First interaction with police and my CCW

[kcty]

I've had my CCW permit for a while now, but I've never had to interact with the police with it before. I guess I shouldn't say I had to, but I always like to inform police when I am carrying.

I was on my way home on Friday night with my 3 boys and wife in the car when we ran into a mandatory "license checkpoint" (aka sobriety checkpoint). In Missouri, I am not required to reveal that I am carrying, but I generally feel it is a good idea. After they redirected me to the spot where they were doing the checks, they asked for my license and proof of insurance. I handed the female officer both my drivers license and my Florida CCW ID card (since I live in MO, but have a FL CCW permit) along with my insurance card. She examined my drivers license and my CCW ID card closely and without concern, handed them back to me. She said thank you, and I said thank you to her (I don't mind these types of checkpoints at all). Then she nodded to my CCW ID card and said, "..and thank you for that too, not enough people do that".

I know police normally appreciate someone legally carrying, but sometimes you wonder about the small town cop. In this case, I was pleased to see her stance on the subject.

Like I said, I always like to inform the officer if I am carrying when I am stopped for what ever reason. Most of the time it is going to fall in my favor and I don't want the officer to think I am trying to get away with something. I figure, handing the officer both of my licenses sufficiently tells them that I am carrying without really having to say that. The only time I won't do that is if my gun is in the same area as my wallet (like where I wear my IWB). In this case I was carrying on my ankle, so I thought it would be safe to get my wallet without informing the officer of my carry status first.

[Stubob]

I have been stopped several times over the past several years and the reaction is always the same. The Law Enforcement Officers have always been very nice.

If the CCW Permit holders are nice, keep your hands visible, and do not move fast the Law Enforcement Officers know that you are most likely a tax paying good citizen.

Just one word of warning - Do not Drink, Drive and pack your gun. Leave the gun at home if you are out and have a few drinks!

Thanks for posting your encounter. :D

[Bill of Rights]

kcty, I'm glad your encounter went well. It sounds like other than the blatant infringement on your Constitutional rights, the whole thing went rather smoothly.

I do not drink alcohol at all, thus, I would be offended to be stopped at one of these "checkpoints"; Do I give up my 4th Amendment rights by my choice to drive a car on the public streets? (of which, by definition, I am part owner). I think that if I am ever stopped at one of these, my answer, through an almost-closed window, will be:

"I don't consent to any searches, officer. Am I free to go now?"

To keep this on topic, in Indiana, I am required to show my permit on request of any officer, and in spite of the above, I have no problem doing so. If he/she has a reason to ask, this probably means he/she has seen either my gun or the "print" of it on my shirt. To carry, either open or concealed, in Indiana requires a LTC, thus, seeing my gun is probable cause to believe I'm violating the state law (however unConstitutional it is). I respect the officers who are doing their jobs. Let me say that again: I respect the officers who are doing their jobs. I don't respect "sobriety checkpoints" because of the precedent they set. You even called yours a "license checkpoint", which tells me that that's what they've started calling it instead of "sobriety". I know someone out there is ready to hit their reply button and tell me that the good of society requires that we surrender some of our rights by necessity. "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? Why not consent?", and to that I quote:

Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave. William Pitt (1708 - 1778)

Some will call this a stretch, but I see no difference other than the spoken language between "License checkpoint" and "Ausweiss, bitte"

Amendment IV

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.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

There is a whole line of US Supreme Court cases on this topic. The issue is whether or not police dragnets are constitutionally permissible, and exactly what constitutes a dragnet. If I remember correctly from years past, dragnets were not allowed, but sobriety checkpoints were. Then the question becomes, if the police demand to see a drivers license, or do anything beyond simply checking for sobriety, does it become a dragnet? The answer I remember was "yes," it becomes a dragnet and is not allowed. But, I also recall that various jurisdictions were doing it anyway. I'm not aware of the current status of this issue.

