First Traffic Stop With a Gun on my Hip!

[Deserteagle8338]

Just to clarify: he was pulled over for a "violation," not a crime. There is a huge difference.

There is no difference. He violated the law. Violating the law is a crime.

 

[JamesB]

There is no difference. He violated the law. Violating the law is a crime.

Let me know when you pass the bar, and tell me your answer to that question then.

Until then, there IS a difference.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Meanwhile, the thread has been hijacked and has changed from what happened on a traffic stop and opinions to how the whole thing went down to one of complying with lawful request to produce required documentation at a traffic stop versus how the government is imposing jackbooted control over our freedoms by asking to see a license and registration for pete's sake.

An easily rectified hijack. Lets not overlook DesertEagle's initial hardnosed comment. There is a lot of freedom-minded attitude on this forum; the responses to him were almost predictable.

Part of the problem is that the statists are arguing in circles and not directly confronting the point. The whole point is that the cop demanded your license and registration to investigate you when all that was really needed for him to give you the warning was---to give you the warning. Claiming it was legal is like the insisting everybody recognize water is wet. While true, its not the point.

Did the officer heinously violate your human rights in the same league as dragging you from the car and beating you senseless after draining a taser battery in you? Of course not. It was however a suspicionless invasion and a waste of your time. This is what we get when the government wants the opportunity to fish. Believe it or not, there is a doctrine that an investigation be reasonably related to the suspicions. Which is to say, the government speaks with a forked tongue, because checking your license and registration isn't particularly related to giving a warning for a burned out headlight.

I myself have been stopped on specious justification, which is to say the police were really just using their "reason" as a pretext to fish for more. Were their "reasons" legal? Two out of three, yes. Legal. But, the whole point is the abuse of the legality so they could go on a fishing expedition as law enforcement officers instead of peace officers.

I don't know about anybody else, but since the so-called good cops will not clean out the bad ones, I absolutely do not appreciate being exposed to the bad ones by the practice of fishing. Neither do I appreciate at all being put in this position by a government that regularly finds new and creative ways to increase its power and reach. Somehow the courts keep finding neat ways to support and validate police practices that are really just creative ways to get around the Fourth Amendment. I don't much see the courts demanding an end to the Blue Wall of Silence or a vigorous house cleaning of bad cops.

 

[M-Taliesin]

Yeah! So, M-T, you're the poopy head!

Howdy Mahkagari!
DAMN STRAIGHT! And proud of it too! It's a tough job, but some of us must do it for the sake of society at large!

POWER TO THE POOPY!!!!

It's a Constitutional right, don'cha know. In the same category as billionaires who buy politicians like you or I might purchase a new holster!

Or as Doc Holiday might have said... "I'll be your poopy head!"

We ought to have a poopy head meet and greet, to support our right to be poopy heads. Maybe have a poopy pride parade in Denver.

Okay... sorry about that. I seem to be losing control this morning.

Maybe a bit more roughage in my diet would help!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[M-Taliesin]

An easily rectified hijack. Lets not overlook DesertEagle's initial hardnosed comment. There is a lot of freedom-minded attitude on this forum; the responses to him were almost predictable.

Howdy Citizen!
Perhaps predictable, but the forum has rules, and I am trying to remind everyone that civility needs to be maintained here. When name calling or insults replace healthy and reasonable debate, rule 6 being violated, the moderators are likely to get involved.

As to the matter of the topic, which has gone far afield from where it started, you made a very good post pointing out your perspective and in a manner that was level headed and respectful of others. I much appreciate how you expressed your POV.

