Florida Traffic Stop - Long Ver.

[wolfhunter]

There's a big difference between being violated, and being inconvenienced. Your hang up with being a "III", and your lack of common courtesy when asked a question got you the exact response you wanted: something to complain about.

[Glock Fan]

Originally Posted by InvalidUserName

<snip>Thoughts?

Hire the best FL criminal attorney that you can afford. Sounds like you're in for a very long uphill battle. Don't be surprised if you end up in your typical small town "Kangaroo Court".


gf

[t-diddy]

seems that since you insisted you do not consent to any searches you're lucky you didn't end up without a license.

[InvalidUserName]

Thanks to everyone that has responded.

Boomboy: I agree with you that courtesy is a two way street. I choose not to extend certain courtesies, such as ignorantly admitting guilt to crimes I did not commit, while the officer was playing a game of semantics. All too often people get caught in this trap and admit to things they did not do. Remember that anything you say is admissible in court. You can cause severe damage to your credibility by having to contest your own comments. Also, thank you for your powerful comments surrounding the issue of constitutional rights.

2beararms: I have been advised not to mention the name of the county at this time, but will keep everyone informed of the outcome post criminal and civil actions. Thank you for the comments.

It seems that my comment on being the “III” was somehow misconstrued as me suggesting that I was heir to some sort of entitlement. This is not the case, and the problem lies with my wording of the original post. I never pointed out that I was the III to the officer. My actual statement was that “the car belonged to my father.” Placing emphasis on the III in my post was to bring light to the fact that the name of the registration and insurance was the same as on my license. This was to call into question the officers credibility as far as his ability of observation. After all, this incident occurred because of his alleged “observation”.

Glock Fan: I have – and unfortunately I have already been informed that my case will be heard in such a venue.

T-Diddy: I am not sure I follow. Can you please elaborate on why you feel this way?

[Glock Fan]

[QUOTE=InvalidUserName;62164]Thanks to everyone that has responded.

Glock Fan: I have – and unfortunately I have already been informed that my case will be heard in such a venue. /QUOTE]


I had a similar case in one of the Southern states. I was fortunate that my attorney requested and got a change of venue. The case was heard in a larger city and the jury we got was a lot more favorable to my cause. Trial lasted 2 days and ended in my favor.

Good luck!


gf

[crazycathed]

Originally Posted by t-diddy

seems that since you insisted you do not consent to any searches you're lucky you didn't end up without a license.

no police can take your lisence or even threaten you with arrest for not consenting to a search.

[Boomboy007]

Originally Posted by 2beararms

From your own post, it sounds like you started out of the box being a bit "upity" with the officers, touting a "III" as something they should not only recognize but should be impressed by. If that is the case, the remainder is not surprising to me at all.

As later stated, the "III" issue was in regards to the registration/ownership of the vehicle. Often, when asserting one's right against a warrentless search,if the driver is not the legal owner, an LEO might raise the question of whether or not the driver of the vehicle has a right to deny search because he/she is not the owner of the vehicle. Of course, if you are driving the vehicle with the owner's permission, you are acting as a legal agent of the owner when denying the search. The LEO knows this, but it will often gain permission from a reluctant driver who is already stressed from asserting their fourth amendment right. Nice try by the LEO, but again; the officer should not take it personally when a citizen stands on their legal rights.

Originally Posted by 2beararms

It sounds like an incident that should not have gotten to this level, but in my humble opinion, you came out OK and your rights were not really violated.

No offense, Bear, but it doesn't sound like you and I are reading the same post. First, the officer asked him if he was an LEO or a lawyer. After learning that he was simply a "civilian", he figured that Invalid probably didn't know what he was doing, and could probably be intimidated into standing down. Now I don't know Invalid personally, and he might be as dumb as a handsaw at a power drill convention, but he is crystal clear on his fifth amendment and fourth amendment rights.

Notice that they did not question any of the passengers? The reason is because passengers should not be addressed if you are making a simple traffic stop. The fact that these people were not further scrutinized leads me to believe that the "fruity odor" that was claimed by one of the officers was a false claim intended to try to further intimidate Invalid. If there really was a suspicion of alcohol (I am assuming Florida has an open container law) then the other occupants would have been removed from the vehicle and the vehicle summarily searched. Probable cause = no warrent needed. However, they already knew that this so-called "smart alec" knew what he was talking about, and an unsuccessful search would be bad if the issue went to court. And yall know how them smart alec city boys like ta go ta court n' stir up thangs.

Finally, they used a legally owned piece of private property to make an end run around his fourth amendment right. Now I know that there are a lot of LEO defenders out there. I will say that I am also a defender of the men and women in blue provided they are doing their job legally and ethically. However, I just don't understand why some of the second amendment proponents on this board so casually dismiss the fourth and fifth amendments. If it is okay to try to force someone into an admission of guilt (like they did to Invalis); if it is okay to subvert his right against both illegal search, and illegal seizure (as they would have if he had refused to open his trunk so that they could put his gun in there); then, by the same logic, it is okay for the LEOs in New Orleans to illegally steal thousands of legally owned firearms. Each right protects the others.

It is time that some of you got it through your head that LEOs are there for the protection of the public at large, not for individuals. Unfortunately, a large percentage of those officers believe that legal gun owners are a threat to civil order. In many places, those officers are in the majority. The only person that can protect you is you. Do so against all threats, legal or otherwise.

[Boomboy007]

Originally Posted by crazycathed

no police can take your lisence or even threaten you with arrest for not consenting to a search.

While the police can not legally do what you are stating, they CAN do whatever they want. If you are not smart or rich enough to defend yourself in court, or the department is sufficiently corrupt, then the end result is usually the same: the citizen gets screwed.

[t-diddy]

i had a buddy get pulled around 9 or 10 years ago in a big city in ne florida. he didn't consent to a search and the leo took his license and told him to walk. leo told him that 1- the license was the state's property and 2- that when he signed for his license consent to search was a given. he didn't fight it. looking at the interwebs for florida's laws today i can't see anywhere that that was a valid seizure of his license. it also seems like maybe that was covered in my driver's ed class too, but that was almost 20 years ago.

[Boomboy007]

Originally Posted by t-diddy

i had a buddy get pulled around 9 or 10 years ago in a big city in ne florida. he didn't consent to a search and the leo took his license and told him to walk. leo told him that 1- the license was the state's property and 2- that when he signed for his license consent to search was a given. he didn't fight it. looking at the interwebs for florida's laws today i can't see anywhere that that was a valid seizure of his license. it also seems like maybe that was covered in my driver's ed class too, but that was almost 20 years ago.

Well, as you probably already know, that is a crock of s***. If he had taken it to court, that cop would have faced some fairly serious disciplinary action. provided, of course, it could be proved that he did say and do those things. Ten years ago probably equals no dash cam.