- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: officer taking pistol from vehicle
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:46 am to DanTiger
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:46 am to DanTiger
I thought you were saying that the presence of a weapon alone makes it a dangerous situation such that the officer can search for a seize the weapon.
The case you posted has nothing to do with an illegal search or seizure. It is only about asking whether a weapon is present.
Which are you arguing? That the presence of a weapon alone makes it a dangerous situation such that the officer can ask about its location, or that the presence of a weapon alone allows the officer to go into the center console of the car and seize the weapon? The case you cited only speaks on one of those situations, and it just so happens to be the one that is not even in the same ballpark as the hypo we are arguing.
The case you posted has nothing to do with an illegal search or seizure. It is only about asking whether a weapon is present.
Which are you arguing? That the presence of a weapon alone makes it a dangerous situation such that the officer can ask about its location, or that the presence of a weapon alone allows the officer to go into the center console of the car and seize the weapon? The case you cited only speaks on one of those situations, and it just so happens to be the one that is not even in the same ballpark as the hypo we are arguing.
1
Posted on 11/14/13 at 11:51 am to UpToPar
I simply said a weapon present at a traffic stop makes it a dangerous situation in the eyes of SCOTUS and it turns out there does not even need to be a weapon present for this statement to hold true. You said I should not state this as fact and provide proof. I provided what I ha time to look up but I assure you there are many more cases.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 12:01 pm to DanTiger
But your case is not even close to the same facts. I'll point out a few differences:
In your case, the citizen had just committed a violent crime, there was a gun somewhere in a grocery store presenting a danger to both the officers and the public.
Even in the hypothetical traffic stop that SCOTUS talks about in dicta, they only talk about the presence of a weapon, or even lack of presence of a weapon to allow officers to ASK whether there is a weapon in the car. No where in the portion that you quoted does the court say the officer can then look for and seize the weapon.
You argue that the presence of a weapon allows the officers to do something which would otherwise violate the 4th amendment by citing a case that states an exception to the 5th amendment.
I believe that the hypo we have come up with is far from settled. That's not to say it couldn't go one way or the other, but I have yet to find a case that speaks directly on the issue, and sadly, I don't think there will be one simply because it's not a set of circumstances that people will litigate.
In your case, the citizen had just committed a violent crime, there was a gun somewhere in a grocery store presenting a danger to both the officers and the public.
Even in the hypothetical traffic stop that SCOTUS talks about in dicta, they only talk about the presence of a weapon, or even lack of presence of a weapon to allow officers to ASK whether there is a weapon in the car. No where in the portion that you quoted does the court say the officer can then look for and seize the weapon.
You argue that the presence of a weapon allows the officers to do something which would otherwise violate the 4th amendment by citing a case that states an exception to the 5th amendment.
I believe that the hypo we have come up with is far from settled. That's not to say it couldn't go one way or the other, but I have yet to find a case that speaks directly on the issue, and sadly, I don't think there will be one simply because it's not a set of circumstances that people will litigate.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 12:13 pm to UpToPar
quote:
I believe that the hypo we have come up with is far from settled. That's not to say it couldn't go one way or the other, but I have yet to find a case that speaks directly on the issue, and sadly, I don't think there will be one simply because it's not a set of circumstances that people will litigate.
You are correct. All I can tell you, as I have stated several times, is that this state feels all officers are justified in disarming anyone with a firearm on traffic stops and all officers are advised to do so. Is it required? No. Does everyone do it? No. Does the court system presently back up officers when they do it? Yes. I do it 100% of the time.
Posted on 11/14/13 at 12:16 pm to DanTiger
We will agree to disagree.
Luckily, like I said, most people are probably okay with this, and even the people that are not haven't suffered such an injury to sue over, hence why we don't see it come up in court.
Luckily, like I said, most people are probably okay with this, and even the people that are not haven't suffered such an injury to sue over, hence why we don't see it come up in court.
Page 17 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News