Regarding the specifics; When an officer makes a traffic stop, and by mote of Colorado Revised Statutes, the operator of that motor vehicle must produce license, proof of insurance and registration. Once the officer has those documents in hand, he can exercise his discretion to check those documents for validity, according to statute. The car I was driving is registered to my wife. When we got married, she kept her own last name rather than taking mine to be Mrs. Taliesin. We don't hold with some of the traditional notions of what married folks do, she is her own person, and that she kept her own name is fine with me. In fact, it is her right. Meanwhile, here is the officer looking at my driver's license with my name, producing an insurance card, with my name (couldn't find the one for my wife's car) and pawing through the glove compartment for her car's registration... that I couldn't find. Old ones, yeah... but not the current one!!! I don't know where the heck she keeps the darn thing.

So with the scenario above, could it be that this officer had reasonable suspicion that I might have purloined the car? Could it be that he had probable cause to verify the registration through the DMV data base? Could it possibly be that he might suspect I'd been driving around in an uninsured vehicle?

Whether the original issue was a burned out headlight being grounds for a stop, CRS requires the driver to produce license, insurance and registration. I think we can agree on that. With said documents in hand, he sees what appears to be some hinkiness in those documents and has suspicion that something ain't quite right. He reasonably checks things out and finds the story clicks, everything is legit. He returns the documents to me, and bids me a good evening. With the possible exception of not informing me immediately why he was making the stop, I don't see error on his part. Of course, I have provided additional details in this post that were not included in the original when starting this thread. I didn't think it necessary to go to that much detail, but wasn't expecting nits to be picked.

As to the fact that I informed him... voluntarily... that I was armed, I felt it a matter of 'citizen safety'. By informing him of my status as a legally armed carrier, he had no room to make a massive mistake or overreact if he found out by other means and reacted in a manner inappropriate. Sure, I did not need to inform, and there is no requirement that I can recall whereby I must inform. Not informing is within my rights. But I ain't willing to be 'dead' right, especially over a traffic stop!

I personally choose to pick my fights, along with my battlefield. As other have noted, the side of the road isn't the best place to assert rights to somebody that can usurp them with superior numbers and firepower.

By the way, as I pulled away from the stop, I noticed a second squad car had pulled up behind the cop that stopped me. I have no evidence, considering I never even knew he was there, but I'll wager that second cop was out of his car and standing at the 4-6 oclock behind my car ready to shoot if I produced a weapon!

Like I said, I'd much prefer to pick my battles and the field of combat. Beside the road is a poor place to make a fuss over rights when I am poorly positioned to defend them. I ain't willing to be 'dead' right in a fight over a burnt out headlight! I am no relative nor decendant to George Armstrong Custer!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Deserteagle8338]

Let me know when you pass the bar, and tell me your answer to that question then.

Until then, there IS a difference.

Not a difference. A violation of the law is a violation of the law and that makes it a crime.

Lets look at 2 different definitions of "violation"-
Noun 1. violation - a crime less serious than a felony

2. a breach, infringement, or transgression, as of a law, rule, promise

A violation means you violated something. In this case, he violated the law which is a crime.

Now lets look at "crime"-
noun 1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

Now to tie this all together, driving with one headlight is against the law (legally prohibited) because it is deemed injurious to the public welfare and by doing so, you are violating the law.

Colorado law, aka the Colorado Revised Statutes refers to his driving without a headlight as a Class B infraction. Statutes are laws, and an infraction is a "violation or infringement; breach of a statute, contract, or obligation"

I hope that helps. Otherwise look at the Colorado Uniform Motor Vehicle Law and remember that violating the law is a crime

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> The car I was driving is registered to my wife. <snip> Meanwhile, here is the officer looking at my driver's license with my name, producing an insurance card, with my name (couldn't find the one for my wife's car) and pawing through the glove compartment for her car's registration... that I couldn't find. Old ones, yeah... but not the current one!!! I don't know where the heck she keeps the darn thing.

So with the scenario above, could it be that this officer had reasonable suspicion that I might have purloined the car? Could it be that he had probable cause to verify the registration through the DMV data base? Could it possibly be that he might suspect I'd been driving around in an uninsured vehicle?

Does your wife live at a different address than you?

Anyway, thanks for additional information.

