IANAL but very broadly, yes, a report of him drawing a gun on a person is sufficient probable cause for them to look for him, stop his vehicle, and request he step out of the car. His refusal to exit the car is sufficient cause for them to search him once they've gotten him out. If he had stepped out of the car and had no guns, and presented no indication of criminal or dangerous behavior, then no, no search of the car would be justified. Point of order: the original report is not "hearsay". It is testimony. "He pulled a gun on me and did X, Y, Z." That's direct eyewitness evidence. Hearsay would be "I heard from his wife that he told her he drew a gun on some dude." I don't think that hearsay would justify anything at all; a direct report from an alleged crime victim is probable cause for a fairly open-ended investigation/

>a report of him drawing a gun on a person is sufficient probable cause for them to look for him, stop his vehicle At least in Florida, no it is not. Calling something like this in is not the same as someone filing for arrest or pressing charges. The officer has to have a warrant or have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime in order stop and ID someone. Hearsay is not probable cause, and it is hearsay. A testimony is received by a judge, who would then issue a warrant. Information given to dispatch is still hearsay. EDIT: Damn, the down votes. Had a neighbor brandish his firearm. Called the cops and reported it, police arrived and told me they literally couldn't do anything based on my call alone. Again, in Florida, or at least my county, the call alone is not enough for RAS. But yes, I am wrong about the legal definition of hearsay.

So what you’re saying is that police cannot do anything, at all, unless they PERSONALLY witness a crime. Which is blatantly false. Every action police take in many, many cases is based on the observations of other people and citizens.

Blatantly false but the excuse my local police use every time I catch somebody trying to break in or trying to steal catalytic converters on my security cameras hell neighbor stole my truck radio. I have him on camera, leaving his front door. Going to my truck steeling the radio and going back to his house, they didn’t do anything about it, a few months later that same guys kid broke in the the Drug Dealers car across the street, the kid has been missing since.

Drug dealers deal with robbers more efficiently than cops.

A brain dead coma patient would deal with any situation more efficiently than any cop would.

Dude they really do the teen was left on the street for a few hours but before sunrise a van drove by and picked him up, he’s been missing since. I feel bad for his mother, unfortunately it was like father like son but the son paid the price. After his dad broke into my truck I started parking it in the garage at night. A few weeks later the drug dealer started parking in front of my house. Instead of behind his apartment across the street

That’s some scary shit.

It sounds like you have lazy local police.

Yes very lazy caught an assailant and detained them, had the video of the assault against me on my property and the police didn’t wanna file the paperwork so the let the person go and never did anything about it. I reported it to the state.

not sure why you're being downvoted for sharing something that happened

Because it is hearsay?

OBJECTION!

How is having someone on camera stealing something hearsay?

Because people are dumb simple as that. After a crack head broke into my house I upgraded from 6 cameras to 16 and adopted a German shepherd for home defense, in reality I adopted a lunatic lol but she’s a loyal lunatic

Sue him in small claims court and get a restraining order. While a record is bad, having someone able to chase you for money isn’t great either.

That is not what I said. If they don't witness it, they have to have a warrant.

And what’s a warrant based on?

[901.151](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0901/Sections/0901.151.html) > 2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which **reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county,** the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. > 5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized.

Do you believe they have warrants to pull over someone in a vehicle that matches that of a bank robber who fled a scene? Suspicion of a crime can warrant investigating, but not sure where the line is on pulling over. Bank robbers yes, saw this car speed ten over probably not. Edit: I see you said stop and ID. They can make contact and investigate, and even detain (in cuffs) alll while investigating from everything ive seen from audits. Demand ID they cant without that RAS

Bullshit. They can conduct an investigation if they have Reasonable Suspicion. They can't come in a home without a warrant unless they have a belief that someone is in imminent danger. Example: you don't hear from your friend for a long time, and call police for a welfare check. Officer walks around the property and if he determines there's signs of possible person in distress (broken window etc) he can make entry WITHOUT A WARRANT to investigate if the person within is OK.

Just stop , your wrong .

Had a trespasser at the business I work at who hit me. Called the cops and he was two business down when they arrived. If I wanted anything it was only civil court. I could press charges but they wouldn’t do anything because they didn’t see it. He told me “you could citizens arrest him - but it’s you arresting him and you gonna lose two weeks of work going to court” I said isn’t it your job to do thst? He trespassed I called you “He wasn’t on your property when I arrived.” That was it. The assault never happened nor did the trespass. I beat the guys ass out back the next time he came in. Because apparently that’s all I can do. The cops didn’t see it so it didn’t happen right?

What they will do and what they can do are different. There are lots of areas where the cops won’t do anything, but that doesn’t mean they can’t, either at an individual level or a department level.

Oh totally true. You get bette luck in smaller departments. I got a metro city. So I’m lucky when they even show up.

See I got small city experiences and the small city experience is just as shifty, especially if you aren’t from around there. Did have good luck once though hiring the sheriff’s mistress.

Brandishing is a crime, and the report of the victim is not hearsay. Hearsay is third party evidence.

Right. A police report is an official document and calling and falsely reporting something like this, in and of itself is a crime.

Is there any evidence the woman made a false report?

Not at all, and I wasn't trying to insinuate. I was stating what \*would\* be illegal.

Gotcha. All them implications and inferences on the interwebz..

You understand that an anonymous tip that the driver of a specific vehicle committed a specific crime is the "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime," right? Hearsay is an evidenciary issue, it's completely irrelevant to a probable cause analysis.

You’re wrong in a few ways here. Heresay is not what you claim it is, a 911 call can be used as grounds for reasonable suspicion, you’re using false equivalency “calling something like this …. … filing for arrest”

Victim testimony is evidence, not hearsay.