[Lady Di]

St. Michael,

I agree with your conclusions whole heartedly (Surprise! :lol: ) The only thing I'd add to it is that many local police departments set up seatbelt enforcement zones and sobriety checkpoints for one reason and one reason only, and that is, to receive federal funds. Since legislators can't mandate it from Washginton because of that pesky 10th amendment, they bribe them with federal tax dollars. I can't blame local police departments for wanting additional funds, but I do believe that these "checkpoints" are a constitutional infringement on lawabiding citizens. I'd much rather see LE use public resources to concentrate on real crime. Some of the police officers I know would prefer that as well.

[Bill of Rights]

George, you said that SCOTUS has ruled that police are permitted to check for sobriety? How can they do so if I don't consent to be searched? Granted, there are general observations of my driving or of my appearance at the window, but an almost closed window makes odor, HGN, and indeed, most of the tests used, impossible, allowing, for the most part, checking for slurred speech, lack of coordination in action, etc., and for all the officer knows, I could merely be tired.

Lady Di, you have any of those T shirts left? ;-) I was not surprised to see you mention the seatbelt checks, but mainly, that's because you're correct. It is the state's decision whether or not to accept the enticement offered by Washington, but these days, doing so is a "no brainer"... in other words, they don't use their brains because, after all, it's only the peons' so-called "rights" that are being infringed, not those of the important people.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

George, you said that SCOTUS has ruled that police are permitted to check for sobriety? How can they do so if I don't consent to be searched?

They can require you to open your window and speak to them in order to ask you if you've been drinking. They can smell. They can listen to your speech for slurring. They can look at your eyes for signs of alcohol effects, blood shot and watery eyes. They can use their flashlights to look around the interior of your vehicle for signs of drinking, empty containers, bottle bags, beer cartons, etc. And, of course, they can observe your driving as you approach and leave the sobriety stop area. All in all, there is quite a lot they can do.

[Bill of Rights]

So noted. Thank you, Counselor. http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/judge.gif

Blessings,
M

[kcty]

Wow, this has been quite an eye opener. I have normally not objected to a license checkpoint (as they are calling it now) because in the area that I live, driving drunk and driving illegally is quite a problem. I figure for the safety of everyone else driving, I can help by cooperating. Now I can see that I am giving up a right by doing that and I have to ask the question..... How many rights am I willing to give up for the good of the many? That is a very tough question to ask because I don't want to voluntarily give up any rights for any reason. One compromise leads to many and giving up rights voluntarily could someday lead to rights being taken away by force.

If I am willing to allow a license check without concern, then I have to ask, would I be willing to consent to a search of my car without a search warrant or a search of my home without a warrant? No, of course not, but several little compromises can and will lead to unexpected large compromises.

Thanks again everyone for your comments and for opening my eyes a bit on this subject. We have to keep a close eye on our government (local, state and federal) as they continue to try to strip our rights away one compromise at a time. I picked my signature quote by Benjamin Franklin because I know it is true. I guess I better pay a little closer attention to it.

[lildobe]

To start off... in most states, if you check the licensing laws for drivers, you'll find that by operating a motor vehicle, you are giving up your right to refuse a sobriety check. As it states on a Florida Drivers License "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law"

And honestly, with the success of Sobriety Checkpoints here, I have to say that I don't have a problem with them.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

I have only ever once encountered a situation where I thought I might have to use my weapon - A neighbor 2 houses down from me was fighting with his adult daughter and screamed the words "I'm going to f-ing shoot you, b-tch!" I heard this from my apartment and immediately dialed 911 and reported the problem, grabbed my gun and wallet, and went outside. I carefully made my way around the vacant house between us and saw, much to my relief, that the father had no gun. Though if he had, I was prepared to do anything that was necessary to protect his daughter, my neighbors and myself.

The police officer and the shift supervisor who showed up about 5 or 7 minutes later were pleased to see my holstered weapon and after separating the parties involved, thanked me for my diligence. Pennsylvania is an No-Permit Open Carry state - which is, I assume, why I wasn't asked for my permit, though I had it with me, just in case.

