wrightme
Regular Member
"Without a holster" isn't automatically 'unsafely.'
-
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.
-
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.
Your opinion on OC/police scenario
- Thread starter luckyykid
- Start date
"Without a holster" isn't automatically 'unsafely.'
wrightme
Regular Member
Not an event worth your stated 'don't issue.'
i didn't say anything of the sort.
you don't know what the moving violation was, the OP stated it was a fair tag. we have to take it as written.
call your legislator if you want to legalize the moving violation or take away officer discretion...but don't complain that an LEO holds a guy who lacks common sense to the letter of the law actually violated. there's probably nothing ambiguous about the moving violation. he didn't bang the guy for pocket carry. it sounds like you want the cop to look the other way on the mover BECAUSE the guy was carrying and disclosed it. makes no sense.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
<raucous laughter>
Rich B
Regular Member
I guess 'pocket carry' is against the law in some people's minds? Oh my.
luckyykid
Regular Member
I agree, but from what I've gathered from this forum is that basically any type of carry where it's showing is essentially open carry.
Rich B
Regular Member
No such difference in ct law, so no one needs to care.
luckyykid
Regular Member
Now would anyone's decided course of action change if I were to tell you that the violation, and subsequent stop, occurred about two blocks away from where a homicide occurred 5 days earlier, and that there is currently a very hot gang war that is ongoing in that area? There is an almost palpable tension in the streets as the residents brace for the next round of gunfire? The city is in double-digit homicides for the year, and there was an even bloodier weekend just two weeks before?
Here's another factor. The operator looks like just like the pictures of people hanging on the wall on the "Wanted" bulletin board in the station. Most likely he looks nothing like you (i'm assuming, based on the people I've seen at the rallies I have been to). Officers exchanged gunfire with a felon a week earlier. It's 3:00 in the morning at the time of the stop, in an extremely violent neighborhood. And don't forget, put yourself in the shoes of the officer.
Same opinion, or does it change at all?
Here's another factor. The operator looks like just like the pictures of people hanging on the wall on the "Wanted" bulletin board in the station. Most likely he looks nothing like you (i'm assuming, based on the people I've seen at the rallies I have been to). Officers exchanged gunfire with a felon a week earlier. It's 3:00 in the morning at the time of the stop, in an extremely violent neighborhood. And don't forget, put yourself in the shoes of the officer.
Same opinion, or does it change at all?
Rich B
Regular Member
Sounds like more of a reason to be armed to me. Therefore, less suspicion.
Well that is a completely separate matter. I don't understand what that has to do with anything else, except as an excuse towards 'totality of the circumstances'. If you think he is a wanted fugitive/felon/criminal/whatever, then the gun hardly makes a difference in your next set of actions.
JoeSparky
Centurion
Sounds to me that IF the operator in question KNEW of the area's recent history he was WISE in his choice to PROCEED armed and able to defend himself or those about him IF NEEDED.
As to the second assertion---- SO WHAT IF HE LOOKS LIKE ALL THOSE ON THE WANTED BULLETINS!!!!! Unless he looks like a SPECIFIC person on the wanted bulletin he ain't a suspect of being one!
His initial "excited utterance" and claim to actually have a permit (even though he doesn't have it on his person) does seem to me to indicate to me that he may not be anyone other that the operator of a vehicle who is being accused of a moving violation. Lots of reasons to be out at 0'dark 30 and in that location---- MANY of them completely legit!
wrightme
Regular Member
If you are describing someone who matches the description of a suspect in a crime, you have the makings of a Terry stop. RAS, and possible 'armed and dangerous.' IOW, the reason for the stop, and whether the person is visibly armed or not, were red herrings.
considering the driver committed a mover, then immediately admitted another statutory violation without being prompted...any guesses as to whether he had some sort of hat-trick going on?
OP made a fair tag, and got a daily double. it happens and it's hardly something to get worked up over.
OP made a fair tag, and got a daily double. it happens and it's hardly something to get worked up over.
The only thing that changes is that the driver gets points for being aware of what's going on in his AO.
