Conceal Carry Permit constitutes probable cause for a search and seizure

[Contumacious]

Gun owner unarmed, unwelcome in Maryland (http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/)

HUDSON – John Filippidis, silver-haired family man, business owner, employer and taxpayer, is also licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

.....as the Filippidises packed for Christmas and a family wedding in Woodridge, N.J., so he left the pistol locked in the safe. The state of Florida might have codified his Second Amendment rights, but he knew he’d be passing through states where recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions affirming the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms have been met by hostile legislatures and local officials.

“I know the laws and I know the rules,” Filippidis says. There are, after all, ways gun owners can travel legally with firearms through hostile states. “But I just think it’s a better idea to leave it home.”

just barely out of the Fort McHenry Tunnel into Maryland, blissfully unarmed and minding their own business when they noticed they were being bird-dogged by an unmarked patrol car. It flanked them a while, then pulled ahead of them, then fell in behind them.



“Ten minutes he’s behind us,” John says. “We weren’t speeding. In fact, lots of other cars were whizzing past.”



“You know you have a police car behind you, you don’t speed, right?” Kally adds.



Says John, “We keep wondering, is he going to do something?”



Finally the patrol car’s emergency lights come on, and it’s almost a relief. Whatever was going on, they’d be able to get it over with now. The officer — from the Transportation Authority Police, as it turns out, Maryland’s version of the New York-New Jersey Port Authority — strolls up, does the license and registration bit, and returns to his car.



According to Kally and John (but not MTAP, which, pending investigation, could not comment), what happened next went like this:



Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”



“At home in my safe,” John answers.

Ninety minutes later, or maybe it was two hours — “It felt like forever,” Kally says — no weapon found and their possessions repacked, the episode ended ... with the officer writing out a warning.

.

[Reason]

Sounds about right

[Ronin Truth]

A warning for what? :confused:

I think I'll be sure to stay out of Maryland. :mad:

[ZENemy]

A warning for what? :confused:

I think I'll be sure to stay out of Maryland. :mad:

Exactly, a warning for what??

"I, Mr officer fuck face am warning you, Next time you have a CC make sure you have your gun with you so I can arrest you for legally having it"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW27kyh7PVM

[Contumacious]

Exactly, a warning for what??

"I, Mr officer fuck face am warning you, Next time you have a CC make sure you have your gun with you so I can arrest you for legally having it"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW27kyh7PVM

Exactly.

That is PRECISELY what the scumbag intended to do.

So , just like I suspected, the names of those who have CCW's go into a data base which can be accessed by scumbags nationwide.

.

.

[Dr.3D]

Around ten years ago when I was crossing the border into Canada, they saw my NRA sticker in my back window and decided my car needed to be searched. Since then I have removed that sticker and things have gone a bit smoother.

[69360]

You neglected to copy and paste this part of the story.


Now he’s at the passenger’s window. “Your husband owns a gun,” he says. “Where is it?”

First Kally says, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later she says, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

The officer came back to John. “You’re a liar. You’re lying to me. Your family says you have it. Where is the gun? Tell me where it is and we can resolve this right now.”

Of course, John couldn’t show him what didn’t exist, but Kally’s failure to corroborate John’s account, the officer would tell them later, was the probable cause that allowed him to summon backup — three marked cars joined the lineup along the I-95 shoulder — and empty the Expedition of riders, luggage, Christmas gifts, laundry bags; to pat down Kally and Yianni; to explore the engine compartment and probe inside door panels; and to separate and isolate the Filippidises in the back seats of the patrol cars.

Conflicting stories and the wife saying the gun may be in the car is probable cause to search.

[Contumacious]

You neglected to copy and paste this part of the story.



Conflicting stories and the wife saying the gun may be in the car is probable cause to search.

Bullshit.


HE ORDERED HIM OUT OF THE VEHICLE PRIOR TO SPEAKING TO THE WIFE:


Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”


.

[Occam's Banana]

A warning for what? :confused:

Exactly, a warning for what??

Aw-rite, you pansy-asses! That's just about enough outta you!
You don't get to ask questions! You answer them, maggots! See?
And you'll do it toot sweet, too, if you know what's good for you!
Now pipe down! Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?

Don't say you haven't been warned ...

[69360]

Bullshit.


HE ORDERED HIM OUT OF THE VEHICLE PRIOR TO SPEAKING TO THE WIFE:


Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”


.

Asking him to step out of the car is not a search.

I can't imagine what the warning was for either.

