Cops have the right to search if you legally own a gun?

[atljetmech]

Just obey the laws and problem solved.

 

[Shrek926]

From my understanding - you have no duty to proactively inform the police you have a weapon.

If they ask, you should answer truthfully and be prepared to show your GWL. If they ask to search your car, then you can ask if you are suspected of committing a crime and say that you would prefer not.

If you start the whole "Am I being detained?" and "I do not consent to a search" stuff you are going to cause more problems than needed.

^^Damn near perfection^^

 

[StateLine]

No offense, but your buddy is full of ****......Unless you give consent, the police cannot search your car unless it is incident to arrest or if they have a search warrant...

Sorry but this information is not correct. Police can conduct a warrantless search of your vehicle based on probable cause. See Carroll v. US

There are also other exemptions to the warrant requirement such as an inventory prior to towing. While not technically a search, the discovery of contraband during an inventory is admissible in court.

EDIT: To the OP, individuals have rights, police have authority. The police do not have the right to search anyone or anything. They do however have the authority to do so. Semantics I know, but ....

 

[Abbsnkan]

II took a class years ago by the justice dept. (deedee) was her name, anyway she told us that unless the suspect "feels" like they are free to leave the scene without further incident that any Leo that even asks for consent to search has violated the 4th. Not sure if it's still true. But what happens depends on what was written in the report in my experiance.

 

[MJAtl]

Sorry but this information is not correct. Police can conduct a warrantless search of your vehicle based on probable cause. See Carroll v. US

There are also other exemptions to the warrant requirement such as an inventory prior to towing. While not technically a search, the discovery of contraband during an inventory is admissible in court.

EDIT: To the OP, individuals have rights, police have authority. The police do not have the right to search anyone or anything. They do however have the authority to do so. Semantics I know, but ....

Right, they must have probable cause that you have committed a crime and the act of lawfully carrying a firearm is not probable cause for a search. Traffic stops by themselves are also not probable cause for a deeper search unless they see, smell, hear something indicating that you probably have something else going on in there (open beer, small plastic baggie in the ashtray, bong, grateful dead sticker, joint in your hand, your buddy is acting all trippy cause he's high and paranoid, small woman bound and gagged, etc.).

You also don't have to answer any questions about how much cash you have on you either... there's been a few of abusive seizures of cash people saved up because of the poor wording of forfeiture laws that assume that anyone carrying large sums of cash must have gotten it illegally.

 

[Shrek926]

Right, they must have probable cause that you have committed a crime and the act of lawfully carrying a firearm is not probable cause for a search. Traffic stops by themselves are also not probable cause for a deeper search unless they see, smell, hear something indicating that you probably have something else going on in there (open beer, small plastic baggie in the ashtray, bong, grateful dead sticker, joint in your hand, your buddy is acting all trippy cause he's high and paranoid, small woman bound and gagged, etc.).

You also don't have to answer any questions about how much cash you have on you either... there's been a few of abusive seizures of cash people saved up because of the poor wording of forfeiture laws that assume that anyone carrying large sums of cash must have gotten it illegally.

Wrong. Read The Carroll decision. Because automobiles are "mobile" it isn't held to the fortitude of a home.

 

[Joker82]

Wrong. Read The Carroll decision. Because automobiles are "mobile" it isn't held to the fortitude of a home.

What about a mobile home?

 

[StateLine]

Right, they must have probable cause that you have committed a crime and the act of lawfully carrying a firearm is not probable cause for a search. Traffic stops by themselves are also not probable cause for a deeper search unless they see, smell, hear something indicating that you probably have something else going on in there (open beer, small plastic baggie in the ashtray, bong, grateful dead sticker, joint in your hand, your buddy is acting all trippy cause he's high and paranoid, small woman bound and gagged, etc.).

You also don't have to answer any questions about how much cash you have on you either... there's been a few of abusive seizures of cash people saved up because of the poor wording of forfeiture laws that assume that anyone carrying large sums of cash must have gotten it illegally.

I was responding your statement that police could only search your car based on consent, incident to arrest, or with a search warrant. That is incorrect. Your statement that they must have probable cause is correct (in most cases) but they are not obligated to obtain a warrant prior to searching. It is an exception to the warrant requirement. It was decided by the Carroll case in 1925 and has been upheld many, many times since then.

There are also cases where officers may conduct a limited "pat down" type search of a vehicle for weapons based on a reasonable articulable suspicion that the occupants may be armed. This is a lower standard than probable cause but it also limits the scope of the search to those areas where a weapon may be reasonably concealed and readily accessible.

As far as the mobile home question, a motor home that is capable of moving down the road is exempt from the warrant requirement because of its mobility. This is the basis of the Carroll Doctrine. It also applies to airplanes and boats and pretty much any type of mobile transportation. However, if it is immobilized, as in a temporary or semi-permanent state of residence, then it is afforded the same protection as any person's home and a search warrant is required (barring exigent circumstances, which is a whole 'nother lesson.)

 

[Shrek926]

I was responding your statement that police could only search your car based on consent, incident to arrest, or with a search warrant. That is incorrect. Your statement that they must have probable cause is correct (in most cases) but they are not obligated to obtain a warrant prior to searching. It is an exception to the warrant requirement. It was decided by the Carroll case in 1925 and has been upheld many, many times since then.

There are also cases where officers may conduct a limited "pat down" type search of a vehicle for weapons based on a reasonable articulable suspicion that the occupants may be armed. This is a lower standard than probable cause but it also limits the scope of the search to those areas where a weapon may be reasonably concealed and readily accessible.

As far as the mobile home question, a motor home that is capable of moving down the road is exempt from the warrant requirement because of its mobility. This is the basis of the Carroll Doctrine. It also applies to airplanes and boats and pretty much any type of mobile transportation. However, if it is immobilized, as in a temporary or semi-permanent state of residence, then it is afforded the same protection as any person's home and a search warrant is required (barring exigent circumstances, which is a whole 'nother lesson.)

Ol' Wally Merchant at GPSTC couldn't have put it better.

 

[wozbean]

Wrong. Read The Carroll decision. Because automobiles are "mobile" it isn't held to the fortitude of a home.

Carroll vs US was in 1925 and relates to illegal alcohol. PLUS they still need RAS/PC. It's a stretch. Yes I understand they (LE) have replaced alcohol with the word contraband.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=267&invol=132