Pulled over while CCW in FL

[VMI77]

My impression is that this was a training exercise and the officer was basically running down each point in some procedural checklist under review by a supervisor. It seemed excessive but I thought the officer looked like he was trying to show his supervisor that he knew the procedure...every step. Mr. Strange was probably stopped because of the car and quite possibly because he is Black, but I think that once the stop was made a trainee was following a checklist.

I would have been aggravated by the length of the stop, and while I have some concerns about the potential for misunderstanding or accidents due to being disarmed, the idea of it doesn't offend me. But then I've been stopped several times and never been disarmed or even had the officer show any particular concern. OTOH all the times I've been stopped I've been out in the country...maybe the level of officer caution is higher when you're in a more populated area and the driver is not an old white guy. Whatever motivated the stop I didn't really get the impression he was being treated differently because of his race. He's a big guy and his size may have been more of a factor than race.

[cb1000rider]

More and more I see our Rights being violated by those in authority and them getting away with it!
Using tinting to go hunting is a bad way to teach a rookie how to work and will develop bad habits that the LEO will use.

What rights were violated here? LEOs have the authority to disarm at will. If you're suggesting that we take away that ability, I think that's going to cause more harm than good.

I'm not crazy about it either, but it's something that I'm OK with leaving up to officer discretion - some level of that is necessary to do the job. What I wouldn't be OK with is disassembling or confiscating the firearm, which didn't happen in this case. What would be worse is a PD policy of "disarm everyone" which technically is within the "rights" of law enforcement.

And lets be honest, the appearance of the person stopped was most likely an influential factor here..

[VMI77]

More and more I see our Rights being violated by those in authority and them getting away with it!
Using tinting to go hunting is a bad way to teach a rookie how to work and will develop bad habits that the LEO will use.

What rights were violated here? LEOs have the authority to disarm at will. If you're suggesting that we take away that ability, I think that's going to cause more harm than good.

I'm not crazy about it either, but it's something that I'm OK with leaving up to officer discretion - some level of that is necessary to do the job. What I wouldn't be OK with is disassembling or confiscating the firearm, which didn't happen in this case. What would be worse is a PD policy of "disarm everyone" which technically is within the "rights" of law enforcement.

And lets be honest, the appearance of the person stopped was most likely an influential factor here..

What, didn't like his haircut? Yeah, he was a big guy with a funky doo but he didn't do anything that could be perceived as threatening or cause for concern. I think the most troubling thing was calling in his gun's serial number. Just imagine what could have happened had there been an error in that process and the gun erroneously came up as stolen. Then there is the question of whether that information is being recorded and retained.

[cb1000rider]

To me, calling in the serial number is paramount to a search and is no longer a safety issue.. Course, someone is going to have to sort that out in court.

[srothstein]

More and more I see our Rights being violated by those in authority and them getting away with it!
Using tinting to go hunting is a bad way to teach a rookie how to work and will develop bad habits that the LEO will use.

What rights were violated here?

As I see it, the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, I will admit that not everything I see as unreasonable is unreasonable to the public at large.

LEOs have the authority to disarm at will. If you're suggesting that we take away that ability, I think that's going to cause more harm than good.

Actually, police do not have the authority to disarm at will. First, there is the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable search and seizure. Then there is the Fifth Amendment protecting against seizure without being paid for it. And finally, even if those two did not protect, there is Texas law. Specifically, Texas law does not give the police the authority to disarm at will, but allows them to disarm under certain very specific conditions. Government Code section 411.207 specifically states that the officer must reasonably believe it is necessary. In practice, much like the Terry Stop, this is often whenever the officer decides BUT, and this is an important but, the officer must have an articulable and specific reason when this is questioned in court. Just the "I always disarm for my safety" is not going to meet the law if it comes up in court. I have no problem with any citizen requiring the police to be able to say why he disarmed them, as long as they do it in the proper manner (after the stop through a written query to the Chief or IA or through a lawsuit. Do not argue at the time, you will not win).

And yes, I do realize this is Texas law and the stop in the video was in Florida. But I know Texas law and believe it is good to discuss it based on Texas law as long as we all understand this.

[mojo84]

Here is an interesting read that I just ran across. I didn't realize a pat down was lawful during a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that someone has something illegal or dangerous on them.


http://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederal-co ... hat-does-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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).

Caveat, I don't know how reliable or up to date this site is.

[mojo84]

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.

[EEllis]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

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

[EEllis]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

[EEllis]

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?

Wrong? No specifically but it's limited and without nuance and you don't seem to have researched before stating your beliefs about what it covered. You also haven't considered the people involved. One is a felon gang banger who they patted down when the cops pulled him out of a car on a traffic stop. Then we have a law abiding CHL holder who voluntarily informed officers of his CHL and that he was armed and was then disarmed and his pistol removed from the area. That SCOTUS said one was OK wouldn't make the other automatic. Mind you I wasn't guaranteeing anything just that it may be found an issue.

[EEllis]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

Makes sense to me. I think I read the crime part as being the same as armed and dangerous. It's late. I better give it up for the night.

[srothstein]

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.

Actually, I think the original cite was wrong because it took part of the decision out of context. Since I disagreed, I used Google Scholar to find the actual text of the SCOTUS decision. The important part is that to conduct a frisk, there must be two conditions met. The first is that there must be a lawful stop such as a Terry stop, but they recognize that a traffic stop meets this requirement. The second is that there must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.

Now we have a case where there is no doubt that the person is armed. I am curious how the SCOTUS would read the phrase armed and dangerous. Do they need suspicion of the danger or just being armed is enough? When I went through the academy, I was taught that a frisk required an articulable reason that this specific stop was dangerous and not a general reason like it was a high crime area or that I always frisk people I stop for suspicion of a crime. Based on my understanding of other cases that they have ruled on, I am not sure that the court would say a CHL volunteering that he is armed is enough of a danger to justify the frisk. However, based on the way they have upheld some very questionable (IMO) police tactics lately, I would not say that they would not rule that way either. They have been very big on officer safety lately.