"Your Car Is An Extension of Your Home": What does this mean?

[Bailey Guns]

I'm seeing this more and more on this forum and I think many people really don't understand what it means in Colorado. I'm hoping one of our attorney members can chime in and help explain why this isn't necessarily true.

This is my understanding from law enforcement experience (I'm obviously not a lawyer so this free information is worth what you paid):

Yes, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your car. However, not nearly to the extent you do in your home. A car can legally be searched by an officer in a variety of circumstances, without a warrant:

Search incident to arrest
Inventory search of an impounded vehicle
Probable cause and to a lesser/limited scope, reasonable suspicion
Consent
Exigent/Emergency circumstances
Seizure of contraband in plain view (which might lead to a probable cause arrest/search)


Keep in mind, if your car is a public location an officer can look into the car from the outside as much as he/she likes. That's very different from your home where you have a much higher expectation of privacy inside your home and in the curtilage of your home. In other words, if your car is parked on the street an officer could stop and look into it as much as he/she desired and potentially seize contraband in plain view. An officer could not walk on to your lawn and peer into a window of your home and then seize an item in plain view.

Also, the "extension of your home" theory doesn't apply to use of force. I hope everyone knows the "Make My Day" law applies only in a "dwelling" in Colorado. It doesn't generally apply to detached buildings that are not dwellings, places of business or vehicles. Obviously, you can still use force to protect yourself in your car but you won't have the legal protections you might in your home.

Yes, you can have a firearm - or other "weapon" - in your car for protection of self, others and property in Colorado. You don't need a permit to carry a handgun, loaded or otherwise, visible or concealed, in your vehicle or other private means of conveyance. But that doesn't make your car an "extension of your home".

Furthermore, passengers in a vehicle have an even lower degree of expectation of privacy than the operator/owner of the car might.

So, and this is just my opinion, I don't think it's a good idea to throw around the over-broad phrase "extension of your home" when you're talking about your car for lots of reasons.

[spqrzilla]

What does it mean? It means nothing because its simply not true as you illustrate. Its never true.
You can carry a concealed loaded handgun in your car because the statute in Colorado that criminalizes carrying a concealed weapon specifically excludes it. Period. Nothing about any other "doctrine".

[SuperiorDG]

I've heard if you have a lock container in the car they can not search the container itself.

[Bailey Guns]

I've heard if you have a lock container in the car they can not search the container itself.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the circumstances.

Another interesting tidbit: if you give consent to search (which you should probably NEVER do), you can revoke that consent if you choose. You can also exclude areas to be searched if you give consent.

[spqrzilla]

But proving that that was the limit of your consent when it was a verbal discussion? Good luck with that.

"No, your honor, I said he could search the trunk, not the glove box where I hid my hillbilly heroin ..."

[Bailey Guns]

But proving that that was the limit of your consent when it was a verbal discussion? Good luck with that.

"No, your honor, I said he could search the trunk, not the glove box where I hid my hillbilly heroin ..."

True...but that's just another reason not to give consent. I may be mistaken but I think most departments have forms for the operator of a vehicle to sign for consent searches.

I'd say I got a signed consent form (after verbal consent to search) from at least 9 out of 10 people when I asked for consent to search. Pretty astonishing how easily people will surrender their privacy.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Bailey, please consider reposting this as a blog, so I can pass around the link.

[DSB OUTDOORS]

Why the hell do the cops give me sh*t for driving in the nude?? I walk around the house naked all the time. [Coffee] Just lighting up the mood.

[Sharpienads]

Why the hell do the cops give me sh*t for driving in the nude?? I walk around the house naked all the time. [Coffee] Just lighting up the mood.

Jealousy?

[ray1970]

Why the hell do the cops give me sh*t for driving in the nude?? I walk around the house naked all the time. [Coffee] Just lighting up the mood.

Man, I thought it was just me. [Coffee]

[merl]

True...but that's just another reason not to give consent. I may be mistaken but I think most departments have forms for the operator of a vehicle to sign for consent searches.

I'd say I got a signed consent form (after verbal consent to search) from at least 9 out of 10 people when I asked for consent to search. Pretty astonishing how easily people will surrender their privacy.

the one time I refused a search they proceeded to run me though a full DUI test (walk the line, breathalyzer) and when I passed that wrote me tickets for tail ight and failure to stop (rolling stop). Be brepared for shit when you refuse.
If you know nothing is to be found, it is easier to sign away your rights.

[Bailey Guns]

Bailey, please consider reposting this as a blog, so I can pass around the link.

OK...I tried to post it in the "Blogs" section. I think it worked. Some minor edits based on input here and to clarify the meaning of the title. It really wasn't clear the way I worded it here.

[Bailey Guns]

[Coffee] Just lighting up the mood.

Is that the same as mood lighting?

[JMBD2112]

Interesting topic, I was wondering something similar the other day....I don't have enough room in my glove box (jeep) so I just set my pistol behind the seat. I drove to lunch the other day and had to move it for a couple of work buddies and one of them told me he had heard it was illegal to have it out in the open? I didn't know so I didn't argue with him. Anyone heard of this?