I know you are trying to set up a carry in the pocket suggests thug rather than law-abiding citizen line of thought - but what else do you have in the way of observed data that, based on your training and experience, leads you to believe the driver has committed/is committing/is about to commit a crime? Do you check all drivers you stop for pocket knives, or screwdrivers, or HCV/HBV/HIV blood, or pens/pencils that could all be used to threaten officer safety? Or do you ignore most of the commonly carried weapons and only focus paranoidly on handguns? (Paranoia suggested only because all those other things have been used to attack/kill officers during traffic/street stops but cops seem to ignore their presence.)
If the recent homicides create, in your professional mind, an increased/enhanced level of risk I want to know why you are patrolling alone as opposed to pairs or accompanying cars? Do you see how your/your department's behavior puts the lie to claims of "officer security/increased risk"?
stay safe.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
+1 And, double-plus-one to the lie about the security situation proven by single cops instead of pairs.
Its not too unlike that case in VA where a guy was seized and searched because he was walking into his own apartment building in a high-crime neighborhood and the cops had a drug sting headquarters in the laundry room of the building. They saw him walking in with a revolver in his hand, so they snatched him and searched him. Only one justice--not in the majority--recognized that without a CHP, the only legal way he could carry his revolver was openly. And, that the only thing the state proved was that he was walking into his own apartment building.
Last edited:
DDoutel
Regular Member
Lucky, you keep leaving out whether he came back clean, with a valid permit issued to him? Given what we see on almost a daily basis from LEO's around this state, it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to assume that the LEO who's confronting him is NOT his friend, and is NOT prepared to be reasonable; good reason for a guy to be nervous about such a confrontation.
So...come clean, Lucky; DID he have a permit?? Pocket carry is NOT a crime. Remember, our laws make NO distinction as to how a firearm is to be carried.
So...come clean, Lucky; DID he have a permit?? Pocket carry is NOT a crime. Remember, our laws make NO distinction as to how a firearm is to be carried.
luckyykid
Regular Member
I know you guys are chompin at the bit to have some questions answered and to hear my response, but I'm super busy right now, and I don't have time for a full in-depth post. I promise first chance I get i'll give a detailed response. Stay tuned.....
luckyykid
Regular Member
So I apologize for the delay in response here. Like I said earlier I’ve been tied up. Hate to drop a bomb and run, but I didn’t expect to get that busy. There have been a lot of comments, and I’ll try to address most of them.
So I’m going to address this on two levels, a legal one and then on a personal level. But first I’ll answer the main question that people have regarding my actions on said stop: I removed the weapon from him, had him step out of the car, frisked him, then had him stand off to the side of the road while I wrote out the ticket. I secured the firearm unloaded in my trunk, then returned it to him unloaded when I was finished and he was free to go. I allowed the guy's father to bring his wallet to the scene, which had is license and his permit. I wrote him a ticket only for the m/v infraction, but did not charge him with failure to carry his permit. I wasn't sure if the state of CT would screw with him in any way after receiving a ticket for failing to carry his permit. I wouldn't want to put him in that position, so just in case I didn't charge him with it.
I wanted to address what – as someone said – I was “try to set up” with this scenario. The only thing I was trying to display was the ‘unknown element’ that I was facing, and that other officers face as a part of their job. I wanted to impart that I had no way of knowing if this guy was friend or foe, law-abiding citizen or criminal, good guy or bad guy. I had no idea. I have nothing against pocket carry, and for some people that may be their form of open carry. We had already addressed this on the forum in the past in regards to someone open carrying “gansta style” with the gun holster-less tucked into the waistband. I have no problem with that – I actually carry that way at times – less printing. I also would give him accolades (which I did in the end) for being an armed citizen in such a bad area. So I’ll agree that’s bonus points for him for being aware in his A.O. My point was only that I had no idea as to what type of person I was dealing with, especially considering the neighborhood we were in. It’s one thing to get pulled over in Guilford, Bolton, Litchfield, or the like, because the reality is there aren’t many gun toting ganstas in those areas. Where I work, they’re a dime a dozen. But I can’t just look at someone and make that determination, so I have to err on the side of caution. I’m sure some of you would disagree, but then you’ve never been in my shoes.
I'm also sure that some would say that I'm assuming that the person is a criminal, instead of assuming they are a law-abiding gun owner, and I should give them the benefit of the doubt. However, if I assume the best, I could end up eating a bullet if i'm wrong. If I assume the worst, I'll have temporarily inconvenienced, and no doubt offended, a legal gun owner, but I still get to go home after my shift in one piece.
