Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Traffic Stop Effects

  1. #1
    Regular Member HP995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    289

    Traffic Stop Effects

    Yesterday when reviewing 436 I noticed something interesting about the LEO restrictions in the CCW-OC amendment:

    HA2:3(2)(d) In the absence of any reasonable and articular suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest;
    This is in the context of:

    HA2:3(2) In any jurisdiction in which open carry of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, open carry of a firearm shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
    I'm wondering whether this may have a neat side effect. When driving (at least in an area with OC prohibiting ordinances), could this discourage LEOs from temporarily disarming people during traffic stops?

    Since many traffic violations are not considered crimes, merely infractions, you can see the possibilities!

    And if a cop did not articulate the reason for a stop but did a disarm...bingo.

    If this was tested in court I'm afraid the state would wriggle around it, but still, I really like anything that discourages bad habits, and a limited or temporary effect on bad habits, or even causing people to consider them rather than taking them for granted, is better than nothing.

    Do you think this effect is possible?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012

    Re: Traffic Stop Effects

    I think it's intentional

    Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

  3. #3
    Regular Member HP995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    289
    If so, all the better!

    From the wording and especially the numbering, it looks to be part of and potentially limited to the section about OC-restricted jurisdictions, so I assumed it was not intentional. (If I'm wrong about that and it can be interpreted as affecting all areas and all LEO interactions, that would be simply amazing.)

    If this effect was planned, I'll be eager to hear more about it (likely impact or limitations) and any other similar effects! If it wasn't planned, it's a good accident. Traffic stop disarms are a bad habit to become ingrained.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    No, I do not think so as Terry would apply. That does not mean he can run the serial etc, but since the stop is legal for the infraction, any weapons visible would fall under for officer safety.

    Not that I agree, but I offer I believe that is what the court would find, but i ain't a lawyer, anyone's guess is just as good as mine.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  5. #5
    Regular Member HighValueWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    any weapons visible would fall under for officer safety
    This.
    Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    State v. Jones on Officer.com
    Georgia decisions agree that in order to justify a search of a vehicle for weapons, some conduct on the part of the occupants such as furtive movements or other indications of danger to the officer must be shown, and the officer must have an "objectively reasonable" belief that the occupants of a vehicle are "potentially dangerous."
    Jones had an openly carried firearm in his truck. Officer as 'standard procedure' moved the firearm to secure it and found contraband.
    Jones moved to have the evidence suppressed.
    The courts affirmed the suppression of the contraband.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 05-09-2013 at 07:56 PM.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by HighValueWarrior View Post
    This.
    Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.
    When the stop is legal and a traffic stop would do that, but just seeing you with a firearm on your person is not justification for approach so officer safety would never apply aka if the stop is not legal any justifications that could have been legitimate are out the door because you never should have been bothered.

    It is an interesting point, but I just believe even a traffic infraction would trigger Terry similar to once they have a person out of the car, a light pat down becomes allowed.

    i hope we will not see may concerns once this becomes law, a lot of officers in this state have already been taught how to properly address OC'ers.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  8. #8
    Regular Member HighValueWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    51
    LMTD I pretty much agree with everything you have written.

    My point is that unless you are willing to go to the MAX and have recorded the complete stop ...... any complaint/accusation you make WILL be covered under 'officer safety' and that blue wall kicks in.
    Unfortunately we have a written 'intent of law', and then sadly there is the even more important aspect of the 'application of law'

    Look no further than our southern border for an example.

  9. #9
    Regular Member HP995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    289
    It looks testable, anyway. I'm going to see if any 2A legal orgs are interested in testing this or other aspects of HB 436; wrote to SAF as a start.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by HighValueWarrior View Post
    This.
    Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.
    well.......that's not an absolute .... right?

  11. #11
    Regular Member HighValueWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    well.......that's not an absolute .... right?
    By all means ..... feel free to test ..... personally....

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by HighValueWarrior View Post
    This.
    Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.
    THIS is why I never inform the officer I am armed. Or have weapons in the vehicle... unless asked of course....

    I feel informing the officer of armament just causes problems. And some, in my experience, take it as a challenge....
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 06-27-2013 at 10:57 AM.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    When the stop is legal and a traffic stop would do that, but just seeing you with a firearm on your person is not justification for approach so officer safety would never apply aka if the stop is not legal any justifications that could have been legitimate are out the door because you never should have been bothered.

    It is an interesting point, but I just believe even a traffic infraction would trigger Terry similar to once they have a person out of the car, a light pat down becomes allowed.

    i hope we will not see may concerns once this becomes law, a lot of officers in this state have already been taught how to properly address OC'ers.
    It triggers worse than Terry v Ohio. It triggers PA vs Mimms, a later case where the US Supreme Court conflated weapons with dangerousness. In effect, Mimms says a cop can demand an occupant get out of a car during a traffic stop, and if he reasonably suspects a weapon, the officer may pat down and temporarily seize a weapon found for officer safety.

    The nasty, sneaky little specious point of Mimms is that it makes being armed equivalent to being dangerous. Under Terry, which dealt with foot stops, there had to be multiple conditions: 1) reasonable suspicion the person is armed, 2) reasonable suspicion the person is dangerous, and 3) nothing in the initial moments of the encounter serving to allay the officer's reasonable concern for his safety. Mimms did away with the second and third condition by saying being armed is the same as being dangerous, without expressly explaining why they felt Terry had to be modified. They just up and did it.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ources-Here!!&
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Status of the federal GFSZ restrictions? No permit/license required to carry in a school zone and not on school property.

Posting Permissions

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