If that is the only time I ever feel the need to even put my hand on the but of my gun, it will have been worth the cost and effort to be prepared.

[Raccoon]

oooohhhhhh, St. Michael. . . . . . . . .

First of all, let me say that I like you, and the following reparte will be in a friendly manner. . . . .

kcty, I'm glad your encounter went well. It sounds like other than the blatant infringement on your Constitutional rights, the whole thing went rather smoothly.

I do not drink alcohol at all, thus, I would be offended to be stopped at one of these "checkpoints"; Do I give up my 4th Amendment rights by my choice to drive a car on the public streets? (of which, by definition, I am part owner). I think that if I am ever stopped at one of these, my answer, through an almost-closed window, will be:

"I don't consent to any searches, officer. Am I free to go now?"

I respect the officers who are doing their jobs. Let me say that again: I respect the officers who are doing their jobs. I don't respect "sobriety checkpoints" because of the precedent they set. You even called yours a "license checkpoint", which tells me that that's what they've started calling it instead of "sobriety". I know someone out there is ready to hit their reply button and tell me that the good of society requires that we surrender some of our rights by necessity. "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? Why not consent?", and to that I quote:


Some will call this a stretch, but I see no difference other than the spoken language between "License checkpoint" and "Ausweiss, bitte"

Amendment IV

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.

Blessings,
M

Driving is a priviledge, and not a right.

I have assisted in many DUI checkpoints. We have arrested many who were drunk driving, and in my humble opinion, we may have saved someone's life that night.

When presented with a DUI checkpoint, we determine what number car we will pull over before getting there. (every 5th car, etc.) and we have to stick to it unless we get backed up, and then we suspend the pull overs until we are clear, and then start clounting to every 5th car again. When we do them, we have hundreds of cars we deal with that night, and we will always have a couple of drunks and people who donet have the tags up to date. Unless we see that there is a reason to stop a car. (Like the one that knocked down the officer trying to stop, and fell out of the car when asked to get out) Then we direct them to a parking lot, and tell them that we are conducting a DUI checkpoint and if everything is in order, they will be on their way in under 1 minute.

We are looking for slurred speech, smell of alcohol or drugs, and car tags and insurance that is not up to date. We are not interested in detaining someone that looks like an upstanding citizen, because we are there to get the drunks off the street. We are too busy with other cars. But, when people begin to cause trouble, it is usually for a good reason. I live in an area that has a high number of drivers that can be illegal, and will walk away from the $500 car they just wrecked, rather than taking responsibilty and paying for your damage. So we need to make sure drivers have insurance. Some of my friends have had the driver (probably illegal) wreck into their car, and call a friend and drive off before police get there. He was stuck paying several thousand to get the body fixed. Also, as one police officer put it, I have to pay for a tag, so everyone else should too.

There is also a law called implied consent. If you drive, it is implied that you will submit to a alcohol test, breath or blood, or lose your license for 6 months. If we dont smell alcohol, you are on your way. If you cant respond to the questions, and your eyelids wont stay open it is time for a little extra investigation. If we ask them to get out of the car and they fall over, there is either a medical problem, or they may be drunk. We have to have 6 "clues" before we can arrest for suspicion of DUI. Cant walk straight, eyes dialated, unable to follow simple directions, falling over, smell of alcohol on breth, etc.

Now, I know you are probably mad about this. But think about being in the police car, and having to deal with a drunk driver. We all want to get them off the street, and we do what we can to find them. Unfortunately, they dont flag us down and let us know they are driving drunk.

We just dont have the time or the interest to mess with good law abiding people. We dont want to search the car so that we see what clothes you are taking on the campout, or see how much money you are carrying in your pocket. We are trying to stop the people that will try to harm you and your family, with our lives if need be.

[Bill of Rights]

oooohhhhhh, St. Michael. . . . . . . . .

First of all, let me say that I like you, and the following reparte will be in a friendly manner. . . . .

kcty, I'm glad your encounter went well. It sounds like other than the blatant infringement on your Constitutional rights, the whole thing went rather smoothly.