So, I’ll explain why I believe I was justified according to case law, which has shown that an officer, during a “seizure” according to the 4th Amd, can separate someone from their weapon for their own safety, regardless of the legality of the weapon.
The Terry case defined a seizure as follows: (a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16. I believe that most people assume a Terry seizure involves suspicious activity of an actual crime in the sense of a misdemeanor or a felony, however that is incorrect. A motor vehicle stop is a terry seizure because the stop is not voluntary, and the violator is not free to leave. Something as minor as littering that an officer chooses to address, would be a terry seizure. If you disagree, just ask yourself, if an officer chooses to write a ticket for jaywalking, is the person free to say "No thank you" to the ticket and walk away? They are not free to walk away until that officer has written the ticket and released the person. The officer has a right to collect the identification of the person. If the person refuses to provide ID, they could be subject for arrest for interfering with an officer's investigation. So even minor infractions, including motor vehicle, are in fact Terry seizures.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24. (Terry) I really don't think this needs much explanation. If the person is armed, they are potentially a threat to the officer. It's not just recommended for the officer, but the court said they are entitled to use reasonable means to neutralize that threat. ...he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. (Terry)
In the Terry case, they noted that the main question they were presented with was whether the pat-down for weapons was justified. The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation. (Terry)
Also addressed was the reasonable interest in assuring an officers safety while investigating crimes (or in addressing people who are legally seized.) The court said it would be unreasonable to expect officers to unnecessarily put themselves in harms way during the course of their duties. We are now concerned with more than the governmental interest in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded. [392 U.S. 1, 24] Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives. 21 (Terry)
In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm. (Terry)
Here the court states that the officer in the Terry case was not just trying to flex his authority or impose is own will on Terry, but that he is faced with making a on-the-spot decision on how to make the encounter safe for himself and others around him. As long as the steps taken are not excessive (like in U.S. v. King (1993)), the officer could separate the weapon from the subject without violating Constitutional rights. We cannot say his decision at that point to seize Terry and pat his clothing for weapons was the product of a volatile or inventive imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of harassment; the record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so. (Terry)
This is not to say that the focus is solely on guns, as someone on this forum pointed out. Any weapons that could be used against the officer fall within the scope of officer safety as directed in Terry, and the justification is simply safety for the officer. The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer. (Terry)
At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized.
Now in Michigan V. Long, the court dealt with a similar situation involving a knife. A drunk person is not automatically a dangerous person, but any weapon on hand brings a level of danger to the situation for the officer, and the court again felt that it was reasonable to separate the subject from the weapon to neutralize any threat of physical harm to the officer. The relevant parts of the opinion are as follows:
Our past cases indicate, then, that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.
In this case, the officers did not act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within Long's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. Therefore, the balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous.
The Michigan Supreme Court appeared to believe that it was not reasonable for the officers to fear that Long could injure them, because he was effectively under their control during the investigative stop and could not get access to any weapons that might have been located in the automobile. See 413 Mich. at 472, 320 N.W.2d at 869. This reasoning is mistaken in several respects. During any investigative detention, the suspect is "in the control" of the officers in the sense that he "may be briefly detained against his will. . . ." Terry, supra, at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). Just as a Terry suspect on the street may, despite being under the brief control of a police officer, reach into his clothing and retrieve a weapon, so might a Terry suspect in Long's position break away from police control and retrieve a weapon from his automobile. See United State v. Rainone, 586 F.2d 1132 1134 (CA7 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 980 (1979). In addition, [p1052] if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside. United States v. Powless, 546 F.2d 792, 795-796 (CA8), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 (1977). Or, as here, the suspect may be permitted to reenter the vehicle before the Terry investigation is over, and again, may have access to weapons. In any event, we stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation "at close range," Terry, 392 U.S. at 24, when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a "quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger. . . ." Id. at 28. In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternative means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter. This last statement if highlighted mainly in response to those who would believe that merely having an officer stand by and maintain a watch on the individual would be the more reasonable means of ensuring officer safety. The court stated here that officers are not required to adopt alternative means to ensure their safety. They do have a right to separate the subject from the weapon. I use the term "a right" not of my own opinion, but as the court put it. (See highlighted term below.)
