were not referring to me in your post just ignore everything I just said.

[johnbt]

Before I get accused of taking sides in the bashing/not bashing discussion, I'd like to state for the record that my father(still alive and kicking) was a VA Trooper for a number of years after returning from WWII. John

Aug 15, 2002

Trooper accused of illegal search
BY MARK BOWES
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER


A state police field supervisor who instructed officers how to lawfully conduct drug interdiction stops is facing a $20 million lawsuit for allegedly violating those same standards during a traffic stop two years ago in Hanover County.

At the center of the allegations is a 10-minute Virginia State Police videotape that purportedly shows some of the officer's misdeeds.

The tape, a copy of which was provided to The Times-Dispatch, mysteriously came into the possession of local lawyer Frank G. Uvanni, who is representing the South Carolina man who was stopped.

90-minute drug search
The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Richmond, alleges that Sgt. William C. Blydenburgh illegally detained and repeatedly searched Samuel H. Brown and his car for more than 90 minutes during an errant search for drugs along Interstate 95.

Brown was never charged with a crime.

He repeatedly asked to leave but was prevented from doing so, even after Blydenburgh's initial searches turned up nothing, Uvanni said.

"The search that he conducted, holding the man as long as he did, continuously searching the car, and ignoring the man when he said he wanted to leave - all of that would violate standard police practice, and the law," said a senior law enforcement officer who recently viewed the tape with a Times-Dispatch reporter.

Trooper on medical leave
Blydenburgh has been on emergency medical leave since the middle of last week and could not be reached for comment. He did not respond to Times-Dispatch efforts to contact him.

The suit also alleges that the Virginia Department of State Police "attempted to conceal and destroy evidence" related to its own investigation of Blydenburgh, who once supervised a state police interdiction team that looks for drug traffickers on Virginia's interstate highways.

The suit says the department demoted Blydenburgh sometime after the Aug. 8, 2000, traffic stop but reinstated him to sergeant after learning that a claim against the department was forthcoming.

"The Virginia State Police did this in an effort to cover up the serious violations of federal and state law that had been committed," the suit says.

Blydenburgh was transferred from the interdiction team to a supervisory position in the state police field office in West Point.

State police Superintendent W. Gerald Massengill has been on leave this week and was unavailable for comment. Sara Poole, a state police legal specialist, said department officials have not seen the suit and could not comment.

Uvanni, an attorney for the Southern States Police Benevolent Association who frequently represents police officers in grievance matters, said the videotape came into his hands after someone left it on his dining room table on Dec. 21, 2000.

Brown called Uvanni the next evening. "Somebody gave him my name," Uvanni said.

Uvanni said state officials initially denied the existence of the tape, which was recorded from another officer's car unbeknown to Blydenburgh. Most state troopers are equipped with video cameras mounted in their vehicles, and they are required to switch them on during traffic stops.

"What we see on this tape is what he [Blydenburgh] teaches them not to do," Uvanni said. Blydenburgh didn't switch on the camera in his vehicle.

According to the suit, Brown, 46, then a lumber salesman, was driving south on I-95 on his way home to Florence, S.C. Blydenburgh pulled him over for an object dangling from his rear-view mirror and the tint on his car windows. The dangling object was a graduation tassel with an eight-ball charm attached.

Blydenburgh, the suit says, immediately concluded that the window tint complied with the law, and he told Brown that if the object was removed from his mirror, he would not give him a traffic citation.

Brown complied and asked whether he could leave, the suit says, but Blydenburgh continued to detain him.

"Once they ask to leave, you must let them go, unless you have reasonable suspicion that you can substantiate that there's something illegal in that vehicle," said the officer who viewed the tape for The Times-Dispatch. He agreed to discuss the case on condition of anonymity.

"When you do your traffic stop, you do whatever you're going to do - either issue them a summons or you give them a warning," the officer continued. "Then you give them back their license, their registration, and you have to tell them they're free to go.

"And then you can ask them for consent to search," the officer added. "But he has to know that he's free to go."

Blydenburgh walked back to his patrol car and ran a criminal history check on Brown, in violation of state and federal law, Uvanni said. Such information is prohibited from being disseminated or transmitted over a radio device, Uvanni said.

"Also, you can't use that information in determining reasonable suspicion," Uvanni explained. "You have to use what you have in front of you at the time."

Blydenburgh learned through the background check that Brown had been arrested more than 25 years ago for a drug and gun violation.

