Deconstructing a Warrantless Traffic Stop, Or What Illinois’ Finest Think of Your Fourth Amendment Rights

Kane-County-Sheriff-patrol-car-Ill.

Reader Mike Kane writes:

I sell packaging equipment for other companies and recently designed my own machine. One customer wanted details about how it works, and being reluctant to send pictures or video over the Internet before the final design is complete, I packed up the slide-in camper and headed to the Wolverine State. The presentation went well. I overnighted at a rest stop in Indiana, then headed to Minnesota to meet with another client. That meant transit through the Land of Lincoln. After paying the last toll westbound on I-90, I passed a county sheriff’s cruiser straddling the medium and settled down for some extended windshield time. Three minutes later, in the outside lane, the same cruiser, rolling five over, slowed and ran my plates . . .

You know why I pulled you over?

“Uh, no clue officer.”

You changed lanes without turn signals and were weaving a bit, perhaps wind interacting on the camper. Hey I’ll write up a no-fine warning and have you on your way.

(The first lie…then the bombshell.)

Oh one thing…are you transporting drugs, large amounts of cash or firearms?

He repeated this question three times.

My brain just stopped. I was traveling five under the limit trying to maximize mpg on a rolling brick. I’m a business owner, a law-abiding John Q. and I’m suspected of being a drug mule. My mind tried to process.

Drugs? Not even an aspirin in the vehicle. Large amounts of cash? Only a hundred bones to pay for — you guessed it — Illinois’ toll roads. Illegal firearms? Nope. Then it hit me…the handgun I store in my computer bag while sleeping at rest stops was resting on the passenger seat. I forgot to store it in the camper.

IMG_7756

The suspicious truck in question, courtesy Mike Kane

 

More mental processing. Did he mean legal or illegal firearms? Being a reader of TTAG, you hear about these “events” and think…not me. But during the next two hours it became my world.

First clear thought: is this actually a drug stop or just the blue crew fishing for revenue? I elected not to blurt out anything about said firearm and waited to see how he’d play it.

The officer asked a series of questions; what I do, where I came from, how long I’ve been traveling, did I have a business card or any brochures for what I sell. All were respectfully answered, thinking he would see that I’m not a muleskinner and send me on my way. But the questions kept coming. Who did I meet in Michigan (he asked for names). Some of my answers weren’t smooth, not because of the bangstick, but because I wondered why, after multiple lines of evidence of who I am, was this public servant not connecting the dots?

Then John Law played his card. It seems I fit a profile. Old fat white guy, Chevy 2500HD, camper and California tags, residing in the northern central valley. He asked me to step out of the truck and noted my folding knife, pointed and said,

What IS that?  

“It’s a legally sized knife. I’m in the packaging business and I open boxes with it.”

Well this CONCERNS me.

I explained my concerns about filling up at strange gas stations at midnight; perhaps it’s the only solution preventing a brick to the head.

Still, this CONCERNS me.

See how a peace officer shapes the narrative using the word CONCERN regarding the performance of his duties? How does one counter the word concern? You can’t.

I was invited to his patrol car for still more questions about my business. Then the second reveal: the trooper issued a CYA moving violation and announced that he wanted to search my truck. I replied with a polite no thanks…then the long pause.

What is your CONCERN, citizen?

“Well, I’m a liberty guy, engaging in interstate commerce and I’ve freely given you multiple lines of evidence of who I am and my profession. I see no need to search my vehicle.”

Well citizen, this is not my first rodeo. And my seventeen years of experience detect untruthful answers and I have CONCERNS.

There’s that CONCERN word again. Once more, I declined the search and more conversation ensued. Seeing no way out, I asked if he looked in the camper and all is well, would I be free to go? He said yes. (That was the second lie.)

I opened the camper. The officer looked and asked what was in the tote bag. I told him it was food and opened it to prove it. I closed the door and officer said,

Let’s check the passenger side of the vehicle.

Now the officer is moving the goal posts, so I said no. Any further search and he’d need a warrant.

I don’t need a warrant and I’m calling for a drug dog. You may sit in the patrol car and keep warm.

I declined the offer and stood there for thirty minutes while a local rolled up to assist and finally the dog showed. Courts may see this is an unreasonable delay, but I’m no Perry Mason.

What ensued was a procedural checklist positioning the citizen away from the vehicle, securing my phone so no video recording or communication with anyone took place, and a claim of a drug alert while the dog was in front of the vehicle. That’s where my category shifedt from citizen to detained suspect, with hands on the hood, a body search for weapons and a back seat view of a highly-specialized vehicle designed for law enforcement that contained radar, video cameras, lighting, shields, multiple handcuffs, and wi-fi-enabled computers. Today’s cruisers have come a long way from the 70’s single radio, bubble light and siren.

The patrolman was specialized as well. Body armor, weapons belt, multi-channel radios. How much does all this equipment cost? Multiply that by the three jurisdictions that were preparing to rummage through my personal belongings.

Then the officer opened the squad car door and, in the gentlest tone asked,

Citizen, you’re 53 without a record…what are you hiding?

He had inferred guilt rather than realizing that, without a record, chances are I was just going about my business. I later learned that he had called my client in Michigan to confirm my meeting and profession before the search.

Now I had a choice: I could hold the line and bet the three law dogs fail to find my pistola while saying something snarky like, “It’s your rodeo, so cowboy up, big guy.” Or I could de-escalate with the understanding the officers’ experience noted some inflection in my voice…a look or something that triggered his instincts. He knew damn well I wasn’t a drug mule, but had to solve the puzzle.

Confirming his instinct, I relayed that a gun was in the passenger area.

IS IT ILLEGAL?

“No, legally registered in my name.”

Then I called his title and name and spoke the following:

“As a Marine I shot every light infantry weapon in the inventory. With two laps around the planet and a skirmish under my belt, I got out in ’93 and never wanted to shoot another gun as long as I lived…until Sandy Hook.”

He paused, made a comment about a mad man and I replied,

“That gun is for lawful self-protection; why our legislators continue to remove or restrict that right is beyond me.”

He quietly closed the door and proceeded with his task. There was a long delay until the officer finally strolled back, opened the door, half smiled and said,

You must be good…three officers and a dog can’t find your gun.  

I told him exactly where it was. The moment of truth about my gun was admitting to possessing a concealed weapon in the passenger area of the car, a violation of Illinois law and, regardless of intent, I was liable for my actions. That’s when the best outcome presented itself. Using his discretion, he opened my camper, cleared the weapon, placed both gun and magazine in the food container and locked the door.

He returned to the squad car and counseled me on the proper transport of weapons through multi-state jurisdictions. I was free to go.

Once cleared, the officers’ demeanor changed and their sense of urgency to leave the area to patrol elsewhere took over. The K9 officer came up to me and explained he had to file a report on the false alert and asked if anyone using drugs had sat in the passenger seat.

“No officer, the truck has 7000 miles on it, still has a new vehicle smell. And by the way, your dog didn’t alert, no paw scratching or squatting.”

Silence. He quickly turned and shuffled away from the big drug bust that didn’t happen.

I drove off and miles later, off the highway, I decompressed realizing luck had smiled on me and I sorted through the emotions and facts of what happened. From start to finish, the search was clearly illegal. Everyone I told this story to, including my neighbor, who’s a cop, stated what occurred was against the Constitution. Yet on a highway, through a series of laws, a perimeter vehicle search is legal, and a false alert is all the justification a trooper needs to skirt the Fourth Amendment.

A Google search of traffic stops reveals scores of jurisdictions trolling out-of-state drivers to seize property. Prosecutors get 10-12% with the remaining going to state coffers. Last year in Illinois in one county, $4 million was seized.

The crossroad is the presumption of liberty vs. enforcement reality. Realities of state legislators with good intensions creating laws giving police free rein to erode citizens’ rights while generating revenue for their departments. Suppose I failed to pay a twenty-five dollar parking ticket two years ago. I would have been arrested, have had to post bail, get my truck out of impound, and perhaps pay a lawyer. The forgotten violation now generates $1100 for an industry whose purpose is to augment itself through warrantless searches.

Am I thankful for the trooper’s discretion. However, I lost any remaining respect for the profession and finally realize the real triad is the law enforcement castle feeding and protecting itself while the ones they “serve” are delayed, lied to and stroked for revenue. All with the support of legislators and judges interpreting the Constitution in ways to indirectly benefit themselves.

Institutional maneuvering around the Fourth Amendment lays the groundwork for eroding the Second and eventually the First. An entire class of employees relentlessly empowering government to restrict lawful self-defense. My new hobby will be to work the moral high ground of Constitutional carry in every state.

comments

  1. avatar ThomasR says:

    Yep. The United States Supreme Court, The Final Arbiter Of What Is Constitutional, has said that a dog, that can’t be deposed, can’t be sworn into court, can’t be charged with a crime for lying under oath, has the final say as to whether your right from unreasonable searches and seizures of your property and your person will be honored.

    The United States Supreme Court-otherwise known as the nine tyrants in black robes,.

    All bow down to our master, the Dog.

    1. avatar zeksteve says:

      Even though drug sniffing dogs have been proven bs scientifically ” a true blind study had shown the dogs want to please their handler over finding drugs”

      They are viewed as a tool like a radar gun that is how they are constitutional

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Except a radar gun’s speed checking ability is reproduceable. A tool’s readings that is admissible in court and can be checked for accuracy. The other aspect is that a radar gun only gives the cop an ability to give you a speeding ticket.

        Unlike a dog. Which gives them the “right” to violate your rights and search you and your property.

        The criteria should be much higher, with a much more provable and reproduceable results to violate such a fundamental and important right.

        Which the constitution says very clearly what that is. It is supposed to be based on the testimony of a human being with a judge writing a warrant specifically stating what they are looking for.

        I don’t see a human being when a dog gives some kind of “signal”.that says it detects drugs, especially when the dog has been shown, as the other poster mentions, wants to please their handler and gives a false signal.

        1. avatar DickG says:

          “Unlike a dog. Which gives them the “right” to violate your rights and search you and your property. ”
          .
          Unlike a dog. Which gives them the POWER to violate your Rights and search you and your property.
          .
          There, Fixed if for ya!
          .
          Police and their government employers don’t have RIGHTS. They have POWERS! “The People” have RIGHTS!
          .

