My story.....Rhode Island traffic stop.....1 am

[newportri]

You were lucky, but it is also nice to see that the SP was nice enough to let you go since they saw you had not committed any other crimes.
Time to get a non-resident RI permit. East Providence is processing applications and since you have a connection there it makes sense to apply there if you ask me. They are also a Shall Issue authority.

 

[ochmude]

Personally Rich, the only thing I do if I get pulled over is turn on the dome light if it's dark. Otherwise I keep my hands at the top of the wheel and don't reach for anything. If the officer observes you to be reaching around for things, it just makes it that much easier to establish PC for a search. Beyond that, if you exit the car, just do so the same way that you would if you were in a parking lot getting ready to go into a store or something. Windows up, ignition off, doors locked. I wouldn't put the keys in my pocket, because hands in pockets are a bad thing. Personally, I'd put the keys on the roof and state out loud that I do not consent to any vehicle searches.

Locking the doors isn't even that big a deal, truthfully. You need to make sure your windows are rolled up to limit the scope of open view observations that can be made. If your window is closed, I can't attempt to detect any orders, and I can't just simply stick my head in and look around.

 

[RichM]

Thank you.

 

[Lcstyle]

when i saw their lights i got nervous cuz i have no RI gun permit, so i pulled the gun out from my jacket pocket and put it under my seat.

Why? you should have kept it in your direct possession, your direct control. IANAL, but proper way to transport firearms changes when the gun is not in your direct possession, i.e. on you. You could have inadvertently violated a transport law because the officer has no way of determining that you were being truthful.

Cop 1: i stopped you for speeding, license and reg please
Me: here's my license, i'll grab my reg from the glove box (hand over both)
Cop 1: u seem nervous, everything okay?
Me: yes, i'm being pulled over, cops are intimidating
Cop 1: have you been drinking or doing any drugs?
Me: nope
Cop 1: where are you coming from?

Police officer here is playing GOTCHA GAMES, you have the right to remain silent.
Never lie to the police, but you are not required to state where you were or where you are going, you have the right to remain silent.

Cop 1: where are you coming from?
Me: my girl's house, she lives in johnston
Cop 1: how long were you at her house?
Me: since about 7pm
Cop 1: where do you live?
Me: westport, MA

Officer is trying to trip you up, trying to catch you in a lie. You don't have to answer any of these questions, you can choose to remain silent.
Remaining Silent is not an admission of guilt, it is your RIGHT.

Cop 1: do you mind if i do a quick search of your vehicle to verify you have no illegal substances in there?
Me: i don't feel you have a reason to search my car, but go ahead

NEVER CONSENT TO SEARCHES, even if you have nothing to hide! IT CANNOT HELP YOU.
If the police have to ASK to search your vehicle, this means they have no probable cause, because if they did, they would'nt need your consent.

This officer ran ROUGHSHOD over you and abused your rights because you didn't stand up for yourself!

Cop 2: hmmm, interesting. why was it under your seat, wouldn't you want it on you?
Me: it was in my jacket pocket, i got nervous when i saw your lights and put it under the seat
Cop 2: it's best to just keep it on you
Me: i understand

What he really meant to say by "it's best to just keep it on you," is that he could have probably arrested you on some gun transport technicality.

Cop 1: my search is complete, i didn't find anything....do you mind if we call your girlfriend to verify you were with her tonight?
Me: i guess so, she might be sleeping by now

Welcome to Nazi Germany. This is a simple traffic stop for speeding, and the officer is obviously in training, going into a full investigation as if he suspected you of some kind of crime that's been committed in the area. I Would have put a stop to this much much sooner by asserting my rights. Even if remaining silent lands you in jail, your case will be dismissed because the police have no evidence with which to convict you. Even if you were arrested on valid grounds, an attorney can help you to get the charges reduced or otherwise obtain a less severe punishment, but not if YOU TALK AND CONFESS.

the way i understood it, i can drive through RI with the gun as long as i don't stop and get out carrying it anywhere.
Cop 1: you can drive through, but you said you stopped at your girl's house

Right here is the GOTCHA GAME! Answering questions will get you in trouble with the police! They could have detained you and charged you, and by your own admission you CONFESSED to the crime.

sooooo yeaahhhh, catastrophe avoided??? i thought i was going to jail, i know i was on the edge cuz i didn't have a non-resident RI permit. although i feel they searched my car unlawfully, i'm glad i went home to my bed.

Getting arrested is not the worst thing that could happen, getting CONVICTED IS! So next time SHUT YOUR MOUTH and don't talk to the police or answer any questions. Please watch the video below. Remember to take the advice provided in this video with a grain of salt, you don't need to be a jerk to a friendly police officer. Or otherwise turn a simple police encounter into a pissing match or legal battle, the situation could turn out worse for you than if you just co-operated to begin with. When in doubt, and you will be the best judge of this for yourself, SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

Don't talk to Police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

[Chet0729]

You got stopped out of state with an illegal gun and you got off with just a speeding fine. I think you must have done things right despite what all the hero's think. I would also take it as a lesson, lock the gun in the trunk or leave it at home and buy a Taurus or an Impala lol. This could have turned out very bad for you with different cops.

 

[KBCraig]

I'm unfamiliar with that case law, and would be very interested in reading it if you can find it. Otherwise, that's exactly what I have been taught.

Here's what I found with a quick search.

United States v Hardy (855 F. 2d 753 (1988) Eleventh Circuit

Trooper had reasonable suspicion justifying investigative stop of defendant’s automobile after he had given the driver warning for speeding.

Subjecting luggage in defendant’s automobile to a canine sniff did not exceed permissible scope of Terry stop. The sniff was an un-intrusive way in which to determine whether narcotics were in the luggage in the trunk.

Trooper acted with dispatch in obtaining trained dog and 50-minute delay did not invalidate the detention, particularly due to the trooper’s avoiding any questioning of the defendant’s during the waiting period.


United States v Fiala (929 F. 2d 285 (1991) Seventh Circuit

One and one-half hour roadside detention of driver while troopers awaited arrival of drug sniffing dog was reasonable, where driver would have been detained anyway in county jail as a result of his arrest for driving without a valid license.


United States v Chavira (9 F. 3d 888 (1993) Tenth Circuit

Although consent or reasonable suspicion is not required for dog-sniff of legally detained vehicle, it is required for continued detention beyond lawful period.


United States v Jeffus (22 F. 3d 554 (1994) Fourth Circuit

Regardless of motive behind vehicle stop, the defendant’s vehicle failed to have proper safety devices and was justifiably stopped.

A dog sniff of the exterior of the vehicle during this stop was not a search. When the dog alerted to the car, the officer had probable cause to search.

The 15 minute period prior to the K-9 sniff during the traffic stop was reasonable.


United States v Bloomfield (40 F. 3d 910 (1994) Eighth Circuit

An investigative stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion. The detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.

The one-hour time period between when the officer pulled the defendant over for a traffic violation and when officer arrested defendant was not unreasonable period to wait for drug dog to verify officer’s suspicion that vehicle contained drugs.

While waiting for the dog, the defendant:

• was told he was not under arrest;
• was not physically restrained;
• truck was not impounded or removed;
• truck was not searched until after drug dog provided probable cause.


United States v Massie (65 F. 3d 843 (1995) Tenth Circuit

At fixed checkpoint, border patrol agents may stop, briefly detain and question people without any reasonable suspicion.

Agents at secondary inspection can inquire into any suspicious circumstances they observe, as long as questioning is related to their duties.

Detention of vehicle where questioning lasted 8 to 11 minutes from time of stop at primary, to the moment the dog alerted to the vehicle at secondary, was reasonable.



Ohio v Robinette (519 U.S. 33, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996) U.S. Supreme Court

There is nothing in the federal constitution’s Fourth Amendment requiring that a lawfully seized defendant (traffic stop) be advised that he is “free to go,” before defendant’s consent to search will be recognized as voluntary.


United States v Wood (106 F. 3d 942 (1997) Tenth Circuit

During a routine traffic stop, officers are permitted to ask questions, examine documentation and run computer verifications to determine that driver has valid license, and is entitled to operate vehicle, and officers may detain driver and vehicle as long as necessary to make such determinations and to issue citation or warning.

During a routine traffic stop, to ensure officer’s safety, officer may obtain information regarding detainee’s criminal history.

Failure to consent to search cannot form any part of basis for reasonable suspicion.

Unusual travel plans and/or inconsistencies in information provided to officer may give rise to reasonable suspicion.


United States v Beck (140 F. 3d 1129 (1998) Eighth Circuit

Initial consensual nature of encounter between officer and defendant, who was stopped for traffic infraction, continued until defendant asked what would happen if he refused to permit a search of his vehicle.

At that point, officer informed defendant that if he refused a consent search, the officer would have a canine unit conduct a sniff of the vehicle. The defendant was now detained.


