I got pulled over last night...

[jeremy]

Rudeness to a cop is no justification for the cop to trample on his rights. People are rude to me at times (just like anybody else) but that doesn't mean I can legally disarm them, handcuff them & search their stuff. I just have to deal with it as professionally as possible & move on. That's what the cop should have done. If the cop can't handle someone exercising their rights without going on a power trip then they probably made the wrong career choice.

I hereby declare today, Be rude to Finity day!!!

 

[Compatriot G]

Remember, these are only "isolated" incidents.

 

[Andre46996]

It almost sounds like if you had answered his irrelevant questions, and participated in his small talk, this never would have happened.

Granted, you dont HAVE to answer every question, but by responding to his questions like you did only opened this up. In MY experience, if you're polite to the officer, do the small talk thing, you'll be able to get away with no ticket AND nothing else.

Notice I never said anything about admitting you're carrying.

BUT, if everyone thinks I'm wrong about this, then I apologize, and will shutup

I AM sorry this happened. And I do hope you file a complaint. The officer didn't have any right in acting the way he did.

Oh crap the world must be coming to an end I 100% agree with this post...

 

[femurphy77]

Having read several of these types of threads lately an item that keeps coming up at least in the others was a supreme court case; Terry vs. Ohio. I'm not a legal scholar by any means nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night but it seems to me like this was a violation of the fourth amendment. Am I reading this all wrong? Just because you carry doesn't give probable cause! I do wonder though if you had answered his questions about where you were headed and had been if the encounter would have ended differently? Just sayin'.

 

[ghitch75]

I do wonder though if you had answered his questions about where you were headed and had been if the encounter would have ended differently? Just sayin'.

+1

 

[steveh_131]

I do wonder though if you had answered his questions about where you were headed and had been if the encounter would have ended differently? Just sayin'.

I do wonder though if you had got on your knees and shined his shoes with your hair like a good little citizen, if the encounter would have ended differently?. Just sayin'.

 

[norman428]

I hate to say it but hes right, If you simply answer their odd questions, they may actually be friendly. so many people on here stand by their rights and take it too far, Yes you have rights, But if you avoid answering a question, the officer also has the right to be suspicious. He doesn't know where your going or what your doing out, For all he knows you just robbed someone, you haven't proved him otherwise yet. I completely agree the disarming was wrong of him, But You said you have a weapon on you BEFORE showing him your LTCH. Again, in that situation, hes allowed to get a little suspicious, he thus far knows nothing about you.
And better question, WHY NOT just answer his questions. The big defence to why people OC is because only criminals have to hide things, so why not just tell him what your doing, and stop hiding things.
Only criminals have something to hide.

& open yourself up to any further investigation?

Cops are trained (as one of them recently admitted) to get people to do things they don't want to do (like allowing them to search their vehicles, etc with no PC). I assume this also means they can get you to say things you don't want to say. The cops job is to try to find things to arrest you for. That's it.

Why make their jobs easier by answering questions they don't have the authority to make you answer. It's not personal. Just like it's not personal if they arrest you for doing something illegal - even if you didn't know that it was.

It's better to just keep quiet.

Most of us would find it very hard to do so seeing as we've been conditioned to answer those questions from authority figures since we were born. The cops know it & use it to their advantage.

I find it concerning that you are trying to blame Chef for being treated like he was when he was merely exercising his Constitutional Rights to keep quiet. It's not HIS fault the cop went on a power trip just because he wouldn't submit to unecessary question.

 

[Mr. Habib]

He had NO reason to cuff you once he had STOLEN your gun. He had no warrant or PC to search your car. IMO, the only thing that the OP did wrong was to answer the question about having weapons in the car.

 

[JSeroka]

As I've stated in a few threads already that I have an OH CCW and as my home state's carry laws dictate I am required to notify a LEO ASAP that I have a CCW weather I'm armed or not, and if armed where my firearms are located. Now I know some people don't think this is right, but I have no problem telling a LEO that I'm armed, its as much for his safety as it is for mine as I've seen to many instances were legal CCW people have been gunned down by LEO's for simply being armed. Now that being said, I have been pulled over twice since I got my carry permit and both times I was let off the hook simply for being polite AND informing the LEO that I was armed, kept my hands were he could see them, and then asked to get my permit from my wallet (which is on the same side as my firearm and I will not reach toward a firearm in front of a LEO). The very first time the LEO even told me that I was the first person he's encountered that followed the law correctly and thanked me for being so forth coming with my information and let me go with no ticket and a smile.

So I know people don't always want to answer LEO's questions, even if you don't legally have to...but why cause yourself the hassle when a simple yes, no, home, work, etc will suffice to make him/her happy and to get you both on your merry way.

 

[rambone]

A few weeks ago there was a similar story, where the INGO member told the cop he was just leaving his girlfriend's house. Then the cop demanded her phone number so he could call her and verify. Give me a break! This is the reward for answering invasive questions.

You did the right thing Chefcook. Cops who punish people for having God-given rights are exposed to be the tyrants that they are. Cops who don't harass citizens don't need to be offended by my statements.

 

[youngda9]

The officer then got a little irate and asked me if i had any weapons in the vehicle. I answered yes sir.

Thou shall not divulge thy carry status.

I believe this was the turning point in your encounter.

"there are no illegal items in the car officer...am I free to go"

 

[Ol' Wiley]

Yeah, just do what the fine officers say, cuz we all know they're just looking out for your own good... they would never go on fishing expeditions or anything. /purple

Some of these replies are appalling. This guy's Rights were obviously trampled on due to not being buddy buddy with the officer.

 

[BlueEagle]

I understand that you don't HAVE to answer their questions and they can't make you, but I normally participate in the small talk.

Its common courtesy and makes everybody happier, I think. And its not like its hurting me to do it; if I stopped at a grocery store and the clerk asked me why I was wearing whatever clothes I was wearing, I wouldn't mind saying "I'm going to be painting/hunting/working/gardening" etc. It doesn't really hurt me that the police officer now knows that I'm headed down to get a haircut, and then to pick up some groceries.

I think I can see the LEO's side of this story. If we're both polite and have a little ****-chat everything seems to go much smoother. If he walks up and asks where I'm going and I either clam-up or have to really stop and think about my answer first...while its not illegal, it certainly does seem suspicious, and like I'm hiding something.

Bottom line, I guess i'm not as fanatical about protecting my rights as some of you are. But especially since its generally information that I would tell anyone on the street, I have no problem **** chatting with the LEO and making his day a bit brighter. While he doesn't have the AUTHORITY to force me to give him that information, I really don't have a reason that I feel compells me to withold it.

There, I said it. Go ahead and flay me now.

 

[Hoosier9]

when can we start defending ourselves against these kind of cops?

You go first, and report back.

I know I have the right to not answer questions, but I prefer to use Jedi mind tricks. Courtesy and respect will work wonders sometimes.

Did Chefcook ever say why he was pulled over?

 

[Mr. Habib]

As I've stated in a few threads already that I have an OH CCW and as my home state's carry laws dictate I am required to notify a LEO ASAP that I have a CCW weather I'm armed or not, and if armed where my firearms are located. Now I know some people don't think this is right, but I have no problem telling a LEO that I'm armed, its as much for his safety as it is for mine as I've seen to many instances were legal CCW people have been gunned down by LEO's for simply being armed. Now that being said, I have been pulled over twice since I got my carry permit and both times I was let off the hook simply for being polite AND informing the LEO that I was armed, kept my hands were he could see them, and then asked to get my permit from my wallet (which is on the same side as my firearm and I will not reach toward a firearm in front of a LEO). The very first time the LEO even told me that I was the first person he's encountered that followed the law correctly and thanked me for being so forth coming with my information and let me go with no ticket and a smile.

So I know people don't always want to answer LEO's questions, even if you don't legally have to...but why cause yourself the hassle when a simple yes, no, home, work, etc will suffice to make him/her happy and to get you both on your merry way.

Because a simple yes got the OP disarmed and cuffed while his personal property was illegally searched.

You claim to "seen to many instances were legal CCW people have been gunned down by LEO's for simply being armed." I personally know of several cases of legally armed citizens who have had their legally owned guns pointed at them or other innocent people by LEOs disarming them in the name of officer safety. I'll keep my weapon in my holster for my safety, thank you. That way we will all be safe.

 

[steveh_131]

Its common courtesy and makes everybody happier, I think.

Well I think it's common courtesy not to abuse your authority to coerce people to answer questions that are none of your business.

The cops asking these questions are the ones not being courteous and professional. It's not their job to determine whether or not a citizen is sufficiently submissive, and the amount of boot-licking should have no bearing on how they are treated.

 

[Indy317]

Just because you carry doesn't give probable cause!

No court, that I know of, has specifically ruled upon if the mere carrying of a handgun, either seen or admitted to being carried by the individual, is reasonable suspicion to detain a person while investigating a possible violation of IC 35-47-2-1.

...I've seen to many instances were legal CCW people have been gunned down by LEO's for simply being armed.

I've never heard of this being a "many instances" issue. Do you have case information? The only case I can recall in recent memory is the Costco Las Vegas shooting, and even then it is believed there was more to it than "simply being armed."

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I just came from your Sister's house Officer.. she was a "ball of fun" tonight!

 

[femurphy77]

I do wonder though if you had got on your knees and shined his shoes with your hair like a good little citizen, if the encounter would have ended differently?. Just sayin'.

Ah yes spoken like a true internet commando!


Not advocating "citizenship", just civility.

(boy that'll get it rollin')

 

[femurphy77]

No court, that I know of, has specifically ruled upon if the mere carrying of a handgun, either seen or admitted to being carried by the individual, is reasonable suspicion to detain a person while investigating a possible violation of IC 35-47-2-1.



I've tried to find references to this on the forum somewhere, could have sworn that this had been discussed but like I said, IANAL.

Must have read it somewhere on the internet so that makes it true right?