[Bailey Guns]

That statute doesn't specify any manner in which your handgun must be carried in your car. Therefore, it's up to you. Personally, I'd keep it out of sight rather than out in the open...but that's just me.

And before anyone asks, yes...that statute applies in the C&C of Denver, too. Already been decided by the courts.

[JMBD2112]

I don't keep it out in the open, but it's behind the seat where it can't be seen. I was considering buying some sort of lock box to secure it since I'm not allowed to CCW at work. Anyways, another thing I was wondering if you do get pulled over and the officer asks to search your car, are you required to tell him there's a firearm in the car?

[Adawg38]

I don't keep it out in the open, but it's behind the seat where it can't be seen. I was considering buying some sort of lock box to secure it since I'm not allowed to CCW at work. Anyways, another thing I was wondering if you do get pulled over and the officer asks to search your car, are you required to tell him there's a firearm in the car?


It's up to you if you want to alert the officer there is a gun in your vehicle but not required. Depending on the stop though like you said if they ask to search either way it's up to you but if they use PC it may be in your best interest to let him/her know, you never now if they will get all 50 cent on you lol. And YES you can conceal your gun inside your vehicle it is not illegal. Inside your home and vehicle are really the only places you can CC your gun without a CHP.


I enjoy this thread BTW, good info!

[Great-Kazoo]

the one time I refused a search they proceeded to run me though a full DUI test (walk the line, breathalyzer) and when I passed that wrote me tickets for tail ight and failure to stop (rolling stop). Be brepared for shit when you refuse.
If you know nothing is to be found, it is easier to sign away your rights.

BULLSHIT Outside of the NYSP doing multiple Forced searches during a MC event some 35 yrs ago. NO ONE searches any thing of mine, no one gets consent etc. NEVER SIGN YOUR RIGHTS AWAY. You say you're not compromising with your Gun Rights, why any other time.

[JMBD2112]

BULLSHIT Outside of the NYSP doing multiple Forced searches during a MC event some 35 yrs ago. NO ONE searches any thing of mine, no one gets consent etc. NEVER SIGN YOUR RIGHTS AWAY. You say you're not compromising with your Gun Rights, why any other time.

I agree with you Jim but I wouldn't expect to get out of a citation that way

[Jackrabbit]

Never consent to a search without a warrant, never talk without a lawyer.
BTW, cops can and will lie to you to get you to do either or both. There's no law that says a cop has to be honest with you. Trust them at your peril.

[Waywardson174]

It's very valuable legal advice, just like "cops can't lie if you ask if they are cops".

Thats sarcasm.

Your car enjoys a limited expectation of privacy. Th OP IDs the most common exceptions to warranted search, however, if the policeman has PC for a search then he has it for any and all containers which could possibly contain the subject matter of the search. The locked box with consent is an issue I've never heard of before, but I wouldn't rely on it being protected.

The reasonable suspicion bit is for stops. It is a lower standard and allows them to use the information gained from the stop to try to obtain PC.


JMDB, your buddy probably heard "open carry" was illegal some places. There is no limitation to carrying your gun in your car on the seat, but like other posts mentioned, not advisable.

[Bailey Guns]

It's up to you if you want to alert the officer there is a gun in your vehicle but not required. Depending on the stop though like you said if they ask to search either way it's up to you but if they use PC it may be in your best interest to let him/her know, you never now if they will get all 50 cent on you lol. And YES you can conceal your gun inside your vehicle it is not illegal. Inside your home and vehicle are really the only places you can CC your gun without a CHP.


I enjoy this thread BTW, good info!

Minor disagreement with the line in bold. You can also carry a concealed handgun without a permit while legally engaged in hunting activities within the state and the handgun is not considered concealed. Also, you can carry on any private property under your control or where you have permission to carry without a permit.

[PugnacAutMortem]

It is easier to sign away your rights.

You are correct...it is in fact easier to sign your rights away. The question is: do you want to take the easy route or do you take the "shit" in stride knowing you are standing up for your convictions?

[JMBD2112]

You are correct...it is in fact easier to sign your rights away. The question is: do you want to take the easy route or do you take the "shit" in stride knowing you are standing up for your convictions?

I don't know I can honestly say I've never had a run in with a dick police officer. Its amazing what a "yes sir" and a military ID will do for you

[Great-Kazoo]

I agree with you Jim but I wouldn't expect to get out of a citation that way

Would not be the first or last time. Unles you're some scumbag skell who has nothign to loose WHY sign away anything?

[Adawg38]

Minor disagreement with the line in bold. You can also carry a concealed handgun without a permit while legally engaged in hunting activities within the state and the handgun is not considered concealed. Also, you can carry on any private property under your control or where you have permission to carry without a permit.

I did not know about CC when hunting and didn't even think about Private Property but thanks for clearing that up. [Tooth]

[JMBD2112]

Would not be the first or last time. Unles you're some scumbag skell who has nothign to loose WHY sign away anything?

I agree with you, I'm just saying it might be seen as defiance or that you have something to hide. Do you think the police officer would go to the trouble to get a warrant if you do say no?