United States v Dortch (199 F. 3d 193 (1999) Fifth Circuit

A dog sniff does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Once a police dog trained to sniff for drugs “alerted” to driver’s side of the car, probable cause to search the vehicle was established.

Although detention of driver, who was stopped for traffic offense, pending completion of computer check for outstanding warrants was reasonable, continued detention of driver to wait for arrival of canine unit exceeded scope of permissible stop, absent probable cause for extended detention.


United States v Foley (206 F. 3d 802 (2000) Eighth Circuit

A reasonable investigation for a traffic stop may include:

• Asking for driver’s license and registration;
• Requesting driver to sit in patrol car;
• Asking driver his destination and purpose;
• Asking similar questions of vehicle occupants to verify information provided from driver.

Duration of traffic stop was reasonable, where officer obtained and verified information; this information created reasonable suspicion justifying a brief delay pending arrival of drug dog. The entire stop lasted under 30 minutes.


United States v Machuca-Barrera (261 F. 3d 425 (2001) Fifth Circuit

Because stops at an immigration checkpoint need not be justified by reasonable suspicion, court does not ask the officer to articulate a justification for the stop. Instead, the justification comes from its problematic purpose.

While a border patrol agent at an immigration checkpoint may refer a car to secondary inspection for any reason or no reason at all, the length of the detention is still limited by the immigration-related justification for the stop.


United States v Lebrun (261 F. 3d 731 (2001) Eighth Circuit

Twenty minute detention, based upon reasonable suspicion, following traffic stop while officer waited arrival of drug dog was not excessive.

Police cannot reasonably be expected to have dogs available for every police officer at every moment.


United States v Linkous (285 F. 3d 716 (2002) Eighth Circuit

A short detention for a dog sniff after completion of a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The vehicle was delayed no more than seven or eight minutes until the dog completed its sniff of the van.


United States v Gregory (302 F. 3d 805 (2002) Eighth Circuit

The Fourth Amendment grants an officer during a routine traffic stop latitude to:

• Check driver’s identification and vehicle registration;
• Ask the driver to step out of the vehicle and over to the patrol car;
• Inquire into the driver’s destination and purpose for the trip;
• Undertake similar questioning of the occupants to verify the information.

Officers need no reason to support the scan of a vehicle with a drug sniffing dog.

A dog sniff of car following traffic stop did not unreasonably extend the length of the detention, where there is no evidence that the dog sniff itself was unduly lengthy, and just over 20 minutes elapsed from the beginning of the stop to the completion of the dog sniff.


United States v Yang (345 F. 3d 650 (2003) Eighth Circuit

Officer did not detain defendant by asking him for permission to search his vehicle after the traffic stop was over, where, after completing the traffic stop, officer immediately told the defendant he was free to go and asked for consent to search the vehicle.

When oral consent is voluntarily given, the absence of a signed consent form is immaterial.


That's a huge chunk, and each case cited has been decided on specific findings, not just a timeline. I'll try to edit this list down a bit after I've had a chance to read the synposes.

And there's this, which I've barely had time to even open:

http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/76.4/76_4_Bolton.pdf

 

[M1911]

I get what you are saying, but I would definitely worry about gun charge even if they questioned the validity of the search at that point. Even if they did toss it on insufficient grounds, would he automatically get his gun returned to him at that point?

I think getting the gun back would be the least of his worries. By that point he would have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees.

 

[M1911]

Personally Rich, the only thing I do if I get pulled over is turn on the dome light if it's dark.

That's what I was taught. Don't go reaching for things because all that does is make the officer nervous. Are you trying to hide something (guns, drugs, etc.)? Are you trying to get something (gun)? There will be plenty of time to get your license and registration once the officer is at the window.

 

[RKG]

1) Instructive story; thanks for relating.

2) The OP was the beneficiary of "officer's discretion," a form of "prosecutorial discretion."

3) Prosecutorial discretion is a form of gift: it is nice if you get it but not something you can count on.

 

[abomb60]

What should have he done? So I know if I'm in that situation.

Basically right here:

Me: i don't feel you have a reason to search my car, but go ahead

You gave him permission to search your car and anything and everything found is immediately admissible in court due to you giving him permission. Wouldn't surprise me if the officer had it all covertly recorded for the courts. Keep your damn mouth shut and answer no to all of his questions. If he can't prove probable cause for alcohol or drugs you're good.

 

[abomb60]

Also unless the police can prove exigent circumstances they need a warrant to search a motor vehicle.

As per the long forgotten and often overlooked Bill of Rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So to be blunt you need to learn to keep your damn mouth shut and give me nothing.

