WATCH THE VIDEO —– Watch/listen to this first!
Police Video of Weapon Seizure
GunTalk Magazine Podcast - Robert’s 1st Interview
What Happened – by Robert Baillio
KTBS Channel 3 Story – Video
Full Text of the Glover Interview – Corresponds to the Video
MP3 File – Glover Interview (same audio track as video – corresponds to full text)
YouTube Video – Part 1 (for iPhone users)
YouTube Video – Part 2 (for iPhone users)
This situation almost defies sanity. Fortunately, we have audio to go along with this post and a transcript of the audio. Please read on and then listen to the audio at the end. You just won’t believe what is said by the Mayor of a major southern U.S. city.
According to Mayor Cedric Glover of Shreveport, LA, when you are stopped by the police department, your “rights are suspended.” That’s right – even if the stop is a traffic violation – your rights as a citizen have been suspended. Huh?
Recently, a friend of mine was stopped for allegedly failing to use a turn signal. Sounds simple enough. Here is where it gets interesting.
One of the first things out of the officer’s mouth: “Do you have any weapons in your vehicle?”
He did not initially ask for a name, registration, or proof of insurance. He asked if Robert Baillio was armed. If that isn’t a case of profiling, then I don’t know what is. The picture clearly shows the bumper stickers on Robert’s truck windows. Failure to use a turn signal? Sure it was.
Robert was trying to be polite and cooperative and responded, “sure I do.”
Then the officer marched over Robert’s truck, removed the weapon, unloaded it, and temporarily seized it.
This just smacks of both profiling and unreasonable search and seizure. It is debatable whether Robert actually used his turn signal or not which is a traffic violation at worst. There was zero probable cause for a search and seizure. There was zero indication that Robert Baillio had been involved in any sort of crime. It is legal in the state of Louisiana to carry a loaded weapon in a vehicle. Robert’s gun is registered. He has a concealed weapons permit. Robert made no attempt to hide anything, and was courteous to the officer.
The officer asked Robert if he was a member of the NRA.
Do what? What does that have to do with a failure to use a turn signal violation? Why would a Shreveport Police Officer need to know that?
The officer never issued Robert a ticket. As a matter of fact, he even followed Robert to travel 2 blocks to Nan King Chinese Restaurant so Robert’s could get his take-out Chinese food before they closed. The officer followed him there and finished the traffic stop in the parking lot!
If Robert was so much a threat with his weapon, why was he even allowed to get back into his vehicle?
See the point?
——————-
It’s Glover’s Policy – and it needs to be rejected by citizens
——————
Here is where it gets more interesting. This problem is a systemic one that starts at the highest level of the Shreveport city government. No, I’m not a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist either. Mayor Cedric Glover states very clearly and repeatedly that the policy is in place.
Mayor Cedric Glover: Your rights have been suspended.
He stated that fact 11 times in the 19 minute phone conversation. This was not a slip of the tongue, and he did not mis-speak. Mayor Cedric Glover meant what he said.
———————-
Anti-Gun Group
———————-
Did you know that Glover is a member of the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” group – headed by Michael Bloomberg from New York? Can someone define exactly what an illegal gun looks like? Maybe a true fully-automatic weapon is illegal as defined by law; however this group is obviously against any gun.
The polarizing rhetoric of gun politics on all sides only obscures the tragic reality we see every day on our streets: violent criminals with easy access to firearms.
Well if they can see the violent criminals, why aren’t they arresting them? It is all semantics – the guns aren’t illegal at all. The “violent criminals” who use them are acting illegally. If these mayors think they can find the guns, then they can certainly find the owners – the violent criminals.
**Edited 6-15-09:
Removed text transcript - made thread to long
Full Text of the Glover Interview – Corresponds to the Video
http://mybossier.blogspot.com/2009/06/shreveport-mayor-says-that-when-police.html
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2009/06/totalitarianism-in-one-city-shreveports.html
http://nationalgunrights.org/blog/?p=95&cpage=3#comment-422
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
You may want to watch the actual video which clearly shows the traffic violation which was reasonable for the stop. The officer is a DWI Enforcement officer, there was no profiling regarding the possession of a weapon, for a police officer it is a matter of safety and the temporary possession of the weapon by the officer was not an unreasonable search or seizure by any measure. If there was any profiling, it was profiling the crime of Driving While Intoxicated since most impaired drivers don’t use their turn signals and police officers know that. Mr. Balioo was not intoxicated and asked the officer for a favor, ‘to allow him to get his wife’s food before the restaurant closed.’ The officer was courteous and allowed this, many of his co-workers will say the officer was courteous too a fault?
Back to the safety issue, Mr. Balioo advertises his possession of weapons with the stickers on his truck, the very observant officer saw it for what it was, an advertisement that heightened his safety concern causing him to take the necessary steps to stay safe.
In fact if you look at the entire video of the stop; the officer actually gives Mr. Balioo his weapon and fully loaded magazine back as they discuss both of them belonging to the NRA. In fact during the conversation the officer actually enforces the need and right for Mr. Balioo to possess a weapon.
I have no comment on the stance of the mayor as to do so would jeopardize putting food on the table for my family. I can only say the police officers are trained to work within accepted parameters set by the United States Constitution and rulings by the United States Supreme Court. This officer and the majority of police officers in the South fully endorse the 2nd Amendment and the United States Constitution as many of us realize if guns are banned only the criminals will have guns.
Be certain about where to attack in your quest to support ones rights, do not trample on the individual rights of the police officer in an attempt to engage the Mayor.
It is all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
Post this if you are fair, if you do not, not posting it will say it all and all will know.
Ummm – if you read the article and the actually listen to the audio/video, you will see that Mr. Baillio fully supports law enforcement and mentions on several occasions that the officer did fine.
Again – it the POLICY of Mayor Cedric Glover that is at issue. It has nothing to do with "favors" or "courtesy". That is a red herring.
By the way, when you post anonymously "it will say it all."
Anonymous,
What you may not have understood is that Mr. Baillio was outside and at the rear of the truck when asked if he had a gun in his truck. When he said yes the police officer opened the door and took the gun without asking permission and without probable cause. Louisiana law considers your vehicle to be an extension of you home. Therefore the officer entered Mr. Baillio's property to seize his LEGAL firearm without a warrant and at a time when the firearm offered no danger to the officer. If the officer wanted to make sure he was safe when returning to his car to run the license and plates of Mr. Baillio, he could have frisked and then cuffed him and had him sit at the side of the road.
—————
Mr. Balioo advertises his possession of weapons with the stickers on his truck, the very observant officer saw it for what it was, an advertisement that heightened his safety concern causing him to take the necessary steps to stay safe.
—————-
This just makes my point of profiling. Exactly what was Robert Baillio adverting? His belief in the 2nd Amendment? Has the Shreveport Police Department (and Mayor Cedric Glover) decided to forget about that little thing called "Freedom of Speech"?
—————-
In fact if you look at the entire video of the stop
—————–
Well that definitely reveals that you work for the Police Department – since that video has not been released yet.
————–
accepted parameters set by the United States Constitution and rulings
————–
Huh? You either abide by the U.S. Constitution or you don't. It's really not a complicated document except for a few Supreme Court clarifications.
————
do not trample on the individual rights of the police officer in an attempt to engage the Mayor.
————
Umm – there has been zero attempt to "trample" on anything about the officer. Again, the issue involves Mayor Cedric Glover and the Shreveport Police Department policy.
I might also remind you that police officers have exactly the same rights as all others citizens – and not one more right that anyone else (in spite of Cedric Glover's stupid beliefs). Police Officers do have arrest powers under the law – but that is NOT a right.
