| Author | Post |
|---|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 07:58 am |
|
I was pulled over for slowing down to look at a building while on the way back home with my wife and family in the car (including a 2 year old) at around midnight in southern Iowa. After checking my papers the officer ordered me out of the vehicle.
A second officer from another car walked near us, and observed from the sidewalk.
The 1st officer was very young (18-20) and extremely nervous. He was avoiding eye contact, his hands were shaking, he was touching my papers, his taser, his belt, etc. with his left hand, and his voice was shaking. He asked me question after question (fishing), and I responded I don't know, or with generic answers (i.e. "Where are you staying?", "A motel," "What motel," "I don't know what the name is").
The 1st officer repeated what seemed to me his mantra over and over throughout this, "You're acting very strangely compared to the stops that I usually make." I'm not sure what his intent was when he made this statement over and over, but I just ignored it every time.
Long story short. They searched my car without my consent. I stated very clearly, twice, that they DID NOT have consent to search my vehicle, but that I would comply with their orders, and officer 2 replied that he was going override me. They advised me that I had committed 2 infractions, one of them criminal were it true; yet the night ended with me driving off without so much as a ticket let alone an arrest. Bottom line is they did not know the law.
At the end of it officer 1 asked me why I wasn't answering his questions, I responded to him that I've been told that it is not a good idea to answer questions. He asked, "Who told you it's not a good idea," and then "You don't think it's a good idea to answer questions asked of you by a police officer," and rolled his eyes at officer 2.
He also asked why I didn't want him to search my vehicle, and I responded very very firmly, "Because I strongly believe in the 4th amendment."
I guess there really is nothing halfway about the Iowa way they treat you.
If you would like details PM me, and I might send you the extended version 
Last edited on Tue Apr 7th, 2009 07:58 am by diesel556
|
TFED12
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 12:01 pm |
|
| So, where does your firearm come into play in this story?
|
codename_47
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 338 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 02:11 pm |
|
| so are you going to sue them?
|
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 02:55 pm |
|
We want video!
So what made the guy so nervous? And why didn't the 2nd officer take him by the scruff and say "bad rookie!"?
And aren't you very glad that you researched Iowa's open carry laws first?
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 04:51 pm |
|
diesel556 wrote: I was pulled over...
Sounds outrageous on the surface.
I'm wondering how they had reasonable suspicion of a firearm to make a warrantless search of the car. Or, how they had probable cause to make a warrantless search of the car if the gun was not suspected.
|
TFED12
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 04:52 pm |
|
| I have yet to read anything about a firearm.
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 06:42 am |
|
TFED12 wrote: I have yet to read anything about a firearm.
Really? Did you have anything constructive to add?
We want video!
So what made the guy so nervous? And why didn't the 2nd officer take him by the scruff and say "bad rookie!"?
And aren't you very glad that you researched Iowa's open carry laws first?
I thought that one of the first things taught in academy is to never correct another officer in public?
Yes, I am very glad. They would have nailed me to the wall if they could have. Iowa's carry laws are very frustrating!
Sounds outrageous on the surface.
I'm wondering how they had reasonable suspicion of a firearm to make a warrantless search of the car. Or, how they had probable cause to make a warrantless search of the car if the gun was not suspected.
Sorry for the lack of detail. I wasn't sure how much to disclose in my first post.
They asked me point blank if I had a gun, after pulling me out of my vehicle. I wasn't able to think of a response to a direct question like that (Perhaps, "That's none of your business"). I told them that I did, and that it was stored unloaded in a locked container in the trunk.
After checking it they advised me that it was illegal to store the ammunition in the case with the gun (which I believe is incorrect after reading Iowa Statute 724 again)
This was a good learning experience for me. I tried to avoid being a total jerk to the officer to prevent myself getting a ticket, and ended up having my vehicle searched for the effort. I would have much preferred the ticket.
In the future I think it will be easier to keep my mouth shut.
I think my avenue of complaint will be the fact that the officer ordered me out of my vehicle twice (I responded that I preferred not to after the first request) after running my paperwork. He had no possible reason to order me out of my vehicle, and thereafter to interrogate me.
Last edited on Wed Apr 8th, 2009 06:48 am by diesel556
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 1029 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 07:36 pm |
|
How did they get into the locked car to search it?
Those same "Don't talk" videos also say to lock the doors when you get out.
But lets see..... Taking a minor to a motel, you obviously had immoral ideas in mind.
Good thing they didn't find the video cameras.
But by admitting you were staying in a motel, you tossed out your federal
transport defence. So bad answer to the question, fifth works better.
Last edited on Wed Apr 8th, 2009 07:44 pm by SlackwareRobert
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Thu Apr 9th, 2009 09:02 am |
|
SlackwareRobert wrote: How did they get into the locked car to search it?
