• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Beaverton leo qeestion.

spikeypuck

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
15
Location
Beaverton
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

Ironbar

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
385
Location
Tigard, Oregon, USA
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:

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

spikeypuck

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
15
Location
Beaverton
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
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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.
 

Warren Drouin

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
125
Location
Medford, Oregon, United States
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.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

marksrig

New member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
9
Location
Salem Oregon
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:

TheHossUSMC

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
130
Location
Eugene, Oregon, USA
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.
 

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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."
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
+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...:lol:
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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:
Top