Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Beaverton leo qeestion.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beaverton
    Posts
    15

    Beaverton leo qeestion.

    SO I just got a text from a friend of mine. Says he got pulled over and the leo unloaded his gun ran the sn and told him not to load it again until she leaves. I started asking him questions to get the story cause I have never had this happen to me while pulled over.

    Story from him is. He got pulled over and handed his licence and chl to the leo at the same time. she asks if the weapon is on him and if so where. He told her it was under his jacket on the passenger seat and that he needed to reach into the glove box for his insurance. He was told to just keep his hands where they could be seen then asked to exit the vehicle. He says he was told to sit on the curb. When the leo's backup arrived they got his gun, unloaded it and took the sn.

    That's about what I got from him before he started in on bashing women cops. Keep in mind this is told to me by a friend. He has no reason to lie to impress me for any reason. So I am kinda curious. Why would a leo treat someone like a common criminal when they do things the legal way? and Do they have the right to do this?

    Both times I have been pulled over since I have had my chl were in the sticks and the guy just didn't care.

  2. #2
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    I dont agree but think they can get away with unloading the weapon for so called "officer safety" (BOGUS but I think that's where case law has us). On the other hand, running the SN of the weapon was an unreasonable search. The officers will say it "came into plain view while unloading the weapon for officer safety"....again bogus. But the cost to do more than write a letter of complaint (i.e. fighting for your rights to be recognized) would be substantial and the court will most likely say "no harm done".

    They're NOT on our side.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385
    Well, provided that the story is true, if the person in question had simply refused the cop permission to search their vehicle, it might have been all a moot point.
    Last edited by Ironbar; 07-08-2012 at 09:26 PM.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    I dont agree but think they can get away with unloading the weapon for so called "officer safety" (BOGUS but I think that's where case law has us). On the other hand, running the SN of the weapon was an unreasonable search. The officers will say it "came into plain view while unloading the weapon for officer safety"....again bogus. But the cost to do more than write a letter of complaint (i.e. fighting for your rights to be recognized) would be substantial and the court will most likely say "no harm done".

    They're NOT on our side.
    +1 to all that. My understanding is that once a person is lawfully detained (i.e. for a traffic stop), a weapon can be secured for officer safety. That's why you don't give them your CHL and you don't tell them you have a weapon on you. Just remain silent and take your ticket.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Cremator75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Beaverton, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    That's why you don't give them your CHL and you don't tell them you have a weapon on you. Just remain silent and take your ticket.
    +1
    No requirement to notify in Oregon.

    Sent from my EVO 4G using Tapatalk 2

  6. #6
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Cremator75 View Post
    +1
    No requirement to notify in Oregon.

    Sent from my EVO 4G using Tapatalk 2
    No doubt.

    Also, next time tell your buddy when he exits his vehicle, LOCK IT, and pocket the keys.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beaverton
    Posts
    15
    Thanks for the info guys. The main reason I posted is cause well I lurk here often and, I live in Beaverton.

    I'm curious though since I just wear my gun on my hip and don't bother covering it up am I just screwed if I get pulled over here? My old cj doesn't lock so i'm out of luck on that one too. Although I do like the idea of locking the vehicle and will pass that along.

    Spike

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    I dont agree but think they can get away with unloading the weapon for so called "officer safety" (BOGUS but I think that's where case law has us). On the other hand, running the SN of the weapon was an unreasonable search. The officers will say it "came into plain view while unloading the weapon for officer safety"....again bogus. But the cost to do more than write a letter of complaint (i.e. fighting for your rights to be recognized) would be substantial and the court will most likely say "no harm done".

    They're NOT on our side.
    Actually, for a simple traffic stop, NO they cannot sieze your weapon for "officer safety" or any other reason...A traffic INFRACTION is NOT a CRIME (unless you are DUI). The officer must have reasonale suspician that you have committed a CRIME or are committing a CRIME to disarm you for any reason. It's called a Terry stop....and it must involve reasonable suspician of criminal activity... a simple traffic infraction is not criminal activity.

    Rule 1: Your carry is not relivent to a traffic stop...don't make it one.
    Rule 2: NEVER concent to a search, make them get a search warrent. inconvienent, yes, but you will have them when YOU take them to court for a civil rights violation.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Medford, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    125
    I would like to add my thoughts into this. The person was indeed detained/stop and the person did clearly informed the officer that he was armed. Yet, under Terry v. Ohio if lawfully detain, the officer still must have reason to believe that the person is armed AND dangerous to temporary seize a persons firearm. I do understand that it is very difficult and cost a lot of money to win this in court, but it's still due process of law in America. Still, it would be better to not even answer their question about you being armed, since it can be used in court.

    In my opinion, the individual should go to the police department and explain to the superior that his rights were violated by the officer that detain him and possibly filed a complaint.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I guess we'll need to resort to citations to resolve this difference in opinion.

