disarmed during traffic stop

OC for ME said:

Anyone? False premise. Not a single citizen would logically walk up to you and ask for your gun. A cop, on the other hand, can walk up to you and "ask" for your gun. The rub is if you refuse. What then?

Click to expand...

And cops aren't walking up to people and asking for your gun either... That's my point. When a police officer seizes your gun during a justifiable stop, it's not just a cop asking you for your gun, it's a cop taking your gun because you broke the law... They're allowed to do that.

Flashlight said:

For your safety never tell an officer you are armed. You are not better of with him having two guns and you not having one. If a person doesn't plan on shooting him he doesn't need to know that he has a gun. If someone does plan on shooting him he is not going to tell the cop anyways.

Click to expand...

I don't always agree with that mentality either. There are situations where it is safer for you to disclose that you have a gun early in the conversation to prevent yourself from getting shot later when he discovers it on his own. I think if the possibility exists that the officer will find the gun during the stop, then you should inform so it's not a surprise which could cause him to shoot you.

boyscout399 said:

And cops aren't walking up to people and asking for your gun either... That's my point. When a police officer seizes your gun during a justifiable stop, it's not just a cop asking you for your gun, it's a cop taking your gun because you broke the law... They're allowed to do that.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JnpynfwU70

Double Whammy !!!!!!!!!!!!! Oooouch! "Court's adjourned!" Judge Dredd of course

Folks, again, watch out for these IANALs on the Internet.

You have no way of knowing whether or not the cop has RAS. He does not have to articulate his RS to YOU. He has to be ABLE to articulate it in court. If he does not articulate his RS to YOU, but he has it, and you do not follow your State law regarding things you must do during a legitimate stop, YOU have committed a crime.

You need to find out only if you are being detained. If you are, lawful or not (you have no way of knowing for sure, so assume it is lawful), follow the law for disarming yourself and identifying yourself. If the detention was unlawful, that is for a court to resolve LATER.

Again, if you follow some of the advice you get around here, you could end up dead or in jail, and despite any protestations to the contrary, it may be totally lawful.

Do no more than the law requires during a detention. Always try to end the encounter by asking if you are free to go. If you are not, clearly state that you consent to no searches or seizures. But assume that the stop is lawful, and do everything that the law requires you to do during a lawful stop.

Do not even take anything I said here at face value. It is not legal advice. It is what I would do. Verify these actions with a lawyer, or read the law for yourself.

boyscout399 said:

I really don't think it is wrong. If an officer has reasonable suspicion of crime, and he believes that you are armed and also dangerous, then he can seize the weapon for the duration of the stop. This is not wrong at all.

Click to expand...

So a traffic violation is a "crime" worthy of this?

Your opinion? Your state law? Or both?

Because I completely disagree that this should be acceptable.

How are you defining "also dangerous?" Are you implying one can be armed but not dangerous? I could agree with this, so what about a routine traffic stop would give RAS of "also dangerous?"

eye95 said:

Folks, again, watch out for these IANALs on the Internet.

You have no way of knowing whether or not the cop has RAS. He does not have to articulate his RS to YOU. He has to be ABLE to articulate it in court. If he does not articulate his RS to YOU, but he has it, and you do not follow your State law regarding things you must do during a legitimate stop, YOU have committed a crime.

You need to find out only if you are being detained. If you are, lawful or not (you have no way of knowing for sure, so assume it is lawful), follow the law for disarming yourself and identifying yourself. If the detention was unlawful, that is for a court to resolve LATER.

Again, if you follow some of the advice you get around here, you could end up dead or in jail, and despite any protestations to the contrary, it may be totally lawful.

Do no more than the law requires during a detention. Always try to end the encounter by asking if you are free to go. If you are not, clearly state that you consent to no searches or seizures. But assume that the stop is lawful, and do everything that the law requires you to do during a lawful stop.

Do not even take anything I said here at face value. It is not legal advice. It is what I would do. Verify these actions with a lawyer, or read the law for yourself.

Click to expand...

Cite please?

MAC702 said:

So a traffic violation is a "crime" worthy of this?

Your opinion? Your state law? Or both?

Because I completely disagree that this should be acceptable.

How are you defining "also dangerous?" Are you implying one can be armed but not dangerous? I could agree with this, so what about a routine traffic stop would give RAS of "also dangerous?"

Click to expand...

Delaware v Prouse. Among many other Supreme Court decisions states that yes, a traffic violation is a crime worthy of an investigative detainment.

WalkingWolf said:

Cite please?

Click to expand...

Asking for a site saying they don't have to disclose RAS is not reasonable. Please cite caselaw or law that says they DO have to disclose it. There's plenty of lower court cases where RAS was upheld even when the officer didn't disclose the RAS to the suspect.

eye95 said:

If the detention was unlawful, that is for a court to resolve LATER.
.

Click to expand...

That would be incorrect. If your detention is unlawful then has has committed the crime of kidnapping (preventing you from going to point a to point b).

