Welcome to MD
- Thread starter Veer_G
- Start date
I could never understand the guys that are so desperate for a gun collar that they would go after guys like this. Why because he poses no threat? How about going after the actual criminals with the illegal handguns who are using them to commit robberies, murders and rapes.
What a joke.
What a joke.
Most states enter CCW permits into NCIC so when their drivers license are ran a hit comes back saying they are a CCW, either expired or active.
First, never talk to cops, you aren't required too, politely decline to answer any questions. Never consent to a search even if "you have nothing to hide." If they are good cops they won't take it personally. If they aren't good cops, they would use any answers against you, and you are screwed either way. You can only hurt yourself answering questions.
Second, this is why registration is an abomination to the Second Amendment, and why there should be no such thing as permitting. I don't need a permit for free speech, shouldn't need one for conceal carry either. Any information the government has about you will eventually get used against you.
Second, this is why registration is an abomination to the Second Amendment, and why there should be no such thing as permitting. I don't need a permit for free speech, shouldn't need one for conceal carry either. Any information the government has about you will eventually get used against you.
Honest question- when would it be bad advice? Not answering cannot be considered probable cause. If you have a legal right to search you will do it anyway. If you treat me differently for asserting my rights then we are back to the bad cop which is going to do what they want regardless. How does politely declining to answer or search hurt me if I am dealing with an honest cop? How would it help me if I were dealing with a zealot like in the OP's case?
How is owning a firearm and having a CCW probable cause to detain and search? That asshole would be out of a job if they pulled that on me. This is why I refuse to go into MD though unless I have to. My mom moved to Maryland and I rarely go see her because of their bullshit. Fuck that shithole.
Boy that Article just flat out makes my blood boil....I can't honestly say I would've been able to keep my composure like he did. Since when in the fuck did having a carry permit and a side arm become so bad that he and his family had to be treated like that??
Those involved that blatantly Shat on the Consitution and Liberty should be fired, plain and simple...and never allowed a Badge ever again.
Those involved that blatantly Shat on the Consitution and Liberty should be fired, plain and simple...and never allowed a Badge ever again.
As a Law Enforcement Officer if this guy gets a Lawyer the Officer is looking at a very credible law suit
I am sorry to say that stories like this make me wonder if their is not a small subset of LE who harbor a desire to be part of a police state.
The officer will have a different story than the one we read. He pulled over a speeder, ran his license, inquired about weapons, received contradictory responses from different occupants, and for his own and public safety followed the most prudent course.
Where is the truth? I can not really say, not for sure.
In certain situations I would agree that not saying anything is a wise course of action but there are times when taking this stance is counterproductive. Being a witness to a crime or an accident, the police trying to investigate burglaries in your neighborhood, community outreach programs, crime prevention etc etc. What about young children? You're gonna tell them that cops can't be talked to or approached? What if they get lost, who will they seek for help?
What you say has it's merits but not in every situation.
Fair enough. I was talking about getting stopped as the guy in the MD case did.
You know I used to be comfortable with the kind of voluntary interactions you mentioned, but due to several experiences I was only peripherally involved in with the local small town force I'd literally be hesitant to call them even if I seriously needed help. I haven't met them all of course, but the general culture here is they are a bunch of SEALs/spec ops and everyone they meet is trying to kill them. Petty theft and other stuff happens here like anywhere I guess, but our county is on the Mayberry end of the scale. It think it has had 2 murders in the last ten years, it ain't Detroit, so its has to be a cultural thing not due to the environment they work in. Big fish in a small pond syndrome? I don't know. Doesn't help when DHS encourages the attitude with the federal grants/gifts they gave them including in the past couple years several humvees, weapons and gear for a 40 man SWAT team, and even a helicopter - all for a small county with less than 30,000 people. When you look the part you start acting the part. At least the county didnt have pay for it. The US vs THEM mentality is very clear- they are here to jam you up.
I try not to be a hypocrite so I will be continue to be courteous in any future interactions with them just as I am with any man I meet. But if I am going to be treated like a criminal instead of a citizen, I have no choice but to begin defending myself from the very first second of any interaction. That is the natural result of the shift from the old mentality of peace officers who were part of a community to the current Law Enforcement Officer culture. Guess you could say I'm all out of trust. On several levels. Unfortunately I bet I'm not the only one. Its not the way I want it, but it is what it is.