    I'll cite Pennsylvania v. Mimms, which holds that an officer can order you out of your car and perform a pat down for weapons if he sees a bulge under your clothing. I'll also cite New Mexico v. Ketelson, a NM Supreme Court case, which says an officer may temporarily seize a visible firearm during a traffic stop. Quoting Ketelson,

    In this case, we are mindful of the grave need for officer safety in the midst of the
    dangers and uncertainties that are always inherent in traffic stops. We conclude that
    removing Defendant’s firearm from the vehicle in order to ensure that it was beyond the
    reach of any of the occupants during the stop was a reasonable and minimal intrusion, which
    does not outweigh legitimate concerns of officer safety. Our decision in this case, which
    addresses a temporary separation of a firearm from the occupants of a car during the duration
    of a traffic stop, does not depend on any requirement of particularized suspicion that an
    occupant is inclined to use the firearm improperly. As with other warrant exception cases,
    our touchstone is the requirement of Article II, Section 10 of our New Mexico Constitution
    that “[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from
    unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” Under the circumstances of this case, it was
    constitutionally reasonable for the officer to remove the firearm from the vehicle.
    Your move.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 07-10-2012 at 12:29 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The only laws that matters in such instances are the laws of physics ...

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Thank you BigToe. Ketelson is not binding here in Oregon (though it can be pursuasive). Mimms however, is US Supreme Court dicta and therefore binding throughout the land. I believe that's the "case law" I was referring to but the concept is rather widespread and so it could have been another case.

    I don't agree with the BS criteria of "officer safety"...hell then they can seach anyone they detain and ignore Terry, which may well be the intention of the courts, I know it's the intention of LEO and prosecutors.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  13. #13
    Regular Member marksrig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Salem Oregon
    Posts
    9
    Anytime the officer runs your DMV information, the dispatcher will inform the officer that you have a CHL, so trying to omit that fact is futile. You might as well look cooperative and give it to them when asked for your license....If your driving that is. The rules for on foot is a total game changer, you don't have to show I.D. in that case of course.
    Last edited by marksrig; 07-12-2012 at 01:57 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I guess we'll need to resort to citations to resolve this difference in opinion.

    I'll cite Pennsylvania v. Mimms, which holds that an officer can order you out of your car and perform a pat down for weapons if he sees a bulge under your clothing. I'll also cite New Mexico v. Ketelson, a NM Supreme Court case, which says an officer may temporarily seize a visible firearm during a traffic stop. Quoting Ketelson,



    Your move.
    Is this a NM supreme ct decision, if so it has no bearing on Oregon.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    I would like to point out that "officer safety" was achieved when the he was asked to step out of the car.
    The LEO does not need to physically seize the weapon, let alone perform an illegal search by running the s/n.

    I know I have read elsewhere about a ruling on this, that as long as the weapon is out of the person's immediate area and is unable to readily acquire it, then officer safety is met.
    But, no, I cannot cite (and I may be confusing this with a "possession" ruling).

    I agree with the others... when he was ordered out of the car, lock the car after exiting.
    Immediately state that "I do not consent to any searches or seizure of my person or property".
    The LEO will still do a pat down for officer safety, but should not legally be able to enter the car.
    Make them get the warrant, not enough here to justify one, but they can try.
    Let the courts sort it out later, after the LEO goes way to far in the search & seizure.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I can't believe how much "yes he can" and "no he can't" is written here without cites.

    PA vs Mimms was a great cite. Another is Michigan vs Long.

    Mimms
    undermined the armed + dangerous requirement of Terry. Mimms basically turned it into gun = dangerous.

    Long basically says whether and where in the car the officer may search for officer safety. Even if the stop-ees are not still in the car.

    Whether the cop unloads the gun or not, the serial number is almost guaranteed to be in plain view after it is removed from the gunner's holster. Google or wiki "plain view search doctrine."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    +1 to all that. My understanding is that once a person is lawfully detained (i.e. for a traffic stop), a weapon can be secured for officer safety. That's why you don't give them your CHL and you don't tell them you have a weapon on you. Just remain silent and take your ticket.
    Yep, I agree. Don't ask, don't tell. Hey that sounds familiar for some reason...
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  18. #18
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I am not positive whether OR is like WA this way, but I think it is (having lived in both states). WA Article 1 section 7 is stronger protection than the US Constitution 4th amendment, don't remember what OR's equivalent is...and No, they cannot legally search you, or you vehicle, without a reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, of criminal activity. Your carry is not criminal activity....also, Don't use other state's court rulings for the state you live in, they very likely will not hold water in your state.

    A very good illustration of this is the ruling in ID "in re Brickley" and the ruling in Pierce V state the 1929 in OK. Both states have almost identical wording of their 2A equivilant...the outcome is/was in ID you have free unlicensed, pretty much unrestricted OC, in OK until 1 Nov this year (new legislation) you could not carry (OC or CC) outside you home without a license, and until 1 Nov, you cannot OC in public even with a license.

    That is why in say NYS they can have sobriety checkpoints, and stop everyone, or anyone, to check if they have been drinking...NY state, and US Supreme court says that is OK for "public safety"...WA supreme court says that kind of police activity (random stops and checkpoints) is not allowed by Article 1 Section 7 of the WA state constitution....I don't think random stops and sobriety checkpoints are allowed in OR either...Correct?

    BTW: in WA when the officer runs your DL it will return with your CPL and any weapons you have purchased through a WA FFL. I have been stopped 3 times in the last 25 years (how long I've had a CPL), never brought up the fact that I was armed or had a CPL, was never asked,even though I know at least one time the officer came up to the passenger window and could not possible missed my carry on my hip.

    Having a CPL, or being armed, is not relevant in the context of a traffic stop, don't make it relevant.
    Last edited by hermannr; 08-10-2012 at 05:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •