This incident highlights a couple problems with the decision --it requires the general population to be as knowledgeable about the law as the people enforcing it (an unreasonable expectation) and it risks elevating an encounter to a confrontation when the citizen asserts a right that by default an officer may now consider a challenge to his authority. Board members here have an understanding of the law above that of the general public yet how many of us would known when the disarming process became a search and that we had to verbally decline consent? And your final paragraph gives a number of good reasons why declining consent and filing a complaint may not be a good idea. By placing the default for consent in favor of the authorities the court assured the denial of Constitutional rights to a large part of the public.srothstein wrote:I understand SCOTUS' logic and the prior cases that lead to this, but I still have major problems with the decision and its ramifications. In the case of a search, there might be an argument that the consent was invalid since it was obtained under duress (no request, but an order from an officer to produce in a situation where the OP was clearly not free to leave). The OP could have clearly stated that he did not consent to any searches and not handed the weapons over to the officer. I do not recommend this for a similar situation since I am sure the officer would have reacted badly, possibly by drawing his own weapon and arresting the OP (not a legal arrest, but that is for a different debate). At the very least, a lack of cooperation would almost have guaranteed a ticket for the original stop sign violation.
And finally, the best way to avoid problems like this for the future is to write a letter of complaint to the Chief of Police. If it comes from an attorney and mentions the illegal search and 42 USC 1983 (civil rights violations under the color of law for the non-lawyers and non-cops amongst us), it will have even more effect. The officer will be reprimanded and given further training and the Chief will probably write a letter of apology. But the end result might also be that the next time the officer stops a CHL, there is no longer a presumption that it is a good guy. The officer will know to say he wants the weapons for safety (making the disarming legal) and probably write the CHL a ticket instead of giving him a warning. Some cops, being human, tend to generalize behaviors among groups. If it is a racial group, they get in trouble for profiling but it is not illegal to profile CHLs.
I agree with your assessment about the possible consequences of declining the search in a case like this and even if I'd known the onus was on me to decline the weapons check I don't think I would have --not wanting to elevate the encounter into a confrontation and fearing exactly those consequences.