Visible knife clip grounds for pat down search?

Lavan said:
I read in the latest Blade that there is a Kansas FEDERAL court decision that a knife clip alone is grounds for a pat down search.

Is this true?

I googled Kansas and knife clip and everything I can think of and find nothing addressing this that isn't also connected to something further of criminal nature.

:confused:
Click to expand...

short answer, yes.

when it comes to searching an individual for weapons, which is generally referred to as a "pat down search for weapons", ariticulation and the totality of circumstances dictate what may be done legally.

for example, if carrying knife is illegal, and the officer identifies what he believes to be a knife by the clip, a search is legal. though in this case arrest may also be appropriate.

if carrying a knife is legal, and one is stopped for any violation, and the officer identifies what he believes to be a knife by the clip, the search is again legal. officer safety nearly always trumps hurt feelings.

officers must always consider anyone they contact as a potential threat. we cant read minds, so prudence often dictates what is done. we frequently have limited, incorrect, or no information. however, each call must be taken to its logical conclusion. the result is sometimes searching the wrong person based on information given in the call for service. so long as the officer is acting in good faith, he/she has done nothing illegal or improper.

historically, calls were often categorized as either high, med, or low threat. now most refer to calls in only two categories: high threat or unknown threat. many end in "no threat", but we have no way of knowing that upon arrival. this doesnt mean that everyone is proned out at gunpoint, but given the currrent climate in police work, it would be unwise to think any call or potential suspect is not a threat.

ive been in more than my share of fights on duty, and many of these presented no "real" threat prior to snapping and deciding they wanted to fight.
 
What we're all dancing around here is that the cops can do to you whatever they want. Don't like it? I guess you could complain after the fact, for all the good that will do you... :grumpy:
 
I would imagine that LEO's quickly learn to read people. After "patting down" a few regular looking citizens, I also imagine they would quickly realize that this is a waste of everybody's time...

Case in point. I was out on some vacant land that is owned by my employer, teaching a couple kids to ride dirt bikes. Sheriff rolled up, and I walked over to talk to him, and he said right away, "I come from Chicago so I know the streets, and I could see right away that you folks are OK"....end of encounter....even though I have a Karambit clipped on each pocket! (The location is a bit remote, and I guess folks go out there sometimes to get up to no good!)
 
wonder what a regular looking citizen looks like

oh yea, doesn't matter, any profiling is a no-no.
 
Actually, profiling, period, is necessary. Profiling is just a means of assigning finite resources according to the probabiliyt of a "hit." If a given demographic corresponds in greater number to a criminal profile, it would be foolish not to assign resources based on that probability.

Link: Profiling Does Not Violate Civil Rights
 
Sharp Phil said:
What we're all dancing around here is that the cops can do to you whatever they want. Don't like it? I guess you could complain after the fact, for all the good that will do you... :grumpy:
Click to expand...

police officers are given great lattitude and discretion, but this in no way can be interpreted as you say.

if you have extracted this from my post, perhaps you are projecting a negative experience you have either had or been privy to.

taking two examples of knife clips and searches and concluding what you have is absurd.
 
Sharp Phil said:
Actually, profiling, period, is necessary. Profiling is just a means of assigning finite resources according to the probabiliyt of a "hit." If a given demographic corresponds in greater number to a criminal profile, it would be foolish not to assign resources based on that probability.

Link: Profiling Does Not Violate Civil Rights
Click to expand...

the problem arises when a racial profile is the only means used to identify someone.

there must be other factors present, ie, clothing, height, weight, location, etc.
 
It seems very unlikely to me that there exist any law enforcement agencies foolishly using only race as the single means of profiling for any given crime.
 
Sharp Phil said:
It seems very unlikely to me that there exist any law enforcement agencies foolishly using only race as the single means of profiling for any given crime.
Click to expand...

this arose in the 80's i believe. while it may never have been official policy, it was a practice some claim was widely used. ive been in law enforcement only ten years, so the origins were before my time.

currently, you would be correct. however, the term criminal profiling has replaced simply "profiling", in general.

many still believe profiling, on any level, to be improper.
 
I don't buy it. I think cops want to catch whomever did the crime. I don't buy this mythology of racist departments who care only about hassling given minority groups.

Profiling, as I said, is simply assigning finite resources based on probability. There's nothing "improper" about it.
 
Sharp Phil said:
I don't buy it. I think cops want to catch whomever did the crime. I don't buy this mythology of racist departments who care only about hassling given minority groups.

Profiling, as I said, is simply assigning finite resources based on probability. There's nothing "improper" about it.
Click to expand...

thats not what im saying.

i agree with you 100%.

but the result of case law requires a differentiation between racial profiling (in and of itself) and criminal profiling.

i cant comment on how common it was, or is. i can say it is often a hot topic among many groups.

cant tell you how many times ive been told "you only stopped me because im (insert race here)...."
 
MORIMOTOM said:
if carrying a knife is legal, and one is stopped for any violation, and the officer identifies what he believes to be a knife by the clip, the search is again legal. officer safety nearly always trumps hurt feelings.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this discussion is about hurt feelings but rather violated rights. Wouldn't a bit of distance, say 6 feet, be a good defense from a knife attack? Especially if you have a gun? Many people have gone into harms way and paid the ultimate price with there lives for our rights. They are more important than any ones safety!
 
Third°;6028297 said:
I don't believe this discussion is about hurt feelings but rather violated rights. Wouldn't a bit of distance, say 6 feet, be a good defense from a knife attack? Especially if you have a gun? Many people have gone into harms way and paid the ultimate price with there lives for our rights. They are more important than any ones safety!
Click to expand...

6 feet is absolutely not enough space. how far must an officer be from a suspect armed with a knife/club/bat/etc in order to identify the threat, draw, and engage?

this question was posited to dennis tueller, former salt lake pd officer, and current glock instructor.

he conducted his experiments on different terrains, with different people.

ill spare you some of the details, but he came up with 21 feet as the minimum distance required. and this knowing the threat was coming.

in the field, the officer will have little to no warning, thus the realistic distance is generally extended by several feet.

ive run the tueller drill during classes i teach. it takes approximately 1.5-2 seconds to cover 21 feet. even knowing the threat was coming, the vast majority of officers, though able to draw and engage, are unable to avoid contact with the weapon.

how quickly can someone cover only 6 feet? no human can react that quickly to eliminate a threat.

a problem arises with this distance. it is impractical to talk, much less detain, someone from 21-25 feet away. most contacts are conducted within arms reach. the officer must divide their attention. we must watch hands, feet, eyes, etc, as well as talk and listen.


and your percieved violation of personal rights are not more important than my safety. i dont risk my life for your rights. i risk my life for your, and everyone elses, life.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to proper police procedure and how it may or may not infringe upon your rights, I can only say that someone who has not worn a uniform and enforced the law can not truely understand what is proper caution and what is a violation of the fourth Ammendment. The officer never knows what the person stopped may be guilty of and what the suspect may do to prevent his arrest. If an officer has stopped you for any reason, he has already identified some behavior that he has deemed needs further investigation. Most times there is not a frisk of the person, until the suspect's actions leads to one.

Many felony arrest have started out as minor crimes such as not payinfg a fare on a subway/bus, or shop lifting. If I saw an exposed knife, I would always take it in my possession for the duration of the interview.
 
Last edited:
tom19176 said:
When it comes to proper police procedure and how it may or may not infringe upon your rights, I can only say that someone who has not worn a uniform and enforced the law can not truely understand what is proper caution and what is a violation of the fourth Ammendment.
Click to expand...

:barf: that's a bunch of BS, "truely". Cops on average may have a better idea, but they don't "truely" know any better than the rest of us.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
and your percieved violation of personal rights are not more important than my safety. i dont risk my life for your rights. i risk my life for your, and everyone elses, life.
Click to expand...
This is where we differ. It's not just my rights but also my freedoms that we're talking about. Arlington National Cemetery is full of graves of men and women that put my rights and freedoms above there safety. Ben Franklyn said, those that would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve nether freedom or safety!
 
You must KNOW what you rights are in order to defend them. The Fourth Amendment protects against unjustifed searches, but not searches per se. The Supreme Court has for all of its rulings always viewed a non intrusive check for weapons on a person who has fallen under the well defined scope in which an officer must follow to stop and question a person, is always a lawful search. Just10minreader, spend a bit more time reading what your rights really are.
 
Third°;6030041 said:
This is where we differ. It's not just my rights but also my freedoms that we're talking about. Arlington National Cemetery is full of graves of men and women that put my rights and freedoms above there safety. Ben Franklyn said, those that would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve nether freedom or safety!
Click to expand...

i am not military, and i suspect you are not either, nor have you ever worked in law enforcement.

name me one right, other than your life, which you feel i should sacrafice my life for.

you speak only in the abstract, and present no valuable statement to this discussion.

if you would like to discuss a specific violation of rights, that is fine. but presenting only rhetoric is meaningless in this context.


and would you care to address my statements regarding proximity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top