Looks like NY has started enforcing their SAFE magazine ban.

[Gewehr98]

For all the law enforcement agencies and sheriffs who said they wouldn't enforce it, it appears that some are going down that twisted path:

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/gun-grab-full-swing-dutchess-man-arrested-having-9-bullets

[Sergeant Bob]

Just goes to show you that most LEO's will enforce the anti gun laws regardless of the unconstitutionality of said laws.
Most will enforce the law as written to cover their own @sses.

[Gewehr98]

It begs the question:

How many rounds did the arresting NY state troopers have in their own pistol magazines?

(Cue sound of crickets chirping...)

[AZRedhawk44]

All because his license plate lamp wasn't working and the officer was out revenuing.



I just did a TCLOCS walk-around on my bike this afternoon at the gas station in Van Buren.

I had done one the day before in Raton, NM.

My rear brake lamp wasn't working when I squeezed the front brake, but it was working when I pressed the rear brake.   

Evidently a bug hit my connecting leads to the front brake light actuator that it disconnected one of them.  I put it back together and I have a rear brake light again, but damn.

Amazing the crap they'll pull you over for.

[Monkeyleg]

Amazing the crap they'll pull you over for.

I was pulled over and held for over 45 minutes  in West Sacramento, CA.  I spent about half of that time on the hood of the squad. My crime? I have those little dime-size reflectors on the mounting screws on my motorcycle plates. The left reflector cut into the upper corner of the "W" in "WIS" by maybe 1/16" of an inch. The cop said he couldn't read my plates. He was even nice enough to grab his gun a couple of times and put me on the hood again.

I'm sure he'd be glad to arrest anyone for any gun-related offenses.

[Ben]

I'm not a fan of more laws, but I would be in favor of a law that says anytime you are pulled over by LE for the old "busted taillight", that is ALL they are able to get you for. Write the fix-it ticket, and The End. No fishing expeditions.

I'm curious as to how the pistol came up in this case. The MSM always mixes up "registration" and "CCW" so I can't tell if he had a CCW license or was just carrying the pistol in the car. I also don't know NY laws. Can you legally carry a loaded pistol in your vehicle? Also are you required to to tell LE that you're carrying if you have a CCW?

[Jamisjockey]

I'm not a fan of more laws, but I would be in favor of a law that says anytime you are pulled over by LE for the old "busted taillight", that is ALL they are able to get you for. Write the fix-it ticket, and The End. No fishing expeditions.

I'm curious as to how the pistol came up in this case. The MSM always mixes up "registration" and "CCW" so I can't tell if he had a CCW license or was just carrying the pistol in the car. I also don't know NY laws. Can you legally carry a loaded pistol in your vehicle? Also are you required to to tell LE that you're carrying if you have a CCW?

"Do you have any guns knives or weapons?" Officer safety and all that.  I'd bet money they asked, and he was being a responsible citizen and told the truth.  Great reward for that.

[CNYCacher]

I also don't know NY laws. Can you legally carry a loaded pistol in your vehicle? Also are you required to to tell LE that you're carrying if you have a CCW?

Yes. No.

[Ben]

Yes. No.

Interesting. Then likely as per Jamis, he was probably trying to be a good guy and got hosed for it. Nice.

[CNYCacher]

Interesting. Then likely as per Jamis, he was probably trying to be a good guy and got hosed for it. Nice.

The article I read stated that it was sitting on the passenger seat partially covered by a sweatshirt.  I'm not sure but I think the only exemption to the law prohibiting having a loaded gun in a vehicle is one carried legally on your person, so he messed up there.

He also got pinched for driving with a suspended license, which i've heard is a possible one-year sentence in NY, but definitely an arrest.

Would he have gotten the SAFE charge without getting arrested for other things?  I don't know.

[Ben]

He also got pinched for driving with a suspended license, which i've heard is a possible one-year sentence in NY, but definitely an arrest.

Okay, he didn't help himself at all there. I thought it was just for the license plate light.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The article I read stated that it was sitting on the passenger seat partially covered by a sweatshirt.  I'm not sure but I think the only exemption to the law prohibiting having a loaded gun in a vehicle is one carried legally on your person, so he messed up there.

He also got pinched for driving with a suspended license, which i've heard is a possible one-year sentence in NY, but definitely an arrest.

Would he have gotten the SAFE charge without getting arrested for other things?  I don't know.

pesky details

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[geronimotwo]

just to clarify, you must have a pistol license to possess/own a pistol in ny.  not all of the licenses allow for carry.  i am told that unless your license specifies "carry" that technically you are not allowed to transport the pistol home from the store.

in defense of the ny state troopers:

they are only upholding the (dumba$$) law.

the nyst have never said they would not uphold it.

the commisioner for the nyst has mandated that every trooper will abide by the law until they change it to  exclude law enforcement, or remove it.