Citizens in most states have the right to arrest for kidnapping. A false citizen's arrest is a civil matter, not criminal.

And the defense of acting under the color of law is an affirmative defense - it does not exist until plead in court.

eye needs to read up on the St. Valentines day massacre. I would never tell a cop I am armed.

boyscout399 said:

Asking for a site saying they don't have to disclose RAS is not reasonable. Please cite caselaw or law that says they DO have to disclose it. There's plenty of lower court cases where RAS was upheld even when the officer didn't disclose the RAS to the suspect.

Click to expand...

Yes, Terry, which essentially invented the idea of the A in RAS, only states that they must have RAS, not that they must disclose it at the time of the detention. So any citation would have to be on someone who claims that they must.

As we are so fond of pointing out on OCDO, absent laws stating what one must or must not do, one may do anything--or nothing. Therefore, the affirmative need to cite is on the person making the assertion that one must or must not do something, not on one saying that there is no requirement to do something.

So, if someone claims that I am wrong and an officer must A his RAS to the detainee, I would ask, "Cite?"

davidmcbeth said:

...I would never tell a cop I am armed.

Click to expand...

Again, folks, do not take this poster's stupidly posted words seriously. Taking that stance could get you killed and eventually will get you jailed. Some States require that you inform an officer if you are armed when he has detained you. Again, since you have no way of knowing at the time whether a detention is lawful, claiming that it wasn't may fail in court, and you may find yourself convicted of a crime.

Don't take STUPID advice on the law from the Internet. There are too many boastful people who don't know it near as well as they claim they do, trying to get you to try out their stupidity for them. Let them make the bone-headed choices. Some of them NEED to be in jail!

Do not even take any poster's word, not even my word, for the law. Ask a lawyer, or read the law for yourself.

BTW, the quoted sentence seems to be advocating breaking the law. That is against OCDO rules.

eye95 said:

Again, folks, do not take this poster's stupidly posted words seriously. Taking that stance could get you killed and eventually will get you jailed. Some States require that you inform an officer if you are armed when he has detained you. Again, since you have no way of knowing at the time whether a detention is lawful, claiming that it wasn't may fail in court, and you may find yourself convicted of a crime.

Don't take STUPID advice on the law from the Internet. There are too many boastful people who don't know it near as well as they claim they do, trying to get you to try out their stupidity for them. Let them make the bone-headed choices. Some of them NEED to be in jail!

Do not even take any poster's word, not even my word, for the law. Ask a lawyer, or read the law for yourself.

BTW, the quoted sentence seems to be advocating breaking the law. That is against OCDO rules.

Click to expand...

Actually I believe a attorney, maybe a couple, on this site has taken the very same stance as David. You are making a fool of yourself with your constant attacks on David. It has been made clear by videos by attorneys, cops, and lawyers who are members to Keep Your Big Mouth Shut.

I usually do not post one way or another based on my dislike or like of a poster. That is posting using emotions, and no member should follow the ignorant advice based on emotions, especially when they are solely based on your hurt feelings. You sir are out of line with this constant harassment of David.

eye95 said:

Yes, Terry, which essentially invented the idea of the A in RAS, only states that they must have RAS, not that they must disclose it at the time of the detention. So any citation would have to be on someone who claims that they must.

As we are so fond of pointing out on OCDO, absent laws stating what one must or must not do, one may do anything--or nothing. Therefore, the affirmative need to cite is on the person making the assertion that one must or must not do something, not on one saying that there is no requirement to do something.

So, if someone claims that I am wrong and an officer must A his RAS to the detainee, I would ask, "Cite?"

Click to expand...

Nobody has claimed that, BUT you and another claimed that they did not, now put up as the rules state? Post a Cite? Otherwise you are posting pure ignorance!

I am amazed at you every time you are called out for a cite, you try to put it off on the caller. Pure cowardice!

WalkingWolf said:

Nobody has claimed that, BUT you and another claimed that they did not, now put up as the rules state? Post a Cite? Otherwise you are posting pure ignorance!

I am amazed at you every time you are called out for a cite, you try to put it off on the caller. Pure cowardice!

Click to expand...

There is no law or case law that says they must reveal their RAS at the time of detainment, but there is case law saying they can detain with RAS (Terry v Ohio). So If there's nothing saying they must reveal, then they don't have to reveal. This is simple logic.

I do not have to pick my nose in the town square at noon.

Anyone need a cite for that? Or is a cite only needed if someone claims that I must?

So, if anyone claims that the officer must A his RAS to the detainee (or asserts that I am wrong when I say that he is not required to do so), they should cite the law, as law never says what you may choose to do or not to do. It says what you must do or must not do.

I say that there is no codified law and no case law saying that the officer must tell the detainee what RAS he has. If you say that there is, cite it. Prove me wrong. It should be easy.

boyscout399 said:

There is no law or case law that says they must reveal their RAS at the time of detainment, but there is case law saying they can detain with RAS (Terry v Ohio). So If there's nothing saying they must reveal, then they don't have to reveal. This is simple logic.

