Ammo For Sale

« « Mexican Drone Crashes in El Paso Backyard | Home | Cool » »

First amendment rights as probable cause

Officer says bumper sticker on car is probable cause for search. And also cause for three officers to show as backup.

41 Responses to “First amendment rights as probable cause”

  1. ZK Says:

    This was a Terry stop. It permits the Officer to do a very limited patdown to search for weapons when criminal activity is reasonably suspected. Probable cause is not required. The car was not searched.

  2. Robert Says:

    Everything we know about the police we learn FROM the police.

    This is an easy ticket to make disappear, as most of them are.

    1. Ask for jury trial and exhibit enthusiasm for the jury selection process. Ask if you can come watch some earlier jury pools so you can learn about the process! Tell the judge you can’t wait! Tell him you hope he’ll help you! Ask if you can make a youtube video of the process! (These people work for you, after all.)

    2. File an affidavit for discovery. You’ll need all tapes, recordings, written materials, et. You’ll need the arresting officers last 100 tickets to see if he is a racist or biased against left-handers or blondes, et. You also need to see the maintainence and training logs and records of the speed guns, cameras, et, plus the employment records of the officer and ALL responding officers to see if any of them are drunks, drug addicts, on probation for civilian assaults, et. You’ll need possession of the speed gun for 10 days so your experts can test it of course. Don’t forget to ask for all this in regards to those extra responding officers. You’ll want to hear their recorded radio conversations to each other.

    In about a month you will get a letter dismissing all charges in the interest of judicial time and resources. It’s just about the money. Make yourself an impediment to the flow and they will spit you out of the system.

  3. Robert Says:

    I would think ought to ask the agency for permission to ask the officers for their VOLUNTARY appearance on a youtube video featuring this stop so they can explain everything to the public. They will hiss and shrink back like vampires confronted with a crucifix, but they will be on notice.

  4. Kristopher Says:

    The Scotus has determined that a traffic stop is not an excuse for a terry frisk.

    In order to do a terry frisk, you have to detain the subject first. In order to detain, you have to have an RAS, a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.

    The cops are trying to use a bumper sticker as an RAS. These cops need to be sued.

    Pay the traffic tickets, then get a lawyer.

  5. Rivrdog Says:

    Was the officer stupid enough to actually write that Probable Cause down? Most of them have learned all the old chestnuts such as, “his license plate seemed obscured to me” or “he weaved some within his lane” or somesuch.

    If the cop actually wrote that down, I would immediately consult an attorney specializing in free speech rights. That sort of discrimination can’t be allowed to stand unchecked.

    At the least, the attorney will write a letter to the Chief demanding a response, and maybe, just maybe, the “pound of flesh” you are looking for can be gotten by having the entire Dept, from the chief on down, sent back to school to actually Learn THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH THEY ARE SWORN TO DEFEND.

    A word to the wise here, though, you will go much farther in life without having your principles tested at every turn because you wear them on your sleeve. Make your case where it will do some good, and bumper-stickers are too loose an approach to do that with. That’s just urban street smarts.

  6. MrSatyre Says:

    A whole lotta to-do about nothing.

  7. donkey show Says:

    This is wrong on so many levels.
    If only I could make shit up as I go along on my job. But I can’t because I’ll get FIRED.
    If a bumper sticker is enough then so is a t-shirt or a hat depicting any kind of firearm related subject matter.

  8. ATLien Says:

    you make this too complicated by half. hunt the cop like an animal and shoot him like the tyrant power-hungry bastard he is.

    you’re welcome.

  9. John Smith. Says:

    What is not addressed is the fact that the speeder tried making things more complicated then they need be. Asserting your right to remain silent when the officer is inquiring about a weapon is very suspect. I do not go out of my way to bait an officer… My reaction good or bad is based on the officers manner and professionalism. The only reason the car was searched was because the speeder decided to be a pain in the ass which pissed the cop off. Sure what the cop did was illegal but when you bait officers then you risk such things happening. You can tell this is bad when I would side with the cops over the speeder.. Any of you who know my posts realize the no loss of love between me and the authorities. Bottom line don’t be a dick because you got caught speeding….

  10. Paul Says:

    And THIS is why I don’t have bumper stickers. And if I was to travel to such as NY or Mass. I’d just get a bumper sticker that says ‘Obama 1012’ and another one that says ‘save the whales’.

