Conceal Carry Permit constitutes probable cause for a search and seizure

Dizzy fucking broad...


Yeah, that's all you should have said.

Yeah, I would've been pissed at her had she been my wife. Don't get me wrong, the police were completely out of line, but that wouldn't change how upset it would make me.

Hopefully that family learns from this: never offer up information to the police.
 
What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?

100%.

and despite any laws or bullshit rhetoric to the contrary.. every sale by a FFL is in a database.
 
What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?
I'm pretty sure they are storing and sharing data on who has a conceal carry permit too.
 
I think you're missing the point...

The stop never would have happened, had it not been for a database of CCW holders tied to your vehicle registrations coupled with random or computerized surveillance of your tags.

We don't know that. People here have assumed that, but the reason for the stop and the reason for the warning were not in the article.

I could have been a traffic stop for all we know.

Bullshit, per the story:



Nor did she give a conflicting story:



Does not conflict with:

She said there might be a gun in the glovebox or console. It's grounds for a search, that's just how it is. It also contradicted what the husband said.

Wut?

Are you fucking saying that the cop predicted the wife was going to respond in that manner?

WHAT WAS THE FUCKING BASIS FOR THE INITIAL STOP?

.

That's a good question. We don't know what the reason for the stop was.

No, but he is being detained. And that led to him being searched, so there's that. You can't be detained without probable cause that you committed a crime. I understand CC laws so you only have to produce the permit if you are stopped. The gun does not have to be presented.

No the cop can't pull him over just for being a CC. The article did not give the reason for the stop.

In many states you are legally obligated to tell the cop at a traffic stop if you are carrying.
 
If it is true that every gun sale through an FFL is in a central database, then it doesn't much matter if you also have a CCW in the database. But the reality is that there are so MANY gun purchases in the FFL records that the information is useless for purposes akin to the OP. It is a case of information overload. But the number of CCWs is MUCH less and IS useable by cops to distinguish who might be armed.

And this makes me unhappy because I have a CCW and no longer need one in my State to carry legally. Oops. Probably no way to get out of that until I move and re-register my vehicles.
 
She said there might be a gun in the glovebox or console. It's grounds for a search, that's just how it is. It also contradicted what the husband said.
Well, she could say, "There might be a gun in all the other cars on the expressway." but that wouldn't give the cops grounds for searching all of those other cars.
 
No the cop can't pull him over just for being a CC.
YES, They can.
They can pull you over for any reason,, real or made the fuck up.

And the first words out of the cops mouth were
Where is the gun?

That was the reason for the stop.
 
No the cop can't pull him over just for being a CC. The article did not give the reason for the stop.

In many states you are legally obligated to tell the cop at a traffic stop if you are carrying.

I was stopped for suspicion of carrying drugs. Had a van and long hair.

Of course the "reason" for the stop was that my wife didn't have a seat belt on. She showed them that it was properly secured. She never rode without it. The cop then backpedaled and said it was because I had crossed over the center line. More bunk.

There are many ficticious reasons for making a traffic stop.

Who you gonna believe? Well, I know who you would believe.
 
Conflicting stories and the wife saying the gun may be in the car is probable cause to search.

NO. It does not.

He is a legal gun owner.. He has a concealed carry permit..

Even if there is a gun in the car,, and he is traveling ,,he has a right to have it. Period..

Just another stupid fucking cop abusing power.

And after the false arrest,,and illegal search,, NO GUN WAS FOUND.

(see Firearm Owners' Protection Act )
(for all the good that is)
 
Last edited:
I was stopped for suspicion of carrying drugs. Had a van and long hair.

Of course the "reason" for the stop was that my wife didn't have a seat belt on. She showed them that it was properly secured. She never rode without it. The cop then backpedaled and said it was because I had crossed over the center line. More bunk.

There are many ficticious reasons for making a traffic stop.

Who you gonna believe? Well, I know who you would believe.
LOL, good thing the wife didn't say, "There might be some in the glove box."
:D
 
We don't know that. People here have assumed that, but the reason for the stop and the reason for the warning were not in the article. It could have been a traffic stop for all we know.

Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

I think it is reasonable to assume that was the reason.

Even if not, the fact remains that this man's name came up in a database of gun owners or CCW holders.

Which we were told, "would never happen".
 
LOL, good thing the wife didn't say, "There might be some in the glove box."
:D

No shit. The "ex" was/is a smart cookie. Confirmed everything I said we were travelling for and confirmed that there were no drugs. The cops asked me if they could go through the vehicle. I said no. Asked me if I was against the "War on Drugs." Told them it had nothing to do with that. Constitution for the win. After some more banter they let me drive away.
 
