TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: You are convoluding a Terry stop with a traffic stop.

Did you read the link I posted? The Supreme Court has ruled for a traffic stop there doesn't need to be reasonable suspicion the person is "armed and dangerous" or suspected of a crime.


Here another one for you. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/323/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope you just didn't read enough of the desicions. They specifically state armed and dangerous and while you stated reasonable suspicion I said reasonable belief. One is a legal standard the other a descriptive phrase From your own link where they use "reasonable concludes"

Citing Terry, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver might be armed and dangerous.

Neither Terry or Johnson gives cops the ability to just pat down anyone for any reason.

So the original source I quoted is wrong? Am I getting tripped up on "armed and dangerous" not being considered "criminal activity".

I'm really trying g to understand this because I originally thought the pat down in the video was uncalled for. I also thought disarming him was as well.

Well you can be armed and dangerous to police without being suspected of committing any particular crime. They don't have to have a belief that you may be involved in a crime just that there is a reasonable chance you are armed and might be a danger. Thus gang member vs. person in the gun business.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: You are convoluding a Terry stop with a traffic stop.

Did you read the link I posted? The Supreme Court has ruled for a traffic stop there doesn't need to be reasonable suspicion the person is "armed and dangerous" or suspected of a crime.


Here another one for you. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/323/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope you just didn't read enough of the desicions. They specifically state armed and dangerous and while you stated reasonable suspicion I said reasonable belief. One is a legal standard the other a descriptive phrase From your own link where they use "reasonable concludes"

Citing Terry, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver might be armed and dangerous.

Neither Terry or Johnson gives cops the ability to just pat down anyone for any reason.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I just took the time to watch it. It is an excellent video. I think there are multiple issues with which I have an issue about this stop and subsequent handling by the officers.

This is one example of why I do not like the concept of pretextual stops. The idea using one reason, even though valid, to stop someone for really a different reason, is wrong in my opinion. If his tint appeared to be too dark, then stop him and ticket him for it. But don't just use that as justification for a stop so you can see if there is something else that may be going on.

What did the guy do to make the guy concerned for "officer safety"? I'm not sure what the laws are in Florida but in Texas, I saw nothing that justified or made it necessary to disarm the guy for his or the officers' safety. The cop being a nervous nilly isn't sufficient in my mind. Also, the fact a nearby black family that has a wild Easter party doesn't justify treating all nearby black people as a threat.

I understand a pat down has been deemed legal. However, I do not like it. It comes across as treating someone as a criminal when they really haven't done anything to justify being treated as such. I do not think a cop should put his hands on someone unless he has reason to be suspicious there is some valid reason to believe it is necessary. The fact the guy disclosed his ccw and that he was carrying should have been an indicator of his good faith in dealing with the cops.

I also do not like the idea the cops wouldn't allow him to retrieve his insurance card. The cops were acting like they were outnumbered and the guy had given them a reason to believe he was a threat.

Having too dark of a tint on his windows is illegal and does deserve to be addressed by the cops. However, I do not believe it is such a criminal offense that the guys should have been treated like he was a threat to the multiple officers on the scene.

The cops way overreacted in my opinion. I'm sure some will disagree with me and I am good with that.

Courts have held that having a gun is more than enough justification for disarming someone in a custodial situation. The pat down however may not be legal or to put it differently since there was little "damage" it would be almost impossible to get the question to a court but if they happened to find something on the guy I would think there was a good chance it would be suppressed. Having a CHL and or legally carrying a gun with a CHL is not grounds for a Terry pat down. They don't pat down everyone who is stopped for tint so what caused this pat down? His color or the CHL? Neither would qualify for RS so I would be very curious as to what the RS was or why the cop thought it was OK. Maybe there was something else we don't know about going on here.

If the source in my prior post is accurate, your comments regarding the pat down are incorrect.

No not really. You notice I didn't anything but "may" and I think that still holds. During a traffic stop, the police may order occupants to exit the vehicle while completing the stop. Police may pat down a driver once he exits a vehicle if the officer reasonably believes that the driver is armed and dangerous. In this case we have a driver who revealed he was carrying under a CHL and where his gun was. The officer removed the gun so what was the reasonable belief for the search? Maybe he could back it up in court but there is a very good chance that the officer couldn't give a good reason for a reasonable belief that the driver was both armed and dangerous. I should also not that the defendant in Arizona vs. Johnson was a ex-felon gang member who would be committing an offence if armed. If being armed was legal and permissible then the reasoning for a search is much less clear.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I just took the time to watch it. It is an excellent video. I think there are multiple issues with which I have an issue about this stop and subsequent handling by the officers.