I do not drink alcohol at all, thus, I would be offended to be stopped at one of these "checkpoints"; Do I give up my 4th Amendment rights by my choice to drive a car on the public streets? (of which, by definition, I am part owner). I think that if I am ever stopped at one of these, my answer, through an almost-closed window, will be:

"I don't consent to any searches, officer. Am I free to go now?"

I respect the officers who are doing their jobs. Let me say that again: I respect the officers who are doing their jobs. I don't respect "sobriety checkpoints" because of the precedent they set. You even called yours a "license checkpoint", which tells me that that's what they've started calling it instead of "sobriety". I know someone out there is ready to hit their reply button and tell me that the good of society requires that we surrender some of our rights by necessity. "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? Why not consent?", and to that I quote:


Some will call this a stretch, but I see no difference other than the spoken language between "License checkpoint" and "Ausweiss, bitte"

Amendment IV

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.

Blessings,
M

Driving is a priviledge, and not a right.

I have assisted in many DUI checkpoints. We have arrested many who were drunk driving, and in my humble opinion, we may have saved someone's life that night.

When presented with a DUI checkpoint, we determine what number car we will pull over before getting there. (every 5th car, etc.) and we have to stick to it unless we get backed up, and then we suspend the pull overs until we are clear, and then start clounting to every 5th car again. When we do them, we have hundreds of cars we deal with that night, and we will always have a couple of drunks and people who donet have the tags up to date. Unless we see that there is a reason to stop a car. (Like the one that knocked down the officer trying to stop, and fell out of the car when asked to get out) Then we direct them to a parking lot, and tell them that we are conducting a DUI checkpoint and if everything is in order, they will be on their way in under 1 minute.

We are looking for slurred speech, smell of alcohol or drugs, and car tags and insurance that is not up to date. We are not interested in detaining someone that looks like an upstanding citizen, because we are there to get the drunks off the street. We are too busy with other cars. But, when people begin to cause trouble, it is usually for a good reason. I live in an area that has a high number of drivers that can be illegal, and will walk away from the $500 car they just wrecked, rather than taking responsibilty and paying for your damage. So we need to make sure drivers have insurance. Some of my friends have had the driver (probably illegal) wreck into their car, and call a friend and drive off before police get there. He was stuck paying several thousand to get the body fixed. Also, as one police officer put it, I have to pay for a tag, so everyone else should too.

There is also a law called implied consent. If you drive, it is implied that you will submit to a alcohol test, breath or blood, or lose your license for 6 months. If we dont smell alcohol, you are on your way. If you cant respond to the questions, and your eyelids wont stay open it is time for a little extra investigation. If we ask them to get out of the car and they fall over, there is either a medical problem, or they may be drunk. We have to have 6 "clues" before we can arrest for suspicion of DUI. Cant walk straight, eyes dialated, unable to follow simple directions, falling over, smell of alcohol on breth, etc.

Now, I know you are probably mad about this. But think about being in the police car, and having to deal with a drunk driver. We all want to get them off the street, and we do what we can to find them. Unfortunately, they dont flag us down and let us know they are driving drunk.

We just dont have the time or the interest to mess with good law abiding people. We dont want to search the car so that we see what clothes you are taking on the campout, or see how much money you are carrying in your pocket. We are trying to stop the people that will try to harm you and your family, with our lives if need be.

Raccoon,

Thanks, I like you, too, and no, I'm not angry. (you can tell, cuz I'm not turning green and screaming things like "Hulk SMASH!" :mrgreen: (oops))
OK, that out of the way, I absolutely concur that driving is a privilege, not a right, despite a court ruling I heard a few months ago to the contrary.