  11. Wolfwood Says:

    The driver was a jackass; the officer was absolutely correct. The driver had just broken the law, and the officer was entitled to issue him a citation without having to worry about getting shot. Instead, he was faced with an offender who he reasonably suspected might be armed and who was being uncooperative.

    Had this been a stop where there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (here, the speeding; legal analysis usually treats traffic offenses as misdemeanors for procedural purposes), the driver would’ve been free to keep silent and to have remained free from searching. What’s worth noting is that this is a situation where the driver had put himself in the wrong and where an officer of the law legitimately had gained certain special rights.

    This is an easy ticket to make disappear, as most of them are.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’re not a criminal attorney. Your state might do things differently from mine, but the whole “jackass your way into a dismissal” doesn’t work very well. What you’re likely to do is to turn a situation where the cop relates the facts to the judge and the judge scolds you and knocks your speeding to nine miles over to one where the prosecutor gets involved and starts asking for the max.


  12. Wolfwood Says:

    And just as a reminder, if your speeding ticket does not involve jail time (either because the statute doesn’t allow for it or because it isn’t sought), you don’t have the right to either get a jury trial or to have an attorney appointed if you can’t afford one.

    You huffing and puffing absolutely will not help. At best, the judge will stare off into space and then just give you the standard penalty. What’s more likely is that he will feel as though you don’t regret your offense and will not be lenient. You might also wind up getting the cop or prosecutor to dig in their heels. If you want to up your chances of a dismissal, show contrition. If you don’t feel contrite, you can marginally increase your chances of getting a better outcome by appealing the court’s decision (although you can sometimes get a worse outcome, too).

    If you have a legitimate excuse (a semi was about to merge into you so you had to speed) or a bogus-but-acceptable excuse (“my speedometer was off and I had a mechanic say so in this note”), those tend to work fairly well. Potential officer misconduct after a legitimate stop isn’t going to even be admissible because it’s irrelevant as to whether you were speeding.

    As for the attempted intimidation/pain through discovery by a criminal defendant…no. Not a chance. In my state, you wouldn’t get a single thing you asked for from that list. Even in the most open states, most of that list is going to be covered by presumptions (meaning you get nothing). You could always try FOIA, but if it’s just a fishing expedition the judge isn’t going to continue your case long enough for you to get your response. You’d need to file a civil suit, and that’s going to either take a lot of money or a lawyer who thinks he can get a big settlement from the police. Absent a credible likelihood of racial profiling, that just isn’t going to happen.


  13. donkey show Says:

    He was speeding got caught deserves a ticket no question. There is no law that says you can’t be a jackass. Does this officer search every person and car he pulls over? Does he use it as a way to extract revenge for someone being a jackass (uncooperative)?

    I agree with Rivrdog “Learn THE CONSTITUTION”

  14. blounttruth Says:

    The cop was clearly in the wrong. The driver had violated a traffic law which is non criminal in nature. After he exercised his right to remain silent he forgot to inform the officer that he did not submit to any searches (which if anything was found would have assisted him in court at a later time). The officer had NOT gained any special rights as no law had been broken other than speeding, nor is exercising your first amendment right by displaying said bumper sticker probable cause. He should have responded by saying “officer, I wish to remain silent at this time, I do not submit to any search of my person or property, am I being detained or am I free to go” (ask the last question several times as this will also help in court if there was no reason of suspicion for criminal activity). If he was asked to step out of the vehicle then he should have rolled up his windows and locked his doors on the way out as well. As it has been captured on film, a search can sometimes end up with a officer planting drugs or other incriminating evidence on the person or in the automobile as they must make their quota, so the best rule of thumb is to not talk to an officer at all, and only use the above to avoid incriminating yourself and protecting yourself from the rolling tax collectors that will do anything to make a case for the D.A. Although he could ask for a trial by jury since the 7th amendment gives one a right when there is a fine exceeding $20.00, he would be foolish to evoke the 7th for a simple speeding ticket, he should just pay and thank the stars he did not get drugs planted on him.

  15. Wolfwood Says:


    As far as I can tell, every single thing you just said is incorrect.


    1. Reminding the LEO of the 4th Amendment does nothing for your rights at trial.

    2. What happened here was not a “stop” under the 4th Amendment. It was a patdown for concealed weapons conducted for officer safety. An officer has the right to do such a patdown when he is issuing criminal process (which includes a traffic ticket). See Terry v. Ohio.

    3. The standard for a Terry stop is not probable cause. It is reasonable, articulable suspicion.

    4. Neither this guy’s 1st nor 4th Amendment rights were violated. He was not compelled to speak and he was not criminally punished for his speech. He was also not searched under the meaning in the 4th Amendment.

    5. Where did you get the $20 figure? SCOTUS has said that even $1,000 doesn’t require a jury trial (see Blanton v. City of Las Vegas). Virginia and Vermont allow it for every offense, but Georgia doesn’t.

    6. Remember that if you lose a jury trial you have to pay the costs associated with it. And in this case, where the stop was 100% legit, you will lose. Remember: the question is whether or not a traffic offense was committed; any subsequent illegality, if any, doesn’t affect that.

    Are there any other criminal attorneys here who would like to weigh in and confirm my analysis? I’m shocked at the number of people who have absolutely zero idea how the criminal justice system works.

  16. lounttruth Says:

    You know what they say about assumptions don’t you?

    1. I never stated to say anything at all, in the least quoting amendments to a LEO that would have as much understanding of the constitution as they would getting blue prints for the space shuttle.

    2. What happened was a traffic stop and the officer’s misuse/abuse of probable cause based on a sticker on his car. Any officer that pulls anyone over should suspect that the individual is armed and is trained to do so, but this does not give him/her carte blanche for a search without cause.

    3. Terry v. Ohio – You can’t do a terry pat on someone just because you think he has a weapon. The courts have ruled officer safety is paramount but you need something more than a mere hunch. The hunch that you have should be related to a crime that:
    Is about to be committed, is being committed, or will be committed. What crime was this individual “about” to commit?

    4. This individual was searched because of a sticker on his automobile, and whiles not a violation of any right it was used to conduct a search on his person. His exercise of his 1st amendment was used against him; I never said it was violated. So far as his 4th amendment right I never mentioned it or any other being violated, just used against him for exercising it. Can you please site the law which “requires” one to speak to an officer?

    5. Unfortunately for SCOTUS the constitution is the supreme law, and if one were to actually read the 7th amendment it clearly states verbatim:

    “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

    It is a shame that lawyers spend 1 semester learning the constitution and the other 6.5 years learning how to circumvent it.

    6. Here I agree with you 100% as my post clearly states. The individual has the “right” to a trial by jury, but I wouldn’t recommend it as stated in my original post.

    I do understand how the “legal system” (personal 2004 oxymoron of the year) works and how it is used against society against the ideals of the framers. The entire post was not about a trial, but what to do if pulled over. So as a criminal attorney you recommend to all your clients to comply verbally and tell the officers all they know so to make your job easy when they incriminate themselves, right? Here is a site that many LEO have incorporated in their training, perhaps this will help you defend someone, God forbid.

  17. Wolfwood Says:

    There is a LOT of really bad advice by non-lawyers in this thread and on the linked thread as to what to do when stopped. You should consult a criminal defense attorney (I’m a prosecutor, so it’s not like this makes things easier for me) if you find yourself in a similar situation or are concerned that you might find yourself in one.

    Important cases in this area include Terry v. Ohio and Hiibel v. Nevada.


  18. Hartley Says:

    Yeah, wolfwood, we really need to know that it’s the best thing to do, when confronted by an “officer of the law” is just submit meekly and do absolutely everything they ask, whether legal or otherwise. I’m sure you support dropping your drawers and bending over for TSA, too.
    Prosecutor, eh? You live in a VERY priviledged corner of the law – as we all discovered a few years ago when someone falsely accused a few Lacrosse players of rape. Perhaps if you were in a somewhat more vulnerable position (say, “ordinary citizen”) you might feel differently.

  19. Triassa Says:

    Bad prosecutors will need to be lumped with bad cops when these things are finally settled, and the Bill of Rights is finally re-enstated. That process may not occur in the courts or in an orderly manner, unfortunately, thanks to apologists for state abuses.

    The public has been abused by power-hungry would-be Nazis for too long.

  20. Dawnfire Says:


    The right to a jury in civil suits involving $20 or more has never been incorporated.

