Don't identify your firearms as weapons. Here's why......

The police came to my house ( private property) in search of a vehicle involved in a hit and run. The car was a honda civic, very common vehicle. I saw them pull up so I met them at the door. There first question to me was are there any weapons in the house? With out a second thought I said yes. I was immediately jerked out of my own house put face down on the ground, handcuffed and placed in a police car. The police entered my house ( no warrent ) and began searching for what they identified in the police report as weapons. Fortunately for me I have a very good gun safe and they were not able to gain access. Later I consulted an attorney regaurding a lawsuite against the police. He explained it was my fault for saying I had weapons in the home and that by useing the word weapon gives the police probable cause to enter. I never knew that nore was I ever told. I have since been advised to answer such a question in the following manner. When asked if there are weapons in the home, my responce now is: what is in my house is constitutionly protected information. I have used this statement since and it worked very well and even frustrated the officers to the point that they all left with out even saying goodbye. So in closing just a thought: Is it the fact that we call firearms weapons the root of the problem?
Oh buy the way wrong car.

 

Ayuh,..... Same thing on fillin' out a Doctor's questionnaire,...

Anything that ain't 'bout my body person, get's left blank,...

"Are there any guns in your home ?"

Really,..??..??..??
My Doctor needs to know this,..??

 

That was not a legitimate basis for a search and your lawyer just punted on you.

 

I lost all of my guns in a tragic boating accident.....

 

I would agree, in most jurisdictions, that an admission to having weapons in the house does not pose an immediate threat to officers questioning you if they are not within reach and would not give probable cause, as it legal to have them in your home. But, you had no obligation to answer the question and could have declined to answer that question. You could decline to answer any question without legal council present and then they must cease any line of questioning. While they may be able to search your person to ensure their safety while interviewing you, they cannot search your home, even if they find you have a gun or knife on you which, by the way, having such on your own property is legal in most states with or without a CCW. There are a handful of states like mine where if approached by a police officer in an official capacity you are required to inform them you are armed which you should do and then make it obvious you are keeping your hands in complete sight and are not a threat. You can be questioned, but you can decline to answer without legal council at which they must cease questioning.

The same applies to a car. If you are stopped, unless there is contraband in plain site giving probable cause they cannot search your car. You are under no obligation to answer any question regarding what might be in the car, or any question for that matter. You can provide an ID, but you really don't even have to give your name, why you are where you are, etc. A tactic often used is to ask if you mind if they can look in your car and if you answer yes, you have consented. I advise saying no, if nothing but on principal. If they threaten to bring a dog or search warrant, say no problem, you can wait, usually that is an empty threat tactic to get you to comply to a search. But, also you can challenge them, without being confrontational, by asking if you are being detained and if they say yes, ask on what basis...they must have probable cause or be issuing a citation to detain you and must release you if neither apply. If they say you aren't being detained, simply repeat, if I am not being detained may I go. They have the right to investigate, but have limits on their actions.

I usually advise, if you have a CCW or have a concealed gun on your person regardless of whether on your property or not and a police officer is there on official business that inform that you have a gun, have a license, if that applies, keep your hands in plain sight, and then calmly ask the officer what he/she would like you to do to ensure their safety and then calmly comply with their instructions. One further thing I always advise regarding a pat down of your person, other than a gun, if you have one or more knives on you and they ask if you have a weapon, say no, I just have my wallet, change,... and I may have a pocket knife or two. Never say anything that would equate a knife as a weapon. If asked why you have a pocket knife and chose to answer, say some like you always have one or more on you, it is the most frequent tool you use. Never say, you have it for self defense as that automatically classifies a pocket knife as a weapon. Never provide an answer that remotely can be construed that you view a knife as a weapon and not a simple, useful tool.

 

Great post.

 

I'm still looking for someone to take the case. This was recent and I still feel violated.

 

Thanks for the chuckle .

 

Most attorneys will advise that a criminal case will go nowhere and as for a civil case, you likely will not be able to show damages since you were not charged at arrested for a crime nor did you lose your guns. Too bad, I can sympathize, the police behaved poorly. The best you might be able to do is file a complaint, but that will likely go no where.

