Image courtesy of Jeffrey Smith

[Ed. note - This is the final part of a six part DUI Training series. Prior articles covered One Leg Stand, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Walk and Turn, Vehicle in Motion and Personal Contact.]

In my previous articles on D.U.I. investigations I tried to refresh and condense the basics of locating, contacting, and testing suspected impaired drivers. In no way should an officer read over my articles and feel like they’re trained up on NHTSA approved D.U.I. investigations. To get proper training you need to attend a 24 to 40- hour course that specifically teaches the NHTSA approved principles and includes practical exercises.

My hope is that the articles will encourage those who do not have that training to obtain it, and to renew the interest of those who have been trained to once again go on the hunt for those careless drivers that wreak havoc on our roadways.

This article is meant to look outside of the standard training and refresher information and consider officer safety and other important considerations when conducting D.U.I. investigations.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

It all starts with our first observations of a vehicle in motion (or not – think crash or the driver passed out behind the wheel at the green light) that begins our first suspicions that we may be dealing with an intoxicated driver. The decision to stop should be based upon observed violations, probable cause, or at a minimum reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. As I’ve said before, if you’re proficient with the administration of the SFST’s the defense attorney will attack the stop itself. If successful in attacking the reason for the stop, then anything after that will be fruit of the poisonous tree and will not be admitted.

If you haven’t noticed in recent years there is a very common question that is coming out of the State and Federal courts around the country. That question is – were the officers reasonable in their actions?

By now you should be very familiar with the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor (1989) and its implications on how law enforcement is viewed by the courts and the public. This case was a very important victory for law enforcement as it set the national standard that courts must view an officer’s actions based upon the objective reasonable test when viewed in the eyes of a reasonable officer faced with similar circumstances.

In essence the Supreme Court said that subjective (Monday-morning quarterbacking) by courts was not allowed. The decision of reasonableness is based on the totality of the circumstances, and it is viewed from the officer’s perspective at the time of action.

However, there is another “reasonable” test that has been around much longer than the Graham ruling. That test is called common sense. When officers take an objective and practical approach to everything they do, they can easily defend their actions using the common sense test. Sometimes common sense will cause officers to step outside of normal procedures because to stay within procedures would be considered unreasonable. A great example is handcuffing an elderly or injured person with their hands in front of their body instead of behind them.

ROADSIDE COMMON SENSE

In regards to DUI investigations the rule of common sense will come into play on a routine basis and should weigh heavily in an officer’s mind when making decisions. Throughout my training in DUI investigations a saying was repeated to help officers determine if conducting the tests were reasonable – “would I want my mother, sister, (etc.) tested under these circumstances”. Here are a few of the most common considerations and suggestions when conducting DUI investigations:

WEATHER – If the weather makes conducting the SFST’s roadside impractical or downright dangerous, than don’t do them roadside. An example is when its raining heavily, snowing, high wind gusts, extremely cold, etc. I have conducted SFST’s in a light rain, and can articulate why – if it’s lightly raining we all are going to get wet moving to and from our cars so it is not unreasonable to get a little wet doing the tests. I will document the conditions, including the fact that the surface of the test was wet but not overflowing in water.

NHTSA does recommend a hard, “dry” surface, so the amount of rain is a pivotal decision maker. In a moderate or heavy rain, performing the tests lacks common sense and an alternative location must be found. Same goes for other weather extremes. Where I’m from, winter temperatures can drop to below zero with wind chills in the negative temperatures. I don’t even want to be in that weather for long, so it is entirely unreasonable for me to expect my subject to. Richard and Randall live in sunny Florida, where hurricanes occasionally visit. I would not recommend administrating SFST’s in such conditions.

ROAD HAZARDS – I have the luxury of working in a medium size suburb of a large metropolitan area. As such, most of our roads provide ample and safe locations for testing DUI subjects. Many in law enforcement have to deal with rural roadways in less than ideal locations. As a general rule do not conduct SFST tests on hills (NHTSA says relatively flat surface), curves in roads, on bridges (creates a whole new meaning to “falling down drunk”), on dirt or gravel (NHTSA says relatively hard surface), or any other roadway condition that presents an obvious hazard to you and the subject.

Try to conduct the tests in a well lit area, but obviously in rural areas the lights from your patrol car and flashlight may be your only source of light. Another consideration about roadways is that most of them are not very level. There is an engineering feature of roads that causes them to be several inches higher in the center of the roadway than on the sides. This allows for greater water removal through the use of gravity. For some roads the rise is almost imperceivable, but others it is blatantly obvious. Consider using an adjacent sidewalk or parking lot.

TESTING LOCATION – There is a lot of debate about where we conduct the SFST’s when roadside. I always wanted to get the tests on video, which required the subject and I to be in front of my patrol vehicle, and usually behind their vehicle. For obvious reasons this becomes somewhat hazardous on highways due to the threat of rear-end collision.

To counter that threat I would always back my car 2-3 car lengths back, and have my backing officer do the same behind my patrol car. By doing so I provided two vehicles, and about 5-6 car lengths of distance between the testing site and a potential rear-end collision. On lower speed roadways the distances should not need to be so drastic. Highways are dangerous and officers need to consider what is reasonable when conducting SFST’s there.

I understand that some officers will not have a backing officer so they may need to go in front of the suspect’s vehicle to conduct tests. I would still back the patrol car up a bit to provide additional buffer. Losing video of the tests is better than losing a life. Be reasonable.

REMOVING SUSPECT FROM THE SCENE – This will probably be the most contentious of the safety considerations, but the topic must be discussed. I have heard many officers say that if any of the above safety issues arises that they will simply take the suspect to the station, or to a different location to conduct the tests. This is a very sticky legal consideration and I highly recommend officers consult their local prosecutors before making a final decision on this topic.

Constitutional law says that anytime a citizen reasonably feels that they are no longer free to leave because of an officer’s actions, than they are under arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that brief detentions for car stops or investigations are legal under the 4th Amendment, so long as they do not exceed the necessary time to conduct the investigation for which the person was stopped.

It is hard to articulate that taking someone to the station or even down the road would not lead a reasonable person to believe that their freedom to leave has been taken away. As such, if the person is under arrest, many jurisdictions say that evidence obtained after the arrest cannot be used as justification for the arrest. There must be probable cause for the arrest to be valid.

This is completely different than making an arrest, reading Miranda, and obtaining a confession. It is also different than making an arrest and later obtaining fingerprints, DNA, or hair samples. The justification for arrest is probable cause, and in the previous examples there should have been probable cause to arrest prior to obtaining the additional evidence.

The difference is the SFST’s are directly linked to establishing probable cause for an arrest. Therefore, judges will most likely not allow SFST evidence that was obtained after a subject was “arrested” to be used as evidence of their intoxication. In those situations your documentation of the other stages of DUI investigation had better be sufficient to make your case.

I have consulted my local prosecutor and found a solution to this dilemma. If I have reasonable belief that the suspect is DUI based upon vehicle in motion, and personal contact (perhaps even pre-exit tests or an initial HGN in the car), and there are safety considerations that prohibit SFST’s in the field, then I will arrest the driver for the original traffic violation.

Once at the station I begin a “new” investigation into the driver’s potential DUI condition and I am allowed to conduct SFST’s and include their results in making a determination to arrest the driver for the “new” offense of DUI. This solution is ONLY used as a last resort when conditions do not allow SFST’s to be conducted in the field.

Because the driver was not originally arrested for DUI, then the “new” investigation allows me to collect evidence in the subsequent charging of DUI. This would be like arresting a guy for stealing, and once at the station asking him questions about a burglary. Since the burglary is separate, if incriminating evidence is obtained, than the suspect could be charged based on that information. The officer is not, however, asking questions about the stealing after the arrest has already been made, and then using that information as the basis for arrest. Again, consult your prosecutors for guidance.

[Ed. note:  Many jurisdictions do not allow the arrest of a driver for a traffic violation, while others do.  Definitely consult your state's laws, department policies and local prosecutor's office.]

Another possible solution is to ask the driver if they would be willing to go to a different location for testing. This opens a pandora’s box as many drunks will say “no” and you’re right back in your original dilemma. However, if the driver says “yes”, than you have obtained consent to take the driver away from the stop scene, and therefore there is no arrest. SFST’s that follow will be legally allowed in court because of the consensual situation you’ve created. Consult your prosecutor on this one too, as the wording of this consent may need to be refined to ensure legal acceptance to the court.

CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SUSPECT – In being reasonable we have to realize that our suspect may not be able to perform the tests due to physical limitations. When this occurs do not be the officer that is on video forcing the grandma holding a cane to do the One-Leg-Stand. Use alternative tests, and base your decision on the totality of the circumstances (vehicle in motion, personal contact, and SFST’s) not just one test.

The NHTSA approved tests were validated as tests that scientifically could show impairment in persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, the test subjects did not include elderly or extremely overweight persons. Because of this the tests are not validated for such groups of people and officers should use common sense when conducting tests on such people. The tests are good, and HGN is not influenced by age or weight. It simply means that nobody in those groups of people were tested so they cannot say that the tests are validated for those groups.

Using the common sense approach avoid testing someone who has obvious physical impairments. Use HGN and perhaps some of the other tests I’ve mentioned and then make a sound judgement based upon all of your observations. However, just because they have a handicap does not necessarily exclude them from being tested.