Glovers comments about rights being suspending are Outrageous, it's EXACTLY these situations when RIGHTS make a Difference, and suspending them isnt an Acceptable policy, we need to hold Glover accountable and for this, when stopped by Law enforcement YOUR rights are Most important….and NOT something that can be casually "suspended" this isnt about the Stop…..it's about Glovers comments and his Beliefs about "suspending" someones rights……..and has nothing to do with the Stop,……
Cedric Glovers comments on the Tape Moon Griffon Aired at least twice on his 710 KEEL show today were simply an Outrage and Glover needs to resign since he refuses to Uphold the Constitution he swore to uphold, yet decided to reinterpret to his Liberal views, totally unaceptable and totally wrong, it's just an extension of the current administrations cabinet members policy (Janet Napolitano) ….elections have consequenses, and for the Blacks on this thread….watch this…then decide
J. B.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA
Arizona v. Gant
"Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
Everything the Mayor said was outstanding!! The Officer did his job and did it well. The Mayor stood up for the Officer and his City. GO MAYOR GLOVER. BLABlioo was just looking to start an argument. Had no clue as to what he was talking about.
saj
==============
"Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest."
==============
Right – with the stress being on an "arrestee". In this case Baillio's name had not even been determined by the officer (yes, I have the police surveillance video).
==============
The Mayor stood up for the Officer and his City.
==============
@saj – No – the mayor stood up for his distorted view of the law and rights and city policy. Had he stood up for the "city" as in citizens, he would definitely see the error of his stance.
Also, poking fun at names only diminishes the importance of your post and opinion, especially when you don't post your own name. I allowed your comment only to prove that point.
If Mayor Glover had refused to address the concerns of the gun being removed until he could come up with the politically correct phrase to use, then he would have been accused of stalling or ignoring the issue. As it stands, not one person is able to see into his mind and can say they know what his intent was. Yes, it was a poor choice of words, but who hasn't had that happen to them. Having to address the issue at the spur of a moment did not give him much opportunity to choose his words as wisely as he might have wanted. NO! NO! NO! I do not agree with his anti-gun beliefs. I am a red-blooded proud to be an American gun-toting citizen myself. But I do believe that comments can be skewed to fit any agenda you support.
As for Corporal McConnell's handling of the situation…He was courteous and considerate. The only thing I think might have been handled differently is that if there is no threat then he sould have requested permission to secure the weapon. If Mr Ballio said no, which he is within his rights to refuse, then the officer could have detained him outside the vehicle until backup could be called to stand watch over the vehicle until the traffic stop is completed. Unless suspected of something worse than a minor traffic violation, a citizen should retain the right to refuse unlawful entry into their personal property. (vehicle being and extension thereof) D.I.
———–
Having to address the issue at the spur of a moment did not give him much opportunity to choose his words as wisely as he might have wanted.
———–
He repeated how many times in 19 minutes of conversation? That wasn't a spur of the moment, and his comments were not "skewed" at all. They are all posted – plain and simple.
Glover also had ample opportunity to retract them when he spoke via telephone to Tom Gresham and a few other people that contacted him. Instead, he continued to repeat the same thing.
That is the crux of the matter – Glover's ridiculous view of rights versus legal obligation, plus his elitism stance. The policy is just wrong, and was carried out by the officer.
————
If Mr Ballio said no, which he is within his rights to refuse, then the officer could have detained him outside the vehicle until backup could be called to stand watch over the vehicle until the traffic stop is completed.
————–
I agree 100% and great point on calling for backup rather than violating the search and seizure. After all, the protect and serve applies to our rights also.