[JMBD2112]

Is it a pain in the ass to get a search warrant from the side of the road?

[merl]

I agree with you, I'm just saying it might be seen as defiance or that you have something to hide. Do you think the police officer would go to the trouble to get a warrant if you do say no?

no, unless they already have PC. but they will make that traffic stop hell.

The it is easier to sign away your rights was in response to Bailey's statement that many consented to a search.

[longbow]

Hell, four more years of Obamanomics and my car is gonna be my home!

[JMBD2112]

Hell, four more years of Obamanomics and my car is gonna be my home!
^^^^[LOL]

[JMBD2112]

Well I did have one instance where two dick park rangers in Tellico, TN gave me a breathalyzer 6 times and they were very disappointed that I passed.

[Bailey Guns]

It's not likely that an officer will apply for a warrant for a vehicle search unless there are some really unusual circumstances. There are much easier ways to get into the car legally. Here's an example of a stop I did:

I stopped a car in the middle of the night (about 0230) for a minor traffic violation...don't recall what. Talked to the driver and asked for DL, registration and proof of insurance. The guy gave me his DL and then opened the glove box to look for the other stuff. When he opened the glove box I saw a stack of cash about 4" thick with a $100 bill on top, wrapped tightly in a zip-lock bag. He couldn't find his insurance card. His address was in the metro area, about an hour from where I stopped him. I mentioned that was a lot of cash he had...didn't ask why he had it. The guy said he was going to look at an appt in a nearby community. That seemed pretty odd because it was 0230 in the morning. I asked where was this appt and why was he going at 0230. I think he realized he'd opened a can of worms and tried to evade my question...so I asked again where he was going. He couldn't give me a location. I asked if he was going to meet someone and he said he was but couldn't give me a name or location of who he was meeting or where.

The more I asked questions, the more evasive he became. I got him out and and gave him a pat-down. I asked for consent to search his car. He refused. I then arrested him for NPOI. I told him I was going to impound the car and, since he had such a large amount of cash, I was going to conduct an inventory search. Then he told me I could go ahead and search and he signed the consent form. In the trunk I found a lot of burglary tools and other misc property items. Turns out he was a fairly prolific burglar and the arrest cleared over 30 burgs in the area and nearby communities.

The point is, it's pretty unusual to arrest someone for NPOI. But, in this case, it was an easy way to get into the car and there really wasn't anything he could do about it. His lawyer tried to suppress the search as coercive during the prelim but the judge ruled it was perfectly legal.

[clublights]

Is that the same as mood lighting?


Mood lighting ? Thats my department . [Beer]

[JMBD2112]

Wow, thats some crazy shit Bailey

[Teufelhund]

It's not likely that an officer will apply for a warrant for a vehicle search unless there are some really unusual circumstances. There are much easier ways to get into the car legally. Here's an example of a stop I did:

I stopped a car in the middle of the night (about 0230) for a minor traffic violation...don't recall what. Talked to the driver and asked for DL, registration and proof of insurance. The guy gave me his DL and then opened the glove box to look for the other stuff. When he opened the glove box I saw a stack of cash about 4" thick with a $100 bill on top, wrapped tightly in a zip-lock bag. He couldn't find his insurance card. His address was in the metro area, about an hour from where I stopped him. I mentioned that was a lot of cash he had...didn't ask why he had it. The guy said he was going to look at an appt in a nearby community. That seemed pretty odd because it was 0230 in the morning. I asked where was this appt and why was he going at 0230. I think he realized he'd opened a can of worms and tried to evade my question...so I asked again where he was going. He couldn't give me a location. I asked if he was going to meet someone and he said he was but couldn't give me a name or location of who he was meeting or where.

The more I asked questions, the more evasive he became. I got him out and and gave him a pat-down. I asked for consent to search his car. He refused. I then arrested him for NPOI. I told him I was going to impound the car and, since he had such a large amount of cash, I was going to conduct an inventory search. Then he told me I could go ahead and search and he signed the consent form. In the trunk I found a lot of burglary tools and other misc property items. Turns out he was a fairly prolific burglar and the arrest cleared over 30 burgs in the area and nearby communities.

The point is, it's pretty unusual to arrest someone for NPOI. But, in this case, it was an easy way to get into the car and there really wasn't anything he could do about it. His lawyer tried to suppress the search as coercive during the prelim but the judge ruled it was perfectly legal.

I'm torn on this one. While on one hand it's great that you nabbed a known criminal, the way you went about it was shady. Why was it any of your business how much cash he had on him or where he was going (which is exactly what I would have told you if I had been the driver)? Nailing a serial burglar should require investigative work related to the crime, not some bullshit you stumbled onto by chance. What if he had just been some small business owner who works late and doesn't like to leave his cash in the bank? NPOI aside, you abused your authority and it just happened to work out in your favor.

[clublights]

Uhh..... Whats NPOI ?

[JMBD2112]

Uhh..... Whats NPOI ?
No proof of insurance

[clublights]

No proof of insurance


DUH **smacks forehead** why couldn't I get that thanks !

[JMBD2112]

DUH **smacks forehead** why couldn't I get that thanks !

It's ok, i had to google PC and NPOI to figure it out too haha [Beer]

[Great-Kazoo]

Never Point Out Idiots ?

[buffalobo]

Be polite, be courteous, be firm, do not consent. Another right that must be exercised to be strong. My own experience was worth the the $65.00 fine I paid for a ticket that I may have still have had to pay even if I had consented to search. State Patrolman was not happy about my refusal, he seemed a bit surprised, but not an ass about it.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm torn on this one. While on one hand it's great that you nabbed a known criminal, the way you went about it was shady. Why was it any of your business how much cash he had on him or where he was going (which is exactly what I would have told you if I had been the driver)? Nailing a serial burglar should require investigative work related to the crime, not some bullshit you stumbled onto by chance. What if he had just been some small business owner who works late and doesn't like to leave his cash in the bank? NPOI aside, you abused your authority and it just happened to work out in your favor.

Be "torn" about it all you want. He wasn't a "known criminal"...at least to me. That's kinda the point, isn't it? In case you missed it, I didn't arrest the guy because he had a large amount of cash and was averse to keeping his money in a bank. As a matter of fact, I simply stated he had a lot of cash. I never asked why. He offered why he had it and his explanation obviously didn't make sense. I arrested him because he didn't have proof the car he was driving was insured. That's a misdemeanor in this state despite the fact you think it's "shady" or an "abuse" of authority. I then developed a case based on what I observed and found in his car. Then I articulated my findings in a report and a warrantless arrest affidavit. A judge reviewed and approved the warrantless arrest, investigators followed up and filed the case with the DA, the DA thought it was a solid case and charged the guy, a judge found reason to hold him for trial and a jury convicted him. Neither the investigators that filed the case, the DA, the judge or the jury ever said anything I did was "shady". The only person who had a problem with it, besides you, was the guy's lawyer. Go figure. It wasn't some "bullshit" as you so eloquently state. And how is a valid arrest an abuse of authority?

Oh,yeah. None of the burglary victims thought what I did was shady or an abuse of my authority, either. As a matter of fact, they were really happy to get at least some of their stuff back...including the cash that turned out to have been stolen from the home of an elderly man.

Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure if he had been a small business owner he could've easily said so and wouldn't have had a problem explaining why he had the cash. I'm guessing if he'd been some small business owner he wouldn't have to make up some ridiculous story about going to rent an appt at 0230 in the morning. That may be common behavior in your world, it's not in mine. Or maybe reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

Since you're such a goddamned authority on investigative techniques why don't you explain what, exactly, was shady or abusive and how you would've handled the situation?

[KevDen2005]

Be "torn" about it all you want. He wasn't a "known criminal"...at least to me. That's kinda the point, isn't it? In case you missed it, I didn't arrest the guy because he had a large amount of cash and was averse to keeping his money in a bank. As a matter of fact, I simply stated he had a lot of cash. I never asked why. He offered why he had it and his explanation obviously didn't make sense. I arrested him because he didn't have proof the car he was driving was insured. That's a misdemeanor in this state despite the fact you think it's "shady" or an "abuse" of authority. I then developed a case based on what I observed and found in his car. Then I articulated my findings in a report and a warrantless arrest affidavit. A judge reviewed and approved the warrantless arrest, investigators followed up and filed the case with the DA, the DA thought it was a solid case and charged the guy, a judge found reason to hold him for trial and a jury convicted him. Neither the investigators that filed the case, the DA, the judge or the jury ever said anything I did was "shady". The only person who had a problem with it, besides you, was the guy's lawyer. Go figure. It wasn't some "bullshit" as you so eloquently state. And how is a valid arrest an abuse of authority?

Oh,yeah. None of the burglary victims thought what I did was shady or an abuse of my authority, either. As a matter of fact, they were really happy to get at least some of their stuff back...including the cash that turned out to have been stolen from the home of an elderly man.

Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure if he had been a small business owner he could've easily said so and wouldn't have had a problem explaining why he had the cash. I'm guessing if he'd been some small business owner he wouldn't have to make up some ridiculous story about going to rent an appt at 0230 in the morning. That may be common behavior in your world, it's not in mine. Or maybe reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

Since you're such a goddamned authority on investigative techniques why don't you explain what, exactly, was shady or abusive and how you would've handled the situation?

Good stop, good investigation work, good arrest. Let the cop bashing begin.

[Ah Pook]

Good stop, good investigation work, good arrest. Let the cop bashing begin.
Surprised there hasn't been more. Sounds like BG has put out some good info but some just don't get it.


As far as carrying during hunting, hunter friends who have had contact with game wardens have been reminded about the details of open v.s. concealed carry.

[clublights]

Never Point Out Idiots ?

HA!!!!!

I thought about that being the explanation of the acronym ... but then I wondered why I had never been arrested FOR That... so I figured that could not be right LOL

[Bailey Guns]

Let the cop bashing begin.