One Halloween night I stopped a guy dressed like a pirate – peg leg and all. Come to find out, underneath the fake wood the guy had a fake leg. He’d had the fake leg for 10 years or more. Using common sense and reasonableness I decided that a guy who had been walking on a fake leg for 10 years should be able to perform the tests. In fact, I reasoned that because he had to compensate for a fake leg, this guy should actually be more balanced than an average person because he had to overcome his handicap to get around. Obviously I had him stand on his good leg for the One-Leg-Stand test. My reasoning was accepted in court, the tests were admitted, and he was convicted.

In the final thought it is all about what makes sense, and what is reasonable. If you can document your thought process and leave a clear mark about why and how you did things, the reasonable judge or jurist will accept those decisions and you’ll be well on your way to making your case.

On various calls I have been forced to break either car or building windows. I have used either a Monadnock PR-24 or a Monadnock AutoLock, the former was past issue and the latter is current issue. Neither was designed for this task. I have a scar to prove it.

Bust a Cap, Inc. is a company that manufactures a device that serves as an end-cap to several standard issue flashlights and batons. The cap replaces the threaded end. It is made of special steel that is made specifically for breaking glass.

Bust a Caps, which are made in the USA, are available for Streamlight and Maglite flashlights. They are also made for ASP batons. Because my Autolock has a release button on the tail, it is not compatible with the Bust a Cap.

I was issued a Streamlight Stinger, which I upgraded with a Terralux LED. I purchased a Bust a Cap for my Stinger for under $10 on sale from an on-line retailer. The MSRP is less than $20.

With a flashlight, you must affix the “o-ring” from the original cap on to the Bust a Cap so the light stays waterproof. The Bust a Cap had room for the spare bulb, if you are still incandescent.

In the product photographs provided by the manufacturer, the Bust a Cap’s tip looked awfully pointy. I worried about it puncturing the leather of my flashlight holder. When I received the cap, it was less sharp at the point than in the pictures.

I am very happy add some use to an already existing piece of kit that I carry daily. Our SWAT guys were given inexpensive spring-loaded keychain window breakers. Because it was just one more thing to carry, the keychain ended up riding in my seat bag.

To break a window, the Bust a Cap is tapped firmly into the glass to shatter it. Strenuous force is not needed. Videos on their website show proper application of the cap to a window.

The most likely windows targeted by a Bust a Cap will be car side windows. For these the cap is ideal. It is recommended to wear gloves, long sleeves, and eye protection if available.

I think the Bust a Cap adds a very useful tool to my Stinger. I will offer my personal opinion that in an emergency, if I have to use my flashlight as an impact weapon, the conical tip provided by the Bust a Cap gives a nice striking surface.

The Bust a Cap is inexpensive insurance should you need it. Use safety protective equipment when you can, but at least be aware of the dangers if you have to improvise and use such a tool in an emergency. Stay tuned and I’ll talk about types of glass and window breaking in my next article.

Randall is a twenty-three year sworn police officer in a mid-sized Florida police department. He has been an FTO, K9 Handler, Detective and SWAT Team Leader. He is currently the Midnight Shift K9 Sergeant and department SWAT Coordinator.

In Florida, the camera-issued tickets have a small fine, whereas the officer-issued tickets have a much higher fine, plus points on the driver’s license.

According to the judge, ”This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Florida Constitution.”

This ruling is not binding on other traffic courts, but it will certainly be used by many a defense attorney as a (very) persuasive argument for their clients’.  I expect this case to be appealed by the

Personally, I have never liked the red-light cameras.  I’ve always felt they remove officer discretion, which can make a huge difference.  For example, I’m a lot less likely that the automated camera to issue a ticket to a husband trying to get his pregnant wife to the hospital.

When they first started popping up, I thought the cameras may have some positive impact on decreasing fatality accidents, but I have long since determined that local government merely sees them as another revenue stream.

In the In-line and Off-set methods of patrol car placement the officer has full, or at least partial use of the take-down lights on the light bar. In the Angled or Canted method the officer can only count on a minimal amount of light from the take-downs, however the overall lighting effect may still be blinding to the violator.

If you use the Angled/Canted method like I do, where do you put your spotlight? I’m personally a fan of putting the spotlight on the rear window of the violator’s vehicle. This method provides me the greatest idea of what is going on inside, especially when there are multiple occupants.

From training I find that position to be the most invasive method and really shuts down the occupants ability to see what I’m doing. I know that leaves the driver’s mirror open, which is usually the other method used for the spotlight, but that’s why I carry a flashlight. I’ve found that if I do put the spotlight on the driver’s mirror, and then conduct a driver’s side approach, that I end up walking into my own beam and thus eliminate any benefit from the spotlight. I can accomplish the mirror blinding with my flashlight and still blind occupants and illuminate the interior by placing the spotlight on the rear window.

If I do a passenger side approach, the spotlight on the driver’s mirror does me little good, but illuminating the rear window can have great effect. These considerations should be made whenever making stops. Regardless or your preferred method we should aim at giving ourselves the greatest advantage in every tactical situation, and any enforcement action is a tactical situation.

How many of you use your spotlight during daylight hours? Why not? Even during the day that light is bright and powerful, and can provide at least a minimal amount of interference to the violator. If that violator is Joe-Citizen it is a minor inconvenience. If that violator is Joe-Rag-the-Dirtman than you’ve just provided one more barrier that could interfere with Dirtman’s desire to do you harm.

I have to admit that I don’t always remember to use the spotlight during daylight hours, but I’m almost always approaching the car with a flashlight in my off hand. Even during daylight hours a flashlight can have amazing effects on a violator who may appear to be turning into a threat. Many flashlights today have over 100 lumens of light, and when that light is “painted” over the suspect’s eyes, even for a short time, it gives a momentary blindness and disorientation that plays right into our game, and takes the edge from our potential adversary.

Now what about body positioning? I think most officers are taught to stand at the pillar between at the rear of the driver’s door. This provides us a good view of the interior while at the same time forcing the driver to maneuver awkwardly to turn towards us in the event of a threat. Precious seconds count, and that extra movement may be the difference we need to respond to a threat.

I’ve also seen some officers approach to the driver’s door pillar, and then re- adjust to stand in front of the A-pillar at the front of the driver’s door. The thought here is to be able to view the driver and occupants, but also keep our peripheral vision on any wayward approaching motorist. I’ve seen many Highway Patrolman use this technique and I’ve tried it a few times as well. Although, there are some advantages to this position, I personally feel that it should only be used occasionally and for short durations of time. There’s just too much exposed to the driver from that position.

Richard has touched on the passenger side approach and I will again emphasize the great tool that this is.  If able to, try the passenger side approach, and you might find that it becomes your preferred method of approach.

Society (and bad guys) is programmed for officers to approach on the driver’s side. Showing up on the passenger side has a very disarming effect on the bad guy, and usually causes all sorts of confusion to Joe Citizen. You will probably not get a better, and safer in my opinion, view of the interior of the vehicle than from the passenger’s side. I can attest to standing outside of a suspect vehicle for several minutes without anyone inside knowing that I was observing them hide dope and beer. Once contact is made, it is so devastating to the occupants’ OODA cycle that confessions and confiscations are usually very easy.

On one recent stop I observed a passenger lighting up her dope pipe. I made a passenger side approach and immediately contacted her. She stuttered so badly from being contacted first that she was all too ready to retrieve her crotched dope and pipe – ouch!

Finally, we need to tactically withdraw from a vehicle while still protecting ourselves from traffic. Obviously easier done on the passenger side, but from the driver’s side we can still take measures to provide us the greatest tactical advantage. There are really two trains of thought here: walking backwards and walking at an angle.

By walking backwards the officer maintains a full view of the occupants and is in an immediate shooting/defensive stance should the need arise. However, walking backwards is dangerous for even those who practice it a lot. And should bad man exit with intent to do harm, our first reaction may be to create distance, which makes walking backwards that much more difficult to maintain footing.

The other thought is to turn and walk almost directly back to our patrol car, but with our head and maybe shoulders slightly turned to watch the occupants on the walk back. This is a more normal walking method, but the twisting of the head and shoulders can also have an imbalanced feel to it.

Simply turning and walking back to the patrol car is unacceptable. Our busy highways and roadways would easily cover a door opening, and if we’re not aware than it’s too late.

Regardless of your withdraw method an officer should practice, practice, practice, until movements become second nature and we avoid running into vehicles, tripping or worse – walking into traffic.

Once we’re at the patrol car we can re-enter to conduct checks and complete citations, or we can stand outside of the car. If we stay in the car we need to keep our eyes on the suspect vehicle. Obviously, writing citations will take our eyes away, but those times should be brief.

As an FTO I instructed all my officers to not write more than one line on the form before looking up, and when they looked up I wanted them to take time to observe what was really going on – not just going through the motions. This seemed to work well and kept us in the loop of activities in the car in front of us.

I also instructed officers to check their mirrors frequently. There is nothing worse than having Joe Citizen who’s lost rap on your window while your dealing with Sir-Thug-A-Lot in the car ahead. Besides scaring the you know what out of you, it’s an immediate recognition of a failure of officer safety. What if that was Thug’s friends who pulled up behind you.

If you choose to stay out of the vehicle, the rear passenger side is probably the safest and most tactically sound. However, with that position on-coming traffic must be a constant concern, so I would advocate facing your patrol car and maybe using the trunk as a writing platform. That way peripheral vision may pick up that idiot about to smash your patrol car, and give you time to get out of the way. And if you use the same guidelines above, you should be looking at the suspect vehicle quite often and that should keep you on top of things.

