Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-01-2019, 11:36 AM
lavey29 lavey29 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,129
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconLair View Post
so, you're saying that merely having a CCW permit from another state would be enough reasonable suspicion in your eyes to suspect that the permit holder is involved in criminal activity?

in lieu of the numbers, which don't support you, the fact that permit holders commit less than 0.02% of crimes, do you still believe that merely being in possession of an out of state CCW permit would give you enough reasonable suspicion to make them exit the vehicle, submit to a pat down and then a search of their vehicle? Even a "limited" search is still a search, no matter how you minimize it

do you also search the vehicles of non CCW holders, since percentages prove they commit a much higher number of crimes versus permit holders? it seems like it would only makes sense, to you at least, that a person with a concealed carry permit is more likely to be involved in criminal activity versus someone who doesn't have a permit - why does having a permit arouse your suspicion more so against someone who doesn't have a permit? Serious question - do you feel they are more likely to be illegally carrying versus a non permitted person? do you have ANYTHING to support that?

im not sold on this - i disagree with you and im willing to bet any halfway decent lawyer could rip your theory to shreds - the numbers just don't support your way of thinking from what i can see, that CCW holders are more likely to be involved in criminal activity (im guessing illegal carry is your "suspicion") than non permit holders - i also think searching anyone's vehicle solely because they have an out of state permit in their wallet would constitute an illegal search

Hi Falcon, sorry for the delayed response. I retired 2 months ago after 33 years and am trying to keep myself busy now. I think Rick D's summaries explain it best. The threshold for "reasonable suspicion" is pretty low compared to Probable Cause and courts have held that vehicle searches are much more permissible without a warrant or consent then residences as you may know already. Traffic stops are inherently dangerous as stated by the court also but lets expand on this:

I do not know anything about your statistics and their validity. I have a CCW and I carry 24/7 anywhere I go and in any state that I travel to. All my friends have CCW's and they carry 24/7 also. Do you have a CCW? Do you carry 24/7? Do you know the reciprocal CCW laws of each state?

Anytime suspicion of firearms arises on a traffic stop whether legally possessed or not it heightens the already risky and inherent danger of the traffic stop and amps it up a notch for officer safety. You (or your son) may be the most law abiding person in the world but unfortunately an officer would have no way of knowing that having just met you a minute ago when the traffic stop occurred. Now does this mean everyone gets proned out and detained for a whole vehicle check in this particular situation? I dont think the circumstances justified that but certainly reach the level of a quick pat down search and a quick check of the drivers side of the vehicle for officer safety based on a reasonable suspicion knowing that most CCW holders carry 24/7 or close to it.

I would have no trouble explaining my justification in court for the search. Its ok to disagree though and see things differently from your perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-01-2019, 8:26 PM
Metroman Metroman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No, it isn't.
__________________
Metroman
Duty Gear, 5.11 Tactical, Tactical Gear, Tactical Pants
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-02-2019, 11:32 AM
lavey29 lavey29 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,129
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroman View Post
No, it isn't.

Yes it is



Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-02-2019, 2:35 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,252
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lavey29 View Post
Yes it is



Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please note that Pennsylvania v Mimms does not permit the "automatic" pat down of a motorist based on a traffic stop.

In Mimms, the officer made a traffic stop and then directed the driver to exit the vehicle. The officer described this as a routine process in the conduct of his traffic stops, and one that in based on officer safety grounds. As the motorist was getting out of the vehicle, the officer saw a large bulge in his clothing. The officer did a pat-down and recovered a handgun.

The Supreme Court analyzed the removal of the driver from the car, and the "Pat-Down" separately.

As to the order for the motorist to get out of the car, the court held that to be reasonable based on two arguments: 1) That by leaving the motorist in the vehicle, the motorists movements could not be easily monitored, and 2) That by leaving the motorist in the vehicle, the officer was exposed to the dangers of passing traffic. The Court for the order to exit the vehicle to be reasonable and that no individualized suspicion was necessary.

But the court did not extend that reasoning to the "Pat Down." It analyzed the "Pat Down" under the standard of Terry v Ohio and was very specific in the decision that the Terry standard applied. The Court applied that standard and found that the articulation of the bulged clothing provided the required individualized suspicion.

Had the officer not been able to meet the Terry standard for the "Pat Down", the dicta of the decision makes it pretty clear that Supreme Court would have upheld the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court's decision tossing the evidence.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:30 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.