It is my understanding that the driver did not use his turn signal when he turned and that the DWI officer stopped him. Keep in mind that a DWI officer is trained to spot potential threats from drug impaired individuals. Shreveport has more than its share of DWI's on the street and this officer made a stop using his training and experience. The first thing I notice from the video is the driver getting out of the vehicle. I am old but age hasn't blocked my memory that you don't get out of your vehicle when stopped. I now see two flags- one the failure to use his signal and two getting boldly out of the car without concern or consideration for protocol. The officer has to evaluate the driver for DWI and while the driver wasn't falling all over himself that doesn't mean he isn't impaired. Yes, he needed to remove the gun. It is an officers duty to return back to the station at the end of his shift safely. He isn't allowed to take a casual posture. He can't say 'oh what a friendly man, he jumped out of his vehicle to save me walking up to the door- I will just thank him for his courtesy and send him on his way'. With the man out of the vehicle it was unknown if there was anyone else in the vehicle. I vote for secure the gun, evaluate the individual and make an educated decision as to his condition. This officer was working to keep the street safe and when he had the time to evaluate through conversation he determined that while the driver had made several errors he was not under the influence and the stop was warning enough.
I will fight for the right to own guns. I do not agree that they should be taken away because only those who shouldn't have them will have them. It appears to me that MR. B is one of those individuals that just wants to bring attention to himself. He wants to be in the news and what a wonderful job has done. To bad he couldn't spend him energy doing something that will generate some goodwill in this divided country. Mr. B is one of those that will never be happy without finding fault. Fault with the police for stopping him and not issuing a ticket and if he had issued the ticket then we would have to entertain that dialog. His comments about the mayor are interesting. I don't live in Shreveport but I do believe that the mayor did a good job- yes, he probably should have responded differently a time or two but with Mr. B nothing the mayor said was going to be right.
Mr. B is just one of those agitators that likes to stir up trouble. I wonder if a person like him will ever find good in anything in life?
If you watch the Police video you'll notice that the officer sweeps Robert with his own gun while unloading it! Unbelievable.
From the limited video I've seen: The officer failed to follow procedure and immediately identify the reason for the stop. The officer turns his back on Balioo twice, first when he's retrieving the weapon, and most notably when he's bent over picking up the ejected cartridge. He either doesn't regard Bailoo a threat or is very foolish if he does. I don't think the officer was very concerned about his personal safety. That said, there are officers out there who will ask even a CCW holder to surrender the weapon, and will unload it before proceeding with the stop. It is questionable that the officer went after a firearm that Balioo did not have access to. Gets into lawyery there. The officer should not be able to confiscate the arm beyond the stop unless Balioo were found to be a prohibited posessor, or was otherwise being arrested.
The intention in asking if Balioo is a member of the NRA is unclear, I don't read any sinister intention into this. Could be for any number of reasons.
Then again Louisiana has some issues with anti-firearms rights politics, not to mention the confiscating the people's arms at gunpoint during the Katrina disaster.
I asked Louisiana officers who are friends and relatives, their opinion on the matter. Yes, the officer did what he should have and the following comment explains exactly what and why. And the mayor is the one who misspoke and will probably regret it.: As I read the story, I must tell you that I look upon it as a police officer. It is our practice, our training and supported by the US Supreme Court that a police officer may search those areas under immediate control of any occupants within a motor vehicle. In the case of a firearm, it is again our practice and our training (here in St. Tammany) to take TEMPORARY possession of that firearm during the course of the traffic stop. It is during these initial first few moments that the police officer has no idea if the citizen is just a citizen or an escaped convict. We take TEMPORARY possession of that firearm to protect ourselves.
Now, that being said, it is our further practice to request a perfunctory criminal history check based upon the picture ID presented by the citizen AND a stolen records check on the serial number of the firearm. Once those two things have come back with no red flags, the tension eases somewhat. We conduct our business, whether it be a verbal warning for whatever the traffic infraction was or a citation for that infraction. We then replace the weapon inside the vehicle (unloaded) and conclude our business.