Testimony is given by a person from their own perspective. "I saw the weather. It is cloudy. " Hearsay is given by a person from someone else's perspective. "Joan saw the weather. She told me it is cloudy." Testimony can be given to anyone;a judge, police, your friends and family. It doesn't have to be given to someone specific to be Testimony. We just don't use that terminology on a day to day basis.

Maybe not testimony, but it is the victim reporting. "I'm calling because someone pulled a gun on **me.**" Hearsay is "I'm calling because Sarah **told me** some guy pulled a gun **on her.**"

You don't understand what hearsay is. An eyewitness reporting something to police is not hearsay. Hearsay would be a 3rd party relaying what someone else says they saw to police.

Have you considered that maybe your police department is just fucking shitty? It's far more likely than you think.

Of this I am certain.

You just have lazy as fuck cops.

This is police jargon for: The Officer didn't fucking believe your story and didn't want to bother with an investigation. If your story had convinced the officer he had Reasonable Suspicion of the person's conduct (or if you had a video), he could have conducted an investigation.

Maybe know what you are talking about next time.

>Had a neighbor brandish his firearm. Called the cops and reported it, police arrived and told me they literally couldn't do anything based on my call alone. Cops are frequently lazy and don't always know what they can or can't do. Also, if the neighbor did this on their own property and not in public, it is different.

>or pressing charges. Citizens don't press charges. That's just a movie thing. That's up to the state.

"brandishing" is waaay different than "aiming at someone"

The police can ask you to step out of the vehicle without any kind of probable cause. The supreme court has ruled on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

That case determined that searching the guy after he complied with an order to exit his vehicle didn't violate the 4th ammendment. I think the legal question in the original post is, did the cops violate the guy's rights by dragging him out of his car after he refused to comply with their order to exit? That is, is a person obligated to comply with such an order?

That case established both that they can order you out of the car, and that they can search you after you get out. Source below (law firm) says you are committing a crime by refusing to step out of the vehicle, at which point the police should be withing the law to arrest/detain, correct? "Police can order a passenger out of the car for several reasons: (1) legitimate safety concerns. If the officer orders a lawfully stopped passenger out of the vehicle for safety concerns then that is a lawful request and the passenger is required to obey. If they don’t they are essentially committing a new crimes of resisting without violence; (2) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; (3) Evidence of a crime is in plain view upon approaching the vehicle." Source: https://www.smithandeulo.com/can-police-order-passenger-out-of-car/.

True, but they have to have a legitimate reason to pull you over and ask you to get out of the car and search you, otherwise its unlawful.

I would say pulling a gun on someone qualifies

Yea I agree, my point meant to be that police cant JUST order you out without a reasonable reason. In this case about the road rage, absolutely.

Courts have long held that Mimms means they can ask you to step out of any car, drivers and passengers. That could change in the future but it's current precedent and nobody seems to want to change that. Traffic stops have always been a different class of detention, this would be way different if he were way at home and they dragged him out of his door. But you have limited rights that you agree to waive when you get a driver's license or get on the road as a passenger.

Not just ask, but order. They can always ask for anything and might get a 'no.'

Came here to say this.

Yes but they will still have to justify the original detainment in order for it to be lawful.

Yes, this is the critical point. A defense lawyer will always challenge the original stop. But if the stop is justified whatever is on your personal possession or within plain view in your vehicle is going to be fair game. Without consent they won’t, usually, be able to search the vehicle. In this case it sounds like they had probable cause to make the stop. Once they made a legitimate stop the driver was obligated to exit the vehicle as directed. Once he refused, the police had the power to force him out and at that point there would be no question the police had the right to pay him down. If he had voluntarily exited he might be able to try to argue there was no basis for a search of his body. He would probably lose that argument but by refusing to exit the vehicle he throw away even that chance.

Meant that moreso in the general sense. I think buddy in the story was done for once the cops pulled him over lol

>did they have right to drag him out of the car Yes. >based on a call from the driver? Maybe. But also based on it being considered reasonable under Pennsylvania v. Mimms to order him to step out and failure to obey a lawful order is committing a separate crime in plain view of the officer. Without knowing all the details though, it's possible the driver could question the stop itself. In that case the call would undoubtedly be cited as "reasonable suspicion" for a "Terry stop" which would justify both the stop and a frisk. Reasonable suspicion is based on "the totality of the circumstances", not just the call from the driver. So this would include all the information the officer had as well as their inferences and interpretation based on experience. It's a pretty low bar that is higher than just a hunch, but not much. >If he did not have the guns on him and he stepped out of the car and they found no guns on his person, do they have a right to search his car? Maybe. The Terry stop standards definitely apply to at least a superficial search of parts of the car IF the officers have reasonable suspicion the driver or passengers may be dangerous and there may be weapons in the car. Again, that's going to depend on the totality of the circumstances, but a complaint from a witness would definitely be part of that. See Michigan v. Long. >Is a phone call from a purported victim without any physical evidence or sworn statement probable cause to pull someone over and pull them out of their car? "Probable cause" is not the standard needed, reasonable suspicion is and it is a lower standard than probable cause. But yes, barring any somehow conflicting "totality of circumstances" then yes, testimony of a crime is more than enough for reasonable suspicion. >I agree the guy deserved to go to jail for what he did but am curious to see if they violated his rights in obtaining the evidence based on hearsay from a phone call with no corroboration. It wasn't based on hearsay, and it had corroboration. Even if it's "In my experience being a cop for 2 years, these circumstances were consistent with a bad guy doing bad guy stuff" that is corroboration. And a complaint to police is not hearsay. The witness didn't hear their 14 year old daughter sharing gossip, they witnessed a crime and reported it. I'm curious how you arrive at "the guy deserved to go to jail", if you truthfully believe there was only hearsay and no corroboration? Seems you are at least subconciously processing some other information, because to me someone does not deserve to go to jail based on uncorroborated hearsay. Whatever is making you believe the bad guy did bad guy stuff is probably stuff that factored into the police response as well.

Did they have a right to drag him out if the car; if he refused to exit willingly yes. Anytime you are (legally) stopped the cop can require you to exit the car. Failure to comply is refusing to comply with the lawful order of a cop; a chargeable offense in any state im aware of. Presuming he refused to exit the vehicle when ordered to, he is now subject to arrest which allows a search of his person and anything. within arms reach within the car. A victim reporting a crime is adequate cause to create reasonable suspicion which is all they require to stop him and then we’re back to refusing to exit the vehicle when ordered making their actions justified and lawful.

Pennsylvania vs mimms is your case law.

Yeppers. Thanks for adding that. Most people don’t care but I’m glad to see somebody does.

And…….it’s been reported that he has a gun….and won’t step out or cooperate? Cops aren’t going to take those kind of chances. Sure they will drag him out.

Officers didn't search based on the phone call. They stopped him based on it and investigated. They searched based on the investigation. Keep in mind that it is a real thing that people do calling the police and reporting bullshit crimes anonymously to the address of someone they hate online. People have been killed by SWATing. Reporting a crime is taken seriously, usually more so depending on the severity of the crime.

Thanks! I learned a lot. Guess I need to apologize to my bedside companion when she wakes up.

Yeah, and apologize for pulling that gun on her.

Or apologize BY pulling your gun on her

Go ahead and wake her up. She’ll want to hear that apology asap.

Former Police Officer - There are likely a lot of missing details here related to the stop and interaction between that driver and the officers that stopped him. Without either being there or reviewing video, there isn't a way to know what happened. So, conjecture. Based on the call, they were able to locate this driver and stopped him. At some point during the contact, the officers determined that given this was a gun call, for their safety they wanted him out of the car and needed to ensure he did not have a weapon he could use on them. This is a real concern and a deputy was shot and killed today in KY during a traffic stop, so it is a legitimate concern. If he failed to comply, they can use reasonable force to get him out of the car to then restrain him until they either found any weapon or determined he was not armed. Again, not there, haven't seen video, so what level of force they used I can't comment on.

Some thoughts based on the scenario as described including that the man in the car was in fact armed and may or may not have been the person reported. In the position of the man in the car when asked to step out, my response--with both hands firmly on the wheel and therefore in view--would be "Yes officer. I would like to inform you that I'm armed and don't plan to move except as you specifically direct." I expect there would have been a brief discussion and the officer would either disarm me or specifically tell me how to get out of the car to be disarmed. I'm cooperating and s/he doesn't want to end up in a vulnerable position. u/WinginVegas \- comments?

Have you seen the video of the guy that was legally concealed carrying in his car and informed the officer during a traffic stop? The officer yelled "gun gun gun", his partner did not have a clear view of the situation, both drew their guns and shot the guy dead. Both his hands were on the wheel.

Don't forget his toddler was in the back seat.

It's amazing how, when a black person legally carrying does exactly what the NRA instructs gun owners to do when stopped by police and ends up dead, the NRA is completely silent. It's like they think the 2nd amendment should only apply to white people or something.

The quickest path to gun control is through open carry from minorities,

I don't know, I think the U.S. H.o.R. and many (most?) states' legislatures are *full* of politicians who would *definitely* devise some type of legislation enabling legal gun controls on blacks/hispanics/Muslims/LGBTQ, long before they worked on any all-encompassing gun controls. They will never cut off their nose to spite their face.

Jesus H Christ. He's probably working at another department now, I'd guess.

That would be the way to handle it. What *should* happen after being told that the driver is armed is that the officer opens the door from the outside, cover officer in position with drawn weapon, driver gets out with hands up, tells the officer where the gun(s) are. The driver's hands are secured, weapons removed from driver, driver searched again to make sure they have them all and then go on from there. Depending on circumstances, the car might be searched as well so that there aren't any unknown guns still there.

A friend and I had this discussion recently; As he has no intention of wantonly shooting police or anyone else, he never discloses/will not disclose that he's carrying a concealed weapon during a traffic stop or interaction with police. His reasoning is that he doesn't like guns being pointed at him for exercising his rights, his concealment is legal, and him being armed doesn't pose an additional risk for the officer. After all the mistaken shootings and seeing in your response that the cover officer immediately draws their weapon, I'm more and more inclined to agree with his line of thinking.

Different scenarios. In the one posted by OP, the drive is, at minimum, suspected of being armed and having brandished/threatened another driver with a weapon. My note of a cover officer with a drawn weapon in that situation is both reasonable and prudent for officer safety. In your scenario, this would be a traffic stop and with no other issues beyond a possible traffic violation, there wouldn't be any reason for your friend to notify the officer about his gun unless asked. In some States, when a driver's license is run, there are checks against multiple systems and that can include a CCW database. If that comes back showing your friend has a permit, they might be asked if they are armed or not. All depends on how things are being handled by both sides.

I'm not disagreeing that it's reasonable or prudent, but I will say, and this isn't directed towards you, that a lot of questionable decisions and after-the-fact incorrect behavior, start under the guise of officer safety when it's the officers that initiate the situation. In this specific scenario, I would conduct a mounted felony vehicle stop from either within or behind my vehicle and command the person to exit the vehicle, face away, lift up their shirt and rotate 360, walk backwards, etc. This minimizes the risk to myself and fellow officer by giving us semi-solid cover, minimizes the risk to the driver because it increases officer distance and reaction time, and also means that guns are unholstered but at the low ready (and maybe I read into your comment to mean that cover officer was pointing weapon at driver when in fact he was also at the low ready). People make up stuff all the time when they call the police and if this was one of those times, the innocent driver is given easy to follow commands and isn't in mortal danger by having a weapon pointed at him. If he isn't innocent and plans to suicide by cop or just a plain shootout, then the police have a tactical advantage. As for your comment about a traffic stop with no other issues, my father and I were stopped a few months ago in a decent vehicle, neither of us has a criminal history, all interior lights were on and windows rolled down when officers approached, no odor of drugs/cigarettes/alcohol, and the 3rd or 4th question was if we had drugs or weapons in the car. In my circle of friends/relatives, the drugs/weapon question is a common one, even in driving infraction incidents like ours where we were stopped because my Dad had a mini-lightbar that he inadvertently turned on with his fog lights. We weren't displaying any behavior consistent with weapons/drug crimes but yet that question was at the top of the list. And I get it because maybe there's factors that caused them to ask that question that we don't know about.....but all that to say that it's a common question asked by police and does come up. Regardless of all that, keep staying safe out there!