    If you don’t know what that means, stop trying to lecture people about Constitutional law.

    BTW, law school is 3 years.

  21. MAJ Mike Says:

    My experience has been that if I’m cooperative and polite, the officer responds in kind. Could be the U.S. Army Retired sticker on the back window, but be that as it may so far I haven’t had a confrontation with an asshole with a badge.

    As I have a Concealed Carry permit, I present it with my driver’s liscense and proof of insurance whether I’m carrying or not.

    Police deal with a lot of arrogant assholes every day, I feel that I don’t have to add to that talley.

  22. Dave G Says:

    I once saw a vanity license plate in PA that read “I CARRY”. The driver was a woman.

  23. Paul B Says:

    The guy was speeding. And then chose to get snarky. I would have dragged him from the car and clubbed him senseless.

    Course I’m not a LEO nor do I represent any.

    If you are asked if you are carrying, answering truthfully will get you a lot farther that smarting off.

    The cop was not in the wrong, as I will restate, THE GUY WAS SPEEDING.

    I know all you law abiding folks out there never speed and always yield to old ladies and kids. But if you get stopped remember two things:

    Always be polite and truthfull

    Never volunteer information.

    You will do fine in a stop.

    Don’t be an ass.

  24. pcrh Says:

    From following the link, it looks like (from the limited info available) the cop asked if the driver had a gun, and the driver refused to answer. What do you expect the cop to do? I say this as a COMPLETE supporter of the second amendment and the individual right to have guns.

    I don’t know the law in Georgia, but in TX, if you are carrying a gun and a cop asks if you’re armed, you have to tell them. You also have to show them your permit when they ask for your ID, whether they’ve asked you about guns or not. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

  25. Gunstar1 Says:

    Lets inject a little bit of fact into the conversation…

    In Georgia you do not have to inform an officer that you are carrying a firearm.

    In Georgia the crime of speeding does not give an officer the power to search you or your car for a firearm. The officer must have an “objectively reasonable” belief that the occupant of the vehicle is “potentially dangerous.” You don’t have to take my word for it, this was the ruling of State v. Jones (2008)

  26. spool32 Says:

    This is the law Arizona uses to stop people suspected of being in the country illegally.

  27. Hartley Says:

    spool32, WTF are you talking about? The Arizona law (SB1070) applies only AFTER an officer stops someone for other reasons – it does not enable any sort of stop or detention based on immigration status, suspected or otherwise.

  28. Mystery Meat Says:

    When I took my CCW class a couple years ago, the instructor advised us to do what he does. If he is stopped by the police when driving his car, he rolls down all the windows, turns on the interior lights (if it’s dark out), takes out his drivers license, proof of insurance, and CCW permit and holds them in his hands, which stay on steering wheel until the officer gets to the car. The first thing he tells the officer is that he is legally carrying a concealed weapon and then offers his documents to the officer.

    I understand that it may be iffy legally and annoying to be questioned based on a bumper sticker, but I have a cop in my family. He just wants to get home in one piece to see his wife and kids. Cops do not like surprises. You need to pick your battles.

  29. TexasDude Says:

    Robert is wrong. Discovery in a trial over a traffic ticket is not an immediate dismissal. Not in my town of about 44K in North Texas. Matter of fact, discovery will be acccepted if it is done in proper time and format. That is the law in Texas. Supposedly, the theory goes, if you inundate a municipal agency with gross amounts of paperwork on traffic tickets, they will make it go away because it is supposedly not worth the effort. Funny thing is, it doesn’t work that way … at all. What you think this is 1975 with high crime rates? This isn’t Hill Street Blues. Real life means that trial will occur and verdicts will be given. Only the most lazy muni-judge will throw something out to due paperwork and time.

  30. TexasDude Says:

    “This individual was searched because of a sticker on his automobile, and whiles not a violation of any right it was used to conduct a search on his person. His exercise of his 1st amendment was used against him; I never said it was violated”

    Well, then, what’s the beef? The sticker ALONE was NOT used to frisk him. His refusal to answer COUPLED with the sticker alarmed the officer.

    This was not a mere hunch, but reasonable suspicion. A mere hunch would have been the sticker alone or even the refusal alone. Put them together and they build into something more.

    Heck, the time of day or night, the area he came from, the kind of car he was driving, and many other things could also been used to develop reasonable suspicion.

    Lastly, as has been noted above, if you don’t want a cop to get into your business, then don’t do things to attract the cops and then don’t do things to further keep them in your business!


  31. blounttruth Says:

    I am not sure where anyone gets from my above posts that I am giving legal advice, only advise of how to respond when getting pulled over to protect one’s self. The remark about X years to get a law degree was a sarcastic comment, so attempting to flame me will not work as well as responding to me that everything I said was wrong by skewing mywords. For those that have never been confronted by an overzealous D.A. then I think that is great; I however have dealt with the worst scum of the earth dirt bag that prosecuted my daughter for telling a D.A. the truth, and her innocence mattered not. To further his own career and keep his numbers up he railroaded her even though she had gone out of her way to make sure that she did the right thing. It only takes one time to involve one ’s self with these types that go against the working class in America for their own power and greed and I can assure you that you will want to know your rights, as they will lie, cheat, and steal to get their conviction. I listened to this recording 3 times today and never once heard the individual get smart with the officer at all, in fact he was very cooperative in all he did, while evoking his right to remain silent and in GA there is no law that requires one to inform an officer that they are armed, he followed directions to the letter and never once resisted. The officer on the other hand clearly shows he is as informed about the constitution as your local Burger King cashier which is to be expected today as even our political leaders have no respect for the document they swore to protect and defend.

    I do not wish anyone here harm nor hold anything against them, I just feel that they have an un-American vision of what their “society” should be, and it is not one of individual liberty and freedom, but rather persecuting their brothers for profit, and personal advancement. The individual pulled over was very polite, did not resist, and it is very telling when those here that took an oath to defend and protect the constitution think exercising his rights was akin to “being an asshole” in today’s environment of good people labeled as terrorists for political purposes. What is also very telling is those that are immune to the laws i.e. above the law because of title of nobility, instruct the sheep to always comply and not EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS. So long as one does not know what their rights are you can rest assured these people will trample them at every turn. I understand that LEO’s encounter the worst of the worst and are trained to treat everyone as if they are a threat, but the constitution last I checked is still in effect, yet those that do not know better have allowed officers to conduct themselves as masters as opposed to servers and protectors, this is the very reason that many LEO are frowned upon by many law abiding citizens. They are simply doing what they are told, and those telling them have turned a legal system into a for profit ponzy scheme, and you can bet these individuals attend church every Sunday more for image than for learning as the bible has also turned into a “living document” to suit whatever they desire, and right in time for this debate Pastor Baldwin speaks to these very things.
    It is only because of the first amendment that we can debate this at all, and yet it is constantly under attack as is the second, yet many here think that the 2nd will save them when all else is lost. I am glad that it is a minority that think those of us that support the 2nd are “being an asshole”, but someone has to be or else we will not have a constitution to argue about.

    “Ye shall…proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof;” Leviticus 25:10

    “Ye shall not therefore oppress one another…” Leviticus 25:17

    “…the LORD will abhor the…decietful man.” Psalms 5:6

    Isaiah 6:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;

  32. Polybius Says:

    I am going to assume that the lawyers are correct about how things work and that the guy would get screwed if he tried to assert his rights in court. I am also going to assume that the laymen are correct that the lawyers need to be dragged out into the streets and hanged from lamp posts for perverting our system and Constitution to the point that this is how things are done.

    There, now everyone should be happy!

  33. TexasDude Says:

    You know, if folks like the Texas Republic wouldn’t shoot down officers for a traffic stop, then maybe the police could more like Andy Taylor in Mayberry.

  34. TexasDude Says:

    Note … Amendment 7 of the Constitution is about Civil Law, hence the heading … “Trial by Jury in Civil Case”

    Don’t know about Georgia, but in Texas a traffic violation is a criminal offense. A traffic can be deemed a civil infraction, but it is rare and mostly about red-light camera offenses.

  35. TexasDude Says:

    It appears from a brief perusal of Georgia’s traffic laws …

    Look under Title 40

    That a traffic violation is a misdemeanor.

    In my book, that means it is a criminal offense and not a civil offense.

  36. Cousin Dave Says:

    But TexasDude, if you ask any judge in any state, they will tell you that you do not have the right to a jury trial in a traffic case because it is a civil matter. They will tell you that you do not have right of discovery because it is a civil matter. They will tell you that you cannot appeal their decisions because it is a civil matter.

    So is it civil or is it criminal? Or do the authorities get to pick whichever one they want, depending on what gives them the advantage in any given situation?

  37. blounttruth Says:

    Great point TexasDude! Do you ever wonder why the 20 cops in 50 square miles that are running radar are not in high crime areas protecting the people? It is because the poor provide no profit for the system, and are truly dangerous. Imagine if we ended the failed war on drugs and focused those funds on these areas how much better our nation would be. Here is just a taste what my teenage girls might encounter should the dollar collapse, and it is all thanks to the for profit legal system versus the true rule of law and the constitution.

  38. Wolfwood Says:

    Cousin Dave,

    I’ve never heard of traffic violations being treated as civil. Depending on the state (and the offense), they’re going to be either criminal or quasi-criminal and you’re going to follow criminal procedure. You do have the right to discovery, but it’s criminal discovery and not civil discovery and will vary on a state-by-state basis. A lot of things will be governed by presumptions, e.g. a presumption that a radar gun that has been calibrated before and after use is accurate in between.

    The reason you don’t get a jury trial is because there’s nothing in the US Constitution requiring one (although a few states have their own laws that do require it if demanded). To get a jury trial in a criminal case, the bright line is whether you’re in jeopardy of being put in jail for over six months. If the statute doesn’t authorize more time than that, you don’t get a jury trial. The judge can often also elect to proceed with a bench trial, knowing that he can’t sentence the defendant to more than six months.

    Here, people are not understanding the difference between criminal and civil law and issues. The criminal case for this incident pretty much ends after the officer determines that the suspect has broken the law and that he was the one driving the vehicle. Because no charges were filed in connection with the frisk or the plain-view search of the car (both of which do not fall under the “unreasonable” category of searches which the 4th Amendment prohibits), that entire portion of the stop is irrelevant to the criminal case. The civil case, which will be heard separately, deals with whether the officer acted outside the scope of his authority in frisking the suspect.

  39. flicka47 Says:

    I don’t know what state you are in but less than 30 years ago in California you could get a jury trial for a traffic ticket. Now you can’t even get a real judge…

    Ahhh, a Terry “stop” was decided under a 4th Amend case…Cops have been abusing it ever since.

    Whaat’s that line about a conservative being a liberal mugged by reality? Those of you conseling “Don’t do anything wrong…” just haven’t had the pleasure of dealing with a cop while doing nothing wrong…Your day will come.

  40. PD Quig Says:

    Maybe Bill Ayers and crew had it right: “Off the Pigs!”?

  41. The Juice Says:

    Wolfwood, I’m a defense attorney in Nevada. I agree with your analysis here, and share your frustration with the bad legal advice (“Piss off the DA and the judge and they’ll shriek in terror over the wasted resources and dismiss your case!”) being tossed around.

    This was not this cop’s proudest moment. I think he pushed the line not so much in his frisk, but in his nosing around of the car afterward. (Had contraband been found during that search, the search would be iffy enough to warrant a suppression motion, but it would likely lose.) The fact that he tacked on the ticket for the license plate light was just petty. He also needs to hit the gym – a guy that out-of-shape simply cannot physically meet the demands of his job, and a slovenly and unprofessional appearance suggests he’s probably not particularly keen on attention to detail…

    But I don’t think he did anything illegal. I appreciate the point of view of the cops I talk to every day, most of whom are true professionals, who say they’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. In all of the ways government intrudes on our lives in ways it shouldn’t, this is WAY at the bottom of my list of things to be worked up about.

    The First Amendment doesn’t protect you from the consequences of speech you chose to make. If you had a bumper sticker that said, “Hey, copper – I like to carry guns sometimes!”, there are going to be consequences associated with that, like heightened suspicion on the part of law enforcement when they see your statement. If you choose to remain silent, do so, but in this case, HE DID NOT. He was observed breaking the law, and was stopped. He made a statement in the form of his sticker, and then got coy with a cop who has seen a lot of training videos with dash-cams recording the final moment of a patrol officer who let his guard down. Dumb, and hardly the way to build political sympathy or respect for the Second Amendment and its advocates.