 

[M-Taliesin]

Does your wife live at a different address than you?

Anyway, thanks for additional information.

Howdy Amigo!
Nope, we live in the same house and all, but that in itself does not confirm anything to an officer who finds the difference in names curious or suspect.

For example, an apartment complex may have the same address but be home to many people. Or a mobile home park. Or, for all he knew, we may have been estranged but whoever moved out never got around to changing their address on documentation. That happens all the time, and probably far more likely around here.

At the risk of sounding prejudicial (not my intention by any means whatsoever) we have a large demographic of folks from 'out of state'. We have an epidemic of folks with documents that are, at minimum, unreliable. That's assuming said demographic has any documentation at all. Much of what such folks may have is fradulent, or changes never get made, or otherwise inaccurate.

It is my opinion that making a quick check to verify accuracy of those documents is reasonable.

There was some mention of freedom earlier in this thread, and I'd like to think that I should also be accorded the right to use my own judgment when confronted by officers, and accorded my freedom to be cooperative rather than combative with the officer involved, and going my way peacably rather than making a pseudo-lawyerly fuss on the side of the road and ending up with myself needing to call a lawyer and a bail bondsman because I got troublesome over a burned out headlight. At the end of the day, all I wanted was to be getting home and off to bed, and the way I handled this situation was the easiest and cleanest way to ensure that mission would be accomplished expeditiously.

Whatever the case, the stop was brief (and in line with court precedent as pertains to such stops) the officer courteous, and the issue resolved within a reasonable time.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Gunslinger]

There is no difference. He violated the law. Violating the law is a crime.

There is a huge difference. No violation carries jail time. No violation appears on a criminal record. While some states allow for an arrest for a violation, the chances range from slim to none that it will occur, failing other factors like an outstanding warrant.

 

[Gunslinger]

The difference, if such exists, is a red herring when it comes to producing a driver's license in this case. He was operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. He has to produce his license and registration if requested.

O2

No one is debating that you need to produce papers when stopped for a traffic 'violation.' I am clarifying the difference between a violation and a crime.

 

[Gunslinger]

Not a difference. A violation of the law is a violation of the law and that makes it a crime.

Lets look at 2 different definitions of "violation"-
Noun 1. violation - a crime less serious than a felony

2. a breach, infringement, or transgression, as of a law, rule, promise

A violation means you violated something. In this case, he violated the law which is a crime.

Now lets look at "crime"-
noun 1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

Now to tie this all together, driving with one headlight is against the law (legally prohibited) because it is deemed injurious to the public welfare and by doing so, you are violating the law.

Colorado law, aka the Colorado Revised Statutes refers to his driving without a headlight as a Class B infraction. Statutes are laws, and an infraction is a "violation or infringement; breach of a statute, contract, or obligation"

I hope that helps. Otherwise look at the Colorado Uniform Motor Vehicle Law and remember that violating the law is a crime

Your definitions are not legal. A "crime" is a misdemeanor or felony which must be tried in the criminal justice system. You must appear. A violation is a lesser offence carrying no legal ramifications other than the possibility of being fined for violating an ordinance and can be administratively disposed of, to wit: sending in a check for the fine. You can "violate" the law by commiting a felony. That, however, is not a violation as termed in legal code. Infraction = violation, btw, depending on the state, but violation is the general common law term.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

Did you tell the LEO that the car belonged to your wife? That does not seem to have been mentioned in your posts.

OC For Me - Post # 31 - Divulging the fact that you are armed when not apparently legally required to do so is a personal choice, no problem there.

 

[Deserteagle8338]

There is a huge difference. No violation carries jail time. No violation appears on a criminal record. While some states allow for an arrest for a violation, the chances range from slim to none that it will occur, failing other factors like an outstanding warrant.

Once again, there is no difference. You can say the penalties vary but that is common sense. Lesser crimes are punished with lesser penalties. Speeding is a lesser crime compared to robbery. Both are crimes that are defined as illegal in the Colorado Revised Statutes. You can believe what you want, and Ill believe what I want.