The story was meant to simply be an illustration of one of many ways a car can be legally searched without a warrant, nothing more. I'm surprised the conversation lasted as long as it did before the idiot-fest began.


As far as carrying during hunting, hunter friends who have had contact with game wardens have been reminded about the details of open v.s. concealed carry.

Doesn't surprise me. Oftentimes, LEOs are the worst people to ask about gun laws and they're the ones who need to be reminded of what the law actaully says:
18-12-214

(3) (a) A person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:

(II) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is legally engaged in hunting activities within the state.

[merl]

The story was meant to simply be an illustration of one of many ways a car can be legally searched without a warrant, nothing more. I'm surprised the conversation lasted as long as it did before the idiot-fest began.



Doesn't surprise me. Oftentimes, LEOs are the worst people to ask about gun laws and they're the ones who need to be reminded of what the law actaully says:
18-12-214

(3) (a) A person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:

(II) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is legally engaged in hunting activities within the state.



I can see this rule coming about because hunters wear heavy coats and it would be near impossible to not conceal. Combined with being out in BFE carrying a long arm the handgun is not an issue.

now that's what I call a common sense gun law. :)

[OneGuy67]

For what its worth, I think you did some outstanding street work on that stop, Carl.

[68Charger]

I read Carl's post, and while I'm no expert, it didn't seem the least bit "shady"...
I think you did a fine job (not that you need my approval) [Flower]

The driver voluntarily gave up his 5th rights when he volunteered information about the cash... That is when his real trouble started.
(Well it really started when he decided to start burglarizing homes, but during the stop, he was stuck after that.)

Bottom line, don't lie to police- if you find yourself tempted, use the 5th instead.

Disclaimer: I'm not lawyer, get your own for legal advice...

[Great-Kazoo]

I read Carl's post, and while I'm no expert, it didn't seem the least bit "shady"...
I think you did a fine job (not that you need my approval) [Flower]

The driver voluntarily gave up his 5th rights when he volunteered information about the cash... That is when his real trouble started.
(Well it really started when he decided to start burglarizing homes, but during the stop, he was stuck after that.)

Bottom line, don't lie to police- if you find yourself tempted, use the 5th instead.

Disclaimer: I'm not lawyer, get your own for legal advice...


No 5th ,it's a traffic stop Not a trial. You say minimal outside of DL, reg ins card. Polite chat, weather, time of day. Once you talk outside the box, anything you say that "isn't right" by LE standards. raises Flags. BG's stop, the guy raised numerous flags you could drive a car through. A suspect is fairly easy to see through once you've been around them. They are also uneasy around LE's it's that prison mentality, avoiding eye contact, looking at their feet, fidgity etc.

[JMBD2112]

I hate a thief, and I'm glad you caught him. Thanks for your service.

[asmo]

Watch this over an over until you have memorized every line.

s4nQ_mFJV4I

[spqrzilla]

Is it a pain in the ass to get a search warrant from the side of the road?
They don't have to.

[spqrzilla]

Bailey Guns, excellent extended example of how things work re: traffic stops and searches. Search incident to arrest is the cleanest since you don't have to have probable cause for the search itself, just the arrest. And NPOI for the arrest? Oooooooo, that's genius.

[Ah Pook]

The story was meant to simply be an illustration of one of many ways a car can be legally searched without a warrant, nothing more. I'm surprised the conversation lasted as long as it did before the idiot-fest began.
Thanks for the clarification.


Doesn't surprise me. Oftentimes, LEOs are the worst people to ask about gun laws and they're the ones who need to be reminded of what the law actaully says:
18-12-214

(3) (a) A person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:

(II) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is legally engaged in hunting activities within the state.



Thanks for the clarification.

[Irving]

The story was meant to simply be an illustration of one of many ways a car can be legally searched without a warrant, nothing more. I'm surprised the conversation lasted as long as it did before the idiot-fest began.



Doesn't surprise me. Oftentimes, LEOs are the worst people to ask about gun laws and they're the ones who need to be reminded of what the law actaully says:
18-12-214

(3) (a) A person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:

(II) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is legally engaged in hunting activities within the state.



1) Bailey you ass! It took me 6 more weeks to rent that apartment!

2) By definition, fishing IS hunting. Is fishing the same as hunting according to Colorado State Statutes though?

[roberth]

For what its worth, I think you did some outstanding street work on that stop, Carl.

Yes he did. I couldn't do that job.

[DireWolf]

Be "torn" about it all you want. He wasn't a "known criminal"...at least to me. That's kinda the point, isn't it? In case you missed it, I didn't arrest the guy because he had a large amount of cash and was averse to keeping his money in a bank. As a matter of fact, I simply stated he had a lot of cash. I never asked why. He offered why he had it and his explanation obviously didn't make sense. I arrested him because he didn't have proof the car he was driving was insured. That's a misdemeanor in this state despite the fact you think it's "shady" or an "abuse" of authority. I then developed a case based on what I observed and found in his car. Then I articulated my findings in a report and a warrantless arrest affidavit. A judge reviewed and approved the warrantless arrest, investigators followed up and filed the case with the DA, the DA thought it was a solid case and charged the guy, a judge found reason to hold him for trial and a jury convicted him. Neither the investigators that filed the case, the DA, the judge or the jury ever said anything I did was "shady". The only person who had a problem with it, besides you, was the guy's lawyer. Go figure. It wasn't some "bullshit" as you so eloquently state. And how is a valid arrest an abuse of authority?