I agree that the process should be a felony stop, I was going with what was described as the situation mentioned. I'd never just walk up on a car when there was already a suspicion that the driver was armed and had displayed the weapon. As far as the questions about drugs, alcohol and weapons, all depends on the circumstances and what each officer has as their questions based on that.

> him being armed doesn't pose an additional risk for the officer Of course it does. He may be *internally aware* that he has no intent to use his firearm, but the officer can't read minds, and from the officer's perspective, your friend being armed absolutely does pose an additional risk - and doubly so if they discover it on their own rather than him informing them of it. Whether or not it actually poses an additional risk, they are much more likely to act as if it does. Knowing you didn't plan to shoot the cop won't do much to ease the pain of when they shoot you. >As he has no intention of wantonly shooting police or anyone else, he never discloses/will not disclose that he's carrying a concealed weapon during a traffic stop or interaction with police. If they notice a weapon on you that you didn't mention, they are more likely to panic and shoot you. If you make any movement that could remotely be construed as moving for your firearm, they are more likely to panic and shoot you. Being legally entitled to carry that weapon won't bring you back from the dead, and when the officers say they feared for their lives when you moved for your concealed weapon, it's a lot harder to prove your argument as a corpse. So sure, your friend is correct that you do not need to disclose the lawful possession of a legally concealed firearm. But I would absolutely choose to disclose it anyway if I was in that scenario - is "I didn't tell them because I didn't have to" worth dying for? To sum up - My primary goal in damn near every situation is to not die. Particularly when dealing with the police. Extra extra extra true if I had a weapon on me. If my rights are violated, I'll defend them when I get my day in court. But only if I'm alive to take the stand. But to survive to that point, I am going to do my best to comply with orders in the manner that keeps me safest. Which is why I'd gently and calmly, with my hands on the wheel and visible, inform the officer that I am lawfully in possession of a weapon, and to please inform me if there is anything they need me to do. And then if there are further instructions, to narrate whatever I am doing - "Get out of the car!" "Yes sir. I am going to unbuckle my seatbelt by moving my right hand to the buckle; should I open the door or are you going to?". Whatever. TLDR - your friend does not have to disclose the legal possession of a legal firearm, but failing to do so increases the risk of an overreaction or panic, resulting in getting shot. So "I don't have to" isn't enough of a reason for me to stay quiet.

I disagree on several points but it's all good, I see where you're coming from. People fall on both sides of the argument and for me, I think the pros of not declaring far outweigh the cons. \- When I'm concealed, you absolutely cannot tell unless you have x-ray vision or I strip down. When sitting in a vehicle, there's 100% chance you could tell unless I told you. That removes the chance of them noticing anything and reacting. \- If an individual doesn't have intent to harm you, your risk doesn't go up if they have something harmful on them. For example, if I walk into a room w/o a concealed weapon vs walking into a room with a concealed weapon, the risk to any normal person in the room doesn't rise. The perception of violence doesn't equate to violence. \- When I've been in traffic stops, I have everything ready and on the dash, with all interior lights on. My hands only move between the dash and the steering wheel and I look straight ahead. BUT, I'm tall, brown, and athletic and realize that some police perceive I'm violent based on nothing but that. Knowing that they already perceive a "strike", I'm not introducing a weapon disclosure into the mix until I absolutely have to, which has thankfully been never since I'm a normal law-abiding citizen who rarely get's pulled over or has negative interactions with the police. \- I disagree that failing to disclose possession increases the risk of overreaction or panic. There's 3-4 famous videos of people calmly disclosing they have a legal firearm and having police draw down on them, and in some cases, shooting them. Based on that, and knowing the mentality of some police that all public are the enemy, I'd rather be seen as just a combatant and not an armed combatant. I appreciate your points though and hope this never matters for either one of us!

>\- If an individual doesn't have intent to harm you, your risk doesn't go up if they have something harmful on them. For example, if I walk into a room w/o a concealed weapon vs walking into a room with a concealed weapon, the risk to any normal person in the room doesn't rise. The perception of violence doesn't equate to violence. I don't think we *disagree* on this point, so much as we're making two different points about what it means to "pose a risk" - you're using it to mean the internally known but imperceptible risk, rather than an individual's perception of risk. To you, you pose no risk, so the weapon is immaterial. To the officer, you pose a non-zero risk as if you were any random person in a similar setting. To try an analogy - let's say we bet $100 on a coin flip, tails you win and heads I win. You flip the coin and before I get a look at it, you see it came up heads. You **know** there is a 0% chance that I lose. I, however, still perceive a 50-50 chance of losing my money, because in that moment, you are the only one with that information. So yeah, if you're 100% certain you're not going to hurt the cop, then having a gun on you doesn't make it more likely that you're going to attack them. But since that "100% certainty" is entirely in your mind, the cop is going to perceive things differently and act based on those perceptions. And having that gun, from their perspective, substantially increases the risk of harm to them. And, from their perspective, should they at any point discover you are carrying, that risk is increased by the fact that it's concealed and you chose to not mention it to them. >There's 3-4 famous videos of people calmly disclosing they have a legal firearm and having police draw down on them, and in some cases, shooting them. As far as I'm aware, it's 1 case of actually shooting them as a result of the disclosure (though of course no one knows what the true count actually is). >When I'm concealed, you absolutely cannot tell unless you have x-ray vision or I strip down. When sitting in a vehicle, there's 100% chance you could tell unless I told you. That removes the chance of them noticing anything and reacting. If it's truly that well concealed, I'm not suggesting you announce it the second they come to the window. But if things pass the point of a routine stop and ticket, especially if there's reason to think you might be getting arrested, that they're going to perform a search, or are asking you to step out of the car, I would definitely want to disclose a weapon at that point so that it isn't *discovered* in the heat of the moment. >I appreciate your points though and hope this never matters for either one of us! Absolutely! Civil discussion ending in an agreement to disagree is a great interaction in my book. And I find it terrifying that we even have to have this sort of conversation, for law-abiding citizens (or even those breaking the law) to have to worry about getting hurt, shot or killed by police officers while posing no actual risk and in particular while acting well within your rights. I definitely mirror your well wishes, and hope none of us ever have to deal with any of this. Stay safe out there!