These are the FACTS by what I'm reading and the fact that Jackson was NOT ARRESTED: The Officer DID NOT have probable cause to search the vehicle: The Search WAS ILLEGAL
Here are the Court Rulings: The questions on a traffic stop must be related to the traffic infractions or facts developed during the traffic stop. Like how fast were you going? Did you see the traffic light. Or if the Officer sees indication of substance abuse have you been drinking? He may then further the investigation/questioning. But he may still MAY NOT Conduct a search of the car without a warrant or consent. NEVER GIVE CONSENT.
If an Officer has your license you are considered under "detention" as such need to be mirandized to get permission to search or answer incriminating questions.
If an Officer sees indication of a crime such as in gun in plane sight. He can then arrest the subject and secure the illegal item, They can search ONLY the passenger area for safety......NO OPENING THE TRUNK, BAGGAGE OR ANY OTHER AREA. The Officer MUST get a SEARCH WARRANT FOR THAT
If the officer returns the license and pulls the "by the way you don't have any illegal items weapons or drug in the car do you?" you have the right to say NO. If they say for my safety just to be sure you wouldn't mind if I search to make sure do you? You say I'm I'm under arrest? I'm free to go? Yes I mind if you search my car. Thank the officer and drive safely away.
Any further intrusion by the officer is a violation of either 4th or 5th Amendment protections
The courts have found that things like bumper stickers like Pot leaves, slogans, or political sayings are NOT probable cause to make stops or get warrants. I would like to see how the Officer articulates the use of any information of a legal activity in one state can be is an indication of an illegal act in his state.
As such this would allow ANY Officer in any state to pull over any Colorado tagged car with any pro-marijuana stickers as an indicator of drug possession.
Here are the Court Rulings: The questions on a traffic stop must be related to the traffic infractions or facts developed during the traffic stop. Like how fast were you going? Did you see the traffic light. Or if the Officer sees indication of substance abuse have you been drinking? He may then further the investigation/questioning. But he may still MAY NOT Conduct a search of the car without a warrant or consent. NEVER GIVE CONSENT.
If an Officer has your license you are considered under "detention" as such need to be mirandized to get permission to search or answer incriminating questions.
If an Officer sees indication of a crime such as in gun in plane sight. He can then arrest the subject and secure the illegal item, They can search ONLY the passenger area for safety......NO OPENING THE TRUNK, BAGGAGE OR ANY OTHER AREA. The Officer MUST get a SEARCH WARRANT FOR THAT
If the officer returns the license and pulls the "by the way you don't have any illegal items weapons or drug in the car do you?" you have the right to say NO. If they say for my safety just to be sure you wouldn't mind if I search to make sure do you? You say I'm I'm under arrest? I'm free to go? Yes I mind if you search my car. Thank the officer and drive safely away.
Any further intrusion by the officer is a violation of either 4th or 5th Amendment protections
The courts have found that things like bumper stickers like Pot leaves, slogans, or political sayings are NOT probable cause to make stops or get warrants. I would like to see how the Officer articulates the use of any information of a legal activity in one state can be is an indication of an illegal act in his state.
As such this would allow ANY Officer in any state to pull over any Colorado tagged car with any pro-marijuana stickers as an indicator of drug possession.
There is so much misinformation in your post that it makes me wonder where you got your "facts" from.
Well first of all I'm a Federal Law enforcement Officer and these ARE the LEGAL laws I must abide by. Second I am originally from MD and currently have a child who is a Lawyer in MD and having a gun in the passenger compartment in open IS unlawful in MD. In open sight as out of a case or tucked under the seat(a concealed weapon)
Don't know what "misinformation" you are questioning but state your background and we can discuss the legal decisions. Just one example: the Old legal standard for vehicle searches allowed for searches of the car pursuant to an arrest. This was changed just last year by a Federal court ONLY the passenger compartment may be searched and only those areas that may be accessed by the occupants. The other areas and compartments require a WARRANT to search.
If I was this Officer's partner I wouldn't touch this case or want to be involved in any way.