Click to expand...

There is the constitution! Unless you believe that a detention is not a loss of freedom which cannot without due process. Why in the world would anybody comply to a arrest or detention without reason? You made the claim that they did not have to give a reason, yet you admit there is no case law that says they do not have to give a reason. And in many states the officer does have to give the reason for arrest, while detention is not a formal arrest the elements of loss of freedom are there. So without any case law, or law that undoes due process for the loss of freedom, the person is not detained IMO if they are not informed why they are detained. If no reason is given, there is no RAS, this is not the Soviet Union, where a police officer can just grab you off the street for no reason, at least not yet. If I am pulled over the officer better be able to say why, or I will have him up on charges. Most states have laws for unlawful detention.

So if you are going to continue with this farce, I demand you cite a law or court case where a officer can detain without RAS? And if no reason is articulated there is no RAS. What do you think articulate means?

WalkingWolf said:

There is the constitution! Unless you believe that a detention is not a loss of freedom which cannot without due process. Why in the world would anybody comply to a arrest or detention without reason? You made the claim that they did not have to give a reason, yet you admit there is no case law that says they do not have to give a reason. And in many states the officer does have to give the reason for arrest, while detention is not a formal arrest the elements of loss of freedom are there. So without any case law, or law that undoes due process for the loss of freedom, the person is not detained IMO if they are not informed why they are detained. If no reason is given, there is no RAS, this is not the Soviet Union, where a police officer can just grab you off the street for no reason, at least not yet. If I am pulled over the officer better be able to say why, or I will have him up on charges. Most states have laws for unlawful detention.

So if you are going to continue with this farce, I demand you cite a law or court case where a officer can detain without RAS? And if no reason is articulated there is no RAS. What do you think articulate means?

Click to expand...

Terry v Ohio. There's your cite. Officer McFaddon detained Terry without telling him why. The detainment was upheld.

boyscout399 said:

Terry v Ohio. There's your cite. Officer McFaddon detained Terry without telling him why. The detainment was upheld.

Click to expand...

Please provide the actual words in the case where the courts have said that a police officer does not have to inform of RAS?


articulate
  Use Articulate in a sentence
ar·tic·u·late
[adj., n. ahr-tik-yuh-lit; v. ahr-tik-yuh-leyt] Show IPA adjective, verb, ar·tic·u·lat·ed, ar·tic·u·lat·ing, noun
adjective
1.
uttered clearly in distinct syllables.
2.
capable of speech; not speechless.
3.
using language easily and fluently; having facility with words: an articulate speaker.
4.
expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness: an articulate thought.
5.
made clear, distinct, and precise in relation to other parts: an articulate form; an articulate shape; an articulate area.
verb (used with object)
9.
to utter clearly and distinctly; pronounce with clarity.
10.
Phonetics . to make the movements and adjustments of the speech organs necessary to utter (a speech sound).
11.
to give clarity or distinction to: to articulate a shape; to articulate an idea.
12.
Dentistry. to position or reposition (teeth); subject to articulation.
13.
to unite by a joint or joints.

I believe the fact that the courts have used the word articulate, not secret, or even leaving the words out indicates they must be able to give reason/articulate the purpose of the detention. This is not the case for probable cause for arrest which is given in court, but again many states a officer must inform why the person is arrested. RAS is necessary for a Terry stop, and it has to be there at the time, so it must be able to be articulated, if it cannot, it is not valid.

Why does common sense always elude statists?

eye95 said:

BTW, the quoted sentence seems to be advocating breaking the law. That is against OCDO rules.

Click to expand...

It would seem, Eye, that Mr. Macbeth is NOT, in fact, advocating that another break the law. He is simply stating that HE would. Bit of a difference, eh?

While much of Mr. Macbeth's advice (if you may call it such) IS legally unsound, it is at the same time fully grounded in the concepts of Liberty. An unjust law is just that: unjust.

I see a lot of personal attacks on members here, from one poster and then another. Are we not all fighting for the same thing, essentially? Freedom and liberty? Rather than posting the same thing over and over again attempting to discredit another member, might we instead post an opposing view; might we not post something productive?

I hate to put words into another's mouth, but I think Mr. Macbeth ascribes to the same philosophy that I do:

Give me liberty, or give me death.

Alamo Jack said:

It would seem, Eye, that Mr. Macbeth is NOT, in fact, advocating that another break the law. He is simply stating that HE would. Bit of a difference, eh?...

Click to expand...

He is basing his proposed action on his faulty assertion that RAS cannot exist until the court says it does, essentially communicating that it would be OK not to tell an officer that one is armed despite many State laws that make it a crime not to do so during a lawful stop.

He is indeed advocating for lawbreaking, even if one adopts the narrow opinion that that poster is only advocating that he alone should break that law. But we all know that his post is designed to motivate others to emulate his planned unlawful actions. Either way, though, he is advocating breaking the law.