[T.O.M.]

I'm not a fan of more laws, but I would be in favor of a law that says anytime you are pulled over by LE for the old "busted taillight", that is ALL they are able to get you for. Write the fix-it ticket, and The End. No fishing expeditions.

I've lost track of where things stand, but back when I was prosecuting, there was a specific procedure that had to be followed to "expand" a traffic stop beyond the initial reason.  The officer had to work diligently to complete the citation for the original offense.  Then, absent a reasonable, articulable suspicion, the officer had to inform a driver they were free to leave, but could ask that the person stay and consent to further questioning and/or a search of the vehicle.  If I get some time, I'll dig into it and report back.

That said, and with the statement that I think SAFE is stupid, this man made a series of bad choices.  Driving under suspension is not only a bad idea, but an arrestable offense.  So he was getting arrested.  Which meant the vehicle would be impounded, and searched before impounded.  Which means they would get the gun, pop the mag, count the rounds, and he was done.  Personally, if I lived in NY, I think I would become a revolver guy...

[zahc]

I'm not a fan of more laws, but I would be in favor of a law that says anytime you are pulled over by LE for the old "busted taillight", that is ALL they are able to get you for. Write the fix-it ticket, and The End. No fishing expeditions

.

Extend this concept further than traffic citations, and I agree with you. I would be in favor of a "miranda++" law that requires the arresting police to articulate to you exactly what law you are being arrested for breaking. You may then only be charged with that law...nothing else. Any attempts to bring other charges would be considered something like "double-jeopardy" and off-limits.

If it's not obvious what law you are breaking, then why are you being arrested?

[cordex]

The officer had to work diligently to complete the citation for the original offense.  Then, absent a reasonable, articulable suspicion, the officer had to inform a driver they were free to leave, but could ask that the person stay and consent to further questioning and/or a search of the vehicle.

There is (at least in our state) a time limit for a "reasonable" traffic stop.  If the officer exceeds that time limit, they'd better have a good reason for it.  If you get pulled over for an equipment infraction the officer can (and usually does) use that opportunity to look for other things.  The interesting point here is that a polite request from a police officer can come across as an order or demand, and if the cop really wants to they have other avenues available to them.  I've watched a number of people consent to searches of their vehicles when they knew they had small amounts of drugs in the car.  They could have told the cop to buzz off, but they consented and put themselves in a position to be charged with possession.  Bizarre.

I'm not a fan of more laws, but I would be in favor of a law that says anytime you are pulled over by LE for the old "busted taillight", that is ALL they are able to get you for. Write the fix-it ticket, and The End. No fishing expeditions.

I see both sides of this one.  If a cop pulls someone over for a busted tail light and walk up to the window and sees evidence of a significant crime, I don't think the person should be let off because of a misguided attempt to reduce "fishing expeditions", but at the same time it is yet another tool that can be abused.

[brimic]

I was pulled over and held for over 45 minutes  in West Sacramento, CA.  I spent about half of that time on the hood of the squad. My crime? I have those little dime-size reflectors on the mounting screws on my motorcycle plates. The left reflector cut into the upper corner of the "W" in "WIS" by maybe 1/16" of an inch. The cop said he couldn't read my plates. He was even nice enough to grab his gun a couple of times and put me on the hood again.

He was probably suffering from shrinkage due to his last Hell's Angel encounter.

[T.O.M.]

Extend this concept further than traffic citations, and I agree with you. I would be in favor of a "miranda++" law that requires the arresting police to articulate to you exactly what law you are being arrested for breaking. You may then only be charged with that law...nothing else. Any attempts to bring other charges would be considered something like "double-jeopardy" and off-limits.

If it's not obvious what law you are breaking, then why are you being arrested?

I respectfully disagree on this one.  When I was prosecuting, it wasn't at all uncommon to have someone arrested for one offense, and in the process of preparing the paperwork for that arrest, find evidence of several other offenses.  One that springs to mind was a man being arrested for misdemeanor Sexual Imposition on a minor boy.  He was arguing it was all a misunderstanding over a hug (he grabbed the kid's privates and the kid told mom), when the officer opened his wallet and found the nude photos of a couple of other boys.  Which led to the eventual discovery that the guy was a serial child molestor.  Search of his home turned up literally dozens of videos of him molesting boys.  12 victims were identified.  Pass a law like this and you don't just knock out the fishing expeditions, but also limit the investigators pursuing real leads towards serious crimes.

[Ben]

I see both sides of this one.  If a cop pulls someone over for a busted tail light and walk up to the window and sees evidence of a significant crime, I don't think the person should be let off because of a misguided attempt to reduce "fishing expeditions", but at the same time it is yet another tool that can be abused.

I can agree with that. If the cop walks up and sees somebody tied up in the back seat, or a severed head or something, he/she has an obligation to follow up. If nothing is evident though, I just hate the use of fix-it tickets as a path to (potentially unconstitutional) searches.

[cordex]

For the record, SAFE ban sucks and I disagree with enforcing it using any technique.

I can agree with that. If the cop walks up and sees somebody tied up in the back seat, or a severed head or something, he/she has an obligation to follow up. If nothing is evident though, I just hate the use of fix-it tickets as a path to (potentially unconstitutional) searches.

I understand what you're saying, and to a point I agree.

Let me run a scenario past you.  A cop sees a car.  Based on his experience or intuition something gets his attention (say, the occupants appear to furtively avoid eye contact with the officer or something), he thinks there is something fishy.  He notices a minor equipment violation or traffic infraction and stops the vehicle.  Something about the behavior of the occupants or something else readily observable give weight to his suspicion, but there is still nothing concrete.  The cop runs the driver, plate and VIN and everything comes back clean.  When returning the license, registration and fix-it ticket or warning to the window, he asks if the driver would be willing to step out of the car.  The driver agrees and steps out.  The cop asks the driver a few consensual questions and then asks if they would mind if he searched their vehicle.  The driver agrees and calls another unit to come talk to the driver while the vehicle is searched.  During the search, evidence of another crime is found.

Based on this description, did the cop do anything wrong, either constitutionally or in your view of how things should be?  Should any evidence found during the consensual interview or search be ignored?

[HankB]

. . . in defense of the ny state troopers:

they are only upholding the (dumba$$) law.

the nyst have never said they would not uphold it.

the commisioner for the nyst has mandated that every trooper will abide by the law until they change it to  exclude law enforcement, or remove it.

So they're only following orders, which is always a defense.

Really increases my respect for them . . .

[Ben]

I'm not sure if I can give you a straight answer Cordex. Partially, I guess, because of my worldview whenever I evaluate this stuff.

That being, that I'm a pretty "normal" looking guy. I dress cleanly and not in pants that hang to my knees, don't drive more than 10MPH over the speed limit in a car that I keep in good shape, and don't go out of my way to flaunt convention or laws. I basically try to be an average American that stays under the radar. So when I talk about using stuff like fix-it tickets for "fishing expeditions", I'm thinking about using them on people like me that aren't generally scofflaws. And if we are doing something that may be illegal - let's say carrying a loaded weapon in the vehicle because, for whatever reason, we're concerned for our safety. We are willing to take the hit for breaking the law if we had to use that weapon to defend ourselves from a carjacking or something, but not because of a search stemming from being pulled over for a broken license plate light.

I know it sounds somewhat hypocritical, but I don't think people who otherwise have their *expletive deleted*it together should be subjected to the justice system for doing something that in some jurisdictions may be illegal, but not immoral, and but for the fact of being pulled over for a brake light that's out or something, would never raise the suspicions of an LEO or for that matter be doing anything that is a danger to society. I'm not sure I've explained it in a way that makes sense. 

I can empathize with the situation of a cop "knowing" that someone has done something really bad and wanting to find a way to prove it, but I have to weigh that against the general freedom of citizens. The fix-it ticket search comes way too close to "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind "X". It's the kind of thing that created the TSA.

[geronimotwo]

So they're only following orders, which is always a defense.

Really increases my respect for them . . .

while i can sympathise with where you are coming from,  my loss of respect is for the ones who made a law in contradiction with the constitution, rather than the ones enforcing it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

while i can sympathise with where you are coming from,  my loss of respect is for the ones who made a law in contradiction with the constitution, rather than the ones enforcing it.

how bout the ones who vote em in?  repeatedly?

[Balog]

Cordex: what if the reason the cop is suspicious of you is your NRA Life Member bumper sticker? Also, people who are versed in the law know what they can theoretically refuse, but most folks don't. Add in the whole "If you won't let me invade your privacy for no reason you MUST have something to hide" cop attitude and it can only lead to bad things.

As Ben points out indirectly, most people don't really notice or care when bad people have their rights violated. Witness CSD's relentless attempts to demonize the victims of cops beating/murdering people. But if we let them do it to the people we don't like, eventually it'll happen to you. The state has no greater enemy than an armed citizenry intent on reigning its power in. Gun guys who like the Constitution are a far greater existential threat to fed.gov than any actual terrorist, and they will treat us that way as much as they can get away with.