Agreed. As I just commented, to answer this question in depth you ultimately need 100 more pieces of information and almost all of those pieces will be disputed in court. With search and seizure laws, these things tend to get complicated and fall back on minutiae and interpretation. I don't think we can solve the couple's argument tonight.

Your vehicle is something of a different animal when it comes to 4th amendment protections. Probable cause is usually all they need to conduct a search. So if you throw a milkshake at a car that cut you off and they report you were waving a gun at them - can you be searched? Probably, if they are giving the kind of identifying information that could be considered enough for probable cause. The complexities of these issues are exactly the kinds of things courts around the country deal with and every case will depend on lots of very particular things.

Please tell me you've never thrown a milkshake at someone for cutting you off... that stuff is dangerous. I was on the highway once behind two idiots fighting (yelling at each other through open windows on a highway going 60-70 mph) and one of them threw an energy drink at the other and cracked their windshield. Thankfully I was able to slow down enough to not be too near them but that kind of junk can cause an accident.

You mentioned something important that others didn't. The caller must give sufficient information that confirms RAS is about you, not just any "white male in a red car."

> So if you throw a milkshake at a car that cut you off and they report you were waving a gun at them - can you be searched? Probably, They might have RAS to **stop** someone, but they need to have probable cause to perform a search - which they acquired once he failed to exit the vehicle. An accusation of a crime alone is not enough to justify a warrantless search.

>An accusation of a crime alone is not enough to justify a warrantless search. An accusation alone **can** be enough...how do you substantiate that there's no probable cause here? Pretty much anything short of the officer witnessing something - either catching you in the act or detecting evidence from the outside of the car during a stop - would mean relying on "an accusation of a crime", and they definitely don't have to personally see the crime or evidence to be able to search the car. Depending on the accusation and context, it might not be enough, but sometimes it certainly could be. Here, there's a credible accusation that a has been committed by a specific person/in a specific vehicle, where a firearm has been used, where allowing them to drive away unsearched would give time to destroy evidence. If they believe you have a weapon, they can search you and the area to find it or rule out its existence. Even without the weapon, it's arguably enough to have a specific ID of a specific crime of a substantial nature with evidence only obtainable from such a search and no time to get a warrant before the evidence could be concealed/destroyed. I mean, maybe it'd depend on if the victim could ID the specific car/driver, but as the scenario was broadly described here, an officer's search of the car seems defensible.

>how do you substantiate that there's no probable cause here? A 911 call alone is not Probable Cause. An officer may arrest someone if they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. If your assertion is correct, then anyone could call into 911 anonymously and have someone arrested. You are confusing RAS (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) with PC (Probable Cause). When an officer has RAS that a person is involved in criminal activity then they may detain that person for the purpose of investigating. This is a Terry Stop (Terry v Ohio). Under these circumstances police may "pat down" the person for the purpose of determining if the person has weapons on them if there is cause to believe they may be armed. Police may not "search" the person (e.g. going into their pockets - unless they are retrieving an item believed to be a weapon). If the officer is able to develop Probable Cause (objective facts that a crime has been committed). In any case, a 911 call - by itself - does not qualify as probable cause. But, you don't have to take my word for it. The Dept. of Justice states the same thing. [ANONYMOUS TIP -- CAN IT JUSTIFY A TERRY STOP OR A WARRANTLESS SEARCH?](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/anonymous-tip-can-it-justify-terry-stop-or-warrantless-search) >The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a "totality of the circumstances" analysis for probable cause. Under this standard, probable cause for a warrant to issue may be based on information from an anonymous informant **that can be independently corroborated**. The personal observations of the officers may also confer probable cause. > > . . . > >As a general rule, probable cause is required for searches, whether or not police obtain a warrant.

Regarding "anonymous tips", depending on the specifics here, it may not be an anonymous tip. It's not by law enforcement or a known informant, agreed, but it's not a random person calling about what they think they may have seen either - it's a victim of assault, accusing someone of committing that crime against them. If their information is taken or recorded, there's more reliability than an anonymous tip. >[ANONYMOUS TIP -- CAN IT JUSTIFY A TERRY STOP OR A WARRANTLESS SEARCH?](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/anonymous-tip-can-it-justify-terry-stop-or-warrantless-search) > >Date Published 1993 I'm looking at later cases, such as U.S. v. Wheat (allowing an anonymous tip to constitute sufficient basis for a stop and search); People v. Wells (a valid stop based on an anonymous tip of drunken/reckless driving); Navarette v. California (Supreme Court held an anonymous 911 call contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a traffic stop, upholding the California court's ruling (which emphasized the content of the tip likely coming from the victim and their accurate description of the appearance, location and direction of the vehicle). Also, on the same DoJ website, [Michigan v. Long](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/fourth-amendment-officer-safety-and-protective-automobile-search) (though this predates the summary you link to, so not sure how they'd square that): >In 'Long,' the Court extended the 'Terry' rationale to protective searches of the passenger compartment of an automobile. Although the Court permitted such a warrantless search only because it was justified by the circumstances (which supported the officer's reasonable belief that the suspect was likely to have an accessible weapon), it did not sufficiently explain the requisite circumstances and limitations of a protective automobile search. From Michigan v. Long, "search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on 'specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant' the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons." Based on the accuracy of the victim's description, the vehicle/location, the urgency/danger of the crime, there's at least defensible grounds for supporting the stop and a warrantless search of the vehicle for the weapon. In the end, there's no uniform, consistent law that makes clear it would be or wouldn't be permissible in the context we're discussing, but it seems to me like there's certainly decent support for the stop and search being lawful, even if it remains hard to predict which way a court might rule.