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Except, other than the laser guns, the RF guns are joke accuracy, and there are so many scenarios where the readouts will be wrong, it boggles the mind. Cops rarely actually calibrate them per factory procedure, so seldom that it’s the easiest way to walk on an RF ticket. File disco motions for the calibration. It’ll be dropped post haste.

          Wind, rain, terrain, using the ‘instant-on’ feature (which the owner’s manual says is inaccurate), spurious RF harmonics, it’s a statiscal oddity when RF radar is accurate.

        3. avatar ThomasR says:

          Well DickG, they certainly use their “powers” to treat our rights as privileges. So they aren’t public servants, they are now the public masters and we are now their servants.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      And yet lie detectors are not considered trustworthy evidence.

      1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

        Not completely true. This protection works in the favor of the defendant, not the prosecutor. A polygraph is only admissible if it is introduced by the defense in a case.

    3. avatar mk10108 says:

      Can’t help myself and have to get “snarky”. To yield liberty a mammal that regularly licks its genitalia, we are well past the slippery slope.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        The other part to that us how a cop can kill our dogs, a beloved family member for most of us, with impunity, yet have one of us harm a hair on a police dog’s head and we can be charged with a felony.

        At this point, all animals aren’t equal. I see that a police dog is considered superior to an American citizen.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          There was a case of a man who barked at a police dog that was in the patrol car. The man was drunk and walking by when the dog barked at him so he barked back. His defense in court was that the dog started it. IIRC, he got a little jail time out of it. If it’s not too local of a story to me and I run across a link, I’ll post it.

          When a dog barks at me or a cat meows, it’s habit for me to return the call. At the time, I could see myself in that man’s shoes; except the drunk part. 🙁

          (I seem to remember at least two such similar cases in the news that year.)

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          I heard of this as well. There is one primary reason we have come to this point of obeisance to a dog.

          The War on Drugs..It has been an unmitigated disaster. It has really been a war on the civil liberties of the American People, which continues with the War On Terror.

          Hmm, so we actually have a three front war on our traditional American Freedoms, The war on Drugs, The War on Terror and the War of the Politically Correct.

    4. avatar Mediocrates says:

      May they forever be known as the nine ring wraiths. Let’s not pretend the backlash against these constant violations of the Constitution isn’t coming.

      1. avatar Dustin says:

        For nigh on a century this threat has been spoken. So, when?

    5. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

      This is not a surprise. One state attempted to upgrade attempted assault of a police dog to a felony, which would have made it more of a felony than assaulting an actual person. The lives of government dogs are worth more than the lives of regular people.

      On a trip to South Africa, a museum guide told me back in the apartheid days police shootings on crowds often started when people attempted to use rocks to repel police dogs loosed upon them, and that using a rock on a police dog was considered an assault on a police officer back then. I told her that is current law in the US. She was flabbergasted.

  2. avatar Calvin says:

    I’m not a hard-liner on the whole “Am I under arrest;Am I free to go” thing. However, I think that’s the only reasonable strategy once they play “Oh one thing…are you transporting drugs, large amounts of cash or firearms?” card.

    ETA: I’ll also add this is the kind of crap that leaves me with no sympathy for the LEOs when stuff like Ferguson goes down. Do I agree with burning down a town over the death of a thug? No. However, it’s the bed they’ve made. People like me (Upper middle class male WASP) should be pro-cop. But we’re not because of attitudes and procedures like the one in the story.

    1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

      Technically, if nothing is found and there is no PC for a search, the courts have upheld that the defendant must be released from a traffic stop in a reasonable amount of time (US v Childs & IL v Caballes are two more recent cases). They generally have ruled that 20 minutes is reasonable for a stop in which a summons or warning is going to be issued. My old agency was very stringent on this.

      One thing regarding vehicle searches. A vehicle that has been stopped (for legit PC) can be “frisked” for weapons. Any occupant of the vehicle can be ordered out, and a pat down search of the occupants for weapons has been upheld in the courts. The vehicle can then be “frisked.” The officer can only be looking for weapons, and it has to be within “lunging distance” of the occupants. Locked containers or a trunk would be off-limits without PC for a search, warrant, or consent.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Yes but you need at least reasonable articulatable suspicion of a weapon to conduct a frisk. Can’t be a fishing expedition the way consent can.

        1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

          I understand that and was not trying to imply otherwise.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Articulable? Riiiiiiight. I’m trying to the remember the last time I even heard of a case thrown out on those grounds. All the officer has to articulate is “I was concerned for my safety”. That’s all you need anywhere. The rule of law applies to police officers on TV crime shows, not in real life. Regardless of lack of plausible grounds, fruit of the poisonous tree is readily harvested. The Supremes just ruled the 4th invalid for all intents and purposes, see:

          http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

          You’re either the boy scout (every precinct has one or two) or you exist in a fantasyland. Cops anywhere and everywhere can and will light people up and toss their car on a whim. Trying to remember the last cop I heard of even getting a reprimand in his jacket for a stop and toss, no matter how specious the reason. Still can’t. Unless they messed with someone with ‘friends’. I remember having my Porsche tossed by some s-hole podunk muni that got lucky once and scored a semi full of weed and cash. They got new toys, new salaries and were gonna keep that gravy train rolling no matter what Amendments they violated.

          Nobody in the real world finds your tales of officer discipline anything but flights of fancy.

      2. avatar mk10108 says:

        It’s called a Terry Search. A justifiable search for weapons, even in absence of probable cause to an arrest. Where there is suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous.

        Police can search in an immediate area. Window down, computer bag in the seat, he can legally search if he feels threaten. Long reach but possible. I was not a threat and leads me to believe from the start it was a warrant less search, which with the help of a dog legal.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          Actually it’s a Terry Stop. The “frisk” or “search” are extensions implicit therein.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You seem to gloss over the and dangerous part of the Terry requirements. The RAS requirement applies to it, also. The suspicion must be specific, not generalized. It must articulable, and not mere “hunch.”

          To that end, a firearm carried by someone with a state-issued carry permit is a statistically strong indicator that the person is not dangerous at all.

      3. avatar TTACer says:

        According to Slate, John Roberts has never been pulled over in his life.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yep, count me as another upper income WASP that now despises cops.
      It wasn’t me that changed.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      “. . . it’s the bed they’ve made.” I’m going to assume that at least 80% of the cops are honorable and loyal to the Constitution. How many are dishonorable or have contempt for the Constitution? Is it as low as 2% or as high as 20%?
      If it is as low as 2% then the institution of police – as we know it – will survive. If it is as high as 20% then it can not survive. When societal stress rises to really acute levels the police will not enjoy the benefit of the doubt from peaceful and law-abiding citizens.
      It is incumbent upon the 80% to police their own. The chain-of-command won’t do so. The senior officers report to the chief who reports to the politicians. The chain-of-command knows who butters their bread; and, they aren’t on the streets exposed to the consequences of their policies.
      It’s up to you – Officer Friendly – to identify the constituency to whom you will be loyal. I pray you will carefully think about your morals and loyalties and make your decision before you have no choice but to choose sides.

      1. avatar Felix says:

        I assume cops are like everybody else — 10% good, 10% bad, and 80% just go along.

        Of the good and bad, 10% stand out as really good and honorable / evil and despicable.

        What kills it for me is the 99% who are not evil and 90% who are not bad, but will not rat out the 10% bad or even the 1% evil. As far as I am concerned, that puts them in bed with the bad and evil cops. Cops as people may be good neighbors, friendly, etc, but in uniform, they are just plain untrustworthy. All of them, every last single one, for the simple reason that they will not clean up their own ranks.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        @MarkPA: Spot on.

    4. avatar mike says:

      Sadly I agree

    5. avatar Kyle says:

      The LEO’s lost me when they stopped being police and became tax collectors with guns. It may not be their fault, but none the less, they are no more than that.

      1. avatar 33AD says:

        “Tax Collectors with guns…and look ready to fast-rope out of a blackhawk.”

        (fixed it for you)

      2. avatar derrickman says:

        Amen

    6. avatar Bdk NH says:

      ^^^This^^^
      Too much brawn and not enough brain in policing today. The protest movement in Ferguson and the national protests against “police militarization” around the country tell me that lots of people are fed up.

      How do regular people re-dress the system to get back to a time and place with reasonable laws and enforcement? It’s a serious question.

    7. avatar Anonymous says:

      LOL. He should have went with the cop block style “Officer, I don’t answer questions. Are we done here?”

      Haha.

  3. avatar craig k says:

    Pre 9-11 citizens were mostly pro peace officer even they were defacto less at that point. As they have become militarized law enforcement we are now afraid of them . Causing citizens not to support them and their NKVD tactics and mentality. Any PD reading this WE ARE AFRIAD OF YOU NOW. A scared dog either whimpers and show it’s tail or bares it’s teeth ready to fights to the death…..

  4. avatar MoveableDo says:

    Oh wow! Have you heard that even answering one question beyond the basics makes one open to being unable to assert their 5th Amendment privileges later? I’m no lawyer, but I bet after allowing a search of the camper, you forgo your rights to limiting any further searching. Allow a search of one portion, you lose your rights to say NO to a search of another portion. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Something you learned, too, is that officers are allowed to lie…and probably encouraged to in order to gain compliance.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      False. Consent to search can be limited- consent needs to be consensual, otherwise it turns into a probable cause search which requires quite a bit more. The case you are thinking of involved the admission of part of a voluntary questioning and was not very broad.

      That said, if you don’t want to consent to a search, don’t consent to a search. It’s simpler.

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        Yes it is simple, just say no, I wished I maintained that line and observed what develop. But you have to wonder is cause for search a truck/camper/CA plates and a place where you live?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Not under Terry, which requires specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion, and specifically excludes “generalized” suspicion.

      2. avatar 16V says:

        Riiiiight. And when you don’t consent, it will be seen/used as probable cause that you are hiding something. Story as old as the hills for the last 40 years. You will be (illegally) ordered from your vehicle for denying the search, you will likely be cuffed and if you’re lucky they cops won’t plant something in your car for contempt of cop.

        You’ll wait forever for a drug dog, which will alert to please it’s handler, regardless of any actual contraband in the car. Your car will be tossed, your belongings left on the side of the road, and if you’re really lucky they didn’t destroy too much of your kit while they found nothing.

