Visible knife clip grounds for pat down search?

[MORIMOTOM]

: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.

another post and run?

it has become clear to me that the only opinion that matters to you is your own.

your antagonistic and condescending, and what exactly are your qualifications for posting here? lawyer?

you do a fine job of posting links, but have offered little else.

 

[Third°]

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?

I was in the Army. Regarding proximity, I suppose no distance would be absolutely safe. A knife could be thrown. You're using the term "Right" and I'm using Freedom. There are things worth fighting and dying for! Freedom is on the top of the list. I'm free to carry a knife. For you to remove my freedom because your scared or think I might commit a crime before I've done so wouldn't be right. Where would you draw the line on that one? I've dealt with police before and never had my knife questioned. I'm pretty harmless looking I guess. On the other hand I see there's some real scum out there. I'm sure there is a fine line between protecting yourself and preserving freedom. I suppose each of us must find that line for ourselves.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

I was in the Army. Regarding proximity, I suppose no distance would be absolutely safe. A knife could be thrown. You're using the term "Right" and I'm using Freedom. There are things worth fighting and dying for! Freedom is on the top of the list. I'm free to carry a knife.

For you to remove my freedom because your scared or think I might commit a crime before I've done so wouldn't be right.

Where would you draw the line on that one? I've dealt with police before and never had my knife questioned. I'm pretty harmless looking I guess. On the other hand I see there's some real scum out there. I'm sure there is a fine line between protecting yourself and preserving freedom. I suppose each of us must find that line for ourselves.

i dont recall ever saying this.

reread the ops question and then my response. and you did say "violation of rights" in your first post here.

freedom? sure, if i were in the military, but im not. and that has no bearing on this thread. dying for your freedom is not my job.

and you seem to be automatically equating a search with an arrest. non sequitor.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

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!

........................

 

[just10minreader]

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.

When did I argue different?
To the original poster, I replied that its "probably true"
that a visible clip is grounds for a pat-down.

I called your statement that unless you've been a cop, you can not truely
understand what is proper caution and what is a violation of the fourth
a bunch of BS, because it is a bunch of BS.
Cops didn't invent the 4th amendment and aren't lawyers, and they aren't only ones who can read/write...

(( Ease up on the antagonistic rhetoric. It does nothing to advance the discussion. -- EB ))

 

[tom19176]

Just10minreader, in a final attempt to explain this to some one who has not been trained and experience in this field, here it is again: The Fourth Amendment ( as all Amenedments), has been very well defined by the highest court in the land, as to how it maybe interperted in todays world, and the limits on what it does and does not protect. The very first weapons laws were for the most part always concerning the prohibition of carrying a weapon concealed as compared to open carry of a weapon. There are laws that were passed within a few years of the Bill of Rights that prohibited any weapon (mostly dirks, dagger, and other knives) from being carried concealed, and a search for them on a suspect you stopped for questioning was never considered to be an Unconstitutional search because it was deemed reasonable.
I have been in law enforcement and private business, and I will clearly tell you that you never understand the logic and methods of any profession until you have spent time doing that job. You have been responding to the post I have made with an attitude that I have seen often, but unfornately I can't respond with my normal response which would be " tell it to the judge" as the rear door to the patrol car slams.....

 

[myright]

Just10minreader, in a final attempt to explain this to some one who has not been trained and experience in this field, here it is again: The Fourth Amendment ( as all Amenedments), has been very well defined by the highest court in the land, as to how it maybe interperted in todays world, and the limits on what it does and does not protect. The very first weapons laws were for the most part always concerning the prohibition of carrying a weapon concealed as compared to open carry of a weapon. There are laws that were passed within a few years of the Bill of Rights that prohibited any weapon (mostly dirks, dagger, and other knives) from being carried concealed, and a search for them on a suspect you stopped for questioning was never considered to be an Unconstitutional search because it was deemed reasonable.
I have been in law enforcement and private business, and I will clearly tell you that you never understand the logic and methods of any profession until you have spent time doing that job. You have been responding to the post I have made with an attitude that I have seen often, but unfornately I can't respond with my normal response which would be " tell it to the judge" as the rear door to the patrol car slams.....

Well put.

That being said - in your experience, can you now relate that back to the OP's concern about the visible clip being grounds for a pat-down/frisk?

My LEO experience is limited to the military and risk perception, I would imagine, is significantly different amongst the civilian population as it relates to law enforcement.

 

[Trent Rock]

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.

Here is the case===>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1
Have fun trying to interpret it

a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

• (b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

• 5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [SIZE=-1] [392 U.S. 1, 3] [/SIZE] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

• (a) Though the police must whenever practicable secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

• (b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

• (c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

• (d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

• (e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

• (f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation. We are now concerned with more than the governmental interest in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded. [SIZE=-1] [392 U.S. 1, 24] [/SIZE] Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives.

 

[reconranger]

Amreica's founding fathers were just freeing themselves from the repressive rule of a "police state", when they wrote the nations founding documents. I wonder what they would have to say about many modern issues, if we could ask them.....

 

[tom19176]

myright, I would say that the clip itself would give PC ( proable cause) to check if the knife is legal by the local knife laws. The clip has given the officer the right to investiagte based on "plain sight" of an item that may or may not be an illegal weapon. In NYC ( my experience) the fact that the knife is exposed in any way is a violation of a NYC law that all knives can not be exposed in any way while carried. Upon inspection of the knife, the officer may determine that it is a violation of the NY State law against gravity knives.

The normal conditions where exposed knives are not illegal may not be considered PC for a frisk in many jursidictions, but I would be hard pressed to think an officer who felt the need to question you would not take temporary possession of the knife for the duration of the interview.

 

[just10minreader]

Just10minreader, in a final attempt to explain this to some one who has not been trained and experience in this field, here it is again

Thats 2 assumptions right there.

I have been in law enforcement and private business, and I will clearly tell you that you never understand the logic and methods of any profession until you have spent time doing that job.

Let me clearly tell you that you're wrong.
Anyone can understand the logic/methods by reading/training.
Knowledge isn't magically imparted upon LEOs when they put on a badge.
On the job training may have been the only way to learn some things
100 years ago, but not anymore.

You have been responding to the post I have made with an attitude that I have seen often, but unfornately I can't respond with my normal response which would be " tell it to the judge" as the rear door to the patrol car slams.....

I called you on some nonsense, so it must be that I'm a rabid LEO hating know it all suspect ... I'll bet all you see is suspects, antagonistic rhetorical suspects you want to reach through the screen because they dare disagree

 

[tom19176]

Just10minreader, the NYCPD Academy trains it new memebers for 9 months, and when they hit the streets, they are still shaking when they deal with the public. You think in the world of today you can read a few laws and get trained and know someone else's profession? Do your parents know your on the computer this early in the morning?

Spend a few years arresting people, dealing with family disputes, telling a parent their teen died in a car crash, removing kids from unfit drug abuser parents, sit on a witness stand in open court for a two hours answering questions of every details involved in an arrest you made two years earlier, pull over a van load of 7 20 year old illegals in Brooklyn at two in the morning, run up into shooting in a public housing project floors above you because someone was hit who needs help and you may be able to caught the shooter as a side benefit....do any of these things and then make your comments.
In plain English....GROW UP.

 

[lwsii]

I drive a bullwagon (18 wheeler/livestock) from the SE US (FL-SC) across to TX, KS, & OK for the last 20+ years. Probably engage law enforcement of some sort 12-15 times a year, last time I had any kind of attitude with one was 1985 in Forney, TX & I've always carried a 3.5" clipped in rt pocket & last couple years a 3" on my left (both Terzuola) Never had a problem, pretty much as a rule, the longer (timewise) the greater the odds that they will temporarily hold them for me until we finish. Cattle haulers come under a lot of scrutiny in some areas, but so far the knives have been a non-issue, even the few times I wound up detained (arrested) they have always been returned along with everything else.

Not sure as to the relevance of any of that, but on the one hand I have a lot of exposure, on the other, they know pretty quick that I don't have a dangerous history.

So far, I've never minded giving them up (temporarily) & they've never minded giving them back.

 

[TOM1960]

pat down.... no badge.... no teeth.

I would love to see the hag try to pat down or take a knife away from an OMG member (Vagos, Mongols, Hells Angels, etc.). She would REALLY end up with no teeth and maybe a few other missing body parts. Some people have little tolerance for harassment.

 

[TOM1960]

This is a naive and unfortunate attitude. You have a right to go about your business without being stopped and questioned, unless the police need information from you.

I was stopped one evening by a police officer, who was immediately joined by another. They asked for my ID and asked me what I was doing there. (Crossing the street to go home on the other side of the street. )

Meanwhile, they attracted a nice crowd, everybody staring and wondering what I had done. Nothing to lose ... except my reputation?

On another occasion, two officers stopped in front of my building where I was sitting on the front steps and asked if they could speak with me. Sure. Got up, walked over, both stayed in the vehicle. Looked from a distance like a friendly chat.

There is a right way and a wrong way, and for an officer to decide he can treat anyone like a suspect, even when he hasn't got any particular crime in mind, is not good.

Do you live in a small town? I do. Besides stuffing down donuts, slurping (probably free) coffee and harassing the local teenagers, the cops here really have nothing much to do. The "real" crime rate here is so low as to barely register on the meter!

 

[liston13]

As everyone experience is different. I come from the philosophy that Police Officers are there "To Protect and Serve"
A Soldiers job is to "Close Quarter and Kill"
they are not synonymous

my $.02

 

[phaserrifle]

a knife clip alone would certainly be grounds over here (the uk)

however it strikes me that searching you due to the visible fact that you are carrying a knife, while the officer has reason to believe you may have been involved in a crime, is very different from removing your right to carry a knife (which would be something far longer lasting, such as arresting you because you have a knife)

course I could be wrong, I don't have the right to start with

 

[phi]

I don't think it needs to be a much of an issue as everyone is making it out to be. I was walking home late one night. I got stopped by an officer. I made him aware that I was carrying a leatherman. He ran my ID and then let me go.

 

[Josh K]

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.

Not sure if I should bring up this dead-ish topic, but I wouldn't feel comfortable handing my knife to a LEO just to talk with him/her. To often it leads to "Give me your name and address and we'll see about getting this back to you." :thumbdn:

Now I'm not saying I would really have a choice in the matter, but I definitely wouldn't want to.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Not sure if I should bring up this dead-ish topic, but I wouldn't feel comfortable handing my knife to a LEO just to talk with him/her. To often it leads to "Give me your name and address and we'll see about getting this back to you." :thumbdn:
Now I'm not saying I would really have a choice in the matter, but I definitely wouldn't want to.

this is based on what exactly?

first hand experience? some story you heard?