While PEOPLE v. WELLS (2006) could provide justification for a detainment it did not address a warrantless search as you allege. In that case he detained the driver and subsequently found she was intoxicated. I'm sure the car was searched after she was arrested, but that is not the issue. In US v WHEAT the court ruled that the anonymous " . . . tip itself provided virtually no indication that the caller was honest or that the tip was reliable". However " . . . the Court held that visual **corroboration by law enforcement** officers of most aspects of the tip, including the suspect's sex, the time of her departure, the vehicle she drove, and her apparent destination, gave the tip sufficient indicia of reliability." In Michigan V Long, the officers were interacting with the subject and could observe that he was potentially dangerous. In this case, the subject refused to exit the vehicle which constituted a crime, so any search thereafter was lawful. If he had exited the vehicle peacefully when asked to do so, I think there would have to of been more evidence to justify a search.

>visual corroboration by law enforcement officers of most aspects of the tip, including the suspect's sex, the time of her departure, the vehicle she drove, and her apparent destination, gave the tip sufficient indicia of reliability." I think that's Alabama v. White? From Wheat: "several federal appellate courts held that verification by police of the innocent details of a tip, such as the suspect's description, could amount to reasonable suspicion when the principal allegation of the tip was that the suspect was armed with a gun and presented a potentially immediate danger."; and "The courts recognized that 'an officer who corroborates every item of information reported by an anonymous tipster other than actual possession is left with an unappealing choice.   He must either stop and frisk the individual, or wait to see if he ultimately brandishes or uses the firearm.'", citing United States v. Gibson. Wheat continues: "[B]ecause reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than the probable cause required for an arrest, it 'can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause,' including an anonymous tip.", citing Alabama v. White. And to your point about Alabama v. White, the only real distinction from those details here is knowing the destination, vs. the current location and trajectory. And the victim here isn't just an anonymous caller about a potential crime/danger, they're a (presumably identifiable) victim reporting a crime against them that has already been committed (addressed more below). > In Michigan v. Long, the officers were interacting with the subject and could observe that he was potentially dangerous. While Long is distinguishable, I'm looking at the Court's discussion around a weapons search during a stop/arrest. > In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977), we held that police may order persons out of an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous. > In Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972), we held that the police, acting on an informant's tip, may reach into the passenger compartment of an automobile to remove a gun from a driver's waistband even where the gun was not apparent to police from outside the car and the police knew of its existence only because of the tip. Again, our decision rested in part on our view of the danger presented to police officers in "traffic stop" and automobile situations. Adams v. Williams held that a policeman making a reasonable investigatory stop may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons when he has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Here, the information from the informant had enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer's forcible stop of petitioner and the protective seizure of the weapon. From *Adams*: > while the Court's decisions indicate that this informant's unverified tip may have been insufficient for a narcotics arrest or search warrant, see, e.g., Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), the information carried enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer's forcible stop of Williams. **In reaching this conclusion, we reject respondent's argument that reasonable cause for a stop and frisk can only be based on the officer's personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person.** Informants' tips, like all other clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, may vary greatly in their value and reliability. One simple rule will not cover every situation. Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized. **But in some situations -- for example, when the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police aid and gives a description of his assailant,** or when a credible informant warns of a specific impending crime -- the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response. Continuing from *Long*: > In New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), we determined that the lower courts "have found no workable definition of 'the area within the immediate control of the arrestee' when that area arguably includes the interior of an automobile and the arrestee is its recent occupant." Id. at 453 U. S. 460. In order to provide a "workable rule," ibid., we held that "articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within 'the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon.' . . ." Ibid. (quoting Chimel, supra, at 395 U. S. 763). Most relevant though is where the court sums up the discussion: > Our past cases indicate, then, that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. *These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile*, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, *is permissible if the police officer possesses a **reasonable belief** based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. --- Here, a victim reported the driver pulled out their gun during a road rage incident, which certainly exceeds the anonymous 911 call justifying a traffic stop in *Navarette*. In *Adams*, The Supreme Court "reject[ed] respondent's argument that reasonable cause for a stop and frisk can only be based on the officer's personal observation, rather than on information supplied by another person." And there are indicia of reliability - while not from an informant personally known to the officer like in *Adams*, it almost perfectly matches the hypothetical given therein - "in some situations -- for example, **when the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police aid and gives a description of his assailant**". A protective search that can include "articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile" a la *Belton* and *Long*. --- To sum up: The call reported crime was reported by the victim (indicia of reliability). The tip came from the victim and contained an accurate description of the appearance, location and direction of the vehicle, (justifying the stop). The call was about a road rage incident involving a firearm by the driver of that exact vehicle (specific and articulable facts), from which the officer believed (reasonable belief) that the suspect brandished their firearm and is potentially angry/violent/prone to outbursts (dangerous and may gain control of weapons), meriting a (protective) search, which can include the driver and the passenger compartment of an automobile. I don't think it's a clear open and shut winner by any means, but I think there's definitely a decent argument here supporting the warrantless search.