    2. avatar Jim R says:

      In PA, and this is from an actual state trooper, if you consent to a search you may mark any part of the vehicle off-limits “Yes you can search, but stay out of the glovebox and stay out of the trunk” and they have to comply. The threshold for probable cause is they have to SEE it or SMELL it.

      Of course, this procedure is not always followed, and I’m sure there are lots of people subjected to illegal searches.

    3. Right on. This officer was most overreaching. Unfortunately no “real” damages to warrant a Federal Civil Rights case.

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        Truth here is if my gun was not in the passenger area and legally disarmed locked in the camper, I would give a High HO don’t care if you search my ride. I would have happily tossed my keys and said have at it. Would have been the quickest way to “be on my way”.

        But the legally own gun used for lawful self protection could have been a night behind bars, bail, vehicle impounded. What is the cost of that. The reason we need Constitutional Carry in 50 states.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          mk10108,

          Assuming you live permanently in the state of California, if you have a California concealed carry license, you can carry a loaded handgun in the passenger compartment of a vehicle while passing through Illinois. You just cannot take it loaded out of the car. And if you are going to stay in Illinois overnight, I would unload it and lock it in the trunk.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          National Reciprocity would be good-enough. Those that don’t carry wouldn’t have an issue. Those that do carry would have protection from National Reciprocity. Not quite perfect; but, I would much prefer good-enough until we can – eventually – achieve perfect.
          I wonder if the solution is for those of us with absolutely nothing to hide to stand-our-ground. ‘No, officer, I do not consent to a search.’
          What is the cop’s alternative? He can detain you as long as he likes. While he is detaining you he can’t be writing tickets for other traffic violations. His productivity will be impaired; he might not make quota.
          Granted, he might plant evidence on you. He may arrest you and impound your car. How long can the police in a given jurisdiction pursue such practices against law-abiding individuals with just enough economic resources to hire lawyers? If we knuckle-under to save a few hours then we are not ready to stop the tyranny.

        3. avatar mk10108 says:

          Stand on the side of an interstate for an hour while the 4th is broke off in your ass, and contemplate your world closing around you. You being to appreciate the framers, they stand by while its deconstructed before you eyes.
          Sobering

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          I would have happily tossed my keys and said have at it. Would have been the quickest way to “be on my way”.

          And that is exactly why the system is the way it is. Just simply comply and you will not be harassed/delayed for very long. Exercise your rights and expect to be in for the long haul.

  5. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Been there had that done. many times. Driving many times on I-95 from Florida to NY in the 90s.
    Or flying out of Fort Lauderdale airport,
    But with the car, a Camaro with black windows and Florida tags.
    North Carolina State troopers sound just like this guys experience.
    Except in my case. Any time the cops would ask any drugs guns or whatnot??
    My answer would be yes yes and yes what would you like??
    Always traveled with my hand guns and a few rifles.
    Prescription drugs including narcotics.
    Why me??
    I guess I fit the profile of a drug smuggler on I-95s corridor.
    Seems the word NO works well on North Carolina state troopers pretty much.
    Most times slightly inconvenienced. Always a warning ticket for 1 mile an hour over the speed limit.
    A crock of crap.
    Also last time I was stopped and let go. Some poor slob about a mile up the road was having his Van torn apart.
    I guess a lot of troopers have no real crime to go after so they look for it and always with a freggin f#$%uped attitude to boot.

  6. avatar Paul G says:

    Just another day in the good NEW USA.

    1. avatar Joe in CT says:

      This is the hope and change that you could believe in.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        This is change that has been a long time in the making. The top of the slippery slope lies beyond one sitting president.

  7. avatar History Warning says:

    Just so you know after looking up the law before I got stuck with a trip to the land of no freedom for work. Under Illinois law if you have a concealed carry license from your home state you can carry in Illinois but only in your car and then yes it has to be in the locked container etc.

    1. avatar History Warning says:

      For future reference.

      Section 40
      (e) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a non-resident from transporting a concealed firearm within his or her
      vehicle in Illinois, if the concealed firearm remains within his or her vehicle and the non-resident:
      (1) is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under federal law;
      (2) is eligible to carry a firearm in public under the laws of his or her state or territory of residence, as
      evidenced by the possession of a concealed carry license or permit issued by his or her state of
      residence, if applicable; and
      (3) is not in possession of a license under this Act. If the non-resident leaves his or her vehicle
      unattended, he or she shall store the firearm within a locked vehicle or locked container within the vehicle in
      accordance with subsection (b) of Section 65 of this Act. (Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)

      1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        YOU CAN HAVE THE GUN LOCKED, LOADED, AND ON OR WITH YOU IN THE VEHICLE IN IL NOW (SINCE JAN 2014).

        Sorry – but i carry in IL all of the time in the vehicle. Actually hoping to get stopped so I can give the cop by IL bar card and proceed down that path!

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          I’d love to read THAT after action report!

        2. avatar History Warning says:

          Derp had a misprint in my first post. Meant to read you can carry on you until you leave the vehicle and then the whole locked box BS starts.

  8. avatar Hannibal says:

    Quit with the “Citizen” bullshit (no one talks like that) and next time just don’t consent to the search (at all!) and bring a civil action for being unnecessarily detained if you get held after the traffic stop with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Plenty of departments have been judicially smacked for such things in the past and that’s the way to change things… not a TL;DR dissertation on The Truth About Cops (I mean guns?)

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Of course the officer didn’t talk like that. Citizen can be any one of us. The point is the he was going to search my vehicle regardless. No amount of protest or saying no was going to stop the search.

    2. avatar BlueBronco says:

      This stop in NJ could have gotten a mag dump from a couple of cops.

    3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      We are CITIZENS. You and every other cop is a CIVILIAN, that being a government employee not in the military. We have rights, you have delegated authority.

  9. avatar Retired LEO says:

    Having seen drug dogs alert for no reason. I’ve also fit the profile happened to take a wrong turn off the interstate going through IL a few years ago. If you have nothing to hide when asked to search your vehicle politely decline. I suggest you not say anything about rights or the constitution. Just politely refuse the search if anything happens after that let your lawyer handle it then, sue the State for unlawful detention & interferring with interstate commerce. Why did he call the businessperson you were

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      He called to verify my response to his questions. Client called and relayed when the Trooper called. What disturbing is, until I responded to them they were concerned about doing business with my company. Happy to inform it had no impact on the project.

      Also cost associated with defending yourself is one thing officers count on. And no mention of any bill of rights.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        That is pretty crazy that a cop takes your phone and calls people that you know on it, all for a routine traffic stop. How can he take your phone and use it to invade on your privacy?

        Did you give him consent to use your phone?
        https://www.eff.org/issues/know-your-rights#4

        1. avatar BlueBronco says:

          SCOTUS has rulled that cops can’t just take cell phones and go through them. Its that pesky 4th Amendment.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          He gave them consent to search his phone:

          mk10108:
          “offering to call my client using my phone”

  10. avatar Vhyrus says:

    In some ways I am glad I was arrested and almost convicted of a felony when I was 19. It taught me very early on what cops really are: guys doing a job. They genuinely don’t care about the circumstances behind the case, they just want to close it and add it to their metrics. You are product, nothing more. The lives they ruin mean nothing to them. If a law as broken, they deliver on it. Interestingly I have noticed that once a cop has an idea of what they want to arrest you for, they will ignore basically everything else. In the story above, they wanted to see either wads of rubber banded bills, crates of guns, or keys of coke. Once they realized they weren’t getting that, they wanted you gone ASAP so they could cornhole the next sucker. Assembly line efficiency, coming to an interstate near you.

  11. avatar Steve in MI says:

    Do you have a CPL from your home state? I know that IL recognizes a MI CPL for concealed carry IN YOUR CAR. But you must leave it locked up in your vehicle if you exit the vehicle for any purpose.

    1. He’s from California. So what are the odds he has a CCW permit?

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        Not good but due to this event I’m applying.

      2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

        florida permit?

        1. avatar mk10108 says:

          Nope going for CA with a UT rider. My business is picking up and will travel extensively throughout the country.

  12. avatar Steve in MI says:

    To ammend that, you can carry on your person in IL in your car if you have a CPL. But it has to be locked if you leave the car.

  13. avatar Jon in CO says:

    This kind of thing is why you have so much disdain for police. They don’t realize that most of us are just trying to get from A to B. Being in the “drugs are flooding bordering states” state, on a trip to Texas being pulled over multiple times just for having CO plates, I’ve experienced this first hand. With 10mph drops in the speed every couple hundred yards, it’s easy to be speeding and not even realize it. Perhaps one day, it will either change for the better, but my bet is, it’s only going to get darker before we see the light at the end of the tunnel.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      It will never stop. Once you sit in the back seat of a patrol car and see the cost of the equipment, combine that with pay & pensions, it will never end. They need to sieze as much as they can and you John Q is on the hook.

      1. avatar Jiz says:

        that part you talked about in your story about “serve” the people- referring to (I think) “to protect and to serve” motto you see on so many police cars. it seems almost everyone reads it to mean; “to protect and to serve me” or “we the people” but now I’m not so sure. I can’t help but wonder if it really means “to protect and to serve the system”.

        I mean this system is paying for this LEO’s life, his kids education, his pension, that AR build project in 300 black he’s been working on his days off, everything. the system needs to be feed and protected and it will reward these agents who do. but this can’t be done unless it “takes” from someone else. positions of power seem to be one of those fancy “rare earth” magnets for a$$h0les and while I know there are some really great cops out there- jerks can’t help but take short cuts and climb that ladder with a bunch of busts under his belt. He keeps fishing and honing his skills and yeah he makes a mistake-like he did with you but he’s counting on the fact that most people want to go home or get on down the road asap so they try to make it easy and answer questions and allow searches because they “don’t have anything to hide” so search me, track me, spy on me or even harass me- just make it quick so I can be on my way.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      Just avoid coming to my state, Oklahoma, unless you REALLY like being harassed. Also, apologies for our sh!tlord AG.

      1. avatar eremeya says:

        Which part of OK is that? I live in OKC and the only area I ever had problems with is Edmond. Even then there was never really any issues after handing them my CCW.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          I’m referring to someone with CO plates coming to OK. The cops are specifically targeting them for searches, due to the MJ laws.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I already don’t go to Dallas by way of Montague county (they will stop anything out of state, apparently) now I can’t go to Dallas via I-35. Grrrreat.

  14. avatar Troybilt says:

    I will be sharing this story with many people. Thanks for sharing.

    I believe that any one with a CCW from any state can carry in there car in Illinois. Is this not correct?

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Not in IL. Not recognized from CA or UT.

    2. avatar kwc says:

      It must be from your home state.

  15. avatar Edgar says:

    Just be grateful you were not carrying a lot of money on you. Civil Asset Forfeiture…

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      It used to be the robbers carried guns, now they carry guns and badges.

    2. avatar CentralIL says:

      I’ve been told a strong briefcase or safe box with a combination lock provides some level of protection from cash seizures during casual searches. The officer can assume an envelope of cash in your glove box is ‘guilty’ and seize it without any evidence of wrongdoing.

      The same assumption cannot be made about a locked briefcase, however. If you don’t give the officer the combination and he can’t easily force it open himself, then seizing any cash that may inside the briefcase becomes more complicated.

      Most importantly, even if you have nothing to hide, always keep your mouth shut and consent to nothing! The officer can’t seize cash he doesn’t know is there.

  16. avatar ihatetrees says:

    Technology may fix this…
    In 10 years, the law abiding driver will have video, instantly archived to the cloud, for all areas around his vehicle. Revenue driven, badge heavy searches will be much tougher. Sure, Leviathan may crush such a fix in some states, but not all.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      10 years from now?

      http://bambuser.com/

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        I locked my vehicle but afterward thought if I left my keys on the dash and used On Star to lock my vehicle and then coded it so only i could open. Would have worked for a non search until they impounded adding to the payout to get it back…after they used crowbars to open it.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Geeez, hearing your story simply sickens me.

          You might want to consider a dash cam and a rear cam. Then if they try that trick again about you’re weaving you’ll have some counter-ammo.

          That iPhone app that streams your video to a remote server might be something to consider.

          Cop cams need to be universal.

    2. avatar Fred Lead says:

      The cops already have camera and signal jamming technology. Anything you can do they can do better, and on your dime while they’re at it.

  17. avatar Jay W. says:

    Wow! What an eye opener! I feel so wet behind the ears.

  18. avatar kevin says:

    The officer sounds like a good guy who smelled something, but didn’t know what. He had skills.

    What a broken system to waste talent like that on something so useless.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      The officer started conversation about my business, I thought he was interested but really just wants to get your guard down. I suspect no LEO will do well in the business world because they’re programmed for US/THEM. Biz world requires WE though process. They could do well demonstrating tenacity but need to reprogram the melon.

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      The officer sounds like a good guy

      Are you on drugs? The LEO accused the guy of hiding something because he didn’t have a record. They used false drug dog alerts. And more. You need to reread the encounter.

  19. avatar Matt in CO says:

    I had the same kind of experience in 2000 around Pascagoula, except I never had to spread ’em. Same fake drug dog “alert”. No gun back then. Took 45 minutes to get clear after the sheriff showed up hoping for a big haul.

    I’ve had friends in law enforcement, so I know there are good guys. Sucks being abused by one of the bad ones.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      I don’t think the officer was bad. Quite professional. What was learned was once that process was started he had to carry it out no matter what my answers were.

      1. avatar Tile floor says:

        Even if his demeanor was polite what he subjected you to makes him unprofessional in my eyes. The whole thing, from the stop to calling the dog and making you wait for it, is garbage. If I ever saw one of my co workers pull that crap I would have some choice words for him or her and turn him in into our internal affairs. Seeing crap like this makes me ashamed of people in my profession, but it also makes me strive harder to do my job without compromising my principles or, most importantly, the constitution.

      2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        I don’t think the officer was bad.

        Despite what the LEO said to you? Stop being an apologist for them.

      3. avatar alexander says:

        Many of the Nazi officers were quite polite and professional, too.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      Good cops who do not stop bad caps are not good cops.

  20. avatar Chris says:

    At least in the third world you can bribe them and they go away.

    Good thing you were not carrying a bit of cash, they would have seized it as drug money.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      What if I was buying a used machine and had 20K along with an invoice from the seller. Confiscation of private property and a long legal battle to recover. No thanks all transaction from now on, regardless is wire transfer.

  21. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    State troopers are nothing more than revenue generators on public highways – and as we know from Holder’s DOJ report on Ferguson, that’s now open to opprobrium.

    I haven’t been pulled over in ages – even longer for something legitimate. Sad to say, I would no longer answer non-relevant questions or consent to anything.

  22. avatar chris hall says:

    why are not more folks ANGRY that this kind of stuff goes on? I can barely see straight im so pissed!

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Don’t get pissed, just vote.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        I’m pissed about voting. No matter who is on the list to vote for – they are basically the same and nothing changes.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      Because it doesn’t happen to them and/or “the guy deserved it”. The whole “nothing to fear, nothing to hide” mentality that prevails on all sides.

  23. avatar Sean in Tampa says:

    Carrying a large amount of cash is illegal?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      No, but it raises a “reasonable suspicion” that it is the product of or to be used in the completion of a drug transaction, and is therefore subject to the civil forfeiture laws–where you have the burden of proving that these were NOT illegal drug proceeds. The civil forfeiture laws totally suck, and to me any way, violate the constitution., they have survived challenges, however, despite the shifting of the burden of proof, on the basis that these are civil, not criminal proceedings.

    2. avatar BlueBronco says:

      There is a Federal statute that allows cops to impound large sums of money under the auspices that it may be drug money. They don’t even have to prove it.

  24. avatar Mark N. says:

    I’ve heard that “illegal lane change” line before (weaving, changing lanes without signalling). It became so popular in western Louisiana on I-10 that even CBS 60 minutes did an investigation. They rigged a rental care with hidden video cameras. The camera could see down the road and the speedometer at the same time. The car had cruise control and a digital speedometer display. They set the cruise control for 55 (shows you how long ago this was). And then they filmed. Moments after passing under an overpass, the state highway patrol was on their tail–and the same thing happened as in this story. “You were weaving and you made an illegal lane change.” The video from the hidden camera proved that this was a lie. The officer told them that he needed to search the car, but also told them that if they refused he would go get a warrant from the local (and obviously friendly) magistrate.

    A few years ago, here in northern California, there was a sudden surge of drug busts on I-5. The news reported every excuse in the book for PC, including that the occupants were young Hispanic males, the car was a rental, and so forth and so on. And the car made an illegal lane change, was weaving, was driving too slow, something to warrant a traffic stop. (Actually, under California law, a signal is required only if tour lane change might imperil or impede another driver–if there is no one back there or no where near, signals are not required.) In any event, one of the local attorney sued. Knowing from my own experience that the CHP will destroy or hide inconvenient evidence and lie on the witness stand, it was unsurprising to me that he lost his case–but then, despite the loss in the trial court, all of these traffic stops stopped as suddenly as they had begun.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Under the guise of public safety citizens are being shaken down on odds that one joint or other illegal something or other is in the vehicle. It’s generating revenue, pure & simple. It’s how police departments augment their budgets.

      The legal TRIAD is not drugs but government creating laws, empowering police to collect and DA’s and judges indirectly benefit. This is the real purpose of the stops.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        If you haven’t already, I recommend reading Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces. Int19h was kind enough to purchase a copy for me as I’ve wanted to read it. I have just a little more left to read and none of it was particularly new information for me but the way it is all presented linearly, in a scholarly manner with citations, is eye opening.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      This reminds me that I need to buy a dashcam.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Yep. Front and rear.

  25. avatar Jeffro says:

    I’ve been profiled by every jurisdiction between my driveway, and my employers parking lot 41.3 miles away. My crime? I leave my driveway at 2:45 AM.

    Turn signals, drifting in lane, inconsistent speed, imaginary license plate or tail light out. It happens at least once a month. You would think by now, that all those on duty would recognize my car, but no. I’ve not even received a warning. I’m tired of being trolled by these bastards looking for an easy mark.

    Now when they approach my window, the first words out of my mouth are, may I have your name badge number and supervisors name and contact information please?

    I’m civil, but barely. Curt, and nearly foul tempered. All of the questions of where I’m going, why, and etc. are answered with, Is there a specific reason you need to know? If so, what is that reason?

    I’m seriously considering setting up a go-pro to substantiate these occurrences, and perhaps begin my own Youtube channel with them.

    Badge heavy public ‘servants’. We need to purge them. All.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Police are the wrong target. They’re in the trench. It’s the legislators & judges that create laws that give them wide berth to skirt citizens rights. Target them and this pratice will go away.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Police are not forced to harass people, they do it on their own initiative. No legislator is sitting in the back seat saying “hey, pull that guy over!”

      2. avatar John says:

        “I was just following orders” was not a valid defense at Nuremberg.

        Why should it be valid for a State Trooper?

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        The police are the iron fist in the legislative/judicial velvet glove. The two/three work in harmony. The legislative and judicial tyranny can not operate without the application of force by the police (and ultimately, the military). Therefore, it is critical to confront the police (and military) with the legitimate question: Whom will you obey? The Constitution and your oath? Or, your political masters?
        If the police are never confronted by this question then they will obey the hand that feeds them and bite those they are sic’ed on. If the police are confronted by this question then none of us will really be sure what answer each of them comes up with. That will act as a governor on the reckless acts of the legislative and judicial branches.
        Ultimately, you are correct. The People must exercise their sovereignty upon those they elect. Failing at this and I tremble at the consequences.

      4. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Record them. File public records requests. File complaints where warranted. Scanner Radio is a good app for Android phones to listen to police radios in an area. RadioReference for desktop and notebooks. Body cams, car cams, and Bambuser (or equivalent) are good tools. We’re branching into using repeaters and two way radio for these activities. We already have a 411 call system in place for any activist 24/7.

        Hold them accountable. Do not give consent and retain all of your rights. It is important that people do this. Voting is good but where the rubber meets the road is that everyday interaction. We’ve seen change in Ohio when people are diligent about this. Positive change can be made rapidly if enough people engage in the right activities in the right way.

      5. avatar BlueBronco says:

        This is a “cop” out. Officers that pull this crap damn will know they are ass-hats.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      I work at night so I am always on the road in the middle of the night. Never been pulled over once. Yet my Hispanic wife is pulled over multiple times for things such as “headlight/tail-light out”. Driving the same car. We’re very well versed in how “profiling” works.

    3. avatar Phydeaux says:

      A dash cam would capture video/sound evidence, including for the period prior to being stopped — assuming the LEO doesn’t take/break/erase the device.