 

[mahkagari]

Here, lemme see that for a sec. *whump* *whump* Yep, that's one ex-equine.

 

[M-Taliesin]

Did you tell the LEO that the car belonged to your wife? That does not seem to have been mentioned in your posts.

Howdy ME!
I did mention it to the officer during the stop. I failed to include that little detail in my original post. I did, however, explain that particular detail subsequently in another post just a few back from this one.

The primary reason for my post to start with was the tenor of the traffic stop itself, rather than the specific details in general. But things went into strange directions unexpected by your humble author.

I'll remember to be more detail oriented in future posts. I hope.

Thanks for your response!
Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Citizen]

SNIP As to the fact that I informed him... voluntarily... that I was armed, I felt it a matter of 'citizen safety'. By informing him of my status as a legally armed carrier, he had no room to make a massive mistake or overreact if he found out by other means and reacted in a manner inappropriate. Sure, I did not need to inform, and there is no requirement that I can recall whereby I must inform. Not informing is within my rights. But I ain't willing to be 'dead' right, especially over a traffic stop!

I personally choose to pick my fights, along with my battlefield. As other have noted, the side of the road isn't the best place to assert rights to somebody that can usurp them with superior numbers and firepower.

By the way, as I pulled away from the stop, I noticed a second squad car had pulled up behind the cop that stopped me. I have no evidence, considering I never even knew he was there, but I'll wager that second cop was out of his car and standing at the 4-6 oclock behind my car ready to shoot if I produced a weapon!

Like I said, I'd much prefer to pick my battles and the field of combat. Beside the road is a poor place to make a fuss over rights when I am poorly positioned to defend them. I ain't willing to be 'dead' right in a fight over a burnt out headlight! I am no relative nor decendant to George Armstrong Custer!

No offense, but I'm not buying it.

First, thanks for the additional facts about things that might have raised some cop suspicions into checking the registration and so forth. However, those facts are still off base. None of that was necessary to just giving you a verbal warning about the headlight. If he was really just interested in the headlight, and all he did was ask and warn about the headlight, then the mismatched names on the paperwork would never even come to light.

Back to the stuff I'm not buying. You see, you've been pretty cop-supportive and willing to waive rights in previous posts. I don't think your real reason is something about not exercising rights because you can't fight and win. That rationale means you won't exercise your rights to buy food or take a drink from a public water fountain unless you can deploy a full platoon with all the gear and terrain advantage to win pretty much any opposition to you exercising those rights. You see, it doesn't add up.

Also, it completely overlooks that a simple, polite, courteous exercise of rights works. Unless of course you're really saying those police you previously supported as being mostly good guys are so dangerous, and so likely to be dangerous you don't dare exercise your rights. Since I know that's not your position, I'm still left with contradictions.

No, I don't think you notified for the reasons described. It doesn't add up.

Thank you for compliment about a well reasoned respectful post earlier. Please extend to me the same respect by not presenting me with such obvious half-truths or untruths.

 

[Motofixxer]

M-Taliesin, if you wanna gain some insight into CO driving issues. You might be interested in reading Here

 

[davidmcbeth]

Your definitions are not legal. A "crime" is a misdemeanor or felony which must be tried in the criminal justice system. You must appear. A violation is a lesser offence carrying no legal ramifications other than the possibility of being fined for violating an ordinance and can be administratively disposed of, to wit: sending in a check for the fine. You can "violate" the law by commiting a felony. That, however, is not a violation as termed in legal code. Infraction = violation, btw, depending on the state, but violation is the general common law term.

I think that traveling is a right. The gov't can regulate this right (licenses, speed limits etc.). If you are accused of violating this these regulations then an admin hearing does not cut the mustard.

 

[M-Taliesin]

No offense, but I'm not buying it.