About that time, Uvanni said, Blydenburgh told Brown that if he didn't allow a search of his vehicle, the trooper would detain Brown, impound his car and then search it.

Believing he faced arrest if he didn't comply, Brown consented to a search of his car's passenger compartment, Uvanni said. Blydenburgh took it a step further by searching the trunk and under the hood, Uvanni said.

In the tape, Brown can be heard objecting to his prolonged detention after the first search of his vehicle.

" . . . You stopped me for my tint, sir, you stopped me for my tint," Brown tells Blydenburgh. "You gave me my license back and said I was free to go."

"Yeah, I did say that," Blydenburgh replied.

"And now you're pulling my car apart," Brown added.

"All we're doing is searching your car, like you said it was OK," Blydenburgh said.

"All right," Brown said. "But . . . you said you wanted to search the inside of my car. You searched the inside, you looked under my hood."

By then, two other interdiction team officers had arrived on the scene. Uvanni said it is unusual for one member of the team to make a stop alone.

Blydenburgh comments on tape to one of the officers, "I think I'm going to detain him."

Blydenburgh tells Brown that a drug canine unit is on the way and that he wants the dog to sweep his car. Clearly frustrated, Brown agrees to let the dog search the exterior of his vehicle.

"You don't need to search my car, the dog can smell it," Brown says. But Blydenburgh has the dog handler search both the outside and inside, including the trunk.

"I'm clean and I just want this to be over with so I can keep going back home, where I'm going," Brown says at one point. The dog does not alert on any possible contraband.

Blydenburgh then instructs Brown to raise his arms above his head, and the officer digs into his pockets and feels the outside of his groin area in an apparent search for drugs. This occurs about 90 minutes into the traffic stop, Uvanni said.

"He had no reason to pat him down at that point," said the officer who viewed the tape. "He had already patted him down once earlier. So it's not like anything had changed in the meantime. It seemed almost more like it was a pat-down out of frustration because he couldn't find anything in the car."

Uvanni said Blydenburgh then "adds more insult to injury" by searching Brown's car a third time.

Uvanni said he doesn't believe Blydenburgh's alleged actions are representative of how the majority of state troopers conduct business.

"I think 99.9 percent of the troopers on the road wouldn't do this," he said.


Contact Mark Bowes at (804) 649-6450 or [email protected]


This story can be found at: http://www.timesdispatch.com/frontpage/MGB8ELXZV4D.html

[Coronach]

Gusgus and RR-

What we have here is failure to communicate. Allow me to recap:

RR asks his original question, asking how one would respond to the question of "Do you have drugs or weapons in the car?," and making the assertion (unsubstantiated thus far, but to be fair to him, I'm not sure how he could substantiate it over the internet) that at least one local agency has it as mandatory policy that this gets asked each and every time.

Labgrade tells him that he sounds like he is venting, and advises RR to answer honsetly and decline to consent to search.

RR states that he is not venting and adds a new assertion that it is policy to automatically run pistol serial numbers and that it is routine to request consent to search. He further states that if you refuse to consent, you will then be searched anyway. he then wonders how to answer the question without 1. lying and 2. ending up having your rights violated.

Labgrade repeats that it is best to not consent to the search if you don't want to do so.

RR states that one way to respond to the question is just not to answer it at all, which would likley result in a canine unit being summoned to walk around the car and would possibly open up the possibility for further indignities. He also exp[resses concern about his child watching this exchange.

Mrat (who is or was a LEO) chimes in and states "I do not know of ANY department where 'the officer is required to do all of the above-each and every time' " and advises to decline to consent to a search.

Labgrade asserts that cops will indeed ask these questions, and repeats that you should answer them honestly and that cops can't legally violate your 4th amendment rights, and that if asked for consent to search he would decline, but be polite about it. he further states that violations of rights can occur, and that talking to your children about such things is a good idea.

RR reasserts that each time a handgun is encountered during a traffic stop, even if it be legally cased and unloaded, the serial number will be run. he then states the non-sequitur "One opinion-don't respond. Second opinion-lie."

Labgrade makes an aside to Mrat and says he still thinks there is mor to this line of questioning.

RR responds sarcastically that he was molested by female officers, the sort whom, frankly, don't work on my precinct (alas).

Labgrade responds that RR seems to be just coming up with hypothetical after hypothetical without any substantiation.

Romulus states "I would answer yes, I do, cased per law, thank you...can I go now?"