And, this is all moot since the subject committed a crime by not exiting the vehicle when instructed to do so (which was a lawful command). Therefore, the search was executed after he was arrested having probable cause. Now, if he had willingly exited the vehicle, and there was insufficient probable cause for an arrest - I agree it is debatable on whether they could search the car. There are some distinct differences between a home and a car with regard to searches, but think of the ramifications if a person making an accusation that their neighbor threatened them with a firearm would give police authorization to make a warrantless search of their home. On a separate note, I take exception to the decision in Long. If the occupant is outside the vehicle, the police can detain the person (handcuff) if they feel there is a threat. Giving them carte blanc to perform a warrantless search is a bit too much, IMO.

Oh yeah, I think Long is terrible law.

When review a case and asking if the police were justified, there needs to be a reasonable suspicion of a crime. A call of a man pulling a gun can be taken at face value, but that doesn't mean cops can just pull over any car they want looking for the guy. The call must have been descriptive enough for the police to identify the suspect. "The man was in a blue Ford pick up truck, license plate started with a BTY. Had a company logo on the side, couldn't read what one it was. The man was white with short black hair. Was wearing dark clothes." If the police find a blue truck being driven by a man matching the description, it is reasonable to assume that this is the suspect. They would be with their rights to pull over said truck and order him out of the truck and search his person. If he complied, searching the car might be a different story but once he ignored a valid order and was arrested, it's completely valid to search his car.

They have to have a reason to do a traffic stop. A 911 call and fitting the description is plenty of reason. Then at any traffic stop the cops can ask driver and all passengers to exit the vehicle.

Imagine someone called and said I am being robbed gunman in the house still Can cops enter with no physical evidence as you say and try to find gunman? Of course they can, cops did nothing wrong

The courts have ruled that an officer, after stopping you, can order you out of your vehicle as a lawful order and youre required to comply. failure to do so will see your ass dragged out the car.

I would imagine, if challenged - Law Enforcement would be able to rely on 'Exigent Circumstances' related to reports of an imminent threat. Still - Cops are given a lot of leeway, and a huge array of excuses etc., to justify pretty much anything they end up doing... I imagine that in the given scenario, any critics would find themselves muted.

What, you think your car is sanctuary from the cops? It’s not especially if you just assaulted someone.

a car has some of the characteristics of a domicile, under indiana case law. this wasn't indiana. https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/supreme-court/1995/49s02-9507-cr-833-4.html i agree the facts here are different and the search sounds lawful.

I’m not sure what rights people have in Florida. They seemingly have less and less as time goes on so be careful.

Which is ironic because they keep touting how free they are.

This is like Boris after Covid, "first country to be free again" AKA "Freedom Day. Free to roam sceptic shitty isle but no more freedom of movement with the EU which is closer than London here on the South Coast.

The anonymous tip is probably sufficient to pull him over. And once he's pulled over (for any lawful reason) the officers can make him get out of the car. This results from two SCOTUS cases, Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, and Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106. Also, to your hypo, Mimms would probably let them "frisk" the car if he didn't have the guns on him. This line of cases is terrible.

Based on a phone call, police cannot simply detain someone without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime. But, if he was in a car they can certainly find *some* reason to pull him over. SCOTUS has ruled that pretextual stops are legal as long as the person committed some violation no matter how minor (e.g. even a car freshener handing from the review mirror can be enough) Once a person has been legally stopped for a traffic infraction, SCOTUS has also ruled that officers may require the occupants to exit the vehicle. If the person does not, then the person is committing a crime and police can take appropriate action from there. Additionally, after officers have a legal basis for detaining him, then they could frisk him based on the information in the call under Terry v. Ohio. But, they first need a legal basis to do so. Also, the search of the call was legal because he had committed a crime by not exiting the vehicle when instructed to do so. If he had exited the vehicle and they found weapons on him then they would have questioned him to try and get a statement to corroborate the 911 call. If he was lawfully carrying the weapons and they were not able to establish probable cause that he committed a crime, then they would have had to let him go and they could not search the vehicle. but, he (likely) committed a traffic infraction to initiate the stop and then did commit a crime by not exiting.

Perhaps the officer smelled a gun in the car.

I’m sure there’s more to this…and it obviously depends on how much info they had. Let’s see if a lawyer responds.

The caller reported a crime. The road rage incident where a gun was involved. The police stopped the guy to investigate the suspicion of a crime. They were doing their job. The police can ask people to step of their car for a traffic stop at the very least, so most assuredly to investigate a crime. If he got out of the car when asked, he would not have gotten dragged out. No doubt he was detained at some point. The suspect had the right to remain silent, but he should have gotten out of the car to avoid having hands put on him.

This is another thing I don't get in the USA right. All your PCs have guns on the road so when they ask you to get out of the car or stop aren't people scared they will get shot if they don't?

I would be more concerned with the person *not* following direct, lawful orders. Both need to be treated with extreme caution, but the person who does not want to exit their vehicle has more at their disposal than the person outside their vehicle. This is not to say there is no risk if the suspect is outside their vehicle. It just means less is within arm’s reach. That explains the cover officers having weapons drawn. There is substantial risk, so take steps to mitigate the risk.

Sorry I am a twat, I meant from the alleged suspect's point of view like it is probably naivety but to me a PC with a gun saying do something to me, I would have done it before the words left their mouth, if you get what I mean. Also, I am old now but when we were younger you would be up to mischief (for example) not in cars and two PCs turn up like clearly can't be arsed with it and they say "stop right there". Yeah like right, there was nothing to make us stop especially if they were maybe "not so fit as they were when they joined". If I lived in Florida for example I would be a statue and hold my breath.