Oh,yeah. None of the burglary victims thought what I did was shady or an abuse of my authority, either. As a matter of fact, they were really happy to get at least some of their stuff back...including the cash that turned out to have been stolen from the home of an elderly man.

Maybe it's just me but I'm pretty sure if he had been a small business owner he could've easily said so and wouldn't have had a problem explaining why he had the cash. I'm guessing if he'd been some small business owner he wouldn't have to make up some ridiculous story about going to rent an appt at 0230 in the morning. That may be common behavior in your world, it's not in mine. Or maybe reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

Since you're such a goddamned authority on investigative techniques why don't you explain what, exactly, was shady or abusive and how you would've handled the situation?



Excellent job Bailey. I'm not a cop, but I think you absolutely read the situation well and made the right call.

I'm generally of the opinion that if you're not a dick or up to no good, things will generally turn out well. I've been pulled over with a shit-ton of weapons/ammo/tannerite lying in the back, had encounters with USFS & BLM rangers who probably thought we were at war, and none of those resulted in anything bad happening, aside from maybe a few tense moments at first...probably because I wasn't being a dick or up to no good.

[68Charger]

No 5th ,it's a traffic stop Not a trial. You say minimal outside of DL, reg ins card. Polite chat, weather, time of day. Once you talk outside the box, anything you say that "isn't right" by LE standards. raises Flags. BG's stop, the guy raised numerous flags you could drive a car through. A suspect is fairly easy to see through once you've been around them. They are also uneasy around LE's it's that prison mentality, avoiding eye contact, looking at their feet, fidgity etc.

I was not aware our 5th amendment rights only applied to courtrooms... [Beer]

My point is, you have the right to remain silent, and not incriminate yourself even if you're NOT under arrest... Use it. Lying is worse than shutting up... Even if you have " nothing to hide"

[Kraven251]

I've heard if you have a lock container in the car they can not search the container itself.

This is useful if you do not consent to a search and they actually jump through the hoops for the paperwork to legally search your vehicle. You are required to open the trunk, but not required to open a locked box in the trunk unless it is in the paperwork, granted the officer could possibly still have exigent circumstances on their side to open the locked box etc. If a judge signed off on a search warrant on your vehicle, they already had some sort of probable cause other then "the guy said no."

As with the earlier examples, this is only applicable if you don't have anything visible in the car to give additional reasons to think you are up to something shady. Moral of the story, keep your car clean.

[KevDen2005]

This is useful if you do not consent to a search and they actually jump through the hoops for the paperwork to legally search your vehicle. You are required to open the trunk, but not required to open a locked box in the trunk unless it is in the paperwork, granted the officer could possibly still have exigent circumstances on their side to open the locked box etc. If a judge signed off on a search warrant on your vehicle, they already had some sort of probable cause other then "the guy said no."

As with the earlier examples, this is only applicable if you don't have anything visible in the car to give additional reasons to think you are up to something shady. Moral of the story, keep your car clean.


If there is a search warrant you don't have to be and probably won't be near your car. It will be sealed and impounded until the warrant is approved, most likely.

[Ronin13]

I'll say first off- well done Carl, that's how you go about with LE... Tuefelhund, you are aware that many criminals are caught by simple, hard police work and happenstance, right? Many times criminals slip up and are caught by your run of the mill patrolman instead of some made-for-TV style investigative lead up where a SWAT team breaks down their door... It's usually when they're driving along and do something illegal and get pulled over.

I've been in one situation where I was asked for consent to search the vehicle- of course I said "I do not consent to any search." I received a stern "You're obviously hiding something" remark that led to a supervisor being called in to the traffic stop. The fact that the supervisor was a friend of mine is irrelevant, but I received no citation, there was no search, and the 40min traffic stop concluded with an apology by said supervisor. To this day I harbor no ill will toward the young deputy who tried to figure out a way to illegally search my vehicle (I blame it on cockiness and ignorance of that particular law- not exactly circumstances that make him 'bad').

[Bailey Guns]

This is useful if you do not consent to a search and they actually jump through the hoops for the paperwork to legally search your vehicle. You are required to open the trunk, but not required to open a locked box in the trunk unless it is in the paperwork, granted the officer could possibly still have exigent circumstances on their side to open the locked box etc. If a judge signed off on a search warrant on your vehicle, they already had some sort of probable cause other then "the guy said no."

As with the earlier examples, this is only applicable if you don't have anything visible in the car to give additional reasons to think you are up to something shady. Moral of the story, keep your car clean.

This isn't necessarily true. It depends on how the warrant is written and what items of contraband are named in the warrant.

