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

[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)

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...