It will not be my first nor last rodeo ride!!
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Does Concealed Gun Give Cops Right to Search You?
- Thread starter GDAWG1958
- Start date
It will not be my first nor last rodeo ride!!
Read this, you don't have to agree. But the first paragraph explains it all
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
I think this should explain the whole printing thing.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
I think this should explain the whole printing thing.
A police officer has the right to protect him or her self at all times. If you CC or OC legally, you have nothing to worry about. Let them do their job, They don't know who the folks are that are and are not allowed to carry. Once they disarm you and ensure you license is valad, they will rearm you and let you go on your way.. I know from 1st hand experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Drty, I agree, if they single you out and hold you up then yes something should be done about it. Call a news station and plaster it all over the place.... One way of putting them on notice for CCers and OCers. Guns are dangerous not the people behind them. I have been stopped once while OCing,, all the Peace officer did was disarm me, Clear my sidearm and ask for my permit. once he saw it was valid, he rearmed me and went back in the donut shop. LMAO
That is referring to someone that has already been stopped, not stopping someone solely for printing.
Do you really stop anyone you see that may be printing and ask them for a license?
What if it is their cell phone? Or pacemaker?
Soon it will be against the law to wear pants, because we may be hiding something in there.
Last edited:
Florida VS J.L. pretty much settled this argument, as long a an officer has "zero" reason to believe (RAS) that a crime has been committed, or about to be committed.
The USSC ruled::::
A second major argument advanced by Florida and the United States as amicus is, in essence, that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception." Under such an exception, a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. We decline to adopt this position.
State vs. Jones::
Link here: http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm
The court rules and agrees that an officer must have RAS or PC that a subject has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime in order to stop and demand to check for a valid GWCL.
I have had this exact scenario happen. It happened with the State of Georgia DNR. When confronted by the lawyers from GCO, they suddenly changed their opinion about stopping citizens. The same rules apply to LEO. They issued a state wide OIR to their LEO staff explaining what they could and could not do.
GCO members should know this info already.
Simply seeing a "print" from a firearm does not give a LEO reason to stop and demand a license. However, with this said, I imagine that any good officer could come up with RAS enough to convince a judge that he had a reason to believe his stop was warranted.
Before SB 308 was passed in 2010, it was illegal to carry a concealed firearm in Georgia, and a license was an affirmative defense to that charge. Since the law change, the assumption in the law is that it is legal. No need to for a "stop and check" unless there is RAS.
Jerry
The USSC ruled::::
A second major argument advanced by Florida and the United States as amicus is, in essence, that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception." Under such an exception, a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. We decline to adopt this position.
State vs. Jones::
Link here: http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm
The court rules and agrees that an officer must have RAS or PC that a subject has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime in order to stop and demand to check for a valid GWCL.
I have had this exact scenario happen. It happened with the State of Georgia DNR. When confronted by the lawyers from GCO, they suddenly changed their opinion about stopping citizens. The same rules apply to LEO. They issued a state wide OIR to their LEO staff explaining what they could and could not do.
GCO members should know this info already.
Simply seeing a "print" from a firearm does not give a LEO reason to stop and demand a license. However, with this said, I imagine that any good officer could come up with RAS enough to convince a judge that he had a reason to believe his stop was warranted.
Before SB 308 was passed in 2010, it was illegal to carry a concealed firearm in Georgia, and a license was an affirmative defense to that charge. Since the law change, the assumption in the law is that it is legal. No need to for a "stop and check" unless there is RAS.
Jerry
It also applies to people you plan on stopping. And if it is a phone admit to being wrong and suck hind tit. But since you mentioned it there a cell phone pistol
I avoided reading this thread for a while because I imagined where it would go, but curiosity got the best of me. Now-- I don't know if my opinion will shed any light or not, but here goes--- I'm a LEO. I really didn't want to add that considering several anti LEO comments I've read in threads on this forum (such as "Big Brother is Watching"). I can't say I speak for all LEOs but the majority of people I work with & around share the majority of these opinions.
To keep & bear arms IS a RIGHT. Unless you're a felon.
Most of the time, if your life is threatened, a LEO is not going to be there in time to save you. Believe it or not we like to arrive and learn a good guy has won the fight. Be patient though, bad guys and witnesses have their own versions of events so it may take us some time to figure out what happened for ourselves. Don't be offended if we hear your version and just wrap it up. There are responsibilities that goes with carrying a gun and using deadly force. Know the laws.
I have a job to do. If at some point that means you and I have contact, please realize I don't know you. I've had perfectly normal looking people try to kill me. Once I figure you out you'll be on your way with my respect and apologies for holding you up. Unless, you've given me serious grief after which I may see as a smoke screen to hide something. Keep in mind that if your in trouble and I get the call, I'm coming even if I'm running into gunfire.
A LOT of LEOs are gun aficionados. We like em and have hobbies that center around the like many of you.
Did you ever hear Col. David Grossman's terms defining our society as Sheep, Sheep Dogs, & Wolves? The sheep are the majority of society. The sheep dogs are those who will confront and fight the wolves who are the criminals. The LEOs & military people are commonly recognized as the sheep dogs but there are many sheep dogs out there who are neither. We won't immediately recognize you because you don't run in our pack. But when we do figure you out, we know you're a brother.
I HAVE NO INTENT TO TRAMPLE YOUR RIGHTS. I wasn't born a LEO and someday I'll retire and I cherish the same rights you do.
To keep & bear arms IS a RIGHT. Unless you're a felon.
Most of the time, if your life is threatened, a LEO is not going to be there in time to save you. Believe it or not we like to arrive and learn a good guy has won the fight. Be patient though, bad guys and witnesses have their own versions of events so it may take us some time to figure out what happened for ourselves. Don't be offended if we hear your version and just wrap it up. There are responsibilities that goes with carrying a gun and using deadly force. Know the laws.
I have a job to do. If at some point that means you and I have contact, please realize I don't know you. I've had perfectly normal looking people try to kill me. Once I figure you out you'll be on your way with my respect and apologies for holding you up. Unless, you've given me serious grief after which I may see as a smoke screen to hide something. Keep in mind that if your in trouble and I get the call, I'm coming even if I'm running into gunfire.
A LOT of LEOs are gun aficionados. We like em and have hobbies that center around the like many of you.
Did you ever hear Col. David Grossman's terms defining our society as Sheep, Sheep Dogs, & Wolves? The sheep are the majority of society. The sheep dogs are those who will confront and fight the wolves who are the criminals. The LEOs & military people are commonly recognized as the sheep dogs but there are many sheep dogs out there who are neither. We won't immediately recognize you because you don't run in our pack. But when we do figure you out, we know you're a brother.
I HAVE NO INTENT TO TRAMPLE YOUR RIGHTS. I wasn't born a LEO and someday I'll retire and I cherish the same rights you do.
You should politely and willingly submit to a very reasonable request. As has been stated multiple times, LE doesn't know who the good guys are and as a public servant, they have the responsibility of its protection...granted they may have to "suck hind tit" occasionally but it is not because they are impinging on your freedom...they are doing their best to care for the flock. So help them do their job by doing yours...being a polite, respectful gun owner. When the shepards yell at the sheep dogs, the sheep dogs listen, they don't bite back...as has already been said, you don't have to agree - but it doesn't change anything.