Those same "Don't talk" videos also say to lock the doors when you get out.
But lets see..... Taking a minor to a motel, you obviously had immoral ideas in mind.
Good thing they didn't find the video cameras.
But by admitting you were staying in a motel, you tossed out your federal
transport defence. So bad answer to the question, fifth works better.
They asked for consent to search the vehicle. I told them they did not have my consent, after the young officer told me that he needed to check my gun's serial number.
They talked a bit, then I reiterated, "You do not have my consent to search my vehicle."
The older officer who had been standing on the sidewalk informed me that he was going to override my refusal to a search as he had probable cause to verify that the weapon was stored unloaded, and ordered me to open the trunk.
Last edited on Thu Apr 9th, 2009 09:09 am by diesel556
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10th, 2009 06:37 pm |
|
diesel556 wrote: SlackwareRobert wrote: How did they get into the locked car to search it?
Those same "Don't talk" videos also say to lock the doors when you get out.
But lets see..... Taking a minor to a motel, you obviously had immoral ideas in mind.
Good thing they didn't find the video cameras.
But by admitting you were staying in a motel, you tossed out your federal
transport defence. So bad answer to the question, fifth works better.
They asked for consent to search the vehicle. I told them they did not have my consent, after the young officer told me that he needed to check my gun's serial number.
They talked a bit, then I reiterated, "You do not have my consent to search my vehicle."
The older officer who had been standing on the sidewalk informed me that he was going to override my refusal to a search as he had probable cause to verify that the weapon was stored unloaded, and ordered me to open the trunk.
Have you talked to your lawyer yet? You should be in the process of subpoena right now, making sure the tapes aren't "accidentally" overwritten.
In short: stop posting on line, start talking to a lawyer!
|
Gunslinger
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11th, 2009 05:09 pm |
|
| Illegal search, period. What traffic offense/criminal offense did they say you violated? You should have asked why you were being detained. Did they search you? At the very least, I would file a complaint with the jurisdiction's DA and cop internal affairs. In your car with your wife and child, what RAS could they have? "Do you have a gun?" 'Yes, unloaded and locked in the trunk.' He had no probable cause, because you violated no law. PC deals only with strong probability that a crime was committed. An unloaded gun locked in a trunk violates no law in IA that I'm aware of after reading the statute. Too bad you don't live there. Good lawsuit material, but coming back to the state isn't worth it. A written complaint is, however.
|
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11th, 2009 06:02 pm |
|
Gunslinger wrote: Illegal search, period. What traffic offense/criminal offense did they say you violated? You should have asked why you were being detained. Did they search you? At the very least, I would file a complaint with the jurisdiction's DA and cop internal affairs. In your car with your wife and child, what RAS could they have? "Do you have a gun?" 'Yes, unloaded and locked in the trunk.' He had no probable cause, because you violated no law. PC deals only with strong probability that a crime was committed. An unloaded gun locked in a trunk violates no law in IA that I'm aware of after reading the statute. Too bad you don't live there. Good lawsuit material, but coming back to the state isn't worth it. A written complaint is, however.
Interesting. I wasn't 100% sure whether they had RAS based on my admission, and statement that it was unloaded/locked.
I have an appointment with my lawyer for another illegal detainment/seizure that happened to me (Am I wearing a kick me/detain me sign on my back?).
I will talk to him about this case as well, however, I agree that it would be difficult to do anything more than file a complaint.
Last edited on Sun Apr 12th, 2009 10:35 pm by diesel556
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Tennessee |
| Posts: | 1065 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14th, 2009 09:54 pm |
|
diesel556 wrote: Gunslinger wrote: Illegal search, period. What traffic offense/criminal offense did they say you violated? You should have asked why you were being detained. Did they search you? At the very least, I would file a complaint with the jurisdiction's DA and cop internal affairs. In your car with your wife and child, what RAS could they have? "Do you have a gun?" 'Yes, unloaded and locked in the trunk.' He had no probable cause, because you violated no law. PC deals only with strong probability that a crime was committed. An unloaded gun locked in a trunk violates no law in IA that I'm aware of after reading the statute. Too bad you don't live there. Good lawsuit material, but coming back to the state isn't worth it. A written complaint is, however.
Interesting. I wasn't 100% sure whether they had RAS based on my admission, and statement that it was unloaded/locked.
I have an appointment with my lawyer for another illegal detainment/seizure that happened to me (Am I wearing a kick me/detain me sign on my back?).
I will talk to him about this case as well, however, I agree that it would be difficult to do anything more than file a complaint.
get the mistreatment on audio or video if you can--you can then at the very least post it all over youtube and make them famous...it will also make it easier for you to hold them accountable.
if you feel your civil rights were violated you could submit an official complaint to the FBI Civil Rights division.
Last edited on Tue Apr 14th, 2009 09:54 pm by suntzu
|
Legba
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1880 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 02:53 pm |
|
Police will often invoke an imaginary "officer safety" exception to the 4th amendment if you admit to having a gun anywhere in your car. You can always refuse to answer "do you have any weapons?" just the same as any other question. Do so and save yourself a lot of hassle. JMO.
-ljp
|
Thundar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 06:49 pm |
|
Legba wrote: Police will often invoke an imaginary "officer safety" exception to the 4th amendment if you admit to having a gun anywhere in your car. You can always refuse to answer "do you have any weapons?" just the same as any other question. Do so and save yourself a lot of hassle. JMO.
-ljp
+1, but remember there are some states where there is a duty to inform.
|
Legba
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1880 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 02:50 pm |
|
Yeah, Ohio has a duty to inform, but only if you are carrying or transporting a weapon in a manner that requires a license. If I have a crate of unloaded long guns in my trunk, and 100,000 rounds of ammo, I don't have any duty to acknowledge their presence. Do learn the jurisdicion-specific legal requirements before you presume to assert "rights" you may not really have.
-ljp
|
Legba
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 23rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1880 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 05:53 pm |
|
For future reference, the supreme court just ruled on such car searches. Here's my link to their link to some other link... anyway: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/24857.html.
No more "overriding" your refusal (which was illegal even under the old standard).
-ljp
|
Diocoles
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue May 19th, 2009 09:53 pm |
|
I left Iowa (Cedar Rapids) and will never go back. Draconian police. I grew up with them and I was a "geek" type good kid and still had nothing but BAD interfacings with them. I'll never go back. HA.  The whole state is going under. Under what.. I'm not sure.. I'll stop there so I don't offend any prisoners of the great? state that WAS Iowa.
|
Nutczak
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 24th, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
Hmm, this sounds bad all the way around. When I am asked a direct question by any LEO, I will always reply with another question. Yes, it pisses them off, but I am not the one initiating the stop, they are stopping me!
"Do you have a gun" My reply would be "Do you see a gun?" or 'Why would you think that?"
"Where are you going to/coming from" I point in the direction I am traveling or coming from. It is none of their business since I have free travel througout the United States.
You may have gave them probable cause when you admitted to having a firearm in the vehicle, IMO you had no obligation to answer that question .
Go after them, if nothing else it may stop them from getting comfortable with violating several rights of others in the future.
|
ghostrider
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 1st, 2009 01:35 pm |
|
Legba wrote: Police will often invoke an imaginary "officer safety" exception to the 4th amendment if you admit to having a gun anywhere in your car. You can always refuse to answer "do you have any weapons?" just the same as any other question. Do so and save yourself a lot of hassle. JMO.
-ljp
While this is true, the officer stated the reason for searching the car, and it wasn't "officer safety".
diesel556 wrote:
They asked for consent to search the vehicle. I told them they did not have my consent, after the young officer told me that he needed to check my gun's serial number. They clearly had no PC to search the vehicle, and when the officer stated that the reason for the search was to check the SN, he pretty much oblieterated his RAS. IANAL, but what that officer did appears to be in clear violation of AZ v Hicks, yet probably goes beyond since the gun was not even in plain sight.
The RS of "Slowing down to look at something. " might fly, but come on. How many people don't do that?
This cop was fishing, and the only reason they told you that you could be charged with a felony was to keep you from looking into it further.
I'd guess (just based on what I've read here) that you have a strong case of civil rights violations. Any legal expense incurred would be payed for by them eventually.
It's just a matter of if the OP has the finances and time to peruse it. Bad cops (and I do mean the bad ones) get away with this type of stuff because 1)some of them really don't know the limitations of the law placed upon them, and 2)they know that there is little chance of repercussion. (victims don't have the money or time to hold them accountable).
ETA:
This officer is using his badge to circumvent the law of the land. I believe this is one of those situations where if you are not going to peruse it through civil litigation, it's best to just let it go. Filing a complaint will only serve to educate the officer so that the next time he violates someone's rights, he'll be better at doing it so that he won't make himself so vulnerable to being sued in court for a civil rights infraction.
It's much better that he remain ignorant so that if he ever does run into someone willing to pursue the matter, he will hopefully have still used the reason for search as, "I want to run the SN".
Educating ignorance is good. However, educating willfulness to violated a citizens rights, will only serve to better them at that task, and it will only make it more difficult for the officers next victim.
Last edited on Sat Aug 1st, 2009 01:44 pm by ghostrider
|
Current time is 03:41 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