Hkmp5sd asks what state this is.

RR offers examples perceived by him to be police misconduct, one of which is sanctioned by the courts.

Spartacus offers an anecdote from GA.

2nd Amendment advises to not consent to search.

Keith_Yorktown states that his father was arrested for CCW in IL, and that he would answer in the affirmative in IN, and anywhere else he would state that he had nothing illegal in the vehicle (gun to be kept in trunk).

Oleg Volk says "No drugs. Legally owned and transported weapons" would be his answer.

Matt Wallis states that he was asked once if he had illegal weapons, and he said no, as his weapon was not illegal and was in the trunk.

Bogie's response is "There is nothing illegal in this vehicle, and there is nothing being transported in an illegal fashion in this vehicle." He further states that if a search is started without consent, that he will be requesting a supervisor.

Mike Irwin and Lendringser make a jokes.

Mike Irwin states that he was once asked the question and replied "prescription meds and a .22 target rifle," and was stopped two other times without being asked.

Spaceman Spiff notes the rarity of stories similar to RR's examples, and states that if a search without consent is initiated, the officers should state their probable cause.

Gungeek makes a joke.

Smurfslayer shares a story of police misconduct which results in a reprimand for the offending officer.

Mrat question's RR's assertion that officers are required to run gun serial numbers, and gives examples of officer discretion in this area.

Tropical Z states, non sequitur, "What about the recent Supreme Court ruling that LEO's don't need a warrant to search a vehicle anymore?"

Wolfman97 gives details of systemic corruption in 3 locations and a scenario whereby you could fall victim to said corruption.

Labgrade reasserts that he was looking for specific details from RR, not "a general rant against the possibilities."

Coronach (LEO) states that he has never heard of a department requiring all firearm serial numbers be run. He further states that answering gun-possession questions in the affirmative would be met with follow-up questions, but that the driver can decline a consent search. He ends with reminding people that it is best to be polite when conversing with LEOs.

Mike Irwin provides details of two more traffic stops where The Question wasn't asked.

Dagny asks if a person can 'take the 5th' and if doing so triggers a PC search.

Wolfman97 says yes, you can, and yes, it could.

hammer4nc states that he has been stopped, but never asked The Question or searched, and that LEO actions/responses likely vary by region.

RR states that LEO actions/responses will indeed vary by area, and that in Chicago area cops are indeed told (required?) to run serial numbers. He also offers scenarios of stopping by a school with guns in the car.

BBrins states that he was stopped in a pickup truck with cased guns in the bed in MD and was not asked if he had weapons or what their serial numbers were.

Papercut makes a joke.

Malone LaVeigh asks "have you stopped beating your wife yet," alluding to RR begging the question.

RR doesn't get it.

Jimpeel advises to answer in the negative, unless in CO, where he would answer in the affirmative and it would be legal to have a firearm.

Coronach responds to Dagny's question; yes, you may decline to answer any question put to you at a traffic stop. He again advises declining a consent search, and if they search anyway, contacting a lawyer and filing suit. He also objects to Wolfman97's characterization, implying that the vast majority of times such a situation would not occur, but admits that in total systemic corruption situations, all bets would be off.

Blackhawk advises to answer all questions as if you were in court, and to be very specific about your replies.

Croyance advises that LEO actions and responses will vary from region to region, and will also vary based upon your appearance and perceived actions.

DadofThree relates positive experiences with CCW and LEOs from IN.

Long Path (LEO) supports mrat's assertions re: officer discretion and running serial numbers.

TheeBadOne makes a joke about profiling gangbangers.

GusGus states that there are a growing number of cops who are antiRKBA. he further states that in NJ you will be detained and searched if you have guns on a traffic stop.

Coronach (LEO) edits one of GusGus' more sweeping statements in order to illustrate the problems with generalizations.

Don Gwinn explain's Malone LaVeigh's "begging the question/beating your wife" reference.

JMLV states that NJSP are vehemently anti gun, and states that following the rules for other states will get you arrested in NJ.

Gusgus states that things are indeed as bad as has been stated by JMLV in NJ, and that cops are possibly required to disarm if travelling through NJ on duty, and further maintains that he is not LEO bashing.

Keith_Yorktown advises to be familiar with the firearms laws of different states when travelling.

Mrat (LEO) states that RKBA supporters have more to fear from anti-RKBA politicians and voters than anti-RKBA cops.