Don't know what "misinformation" you are questioning but state your background and we can discuss the legal decisions. Just one example: the Old legal standard for vehicle searches allowed for searches of the car pursuant to an arrest. This was changed just last year by a Federal court ONLY the passenger compartment may be searched and only those areas that may be accessed by the occupants. The other areas and compartments require a WARRANT to search.
If I was this Officer's partner I wouldn't touch this case or want to be involved in any way.
Oh by the way Police actions like this drive me crazy as it makes the Officers who follow the rules to work to follow the laws to put REAL criminals in jail jobs much tougher and it turns good citizens who we might someday need help from against us.
Sloppy or "ACTIVIST" police like this give the dedicated hard working officers a bad name. Its hard enough to fight the media who when a REAL bad guy is injured or killed by the police, or when we do our jobs some Hollywood media liberal takes up the cause to slander the police and elevate the felon to Fantasy Folk Hero with out officers taking action based on personal biases or Politician's Social causes.
Sloppy or "ACTIVIST" police like this give the dedicated hard working officers a bad name. Its hard enough to fight the media who when a REAL bad guy is injured or killed by the police, or when we do our jobs some Hollywood media liberal takes up the cause to slander the police and elevate the felon to Fantasy Folk Hero with out officers taking action based on personal biases or Politician's Social causes.
Last edited:
You better check The courts have determined that if you have the driver's license he is being detained. The questioning that the officer was said to have given would not have given probable cause to search the car. To do that he would have had to been under arrest. Again after arrest ONLY the passenger area can be searched. NO Door panels, No trunks, NO packages bags or luggage without a warrant.
As far as the Bumper sticker analogy goes I was making a legal jump as to build probable cause, As if the officer apparently had some sort of information that the drive was a lawful gun owner in his state and he was out of state and IF he had his firearm while driving in MD then the driver was breaking MD law. ( Not really if he had it secured in the truck unloaded per the Volkmer/Mclure Fire Arms act of 1986) But I was making the jump that in Colorado has legal pot but its still illegal in MD or most states and if the car had a pro pot sticker on it possibly indicating a possibility of drug possession
Granted to the reasonable person a far jump but no crazier than the PC used to stop this driver. That is what I was getting at.....So the driver has a CCW in his state so that is PC to stop him and search his car
As far as the Bumper sticker analogy goes I was making a legal jump as to build probable cause, As if the officer apparently had some sort of information that the drive was a lawful gun owner in his state and he was out of state and IF he had his firearm while driving in MD then the driver was breaking MD law. ( Not really if he had it secured in the truck unloaded per the Volkmer/Mclure Fire Arms act of 1986) But I was making the jump that in Colorado has legal pot but its still illegal in MD or most states and if the car had a pro pot sticker on it possibly indicating a possibility of drug possession
Granted to the reasonable person a far jump but no crazier than the PC used to stop this driver. That is what I was getting at.....So the driver has a CCW in his state so that is PC to stop him and search his car
True but when you start to expand into searches and asking questions that are incriminating the courts have ruled that this questioning under these circumstances infringe on the the 5th Amendment because again the person is "not free to leave without his driver's license. Questioning during Terry stops and traffic stops are generally to be limited to things like what are you doing in the area? where are you going? Traffic related info. Safety items such as do you have any weapons on your person and if a Terry stop is conducted as "pat down" for weapons on the person for the officer safety is allowed. With that NO digging in pockets opening containers or removal of clothing is permitted.
So again by what I read and the fact that NO arrest was made this Officer was way over the line for reasonable safety searches or traffic stop procedures.
With that the driver has a reasonable expectation to seek legal as wells as civil action against the officer and the agency.
So again by what I read and the fact that NO arrest was made this Officer was way over the line for reasonable safety searches or traffic stop procedures.
With that the driver has a reasonable expectation to seek legal as wells as civil action against the officer and the agency.
Gererally, officers in Maryland do not have info on concealed weapon permits in this state or any other from their vehicle. We do not have any access to out of state permits unless that state puts the info on the registration record. Some states include height and weight, some include eye and hair color. Although I have never come across it, some states may include CCP info. I have no idea if the info is linked to the registration in Florida. Maybe someone from Florida can weigh in.