      There’s even small ones you can wear on your person like the Veho Muvi Micro DV camcorder at Amazon for under $50.

      Dash cams are very popular in Russia, purportedly because of the high rate of accident fraud. After reading this post I’m wondering if they are also a deterrent against corrupt Russian cops.

      And as Vhyrus mentioned, apps like Bambuser can stream video from your phone to the cloud in real time, at least until they take your phone and figure out that you’re streaming…

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Good thing is that once it’s on the cloud they can’t delete it like they could if it was stored locally.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          I’ve seen one DV mounted inside a pen.

          Just the thing to have clipped to the collar of your shirt.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Veho Muvi Micro DV camcorder — that’s the one I use. It was a gift from a fellow activist. My son tells me that there is a newer waterproof version. It’s amazing how polite and “by the book” interactions with officers now go once they see the body camera. I don’t leave the farm without it clipped to my body.

      3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        I am very interested in getting a camera(s) like this, but according to amazon reviews the Veho Muvi Micro DV is very noisy and has terrible audio. I watched some of the sample videos users have uploaded. This concerns me.

  26. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    At DHS “near” border stops they always (3 times) tell my wife and I that the dog alerted. We have never had anything illegal in the car ever. The first time they stopped us they didn’t even ask us for permission to search, they just ordered us out of the car and did it.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      Even if they didn’t ask, you can still refuse. The “not ask” is just a bullying strategy to cow people into compliance.

      1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

        It sure worked. They scared the shit out of us. Hands on pistols, surrounding the car, all that. I really feared for our dog.

  27. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Stories like this have great impact on people’s opinion about the police and policing. This is how change takes place. Slowly but surely, public opinion that used to be solidly on the side of the police, regardless of the excesses committed against private citizens, is beginning to change. Already asset forfeiture is under criticism by national Republican leaders. Not too many years ago Republican politicians were uniformly loyal police supporters. Now, they’re not. Change is coming.

  28. avatar Abe Froman says:

    I’ve been wondering, if the majority of the guys in blue are genuine good guys, when will they stand up to their leaders and refuse to be tasked on harvesting those they are sworn to protect? Or has it come to the point that the lure of a pension and some above-the-law status is too great for them to ever speak up?

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      No they won’t. Its their Castle, how they make their Coin, and are in good Conscience, knowing they have the rule of law. Law not by consent but by legislative action.

      This is THE example of why our rights are being eroded. That the parchment is good for discussing ideas but so far from presumption of liberty. Liberty is eroding right in front of us.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      Good cops who do not stop bad cops are not good cops.

  29. avatar John says:

    welcome to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois. you are very lucky to not be in jail and the gun grabbed. Remember this is the last state to approve concealed carry.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Dam right I am. Actually was mentally F’ed for a few days afterward. Writing this was a sort of therapy and now I’ll work towards Constitutional Carry.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Considering how you were treated, I’m not surprised you were off mentally for a few days.
        Your attitude in the comments section here is commendable.

        1. avatar scott says:

          Was thinking the same thing, Tom.

  30. avatar Steve says:

    My lack of respect for police is what cause me to buy my first firearm, which eventually led to me becoming a rabid 2A absolutist (I read many reviews on TTAG before that first gun purchase, and I just kept coming back).

    When I heard a woman screaming next door, and I heard her getting beaten and thrown against the wall of my apartment, and the cops told me to call back in 15 minutes if it got any worse (the local PD was less than 1/4 mile away, btw), I knew it was time to buy a gun. FFS. What if it had been my wife? What if someone had broken into my home and was attacking my wife, and a good Samaritan neighbor made that phone call on my behalf? How can any anti (or human being, for that matter) argue against that?

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      I was the recipient of DV once and the police did nothing to help me. I grew up in a sheltered, white, middle-class Midwestern suburbia and always believed that the cops were there to “protect and serve” and that anyone who complained about the cops were just criminals. I have since learned better.

  31. avatar BIG AL says:

    I say you’re lucky they didn’t plant something. Over the years, police have completely lost my trust. Not that they have done anything to me, but Hitler didn’t do anything to me either.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      You are correct. Even wilder, what if a mule saw my truck and placed a magnetic box on my frame and followed me. Totally unlikely that would every occur, but what if. Would have to make friends fast living in a cell.

      Just part of the mind F when this happens. Afterwards actually got under my truck and inspected days afterward.

  32. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Google “Breakfast in Collinsville” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqq6KCOkdM
    About an Illinois jurisdiction that was playing this “swerved in your lane” game. They pulled over the wrong nerd who got a nice 100k settlement out of the stop.

    It came out in pretrial that the cops were swiping cars in hotel parking lots with marijuana, leaving the scent on the vehicle, then pulling them over. Here is the cop’s deposition where he admits to this practice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3vfqUkZ8xg

    “We’d go to a hotel or grocery store parking lots, throw (drugs) on U-Haul trucks … underneath big trucks and 18-wheelers and so forth,” Reichert says, acknowledging that it was sometimes done without the vehicle owner’s permission. And sometimes, he said, marijuana was wiped across a car door. He said the dogs can detect the smell “for a time.” http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/in-video-collinsville-cop-says-he-put-drugs-on-random/article_8d4e6017-30a3-577c-9dd9-f27f64170369.html

    All cops are dirty and should be disarmed. They carry weapons with our permission.

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Willkommen to Illinois fair Party Member! This is common in the MetroEast, the ISP is loaded with criminals an no better.

  33. avatar Troybilt says:

    A bit off topic but in Illinois with my Ohio CHL I can carry on my person in my vehicle but I can not step out of my vehicle. So what happens when I get pulled over?

    Cop: please step out of the vehicle

    Me: No thank you I have a firearm on my person and that would be against the law.

    Whats the chances this ends up with out me being beat to a pulp?

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      NO your dead on. There should be no reason why I cannot have a loaded gun near me for lawful self protection. Any requirement by a local state or federal government prevents me from protecting myself from a criminal. per and simple government does not want me to protect myself and empowers criminals to ply their profession on citizens.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        You missed his point, I think.

        He’s using an out of state permit to carry (legally) in his car. The minute he steps out of his car with the gun still on, he commits a crime. But the cop ordered him to do so. So in Illinois you could get arrested and convicted for complying with a cop’s order? Or not?

  34. avatar Brian A says:

    thing is you can have your unloaded firearm in you center console and a loaded mag on the dash and you are legal as long as you can legally own the weapon in your own state. that is even on the isp website

  35. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Hey it’s Illinois. I live here. I was given a fake speeding ticket by a state cop about 15 years ago. Said I was going 77mph. I never drove even 65. AS I sat in the cop car I saw a STACK of citations ALL for 77mph. With the radar blinking. Only stopped once for “weaving” (in Indiana). Actually I’ve found my OFWG thing gives me free reign. Don’t ever carry large amount of cash.Deposit or even transfer to a green dot card. I disagree with the author-the cop was a prick and a lowlife A##wipe. Illinois’ finest…I would avoid the land o’ Lincoln as the best advice. and get names/badge #…

  36. avatar Emancipator144 says:

    Well, it’s too bad that you didn’t leave your blaster in the camper… Another rule of gun ownership, know where your piece is at all times, because negligence and/or ignorance won’t save you when you break a dumb law.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Absolutely GDam right. If the heater was left in the camper, complying with an unjust law, it would be a non event. Better question is why do I have to disarm myself, why must I allow criminals opportunity to wreak havoc on me, sole provider for my wife & twins? Why in Alaska is a loaded firearm allowed (you being part of the food chain excepted) are you deined in another state. A gun is a tool, no more no less.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      We do the best we can to observe the law. The common law principle of “a guilty mind” protected us from injustice. That is, (generally) one could not be found guilty of a crime unless he violated the law with an intent to do an evil deed; called absolute liability.
      In the past 50 years or so, the common law prerequisite of “guilty mind” has been badly diluted, mostly at the Federal level but also at the State level.
      It would not be so bad if our legislatures would regulate conduct by imposing a modest fine or very short jail sentence for an infraction without the prereq of a guilty mind. E.g., you get fined $1 per day or $10 per hour for failing to return a library book on time or for an expired parking meter. Unfortunately, our legislatures impose absolute liability with extreme penalties to prohibit Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.
      We have only ourselves – as voters – to blame. We have failed to make our legislators to refrain from violating our liberties. They will continue on this path unless and until we become sufficiently aroused to alarm our neighbors.

  37. avatar tdiinva says:

    I share your concerns but i have to say that in recent years the First Amendment is in worse shape than the Second. We have been expanding gun rights incrementally but we are sliding backwards on the First. Some of it is only in spirit but the State is practically limiting all clauses of the First.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      Did you mean the Fourth? Because this incident was a huge violation of the Fourth.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        I mean the First. The author mentioned the First as the last right attacked. In reality the First has been under pressure for just as long.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      True. IMHO, we’re losing ground overall.

  38. avatar Skyler says:

    It wasn’t an illegal search. You agreed to it. Don’t ever agree to a search. You are one lucky man.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Never agreed to a search. I offered him to look. The officer explained that looking was not searching so I agreed to “looking”. Legally that could have been a lie but you have to live in the moment. Once he move the goalpost I ended “looking” and said he needed a warrant.

      The point is to be wary, john law has tools you don’t. He requires you to be truthful yet he can lie. How one respect police when they can lie?

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        Looking? Whatever does that mean? To the cop that could easily mean consent to search. Police are allowed to tell you whatever lie they wish. He can tell you that you can limit his search, but once you allow the search, then you just have to wait until he is done with his definition of the search. I think you would have been wiser to not answer questions and not allow a “look.”

        The more questions you answer, the more opportunity he has to imagine inconsistencies or discrepancies and thus conclude there is suspicious behavior. Limit answers to “I am traveling on my own business.” “My business is not your concern.” Explain that you don’t feel obliged to answer any questions and that the Supreme Court requires you to explain that you are doing so because the Fifth Amendment doesn’t require you to answer questions.

        Remember, he is not your friend. The ONLY reason he has stopped you is because he thinks you’re a crook. The ONLY reason he wants to search you is because he wants to prove you’re a crook. Don’t help him do that.

        If he wants to lie about probable cause, then he can lie. If he does, at least you can argue about his probable cause in court. If you answer questions or allow a “look” or other type of search, then you can’t argue anything and anything he finds will be used to put you in jail. The answers to your questions will be remembered accurately or inaccurately and the answers he reports in court will be used to put you in jail.

        That stop was not friendly in any way, nor can it be. Nothing good can ever come of giving someone a way to put you in jail, justly or unjustly. Don’t kid yourself, talking to them beyond pleasantries “hello officer, good day officer, here is my license and registration officer” can only work against you.

        1. avatar mk10108 says:

          Absolutely correct and learned the hard way. The courage to stand on parchment grounds is hard but because of this experience I believe strongly I’m better equip to stand the against the next one. Also the bang stick will be stored the next transit through IL.

          Also the struggle is to be truthful and help the officer, but no matter the answers, once they decided to search your done due to the work around enabling police to call the K9.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Go ahead tell a cop that your travels are not his concern. Tell him his questions are illegal and irrelevant. See how far that gets you.

        3. avatar mk10108 says:

          I’m thinking of handing him a notebook with accumulating citations and appropriate articles declaring this is not my first warrant-less search. Cowboy up and all that. Not my problem if the officer doesn’t have a sense of humor.

        4. avatar 16V says:

          That’s landed me in a vertical holding coffin with little air for hours while my vehicle was ‘impounded pending warrant’. I have enough friends so they didn’t plant anything and was eventually released.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Am I free to go?” “Am I being detained?” Repeat one of the questions in answer to any question the officer asks that you will not be answering. There’s no need to tell him what is or is not his concern. When asked to permit searches, a simple, “No, I do not consent to searches.” If arrested, reserve your right to remain silent… and then be silent until advised otherwise by your attorney.

  39. avatar Paul says:

    This is a little off topic but not really. My only experience with this kind of BS was near my home with a local police DWI checkpoint. I was coming back from work and no, I was not drinking but as a middle age taxpaying person I was furious at the mistreatment. That crap was a function of MADD moms’ bitching and invading people’s rights, and it is not coincidental that with the MDA moms’ bitching that the same thing goes on looking for “illegal” guns. On the other hand when I had a breakdown some years ago in a rural area of Virginia with Maryland plates, the State Police could not have been better people. Less of the MDA and MADD mom political pressure would go a long way to lighten up the police in many jurisdictions. Won’t affect the corrupt revenue gouging towns, but would affect other jurisdictions.

  40. avatar lasttoknow says:

    anyone not understand that the difference between cops and gangs (and other extortion scams) is that the cops get shinny badges? oh,…..one other thing that is different, gangs and extortionists don’t tell you it is all for your own good.

  41. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Mike,

    As an Illinois citizen I apologize for the unethical behavior of one of my employees. I’m also sorry for the way our legislature infringes on gun rights in general.

    As a U.S. citizen, I gotta wonder, what the hell were you thinking? You know there are states that hate gun owners. You should know that one of them is Illinois (especially near the upper right corner of the state). You read TTAG, fer cryin’ out loud! You should know that if you’re going to carry a gun you need to carefully study the laws in the states you’re traveling through, and follow those laws. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.

    I’m traveling to NY State for a wedding this summer. I’ve figured out that the only viable option is to leave the guns at home. It sucks.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      Curtis, no apology needed. I like IL and once lived there for a year. In fact it was the officer 17 years experience and discretion that got me a free one time get outta jail card. At issue is the systematic doctrine of warrant less search that should be reviewed and ultimately ended. But that will not happen. A lawyer friend once told me for every dollar spent on enforcement, it generates four dollars in revenue. Think about that an industry covered in the rule of law, earns 75% profit. That’s better revenue than drug dealers, with no real risk other than stumbling across a baddie with an attitude and a short barrel AR/AK. Either we blindly accept this intrusion in our lives or we find a way to end it.

      And yes shame on me. The scorecard on who’s on first doing what with will be right beside my GPS from now on.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        And a password on your phone… So the officer doesn’t take it from you and start immediately making calls to you contacts to explain to them he is an officer, you are being detained pending an investigation, and he hopes they still want to do business with you.

  42. avatar John Boch says:

    Ha!

    We at Guns Save Life advised our members and others to just decline any requests to search.

    We were met with one very upset cop who wrote us, claiming our advice was illegal:

    http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=10922

    He pulled all the usual schtick, including the “if you’re not doing anything wrong” / “don’t have anything to hide” line of crap.

    I pushed back twice as hard.

    John

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      The officer is right that you should never tell a police officer that you have no gun if you do have a gun. Lying to the police may be a crime in certain circumstances. Instead, don’t answer the question. You are not required to answer questions, unless you have a license to carry that requires you to answer such questions.

  43. avatar John Boch says:

    Oh, and my reply:

    The Editor Emeritus replies:

    by John Boch
    Mr. Pridemore is correct in that the original article was written in 2004 by a founding member of Guns Save Life’s predecessor organization, a criminal defense attorney who represented clients both guilty and innocent.

    Mr. Vallandigham was well-known for providing sound legal advice at no charge, including his strong recommendation to decline any police searches of homes, persons or vehicles, and the reason why: there’s nothing but downside to waiving your privacy rights. Good people can be caught up in laws they don’t even know exist by consenting to voluntary searches.

    Mr. Pridemore, after trotting out the “if you’ve got nothing to hide” meme that is a favorite of police officers everywhere, then points out that Vallandigham’s (any by extension, Guns Save Life’s) advice is contradictory to the new Firearms Concealed Carry Act, citing a section from that law. He is correct in rare circumstances.

    Sadly, Mr. Vallandigham passed away before he could even see Illinois’ new law, which will impact maybe 3% of Illinois’ population and only then if they are carrying a loaded firearm on or about their person.

    Those seeking licensure will have had specific training in how to handle disclosure to a police officer if asked if they are carrying a concealed weapon. Yes, if you are carrying a loaded gun on or about your person under the provisions of the FCCA, if asked, you are required to notify the officer that you are carrying. If you are not covered by the FCCA, you are not required to volunteer that you have a gun – unloaded and encased, for example – to the police officer.

    Doing so, particularly in northeastern Illinois, could result in lengthy delays in your travel plans, as some officers don’t understand the law, or will use acknowledgement that there’s an unloaded and encased firearm as a license to conduct a thorough search of the vehicle and its occupants as part of a fishing expedition.

    In fact, you don’t have to go to Chicagoland to find police officers who reportedly say they will take a hard line on gun owners who transport their firearms outside their homes. As an example, at the Rantoul general members meeting, one guest said that the Chief Bane from the Paxton Police Department, as well as some Illinois State Police troopers have reportedly all said they would arrest a FOID-cardholder carrying an unloaded gun in a fanny pack, which is perfectly legal in the State of Illinois and has been for nearly fifteen years.

    As for Mr. Pridemore not wishing to associate with Guns Save Life, we regret he can’t look past his police officer bias against those educating citizens about their civil rights and explaining the upside to exercising them. GSL membership, like firearm ownership, isn’t for everyone.

    If you, gentle reader, would like to join an edgy civil-rights organization not afraid to be aggressive and outspoken in the support of all Constitutional rights, not just firearm ownership, you too can join Guns Save Life and become part of our family. We’re not perfect, but we have yet to meet anyone who can walk on water. Membership enrollment materials can be found here.

  44. avatar stateisevil says:

    Being reasonably well read and a lover of freedom, I read things like this and smile. “Another one gets it”, I say. But then I frown. Unfortunately, not enough get it. We are doomed.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Too many people wont get it until it happens to them and by the time it happens to enough people to matter everybody will be so used to it that it’ll be accepted as the new normal.

      The window of opportunity where enough people get it to enact change before it turns into enough people accept as normal will be very small and easily missed.

      For the majority of reality-TV watching beer drinking sheep tyranny is completely unbelievable until it becomes completely unremarkable.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yes. That’s why I’m always on about restoring as much Liberty as possible while this generation is alive. My great-grandfather (dead before my time) and grandfather used to urge as much restoration as possible and gave the same reasoning. They saw it happening and passed that wisdom down but much of it wasn’t told to me until I was almost an adult. I’ve raised my children from an early age to understand the same. IMHO, baby steps and eating elephants will fail in the big picture. It’s going to take mass civil disobedience and elimination of compulsory public education. We aren’t producing educated voters. We’re producing indoctrinated voters. Perhaps a state or a group of them will wise up; that’s where I’ll be.

  45. avatar mr says:

    There are very few questions from the police that do not merit the response of: “Respectfully, sir, I do not wish to make any statements” or “I do not consent to any search.” Snark, sarcasm, defensiveness, invocation of the constitution, etc. will not only fail you, it will also agitate the police. When you agitate the police, bad things happen. By refusing to make any statements or consent to a search, it shows them that you know their game and that you’re not going to be pressured or bullied.

    1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

      Drop the respectfully. The vile scum don’t deserve it.

  46. avatar Rick says:

    That is pretty much why I will drive hundreds of miles out of my way to avoid stepping on inch over the line into the People’s Republic of Illinois.

  47. avatar Ozzallos says:

    While hindsight is 20/20, I’m going to say that this wasn’t a warrantless search we’re deconstructing– The author caved at nearly every opportunity. That’s not as judgemental as it may sound, just fact. He gave the officer every opening he needed to conduct a quasi legitimate search based off an extremely vague fishing expedition.

    “Do you have any drugs, large amounts of cash or firearms?”
    No. As many times as necessary.

    “The knife concerns me.”
    What about it concerns you, officer? –Especially this. He is offering you no information as to why he is concerned while you are purposely left to assume everything. Well of course he is concerned. It’s a potential weapon. Make him articulate his vague concerns. That way you can find ways so that he is not concerned about it. If he continues to be concerned about it, offer to allow him to confiscate it. He can either take you up on your offer or all but accuse you of criminal activity, which is what his concerns are implying to begin with. Make him shit or get off the pot conversationally.

    “Well citizen, this is not my first rodeo. And my seventeen years of experience detect untruthful answers and I have CONCERNS.”
    Respectfully, officer, I have been completely truthful. Exactly how have i been untruthful with you? –Again, as much as the officer would like this to be a one way street of information, your encounter with him or her likewise lives or dies by how much information you are able to get. If he wants to accuse you of lying make him come right out and say it instead of dancing around the concern card. Make him articulate his concerns because you know by this point his is fishing. Conversationally force him to put up or shut up… As politely as possible.