Futo Ino offers a few possible responses to the Guns-or-drugs question and advises declining to consent to be searched.

Coronach (LEO) agrees with Mrat(LEO) on the issue of anti-RKBA politicians and voters.

RHarris responds to Bogie's statements about St. Louis.

RR states that this is not a LEO bashing thread and goes on to states valid reaons for asking questions re: drugs and weapons to motorists. He then goes on to post that board LEOs (Mrat, Long Path and Coronach at this point) don't know what is actually going on and that apparently they seem to work in Mayberry.

Coronach (LEO) responds that he works in an urban department with violent crime, and maintains that he uses officer discretion when asking questions about weapons, drugs and gun serial numbers.

GusGus states that he isn't blaming anyone (LEO, politican, voter or otherwise), but that the aforementioned conduct of LEOs does indeed happen, an that he has now been branded a LEO basher by board LEOs. He further states that RR asked a legitimate question and was laughed at by board LEOs who state that such things do not happen.

RR states that he never stated that the "do you have drugs or guns in the car" question is asked each time, but rather that if a gun is encountered, they will run a serial number.

Mrat (LEO) posts twice in a row, stating that no one is calling GusGus a LEO basher, and that disagreement from board LEOs does not equate to being called a cop-basher, and again takes issue with RR/GusGus's assertions that drugs-and-weapons questions will be asked every time and that serial numbers will be run, every time.

JohnBT offers a story from today's paper.

*whew* Damn, that was longer than I though. If I'd known it would have taken that long, I'd not have done it. Now thatt we have THAT all cleared up, read my next post...

Mike

Edit: ficksd airers do two my hookt ohn fonicks edjewkayshun

[Coronach]

RR, GusGus:

First of all, no one has called you LEO-bashers, except yourselves. You have maintained several times that you're not bashing LEOs and that this is not a LEO bashing thread. Meanwhile, Mrat, Long Path and myself have done nothing to assert that you are doing so.

RR:

you state that

I never said that the "question" Any drugs or weapons was asked each time.

and yet if I go back to your original post, I find:

Traffic stop. You are asked-"Do you have any drugs or weapons?" You have a cased and unloaded firearm in the trunk-in full complience with the law. How do you answer? If you answer "yes," you will be asked what and where. Then you will be asked to give the keys and the trunk will be opened. But first you will be "secured," possibly in handcuffs sitting on the curb. The firearm will be taken out and laid on the hood of the squad and the serial number recorded and called in. ALL of this in public view, your friends, your neighbors, your co-workers, whoever is driving by will witness this display.

THIS IS DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURE. THE OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO DO ALL OF THE ABOVE-EACH AND EVERY TIME.

So, I'm confused. You stated that the officer is required to ask this of everyone, and then later state that this is not what you meant. Please, for the sake of clarity, explain what you do mean.

RR, Gusgus:

Board LEOs have stated that they have never heard of anyplace requiring their LEOs to take the abovementioned steps at all traffic stops. You have maintained that it does indeed happen in Jersey (I'll get back to that), and that if it doesn't happen here we are either 1. bereft of clues or 2. living in Mayberry. This, btw, is the closest to LEO bashing that you have come, and no one until now has mentioned it. Anyway, you asked the question and the board LEOs responded honestly that this is all news to them. What more do you want us to do or say? We've never heard of this sort of policy. If it actually exists, it sounds pretty stupid. *shrug*

GusGus:

No one laughed at RR's question. Indeed, many many many people offered the following advice: answer the questions honestly but decline a consent search. This was repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over. RR and GusGus would seem to have none of it, and ignored the latter part of the advice as if it was never offered.

Folks, all of the perceived misconduct you have related stems from a consent search. If you don't want to be searched, just say no. It is not that hard. "Can I look in your trunk?" "No, sir. I do not give you consent to do that." Unless they have rolled back the 4th amendment in a few states, they cannot do a warrantless search without probable cause (or without meeting a few other narrow exceptions).

In the exceedingly unlikely event that they do decide to search anyway, do not attempt to interfere, but do take note of everything they do and say. Ask them (politely) what their PC is, and why they are doing what they are doing. Request to speak to a supervisor. Once you are released, seek legal counsel. File a complaint. File a lawsuit.

The only thing I can think of that would give cops the right to have access to a cased weapon in the trunk of a car without consent from the driver to go there is if there is some state law that requires motorists to offer the weapons in question up for inspection if the cop requests to see them. Is there a lawyer in the house? Anyone familiar with NJ state gun laws?

As to the news story:

Assuming that the story is an accurate representation of the facts, it would seem that Mr. Brown is in for a nice fat settlement for having his rights violated. Telling, however, is this statement from his lawyer:

Uvanni said he doesn't believe Blydenburgh's alleged actions are representative of how the majority of state troopers conduct business.

"I think 99.9 percent of the troopers on the road wouldn't do this," he said.

And he's probably right. If you do stuff like this Trooper is alleged to have done, you will end up in hot water. Most cops, pro or anti, like their jobs an awful lot more than they like busting any given person.

Mike

[Greg L]

Hey Mike,

If you've got more time on your hands could you recap some of the other multi page threads? It saves a lot of time wading through everything.

Greg

[Coronach]

I only did this one because

1. I needed to go back through and parse what everyone had said and

2. I really didn't think it was as long as it was. I will not be doing that again, unless I can charge a fat fee for people to read my work.

Mike

[Jeff OTMG]

You are under no obligation to tell anyone the truth, including an officer you are stopped for a traffic violation. You are only obstructing by lieing if the officer is conducting a criminal investigation. You could also state that "There are no drugs and I am not armed.' That is the truth, though there may be a firearm in the trunk.

[Larry Wright]

Gee, Mike, if you could do this everytime, I'll start reading from the back to the front. enmeshed in this thread is a lot to think about. When I was younger, I would automatically consent to a search cause I wouldn't have anything to hide, usually still don't. As I get older, nothing against LEOs, I'm more than a little ambivalent about letting anyone search me without a damn good reason. It's almost a moot point, because like seemingly a lot (don't make me define a lot)of folks on TFL, I'm over fifty and generally don't stand out in a crowd and have to admit I've almost always been treated with courtesy by LEOs. Back to point, I think I would answer those questions I thought I was legally required to answer and enquire as to the reason for a search. And, lastly, as in everything else, it all depends.

[Blackhawk]

johnbt,

That is a very sad commentary on an out of control trooper.

As I said: "No, you may not search my car."

[Hemicuda]

the first time I was ever pulled over was the night before my 16th birthday...

my father and I were on our way to a trout stream, for opening night (midnight starts the season, and dammit, we start FISHING that night...!)

I had a learners permit, and dad was in the passenger seat...

I made a turn a bit wider than necessary (Dad had a restored '71 Impala hartop that I was driving...)

a city officer that dad knew well was training a new female officer...

I was a dumbass, and when she aimed the spot in the mirrir, I git the rearview, and the remote driver mirror control, and did away with that... (I still do this!)

she approaches and asks for my ID... and seeing a learners permit, asks for dad's...

fresh outta the academy, she says why I was pulled over, then asked the "do you have any weapons in the car?"

dad (with a general CCW) says "yes"

she freaks out and unsnaps the holster and puts her hand on her gun...

Dad tells her not to do that... and grabs his permit from his open wallet, handing it out the window...

she was too freaked to take it... and asked "what weapons do you have"

Dad sttarts... a Dan Wesson .357 on my belt, a Garcia Bronco .410 in the rear footwell, a High standard Double Nine .22 revolver under the seat, a LeFever 16 Ga. in th...

by now, the training officer (family friend) is ROLLING with laughter... and telling her to calm down... that this man was the Prosecutor's ex-husband, and still a good friend, and that I was her son, and that Dad was legal with those guns...

it turns out that it was her first night on parol EVER, and we were her first stop EVER... whatta introduction...

since then she too became a family friend... and now thinks our original meeting was funny...

but she was trained at the academy to ask that question!

[tyme]

but she was trained at the academy to ask that question!

I believe that's a +1 for RR vs coronach and mrat

Jeff, I don't believe that at all. If you lie to a police officer during a traffic stop, isn't that at least obstruction of justice and interfering with a police investigation?

However, I think the question, "do you have any illegal drugs or weapons in the car" can be lied to. By not answering, as others have said, you may give the officer reasonable suspicion to search your car. Answering yes will, of course, earn you a trip to a county or state resort. And because of that pesky right against self-incrimination, you can't legally be expected to take either of those options. The only option left is to lie.

Going back to the original question, I'd probably say "I have nothing illegal." Even if you do, you're covered by your right against self incrimination (presuming you get a good lawyer). That answer would be sufficiently vague that a forced search should be thrown out of court. This is all IMHO, IANAL, and TINLA.