This ideas and concepts aren’t new or innovative, but the revisiting of often neglected techniques may be the difference we need to win the violent encounter or survive the dangerous roadways. There is no magical moment when we no longer need to learn, or re-learn. The moment we stop, we actually start to lose those things we thought we knew. Think about your safety, your brothers and sisters, and get home safe to your families.

This is the video that was presented to the Grand Jury, which found the officers’ actions reasonable.  It is a combination of video from the patrol car and from a nearby surveillance camera.

Here’s what happened…

At about 2045 hours on February 16, 2010, two Albany police officers observe a vehicle make a traffic infraction.  The officers also note that the vehicle matches the description of a car involved in a recent shooting.  The officers confirm the description of the shooting vehicle matches the vehicle they see, and then make a traffic stop.

The first officer approaches the driver on the driver’s side of the vehicle.  The second officer initially remains in the car as he calls in the stop on the radio.  The second officer then approaches the vehicle on the passenger side.

When the second officer gets to the passenger compartment, he sees a handgun laying on the floorboard.  Later, it was determined the gun was a loaded .45 caliber revolver.  The second officer tries to get the attention of the first officer by calling out “Yo…yo…yo…”

The driver of the vehicle, a 37 year old on parole for a felony drug conviction, then speeds off.  Due to the roads being covered in snow, the suspect vehicle is not able to build much speed initially, and the second officer is able to stay with the vehicle.  As the first officer runs up toward the vehicle, the vehicle spins and strikes the first officer with its front bumper, throwing the first officer backward and onto the ground.

The vehicle then drives right at the first officer, who is hit a second time, and is dragged under the car.  The car ultimately pins the officer to a gate or fence nearby.

At about the time the vehicle drives at the first officer, the second officer begins shooting at the driver.  In the end, the second officer hits the driver seven times, including a shot through the neck.

EMS was on scene very quickly.  The officer pinned under the car was taken to the hospital.  After recovering from a knee injury, that officer was able to return to work.

The suspect died of his wounds.

The video is pretty darn frightening.  I’ve been hit head on by a car and it is pretty darn scary.  I was fortunate in that I was able to roll up onto the hood and off to one side.  This officer was dragged and pinned by the car.

The officers survived and the bad guy did not.  It is a win.  However, are there things that could have been done better?  How would you handle various aspects of this encounter?

Some things to consider:

1. If stopping a car for a minor infraction that matches the description of a vehicle from a shooting, how do you handle it?  I assume the officers had a description only, and not a tag number.
2. These officers were working in a two-officer car.  If you work in solo units, how would you handle the stop?
3. The stop was called in after it was made, leaving the first officer on his own during the first few seconds of contact with the suspect.  Could the stop be called in prior to the stop allowing both officers to approach at the same time?
4. The second officer was able to see the gun from the passenger side of the car, while the first officer was not able to see the gun from the driver’s side.  If acting alone, an officer using the passenger side approach would have been able to see the firearm.
5. Cops are hard-wired to pursue the wicked.  When someone rabbits, we chase.  When the suspect fled, is trying to follow on foot the best course of action?  Would returning to your squad to give chase put you in less, or more, danger?

Consider this incident and plan out several winning scenarios in your mind on how to handle the problem.  By planning now, you will be much more likely to react quickly in the best possible manner when you run into a similar situation.

Resources:

• If-Then Thinking: Visualization for Winning Fights
• Albany Times Union article on the incident

Richard is a police officer with a medium sized, central Florida department, and previously worked for a Metro-Atlanta agency.  He has served as a field training officer, court officer, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, watch commander, commander of a field training and evaluation program, and general pain in the butt to management-types looking to cut training hours.

Fortunately, the deputy was not seriously injured and the suspect was identified.  (Apologies for the pre-roll, but I did not have access to the raw footage any other way.)

Being dragged by a car, truck or motorcycle is a serious, and all too often, lethal incident.

In another case here in Florida, a woman on a DUI stop was able to get away from the investigating deputy and flee in her car.  The deputy was dragged by the car, and the deputy sustained serious injuries.  The suspect was arrested, but not before she struck and killed a motorcyclist in an intersection several miles up the road.

When dealing with someone in a vehicle, whether a traffic stop or a suspicious person in a parked car, we have to be conscious of the dangers the vehicle poses.  Yes, the vehicle can be a place to conceal a weapon, but the car itself can be a weapon also.

Be very careful when leaning or reaching into a passenger compartment.  If the driver suddenly accelerates, you could be caught and dragged.  Ever think about what would happen if a passenger or driver was to grab your arm or jacket before driving off?  If they are holding onto you, you can’t simply “let go.”

I’ve been in several situations where the driver could have caused serious injury or death to me or my partner if we hadn’t responded just right.  The most recent event was a suspicious person call in a neighborhood.  A woman was sitting in a parked car outside the house of a jail deputy.  She was concerned that the woman may be a former inmate who was seeking revenge.

As it turns out, the woman was a drunk who thought she was outside of her ex-boyfriend’s house.  When my partner tried to get her out of the car, things went downhill fast.  We had more than enough to arrest her for DUI without any voluntary SFST, so when she refused to exit, my partner decided to go ahead and arrest.

As my partner opened the driver’s door and tried to remove her seatbelt, she suddenly grabbed the gear shift, slammed it into drive and hit the accelerator.  The passenger window was open, and I literally dove in through the window (maybe not the smartest thing I’ve ever done), and jammed the gear shift into park just as she was trying to accelerate.

The net result is my partner and I both walked away from the incident, and the driver was extracted from the vehicle using that force which was reasonable in effecting the arrest.  Had she been faster, or I slower, my partner would have gotten dragged for at least some distance.

Bottom line – pay attention to what you are doing on every traffic stop.

Stay safe!

Richard is a police officer with a medium sized, central Florida department, and previously worked for a Metro-Atlanta agency.  He has served as a field training officer, court officer, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, watch commander, commander of a field training and evaluation program, and general pain in the butt to management-types looking to cut training hours.

How do you exit the patrol car? Are you deliberate every time or do you casually exit like you do any vehicle?

Exiting the car should be as critical a movement as anything you do in the car stop, because how and when you exit may be the difference you need to survive.

When I was training new officers my instructions were that they were to be prepared to exit the patrol car as soon as the suspect vehicle came to a stop. That takes a lot of preparation – calling in the stop in advance, choosing good stopping locations, timing, and good patrol car placement on a stop.

Richard posted a video of a thug who decided to shoot it out with the cops. He very quickly exited his truck after the stop and engaged both officers in the patrol car before retreating back to his truck. It only took 4.25 seconds for him to exit, walk to the back of his truck, shoot multiple times at both officers, and then turn to retreat. The officers in the video did a great job in engaging this felon and ultimately were victorious.

The point is you had better be prepared when the vehicles come to a stop. And sitting in your car watching the show is not being prepared. You must be outside of your car and ready to conduct business, advance, foot chase, or even tactically retreat if needed. To do this you must be absolutely prepared when that suspect stops.

Here are a few tips that will help you take the tactical advantage and be prepared for the unthinkable should it happen to you:

• Anticipate your enforcement action and plan on a location that puts you in a tactical advantage over the other driver. Avoid the opposite as much as possible.
• Call in your stops before the emergency lights go on.
• Plan your patrol car positioning during the stop based upon location, traffic conditions, your safety needs, and your tactical plan.
• As the suspect vehicle is almost stopped unfasten your seatbelt and make sure it is clear of your duty gear.
• Make sure your hands are free of radio mics, pens, food, drinks, or whatever.
• Plan to give your patrol car an acceptable distance behind the suspect – I recommend 15-20 feet between vehicles to give better protection from approaching motorists, and a good safety distance that the bad guy must close to engage you, with bullets or by other violent means.
• As soon as you can when that suspect stops put your patrol car in park while at the same time opening your driver’s door.
• Exit as quickly as you can and try to position yourself to be facing the suspect vehicle as you do so. Pause briefly upon exit to examine the suspect vehicle for any potential dangers.
• Have a plan for a driver’s side or passenger’s side approach and carry out the plan, keeping the suspect vehicle in sight as much as possible. Do not cross in front of your patrol car and give the suspect an opportunity to back into or pin you between the vehicles.

Practicing these tips will become second nature, and will increase your confidence in stops, while providing you the greatest safety position that you can assume. If bad guy exits quickly his confidence will be hindered when he looks back and you’re already out of your car ready to engage him.

Be safe, get in the right mindset to survive, get off the X if you find yourself there, and keep fighting until the fight is done. Fight to win to the end.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

Prior segments of this series on traffic stop safety:

• Traffic Stop Safety – Calling Out the Stop
• Traffic Stop Safety – Patrol Car Placement

Subscribe via iTunes

Police encounters with legally armed citizens and an interview with Emily Sweet are the topics of today’s podcast.

A friend of the show wrote in with some questions about police encounters with legally armed citizens.  I attempt to address those in today’s show.  I can only speak to the laws and attitudes of officers in my region of the country, so your views and opinions on the subject are welcome.  Feel free to add them in the comments section.

Also, I speak with Emily Sweet of Relatively Real who is looking for police families to feature in an upcoming television series.  The series seeks to portray officers in a positive, upbeat way.

Relativey Real is a media production company with a hand in major motion pictures (300, Battle: Los Angeles, The Pursuit of Happyness, Zombieland and about 200 more) and in television (such as Police Women).  The company CEO is Tom Forman, creator of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

If you are interested in participating in the show, get the details in the podcast and then contact Emily at policefamily@rrstaff.com.

CCW information:

• List of US firearms laws by state with reciprocity information
• Another source of state firearms laws from the NRA
• Excellent book on Florida firearms laws

Don’t forget to sign up for our newsletter (upper left corner).  No spam guaranteed!

Transcript:

BlueSheepdogPodcast021

Welcome to episode number 21 of the Blue Sheepdog Podcast.

As always, my name is Richard. And today, I’ve got kind of a variety of topics we’re going to cover. First up today, we’ve got Emily Sweet.

Emily is a casting producer for “Relativity Real”, which is a production company involved in a great number of different projects including some big movies you may be familiar with, such as, “300”, “3:10 to Yuma”. And they also are involved on a number of TV projects such as, “Police Women”, which is on the TLC channel, and also “Extreme Make-over Home Edition”, and quite a bit of different projects are involved in.

But Emily is going to be on today to talk to us about a new project involved in “Police Families”, and it sounds like a really good upbeat reality show. I hate that term reality show but, it does sound like a pretty good, pretty upbeat casting us in more of a human or a positive light. So, were going to talk with her a little bit.

Also I’m going to talk today a little bit about, what do we do when we encounter a legally armed citizen on traffic stop? One of our listeners who I’ve had a kind of a pleasant conversation with an email, post a few questions, and ask that — We address those here today.

So, we’re going to talk about that a little bit both for our friends that are not in law enforcement but do carry a firearm for self-defense. And then, also from the perspective of police officers; how do we address those situations when we encounter them?

But first, let me take care of a few of our housekeeping issues. If you are a podcast listener, but you’ve never been to our website, I encourage you highly to check out our website. Podcast is only part of what we do, and it’s an important part but it is just a part.

The website, we’ve got all sorts of different training articles on there, legal updates and things. Just in the past week and a half or so, we’ve had a multi-part series running on “Police Knives”, not just the different types of knives hurled there or out there, but also, how do you carry them? Are there some methods of carry that are safe than others? Are you carrying them for self-defense? Or you’re just carrying them as a tool?

Randell [ph], one of our regular writers, has been doing a really good series on that. Also, one of our other writers, Aaron has been doing a number of articles on “Traffic Stop Safety”, and also on DUI training.

And Aaron is absolutely one of the best when it comes to investigating drug and drunk driving. Aaron is a certified DRE instructor, certified SFST instructor. He spent a lot of time as a full time DUI officer with his department. He’s also spent time, part of a Federal Drug Task Force working under cover.

So, if it comes to some types of impairment, Aaron is actually an expert in those areas, and he’s giving us a very, very good in depth, step-by-step instructional series on investigating DUI cases, or DWI depending on your state in what you call it but an absolutely excellent series.

Of course, I also threw in a variety of things. We’ve got gear reviews, and legal updates, some of the Springport decisions and things, we talk about those.

So, if you’re not going to the website already, please check that out. Also, you can connect with this on Facebook and Twitter. And our Twitter account is twitter/bluesheepdog; and then Facebook is facebook/sheepdogmedia. Somebody else, I guess, had already grabbed blue sheep dog, but we’re at facebook/sheepdogmedia, so you can connect with us there.

Obviously, you can always send me an email richard@bluesheepdog.com.  Shoot me an email. Let me know what’s on your mind. If there’s something we can cover, or you think we got it wrong on something, hey, shoot me an email. Let me know about it.

The commenting section on all the post online is also open. So, if you want to take issue with something, or relay your experiences, or offer other points of view, please do. Absolutely jump in there.

Also, one of the other components to the entire Blue Sheepdog experience is you can sign up for our newsletter. Our newsletter is absolutely free. We’re not selling your email addresses to any third party. You don’t have to give me your name or anything.  Just give me your email address, so I know where to send the newsletters, too.

We sent out our first newsletter this month, a couple of weeks ago now, I guess. And the first newsletter, I’m not going to lie, there were some technical issues on my end. And I’m just trying to get it configured right, and get it out.

But I got it out there. It had a gear review on a flashlight, new tactical flashlight. We had a training article in there from Aaron on “Surviving the Street.” And then, I also had a review of an officer involved in shooting. And unfortunately, it was a shooting which an officer was in fact killed.

And with any of the times where we have to critique other officers, especially if another officer has been injured or killed. It is done so in a matter not to point out their errors, but it’s done in a way that we’re trying to prevent whatever errors may have occurred from happening again. Because, there’s absolutely nothing worse in my mind than losing an officer to some mistake that we could’ve prevented, if we’ve just been open and talked about mistakes that have been made previously.

I’ve said it many times and I’ll continue saying it. We continue losing police officers, having them killed for making the same mistakes that we’ve been making for decades. Whether it’s not properly retaining [??] your weapon in your holster, whether it’s not wearing a vest, whether it’s not wearing your seatbelt, we continue to lose officers to the same old things.

And, that’s not necessarily the case in this particular review, but we don’t want to make those same mistakes that were made that day. We lost one officer. We don’t want to lose anymore. And I hope everyone can approach it from that view point.

So first up, let’s go ahead and talk to Emily about their new TV program.

[Segue to music]

Richard:  Alright, we’ve got today with us Emily Sweet. Emily is a casting producer for a company called “Relativity Real”. Welcome to the show Emily.

Emily:  Hi! Thanks for having me.

Richard:   Absolutely. Okay, tell us a little about who you are and what exactly you do for your company.

Emily:  Well, I work for “Relativity Real” which is the television division of “Relativity Media”, which is the company that has — they produce big feature films including “The Fighter”, “The Social Network”, and stuff like that. So we are their television division and our company is headed out by Tom Forman. So, you might be familiar with — he is the creator of “Extreme Make-over Home Edition”.

Richard:  Absolutely.

Emily:  So, yes, we are a — we’re a new company but we’re really committed to making inspirational programming, and I am here as a casting producer. So, I’m one of the people that reaches out to anyone that we need to get on the new show that we’re working on.

Richard:  And that’s why we’ve got you on today. You’re working on a new program that is going to probably interest law enforcement officers, both to watch and then also perhaps to participate in. Can you tell us a little bit about your new project?

Emily:  Yes, so we are working on a brand new show.  My company is — the company that has produced six successful seasons of “The Police Women” series on TLC.

Richard:  Okay.

Emily:  So, we are working on developing a new show that will be similar to that show, sort of informant [??] a documentary style show, but we are looking for families with multiple members working in law enforcement.  They could be in one department or perhaps in two neighboring departments but we are looking to do a positive portrayal of some really great, deserving law enforcement families.

Richard:  Okay great.  I know law enforcement a lot of time gets kind of a bad rep from folks that don’t understand us just because unfortunately, law enforcement, we kind of get into the  position where we wind up not trusting a lot of people, which is unfortunate; but cops are really just like anybody else from the community. And it sounds like you’re trying to, maybe, present that side of them.

Emily:  Exactly.  We are very interested and really portraying police officers as everyday people.  Just putting a human face on the job and making it really relatable for people so that they understand that law enforcement officers are out there.  They’re protecting us.  They’re doing great things for our communities; and then they are coming home to their families; and they’re having barbecues on the weekends; and going to movies.  They’re just like anybody else but they have a really demanding, important role in all of our cities.

Richard:  Absolutely.  How did you come upon this project?  Is this an idea you’ve come up with or was this something that was suggested to you or I guess kind of where the origins of the project?

Emily:  Well, you know, through our many seasons of working on “Police Women”. We’ve been in touched with lots of officers from all across the country, all different departments and we started to notice that it seems like it’s the kind of career that really gets into people’s blood.  And that people tend to pass down to the generations. And we came across a lot of families where the dad had been in law enforcement, and then his son, and then the son met his wife through the department and stuff like that.

So, we are just really interested in what it’s like to be really, to have the career be such a big part of your life and such a big part of your family’s life.  So, we realized there are a lot of families out there like that and we kind of just wanted to show our viewership what that’s like.

Richard:  Sounds great.  Do you have any kind of timeline on when the series might start?

Emily:  We don’t have any official taping dates or anything yet but at this point; we are still in the developmental stage where we’re really just reaching out to families and departments and organizations.  Kind of just trying to spread the word but we would love to get in touch with interested families as soon as possible in the next couple of weeks; and hopefully, we could film something in the next few months.

Richard:  Okay, and what would be the easiest way for people to get in contact with you?

Emily:  Well, the best way to get in touch with us would be to email us.  Our email address is policefamily@rrstaff.com.  So, you could shoot us an email with a brief description of your family, the department you’re from, and maybe a photo or two if you have one; or if you have any other question; or you don’t want to email, people are welcome to just give me a call. And my number is 323-860-8623.  And they can just call me up and we will discuss.

Richard:  Alright, sounds great.  Is there anything else anyone needs to know?

Emily:  I think that we’ve basically covered it.  I mean, just that, we are really devoted to uplifting family-friendly programming.  Some of the other shows that our company does are in addition to “Police Women” as we’ve also – We produced the new series “Coming Home for Lifetime” which helps police men and women reunite with their families after their tours overseas.  So, we are really just interested in the kind of shows that just make you watch. I mean, they make you feel good and you see the people that are really doing great things for our country.

Richard:  That’s fantastic.  There definitely, in my humble opinion, has been a lack of that kind of programming so, –

Emily:  I agree.

Richard:  Certainly, if there’s anything I can do to help you out, hopefully, you’ll let us know.

Emily:  Well, I appreciate it.

Richard:  Absolutely.

Emily:  We’re really excited about this.

Richard:  Absolutely.  Thank you very much for coming on the show today.

Emily:  Thanks so much for having me.

[Segue to music]

Richard:  Okay, so, now we’re going to talk a little bit about the armed citizen and the police officer.  When I talk about the armed citizen, I am talking about the legally armed citizen. We’re not talking about a criminal with a gun.  Completely different story and we address those in completely different ways.  But, sometimes, we don’t know if the legally-armed citizen is in fact legally-armed or if they are in fact the criminals.  So, that creates a problem for us in law enforcement because obviously we want to do our job safely.

We have our families that we want to go home to every night and sometimes, let’s face it, the wolves dress up a sheep or Sheepdogs.  So, one of the listeners and readers on the website, Jon, he sent me an e-mail and we’ve swapped a few emails back and forth. But he sent me one email with some questions.

And we’ll just kind of go through the questions here and I’ll try to answer his questions, but also try to, in the same way, offer some ideas to law enforcement on how to address some of these questions and some of these issues when we encounter them.

But the first thing Jon asked was; what is the collective opinion among law enforcement officers I work with regarding the legal carrying of a firearm?  Is it positive or negative?

Well generally, positive. Or at least with all the agencies I’ve worked with. I started law enforcement up in Georgia. Worked there for a number of years, and now work down here in Florida and both my agency in Georgia and my agency here in Florida.

The general, if not overwhelming opinion of law enforcement is very positive toward the legal lawful carrying of a firearm. And probably, the biggest reason why that is; is law enforcement officers see what happens when victims encounter the criminal element. They don’t have a way to defend themselves.

At the end of the day, this maybe kind of a crude way of explaining it, but law enforcement is nothing more than a report writer. And I know our job is a lot more than that. Our job really should be a lot more than that. But, unfortunately, we generally get there after the crime has already occurred.

We get there after the robbery’s taken place. We get there after the rape has taken place; or we get there to a murder scene. And a lot of times, we wind up merely detecting that crime has occurred and then investigating what happened; and then seeking out who did the evil act, right? And there’s nothing in there about preventing the act from starting.

And I understand it says serve and protect on the side of a lot of our police cars, but at the end of the day protecting isn’t something that we’re legally required to do and the Supreme Court said that time and time again, that law enforcement officers and law enforcement agencies have absolutely no duty to protect those people in their community. We have merely a legal obligation to provide for the general welfare of the public. Not to prevent anyone from being victimized.

So law enforcement officers generally have an opinion that citizens need to be able to defend themselves. And of course, there is a broad range of opinions that we have in law enforcement officers, just like we do in the general public. Some may be for or against open carry just like there’s many people and the second amendment community that are pro or against open carry, right?

Law enforcement officers ultimately are citizens just from your community, and they are a reflection of that community. So, if you have a community that is very negative towards firearms, then, chances are you’re going to have a lot of law enforcement officers that are negative towards firearms.  Being that I worked in Georgia and Florida, both of these states, generally speaking, are fairly pro-second amendment; so, most of the officers I worked with are pretty pro-second amendment.

Now, let’s see, Jon asked,

“Do you want individuals being stopped to voluntarily tell you they are carrying a firearm?”  And we are talking about traffic stops here.  We’re talking about just the routine.  If you allow me to use that word, the routine traffic stop, just the traffic enforcement type stop.

Generally speaking, I prefer to know; it just prevents a possible misunderstanding later.  If I stop someone and they go ahead and tell me about it; okay, we can address that issue and I know they’re being upfront with me and everything else.   As opposed to, they’ve got a gun in their pocket, they’ve got a gun on their waistband or in the glove box or whatever, and they start reaching into that area.

And now, the gun is exposed and our hand is moving towards that area. That creates a completely different situation.  It’s a situation where that misunderstanding could get somebody hurt or killed.

If the guy doesn’t want to tell me, he has no legal obligation to do so. In the state of Florida, you don’t have that legal obligation telling the officer.  In other states, you do. But, if you don’t have the legal obligation, I can understand you don’t want to tell me, fine.  But, it does help create an environment in which, a misunderstanding could result in harm or injury to someone.

Just like I said, if I ask a guy, “Okay, sir, may I ask for your driver’s license?” and he reaches back to grab his wallet, but as he’s reaching back, he exposes a firearm and his hand is going down toward that firearm, because he’s reaching for his wallet.  He hasn’t told me he is armed. All I know now is that he’s reaching toward an area where there is a firearm.  I’m going to handle that a lot differently than if he had said initially, “Sir, I’ve got a gun with me.  What would you like me to do?”  Because we can address that and I think most police officers would agree with me there.

Jon, then asked, “When you approach a vehicle, how do I want someone to convey the information to me that they, in fact are legally armed?”  Generally speaking, I prefer something along the lines of, “Good evening officer!  Hi”, whatever. I’ve got a concealed weapons permit and I do have that firearm with me. What would you like me to do?”

Kind of by leading off with, “I have concealed weapons permit.”  That’s kind of mental shorthand for “Hey I’m a good guy and I don’t pose a threat.”

I’ve seen circumstances where someone just announces I have a gun and that’s kind of get a little bit of a different reaction.  If I’m in some type of enforcement capacity, I’m investigating a crime or I’m investigating some type of traffic infraction or whatever, and someone just announces “I have a gun.” You may be thinking “Hey, I’m trying to do a right thing here.”

But that really, especially if we’ve not already established some rapport or something, it’s not going to — it’s not going to enhance our relationship in a positive way. Whereas if you lead off with “I have a concealed weapon’s permit and I happen to have that firearm with me”, you’re saying the same thing but it’s in how you say it.

We communicate not just with our words but also with how we say things and our body language and everything else.  And that’s sort of what you’re doing here also.  So, I recommend and I don’t know, maybe somebody will disagree with me but I would recommend just saying, “I got a permit.  I have that weapon with me.  What would you like me to do?”  And it’s kind of you’re saying the same thing but it’s in a lower key sort of way.  You’re less likely to get a negative reaction from that officer.

Jon then goes on to ask, “If you approach a car from the passenger side –“, which hopefully, everyone realizes I’m a huge advocate of and hopefully, you’re at least trying that out for yourself, but he says, “If you approach the car from the passenger side and see a firearm before the individual has had an opportunity to present his credentials, how do you respond?”

Well, that’s going to depend on the circumstances and what is the driver doing, that sort of thing.  Obviously, if I’m responding to some allegation of criminal activity, we’re going to handle that in a much higher level than if I’m just stopping somebody for an expired tag or something. Now, I realized any traffic stop can go bad very quickly, and we unfortunately have seen that many times.

But, if I already know there has been a crime or there has been an allegation of a crime, then I may even one step higher on my alertness level and now that I have stopped this guy in relation to some crime, I see that the he is armed, chances are you’re going to be pulled at a gun point at that point depending on what the allegations of the crime are.

On the other hand, if this is just a straight routine stop, I walk up there and say “The firearm is in a holster on your belt and you’ve got your hands on the steering wheel” and there’s no other indication of anything criminal. Then chances are, what I’m going to do is I’m just going to get on the radio, a buzz pause radio, “I’ve got a subject here that may be legally armed just go ahead and start me other unit” And then I’m going to try and make contact with, with the driver. Knock on the window or whatever the case may be and try to address the situation that way.

Assuming the driver doesn’t do anything silly; we’re probably going to be fine. We’re going to have a nice conversation. I’m going to handle the enforcement action. He’s going to be put on his way. If on the other hand, I knocked on the window and he makes a reach for his gun, then that’s obviously a situation in which he’s probably going to get shot. It’s just — it’s kind of hard to say what my reaction is going to be in every circumstance because it’s going to just depend on the situation and what is the driver doing and everything else.

If you’re sitting there, your hands are on the steering wheel and you have a firearm, maybe open carry is legal or it just happens to be exposed because of the way you’re sitting in the car or something like that.  I’m going to knock on your window and we’re going to have a pleasant conversation.

On the other hand, if I walk up there and you’ve got a gun that’s tucked under your leg, that’s going to be a little bit of a different situation because most people don’t ride around with a gun tucked under their leg ready for immediate action when the police pull them over. So that’s going to create a much higher level of concern for me and we’re going to address in that issue. And then, we’re going to address that issue.

Jon goes on to ask, “When the individual hands you his or her driver’s license along with their concealed weapons permit, do you automatically recognize they’re a good guy, or do you become more apprehensive knowing that they may possess a firearm?”

Well for me, I generally won’t recognize them as a good guy. But that doesn’t mean that I become lackadaisical. That means you still get run through NCIC, FCIC to make sure you’re not wanted.

You also, I’m going to check to make sure that you got a good driver’s license, you’re not suspended or anything else. I recognize a thing. CCW permit does mean that you’ve have  a background check but that doesn’t mean since that time you haven’t maybe have it revoked  or you haven’t taken on a drug habit, or whatever the case may be. Or maybe you just, or issued the permit incorrectly.

There are a lot of states that don’t even have a photo ID or a photo on the permit or anything else. So, if you are not driving, or maybe you tell me, “Sir, I don’t have my license with me. It is my car”, or whatever, I may not be able to immediately confirm that. So even you on the permit [??]. But generally, I’m going to recognize you as a good guy and I think most police officers lead the same way but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get better treatment or worst treatment because we’re not going to be lackadaisical.

And certainly, I would encourage any police officer out there that encounters someone with the CCW permit to recognize that this person has in fact been through a background check. They have in fact had finger prints taken and everything else. Most states require them to have some type of training before they are issued the permit.

So, generally speaking, you come across somebody with a concealed weapons permit. Generally speaking they are in fact a good guy and I’ve seen a variety of statistics that are out there that show that of all the subpopulations out there in the United States, the folks that have a CCW permit are folks that are less likely to commit crimes.

They’ve just a fraction of them will ever have their permit revoked and of those that have their permit revoked, for if you have them or actually of their crimes [??], sometimes it’s for non-payment of traffic fines or parking tickets or something like that. Sometimes, its clerical errors or they didn’t submit the right paper work for their reapplication. There’s a lot of stuff that’s out there. Yes, concealed weapons permit holders commit crimes but generally had a much more infrequent number than any other segment of population.

Jon asked, “If the individual is legally carrying, do you disarm them during the traffic stop?”

Again, that’s going to depend on the circumstances. Generally speaking I will not. But if there is a criminal allegation, then yes. Absolutely, I will. If someone has accused you of shoplifting and gave me your tag number and I spotted your car and I pull you over on traffic stop, then yes absolutely I’m going to disarm you because I’m there investigating a criminal allegation. And it would just be absolutely silly or stupid of me to allow someone I am investigating for a crime to stand there with a firearm.

On the other hand, if we’re talking about just the traffic stop; then generally, I’m probably not going to. But again, it depends on the circumstances. What is your demeanour? What is –? Are you acting in a way to cause me to fear that you may try to do something stupid? Or are you just — average guy maybe a little nervous because you’ve being stopped by the cops, that’s fine.

Where is the weapon in relation to the documents that I may need from you.  For example you say, “Sir, I’ve got a firearm in my glove box and that’s where I’ve got my insurance, my registration, and my driver’s license.”  You know what, I’m not going to let you just reach in there and grab that stuff out.  Okay, I’m going to need that information.  We’re going to have to work out something to where I can come over there and maybe remove the firearm from the glove box.

You can find the documents or if you don’t want me rifling through there, that’s fine but I’m not just going to let you do something that would be dangerous, not just to me; but then also something that will create danger for yourself because you’re reaching for a gun and, men, obviously that’s not going to have a good outcome for you either.  So, that just gets back to — It depends on the circumstances.

Yes, if I choose to disarm them, do you believe that further manipulation of firearms such as loading or unloading it is a greater danger than just leaving the firearm in the holster room [ph]? I’ve seen this talked about a little bit in a lot of the forums and Tom Gresham on his radio program.

He talks about these types of things.  At the end of the day, the safe manipulation of a firearm is in fact, safe. Right?  But the problem is as anytime you introduce additional manipulation of a firearm, you create a possibility of unsafe manipulation. And it maybe a situation or a police officer that’s unfamiliar with that type of gun, he’s not doing stupid with it.

For example, you’re a police officer and you carry a SIG Sauer P226. That is a double-action, single-action gun.  There’s no safety on or anything and you now have in your hand, say, a 1911 cocked and locked. And you freaked out because a hammer’s back and you can’t figure out how to take the safety off or rack the slide etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.  Okay. And I get that.  But that goes back to, as police officers, we need to know what our limitations are.

If we have a firearm that’s in our possession that we have to secure or we have to clear it, place in an evidence, whatever we’re doing with but we have to unload it; and we don’t know how to manipulate that firearm, you need to just take that firearm and maybe stick it in your trunk or something until another officer can get there, whether it’s a sergeant or a firearms instructor or just somebody on your shift that knows a little bit about that gun can get there and handle it.

Okay, at some point, I responded with another officer to a shooting and we got there and wound up being a guy who had try to commit suicide and he actually had an older break top.  I think it was a 32 revolver.  Maybe it was a 38.  I don’t think it was a 38, I think it was a 32.  Anyway, it was an old break top revolver. And for those of you that aren’t familiar with it; instead of the cylinders swinging out to the side; the top or the gun, actually, kind of folds in half and it’s called a break top because the top of the revolver where the back strap is, actually is not one solid piece.  When you manipulate it, it actually opens up, exposing the cylinder of the revolver, kind of upward at an angle and you can load them and unload the firearm from that way.

When myself and another officer got there, and right behind us was our sergeant.  Our sergeant actually — we had to move the firearms, so we could safely, render aid to the person that has been shot.  So, the sergeant actually removed the firearm and he took it over to his car. And for whatever reason, he needed to unload it, whatever the case may be.  He didn’t know how to do that.  Knowing that I am a complete geek when it comes to firearms, he called me over, and I was able to show him how to do it; rather than him trying to do something that would have caused it to discharge or hurt somebody or anything else.

And I think we have to; as police officers have to recognize what our limits are.  If you don’t know a gun, that’s fine, right?  We can’t know everything.  But if you don’t know how to operate a particular firearm and you find that firearm in your possession, you need to call over somebody to help you that does know that firearm.

I don’t know every firearm in the world. I mean if you handed me like a crew-operated weapon, whether it’s a 249, or a Modus [ph] or something like that, you know what? I’m not going to be able to help you with that.  I know which way the pointy end goes, but other than that, I’m not going to be able to help you with that.  But on the other hand, if you bring me a Glock or a Revolver, or a Cig or a Smith, or pretty much any handgun, most rifles and shot guns, I’ll be able to help you out.

So, just get to know the folks on your shift; know that you can rely on in that.  If you don’t have somebody that knows what they’re doing, and you have to handle or you have unload a firearm, you with the sergeant, do that.

Back to Jon’s, I guess, main question here is, “Is it safer, even if you know what you’re doing, is it safer to manipulate that firearm further?”

Yes and no.  Again, it depends on the situation.  If it’s a circumstance in which I have to disarm someone, because they are — I’m investigating them for a crime or they’re acting in such a manner to place me in reasonable fear for my safety, I’m not going to leave them in possession of a firearm.  So, I’m going to have to secure that firearm.

And most holsters are not something that are easy to take on and off. You got a lot of belts slide holsters that you would have to take their belt off. You’ve got some inside the waistband, which again you’re going to have to sit there and kind of fool around and manipulate everything. A lot of times it may be easiest just to take the firearm out of the holster.

What do you do with it at that point? The very least, I’d just take it and lay it in my trunk somewhere, out of the way; and let me conduct my investigation. And when the investigation is over, then return the firearm or if it’s going an evidence or whatever the case might be.

If it’s, if I’ve stopped somebody and I’ve had to take their firearm for some reason; and they’re now leaving, chances are I’m still not going to feel real good about them having a loaded firearm. And if I’ve just had to take some type of criminal enforcement with this guy and maybe I’m not arresting him, maybe I’m just giving him a notice to appear or a summons to appear in court on a criminal charge, you know what? I don’t feel we’re comfortable with giving that guy a loaded gun back because he’s pissed off at me.

And me handing him a loaded firearm is not necessarily in my best interest as a survival instinct situation, okay? So, you know what? I may unload that firearm and stick it in his trunk or something else and then he can leave, I can leave and he can load back up and do whatever. BBB

On the other hand, if it’s just a regular routine stop, I may — If I do have to take a firearm from him for some reason, I may just put it in his glove box for him not even unload or anything just put it in his glove box for him. Tell him, “Look as soon as you get down the road, go ahead and holster back up. But, don’t manipulate the gun in front of me, we don’t want any misunderstandings.”

But most of the time on just a routine stop, they guy’s not suspected of any criminal activity. He’s not giving me any reason to fear for my safety because of his behavior or what he’s doing or anything. Chances are, “Partner just leave it in your holster.” You and I are going to stand here and have a conversation. You don’t do anything stupid, don’t cause me any reasons to get concerned and we’re going to have a nice time. And he’ll just hold on to it.

Let’s see, Jon asked, “Is it standard practice to run the serial number of a firearm even though the individual is licensed to handle or permitted?”

That really depends on department policy and state law. For example, gun registrations are illegal in most states; but some states actually have some type of firearm registration. So in the states with those registration laws, it may be standard procedure to do this. I maybe — a law that they have to do it. I just don’t know if there’s somebody from like Maryland or Massachusetts or New York that have these types of crazy registration laws. Maybe you can let me know if it’s a policy or a law, or anything like that.

Most states don’t have registrations. Most states, it’s actually illegal to have any kind of firearms registration. So generally speaking, it’s not going to be a standard procedure.

Except, if there’s some type of criminal activity suspected, if there is criminal activity suspected, then yes, as a matter of course, I’m going to check any property that they might have associated with that crime. I’m going to check the serial numbers and NCIC to make sure that they are not stolen.

For example, if I would just stop somebody and they were suspected of some type of theft and in the backseat they’ve got a stereo system, I’m going to run the serial numbers on the stereo system also. They’re suspected of being a thief and stereo system on the backseat is something that’s a little abnormal; so, of course I’m going to check it. Same thing with the firearm; if you’ve been accused of some type of crime, chances are I’m going to.

And from the other hand, it’s just a traffic stop and you’ve told me that you’ve got a gun and I’m leaving.  I’m letting you leaving on a glove box and your holster or whatever else, and no, I’m not going to check it. But that’s going to depend on the state; the department policy and everything else.

And last but not the least, Jon asked, “How do you handle the stop that the individual has no criminal history. He has a loaded firearm in the glove box for personal protection. Is it an automatic arrest? Is that individual charged with a felony? If there are additional occupants in the vehicle, are all occupants arrested?” And this goes back to state law.

In the state of Florida, It is perfectly legal for an individual to have a loaded firearm in their glove box. And the glove box does not have to be locked. So, in this state, what you’re doing is perfectly legal.

If you go to another state, and I don’t know what all the states are, But I suspect, some of the same ones I just mentioned, Illinois, Maryland, and New York. In these states, it may be illegal, it may be a misdemeanour, and it may be a felony, who knows?

Okay, if in — if you’re a law enforcement officer in one of the states, feel free to go to the comment section of today’s show and list what’s going on in your state. But in a lot of states, it’s not illegal to have a firearm, a loaded firearm in your glove box or in your vehicle. But, in the caveat is, as I’m not an attorney and I don’t necessarily live where you live, so I’m not giving legal advice on what to do or what to carry or how to carry it or anything. But it’s going to depend on the state. It’s going to depend on your jurisdiction.

And I guess, kind of the underlying question maybe with that is if you have somebody who has no criminal history, but they have some type of firearms offense now that you’ve countered them. Do you automatically arrest them? Do you automatically load them up with a felony if that’s a charge or for whatever they’ve done that type of thing?

And it’s just like anything else. It’s going to depend on the circumstances. Officers always have discretion. And if it is a case where somebody genuinely has made a mistake, and they have no prior convictions; a lot of times officers are going to go out of their way to help that person out. Because for the most part, we have a pretty good idea of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

And if it really seems like you’ve made a mistake and you don’t have any criminal record, there’s a lot of cops that are going to bend over backwards to help you out. I mean, there really are. On the other hand, you know, some places, it’s a major felony.

So, it’s a matter of know your laws, comply with the laws as best as you can and you know, politeness goes along the way also. So, being friendly toward the officer will not guarantee that you won’t be charged with a crime, if in fact you violate a law, but being rude definitely aint going to help you any.

Alright so, I hope, Jon, that helps you a little bit. Maybe it answers a few of those questions for you. For some of my other listeners out there that are armed citizens, if you’ve got any more questions, I’ll be more than happy to try to address those and answer those for you as best I can.

A lot of states have some pretty good references for different firearms laws and you may want to check online for some of those. I’ll actually post up a couple of links to some different sites. I know they’re here in the state of Florida there’s an attorney over in Orlando that puts out a very good book on Florida firearms laws. I’ll put a link up to his and definitely you want to know what the law is. That way, you don’t create yourself any problems unintentionally.

To all of my law enforcement listeners out there, I strongly encourage you to also read up on the laws because there are a lot of things that you are not taught in the Police Academy and there are a lot of misconceptions and wrong beliefs that you may have.

Not through any a will on your own but just because your sergeant didn’t know and he told you something that he had always heard or the instructor of the academy told you something wrong.

Definitely, before you take some type of action on somebody, make sure you know what are the actual legal requirements in the laws are.  I’ve seen, even in my own department, I’ve seen officers say something that they thought was right, which just plain isn’t.  You got to pull out the code book and look at it and actually understand what you’re looking at.

Also, to all my brothers and sisters that are in police work, keep in mind that armed citizens really are good guys. And well, maybe no one deserves any special treatment, certainly, they deserve fair treatment.

So, these were pretty much wrapped up episode 21 of the Blue Sheepdog Podcast.  Again, if you’ve got any question, comments or concern, shoot me an e-mail, richard@bluesheepdog.com.  Make sure you hit our website, bluesheepdog.com and if you have a chance, how about leaving me a review over on iTunes.  Thanks and stay safe.

[Extro music]

—End of transcript—

In my first article on traffic stop safety, I talked about the importance of clear and concise radio traffic on car stops or other enforcement actions before actually engaging in those actions.

Another important consideration for officers conducting traffic related activities is how we position our patrol cars at scenes and car stops, and what we do with ourselves when doing so. These little details could very well make the difference between life and death, and are often overlooked.

Three Basic Traffic Stop Positions

There are three basic methods of positioning our police cars during a vehicle stop, and in talking with officers from several different states it seems that these are fairly universally taught.

1) DIRECTLY IN-LINE – In this method the officer pulls the patrol car behind the offender’s vehicle in a manner that causes the vehicles to be directly in-line of each other as they would be if they were stopped in traffic. This method allows for the least amount of intrusion into vehicular traffic, but also provides the least or no amount of protection to an officer who approaches the offending driver’s door.

This is often the preferred method on rural or curved roads that do not have adequate shoulders to allow traffic to pass by unobstructed. In this method, however, officers are immediately exposed to threats from the violator upon exiting the patrol car, in addition to the traffic hazards.

Should an approaching car get too close the officer is very exposed to impact. Rear-approaching vehicles that impact the patrol car may or may not continue into the officer’s path, but who wants to be standing around during that collision? Spacing of the patrol car from the violator car becomes it’s own consideration, and I’ll touch on that at the end of this article.

One benefit from this position is that the patrol car’s emergency lights, and take-down lights are directly on the suspect vehicle, and it could be an option for 2-man units. However, in my opinion, the Direct In-line method should be used very sparingly.

2) OFF SET – This method has the officer positioning the police vehicle straight on behind the offender’s vehicle, but the patrol car is about a half car width into the lane of travel. In this method the police vehicle provides a “safe” lane of approach to the offender’s driver’s door, as the police vehicle is blocking rear approaching traffic from driving directly into the officer’s foot path.

I say “safe” because, as Richard has mentioned in an article about the passenger side approach, the officer is still somewhat exposed to the idiots that can’t avoid a marked patrol car with emergency lights on.

Roads with larger shoulders could allow for traffic to pass unobstructed if the offender pulls far enough off onto the shoulder, but we know that rarely happens. This method provides some traffic obstruction (if the officer’s car is on the roadway), but provides some officer protection as well.

In this method officer’s have momentary protection from the violator upon exiting the patrol car, as the engine block of the patrol car provides partial cover. During rear-end collisions with the patrol car the officer has some protection from impact as the patrol car and the offender’s vehicle will absorb a lot of energy, but again, who wants to be standing out exposed during that crash? The spacing of the patrol car becomes very important here, as well.

Off-set is also an option for 2-man units.

3) ANGLED – When performing the angled car stop position an officer pulls directly in behind the offender’s vehicle and then angles the patrol car approximately 30 degrees into the lane of travel. I’ve seen some officers cant their vehicles as much as 45 degrees. Although this provides a great deal of protection from the violator, it really starts to make emergency lights limited in their use because of the angle of the light bar facing approaching traffic. With the 30 degree angle this method provides some traffic obstruction, but still gives a good visual of the police car to approaching motorists without losing the effectiveness of the overhead lights.

This method also provides the best cover and protection to the officer upon exit, because the entire engine block, windshield and other parts of the patrol car are between the officer and the violator’s car. If the officer does a driver’s side approach there is a brief time the officer will be exposed to traffic when he/she walks around the front of their patrol car, but then they have a “protected” approach lane the rest of the way.

Remember, officers are always exposed to traffic on the driver’s side.

Some have said that the angled method can also protect officers from rear-end collisions with their patrol car, as the force of the impact, combined with the angled position of the car, will send the patrol car away from the officer. My crash investigation training and experience tells me that high speed collisions won’t have this desired effect immediately, but there may be some factual science in this belief for lower speed collisions.

This method also is the best for taking advantage of a passenger’s side approach that Richard and I are great believers in. Because of the angle of the patrol car, officers can easily slip around behind the patrol car and approach the violator’s vehicle often unseen.

One draw back to the Angled method is that the take-down lights lose some of their effect.

Commercial Vehicle Traffic Stop Alternative

I recognize that some officers, particularly those who do a lot of Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, are taught to pull in front of the violator’s vehicle (usually a big 18- wheel tractor trailer rig) because it offers the greatest view of the driver upon approach, and puts the rig between the officer and approaching traffic. Since this method seems to be used mostly in CMV enforcement I will not touch on it further in this article.

Additional Considerations

Recently Richard published a video of a car stop turned gunfight. In that video officers stop a pick-up truck, and the driver immediately exits and begins firing on the officers with a handgun. This thug was motivated and had some skills, firing first on the passenger officer, then firing on the driver, and returning to the passenger officer before disengaging from the gunfight because his truck (cover) was moving away from him, and officers were returning fire.

Due to the officers being in a 2-man unit they opted for the Off-Set method when stopping, and that was probably the best position for their circumstances. It offered some protection and allowed both officers to get into the fight rather quickly.

During my career I have used the Angled method of car stop positioning more than any other method because I feel it provides me with the greatest protection, and more options for approach when I exit the patrol car. However, I have used all the methods of stopping vehicles I’ve mentioned, including in front of the violator.

No matter what method you choose, an officer should try to take advantage of the safest method available to them at the time and location of the stop, and make that decision before the lights and sirens are ever turned on.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

For more articles like this, sign up for our free newsletter.  Signing up is easy: just enter your e-mail address in the upper left column.

Notice that the driver immediately exited the truck and started shooting.  Watch how the suspect engaged both officers while he was shooting.  You see him shooting at one officer, then shift his fire to a second officer and then back to the first officer before retreating back to his truck.

I assume the shot that stopped him was a head shot.  Watch as he is in the truck and his hat flies off.  I’m pretty sure that is when the fight was over.  One officer was wounded during the gunfight, suffering serious injury to his foot and toes.  He is expected to return to duty.

It appears the subject may have been connected to as many as 10 other shootings in the area.

What are the lessons learned from this video?

Starting with Aaron’s article yesterday on radio communication in traffic stops, calling in the stop before making the stop is very important.  If the officer hit the lights and then tries to call out the stop, he or she may not have enough time to call it in before the suspect jumps out and starts shooting.  If you do not have GPS (or it is not working today), no one is going to know where you are when you call out “Shots Fired!”

Have a plan for what to do if a suspect jumps out suddenly when making a stop.  You are automatically behind the curve since you are reacting to the suspect’s moves, but considering your options ahead of time is one way of quickening your response.

For the involved officers, things worked out.  Another option that may (or may not) have been available is to rapidly back up the squad car if someone jumps out of the car to create distance.

If you are still in the car and the driver jumps out shooting, running them over is another alternative.  A 3000 pound Ford beats a 155 grain hollowpoint for stopping power.

I think the officers did exceptionally well in very bad circumstances, and I am only throwing out these options as something to think about.  I hope you never find yourself in similar circumstances, but if you do one of these alternatives may work better for you.

What are your thoughts?

Stay safe!

Richard is a police officer with a medium sized, central Florida department, and previously worked for a Metro-Atlanta agency.  He has served as a field training officer, court officer, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, watch commander, commander of a field training and evaluation program, and general pain in the butt to management-types looking to cut training hours.

One of the most frequently conducted activities of the patrol officer is the car stop. In all but the most busy jurisdictions an officer can be reasonably expected to make at least one car stop per shift.

If you work an 8-hour shift that comes to about 250 car stops a year. Even on a 12-hour shift with the same expectation, an officer can be expected to make over 150 stops per year. With those kinds of numbers you can bet officers will try to find short-cuts, but on this kind of activity we’re walking ourselves into the bad man’s trap.

In my 14 years of law enforcement I can conservatively estimate that I have made over 15,000 vehicle stops. Now before you spit out any “traffic weasel” comments, I will admit that I spent nearly 3 years in our Traffic Unit as a DWI enforcement officer. My stop numbers were usually at or near the bottom for the entire unit, but my arrest numbers were always on top.

I’m the kind of officer that sees the traffic stop as a tool to interdict and disrupt criminals, and occasionally remind “soccer mom” that cell phones, gas pedals, and red lights do not mix. I work for a suburb of a major midwest city. Our population is about 92,000 and we have about 135 officers. And because many of the patrol and traffic officers are proactive our crime rates are low.

So it troubles me as a Sergeant to hear officers completely destroy any semblance of a well called-out car stop. When I was in the Academy we learned a form of car stop radio procedure that I’m sure is very similar to what many of you learned. It was called the C-Y-M-B-O-L method of identifying your vehicle stop:

L – Location

C – Color of vehicle Y – Year of vehicle M – Make/Model of vehicle B – Body style of vehicle (2-door, 4-door, SUV, etc.) O – Occupants of vehicle (how many, description) L – License plate information (number and State)

This was a great way for a new recruit (sheep) to learn what information needed to be relayed to dispatch for computer checks and for back-up officers in the event of trouble.

Due to officer safety input from FTO’s and other officers, and the order our CAD computers take information on vehicles, our modified model of car stop radio procedures looks like this:

L – Location!

L – License information C – Color Y – Year M – Make/Model

B – Body style O – Occupants information

L – Location!

When I was an FTO I was particularly strict with my probationary officers about getting this procedure memorized. Obviously, there are times where circumstances do not allow us to complete this model, and during those times probationary officers were instructed to get out their location, type of activity, a basic vehicle description, and repeat their location. In fact, most of time my officers will start to respond for back-up when another officer fails to get out all of the information on the belief that something unusual is occurring.

We need to remember that it is often the “unexpected” event that causes the officer to fail in the deadly force encounter. Although we should always be at Condition Yellow (on-duty or off), we need to increase that awareness level to Orange upon any type of enforcement activity. It’s often the “routine” that turns deadly.

Officers who know they’re responding to an armed robbery call are on high alert and usually respond accordingly. But that same armed robber may be in that minivan you stopped for speeding, and the effort you make to properly relay your stop information may be the difference between you fighting alone or fighting with company!

I know some guys give out ribbings to other officers about “like to hear yourself on the radio”, but there’s nothing more frustrating than knowing that officer needs help and not having all the information needed to respond and give that help.

Stay sharp, and don’t take short-cuts! That next stop may be the “one”.

Aaron is a sergeant with a midwestern police department, where he serves as a trainer, supervisor and SWAT sniper. In addition to his broad tactical knowledge, Aaron has experience in DUI, DRE and undercover narcotics investigations.

Subscribe via iTunes

In this episode, I talk about the passenger side approach for vehicle stops, and the benefits it has:

• increased safety from passing cars
• increased safety from vehicle occupants
• ability to see contraband you would have missed from the driver’s side

I also briefly talk about the Cobra Strike Plate video I posted earlier.

Click the icon to the right to sign up via iTunes to get the podcast delivered straight to your computer as episodes are published.

Stay safe!

The Contra Costa Police Department completed an eight-year study, tracking various characteristics of stopped motorists, including race, gender and age.  Guess what: in the predominantly white city, the majority of people stopped were white.  Also, the split on gender was about 50-50, which closely reflects societal make up.  The largest age group stopped?  Over 40.

While it is unfortunate that the media got it wrong by listening to the rants of various anti-police special interest groups, the really sad thing to me it that the Contra Costa police chief was shocked that his officers were not stopping more minorities.

“The surprise to me was the age and the fact that other races were so low,” interim Chief John Hunt said.

The new licenses are supposedly harder to counterfeit.  They feature “ghost” photos in the background of the license, a laser engraved signature, a barcode with the license information encoded, and a tamper resistant coding.

I don’t know if the new license will deter counterfeiting, but they do look different from the old style, so don’t be surprised when they make their way into the system.

Richard is a police officer with a medium sized, central Florida department, and previously worked for a Metro-Atlanta agency.  He has served as a field training officer, court officer, corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, watch commander, commander of a field training and evaluation program, and general pain in the butt to management-types looking to cut training hours.

I’ve offered traffic stop safety tips before, but I’ve put together a few more things that the patrol officer might want to consider when making traffic stops.  Hopefully some of these ideas will help keep you safe.

Location, location, location – Prior to making the stop, try to anticipate where would be the safest location to make the stop. Consider a location with lighting and out of the main flow of traffic. If the driver does not stop where you would like them to, use the P.A. to direct them to a better location.

Communication – Communication with dispatch and your partners is critical. Ideally, call in the traffic stop before you even initiate the stop. Make sure dispatch has the tag, vehicle description, occupant information, and your location.

Once you have made the stop, make sure you communicate with your partner. If you see something unusual or dangerous, tell your partner! He or she may not have seen what you did. The use of hand signals or radio codes is helpful when trying to pass information on to your partner, but keep in mind that a suspect may not know what you are saying, but he will know something is up.

Maintain an evacuation route – Know where you are, and what is around you. Based on that, know where you will evacuate to if things go bad. If you already have a planned escape route when you walk up to a stopped car, you will execute that escape without having to think about it if the scene goes bad. Also keep in mind that in a shootout, your cruiser is not always the best place to fall back to. Concrete highway barriers, bridge abutments, or a tree line may all be available to you as cover…and they may be closer than your car.

Control the movements of the occupants – Cars are used to transport criminals and weapons. When you stop a car, you most likely do not know who is in the car, and what they may be carrying. Watch occupants who move their hands into areas that could be used to conceal weapons. Remove occupants from the vehicle if you need to for your safety.

Also, when you remove someone from the vehicle, be wary of anyone who tries to get back in without your direction to do so. In several cases, subjects returned to their cars and retrieved firearms that they then used to attack officers.

Obviously, make sure you have the appropriate amount of back-up officers to assist with the control of occupants you remove from the car.

Search Safe – Practice safe searching techniques. Always have a cover officer present with you during a vehicle search: never search alone! Also, never search the vehicle with people still occupying the car.

When searching, make sure the vehicle is in a safe place for you to conduct the search. If you are right next to a highway lane with traffic zooming by, you may want to consider moving the vehicle farther off the road, or into a nearby parking lot or side road (keeping search and seizure rules in mind, of course.)

Lastly, look before you reach. Do not reach into an area you cannot see without first looking into the area to visually check for anything hazardous. Needles, razor blades, and knives may all be left behind by a doper, or place intentionally by a criminal to purposely harm you. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

Maintain Environmental Awareness – Danger can come from the vehicle stopped, and from passing motorists.  But, have you considered that danger may come from a seemingly random person wandering into your enforcement action?

Making a traffic stop in a gang neighborhood, for example, may place the officer in more danger from the street thugs looking to attack a distracted cop, than the occupants of the stopped car.  Pay attention to anyone walking toward your vehicle stop, and call for back-up as appropriate.  You cannot effectively watch the pedestrian, the stopped vehicle, and use your computer to check for license status and wants.

These tips are just a few of the many things to think about when making traffic stops.  I encourage anyone with a tip they wish to share to leave a comment below.

Stay safe!