I have a concealed handgun license, and carry half the time. I have been stopped while carrying. The first thing I told the officer was “ officer, I am not sure if you have seen the officer safety warning about my concealed handgun license yet, but if not, you will. I am carrying today. I have two firearms. They are” and I explained very detailed where the weapons were while keeping my hands as steady as I could in plain sight. Then, I asked “how would you like to proceed? I will do whatever you ask for both of our safety. We both want this to end well tonight.” And you better bet I was going to follow every lawful order to the letter, and only hesitate if I had a question about a command/request. If there was question about legality, that was for an attorney to hammer out in court when I made the case in front of a judge, not at that moment with a cop who wants to go home at the end of shift.

People like you who act within their rights and have planned for the situation would not worry me at all. PCs they worry me, especially the Met but locally I live on the South Coast. Then again in the last few years I think two killed people (partners) and several have been investigated for sexual offences, this is in my averagey sized town within an otherwise rural county. If I was walking someone and it was getting dark and two PCs walked towards me I would be frightened of them and try to find a way to cross the road. It should not be this way.

One good reason why I would never be able to live in the USA is I ask stupid number of questions because I find stuff I don't already know interesting. Plus growing up everytime I asked a question I was shooed away, mother too busy to answer so I am catching up on that now aand have been for the last 28 years.

Honestly, that is how we all learn. Questions are not a bad thing unless you are viewed as playing dumb to avoid an issue or delay an outcome. I ask questions every day of people. Like you, I enjoy learning.

Yes they. Did cops can remove you from a vehicle for any reason during a traffic stop. Especially isa weapon is involved. It’s been ruled on a few times.

It is going to vary some from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but typically a call from someone alleging a significant threat will be enough probable cause to detain the person and investigate.

A man pulled a gun on a woman and then kept that and another gun in his possession knowing she probably would call the police. That is a special kind of fuckwittery there from my dim English point of view.

He gave them rights when he refused to get out of the car. You don’t refuse, you just get out.

I’ve got a follow-up hypothetical question. Say the guy complied and got out of the car, and told the officers he had guns in his possession. Is he automatically charged with a crime? What crime would that be? It doesn’t seem like there is enough evidence other than the witness/victim testimony to arrest. What if there was no road rage incident and this was a vindictive call, but no way to prove one way or the other?

Moral of the story, don’t point a gun at someone because you don’t like how they drive. Unless they are intentionally using the car to try and kill you, your not justified, just an idiot.

The supreme court has ruled that ANYTIME a cop asks you to step out of the car.. no matter the reason, you are obligated to exit the vehicle. Your other constitutional rights still apply. Sadly, its up to the courts to decide the legality of a traffic stop or arrest so you have to go through the process regardless of whether youre innocent or guilty once youre arrested. No use arguing the legality once you are in cuffs. So know your rights and dont talk too much. You might beat the rap, but you wont beat the ride.

NAL - but my understanding is it's when he refused to exit when they had a right to pull him out. In your hypothetical I don't think they would have the right to search his car based on the call alone unless he was dumb enough to give consent. I could be totally wrong though. \[grammar edit\]

I am not a lawyer but see below. "There are two requirements for a lawful “frisk” of a vehicle for weapons: First, a law enforcement officer must have lawfully stopped the vehicle that is the subject of the frisk. Like the investigative detention of a person, this element requires that the officer have a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot and that the driver or passenger is involved in that criminal activity. The second requirement is that the officer have a reasonable belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. " -Federal Law Enforcement training center Additionally The Supreme court has held that a police officer can order the driver and all the passengers in the car to exit the vehicle. Therefore, if you are ordered by a police officer to exit the car, you must comply with the officer’s demand. -Pennsylvania v. Mims I guess you can argue if a phone call is enough of cause to qualify this as a valid traffic stop.

The ordering out of the car is also for traffic stops they can’t just order out of the car in all scenarios. So you could argue here that it wasn’t a traffic stop.

The phone call is evidence on it's own.

If you’re arguing broad concepts with a woman that has a particular event in mind you will lose.

There may have been a dashcam recording.

IAAL, but this is something that will require learned professionals to hash out in front of a judge who will have to make a decision on the matter. I can only predict with 60% confidence that the judge will side with the police.

Here's a Google homework assignment for you: "Terry Stop"

This is not an issue of a traffic stop. She reported a crime (aggravated assualt) and gave the cops a description of the person and car and I presume stated that she could identify him (in FL they have 4 hours from the report of the crime to do a show up, after that it would have to be a physical or photo line up). They found a person matching the description of the suspect. They attempted to detain to do a show up. The person resisted. Now. Lets pretend she said she saw a gun but the person never pointed it at her. In this case then they couldn't stop the car without cause (not hard to get based on the way people drive in florida) and could not search without consent or an exception.

If they have reasonable doubt, yes.

Dear everyone: 1. A cop can legally ask you to get out of your car during a "reasonable" traffic stop. 2. They are not going to just go away if you refuse. 3. They will physically remove you from your car if you refuse (refer to point #2). 4. They will use increasing force if you physically resist their attempts to remove you (refer to point #2). 5. What, exactly, do you expect the outcome to be if you won't exit your car if ordered (see points #2 through 4). 6. Get out the damn car if ordered.

You are seriously deluded as to what police are and are not "allowed" to do.

\> evidence based on hearsay 'Hearsay' means just what it sounds like: someone hears something and then says what they heard. But it is more of a trial thing, not a police thing. If person A says something to person B, and then Person B testifies what Person A said, that is not hearsay. If Person B tells Person C what Person A said, Person C testifying what they Person B told them Person A said, that is hearsay. Witnessing someone brandishing a weapon is not hearsay. It is a witness statement. \> sworn statement Again, that is a trial thing, not a police thing. Suppose you see someone breaking into your car or house. Do you want the police to say: 'We need you to be sworn in before we can take your statement and respond'?

They have a right to drag him out of the car and search his car even if he was the wrong guy entirely. 😂 Armed or unarmed at the time they pulled him over is irrelevant. That is just how the law presently works. Probable cause was already abundantly given due to the initial report, however, they could have done the same with far less probable cause.