[EBounding]

A warning for what? :confused:

Contempt of cop. He made them look stupid by not having his gun on him.

The victim brought this on himself.

[Ronin Truth]

Around ten years ago when I was crossing the border into Canada, they saw my NRA sticker in my back window and decided my car needed to be searched. Since then I have removed that sticker and things have gone a bit smoother. I wonder if I mounted my Mensa sticker in my back car window, would they ask me tough questions? :D

[ZENemy]

Aw-rite, you pansy-asses! That's just about enough outta you!
You don't get to ask questions! You answer them, maggots! See?
And you'll do it toot sweet, too, if you know what's good for you!
Now pipe down! Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?

Don't say you haven't been warned ...


lol



"oh sorrry suuuh, Ill be's good from now on."

[Contumacious]

Asking him to step out of the car is not a search.

I can't imagine what the warning was for either.

HUH?

How the fuck does driving north on the turnpike with your wife and children provide the stormtrooper "probable cause" that a crime was being perpetrated and that the driver was armed?


... a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

"A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] Under federal law, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer, although such practices might not be authorized under state law depending on the jurisdiction. Drivers[14] and passengers[15] may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment.[16][17]

.

[Dr.3D]

I wonder if I mounted my Mensa sticker in my back car window, would they ask me tough questions? :D
Only if they could find somebody to think up the questions.

[Anti Federalist]

Yah, fixed that for you.

Thought there wasn't supposed to be any databases of gun owners.

Thought license plate readers only held data for a few minutes.

LOL @ AmeriCunts.


Exactly, a warning for what??

"I, Mr officer fuck face am warning you, Next time you have a CC make sure you have your gun with you so I can arrest you for legally having it me and my asshole buddies can unload on you and kill you and your fucking maggot family."

[JK/SEA]

Only if they could find somebody to think up the questions.

soon to be a future incident. ''Man identified as a MENSA member beaten to death by police for being too smart''..........

[Anti Federalist]

Aw-rite, you pansy-asses! That's just about enough outta you!
You don't get to ask questions! You answer them, maggots! See?
And you'll do it toot sweet, too, if you know what's good for you!
Now pipe down! Who the hell do you think you are, anyway?

Don't say you haven't been warned ...

Fucking right Lou...

Maybe we'd better thump these maggots' heads for them, just so they get the message. - Officer Friendly.

[Anti Federalist]

soon to be a future incident. ''Man identified as a MENSA member beaten to death by police for being too smart''..........

He brought it on himself.

[Anti Federalist]

Dizzy fucking broad...


First Kally says, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later she says, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”
Yeah, that's all you should have said.

[Philhelm]

He brought it on himself.

Too bad there aren't 100 Dorner's all working together.

[Dr.3D]

Too bad there aren't 100 Dorner's all working together.
Looks to me like they are already seeing a Dorner in every car.

[JK/SEA]

Dizzy fucking broad...


Yeah, that's all you should have said.

i'm going to assume hubby had a little sit down chat with her later....''when it comes to the police...just don't talk, ok, honey?''.....then a facepalm.

[Ronin Truth]

He brought it on himself. Yeah, that's why the sticker isn't there. I usually play it borderline dumb and innocent when dealing with the cops.

[Czolgosz]

Stop asking for permission.

[Lucille]

Why I Cannot Support CCW Permits
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=227665


He wasn't pulled over for speeding.

It appears he was pulled over because of either an automated or manual random license-plate look-up by the cops, and when they did so his license was coded, as they all are, to show that he had a CCW permit.

There's nothing unlawful about having a CCW permit nor does it generate probable cause for a traffic stop. That doesn't matter in this case, because it did generate a traffic stop. And then the cop ultimately, when the driver says he doesn't have it with him and his wife (asked separately) doesn't know where it is, turns that stop into a full and complete search of the vehicle and everything in it.

The end result? No arrest or citation, but 90 minutes of being detained and searched.

Illegally.
[...]
Apologies? **** you Maryland. Your "officer" committed felony assault (you go menace someone, refuse to allow them to leave, and have a sidearm on you at the time and then tell me what the charge laid against you happens to be.)

There is only one solution to this problem folks -- it's none of the government's damned business if you're carrying a weapon or not. It's none of the government's damned business right up until you do something unlawful with it, at which point it becomes both reasonable and appropriate to search, arrest, charge, whatever -- for the unlawful act.

But the bottom line here is that the fact that this individual registered his ownership and intent to carry for personal protection of himself and his family in the places where it is lawful to do so with the government meant that he was unlawfully stopped, detained and searched by a ****head who has faced no penalty for the violation of his Constitutional right to be left alone absent evidence of, or probable cause to suspect, actual unlawful activity.

The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry. That is, you have the right under the 2nd Amendment to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm without applying for any sort of permit or asking for permission from the government first.

It is only if and when you commit a crime with a weapon present and in some way related to the offense that the government gains the ability to intervene in your personal decision to not be a victim and protect both yourself and others near you, most-particularly your family.

There is no means to solve this problem any other way, as despite whatever sanctions Florida may apply to its peace officers for abusive acts of this sort the very act of registration exposes you to abuses by other political subdivisions in the United States.

Therefore, the only means of stopping this crap is in fact to get rid of any such requirement of registration -- period.

[Contumacious]

Why I Cannot Support CCW Permits - The only solution to this is Constitutional Carry. That is, you have the right under the 2nd Amendment to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm without applying for any sort of permit or asking for permission from the government first.




Exactly.

.

[jbauer]

Got pulled over for speeding the other day. Told him I have my CC permit but am not currently carrying. Thanked me, gave me a warning for going fast. On my way, took 15 minutes. (fyi it was 48 in a 30 although I'm not sure how I was going that fast since I was following other.

Guess each case can be different.

[Anti Federalist]

Got pulled over for speeding the other day. Told him I have my CC permit but am not currently carrying. Thanked me, gave me a warning for going fast. On my way, took 15 minutes. (fyi it was 48 in a 30 although I'm not sure how I was going that fast since I was following other.

Guess each case can be different.

Sure they are.

That is one of the hallmarks of a police state.

It is arbitrary and capricious.

You never know for sure when the hammer will fall.

[Dr.3D]

Sure they are.

That is one of the hallmarks of a police state.

It is arbitrary and capricious.

You never know for sure when the hammer will fall.
Yep, had he told the cop he was in possession of a firearm, he might be dead today.

[69360]

HUH?

How the fuck does driving north on the turnpike with your wife and children provide the stormtrooper "probable cause" that a crime was being perpetrated and that the driver was armed?


... a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

"A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] Under federal law, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer, although such practices might not be authorized under state law depending on the jurisdiction. Drivers[14] and passengers[15] may be searched for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment.[16][17]

.

The wife told the cop the gun was in the car in a state he didn't have a CC. That's probable cause for a search. You can use big fonts as much as you want, but it is what it is.

[Spikender]

Precise reason I will never get a permit.

Just not worth the time to know that I'm in a database and can be pulled over for practicing my natural right to self defense.

[Anti Federalist]

The wife told the cop the gun was in the car in a state he didn't have a CC. That's probable cause for a search. You can use big fonts as much as you want, but it is what it is.

I think you're missing the point...

The stop never would have happened, had it not been for a database of CCW holders tied to your vehicle registrations coupled with random or computerized surveillance of your tags.

[The Free Hornet]

The wife told the cop the gun was in the car in a state he didn't have a CC. That's probable cause for a search. You can use big fonts as much as you want, but it is what it is.

Bullshit, per the story:


First Kally says, “I don’t know.” Retelling it later she says, “And that’s all I should have said.” Instead, attempting to be helpful, she added, “Maybe in the glove [box]. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

Nor did she give a conflicting story:


Conflicting stories and the wife saying the gun may be in the car is probable cause to search.

Does not conflict with:


“You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

“At home in my safe,” John answers.

[belian78]

I can't wait for this to start happening here in IL, I know it's going to and it will make this look tame.

[Contumacious]

The wife told the cop the gun was in the car in a state he didn't have a CC. That's probable cause for a search. You can use big fonts as much as you want, but it is what it is.

Wut?

Are you fucking saying that the cop predicted the wife was going to respond in that manner?

WHAT WAS THE FUCKING BASIS FOR THE INITIAL STOP?

.

[Tod]

What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?

[asurfaholic]

Asking him to step out of the car is not a search.

I can't imagine what the warning was for either.

No, but he is being detained. And that led to him being searched, so there's that. You can't be detained without probable cause that you committed a crime. I understand CC laws so you only have to produce the permit if you are stopped. The gun does not have to be presented.

[Christian Liberty]

I hate how there's an apologist in every thread.

Even if the stop was "legal" it would still be wrong.

The fact that the 2nd amendment requires "permission" is an outrage.

[WM_in_MO]

Stop replying to the trolls and they go away.

Also if mods would BAN obvious trolls it would help...

Just use the -REP system for those who insist on getting it wrong every time.

[SludgeFactory]

Dizzy fucking broad...


Yeah, that's all you should have said.

Yeah, I would've been pissed at her had she been my wife. Don't get me wrong, the police were completely out of line, but that wouldn't change how upset it would make me.

Hopefully that family learns from this: never offer up information to the police.

[pcosmar]

What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?

100%.

and despite any laws or bullshit rhetoric to the contrary.. every sale by a FFL is in a database.

[Anti Federalist]

What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?\

100 percent.

[Occam's Banana]

What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?
100%.
100 percent.

Give or take zero percent ...

[Dr.3D]

What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?
I'm pretty sure they are storing and sharing data on who has a conceal carry permit too.

[phill4paul]

What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?

I'm another 100%er. Lol.

[69360]

I think you're missing the point...

The stop never would have happened, had it not been for a database of CCW holders tied to your vehicle registrations coupled with random or computerized surveillance of your tags.

We don't know that. People here have assumed that, but the reason for the stop and the reason for the warning were not in the article.

I could have been a traffic stop for all we know.


Bullshit, per the story:



Nor did she give a conflicting story:



Does not conflict with:

She said there might be a gun in the glovebox or console. It's grounds for a search, that's just how it is. It also contradicted what the husband said.


Wut?

Are you fucking saying that the cop predicted the wife was going to respond in that manner?

WHAT WAS THE FUCKING BASIS FOR THE INITIAL STOP?

.

That's a good question. We don't know what the reason for the stop was.


No, but he is being detained. And that led to him being searched, so there's that. You can't be detained without probable cause that you committed a crime. I understand CC laws so you only have to produce the permit if you are stopped. The gun does not have to be presented.

No the cop can't pull him over just for being a CC. The article did not give the reason for the stop.

In many states you are legally obligated to tell the cop at a traffic stop if you are carrying.

[Acala]

If it is true that every gun sale through an FFL is in a central database, then it doesn't much matter if you also have a CCW in the database. But the reality is that there are so MANY gun purchases in the FFL records that the information is useless for purposes akin to the OP. It is a case of information overload. But the number of CCWs is MUCH less and IS useable by cops to distinguish who might be armed.

And this makes me unhappy because I have a CCW and no longer need one in my State to carry legally. Oops. Probably no way to get out of that until I move and re-register my vehicles.

[Dr.3D]

She said there might be a gun in the glovebox or console. It's grounds for a search, that's just how it is. It also contradicted what the husband said.

Well, she could say, "There might be a gun in all the other cars on the expressway." but that wouldn't give the cops grounds for searching all of those other cars.

[pcosmar]

No the cop can't pull him over just for being a CC.


YES, They can.
They can pull you over for any reason,, real or made the fuck up.

And the first words out of the cops mouth were
Where is the gun?

That was the reason for the stop.

[phill4paul]

No the cop can't pull him over just for being a CC. The article did not give the reason for the stop.

In many states you are legally obligated to tell the cop at a traffic stop if you are carrying.

I was stopped for suspicion of carrying drugs. Had a van and long hair.

Of course the "reason" for the stop was that my wife didn't have a seat belt on. She showed them that it was properly secured. She never rode without it. The cop then backpedaled and said it was because I had crossed over the center line. More bunk.

There are many ficticious reasons for making a traffic stop.

Who you gonna believe? Well, I know who you would believe.

[pcosmar]

Conflicting stories and the wife saying the gun may be in the car is probable cause to search.

NO. It does not.

He is a legal gun owner.. He has a concealed carry permit..

Even if there is a gun in the car,, and he is traveling ,,he has a right to have it. Period..

Just another stupid fucking cop abusing power.

And after the false arrest,,and illegal search,, NO GUN WAS FOUND.

(see Firearm Owners' Protection Act )
(for all the good that is)

[Dr.3D]

I was stopped for suspicion of carrying drugs. Had a van and long hair.

Of course the "reason" for the stop was that my wife didn't have a seat belt on. She showed them that it was properly secured. She never rode without it. The cop then backpedaled and said it was because I had crossed over the center line. More bunk.

There are many ficticious reasons for making a traffic stop.

Who you gonna believe? Well, I know who you would believe.
LOL, good thing the wife didn't say, "There might be some in the glove box."
:D

[Anti Federalist]

We don't know that. People here have assumed that, but the reason for the stop and the reason for the warning were not in the article. It could have been a traffic stop for all we know.


Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

I think it is reasonable to assume that was the reason.

Even if not, the fact remains that this man's name came up in a database of gun owners or CCW holders.

Which we were told, "would never happen".

[phill4paul]

LOL, good thing the wife didn't say, "There might be some in the glove box."
:D

No shit. The "ex" was/is a smart cookie. Confirmed everything I said we were travelling for and confirmed that there were no drugs. The cops asked me if they could go through the vehicle. I said no. Asked me if I was against the "War on Drugs." Told them it had nothing to do with that. Constitution for the win. After some more banter they let me drive away.

[PaulConventionWV]

You neglected to copy and paste this part of the story.



Conflicting stories and the wife saying the gun may be in the car is probable cause to search.

First of all, they weren't conflicting. The wife said, "I don't know.... MAYBE in the glove box." It's quite obvious she didn't know.

Moreover, there's no reason for the officer to care where his gun was. He owned it legally, and what's more, how did he know they had a gun in the first place?

There are so many reasons this story is fucked up, and it's not just because of the search. The whole premise on which the search was based was flawed. Why did he stop them in the first place? Why should anyone care about someone simply possessing a gun? The search was unwarranted because there's no reason for him to ask about the gun.

Also, this is just another example of why you DON'T TALK TO POLICE. When the officer asked him where his gun was, he should have just told the officer he was invoking his 5th amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer the question. It's not something the officer needs to know and the guy was not obligated to tell him.

[pcosmar]

Which we were told, "would never happen".

and people believed that shit..

I am disarmed by law.. I am a rabid 2nd amendment supporter.
It never ceases to amaze me what folks support,, or agree to,, to be able to have a gun in a safe.

[Contumacious]

That's a good question. We don't know what the reason for the stop was.
.

There is an FOIA request pending. We shall see how they respond.

Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX, your PIA request has been received and forwarded to the appropriate parties.

1st Sergeant Jonathan Green
Public Information Officer (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/01/15/unreal-unarmed-but-legal-florida-ccw-gun-owner-drives-through-maryland-then-it-goes-downhill/)
Office of the Chief – Media Relations
Maryland Transportation Authority Police
4330 Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland21222-2258
Office 410-537-7724
Cell 410-977-5772
FAX 410-537-7700
jgreen1@mdta.maryland.gov
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/police/policemain.html
twitter.com/TheMDTA
facebook.com/TheMDTA

——————————————————————————–
From: thelastrefuge@reagan.com [mailto:thelastrefuge@reagan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Jonathan Green(Police)
Subject: Public Records Request – Maryland Public Information Act, State Government Article §§10-611 to 630

1st Sergeant Jonathan Green
Public Information Officer
Maryland Transportation Authority Police
Media Relations
4330 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21222

Dear Mr. Green,

by way of introduction I am a research analyst currently doing research surrounding an MTAP officer motor vehicle stop on 12/31/13 on Southbound I-95 involving motorist Mr. John Filippidis.

The MTAP contact incident is outlined in the following Tampa Tribune story:

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

The purpose of my contact with you today is to request public records surrounding this incident.

This is a request under the Maryland Public Information Act, State Government Article §§10-611 to 630. I am making this request on my own behalf.

I wish to receive all records in your department’s custody and control pertaining to the following:

(A) the record/incident report, outlining the initial infraction which led to the traffic stop in question – and all subsequent written documentation pertaining to the encounter/traffic stop; and

(B) a recorded copy of the full Police Band radio transmission (between initial officer and all subsequent officers) as it pertains to the initial officer contact with the vehicle, to the stoppage, search, detention and subsequent release; and

(C) a copy of the dash camera recording for the initial MTAP officer encounter with the vehicle of Mr. John Filippidis (if available) during the entire timeframe of encounter with the vehicle, personage, and family of: Mr. John Filippidis, outlined in the traffic stop in question; and

(D) the full contact information for any other police, state or local agency who also responded to the traffic stop in question.

If all or any part of this request is denied, I request that I be provided with a written statement of the grounds for the denial.

If you determine that some portions of the requested records are exempt from disclosure, please provide me with the portions that can be disclosed.

Please advise me as to the cost, if any, for receiving the records described above.

I anticipate that there may be additional records requests based on initial review. If you have adopted a fee schedule for obtaining copies of records and other rules or regulations implementing the Act, please send me a copy.

I look forward to receiving disclosable records promptly and, in any event, to a decision about all of the requested records within 30 days.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me via the following: (email preferred)

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX / Research Analyst

.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yeah, that's why the sticker isn't there. I usually play it borderline dumb and innocent when dealing with the cops.

Now you're borderline bragging.

[DamianTV]

What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?


100%.

and despite any laws or bullshit rhetoric to the contrary.. every sale by a FFL is in a database.


\

100 percent.

I'd add at least another 500% to that chance because no crime needs to have been comitted, nor probable cause for a LEO to "pull you over". 500% over 100% means that there are BACKUP procedures that mandate pulling people over.

Is the driver Brown?
If so, Pull them over.

Is the driver with a Family?
Pull them over.

Is the driver transporting ANYTHING?
Pull them over.

Is the color of the vehicle offensive to the LEO?
Pull them over.

Does the driver appear to have the ability to resist the abuses of the Law?
If not, Pull them over.

Can a Citation for something be issued to the driver?
Pull them over.

[69360]

Well, she could say, "There might be a gun in all the other cars on the expressway." but that wouldn't give the cops grounds for searching all of those other cars.

That's a strawman. She gave information about the car she was in and where her husband's gun might be. She should have said nothing, but that ship sailed.


YES, They can.
They can pull you over for any reason,, real or made the fuck up.

And the first words out of the cops mouth were
Where is the gun?

That was the reason for the stop.

Of course in reality, we all know some cops make up reasons for stops. But legally they need suspicion of a crime.


I was stopped for suspicion of carrying drugs. Had a van and long hair.

Of course the "reason" for the stop was that my wife didn't have a seat belt on. She showed them that it was properly secured. She never rode without it. The cop then backpedaled and said it was because I had crossed over the center line. More bunk.

There are many ficticious reasons for making a traffic stop.

Who you gonna believe? Well, I know who you would believe.

I believe you, I have no reason to doubt your credibility.


NO. It does not.

He is a legal gun owner.. He has a concealed carry permit..

Even if there is a gun in the car,, and he is traveling ,,he has a right to have it. Period..

Just another stupid fucking cop abusing power.

And after the false arrest,,and illegal search,, NO GUN WAS FOUND.

(see Firearm Owners' Protection Act )
(for all the good that is)

Actually if it had been in the glovebox or console in a state he didn't have a CC, that is not legal. When traveling in a state you don't have CC, I believe it needs to be in a case in the trunk, unloaded. It varies by state of course.


First of all, they weren't conflicting. The wife said, "I don't know.... MAYBE in the glove box." It's quite obvious she didn't know.

Moreover, there's no reason for the officer to care where his gun was. He owned it legally, and what's more, how did he know they had a gun in the first place?

There are so many reasons this story is fucked up, and it's not just because of the search. The whole premise on which the search was based was flawed. Why did he stop them in the first place? Why should anyone care about someone simply possessing a gun? The search was unwarranted because there's no reason for him to ask about the gun.

Also, this is just another example of why you DON'T TALK TO POLICE. When the officer asked him where his gun was, he should have just told the officer he was invoking his 5th amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer the question. It's not something the officer needs to know and the guy was not obligated to tell him.

I think he would have been able to go on his way without a search if his wife kept her mouth shut. They learned a hard lesson.

[LibForestPaul]

Wut?

Are you fucking saying that the cop predicted the wife was going to respond in that manner?

WHAT WAS THE FUCKING BASIS FOR THE INITIAL STOP?

.

If a cop follows you for 15 min, he will find a "lawful" reason to detain you. Remember, you and I violate numerous laws, as per LEO's interpretations at the time, numerous times a day.

[Contumacious]

If a cop follows you for 15 min, he will find a "lawful" reason to detain you. Remember, you and I violate numerous laws, as per LEO's interpretations at the time, numerous times a day.

Yes, indeed.

And, specially if the vehicle has an out of state Tag from one of the states which recognize CCW.

.

[Anti Federalist]

Actually if it had been in the glovebox or console in a state he didn't have a CC, that is not legal. When traveling in a state you don't have CC, I believe it needs to be in a case in the trunk, unloaded. It varies by state of course.

To be clear, under FOPA, this is correct.

Any firearms must be unloaded, separated from ammunition, in locked, hard cases, inaccessible from the passenger area.

But even that is no guarantee, people have been jailed in the "usual suspect" states for stopping enroute, for any reason.

Best course of action?

Plan any cross state travels of places like NY or NJ or CA or IL to be stopless or as stop free as possible.

Never offer any information.

Never consent to a search.