[Ronin13]

This isn't necessarily true. It depends on how the warrant is written and what items of contraband are named in the warrant.
I loved hearing my buddies son- who's now a defense attorney (but former LEO) in AL- say "It would be very illegal to search through your underwear drawer when the warrant was obtained because of suspicion that you stole a television." [LOL]

[GunsRBadMMMMKay]

2) By definition, fishing IS hunting. Is fishing the same as hunting according to Colorado State Statutes though?

I'd be interested in takes on that. Also, since the law states hunting activities.......if you possessed a valid hunting license and were outdoors/outside city limits wouldn't stating that you were hunting, tracking, practicing shooting for hunting season, hiking to stay fit for hunting season, etc. make legal arguments in case your jacket or shirt "concealed" your sidearm? I've never been hassled for having a firearm or knife on me outside the city, personally......but I'm sure it happens.

[lowbeyond]

if the cops want to search your car without a warrant or any RAS or PC , all they have to do is get permission from a DOG

Many of you are OK with that. so *shrug*

[wctriumph]

I used to travel for a living in a F-150 and over the eight years of doing this in many states I learned this:

1) Obey all traffic laws, never speed and never, ever roll a stop.
2) Keep your vehicle in proper repair, never a light out or any loose items in the bed, etc..
3) When pulled over for ANY reason, BS or not, have your documentation ready and keep both hands on the steering wheel when the officer walks up.
4) If stopped at night, interior lights are on and weather permitting in any stop, window(s) rolled down.

Observing these simple rules and always being polite and respectful (Yes Sir, No Sir) has never at any time turned into a situation or a request to search my vehicle. Most of the time (four out of five of them) I was let off with a warning and a "thank you for your concern for officer safety".


TEA

III

[merl]

Observing these simple rules and always being polite and respectful (Yes Sir, No Sir) has never at any time turned into a situation or a request to search my vehicle. Most of the time (four out of five of them) I was let off with a warning and a "thank you for your concern for officer safety".

Whereas I have had very different results. Did you know that WY plates in southern CA is gonna get you pulled over and they are gonna ask you about guns? Your guidelines cannot hurt and in many cases will help but are not a blanket protection.

[Artema]

Whereas I have had very different results. Did you know that WY plates in southern CA is gonna get you pulled over and they are gonna ask you about guns? Your guidelines cannot hurt and in many cases will help but are not a blanket protection.

I drive a modified and lowered coupe with TX plates in southern CA. Would be highly illegal if I were registered in Cali because of exhaust modifications. Never had an issue or asked about guns for the past 3.5+ years. Doesn't mean someone has wont, but it has just been my experience.

[wctriumph]

Whereas I have had very different results. Did you know that WY plates in southern CA is gonna get you pulled over and they are gonna ask you about guns? Your guidelines cannot hurt and in many cases will help but are not a blanket protection.

Yes, in CA you will ALWAYS be asked, "do you have any weapons or drugs in the vehicle or on your person". That is the first thing that they ask after you give them your documentation.

Only time I was searched was when I was 20 and a passenger in another friends car. They (LACS) pulled us over for a tail light out (it wasn't) and when my friend protested they got us out of the car and patted us down, found nothing and asked to search the car. My friend said no and the deputy punched him in the gut and then out of nowhere the second deputy pinned me to the car trunk and both of us were handcuffed and made to lay on our stomachs on Lincoln Blvd while they tore the car apart. They did not find anything because we did not have anything to find. We did not break any laws and no citations were given. I still have the remnants of a scar on my left wrist where the cuffs cut me. When my friend's father went to the sheriff's office to make a complaint, they told him that there was no record of the stop on file and therefore it never happened. They told him that his son should not such a smart ass next time he was pulled over for a traffic violation.

I never trusted a so cal police officer again and discontinued my attempt to become a LEO, it would have severely corrupted my morals to join the LAPD or LACS back in 1975. Just my story from way back then. Today I just don't have any issues and I a few friends that are LEO. Things have changed for the better in my opinion regarding the street officer. I don't trust the command though, too many political loyalties to be overcome it seems in many locations across this great country.


TEA

III

[MED]

I found through the years working with LEOs as well as a few traffic violations, that contact is what you make of it. LEOs deal with the scum of the earth on a daily basis and they are put in harm’s way regularly so they respond as all humans do when they are put on alert. If you are acting suspicious, uncooperative, or confrontational, then you advance their alert level and you must be prepared to deal with that. Additionally, like in Carl’s case, they are trained to investigate. If contact seems suspicious, they look into it. It makes perfect sense that Carl pushed on this traffic stop; it was suspicious. I’ve had lights out on my cars/trailer several times, I never get pulled over unless it is after midnight, and then I get pulled over for them to determine if there is something else wrong; I have never received a ticket. Is it their fault for pulling me over for something stupid…no, it is my fault for not fixing my damn light. As far as the car, use common sense, know the laws, and don’t break them if you don’t want to deal with the consequences. There are many times that I want to go shooting after work, but I don’t bring my AR downtown with me because I know what will happen if for some unknown reason I get caught with it. The issue isn’t whether they can look in my car or not; the issue for me is the hassle and cost if I get caught with something where I know there will be a problem. Because of their policies, I won’t spend money there and support their economy. Hopefully, at some point, I won’t have to work their either. I understand that much of this is based on principal, but LEOs have a difficult job and I consider groups like the Sierra Club, our legislative bodies, and the gun control groups to be a far bigger threat to my liberties than LEOs doing their job.

[Wulf202]

I'd be interested in takes on that. Also, since the law states hunting activities.......if you possessed a valid hunting license and were outdoors/outside city limits wouldn't stating that you were hunting, tracking, practicing shooting for hunting season, hiking to stay fit for hunting season, etc. make legal arguments in case your jacket or shirt "concealed" your sidearm? I've never been hassled for having a firearm or knife on me outside the city, personally......but I'm sure it happens.varmit season is year round. Squirrels and rabbits and coyotes are everywhere. As long as you're in an area that you could hunt youre covered

[Wulf202]

For rvs ive found that they have to bee hooked up to facilities to be considered a home

[newracer]

1) Bailey you ass! It took me 6 more weeks to rent that apartment!

2) By definition, fishing IS hunting. Is fishing the same as hunting according to Colorado State Statutes though?

That may have not been the intent but I think technically it would be ok.


33-1-102. Definitions

(25.5) "Hunt" means to pursue, attract, stalk, lie in wait for, or attempt to shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or take wildlife. "Hunt" does not include stalking, attracting, searching, or lying in wait for wildlife by an unarmed person solely for the purpose of watching or taking photographs of wildlife.

(51) "Wildlife" means wild vertebrates, mollusks, and crustaceans, whether alive or dead, including any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, that exist as a species in a natural wild state in their place of origin, presently or historically, except those species determined to be domestic animals by rule or regulation by the commission and the state agricultural commission. Such determination within this statute shall not affect other statutes or court decisions determining injury to persons or damage to property which depend on the classification of animals by such statute or court decision as wild or domestic animals.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Why the hell do the cops give me sh*t for driving in the nude?? I walk around the house naked all the time. [Coffee] Just lighting up the mood.

I suspect because the rest of us aren't traumatized by the sight of you walking around your house but that poor kid who sees you in the car will be scarred for life. [ROFL3]

[rockhound]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[spqrzilla]

CRS 18-1-704.5

just read it

Not seeing your point.

[Ronin13]

CRS 18-1-704.5

just read it
Doesn't apply to cars (the topic of this discussion), only applies to dwelling... it even flat out says it in the legislative declaration at the beginning of the statute: "18-1-704.5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes." So rockhound, what's the pont you're trying to make here?

[rockhound]

sorry grabbed the wrong statute, cant seem to find the right one this time,

The Fourth Amendment's protection (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-and-seizure-and-the-fourth-amendment.html) against unlawful search and seizure generally makes arbitrary police car searches illegal. If the police search your car without a warrant, your permission, or a valid reason, they are violating your constitutional rights. Nevertheless, police can search a car without a warrant in a number of circumstances.
Courts generally give police more leeway to search a vehicle than a home. Under the "automobile exception" to the search warrant requirement, individuals have less of an expectation of privacy when driving a car. It’s worth noting that states are also free to provide more protections to individual’s privacy rights.
When Can Police Do a Warrantless Search?
Not every police search must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment, so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances.
So, when can police search your car? Generally, under the following circumstances:


You have given the officer consent
The officer has probable cause (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html) to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle
The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example)
You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs)

Automobiles may be stopped if an officer possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law. If the reason for the stop is a minor traffic offense like speeding, the officer likely isn’t permitted to search your car without more reason. However, if police arrest for conduct arising out of a traffic stop, a search of your vehicle incident to arrest will usually be allowed.
Police Can Search Impounded Cars Without a Warrant
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/can-the-police-legitimately-search-my-vehicle-without-a-warrant.html#sthash.V9uiX5PU.dpuf

[spqrzilla]

[beatdeadhorse]

[asmo]

sorry grabbed the wrong statute, cant seem to find the right one this time,

The Fourth Amendment's protection (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-and-seizure-and-the-fourth-amendment.html) against unlawful search and seizure generally makes arbitrary police car searches illegal. If the police search your car without a warrant, your permission, or a valid reason, they are violating your constitutional rights. Nevertheless, police can search a car without a warrant in a number of circumstances.
Courts generally give police more leeway to search a vehicle than a home. Under the "automobile exception" to the search warrant requirement, individuals have less of an expectation of privacy when driving a car. It’s worth noting that states are also free to provide more protections to individual’s privacy rights.


<snip a bunch of BS>

You need to learn the words "objectively reasonable".

If an officer really wants to search your car he *WILL*. It has been held OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that an officer is not liable for violating your 4th amendment rights - but right now the definition of your 4th amendment rights is completely vague and depending on what circuit you are in, there may (will) be different thresholds.

Then go and read about the exclusionary rule - and the good faith exception. Again, all an officer has to do is *believe* (for any reason whatsoever - including delusionary paranoia) that searching the car is the right thing to do at the time.

[spqrzilla]

Mmmmm, mmmmm, tasty tender horsemeat.