 

I don't think the police had reasonable grounds for that and you probably have grounds to file a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. I would but then again I used to represent cops in such actions and then federal agents. Having a weapon in your house is not grounds for any type of search unless the cops already have grounds to search your home.

those cops should be sued in their individual capacity for a constitutional tort and sue their employer under respondent superior.

 

How I wish I had your knowledge. Seems the lawyers around here just won't do it. Thanks for the info I will keep trying.

 

well that happens too-often in smaller towns where rocking the boat can be a real career ender. IN places like big cities, or ones where say the police are not real popular, you'd have lots of attorneys looking to take that one-even if they don't get a big win, taking on "da man" is going go get them some real good publicity

 

You are incorrect in your claim that police officers cannot carry out a search of a motor vehicle without probable cause. They regularly engage in searching vehicles without legal justification. If the driver denies them permission to search the vehicle, they are ordered to step out and a search is conducted anyway, with the police officer citing reasonable suspicion based on the denial.

Usage of police dogs is also not an empty threat tactic. Recent news stories have emerged showing that canine units are deliberately trained improperly, providing false positives to justify not only searches of motor vehicles, but also confiscation under civil asset forfeiture programs. Even when it has been shown that a canine unit provides more false positives than genuine hits for contraband, federal judges still rule that they are reliable.

 

I'm a retired police officer, and I teach at our state's academy. I must tell you that when I read that part I bolded, I thought, "What??? No way!" I thought you must not be telling the whole story. Hey, it happens all the time. No offense, OK? But for the purposes of the rest of my comments to you and the others I've quoted, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your telling of the incident at its face value. One thing you didn't tell was what kind of hit and run were they investigating. Was it the type where someone crashed into a parked car and damaged it? Or was it a bank robber speeding away or an armed carjacker? If they had a reasonable suspicion that you might be an armed carjacker, it changes things somewhat. If that were the case, it would be reasonable for them to inquire about weapons and perhaps give you a pat down search of your body, and then carry on their investigation, while staying prudently alert. But in neither case would they have probable cause to search your house without a warrant or without your consent. Your attorney is dead wrong. The police do not have the right to search your house for weapons just because you answered "yes" when asked if there were weapons in the house, assuming there were no other circumstance warranting an emergency search and no reason why you were prohibited from possessing weapons that they knew of. I'm going to assume that the hit and run they were investigating was not an armed carjacker or bank robber or having anything to do with weapons. I'm going to assume it was just something where a car banged into another car and drove off without stopping - no weapons involved. And I'm going to assume that your car resembled the suspect car. In that case, it is perfectly fine for the police to contact you and make inquiry. That is their job after all. But absolutely nothing in that scenario justifies a search of your house for weapons without a warrant or without your consent. Assuming everything you said is correct, that was an unlawful search and a violation of your civil rights. It may also be construed as malfeasance (intentional wrongdoing) by those officers. It may also show a "failure to train" and a "failure to supervise" by the Police Department. The amount of force they used against you also sounds excessive. All of those things - violating your civil rights, malfeasance, failure to train, failure to supervise, excessive force - are actionable in civil court. Assuming there isn't something your leaving out about this, I would say you need to find an attorney who knows what he's doing and file a lawsuit.

Agree.

Nice answer, counselor. I would be interested to hear your professional opinion on the answer I gave just above this one.

Police can be sued for a lot of bad behavior that doesn't result in you being arrested or charged. There are "actual damages" (money you lost because of what they did) and there are "punitive damages" which are just that - punitive. Punitive damages do not require that the complainant actually lost something of value.

I agree with this.

The denial of consent to search does not create probable cause to search. That is an illegal search.

 

I would probably be in the same boat as you. If a cop asked me if there are weapons in my apartment, I'd probably say of course. There are knives, bottles, sticks, lighters, scissors, and other junk that could be used to inflict harm.
Strangely enough though, I don't refer to my guns as weapons, simply because they have never been used as such. Nothing is a weapon until and unless it is used as one.