The lack of arrest does not point towards the lack of probable cause. If the officer had probable cause (which I don't know if he did or not), he did not find evidence so no arrest was made.
It would appear the officer was wrong from the info in the story. With that said, the guy states that he has no idea why he was stopped despite receiving a warning stating the reason he was stopped. I don't know whether he is being intentionally dishonest or is just not that bright. Either way, when people start slanting stuff or leaving things out of a story I have a hard time taking their word on the rest of the story.
Next, this incident took place in Baltimore City and in a state where it is almost impossible to get a permit to carry a gun. Right wrong or indifferent, officers are used to dealing with armed subjects. They just happen to be in the drug, robbery or murder trade. They don't get much interaction with legally armed citizens.
Lastly, he asked the guy if he had a firearm and the guy said he did not. He asked the wife if the guy had a handgun and she stated it was in the console or glove box, which is not legal unless it is unloaded and in a case. Whether or not you should talk to the police is up for debate. Answering a question you don't know the answer to I don't think is up for debate. The officer reasonably believed he was being lied to and obviously felt he had reached the level of probable cause. And this is the drivers side of the story. I would be very interested in hearing the officers side of the story. Unfortunately, unless the guys files a lawsuit we will probably never hear that side.
The lack of arrest does not point towards the lack of probable cause. If the officer had probable cause (which I don't know if he did or not), he did not find evidence so no arrest was made.
It would appear the officer was wrong from the info in the story. With that said, the guy states that he has no idea why he was stopped despite receiving a warning stating the reason he was stopped. I don't know whether he is being intentionally dishonest or is just not that bright. Either way, when people start slanting stuff or leaving things out of a story I have a hard time taking their word on the rest of the story.
Next, this incident took place in Baltimore City and in a state where it is almost impossible to get a permit to carry a gun. Right wrong or indifferent, officers are used to dealing with armed subjects. They just happen to be in the drug, robbery or murder trade. They don't get much interaction with legally armed citizens.
Lastly, he asked the guy if he had a firearm and the guy said he did not. He asked the wife if the guy had a handgun and she stated it was in the console or glove box, which is not legal unless it is unloaded and in a case. Whether or not you should talk to the police is up for debate. Answering a question you don't know the answer to I don't think is up for debate. The officer reasonably believed he was being lied to and obviously felt he had reached the level of probable cause. And this is the drivers side of the story. I would be very interested in hearing the officers side of the story. Unfortunately, unless the guys files a lawsuit we will probably never hear that side.
Pretext questions as I have always been taught are reasonable questions that are used to establish a base line "where are you going today?" Where did you come from? the ID's of everyone in the car, NOT related to the car stop but questions that can illicit responses of the subject that give indications of the situation develop a basis to further an investigation, I agree that not related to the traffic incident but usually based on the officer's LEGAL observations or information that a crime has been committed.
Not sure how a LEGAL act in one state that is illegal or not licensed in another state falls into the parameters of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Again I go back to many of the actions that took place on the side of the road that started from a SUPPOSED traffic violation stop. To start off the questions of Where is your gun? I don't believe is reasonable. The roadside search NOT pursuant to an arrest while the subject is under the detention of the officer.
Again this would be like have Colorado tagged car with pro-marijuana bumper stickers stopped and the officer asking where the drugs were.
Yes I agree there are a lot of latitudes the courts have allowed us as LEO's, Terry Stops, Pat downs, Investigative detention and I have used all of these BUT in the pursuit of REAL suspicion of criminal activity.
As I said before these actions by what, sorry in my opinion, is activist/political motivations just makes it harder for the rest of the dedicated Officers trying to get REAL violent criminals off the streets. This just looks like cops harassing and persecuting honest citizens. It's tough enough out here as it is and often we need the public's help. I kinda want to be able to count on that help by keeping the idea that we are on the same side of good.
Not sure how a LEGAL act in one state that is illegal or not licensed in another state falls into the parameters of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Again I go back to many of the actions that took place on the side of the road that started from a SUPPOSED traffic violation stop. To start off the questions of Where is your gun? I don't believe is reasonable. The roadside search NOT pursuant to an arrest while the subject is under the detention of the officer.
Again this would be like have Colorado tagged car with pro-marijuana bumper stickers stopped and the officer asking where the drugs were.
Yes I agree there are a lot of latitudes the courts have allowed us as LEO's, Terry Stops, Pat downs, Investigative detention and I have used all of these BUT in the pursuit of REAL suspicion of criminal activity.
As I said before these actions by what, sorry in my opinion, is activist/political motivations just makes it harder for the rest of the dedicated Officers trying to get REAL violent criminals off the streets. This just looks like cops harassing and persecuting honest citizens. It's tough enough out here as it is and often we need the public's help. I kinda want to be able to count on that help by keeping the idea that we are on the same side of good.
By all accounts the officers who have responded on this thread have differing opinions on what is considered legal or not legal, as they type this under zero stress, without having to keep an eye on who they have stopped and their passengers and traffic, etc. Its also clear that the law varies considerably by state, and that even within the same state two different officers are likely to have two different interpretations on whats legal with respect to questioning and detainment.
My point?
Well, if the guys who do this for a living struggle with it in their easy chairs with all the time in the world to consider it (and for good reason, laws are written like crap and there are too many of them), then how in the world does a citizen traveling through multiple states think they are going to fare answering investigative questions? There is just no upside to opening your mouth and answering questions. Had the woman kept her mouth shut, this likely wouldn't have ended up in the news. You can do this without being a jerk, it doesn't and shouldn't be done confrontationally, but anyone who thinks they are smart enough to outwit the guy with the badge and talk their way out of something is an idiot, because like I said even they can hardly keep up with the law in their own state and they do it everyday for a living.
My point?
Well, if the guys who do this for a living struggle with it in their easy chairs with all the time in the world to consider it (and for good reason, laws are written like crap and there are too many of them), then how in the world does a citizen traveling through multiple states think they are going to fare answering investigative questions? There is just no upside to opening your mouth and answering questions. Had the woman kept her mouth shut, this likely wouldn't have ended up in the news. You can do this without being a jerk, it doesn't and shouldn't be done confrontationally, but anyone who thinks they are smart enough to outwit the guy with the badge and talk their way out of something is an idiot, because like I said even they can hardly keep up with the law in their own state and they do it everyday for a living.
Even as a cop, I am not inclined to answer questions of a personal nature to anyone, LEO or not. My kid's pediatrician asked about guns and that irritated me.
In Az, if asked, you must declare if you have a firearm. If you aren't asked then I suggest no one volunteer the information. It is not that I am a bad cop, or mistrust fellow officers, but I truly believe it is no one's business if I have a weapon, anymore than it is their business what underwear I have on.
For us cops, if we treat someone different (less of a potential threat) just because they say they don't have a weapon, we are playing a dangerous game. Every contact must be viewed as potentially dangerous. This doesn't mean we cuff everyone or do business with guns drawn, but be observant, polite, concise and aware. The reality is most bad guys bent on mayhem don't volunteer information such as if they are armed, thats why you treat every contact as potentially dangerous.
And again, concerning pretext stops, the SCOTUS has upheld that the underlying reason for the stop is irrevelant provided you have a legal reason for the stop, period. I will often ask question like "is there anything illegal in the car?" If I stopped them leaving a dope house, but they offer up their collection of child porn, it doesn't matter, the question and evidence are good, even though it had nothing to do with the stop.
In Az, if asked, you must declare if you have a firearm. If you aren't asked then I suggest no one volunteer the information. It is not that I am a bad cop, or mistrust fellow officers, but I truly believe it is no one's business if I have a weapon, anymore than it is their business what underwear I have on.
For us cops, if we treat someone different (less of a potential threat) just because they say they don't have a weapon, we are playing a dangerous game. Every contact must be viewed as potentially dangerous. This doesn't mean we cuff everyone or do business with guns drawn, but be observant, polite, concise and aware. The reality is most bad guys bent on mayhem don't volunteer information such as if they are armed, thats why you treat every contact as potentially dangerous.
And again, concerning pretext stops, the SCOTUS has upheld that the underlying reason for the stop is irrevelant provided you have a legal reason for the stop, period. I will often ask question like "is there anything illegal in the car?" If I stopped them leaving a dope house, but they offer up their collection of child porn, it doesn't matter, the question and evidence are good, even though it had nothing to do with the stop.
Similar threads