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right "to neutralize the threat of physical harm," id., at 24, when he possesses an articulate suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous. We did not, however, expressly address whether such a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest. In the present case, respondent David Long was convicted for possession of marihuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the 1035*1035 automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. We hold that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Michigan V. Long
When the officer has a reasonable belief "that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm." Michigan V. Long
Here the court recognizes the danger to police officers during "routine" motor vehicle stops i.e. scenarios that don't necessarily involve misdemeanor/felony crimes, but mere infractions: In two cases in which we applied Terry to specific factual situations, we recognized that investigative detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977), we held that police may order persons out of 1048*1048 an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous. Our decision rested in part on the "inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile." Id., at 110. In Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972), we held that the police, acting on an informant's tip, may reach into the passenger compartment of an automobile to remove a gun from a driver's waistband even where the gun was not apparent to police from outside the car and the police knew of its existence only because of the tip. Again, our decision rested in part on our view of the danger presented to police officers in "traffic stop" and automobile situations.[ (Michigan V. Long)
Our past cases indicate then that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. (Michigan V. Long)
Therefore, the balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous. (Michigan V. Long)
And they repeated their ruling in Terry here, emphasizing their original finding: In any event, we stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation "at close range," Terry, 392 U. S., at 24, when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a "quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger . . . ." Id., at 28. In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternative means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter. (Michigan V. Long)
In Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972), the question of whether the weapon carried is legal or not, as pertaining to officer safety, separation of said legal weapon is addressed. The court noted that such separation for officer safety purposes does not hinge on the legality of the weapon carried. This is particularly true of knives. In CT, any person can carry a knife limited to a blade length of 3 & 3/4" without any permit or the like. That does not mean that such a knife is not dangerous to an officer, nor does it mean that because it is legally carried, that an officer cannot take it from the person during the course of the investigation for his/her safety. To the person who posted here asking if I find other objects to be a threat to my safety, I would say absolutely; other objects I would hold for my safety. That would include legal sized knives, as well as screwdrivers (which I have come across.) Just like a legal gun, or a legal knife, during a legitimate Terry stop, I can and will take and hold such item until my investigation/police action is complete. Once complete, the item will be returned to the person I stopped.
The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972)
Here again is further explanation of what constitutes a Terry stop, which would be any "forcible" stop being against the will of the subject: So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, [n1] and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose. Id. at 30. Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972)
...the policeman's action in reaching to the spot where the gun was thought to be hidden constituted a limited intrusion designed to insure his safety, and we conclude that it was reasonable. Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) specifically addresses how an officer chooses to handle a motor vehicle stop. This case involved a minor motor vehicle infraction. Upon contact with the officer, the officer developed a reasonable belief that the subject was armed based on the bulge in the waistline. The court upheld the subsequent frisk, recognizing the risks associated with motor vehicle stops. And we have specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile. "According to one study, approximately 30% of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile. Bristow, Police Officer Shootings - A Tactical Evaluation, 54 J. Crim. L. C. & P. S. 93 (1963)." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 148 n. 3 (1972). We are aware that not all these assaults occur when issuing traffic summons, but we have before expressly declined to accept the argument that traffic violations necessarily involve less danger to officers than other types of confrontations. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973). Indeed, it appears "that a significant percentage of murders of police officers occurs when the officers are making traffic stops." Id., at 234 n. 5. [434 U.S. 106, 111]
The court finds that such a frisk and separation from the weapon is a "mere inconvenience." I realize you would likely disagree, which I can't blame you for as it is humiliating and frustrating to be subject to a frisk, but when balanced against an officer's legitimate concern for his safety, the court rules in favor of the officer. The State's proffered justification for such order - the officer's safety - is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being at most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.
Again....What is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety. Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977)
To those who would argue that what makes a subject to be considered dangerous would be the nature of the crime being investigated, the court stated here that it is the mere presence of a weapon that makes them "dangerous" to the officer. The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."
And finally in U.S. v. King (1993), the court noted when an officer would have a legal right to disarm someone....if "a policeman has a right ... to disarm a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence" ......In Mimms, the defendant was lawfully detained due to an expired license plate, and the de minimus intrusion in the interest of the officers' safety was reasonable partly because the police already had a basis to detain the individual......In short, while the safety of police officers is no doubt an important government interest, it can only justify a Fourth Amendment intrusion into a person's liberty "o long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop...." The court stated here that as long as the encounter was legitimate, beyond a consensual encounter, an officer has the right to disarm the person for his/her own safety.
