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;

Click to expand...

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:

Click to expand...

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?

I think it's intentional

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

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.

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.

LMTD said:

any weapons visible would fall under for officer safety

Click to expand...

This.
Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.

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."

Click to expand...

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.

HighValueWarrior said:

This.
Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

HighValueWarrior said:

This.
Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.

Click to expand...

well.......that's not an absolute .... right?

davidmcbeth said:

well.......that's not an absolute .... right?

Click to expand...

By all means ..... feel free to test ..... personally....

HighValueWarrior said:

This.
Its one of those catch all phrases that is almost impossible to overcome.

Click to expand...

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....

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/s...-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&

Status of the federal GFSZ restrictions? No permit/license required to carry in a school zone and not on school property.