 

[ochmude]

One thing I'm not sure everyone here is aware of, but is very important to understand. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. I'm going to repeat that and use a larger font, just to make sure people read it. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. If you find yourself in a situation where you gave consent just because you were flustered or intimidated, and you're kicking yourself for doing so, immediately state that you no longer consent to any further searches. It's absolutely your right under the 4A to revoke consent.

 

[Lcstyle]

I don't talk to the police. I've been the victim of warrantless searches and I've had a few cops give me the same "You look nervous" BS. All that is, is them trying to establish probable cause for the video cameras so that they can do what they want with you and your rights.

^^^^^ This!

 

[ochmude]

Also unless the police can prove exigent circumstances they need a warrant to search a motor vehicle.

As per the long forgotten and often overlooked Bill of Rights:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So to be blunt you need to learn to keep your damn mouth shut and give me nothing.

By exigent circumstances, do you mean probable cause? Motor vehicles actually are easier to search and typically do not require a warrant under the readily mobile conveyance exception. Refer to Carroll v. United States.

 

[abomb60]

By exigent circumstances, do you mean probable cause? Motor vehicles actually are easier to search and typically do not require a warrant under the readily mobile conveyance exception. Refer to Carroll v. United States.

Exigent circumstances aren't probable cause. It'd be difficult to claim exigent circumstance in a MV stop in my opinion especially for a search. If the car is on fire and you pull the guy out and a bag of coke falls out sure ... maybe that's good. Carroll v US might apply in certain circumstance but if the operator cannot move the vehicle (he was ordered out of the car in this case) then it might not apply (AZ vs Gant,2009). Also the mobile conveyance exception still requires probable cause that evidence of a crime or contraband is in the vehicle. If it's a simple MV stop a legal consent-less search is going to be hard to prove by the officers.

 

[ochmude]

Exigent circumstances aren't probable cause. It'd be difficult to claim exigent circumstance in a MV stop in my opinion especially for a search. If the car is on fire and you pull the guy out and a bag of coke falls out sure ... maybe that's good. Carroll v US might apply in certain circumstance but if the operator cannot move the vehicle (he was ordered out of the car in this case) then it might not apply (AZ vs Gant,2009). Also the mobile conveyance exception still requires probable cause that evidence of a crime or contraband is in the vehicle. If it's a simple MV stop a legal consent-less search is going to be hard to prove by the officers.

Okay, then your statement:

unless the police can prove exigent circumstances they need a warrant to search a motor vehicle.

is not correct. You only need probable cause to search a motor vehicle which is readily mobile, not exigent circumstances. Refer to Maryland v. Dyson.

The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to secure a warrant before conducting a search. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390—391 (1985). As we recognized nearly 75 years ago in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925), there is an exception to this requirement for searches of vehicles. And under our established precedent, the “automobile exception” has no separate exigency requirement. We made this clear in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 (1982), when we said that in cases where there was probable cause to search a vehicle “a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained.” (Emphasis added.) In a case with virtually identical facts to this one (even down to the bag of cocaine in the trunk of the car), Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (1996) (per curiam), we repeated that the automobile exception does not have a separate exigency requirement: “If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment … permits police to search the vehicle without more.” Id., at 940.

Also, Gant applies to search incident to arrest, not readily mobile conveyances.

EDIT: In the interests of full disclosure, I recently went through a commercial vehicle enforcement course and have been referencing my notes and course materials to generate these rebuttals. I couldn't cite any of this by heart if my life depended on it.

 

[daddysuperfly]

One thing I'm not sure everyone here is aware of, but is very important to understand. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. I'm going to repeat that and use a larger font, just to make sure people read it. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. If you find yourself in a situation where you gave consent just because you were flustered or intimidated, and you're kicking yourself for doing so, immediately state that you no longer consent to any further searches. It's absolutely your right under the 4A to revoke consent.

the next time i'm in AZ, i need to buy you a beer.

you always have great info, and this is worth its weight in gold. I'm sure most people on here had no clue, myself included.

 

[ochmude]

the next time i'm in AZ, i need to buy you a beer.

you always have great info, and this is worth its weight in gold. I'm sure most people on here had no clue, myself included.

Bring Sam Adams Pumpkin...it's really hard to find here and I would be willing to kill anyone you want to get rid of in order to get my hands on a case.

 

[daddysuperfly]

so a fall trip? I might be able to arrange that.

 

[Blitz1]

I've gotta say... this story does not pass the stink test IMHO.

Me thinks that the OP may not be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Me thinks there's been some fabrication.