While the court here did not rule in favor of the officer's actions, finding them to be essentially excessive, they did articulate what the officer COULD HAVE done, and again spoke of separating a weapon from the subject. Also mentioned is the mere presences of a weapon would give an officer a "specific articulable fact" that would give an officer a concern for their safety. Here, Officer LeMasters saw the pistol before ordering King out of the car. Thus, her concern for her safety was based on specific articulable facts, making the justification for ordering King out of the car even more critical than that presented by the officers in Mimms. Officer LeMasters' observation of an apparently loaded pistol within Defendants' immediate reach would justify her separation of Defendants from the pistol in order to ensure her own safety during the encounter. U.S. v. King (1993)
Again, when weighing individual liberty to officer safety, the favor falls with the officer: The governmental interest in the safety of police officers outweighs the individual's Fourth Amendment interest when an officer has an objective basis to believe that the person being lawfully detained is armed and dangerous. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1051, 103 S.Ct. at 3482; Terry, 392 U.S. at 23-24, 88 S.Ct. at 1881. U.S. v. King (1993)
Similar to Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972), here the court addresses the legality of the weapon that is carried, citing how it has no bearing on the right of the officer to separate the weapon from the person stopped, noting that a legal weapon is just as potentially dangerous to the officer. Moreover, Defendants' lawful possession of the pistol has no bearing on the reasonableness of Officer LeMasters' actions because the interest justifying her separation of Defendants from the pistol is her safety, and a legally possessed weapon presents just as great a danger to her safety as an illegal one. U.S. v. King (1993)
As in other cases, the courts use the term "entitled" in describing that an officer has a right to do what they need to do to ensure their safety. Officer LeMasters was entitled to separate Defendants from the pistol by ordering them out of the car for the duration of her advisement. Officer LeMasters had an articulable safety reason justifying the initial intrusion, and any additional intrusion in asking Defendants to exit the car could "only be described as de minimus." Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111, 98 S.Ct. at 333. To hold otherwise, would "`unreasonab[ly] [] require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.'" .................Once she saw the gun, Officer LeMasters could separate Defendants from the gun for her own safety by ordering Defendants out of the car. U.S. v. King (1993)
If you are still reading this, kudos to you for making it this far. I just wanted to make sure that what my understanding of the law was could be justified with ample case law. I know we have been though extensive discussion on open carry vs RAS, and you thoroughly educated me on the pertinent case law that shows that there is no RAS in open carry. But the discussion does change when it comes to a legitimate stop, whether that's based on RAS of a crime, or a motor vehicle infraction. In those situations, the officer does have the right to disarm you for his/her safety regardless of how much you disagree with it, and regardless of your permit to carry. On a personal note, I know for a fact that there are officers out there who are power hungry and are just plain do***bags when it comes to guns. But with any category of people you will have the good and the bad, cops included. There are plenty of good cops out there who have no interest in violating your rights, and are not anti-gun. Recent national surveys, as well as politics in the news (especially those Colorado sheriffs) have shown that 90% of LEOs are not in favor of gun control. But at the same time, we tip-toe this line of gun rights v.s. officer safety. The reality is officers do get shot and killed every year throughout this country. When faced with scenarios, we have to make on-the-spot decisions that really could mean life or death for us. At the end of the day, we don't want to be jerks, we just want to make it home at night to be with our families. I know that some people feel like we cry and whine about our safety, but go watch some youtube dash cam videos of officers getting killed on traffic stops and tell me if you were now a cop on a traffic stop, you wouldn't be a little nervous.
My wife, who would describe herself as a "hardcore libertarian" was initially annoyed with me when I described the motor vehicle stop I made where I disarmed the guy. But later, after she had time to think about it, she came to me and said "You know I consider myself a hardcore libertarian......but i'm glad you did what you did. I want you to make it home every night. I want you to be safe."
I hope I have addressed everything that was raised. If I missed anything let me know.
To Davidmcbeth, don't bother responding to this because I will not be reading or responding to your posts. I don't think I need to explain why. Everyone else - have at it.