I do believe that the Mayor of Shreveport badly misspoke. There is NEVER a suspension of rights, no matter how temporary and the Mayor is going to take some more heat over that. It is only during the temporary detention of a citizen and initial investigation that we may remove weapons from the immediate area. We do not confiscate them, as that implies taking permanent possession. I have confiscated weapons from citizens during traffic stops but only after that citizen has been arrested. I have not seized the weapon unless it was involved in a crime or was a stolen weapon. In the confiscation, the weapon is removed, tagged and identified and placed in property for return to the owner. In the event it is seized, it is placed into evidence and not released until after the trial or the charges have been dropped. In the event an owner cannot be identified, the weapon is destroyed.
Here in the South, there are many more firearms around than there are in other areas of our nation. We as police officers have to tread a very fine line and do our utmost not to violate the rights of citizens including the right to keep and bear arms. The writer of the story, Mr. Baillio, used what I believe to be an incorrect term when he stated the police officer 'confiscated' his weapon. I do not consider that a 'confiscation', but rather taking TEMPORARY possession of a firearm during an as yet unknown type of citizen encounter. Baillio stated the firearm was returned to him after the completion of the traffic stop, so in my mind, it was not 'confiscated'.
As far as advising a police officer that you have a firearm?? An emphatic YES is my answer. If you are a law abiding citizen and your firearm is legally in your possession, you have no issue whatsoever. ALWAYS tell a police officer you have a weapon inside your vehicle…as I described in the procedure above, you will have it returned to you before you leave the location.
I hope this somewhat answered your question. You are a law abiding citizen and you own a legal firearm…the police in Louisiana may not confiscate it unless it is involved in a crime or you have been arrested and the firearm needs to be secured. Have no worries…you are a citizen, not a criminal….
Profiling?! Give me a break! Had the officer mistreated, arrested, or disrespected Mr. Balioo in any way I could buy that argument. The officer even escorted him to the restaurant! I'm with the police on this one. Regardless of what the mayor said or says, the same thing should happen to anyone pulled over with a weapon in the car. I support the right to own and bear arms, but this is just smoke and noise. We need to pick and choose these battles. If Mr. Balioo thinks his stickers are the reason for his stop, he has the option to remove them, or he can deal with the response that comes with advertising his views. It didn't help that he was unavailable to defend his views when the news station called him, he must have been busy picking Chinese food.
————-
We need to pick and choose these battles.
————-
Sounds like the same rhetoric as a previous post – most likely you are the same person.
—————
If Mr. Balioo thinks his stickers are the reason for his stop, he has the option to remove them, or he can deal with the response that comes with advertising his views.
—————-
There is that little thing called "freedom of speech" which means that you, as a citizen, can express your views, but public officials cannot harass you or punish you for those views. The only exceptions are the "yelling fire in a theater" scenarios for public disturbances.
————
Mr. Balioo
————
Funny how that same incorrect spelling is used each time on your posts. Your refusal to use correct names detracts from your point and removes credibility.
—————-
It didn't help that he was unavailable to defend his views when the news station called him, he must have been busy picking Chinese food.
—————-
Nice try, but neither KTBS 3 nor KSLA 12 tried to contact Robert (nor me for that matter). He is an easy person to find in the phone book and at his business.
Tom Gresham, Moon Griffon, and others have had no trouble contacting Robert. Neither did Cedric Glover himself.
The power of arrest is nearly identical between officers and citizens. A citizens arrest may have more power as a private citizen does not have disclosure statutes.
the power of citizens arrest are almost identical to the power of peace officers.
the most notable difference is private citizens are not bound by disclosure statutes.
The powers of arrest of a [private citizen and a peace officer are almost identical.
Perhaps the biggest diffrence being there are no non disclosure syatutes fro a private citizen.
That said Glover is showing himself to be as inept and incompitent as is believable.
A common occurance in government these days.
As a former LEO I have no problem with the stop and the actions of the officer. I have been stopped at night and extended every courtesy to the officer and I was armed and in uniform. It it a matter of procedure for the officer.
The problem I have is the attitude and ignorance of the Constitution that the Mayor has.
Super-Duper site! I am loving it!! Will come back again – taking you feeds also, Thanks.
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!