    Seeing no way out, I asked if he looked in the camper and all is well, would I be free to go?
    This was your first complete fail right here. I can’t sugar coat it to sound nicer. You assumed there was no way out and no offense to the Law Enforcement element within TTAG, but police searches are like vampirism: Don’t invite one into your home. If they want in, yes they’ll find a way… A less procedurely sound way that probably won’t look so good when it comes up under review.

    In fact, this looks even worse, quite frankly. I am not Joe Police. You’ll invite me to look in the camper BUT NOT THE CAR? If I didn’t have anything before, I sure as hell want to get into your car now. You might as well dumped a bucket of chum in the shark infested water. Which leads to…

    “I don’t need a warrant and I’m calling for a drug dog. You may sit in the patrol car and keep warm.”
    Damn right I’m calling in the dog. This was probably the first point at which the officer had something solid he could sink his teeth into and frankly reads like somebody trying to hide something illegal. Up to this point it was only a fishing expidition. Now he’s got something on tugging the line. That said, the officer definitely manuvered the conversation to this point, but that’s not his failure. It’s yours for having bought into it.

    “Citizen, you’re 53 without a record…what are you hiding?”
    Sir, what do you think I’m hiding? If you have a charge, I think it’s about time you made it. –This is obviously my response and if this were me, I’m done playing the cooperative citizen. You either have something or you don’t and it’s time to put your cards on the table instead of the continued insinuations– and that’s all he has plied you with at every stage –that I am guilty of something.

    Also, your first impulse may be to proclaim your innocence. Don’t. We’re all guilty of something. You are. The officer is. We all are. It may not be any concern of his but your behavior is probably lighting up like a christmas tree and this is just more converational rope he’s giving you to hang yourself with. Don’t play this game. He either needs to make his case or let you go and make that crystal clear.

    It only goes downhill from here, so the rest isn’t worth commenting on. One thing i will note for you and everybody is the assumptions involved in your thought process. You’re assuming he read something in you. you assume his vast years of purported experience (how do you know? he’s already fabricated a great many things) have trigger his instincts. That he was on to you the entire time. You and everybody else here need to stop making those assumptions. Everybody is somewhat nervous during a traffic stop. But if you acecpt the premise that he wasn’t going to let you off with a no ticket warning from the very outset, then he was stopping you for another reason and purposely escalating the conversation to prompt behavioral anamolies and admissions. Read this well: He either had something from the very outset or was shaking the tree to see what fell out, not because he was on to your inherent guilt with his third eye of enlightenment.

    But there is one last thing i would like to add to this: It reads like a gun data base stop.
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/robert-farago/are-md-cops-targeting-out-of-state-gun-owners-for-traffic-stop-searches/

    The initial interest in this stop- lane change without signal -may have been legitimate, but assuming this went down like it reads, the officer had something and couldn’t just come right out and say it. You had to admit it. The database came back with a gun hit that you may or may not have had on you, so he went fishing for it.

    Maybe. Just a guess.

    1. avatar Ozzallos says:

      One last thing– The author fails the warrantless litmus test when he replied that he didn’t have a firearm in his possession from the very outset. While that could have been accidental, the doubling down of the fact wasn’t, especially when it came out much later after the drug dog had just been called. The author answers no three times then later crumbles and admits yes. We just admitted to lying to police officer, whether accidentally or on purpose.

      Probably cause says, “Hey, what’s up?”

      I still maintain there was an extenuating reason the officer pushed so hard, but the fact remains that you did have a firearm in your possession, advised the officer multiple times (memory lapse) that you didn’t, made a conscious decision by your own admission not to reveal the fact once you realized you did have one in your possession then latter admitted to having one.

      Nope, the author doesn’t get to play the warrant less search card as the title of this piece suggests. He buried himself.

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        Your assessment is 98% correct, in fact its the conclusion I came to finishing the road trip, however I differ on some of your points and my observations. Hindsight is 20/20.

        One assumes your having a conversation, you’re not it’s an investigation. I said repeatedly I do not consent to search. The continued hammering of him insisting on search wore me down to make the “look” offer. If I held my ground he could repeat his mantra your being untruthful, delayed as long as he wanted, brought the drug dog in anytime which ignores my protest and proceeds with the search.

        The moment recalled where my gun was, officer standing at the passenger window, I was being repeatedly asked about drugs & cash, are you sure, any medical smokes, prescription narcotic, bundles of cash. The vehicle was being search regardless of my answers to no consent to search or other verbalizations. No citing the Constitution
        or demanding my rights. the whole tone was conversational. The point being, people believe the declaration of no consent is a bulwark that the police will just stop and say your right, have a nice day.

        I was in fear but not in a panic, sole bread winner of my family, in a unfriendly lawful self defense state. Shoulda-woulda-coulda. The demand that I be truthful when no such requirement exist with the Trooper. Once it was clear he was looking for drugs & cash, I gave up having a gun, which he couldn’t find, not easily retrieved, hidden in a computer bag.

        To your point about the database and probability. Why does one trigger a database hit engaging in commerce? Out of state license, vehicle driving? The overlooked point is how did the Trooper determined my gun was legal? I have no idea, other than to speculate he called in serial number and confirmed it belonged to me.
        If that is true, then the whole government mantra of we don’t keep records is the biggest lie told to the people.

        Further if they have this information, why the insane state carry laws denying citizens lawful self protection. Why cannot citizens go about their business using interstate roadworks, without being hit by a database and detained? The answer is revenue. Ergo the warrant less search is not about one’s “bill of rights”. A whole class of employees augmenting state coffers, under the rule of law, seized property either by forfeit or bail and impound recovery fees.

        I was extremely lucky, played my cards on a stacked deck, roadside west of Chicago, that favored one empowered man over another. Only the Troopers integrity, discretion and perhaps how I interacted with him, allowed me to survive the encounter.

        1. avatar ozzallos says:

          I’m not about to second guess the stress of the situation. When I say hindsight is 20/20, I really mean it. I can postulate all day long, but I have no doubt it wasn’t an easy situation to be in. I also agree that this wasn’t a conversation. You were being investigated. My changes to your responses (again, in retrospect) were merely to get to the underlying reason why. It doesn’t have to be a one way street of information.

          I personally have no problems with talking to police (OMG!DOOMED) but at some point they’re going to have to give something in return if they want my cooperation.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          The point being, people believe the declaration of no consent is a bulwark that the police will just stop and say your right, have a nice day.

          Oh no. I don’t believe that at all. It just means that anything they find may be inadmissible and thrown out as there was no probable cause and no warrant to search. That said, they know this. They brought the drug dog in. The drug dog signaled (probable cause). All they had to do was drop a small bag of weed or or a roach somewhere in your car that they pulled from a perp earlier that day and then you can kiss all your guns, ccw, and employment opportunities goodbye. This is why we want to be polite to the police state gestapo. They can sh!t all over you at any time and there is nothing you can do about it, except go to TTAG and complain.

          The power of one man to ruin you and your families’ life forever.

        3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          All they had to do was drop a small bag of weed or or a roach somewhere in your car that they pull from a perp earlier that day and then you can kiss all your guns, ccw, and employment opportunities goodbye.

          It’s sad that we have to think this way, because it happens.

    2. avatar Skyler says:

      I’m sorry, but your advice is really poor. Don’t have conversation with the police officer. Just say no to searches, provide your drivers license, and ask to be on your way. If you start engaging in conversation then you are liable to say something that he will interpret as suspicious, or that he will remember in court as being suspicious. Just don’t play his game. It’s rigged in his favor.

      1. avatar ozzallos says:

        Hey, you don’t read well, do you? Find the topic that addresses ‘searches’ in my comment again and get back to me, kay? I flatly state it was a huge mistake on the author’s part and state his course of action should have been refusal at every stage.

        But since my advise is poor, let’s explore yours. This cop wasn’t looking for innocence. He didn’t let the author go and he wouldn’t have let you go regardless of how much of an informational black hole you were. Now, to you credit you would have avoided the initial lie that the author was tripped up in, but I don’t think it would have significantly altered the outcome.

        Do you have any drugs, large sums of money or firearms in your possession?
        I’ve provided you with my identification, am I free to go?
        I just asked a simple question. Is there a problem?
        No. Am I free to go?
        I’m concerned by your lack of response.
        I have nothing to say officer. Am I free to go?
        Why are you being evasive?
        Am I free to go?
        No. Please step out of the car. I’m going to have to search it.
        I do not consent to the search, officer.
        Why not? I can tell you’re hiding something.
        I do not consent to the search. Am I free to go?
        No. Go sit in the back of my police car and keep warm. I’m calling in a drug dog.

        And you’re back in the same situation as the author. Good job.

        Once again somebody (you) want to assume it was the author that triggered the continued interrogation with his behavior. He was asked the drugs and guns question three times before the author’s stated self doubt and behavioral anomalies set began to set in, which should clue you in as to something. That’s also why i believe there was some other factor driving the search.

        I will give you one thing, however. My responses probably wouldn’t have mattered either, but you’re mistaking the intent– I’m pushing for the real underlying reason I’m being detained, and answering a question with a question is hardly conversation.

        1. avatar mk10108 says:

          Dead nut on. I cooperated with the officer. It was casual conversation circled back to verifying previous questions looking for different answers. I’m not opposed to police doing their job. The point is cooperation, showing business cards, opening my computer showing emails, my electronic card index, line cards, text messages to my client, offering to call my client using my phone (declined citing he would use his own source via in patrol internet). Layer upon layer of cooperation, multiple evidence presented to show the officer, who & what I do. NOTHING satisfied the 17 year patrolman.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          And you’re back in the same situation as the author. Good job.

          Bingo. Absolutely in agreement. There is no point in providing conversation to the officer. If he wants to search your car he is granted the unlimited ability to do so by means of the paint scratching K9. No point accidentally volunteering additional information, talking about your business, where you are headed, allowing him your phone, and so on.

          @mk10108,

          He wanted to search your vehicle. He wasn’t interested in your emails or cooperation. He wanted to get to the bread and butter – lets go through this guy’s things and see what we can find. :

          “Oh one thing…are you transporting drugs, large amounts of cash or firearms?”

          Your delayed answer made up his mind to perform the search.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          @mk10108,

          Also!