So I’m going to address this on two levels, a legal one and then on a personal level. But first I’ll answer the main question that people have regarding my actions on said stop: I removed the weapon from him, had him step out of the car, frisked him, then had him stand off to the side of the road while I wrote out the ticket. I secured the firearm unloaded in my trunk, then returned it to him unloaded when I was finished and he was free to go. I allowed the guy's father to bring his wallet to the scene, which had is license and his permit. I wrote him a ticket only for the m/v infraction, but did not charge him with failure to carry his permit. I wasn't sure if the state of CT would screw with him in any way after receiving a ticket for failing to carry his permit. I wouldn't want to put him in that position, so just in case I didn't charge him with it.
I wanted to address what – as someone said – I was “try to set up” with this scenario. The only thing I was trying to display was the ‘unknown element’ that I was facing, and that other officers face as a part of their job. I wanted to impart that I had no way of knowing if this guy was friend or foe, law-abiding citizen or criminal, good guy or bad guy. I had no idea. I have nothing against pocket carry, and for some people that may be their form of open carry. We had already addressed this on the forum in the past in regards to someone open carrying “gansta style” with the gun holster-less tucked into the waistband. I have no problem with that – I actually carry that way at times – less printing. I also would give him accolades (which I did in the end) for being an armed citizen in such a bad area. So I’ll agree that’s bonus points for him for being aware in his A.O. My point was only that I had no idea as to what type of person I was dealing with, especially considering the neighborhood we were in. It’s one thing to get pulled over in Guilford, Bolton, Litchfield, or the like, because the reality is there aren’t many gun toting ganstas in those areas. Where I work, they’re a dime a dozen. But I can’t just look at someone and make that determination, so I have to err on the side of caution. I’m sure some of you would disagree, but then you’ve never been in my shoes.
I'm also sure that some would say that I'm assuming that the person is a criminal, instead of assuming they are a law-abiding gun owner, and I should give them the benefit of the doubt. However, if I assume the best, I could end up eating a bullet if i'm wrong. If I assume the worst, I'll have temporarily inconvenienced, and no doubt offended, a legal gun owner, but I still get to go home after my shift in one piece.
So, I’ll explain why I believe I was justified according to case law, which has shown that an officer, during a “seizure” according to the 4th Amd, can separate someone from their weapon for their own safety, regardless of the legality of the weapon.
The Terry case defined a seizure as follows: (a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16. I believe that most people assume a Terry seizure involves suspicious activity of an actual crime in the sense of a misdemeanor or a felony, however that is incorrect. A motor vehicle stop is a terry seizure because the stop is not voluntary, and the violator is not free to leave. Something as minor as littering that an officer chooses to address, would be a terry seizure. If you disagree, just ask yourself, if an officer chooses to write a ticket for jaywalking, is the person free to say "No thank you" to the ticket and walk away? They are not free to walk away until that officer has written the ticket and released the person. The officer has a right to collect the identification of the person. If the person refuses to provide ID, they could be subject for arrest for interfering with an officer's investigation. So even minor infractions, including motor vehicle, are in fact Terry seizures.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24. (Terry) I really don't think this needs much explanation. If the person is armed, they are potentially a threat to the officer. It's not just recommended for the officer, but the court said they are entitled to use reasonable means to neutralize that threat. ...he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. (Terry)
In the Terry case, they noted that the main question they were presented with was whether the pat-down for weapons was justified. The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation. (Terry)
Also addressed was the reasonable interest in assuring an officers safety while investigating crimes (or in addressing people who are legally seized.) The court said it would be unreasonable to expect officers to unnecessarily put themselves in harms way during the course of their duties. We are now concerned with more than the governmental interest in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded. [392 U.S. 1, 24] Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives. 21 (Terry)
In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm. (Terry)
Here the court states that the officer in the Terry case was not just trying to flex his authority or impose is own will on Terry, but that he is faced with making a on-the-spot decision on how to make the encounter safe for himself and others around him. As long as the steps taken are not excessive (like in U.S. v. King (1993)), the officer could separate the weapon from the subject without violating Constitutional rights. We cannot say his decision at that point to seize Terry and pat his clothing for weapons was the product of a volatile or inventive imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of harassment; the record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so. (Terry)
This is not to say that the focus is solely on guns, as someone on this forum pointed out. Any weapons that could be used against the officer fall within the scope of officer safety as directed in Terry, and the justification is simply safety for the officer. The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer. (Terry)
At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized.