Back to the stuff I'm not buying. You see, you've been pretty cop-supportive and willing to waive rights in previous posts. I don't think your real reason is something about not exercising rights because you can't fight and win. That rationale means you won't exercise your rights to buy food or take a drink from a public water fountain unless you can deploy a full platoon with all the gear and terrain advantage to win pretty much any opposition to you exercising those rights. You see, it doesn't add up.

Howdy Citizen!
I must be really honest with you right here. I read the above paragraph like three times and still can't understand what on earth you're talking about. But to give a more accurate analogy, it would be like somebody telling me that same public water fountain is closed for repairs and demanding to use it based on my rights, even without a full platoon with full tactical gear and terrain advantage.

The presence of that particular paragraph is inappropriate.

So far as I am aware, every cop at every traffic stop in every jurisdiction in every sector of Colorado simply will ask for registration, license and insurance as standard operative procedure. And by CRS, I am required to provide those documents upon demand by LEO. At that particular moment, I didn't know the stop was for a headlight, so that particular piece is irrelevant at the instant moment. I self identified as a carrier because he'd have known within less than a minute anyhow since my CCW is attached to my license anyhow. They are kept in a plastic sleeve together for easy of carry on my part. To remain analogous to your scenario, what would be your suggestion? Perhaps you are suggesting I should have told him to go pound sand, drawn my weapon, insisted upon my rights (btw... driving isn't a right... it is a privlege and regulated by law) grabbed some of my tactical gear... except I was in the wrong car and my tac was in the one at home... and had a standoff like the O.K. Corral.
I will grant you that my above remark sounds silly, but to me, giving resistence to an officer over a headlight seems sillier. Maybe just me, but it just ain't worth all the fuss that could ensue.

This particular remark was really, really irksome to me:
"unless you can deploy a full platoon with all the gear and terrain advantage to win pretty much any opposition to you exercising those rights"
And I'd suggest you check out how well that stragegy worked out for George Armstrong Custer! His scouts told him "You did not bring enough bullets!" and he ignored the advice, calling them "women". How'd that work out for the famed 7th?

As it turned out, I complied with lawful and required officer request for documents, provided same, and for simple expedience, informed that I was carrying.

Taking your analogy to its suggested conclusion, one should defend their rights by whatever means necessary (deploy full platoon, terrain advantage, etc) regardless of wisdom. Don't worry about tactical advantage, just charge in there like Custer. Disregard strategic advantage, just drive forward. The time to argue your rights is when questionable in either direction, but worth risking combat?? Really?

That just makes me feel better about bounty hunting. We back one another up. Many on this forum seem motivated by an insistance on rights to such degree that logical defense becomes irrelevant, and tactical assessment of a specific situation surrender.

Like I said before, I have the right to decide what battles to engage, and the field of combat.
Wisdom would dictate that the time and place of combat should be to the advantage of the defender, based on situational logic, and a reasonable plan of engagement.

All of which, your remarks and mine, are simply way the completely over the top for a headlight out traffic stop.

But I do appreciate civility in this thread, and appreciate your demeanor in the thread.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin



The only possible gripe, so far as I can see in the whole scenario, is that the cop should have informed at the beginning of the stop that my head light was the cause of the stop. The only question whether he has the right to require documents for a headlight out, and I figure he does under CRS.

 

[M-Taliesin]

M-Taliesin, if you wanna gain some insight into CO driving issues. You might be interested in reading Here

Howdy Motofixxer!
Wow... that's a heap of reading you've set before me, and I plead ignorance of much that is contained in that hefty tome! LOL!

When I have an opportunity, I will study it in detail, and learn what may be gleaned from the information you provided.
I thank you for that information, and will examine it carefully when time permits. Right now, I have very little time as I need to be out the door about half an hour ago. Obviously, I ain't! LOL!

Thanks again, and I will promise to give it the attention it merits as soon as I return home.
That's going to take a heap of examination, and appears to provide some real valuable information.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin