State Police violating citizens rights???

[NavyLCDR]

You answered your own question, because he DIDN'T have a concealed carry permit. Outside of MA people don't need permits just to own guns. The law in almost all free states say no permit, open only, in a vehicle that means in plain view. I know people that put there guns on their dashboards. Kinda stupid but completely legal.

However, respectfully, most of those same states also allow exceptions for firearms being carried unloaded and in a case (sometimes requiring the case to be locked). But, why should I lock my firearm in a case when there is no legal requirement to do so, if I don't choose to? Oh....so a police officer won't get his panties in a bunch... never mind.

[snatale42]

However, respectfully, most of those same states also allow exceptions for firearms being carried unloaded and in a case (sometimes requiring the case to be locked). But, why should I lock my firearm in a case when there is no legal requirement to do so, if I don't choose to? Oh....so a police officer won't get his panties in a bunch... never mind.

I think you completely misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not saying it's stupid because it's not locked. It stupid because crap on your dashboard fly's around!

[NavyLCDR]

I think you completely misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not saying it's stupid because it's not locked. It stupid because crap on your dashboard fly's around!

Yes, I did understand what you were saying. My comment about having to lock the gun up was really unrelated... :-).

[Hamilton Felix]

Originally Posted by Hamilton Felix
A personal observation: Justice very seldom comes from Courts.

Originally Posted by NavyLCDR
I must respectfully disagree with that statement, unless "that an average person can financially afford" is added after the word Justice.

Heh, heh, (he chuckles), good point. What's that popular phrase again? Oh yeah, "all the justice money can buy."

Point taken. I probably have a more cynical outlook on Police and Courts than you. But I'd be the first to admit that a LOT of our problems come from jurors so ignorant they do not know they are the final arbiter of law, or that they always judge both the Law and the Accused.

If the tale is as told, I do hope the gentleman gets his gun back. But I think it unlikely.

BTW, refusing consent to search is fine, and I'd certainly do so. Heck, if you step out of the car go ahead and "accidentally" lock the keys inside (assuming you have a well hidden spare on the car). Maybe you'll get lucky and the cop will just hand you a ticket and laugh at you as he drives away. But any cop who wants to search has only to detain you while he calls the Dept. K-9 "drug dog" and then make sure the dog "alerts" on your trunk (drug dogs actually give a lot of false alerts, and any decent trainer can give the dog a hidden cue to alert). At that point, the search WILL happen.

[NavyLCDR]

I probably have a more cynical outlook on Police and Courts than you.

Have you read my posts?!? :-) Some people do tend to confuse realism with cynicism, though.

But I'd be the first to admit that a LOT of our problems come from jurors so ignorant they do not know they are the final arbiter of law, or that they always judge both the Law and the Accused.

Amen to that.

BTW, refusing consent to search is fine, and I'd certainly do so. Heck, if you step out of the car go ahead and "accidentally" lock the keys inside (assuming you have a well hidden spare on the car).

Actually I do have a well hidden key on my car that only opens the doors but won't work the ignition. Never thought of using it during a traffic stop. I've personally never been asked to consent to a search by a police officer. Thanks for the suggestion!

But any cop who wants to search has only to detain you while he calls the Dept. K-9 "drug dog" and then make sure the dog "alerts" on your trunk (drug dogs actually give a lot of false alerts, and any decent trainer can give the dog a hidden cue to alert). At that point, the search WILL happen.

Not legally. Here's why. I am stopped for speeding. Cop sees a rifle on my back seat. Asks me if that is the only gun I have. I say, no, I have an unloaded handgun lawfully locked in the trunk. Cop asks me to open the trunk so he can check to see if the gun is unloaded. I refuse. At this point the police officer has no reasonable or articulable suspicion that there is anything illegal in my trunk, because in Washington and most states there is nothing illegal about carrying an unloaded handgun locked in the trunk. If all other conditions are legal - the rifle, driver's license, etc. - it is against the 4th amendment for the officer to detain me any longer than necessary to handle the speeding violation. At the point where he detains me longer than necessary to write the speeding ticket, without my consent, he is violating the 4th amendment.

Now, if it just happens that he has the dog with him during the initial stop, and he does not have to detain me for any extra period of time - the dog sniffing the trunk during the traffic stop would fall under "plain sight" search rules, and if the dog alerted, that would establish probable cause for a search of the trunk. I still would not consent, however.