Does Concealed Gun Give Cops Right to Search You?

[js415]

As with most things like this case law and precedent work better so here's only a few options, readily availablenfromgeorgia packing; just for starters:

http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/gayvstate.htm
^Pat down to verily possession of firearm not illegal
http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/megesivstate.htm
^disarming a citizen not illegal
http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/leevstate.htm
^ burden of proof for CCW is on the carrier

Case #1 was before SB308 was passed, and also indicates the subject began running after being confronted. It would say that gives RAS for a Pat down. Once again, before SB308 was passed, concealed weapons were illegal and your GFL was an affirmative defense. It is not that way any more.

Case #2...Bad guy was stopped doing 97 in a 55 mph zone...I would think that gives good RAS for a stop!!!! And then to top it off, there is the smell of marijuana coming form the car??? Again, pretty good RAS if you ask me.

Case #3...Again....pretty good RAS if you ask me. The victim, an officer, was shot by the bad guy. He ran, and then was caught later on. The search was based on details given by the officer and other witnesses on scene.

None of these have anything to do with the original question. Can an officer stop you, walking down the street, and make a Tier II stop because he believes you are carrying a concealed weapon???? Without RAS, the answer is NO. In all of these cases, in my opinion, an officer would have had more than enough RAS and PC to make a stop, and search.

We are talking about an officer stopping you, detaining you, and demanding to verify you are conducting a legal activity, just because he wants to.

 

[js415]

you're right and you're not going to find one...but that's not we're talking about. We're talking about a situation in which a LEO notices an individual with a concealed weapon and decides to initiate a conversation.

Exactly. And unless I misunderstand you, you still think it is OK and legal for an officer to stop and detain you, to verify you have a GWCL, without any RAS or PC?

 

[wozbean]

As with most things like this case law and precedent work better so here's only a few options, readily availablenfromgeorgia packing; just for starters:

http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/gayvstate.htm
^Pat down to verily possession of firearm not illegal

wozbean added - I believe carrying on MARTA was not legal in 1998 so therefore if the officer did see a pistol then he had PC.


http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/megesivstate.htm
^disarming a citizen not illegal

wozbean added- I would argue is case. If you read it the LEO said he did not feel threatened. So taking possession of the weapon for safety isn't really an issue. This was legal maneuvering because the idiot was driving 97mph smoking a joint at 3:34am. Yet they argue the smell of marijuana was not PC. It was about what the DA thought he could get this guy on. I personally feel that driving 97mph and smelling weed would be PC though. The firearm charge probably carries a larger penalty so the DA went after that.


http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/leevstate.htm
^ burden of proof for CCW is on the carrier

wozbean added - RAS was the description of the vehicle. Asking for a CCW would be acceptable.

You have not convinced me that simply seeing a firearm under a shirt is cause for a search.

 

[Vman]

I sincerely hope that rOmiLaYu is not a cop, since I haven't seen anywhere on here that he answered that question. Sorry if I missed it. He TRULY has a woody for power and does not sound at all like someone who should have it! If you are a cop romi, you sound like the stereotypical powertrippin jerk off that makes people dislike cops! If you aren't, well, I just thank God!

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Exactly. And unless I misunderstand you, you still think it is OK and legal for an officer to stop and detain you, to verify you have a GWCL, without any RAS or PC?

"Detain" and "verify" create a compound question...what I do think is OK is for a LEO to ask someone for verification of the ability to carry concealed should the LEO deem it necessary and for that citizen to politefully and respectfully comply. That's all...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I sincerely hope that rOmiLaYu is not a cop, since I haven't seen anywhere on here that he answered that question. Sorry if I missed it. He TRULY has a woody for power and does not sound at all like someone who should have it! If you are a cop romi, you sound like the stereotypical powertrippin jerk off that makes people dislike cops! If you aren't, well, I just thank God!

Not a cop, never have been...don't have a "woody" for power, either. Just a responsible gun owner who operates based on level headed decisions and knowledge of the law. I appreciate your sentiments about me, though...however misguided, incorrect, and ridiculous they may be.

 

[Vman]

Not a cop, never have been...don't have a "woody" for power, either. Just a responsible gun owner who operates based on level headed decisions and knowledge of the law. I appreciate your sentiments about me, though...however misguided, incorrect, and ridiculous they may be.

Well, like I said, thank God.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

.You have not convinced me that simply seeing a firearm under a shirt is cause for a search.

And I'm going to cease to try. I believe it can be, you don't. You're welcome to your opinion and it's clear to me theres a lot riding on you maintaining it so I'm ending my end of the conversation.

 

[Ken Ford]

This thread has been about a certain set of circumstances.Read the OP if there is a doubt.I will answer your question.Simply seeing a weapon is not grounds for a non consensual encounter. If an officer simply walks up and starts a conversation, (same right as anyone else) and asks about a permit, he can do that. Just as any person can.If an officer sees a gun in a situation where it arouses suspicion, OR someone reports that there may be something wrong, the officer has the right and duty to investigate completely and impartially.I am partial to gun carry by law abiding citizens, so I have to put that aside while investigating a report. Same as any other incident.But as I have said the simple presence of a gun is not in itself cause for alarm. But rarely is life as simple as that.

 

[blakejohn]

Even I have to take exception with that.

LEO: "Mind if I search your car?"
Me: "Yes sir, I do. I would prefer not to have my car seareched"
LEO: "Well, refusal to allow a search constitutes probable cause which allows me to search your car."

Ummm. That CAN'T be right. The exercise of a right can NOT create probable cause to supercede a right.

This exact situation happened to my cousin up north. A call was made by some one that there was a suspicious vehicle in a parking lot. He was parked and wating at the end of the lot. HE was approached in this manner and the above took place. They found i bit of pot in the car, i mean like a pinch of it. They actually charged him with possesion and it all held up in court.