It just does not add up IMHO.

And to the OP, sorry if this offends you. But I call'em like I see'em.

Best,

Rich

I'm with Rich on this one.

 

[arsenal9w]

I've had plenty of people refuse to grant me consent to search their vehicles. Wanna know what happens? I don't search their vehicle, I don't find some worthless quarter ounce of skunk weed that I didn't even care about in the first place, I don't end up having to arrest them, and I don't have to do hours of paperwork. Seriously, I get paid whether you assert your rights or not, but if you do assert your rights I often have a lot less BS work to do. Most cops are a lot less vindictive than people here realize.

Supervisor: Why didn't you hook that guy up!!!!
Me: I stopped him. He refused consent. I let him go. I got Subway. Want some of my chips?
Supervisor: Subway's open this late?
Me: The one at the truck stop is.
Supervisor: Awesome, I'm starving. I'll catch you later.

^That conversation actually happened one night.

You sound like you have a cool head. Is that the culture in Arizona? To bad not all LEO's are like you. They tend to be a little more uptight here in New England. As far as the OP goes I think he handled it well but luck played a role.

 

[Serapis]

You need PC or consent to search a car. Bottom line.

EDIT: Unless it's an inventory search after an arrest.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

You sound like you have a cool head. Is that the culture in Arizona? To bad not all LEO's are like you. They tend to be a little more uptight here in New England. As far as the OP goes I think he handled it well but luck played a role.

Yup, from what I can tell he is extremely clear-minded and remembers the oath he took. I can say this, AZ is a beautiful state and ironically enough I was born in Tuscon. My parents adopted me at 2 days old and I've lived at my current residence in MA for my entire 24 years this 31st. Hopefully one day I'll be able to buy ochmude a beer for always providing me with info I had no idea about. +1 man.

 

[bandaid bandit]

no need for the killing, but If I ever go to AZ, I'll be sure to ship a keg of it ahead.

 

[arsenal9w]

Congrats. I once got a ticket from a statie for having an expired registration, even though I renewed the registration online and showed the trooper the email I got from the RMV stating that the email itself was sufficient proof of current registration. She told me I could have just typed that email up myself in Word and gave me a ticket. I treated her with the utmost respect and she was a complete bitch. You and I have learned first hand that some cops are a**h***s. Most, however, aren't.

Wow, I think that is the first time I heard a reasonable cop say that some cops are a**h***s. I respect you more for that. Its too bad the police departments get a bad rap for a few a**h*** cops. I was brought up to respect the badge but not nescersarily what its pinned to. Lucky for the OP too.

 

[ochmude]

You sound like you have a cool head. Is that the culture in Arizona? To bad not all LEO's are like you. They tend to be a little more uptight here in New England. As far as the OP goes I think he handled it well but luck played a role.

Lol, I just moved to AZ a year ago. I used to live in Chicopee, and Holyoke before that. Truth is I was a member of this forum for about 3 years before I got into law enforcement. This forum has played a large part in solidifying my values, so to speak. My family and my military service laid the foundation, but my participation in this forum has helped to drill down the specifics of what I believe in. I carry out my duties in accordance with U.S. law, federal regulations, and agency policy, but I do not compromise my beliefs and values in the process. Thank you very much for the compliment. It means a great deal.

 

[BeastlyAdams]

.. and you don't have thousands of rounds sitting around?!?! Weird...

Maybe he goes to the range too often?

 

[arsenal9w]

Bring Sam Adams Pumpkin...it's really hard to find here and I would be willing to kill anyone you want to get rid of in order to get my hands on a case.

Sounds like a set-up to me. LOL

 

[arsenal9w]

Lol, I just moved to AZ a year ago. I used to live in Chicopee, and Holyoke before that. Truth is I was a member of this forum for about 3 years before I got into law enforcement. This forum has played a large part in solidifying my values, so to speak. My family and my military service laid the foundation, but my participation in this forum has helped to drill down the specifics of what I believe in. I carry out my duties in accordance with U.S. law, federal regulations, and agency policy, but I do not compromise my beliefs and values in the process. Thank you very much for the compliment. It means a great deal.

My two sons are Marines. Parris Island, 96 & 99. They are out now but once a marine always a marine, right.
You sound like a man of integrity. Don't change.

My sons would say Semper Fi and I say Carry on.

 

[Jayblaze248]

4am What a goodnight story... Your one lucky man for running into those officers and not east providence police they will mess wit u for any little thing and call for back up .. Next thing u got 5 cruisers behind ur car