I further concur that you save lives by getting drunk drivers off the road, and I both respect and thank you for it. Where we seem to differ is in the enforcement of that law. I'll grant you that it's only a little inconvenience for me to smile, clearly tell you that no, I've not been drinking, and if necessary, to prove it. My point is that when you have no PC to suspect that I have been, why should I have to prove anything? If there is a bank robbery, do you detain every single person within a five block perimeter, because they just might be the robber and it's only a slight inconvenience for them to prove they aren't? Of course not.
I do recognize that you have too many effing drunks to worry about hassling a good citizen, but my point is that I shouldn't be stopped just because I happened to be the fifth car, but rather if I'm driving erratically, if I'm involved in a wreck, or if there is some other clue that I've committed a crime. In that instance, you will get no argument from me, and indeed, I'll happily consent to any roadside sobriety test including PBT, no complaint at all.

Blessings,
M

[VegasGeorge]

Racoon, some questions, please.

When you are running a sobriety check point, do you demand to see the drivers license? If so, do you run a check on the license? If so, will that check reveal any outstanding wants or warrants on the driver? If there are outstanding wants or warrants on the driver, do you detain or arrest the driver?

If you answer "yes" to these questions, you are, in effect, operating a dragnet. If that is the case, how is it legal? Are there cases you can site?

Thanks!

[junglebob]

Since we are talking about check points I'll mention something I posted on a couple other forums. This summer a friend of mine mentioned that he was on I64 on his way to St. Louis and he noticed some signs along the interstate one said gun and drugs check point ahead and another K9 unit. He thought they probably were not be set up as no cars were stopped. He drove on through. Someone posted seeing state and local squad cars on Interstate 57 where it meets I64. Someone else mentioned maybe a year ago seeing a gun/drugs checkpoint on I24 before it meets I64. In none of the instances was anyone stopped, they apppeared not to be set up. I am wondering if it was a ruse to make people make illegal U turns, something they could be stopped for.

I think refusing a search is a good idea, with 20,000 gun laws in the U.S. there is too much chance you may be breaking one of them. Another thing is some LEOs don't know the state transportation laws, at least that is the way it is in Illinois.

[Lady Di]

Here is some information that you may want to consider in forming opinions about whether driving is a right or a privilege. Just a little food for thought. Please do not take this as anything other than that. See, I'm smiling. :D

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DrivingRight.html

[Bill of Rights]

It has been pointed out to me that many of our CCW forums have taken attitudes such as mine may have come across, and have taken them to an extreme which I do not and will not support, that being "anti-cop" or "cop bashing". In NO WAY do I wish to give this attitude or impression. Those officers who take their oath seriously and truly do put on the uniform and the badge "to protect and to serve", I honor and respect. There are some who do not in every force, however, and I am of the opinion that their "brother officers" need to boot their butts out of the "thin blue line" to face charges for actions which would get any other citizen charged. I quoted Deut. 16 a few days ago: "Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue", and this is the goal I'd like to see sought.

Anti-injustice is to be lauded. Anti-cop is not welcome here, not on my watch, anyway.

For those who do not know, I am not a cop. However, each of us that puts on a pistol need to be aware that what we're doing is enforcing the law. We're not wannabes, but when a crime is attempted upon our persons, our families, our neighbors, or in our presence, we have accepted the responsibility to stand up and to stop that crime. This puts each of us in law enforcement as our shared responsibility. My "handle" on here speaks to that point: St. Michael is the patron saint of law enforcement, and protects those who do so.

To Raccoon and any other LEO here who may have misread my intentions, thank you for your service- you are appreciated, and you need to hear that more.

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings, all,
M

[Lady Di]

Very well stated, St. Michael. :D

[canynracer]

well, I am by no means a professional when it comes to arguing the laws or rights of someone, but I look at it this way...

it is a HECK of alot easier to stop, and comply, infringment on my rights? maybe, who knows, like I said, I am no expert. But I DO know that if I try to argue this stance with LEO's that are trying to do their job to make the streets safer for my wife and 3 children to be on the road, then I am hindering their ability to do so effectively.

Compare the time to comply, to the time it is going to take to argue the law, and constitution and all of the other things that will detain you from moving on, cause lets face it, once you are stopped, you cant leave...if you do leave, well then its evading...maybe not long term after the 3 yrs of courts and all of that stuff, but short term, it is, and more often than not, you will be arrested for leaving without consent.

I guess my point is that we have to pick our battles, I would much rather comply with something small like this, and argue something very important and win the war.


just my two cents....
:D

[nodaywithout]

well, I am by no means a professional when it comes to arguing the laws or rights of someone, but I look at it this way...

not me i can argue my way up and down the street with the laws just like a professional would. BUT I would most likely be wrong. hehehe (thus why i should find a lawyer, JUST IN CASE or as some may say to cover my 6

[DAN]

After your first 4 or 5 fatality drunk driving responses you take on a different view of the drunk driver. After a while you really start getting irritated with any illrgal driver.
My son was killed, at 20 years old, in a driving accident 17 years ago.

If we can stop only one more family from being destroyed by any illegal driver then I will be glad to be stopped at a checkpoint.

I feel it is the duty of LE agencies that enforce traffic laws and funded using my tax dollars to get all illegal drivers off the road, not just the drunks.

Dan

[VegasGeorge]

You know, sometimes I forget how obscure the distinction can be between an academic discussion, and an argument based on true beliefs. I apologize for that.

All of my talk about sobriety checkpoints being "dragnets" was purely academic palaver. I find that sort of thing interesting. It does not reflect how I really feel about the situation.

Actually, I have no problem whatsoever with the police requiring drivers to show their drivers licenses at sobriety checkpoints. And, I have no problem with them running the licenses to discover outstanding wants and warrants, either. As far as I'm concerned, the more drunks and bad guys they get off the streets, the better.

I just felt I should clear that up.

[Lady Di]

I don't think anyone has advocated being uncooperative with LE, at least I haven't. My beef is not with LE, who are only doing their jobs when they man roadblocks, etc. I want drunk drivers off the road just as much as anyone else, and I've phoned in a few 911 calls from my cell phone to help achieve that goal. When someone is driving erratically or if they stumble to their car with car keys in hand, that is probable cause and worthy of a stop. I think the argument on this thread has been about the definition of probable cause and the legality of the issue, which is useful for debate. I hope no one has confused it with disrespect for LE. I can only speak for myself, and I'll say that I've always loved men in uniform - specially blue ones. :lol:

[kcty]

I hope no one has confused it with disrespect for LE.

I agree Lady Di, they have a tough job and I very much respect the work they do. I this case, I was just glad they were on board with the CCW.

[VegasGeorge]

I'll say that I've always loved men in uniform - specially blue ones. :lol:

Just for the record here, let me say that I was a Cub Scout, later in the US Air Force, and now in the Salvation Army! :lol:

[Raccoon]

I can only speak for myself, and I'll say that I've always loved men in uniform - specially blue ones. :lol:

Would that be the blue man group?

[My favorite clip]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uurTw0XgX7I

[Lady Di]

Definitely not the Blue Man Group! I prefer those handsome men in blue called Indiana State Troopers. I love those hats they wear, and their shoes are always shiny. Why is that state troopers are always the most handsome men in uniform? I've almost been tempted to speed so I can get pulled over by one. Shhhh! Don't tell my husband. :lol:

Oh, and btw, ask St. Michael about his Cub Scout days! :lol: :lol:

[Lady Di]

Just for the record here, let me say that I was a Cub Scout, later in the US Air Force, and now in the Salvation Army! :lol:

US Air Force?!!! Now you're talking! Can you still fit in your uniform, Vegas George? :D

[VegasGeorge]

Can you still fit in your uniform, Vegas George? :D

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I can! :D

[Bill of Rights]

Oh, and btw, ask St. Michael about his Cub Scout days! :lol: :lol:

(wipes chocolate from mouth) "Hmm? Pardon me? Did someone take my name in vain?"

:wink:

(whyslz ynnacyntly)

[Lady Di]

Can you still fit in your uniform, Vegas George? :D

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I can! :D

Well, that would make for a great pic for the Military section of this forum.

As for you St. Michael, your secret's safe with me. I won't tell why you were kicked out of the Cub Scouts. :lol: