I've been thinking and thinking about this and all I can come up with is the fact that Tate provide information that aroused the suspicion of the officer that something wasn't right. Telling the officer about the holster, when there is no law that we even inform them of any firearms in the vehicle, could be used as a reason to think something is wrong.
For general information I'll post here what lawyers say about a Terry Stop and RAS (Reasonable Articulate Suspicion)
http://www.halloran-sage.com/News/story ... oryid=2309
Under the state and federal constitutions, a police officer may briefly detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime.(1) These investigative detentions are commonly referred to as “Terry” stops. During a stop, the officer may conduct a pat down search (frisk) of the suspect for weapons, if he/she reasonably believes the suspect is potentially armed and dangerous. It is important that officers understand that once a stop is made it is additional articulable suspicion that gives the officer the authority to conduct a search of an individual.
Reasonable and articulable suspicion requires that the investigating officer “be able to point to specific and identifiable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” provide “a particularized and objective basis” for suspecting that criminal activity is afoot.(2) It is important that the officer document the specific and identifiable facts that support the articulable suspicion. Circumstances giving rise to a reasonable and articulate suspicion frequently involve some of the following: nervous, furtive or evasive behavior; unprovoked flight; knowledge of the site as a location of certain criminal activity; temporal and spatial proximity to the scene of a crime; physical description of suspects; knowledge of a suspects past criminal record or behavior; tips provided by identifiable subject.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of restraining the subject of a Terry stop by the use of handcuffs. “Where an officer has a reasonable basis to think that the person stopped poses a present physical threat to the officer or others, the Fourth Amendment permits the officer to take necessary measures … to neutralize the threat without converting a reasonable stop into a de facto arrest …This doctrine has supported a range of restraints incident to a stop, from a pat-down…to the drawing of a firearm … to the use of handcuffs.”(3) In Nash, the Connecticut Supreme Court found it reasonable under the totality of identifiable circumstances, that handcuffing and removing a defendant to a secure location one-half block away from the gathering crowd did not, as a matter of law, exceed the permissible scope of an investigative stop and protective patdown. The Court states “[w]e do not require police officers who are properly attempting to neutralize the threat of physical harm to do so at increased peril.”(4)
As such, it is imperative that officers properly document the totality of the circumstances and articulate the specific reasons that you have chosen to handcuff an individual or place them into your secured cruiser during a temporary detention. It is always recommended to analyze the amount of restrain necessary when attempting to neutralize the threat present.
1/ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); State v. Lamme 216 Conn. 172 (1990)
2/ State v. Waz 240 Conn. 365, 373 n. 14 (1997).
3/ State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620, 642 (2006)
4/ Id. at 644, quoting, State v. Wilkins, 240 Conn 489, 501-502 (1997)
=====================================================================
Talking about an empty holster, when pulled over for something as simple as expired tags, could raise the suspicions of the officer that the person may be armed. The one has nothing to do with the other. And just blurting out extemporaneous information has always been something this forum has suggested as unnecessary and potentially harmful.
Better to just answer the question or give the least amount of information then to ramble on. So as I see it, it isn't the empty holster but bringing it up, without being asked, that could be used against you.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein
What a shame that we have the two major political parties that believe the former.