 

I would say you are spot on. It would be nice to see the whole picture. While there are those that buy into the rhetoric that police regularly conspire to trample rights, that isn't my experience. Sure there a a few bad apples out there, those improperly trained, supervised, or inappropriately use their position, but most are trying to do their job the best they can and go home like the rest of us. Innocent people are often questioned, sometimes as a potential suspect, sometimes as a witness, that's life. I advise, know your rights, behave calmly, be compliant, unconfrontational, know what to say to avoid any self incrimination and know when to ask for a lawyer. If the police do something inappropriate or if you are arrested yoI have the right to your day in court. They have the same right.

I would agree with your remaining comments.

 

To OP:

Are you a member of the NRA or some other gun rights organization? They might can find you a lawyer. They might even help pay for a lawyer.

 

I tried to warn people this was beginning to happen, seemed like all the gun owners here refused to believe me.

 

Illegal or not, it is standard operating procedures for police officers in the united states. Deny them permission to carry out a search, and they will carry it out anyway and claim they had probable cause to justify the search, and the courts will not rule otherwise.

 

In all my encounters, specifically for traffic violations, I have never been searched. However, I am always calm, courteous, compliant, and nonconfrontational but ready to calmly invoke my right to council if needed, though I have never had to do it. I have always informed an officer stopping me that I armed and ask what they want me to do for their piece if mind for their safety. Only once was I asked to step from my car and the weapon temporarily confiscated, only to be returned when the encounter ended. I figure because of my deameanor I have never had a problem and have been left off with warnings. If a ticket is issued, it is and I can decide to take it to court or not. My attitude has always been they are doing a job and want to move on as quickly as possible as do I. That's part of the advice I give those in my CCW classes. But then, I don't smell like pot or acholol, slur, etc. But in my classes, I also do a bit of toll playing on how to manage police encounters while armed...for the safety of the students and of the police.

In the last couple decades, and pretty much nearly universally, squad cars have video cams and record a stop. That doesn't give much latitude to do as you suggest. If you are paranoid, you have the right to record a stop, or have your passenger do it.

 

Ok taking in all the great advise in this thread, what actually happen next if you say to the officer I am not answering any questions without a lawyer present. Do they impound your vehicle and take you to see a judge? what if you don't have an attorney in mind that you can immediately call?

Should we be doing something now to prepare for such a scenario?

-petef56

 

If you get a citation, you get one. Be nonconfrontation no matter what, you don't want to provide excuse for any charges that could be derived from your behavior. You won't see a judge unless you are charged with a crime. You can be detained for investigation, but should be told why. If you deny access to your car, they may or may not bring in a dog, but that will depend on your appearance and demeanor and other factors. They may threaten that to guage your response before deciding if they will bring a dog in. If your car eminates the smell of weed you may be searched, that is considered probable cause. If you smell of alcohol you may be tested for potential DUI, but unless they charge you for DUI or see empties it is unlikely you will be searched. If charged with DUI or another offence requiring transport to a holding facility your car will likely be searched for further evidence and may be towed and impounded unless someone can drive it home for you. If you choose to ask to see a lawyer, questions must stop. Ask if you are being detained. If they say no, ask if you can go. You can repeat that that if you get a no for an answer. If you aren't being detained, they must release you. In a different capacity than LE, I developed a pretty good methodology to detect lying and deception and it is something that can be acquired so be aware, many officers that have been around, are very experienced and have acquired an intuition and have experience to see the tells, so if you have something to hide, it may be a low percentage chance of walking, but that may depend also how well you carry yourself.

I don't carry illegal substances and other contraband so I have little worry on that account. My decision not to allow a search is one based on principle no matter how long it would take, but as I said, I suspect how I conduct myself may have contributed as to why I haven't had a request to search my vehicle.

 

Well, that's what happens when your area is ran by Neo-Com Democrats.

Had any of the police in my county asked that question they would have been terminated for civil rights violations.

 

It wasn't standard operating procedure where I worked. No one I worked with lied about stuff. That was how to instantly throw away your career. We took a very dispassionate attitude about it. If you legitimately had the probable cause, fine. If you didn't, fine.... maybe next time. Never once in over 30 years did I ever lie in a report, an affidavit, or on the stand. To us, it was like a game. You win a few, you lose a few. But you never lie.

 

a

That has been my experience with all the police I have known, and in my work, I know a large number. There are bad apples, but few and far between and unfortunately, the media helps propagate a generalization to all LE based on the misbehavior of a very few...