You neglected to copy and paste this part of the story.



Conflicting stories and the wife saying the gun may be in the car is probable cause to search.

First of all, they weren't conflicting. The wife said, "I don't know.... MAYBE in the glove box." It's quite obvious she didn't know.

Moreover, there's no reason for the officer to care where his gun was. He owned it legally, and what's more, how did he know they had a gun in the first place?

There are so many reasons this story is fucked up, and it's not just because of the search. The whole premise on which the search was based was flawed. Why did he stop them in the first place? Why should anyone care about someone simply possessing a gun? The search was unwarranted because there's no reason for him to ask about the gun.

Also, this is just another example of why you DON'T TALK TO POLICE. When the officer asked him where his gun was, he should have just told the officer he was invoking his 5th amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer the question. It's not something the officer needs to know and the guy was not obligated to tell him.
 
Which we were told, "would never happen".

and people believed that shit..

I am disarmed by law.. I am a rabid 2nd amendment supporter.
It never ceases to amaze me what folks support,, or agree to,, to be able to have a gun in a safe.
 
That's a good question. We don't know what the reason for the stop was.
.

There is an FOIA request pending. We shall see how they respond.

Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX, your PIA request has been received and forwarded to the appropriate parties.

1st Sergeant Jonathan Green
Public Information Officer

Office of the Chief – Media Relations
Maryland Transportation Authority Police
4330 Broening Highway
Baltimore, Maryland21222-2258
Office 410-537-7724
Cell 410-977-5772
FAX 410-537-7700
[email protected]
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/police/policemain.html
twitter.com/TheMDTA
facebook.com/TheMDTA

——————————————————————————–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Jonathan Green(Police)
Subject: Public Records Request – Maryland Public Information Act, State Government Article §§10-611 to 630

1st Sergeant Jonathan Green
Public Information Officer
Maryland Transportation Authority Police
Media Relations
4330 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21222

Dear Mr. Green,

by way of introduction I am a research analyst currently doing research surrounding an MTAP officer motor vehicle stop on 12/31/13 on Southbound I-95 involving motorist Mr. John Filippidis.

The MTAP contact incident is outlined in the following Tampa Tribune story:

http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

The purpose of my contact with you today is to request public records surrounding this incident.

This is a request under the Maryland Public Information Act, State Government Article §§10-611 to 630. I am making this request on my own behalf.

I wish to receive all records in your department’s custody and control pertaining to the following:

(A) the record/incident report, outlining the initial infraction which led to the traffic stop in question – and all subsequent written documentation pertaining to the encounter/traffic stop; and

(B) a recorded copy of the full Police Band radio transmission (between initial officer and all subsequent officers) as it pertains to the initial officer contact with the vehicle, to the stoppage, search, detention and subsequent release; and

(C) a copy of the dash camera recording for the initial MTAP officer encounter with the vehicle of Mr. John Filippidis (if available) during the entire timeframe of encounter with the vehicle, personage, and family of: Mr. John Filippidis, outlined in the traffic stop in question; and

(D) the full contact information for any other police, state or local agency who also responded to the traffic stop in question.

If all or any part of this request is denied, I request that I be provided with a written statement of the grounds for the denial.

If you determine that some portions of the requested records are exempt from disclosure, please provide me with the portions that can be disclosed.

Please advise me as to the cost, if any, for receiving the records described above.

I anticipate that there may be additional records requests based on initial review. If you have adopted a fee schedule for obtaining copies of records and other rules or regulations implementing the Act, please send me a copy.

I look forward to receiving disclosable records promptly and, in any event, to a decision about all of the requested records within 30 days.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me via the following: (email preferred)

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX / Research Analyst

.
 
What do you think the chances are that the NICS is actually storing and sharing data on who buys a gun?

100%.

and despite any laws or bullshit rhetoric to the contrary.. every sale by a FFL is in a database.

\

100 percent.

I'd add at least another 500% to that chance because no crime needs to have been comitted, nor probable cause for a LEO to "pull you over". 500% over 100% means that there are BACKUP procedures that mandate pulling people over.

Is the driver Brown?
If so, Pull them over.

Is the driver with a Family?
Pull them over.

Is the driver transporting ANYTHING?
Pull them over.

Is the color of the vehicle offensive to the LEO?
Pull them over.

Does the driver appear to have the ability to resist the abuses of the Law?
If not, Pull them over.

Can a Citation for something be issued to the driver?
Pull them over.
 
Back
Top