          The police cannot detain you indefinitely while they allocate a police dog. He may have been buying time with the endless questions while the police dog was on it’s way.

          http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/when-can-police-use-drug-dogs/

          Also, you should explicitly state that you do no provide consent for the use of a police dog and you do not provide consent for the search of your vehicle and don’t give them your keys.

          “Be aware that unlocking your car at the officer’s request or handing the officer your keys is the same as consenting to a search.”

    3. avatar Boris Badinov says:

      I’ve seen some advice that suggests consenting to the search since the dogs are usually trained to engage in the alert behavior based on some cue from the handler. They suggest that agreeing to a search will result in a less invasive search than one that requires a visit from a dog crew.

      I’m going to disagree. If you decline any searches, and they play the dog trick, you can always try to have the search thrown out in court. If you agree to the search, you have no recourse. And considering how often cops plant evidence, you need every legal protection available to you when you go to trial.

      The real answer is to avoid any contact with cops if at all possible, and if you do make contact, do your best to end the contact legally, as quickly as possible . And remember. Cops lie as often as the people they stop.

  48. avatar mlloyd says:

    Sadly, this story is all too familiar. I know for me, they can have my license, reg, and POI and after that, it’s (we are not having a road side conversation. I have provided you with the required documents. My private affairs are private. Tell me when I can leave. I want to be on my way)

  49. avatar Shire-man says:

    Love this:

    Citizen, you’re 53 without a record…what are you hiding?

    That right there is what your government thinks of you. It is what all governments think of each and every one of us. Criminals among whom the only difference is have been caught and yet to be caught.

    1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

      There are two kinds of people: the guilty and the un-indicted co-conspirator.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        No such thing as a co-conspirator. You’re either a conspirator or you’re not.

        1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unindicted_co-conspirator

          Translation: we think you’re guilty, we just can’t prove it but we’ll slander you regardless.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          It’s not my fault some people don’t know the English language. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime. They are all conspirators. What’s a co-conspirator? If two people conspire–are conspirators–is a third person a co-conspirator? How about a fourth? A co-co-conspirator? And is a fifth a co-co-co-conspirator?

          No. All people are simply conspirators.

      2. avatar lasttoknow says:

        have only had direct interaction with dea, atf and ice, but that is their unified position on life and people.

  50. avatar Steve says:

    The only good thing about this kind of stop is every time they lose another supporter.

  51. avatar John Smith says:

    But American citizens are so sure we are living in a free country! The press tells them so!

  52. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    I lost any remaining respect for the profession

    You still had remaining respect?

  53. avatar Glenn says:

    Police — Bureaucrats with weapons.

    Like any bureaucrat, police can tie you up with rules and regulations applied with stupidity, on a whim, accompanied additionally by the threat of administrative violence.

  54. avatar Johnny B Goode says:

    People think the black community is playing the race card when it comes to police relations. But if an officer is willing to trash the rights of a law abiding citizen on his way to conduct business imagine how quickly the rights of inner city residents rights are trashed, black or white. We are living in a police state. We are slowly making way to work our way out of this mess but it is going to take time. It took 25 years to get to this point: It will take 25 years to work our way out of this mess. If our great nation doesn’t self destruct from trying to legislate morality first.

    1. avatar mk10108 says:

      I do FINALLY get the driving while black thing. So much that while getting my truck serviced I wanted to walk up to a Black man, man hug him and say ‘I understand”

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        No you don’t.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      We will never be able to regain enough ground in small steps. It’s a one way street. Government lasts for generations whereas individuals only have one lifetime. Through compulsory public education, government shapes the opinions of the next generation. The amount of tyrannical behavior that the People will tolerate increases with each passing generation. No, any meaningful restoration will happen in one or two generations or not at all.

  55. avatar Parnell says:

    Because of the penchant of the MD & DC police to conduct searches of out-of-state vehicles, I no longer use I-95 & I-66 when I travel to Southwest Virginia to shoot with my nephew. From what I’ve read, no matter how careful you are in your firearms storage, you’ll wind up arrested in these localities. So much for our travel freedoms.

  56. avatar Patrick Wider says:

    The Land of Lincoln has turned into The Land of Lenin!

  57. avatar Ron D says:

    There’s nothing unusual about the authors experience, it’s just not widely publicized. The author was most likely targeted for fitting a profile that drug interdiction units are trained to spot. Many state police and highway patrol units have interdiction units. Mississippi has one that is called TCAP, short for Travelling Criminal Apprehension Program. The author’s description of events of his stop fit a tactic used by these officers, that’s why so many comments here said the same thing happened to them. First the stop, the questioning that amounts to interrogation (had there been occupants their responses would have been compared for inaccuracies) letting the “violator” off with a warning, then the Columbo move, “Oh by the way you don’t have any Blah Blah Blah, mind if I do a quick search of your vehicle and you’ll be on your way?”. And if there is a refusal for consent the dog is brought in to do the sniff. These tactics in themselves are not illegal, but when officers begin to lie about their reason for the initial stop, the false sniff alert and any coercion is where the line was crossed between legal and illegal. Here’s a good article to read, http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      From a book review on Amazon:

      The more I read of such “Law Enforcement Officers” and their apologists, the more it becomes apparent that that entire subculture suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect in its ethical variant. The more evil they become, the more justified they feel in their morality. I’m sure that Torquemada probably felt supremely moral as well. It is not an accident that there are so many similarities between the antics of the Inquisitors and those of the Drug Warrior in such things as forced confession, public acknowledgements of sin, professions of gratitude for the penitent being “saved” . . .

      “. . .And now we have a brand new idea. Let’s not imprison people, although we will use that possibility as a club when needed. After all, imprisoning people costs money. Let’s just plunder their property instead. After all, who among the enforcers need worry about the law? WE ARE THE LAW. An attitude that used to be confined to the characters of comic books and graphic novels now seems to be the motivation behind the behavior of those cops advocating these methods.

      “If any of your local gov’ts are found to be in possession of this tract, your best protection is to end their careers by voting them out of office and voting into office the kind of citizens that will see such privileged malefactors prosecuted as they deserve. As for the author himself, there is no upper limit to the contempt that he is deserving of since he has taken the honorable profession of protecting citizens in their persons and property and perverted it into a license to destroy these individuals’ life, liberty, and property. . .”

  58. avatar Jack Sperry says:

    No policeman is your friend.
    They view all of us a uncaught criminals. “You’re guilty boy, we just ain’t caught ya yet.”

    I say nothing to the police except short answers to his direct questions.
    No conversation – at all. I just look back a them and smile, even if they ask where I’m going, where I’ve been, yada, yada, yada. None of their business. Anything you say may be used against you in court.

    Say nothing (a high percentage are recording the stop with audio or audio & video).
    You have the right to remain silent – use it.

  59. avatar Anonymous says:

    “Well citizen, this is not my first rodeo. And my seventeen years of experience detect untruthful answers and I have CONCERNS.”

    Lol. Cops are citizens too – no more, no less. Ridiculous condescending remark.

  60. avatar BDub says:

    Thanks for sharing your experience. Well written.

  61. avatar Mike H says:

    It make me more than a little sad that the Illinois State Police were involved in this story. They are a good organization (finest officers in Illinois) and I have had nothing but positive experiences with them.

  62. avatar Yadama says:

    My friend has always had a huge disdain of police ever since he was harass for no reason as a young’un. Smartest kid I had ever met in my life; knew more about constitutional law at 14 than most know about pop culture at that age. Kept a straight life, never committed any crimes, and stay always from booze and drugs throughout HS and college. All so he could become an Internal Affairs detective. He says all the hate and glares he get when he walks into a precinct is the best feeling one could imagine, on par with an orgasm. Why? Because those looks are no different than when criminals look at cops; meaning they hate you because you f’ing up what scam they got going on.

    Why do I trust him even though he is still a cop? Because he knows himself not to even trust his own colleague in IA.

  63. avatar jason says:

    Hold on a second. I thought if you are traveling to and from IL, possession of a concealed firearm on your isn’t a crime as long as you remain in the car

  64. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    Amazingly, the police are constantly stunned, incredulous even, why they are distrusted by the general public.

  65. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    And why do you continue to say the cop had integrity? Scum of the earth.

  66. avatar Mike says:

    Crap like this really pisses me off. My first reaction is that the guy said way too much and let him search his truck. He shouldn’t have. But none of that would have stopped this cop. I’m as pro law enforcement as they come. But it’s hard to stay that way when you hear stories like this. Every cop in this story should lose their badge. They all violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. And they violated this man’s rights. They should be terminated and prosecuted.

  67. avatar Patrick Wider says:

    Further reading: “Traveler’s Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States, 2015” by J. Scott Kappas; “Arrest-Proof Yourself” by Dale C. Carson and Wes Denham; “A Government of Wolves, The Emerging American Police State” by John W. Whitehead; and “Police State U.S.A., How Orwell’s Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality” by Cheryl K. Chumley.

  68. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    It doesn’t even matter any more. Cops just say “the dog alerted.” How can you successfully challenge that in court?

    1. avatar Sexual Tyrannosaurus says:

      Dog trainers have gone on record stating that cops have paid them to do absolutely nothing while the cops themselves trained the dogs to cue on their own hand signals. The courts are unswayed.

      Yet more proof the legal system is simply an enabler of government malfeasance, as opposed to a check.

      1. avatar Alexander says:

        When the judicial system gets corrupted, that is an undeniable sign of the society’s rot. It is no longer possible for small changes, trimmings and herbs, to restore the rotting flesh.

  69. avatar Cassandra (of Troy) says:

    Realizing the lateness of this post, I nonetheless offer the following info in the hope that it’ll be seen & be of some benefit.

    When can police search your car?
    Car searches 1

    SoCal Law Review article on refusal to consent to search
    Car searches 2

    Recording Police Officers and Public Officials
    Recording Cops 1

    Here’s an article from PoliceOne about videoing LE
    Recording Cops 2

    And this from the FindLaw site about videoing LE
    Recording Cops 3

    Hope the links go thru but if not perhaps the URLs will & be of use.

    1. avatar BlueBronco says:

      Most middle Americans don’t have a lawyer on a retainer or speed dial and the fuzz knows this.

  70. avatar rt66paul says:

    Gestapo tactics. Only the repeal of the Patriot Act and laws keeping all civil departments from the spoils will save this country. The militarization of the police, both federal and state controlled is hurting our great country. It doesn’t matter what party is in power, ALL politicans want control.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email