This is one example of why I do not like the concept of pretextual stops. The idea using one reason, even though valid, to stop someone for really a different reason, is wrong in my opinion. If his tint appeared to be too dark, then stop him and ticket him for it. But don't just use that as justification for a stop so you can see if there is something else that may be going on.

What did the guy do to make the guy concerned for "officer safety"? I'm not sure what the laws are in Florida but in Texas, I saw nothing that justified or made it necessary to disarm the guy for his or the officers' safety. The cop being a nervous nilly isn't sufficient in my mind. Also, the fact a nearby black family that has a wild Easter party doesn't justify treating all nearby black people as a threat.

I understand a pat down has been deemed legal. However, I do not like it. It comes across as treating someone as a criminal when they really haven't done anything to justify being treated as such. I do not think a cop should put his hands on someone unless he has reason to be suspicious there is some valid reason to believe it is necessary. The fact the guy disclosed his ccw and that he was carrying should have been an indicator of his good faith in dealing with the cops.

I also do not like the idea the cops wouldn't allow him to retrieve his insurance card. The cops were acting like they were outnumbered and the guy had given them a reason to believe he was a threat.

Having too dark of a tint on his windows is illegal and does deserve to be addressed by the cops. However, I do not believe it is such a criminal offense that the guys should have been treated like he was a threat to the multiple officers on the scene.

The cops way overreacted in my opinion. I'm sure some will disagree with me and I am good with that.

Courts have held that having a gun is more than enough justification for disarming someone in a custodial situation. The pat down however may not be legal or to put it differently since there was little "damage" it would be almost impossible to get the question to a court but if they happened to find something on the guy I would think there was a good chance it would be suppressed. Having a CHL and or legally carrying a gun with a CHL is not grounds for a Terry pat down. They don't pat down everyone who is stopped for tint so what caused this pat down? His color or the CHL? Neither would qualify for RS so I would be very curious as to what the RS was or why the cop thought it was OK. Maybe there was something else we don't know about going on here.

An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I just took the time to watch it. It is an excellent video. I think there are multiple issues with which I have an issue about this stop and subsequent handling by the officers.

This is one example of why I do not like the concept of pretextual stops. The idea using one reason, even though valid, to stop someone for really a different reason, is wrong in my opinion. If his tint appeared to be too dark, then stop him and ticket him for it. But don't just use that as justification for a stop so you can see if there is something else that may be going on.

What did the guy do to make the guy concerned for "officer safety"? I'm not sure what the laws are in Florida but in Texas, I saw nothing that justified or made it necessary to disarm the guy for his or the officers' safety. The cop being a nervous nilly isn't sufficient in my mind. Also, the fact a nearby black family that has a wild Easter party doesn't justify treating all nearby black people as a threat.

I understand a pat down has been deemed legal. However, I do not like it. It comes across as treating someone as a criminal when they really haven't done anything to justify being treated as such. I do not think a cop should put his hands on someone unless he has reason to be suspicious there is some valid reason to believe it is necessary. The fact the guy disclosed his ccw and that he was carrying should have been an indicator of his good faith in dealing with the cops.

I also do not like the idea the cops wouldn't allow him to retrieve his insurance card. The cops were acting like they were outnumbered and the guy had given them a reason to believe he was a threat.

Having too dark of a tint on his windows is illegal and does deserve to be addressed by the cops. However, I do not believe it is such a criminal offense that the guys should have been treated like he was a threat to the multiple officers on the scene.

The cops way overreacted in my opinion. I'm sure some will disagree with me and I am good with that.

Courts have held that having a gun is more than enough justification for disarming someone in a custodial situation. The pat down however may not be legal or to put it differently since there was little "damage" it would be almost impossible to get the question to a court but if they happened to find something on the guy I would think there was a good chance it would be suppressed. Having a CHL and or legally carrying a gun with a CHL is not grounds for a Terry pat down. They don't pat down everyone who is stopped for tint so what caused this pat down? His color or the CHL? Neither would qualify for RS so I would be very curious as to what the RS was or why the cop thought it was OK. Maybe there was something else we don't know about going on here.