-
In America banks rob you
-
Just do yourself and everyone else a favor that gets pulled over by this CHP
FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT so there is a record of it, may help someone out with out even knowing so.Comment
-
Almost 200 posts on actions by an LEO that, although not pleasant for the OP to endure, were not apparently illegal. File a complaint, don't file a complaint. Make a decision. Outline the incident for info purposes and then move on. Jeez.Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences.Comment
-
I just read all the post. And waiting to see what is their answer about the incident.Originally posted by JoewyComment
-
Read below in regards to #3.
from the Alameda County DA (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/PATSEARCHES.pdf) on page 3
General principles ARMED OR DANGEROUS:
In Terry, the Court said that pat searches are permitted only if
officers reasonably believed that the detainee was armed “and” dangerous. Almost immediately, however, the lower courts understood that the use of the conjunctive “and” was an unfortunate lapse—that pat searches would be justified whenever officers reasonably believed that a detainee was armed or dangerous. After all, it is apparent that every suspect who is armed with a weapon is necessarily dangerous to any officer who is detaining him, even if the detainee was cooperative and exhibited no hostility.16
Furthermore, although the courts still routinely quote Terry’s “armed and dangerous” language, they understand that a pat search will be justified if officers reasonably believed that a detainee constituted an immediate threat, even if there was no reason to believe he was armed.17 As the Sixth Circuit put it, “The focus of judicial inquiry is whether the officer reasonably perceived the subject of a frisk as potentially dangerous, not whether he had an indication that the defendant was in fact armed.”
Also read this case
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dale Washington ORMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10398.
Decided: May 22, 2007
In which an Officer legally removed a person's weapon during a consensual contact. Although the defendant ended up being a felon in possession of a firearm, that fact wasn't known until after the investigation was completed.
Please people (in general) take the time to read the cited cases.
15 See People v. Thurman (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 817, 823 [it would be “utter folly” to require an officer “to await an overt act of hostility before attempting to neutralize the threat of physical harm”]; People v. Samples (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 389, 393 [“Our courts have never held that an officer must wait until a suspect actually reaches for an apparent weapon before he is justified in taking the weapon.”].
16 See Michigan v. Long (1983) 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 [“Our past cases indicate that the protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger”]; Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 112 [“The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer.” Emphasis added]; People v. Superior Court (Brown) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 948, 956 [“[A] pat-down search for weapons may be made predicated on specific facts and circumstances giving the officer reasonable grounds to believe that defendant is armed or on other factors creating a potential for danger to the officers.” Emphasis added]; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 746 [pat search is permitted if officers reasonably believe a suspect “might forcibly resist an investigatory detention”]; People v. Avila (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1074 [“[T]he crux of the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person . . . would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety was in danger.”]; People v. Franklin (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 627, 635 [“The issue rather is whether a reasonably prudent man under similar circumstances would be warranted in his belief that his safety was in danger.”]; People v. Campbell (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 588, 595 [“An officer is justified in making a pat-down search if he has objective cause to believe that the suspect is armed or that the search is necessary for the officer’s own safety.”]. NOTE: Even the Court in Terry acknowledged that an armed detainee is necessarily dangerous. See Terry v. Ohio (1968) 393 U.S. 1, 28 [“a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing petitioner was armed and thus presented a threat”; emphasis added]. In another example of sloppy drafting in Terry, the Court said several times that the issue is whether the suspect is “potentially dangerous.” But, as the Court of Appeal observed, “almost everyone could be described as ‘potentially’ dangerous.” People v. Lafitte (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1433, fn.4.
17 See Michigan v. Long (1983) 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 [“Our past cases indicate then that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger . . . .” The Long Court also noted that a pat search of a suspect known to be unarmed may be permissible because such a suspect “may be able to gain access to weapons” At p. 1049, fn14]; Sibron v. New York (1968) 392 U.S. 40, 65 [purpose of pat search is “disarming a potentially dangerous man.”]; People v. Superior Court (Simon) (1972) 7 Cal.3d 186, 204 [“The critical question remains, is this the kind of confrontation in which the officer can reasonably believe in the possibility that a weapon may be used against him?”]; U.S. v. Brown (7th Cir. 2000)[/I]Last edited by NuGunner; 07-20-2014, 12:30 PM.Comment
-
So I got pulled over and ticketed this weekend...
The OP has told us he talked to the watch commander.
Why is this thread still alive?
Are you the thread police?
It's still alive because it's causing discussion, isn't that what a discussion forum is for?
.Sent from Free AmericaComment
-
bottom line is that there was a failure of logic here. same old prevailing cultural nonsense. a citizen having a weapon shouldnt be a 'thing' right from the start. thats the point of the ccw, obviously the powers that be cleared that person to have one. no big deal.
the good guys having a weapon should be of no significance, just like it shouldnt matter if youre gay or follow a certain religion or like a certain type of music or what the hell ever.
a complaint should definitely be filed when cops do this, without fail.
you should NOT mention your permit or weapon unless specifically required in the county youre physically located in at the time of hte stop. hell, its a CONCEALED permit for a reason, right? jesus.Comment
-
I've been following this thread and didn't see any overt mention of the cops attitude until this point.
Based on that statement alone, I would strongly suggest filing a formal complaint against the officer. His job isn't to enforce his beliefs, it's to enforce the law. For him to get heavy-handed with a citizen simply because the citizen is lawfully exercising his rights is completely improper.
This statement tells me that this cop is guaranteed to mistreat CCWers in the future, and he needs a paper trail documenting his conduct. His beliefs are going to need to change.Comment
-
The OCSD policy states that a permit holder must inform during ANY law enforcement contact. That does not limit it to LEOs in Orange County but anywhere the permit is honored (entire State). If you are stopped by CHP in Bakersfield and you do not inform the officer, you are in violation of the terms of your permit. Should the stop get ugly for some reason and the officer discovers you are carrying, you can bet that OCSD will be contacted about your conduct.Western civilization represents the pinnacle of true human progress, and we should rightly be proud of it, delusional leftists be damned.
We know it's the family and the church not government officials who know best how to create strong and loving communities. And above all else we know this, in America, we don't worship government, we worship God.
President Donald J. Trump, Oct. 13, 2017Comment
-
Master P state it best
File the complaint if not for you then the next CCWComment
-
Originally posted by Boblaw
I didn't watch this time, but isn't this the one in which the LTCer was riding around in a well known prostitution area with a prostitute in his car? If so, although the officer was over the top, play stupid games and...Like granular silica through an equatorially constricted chronographic vessel, so are the circadian georotations of our metabolic persistences.Comment
-
Calling Wildhawker
Wildhawker,
You were willing to write a letter to OCSD about their no modifications provision (it was later suggested the letter might not be a good idea.) Do you think a letter to the CHP Commissioner is in order detailing how some CCW'ers are being treated and suggesting the CHP take steps to educate their people? With the recent influx of permits no doubt their officers will come in contact with more carriers.
Thoughts?Sent from Free AmericaComment
Tweet
There are currently 7080 users online. 147 members and 6933 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment