question about CC and traffic stops

[zephyp]

You just need to notify the LEO about the gun when your about to make movements due to his request for you to produce your credentials.

Legally in VA, no you don't.

That is correct...you are in no way obliged legally to inform...here in NOVA I will wait until they ask.

[06bolton5pt3]

My brother-in-law is a Fairfax county cop and he said many times it's really more about how the info is conveyed.

Do Not:
Start right off when the cop gets to your window say, "I have a gun and a permit to carry it."
Even if you're trying to be up front and make the cop aware. Remember 90% of all robberies start off with those famous words "I have a gun".

Do:
Convey the info more like this perhaps; (With both hands on the wheel) "Good evening officer." That's it. THEN, when he ask for your license and reg. say "No problem. But 1st please be advised that I have a CCWP and I do have a firearm at my right hip. My license is in my wallet... My reg is... and I will have to reach to my... Is that OK? You get the picture.

You just need to notify the LEO about the gun when your about to make movements due to his request for you to produce your credentials.

That's why IF i were to get pulled over, i would already have my License and registration out on the console awaiting the officer to walk up. That way i don't have to do any reaching while hes at the window

[ProShooter]

That's why IF i were to get pulled over, i would already have my License and registration out on the console awaiting the officer to walk up. That way i don't have to do any reaching while hes at the window

That's actually not recommended either, since your movements to get those items may be viewed as furtive by the officer.

[CK1]

Yeah, that was what my brother-in-law was saying. The movement in the car is always a trigger for alert by the officer.

And what I meant by "You need to" is you SHOULD notify him about the gun once he's asked you to get move to get your lic. & reg.

It's just good gun etiquette. Think about the logic... He doesn't know you and he almost surely doesn't know about the gun at your hip. Now he's asked you to move to get something harmless (lic. & reg.) that just happens to be very near something that could kill him if you were that type of person. And whether or not you are that type of person, he has no idea.

It seems to me there are just some things we should do as a courtesy to our fellow earth inhabitants when it comes to guns.

[gunderwood]

Yeah, that was what my brother-in-law was saying. The movement in the car is always a trigger for alert by the officer.

And what I meant by "You need to" is you SHOULD notify him about the gun once he's asked you to get move to get your lic. & reg.

It's just good gun etiquette. Think about the logic... He doesn't know you and he almost surely doesn't know about the gun at your hip. Now he's asked you to move to get something harmless (lic. & reg.) that just happens to be very near something that could kill him if you were that type of person. And whether or not you are that type of person, he has no idea.

It seems to me there are just some things we should do as a courtesy to our fellow earth inhabitants when it comes to guns.

We could go round and round on this.

When you are pulled over by an officer, it is not a individual to individual interaction (I2I) like you suggest. You are being detained by an agent of the state against your will (if you could choose to pull over, I'm willing to be most people wouldn't bother). It is a state agent to individual interaction (S2I). Unlike I2I where both parties mutually agree to the meeting and potentially benefit from it, with a S2I there is no such thing. In S2I one side always loses, the individual. The best you can do is not have something bad happen to you and simply have your tax dollars and time wasted.

In a S2I interaction, you are being observed to determine if the state can get anything on you. It is best to give them nothing, but what they can demand of you by law. Any questions not directly related to the reason for being stopped is a fishing expedition. Why does an officer care where you came from or where you are going if you were speeding? Why do they care what is in those boxes in the back seat? Your trunk? Etc. Etc.

They aren't trying to make small talk. The only two reasons they ask these questions, and are trained to, is to get you to give them permission for an otherwise unreasonable search or to get you talking to see if they can arrest you for anything. Under those circumstances, why is it wise to answer or provide any information you don't have to?

Edit: Unless they have RAS about my gun, it is unreasonable to search and seize it. I won't answer questions (politely) about my gun because I don't want to give them RAS (which you will unknowing do if you talk about your gun). It is for your own protection to interact with state agents as little as possible.

[ProShooter]

In a S2I interaction, you are being observed to determine if the state can get anything on you.

If you are being pulled over for a traffic violation, then the officer has a reason to initiate that interaction. Its not about trying to "get anything on you". Its about enforcing the law.

Let's not put our tin foil hats on just yet...

[allingeneral]

In a S2I interaction, you are being observed to determine if the state can get anything on you.

If you are being pulled over for a traffic violation, then the officer has a reason to initiate that interaction. Its not about trying to "get anything on you". Its about enforcing the law.

Let's not put our tin foil hats on just yet...

I have to disagree with you here ProShooter. I think it's all about finding out anything that they can find out. This is why they run your license to see if you have any warrants. Are you doing anything illegal other than speeding? They may ask questions specifically to pry into these areas to determine whether or not there is a reason to take you "Downtown".

I'm not saying that every interaction will be like this, but every interaction certainly has the potential to.

Let's look at an example:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "I don't allow searches of my personal property"
Officer: "OK, here's your ticket for driving 68 in a 55. Have a nice day"
End of discussion.

Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: As the officer leans into your car to retrieve the backpack, he sees something under your seat that catches his eye "Sir, please step out of the vehicle"
You: Comply

Oh boy...here we go!!!

Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: The officer retrieves the backpack and notes that it is clearly not empty - it has papers and a box of ammo from when you went to the range last weekend "Sir, why did you lie to me - this backpack has ammunition in it"
You: "Oh, I forgot that was in there"
Officer: "Do you have any guns in the car"
You: "None of your business"
Officer: "Sir, what are you trying to hide - Please step out of the car"

Uh oh - here we go again!!


So, I have to say that I'm happier with scenario number 1 where I refuse to provide any more information than is necessary for the officer to deal with the issue at hand - a speeding ticket.

[ProShooter]

I have to disagree with you here ProShooter. I think it's all about finding out anything that they can find out. This is why they run your license to see if you have any warrants. Are you doing anything illegal other than speeding? They may ask questions specifically to pry into these areas to determine whether or not there is a reason to take you "Downtown".

I'm not saying that every interaction will be like this, but every interaction certainly has the potential to.

Let's look at an example:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "I don't allow searches of my personal property"
Officer: "OK, here's your ticket for driving 68 in a 55. Have a nice day"
End of discussion.

Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: As the officer leans into your car to retrieve the backpack, he sees something under your seat that catches his eye "Sir, please step out of the vehicle"
You: Comply

Oh boy...here we go!!!

Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: The officer retrieves the backpack and notes that it is clearly not empty - it has papers and a box of ammo from when you went to the range last weekend "Sir, why did you lie to me - this backpack has ammunition in it"
You: "Oh, I forgot that was in there"
Officer: "Do you have any guns in the car"
You: "None of your business"
Officer: "Sir, what are you trying to hide - Please step out of the car"

Uh oh - here we go again!!


So, I have to say that I'm happier with scenario number 1 where I refuse to provide any more information than is necessary for the officer to deal with the issue at hand - a speeding ticket.

The point that I was trying to make is that the reason for the initial stop is not "trying to get something on you". Its about the violation. A Police Officer is trained to ask questions that you may or may not choose to answer. Nothing wrong with him asking though. That is his job.

The reason that they run your license is not to find out of you have a warrant. Its to ensure that your license is valid. Now, any good dispatcher will automatically check that but that is not the goal. There are many officers who stop cars, give a quick warning and send you on your way with even calling in the stop or your name. What police do know from experience is that a simple thing such as a bad inspection sticker often leads to other things....so they ask questions while they issue a summons. Nothing wrong with that. My simple answer to all of this is, don't get caught doing anything that you shouldn't be doing; speeding, bad inspection sticker, etc. If you are breaking the law, you deserve to be caught. Law abiding citizens should want the police to catch wrongdoers. It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law!

[allingeneral]

It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law![/b]

oh, come on now...I've been saved by a flasher on numerous occasions! lol

[Taggure]

It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law!

Why would you want them to get pulled over? To line the county coffers and make thier quota?

Fairfax County is the worst with speed traps, and you can bet your bottom dollar they will be out the first and the last of the month in full force trying to catch someone just trying to get home after doing 10 -20 mph for most of their drive and then they get nailed for 5 mph over the speed limit. Yeap I flash my lights to let folks know about their little trap. They ought to be out doing some real police work not harassing folks. I know I know the speed limits are there for our safety and I do adhere to them (for the most part), but maybe they ought to go catch real bad guys instead of trying to bring in revenue with their quota of fines by hiding at busy bus stops in the crowd or jumping out of bushes on Fairfax Parkway. and back to the threads subject Fairfax finest are a real nosey bunch and give you the third degree of questioning when they stop you, so I agree with the others about answering any question that does not pertain to the actual stop.

[gunderwood]

I have to disagree with you here ProShooter. I think it's all about finding out anything that they can find out. This is why they run your license to see if you have any warrants. Are you doing anything illegal other than speeding? They may ask questions specifically to pry into these areas to determine whether or not there is a reason to take you "Downtown".

I'm not saying that every interaction will be like this, but every interaction certainly has the potential to.

Let's look at an example:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "I don't allow searches of my personal property"
Officer: "OK, here's your ticket for driving 68 in a 55. Have a nice day"
End of discussion.

Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: As the officer leans into your car to retrieve the backpack, he sees something under your seat that catches his eye "Sir, please step out of the vehicle"
You: Comply

Oh boy...here we go!!!

Or another way:
Officer: "Hey, what's in that backpack in your back seat?"
You: "Ohhh, nothing, really"
Officer: "Do you mind if I take a look in it?"
You: "Yeah, I don't care - there's nothing in it"
Officer: The officer retrieves the backpack and notes that it is clearly not empty - it has papers and a box of ammo from when you went to the range last weekend "Sir, why did you lie to me - this backpack has ammunition in it"
You: "Oh, I forgot that was in there"
Officer: "Do you have any guns in the car"
You: "None of your business"
Officer: "Sir, what are you trying to hide - Please step out of the car"

Uh oh - here we go again!!


So, I have to say that I'm happier with scenario number 1 where I refuse to provide any more information than is necessary for the officer to deal with the issue at hand - a speeding ticket.

The point that I was trying to make is that the reason for the initial stop is not "trying to get something on you". Its about the violation. A Police Officer is trained to ask questions that you may or may not choose to answer. Nothing wrong with him asking though. That is his job.

The reason that they run your license is not to find out of you have a warrant. Its to ensure that your license is valid. Now, any good dispatcher will automatically check that but that is not the goal. There are many officers who stop cars, give a quick warning and send you on your way with even calling in the stop or your name. What police do know from experience is that a simple thing such as a bad inspection sticker often leads to other things....so they ask questions while they issue a summons. Nothing wrong with that. My simple answer to all of this is, don't get caught doing anything that you shouldn't be doing; speeding, bad inspection sticker, etc. If you are breaking the law, you deserve to be caught. Law abiding citizens should want the police to catch wrongdoers. It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law!

I never said the point of the stop was to go fishing. I said the point of asking unrelated questions, like Allingeneral demonstrated, is to find out if there is anything else they can get you for. That isn't , that is part of an officers training. You know that so don't play coy.

[gunderwood]

It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law![/b]

oh, come on now...I've been saved by a flasher on numerous occasions! lol

We wouldn't have a country if American's all turned each other in to the state for trivial things...Sam Adams anyone? John was the respectable one in that family.

Isn't that one of our concerns with healthcare? Doctors asking questions and turning in patients to the authorities, who promptly lose their rights, because they might be dangerous. It already happens today with Veterans and it is a crying shame.

The founders feared government, which is why they limited it. If government was all is cracked up to be, they would have made it unlimited so it could do everything for us.

[cigarmanva]

Yeah, that was what my brother-in-law was saying. The movement in the car is always a trigger for alert by the officer.

And what I meant by "You need to" is you SHOULD notify him about the gun once he's asked you to get move to get your lic. & reg.

It's just good gun etiquette. Think about the logic... He doesn't know you and he almost surely doesn't know about the gun at your hip. Now he's asked you to move to get something harmless (lic. & reg.) that just happens to be very near something that could kill him if you were that type of person. And whether or not you are that type of person, he has no idea.

It seems to me there are just some things we should do as a courtesy to our fellow earth inhabitants when it comes to guns.

I don't know him either, I'm going to start asking leos, who probably know less about guns then I do, to hand over their weapons when interacting with me. I just want to be safe. If I'm carrying or not is none of his concern

[ProShooter]

It always cracks me up when I see people flashing their lights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. Let them get caught! They're breaking the law!

Why would you want them to get pulled over? To line the county coffers and make thier quota?

No, I simply would like people who break the law to be held accountable for their actions. That is my utopian dream I could care less about the county coffers and quotas (which really don't exist, by the way).

In 40 years on this green Earth, I've never been arrested, or ticketed. I set my cruise control at the speed limit, despise drivers who change lanes in front of me without signaling or who cross the solid white lines at intersections and endanger my family. I don't make illegal u-turns, I have my vehicles inspected yearly, and I remember the rules of the road as I learned them. I'm not perfect by any means, but I do what I'm supposed to do within the confines of the law.

If we do not have order, then we have chaos.

[gunderwood]

Yeah, that was what my brother-in-law was saying. The movement in the car is always a trigger for alert by the officer.

And what I meant by "You need to" is you SHOULD notify him about the gun once he's asked you to get move to get your lic. & reg.

It's just good gun etiquette. Think about the logic... He doesn't know you and he almost surely doesn't know about the gun at your hip. Now he's asked you to move to get something harmless (lic. & reg.) that just happens to be very near something that could kill him if you were that type of person. And whether or not you are that type of person, he has no idea.

It seems to me there are just some things we should do as a courtesy to our fellow earth inhabitants when it comes to guns.

I don't know him either, I'm going to start asking leos, who probably know less about guns then I do, to hand over their weapons when interacting with me. I just want to be safe. If I'm carrying or not is none of his concern

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Arguing that handing over a legally carried OC/CC gun is safer for anyone is absurd on the face of it.

[gunderwood]

I know I know the speed limits are there for our safety...

That wasn't the reason we added them at all:

Fuel efficiency sometimes affects speed limit selection. The United States instituted a National Maximum Speed Law of 55 mph (89 km/h) as part of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act in response to the 1973 oil crisis to reduce fuel consumption.[41] According to a report published in 1986 by the The Heritage Foundation, a Conservative advocacy group, the law was widely disregarded by motorists and hardly reduced consumption at all.[42] In 2009 The American Trucking Associations called for a 65 mph speed limit and also st national fuel economy standards claiming that the lower speed limit was not effective at saving fuel.[43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Justification


Same article:

Traffic engineers observe that the likelihood of a crash happening is significantly higher if vehicles are traveling at speeds faster or slower than the mean speed of traffic;[n 10] when severity is taken into account the risk is lowest for those traveling at or below the median speed and "increases exponentially for motorists driving faster".

The key here is mean speed of traffic for probability, not the absolute. I.e. all vehicles traveling at a similar rate for the likelihood of a crash, while (duh) higher speed crashes tend to be more severe.

It is desirable to attempt to reduce the speed of road vehicles in some circumstances because the kinetic energy involved in a motor vehicle collision is proportional to the square of the speed at impact. The probability of a fatality is, for typical collision speeds, empirically correlated to the fourth power of the speed difference (depending on the type of collision, not necessarily the same as travel speed) at impact,[35] rising much faster than kinetic energy.

Again, speed differentials, not absolute speed. I.e. absolute speed gives a rise in KE, which is a x^2, but speed deltas rise at a x^4 or exponentially faster.

What this means is that changing the speed limit has very little impact on safety on a modern interstate. Getting everyone to drive at similar rates of speed is a much better idea, which I might point out is exactly what happens when people ignore the speed limits and just keep up with the flow of traffic. Statistically that new flow rate, which is higher than the posted speed limit, is safer now than actually attempting to maintain the limit since it has a huge delta from the mean.

[CCFan]

I could care less about the county coffers and quotas (which really don't exist, by the way).

Not on paper, maybe - but show me an officer who doesn't write any tickets and I'll show you another opportunity for a +1 in the jobs created column....

[GS78]

Cops today , including State Troopers have been relegated to revenue patrol. The main goal is to accumulate revenue for their boss, the state. Before anyone chastises me for that statement, I have been told FACE to FACE by several Troopers in good standing with the force that this is exactly the case. We see new regs, coming soon to allow a cop to pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. This is to generate revenue, nothing more. Fines and court costs, someone has to pay for it. Trucks waiting in line at the Woodbridge scale pose a definte hazard to oncoming traffic, but , for the sake of an opportunity to write a ticket for minor infractions that result in MAJOR transactions, those truckers are forced to line the highway waiting for the government pick pocket. The fact is that patrol cars don't really patrol anymore, the troll. Like trolling for rockfish, the ride up and down the same 20 miles of interstate, and then "flip" back and forth until they find a violation worth writing. This is not a virginia phenomenon, it has been happening across the nation for years. I'm sure you have seen the troopers sitting in the median, waiting like spiders , for flies...The are watching us, not protecting us.Its just that simple.

[Mindflayer]

What this means is that changing the speed limit has very little impact on safety on a modern interstate. Getting everyone to drive at similar rates of speed is a much better idea, which I might point out is exactly what happens when people ignore the speed limits and just keep up with the flow of traffic. Statistically that new flow rate, which is higher than the posted speed limit, is safer now than actually attempting to maintain the limit since it has a huge delta from the mean.

As an aside, nothing was more sphincter-tightening than being in the far left lane of the autobahn and coming across someone doing 55 mph in that lane. Always a new American to Germany.

I still feel the same way on I-95 south of the mixing bowl when I come up on someone doing 45 mph in the passing lane.

[dps8255]

No, I simply would like people who break the law to be held accountable for their actions. That is my utopian dream I could care less about the county coffers and quotas (which really don't exist, by the way).

I would like to start by saying that I am new to this forum. I have frequently used this forum as a source for information. But I decided to join recently because I have some questions and thought I would put in some of my two cents and experience dealing with the subject at hand.

1. I agree that all people that clearly break the law should be held accountable

2. (respectfully) your comment about no quotas is entirely incorrect
I have two brothers, one is a VA state trooper (he has worked in multiple areas of the state) and the other is a lawyer so through some questioning and heated discussions around the dinner table I have learned a good deal of info pertaining to some of these discussions. I am not an expert, I am an automotive technician. But I have seen first hand, emails from VSP sergeants reminding troopers of a ticket quota that is to be enforced.

fortunately my brother is a good hearted, well balanced human being before he is a cop (this is my opinion of him) and to my knowledge he does not adhere to these quotas