Now in Michigan V. Long, the court dealt with a similar situation involving a knife. A drunk person is not automatically a dangerous person, but any weapon on hand brings a level of danger to the situation for the officer, and the court again felt that it was reasonable to separate the subject from the weapon to neutralize any threat of physical harm to the officer. The relevant parts of the opinion are as follows:
Our past cases indicate, then, that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.
In this case, the officers did not act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within Long's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. Therefore, the balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous.
The Michigan Supreme Court appeared to believe that it was not reasonable for the officers to fear that Long could injure them, because he was effectively under their control during the investigative stop and could not get access to any weapons that might have been located in the automobile. See 413 Mich. at 472, 320 N.W.2d at 869. This reasoning is mistaken in several respects. During any investigative detention, the suspect is "in the control" of the officers in the sense that he "may be briefly detained against his will. . . ." Terry, supra, at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). Just as a Terry suspect on the street may, despite being under the brief control of a police officer, reach into his clothing and retrieve a weapon, so might a Terry suspect in Long's position break away from police control and retrieve a weapon from his automobile. See United State v. Rainone, 586 F.2d 1132 1134 (CA7 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 980 (1979). In addition, [p1052] if the suspect is not placed under arrest, he will be permitted to reenter his automobile, and he will then have access to any weapons inside. United States v. Powless, 546 F.2d 792, 795-796 (CA8), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 910 (1977). Or, as here, the suspect may be permitted to reenter the vehicle before the Terry investigation is over, and again, may have access to weapons. In any event, we stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation "at close range," Terry, 392 U.S. at 24, when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a "quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger. . . ." Id. at 28. In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternative means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter. This last statement if highlighted mainly in response to those who would believe that merely having an officer stand by and maintain a watch on the individual would be the more reasonable means of ensuring officer safety. The court stated here that officers are not required to adopt alternative means to ensure their safety. They do have a right to separate the subject from the weapon. I use the term "a right" not of my own opinion, but as the court put it. (See highlighted term below.)
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right "to neutralize the threat of physical harm," id., at 24, when he possesses an articulate suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous. We did not, however, expressly address whether such a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest. In the present case, respondent David Long was convicted for possession of marihuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the 1035*1035 automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. We hold that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Michigan V. Long
When the officer has a reasonable belief "that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm." Michigan V. Long
Here the court recognizes the danger to police officers during "routine" motor vehicle stops i.e. scenarios that don't necessarily involve misdemeanor/felony crimes, but mere infractions: In two cases in which we applied Terry to specific factual situations, we recognized that investigative detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977), we held that police may order persons out of 1048*1048 an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous. Our decision rested in part on the "inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile." Id., at 110. In Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143 (1972), we held that the police, acting on an informant's tip, may reach into the passenger compartment of an automobile to remove a gun from a driver's waistband even where the gun was not apparent to police from outside the car and the police knew of its existence only because of the tip. Again, our decision rested in part on our view of the danger presented to police officers in "traffic stop" and automobile situations.[ (Michigan V. Long)
Our past cases indicate then that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. (Michigan V. Long)
Therefore, the balancing required by Terry clearly weighs in favor of allowing the police to conduct an area search of the passenger compartment to uncover weapons, as long as they possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous. (Michigan V. Long)
And they repeated their ruling in Terry here, emphasizing their original finding: In any event, we stress that a Terry investigation, such as the one that occurred here, involves a police investigation "at close range," Terry, 392 U. S., at 24, when the officer remains particularly vulnerable in part because a full custodial arrest has not been effected, and the officer must make a "quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger . . . ." Id., at 28. In such circumstances, we have not required that officers adopt alternative means to ensure their safety in order to avoid the intrusion involved in a Terry encounter. (Michigan V. Long)
In Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972), the question of whether the weapon carried is legal or not, as pertaining to officer safety, separation of said legal weapon is addressed. The court noted that such separation for officer safety purposes does not hinge on the legality of the weapon carried. This is particularly true of knives. In CT, any person can carry a knife limited to a blade length of 3 & 3/4" without any permit or the like. That does not mean that such a knife is not dangerous to an officer, nor does it mean that because it is legally carried, that an officer cannot take it from the person during the course of the investigation for his/her safety. To the person who posted here asking if I find other objects to be a threat to my safety, I would say absolutely; other objects I would hold for my safety. That would include legal sized knives, as well as screwdrivers (which I have come across.) Just like a legal gun, or a legal knife, during a legitimate Terry stop, I can and will take and hold such item until my investigation/police action is complete. Once complete, the item will be returned to the person I stopped.
The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence, and thus the frisk for weapons might be equally necessary and reasonable, whether or not carrying a concealed weapon violated any applicable state law. Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972)
Here again is further explanation of what constitutes a Terry stop, which would be any "forcible" stop being against the will of the subject: So long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop, [n1] and has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to this protective purpose. Id. at 30. Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972)
...the policeman's action in reaching to the spot where the gun was thought to be hidden constituted a limited intrusion designed to insure his safety, and we conclude that it was reasonable. Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) specifically addresses how an officer chooses to handle a motor vehicle stop. This case involved a minor motor vehicle infraction. Upon contact with the officer, the officer developed a reasonable belief that the subject was armed based on the bulge in the waistline. The court upheld the subsequent frisk, recognizing the risks associated with motor vehicle stops. And we have specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile. "According to one study, approximately 30% of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile. Bristow, Police Officer Shootings - A Tactical Evaluation, 54 J. Crim. L. C. & P. S. 93 (1963)." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 148 n. 3 (1972). We are aware that not all these assaults occur when issuing traffic summons, but we have before expressly declined to accept the argument that traffic violations necessarily involve less danger to officers than other types of confrontations. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973). Indeed, it appears "that a significant percentage of murders of police officers occurs when the officers are making traffic stops." Id., at 234 n. 5. [434 U.S. 106, 111]
The court finds that such a frisk and separation from the weapon is a "mere inconvenience." I realize you would likely disagree, which I can't blame you for as it is humiliating and frustrating to be subject to a frisk, but when balanced against an officer's legitimate concern for his safety, the court rules in favor of the officer. The State's proffered justification for such order - the officer's safety - is both legitimate and weighty, and the intrusion into respondent's personal liberty occasioned by the order, being at most a mere inconvenience, cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety.
Again....What is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety. Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977)
To those who would argue that what makes a subject to be considered dangerous would be the nature of the crime being investigated, the court stated here that it is the mere presence of a weapon that makes them "dangerous" to the officer. The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."
And finally in U.S. v. King (1993), the court noted when an officer would have a legal right to disarm someone....if "a policeman has a right ... to disarm a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence" ......In Mimms, the defendant was lawfully detained due to an expired license plate, and the de minimus intrusion in the interest of the officers' safety was reasonable partly because the police already had a basis to detain the individual......In short, while the safety of police officers is no doubt an important government interest, it can only justify a Fourth Amendment intrusion into a person's liberty "
While the court here did not rule in favor of the officer's actions, finding them to be essentially excessive, they did articulate what the officer COULD HAVE done, and again spoke of separating a weapon from the subject. Also mentioned is the mere presences of a weapon would give an officer a "specific articulable fact" that would give an officer a concern for their safety. Here, Officer LeMasters saw the pistol before ordering King out of the car. Thus, her concern for her safety was based on specific articulable facts, making the justification for ordering King out of the car even more critical than that presented by the officers in Mimms. Officer LeMasters' observation of an apparently loaded pistol within Defendants' immediate reach would justify her separation of Defendants from the pistol in order to ensure her own safety during the encounter. U.S. v. King (1993)
Again, when weighing individual liberty to officer safety, the favor falls with the officer: The governmental interest in the safety of police officers outweighs the individual's Fourth Amendment interest when an officer has an objective basis to believe that the person being lawfully detained is armed and dangerous. See Long, 463 U.S. at 1051, 103 S.Ct. at 3482; Terry, 392 U.S. at 23-24, 88 S.Ct. at 1881. U.S. v. King (1993)
Similar to Adams, Warden v. Williams (1972), here the court addresses the legality of the weapon that is carried, citing how it has no bearing on the right of the officer to separate the weapon from the person stopped, noting that a legal weapon is just as potentially dangerous to the officer. Moreover, Defendants' lawful possession of the pistol has no bearing on the reasonableness of Officer LeMasters' actions because the interest justifying her separation of Defendants from the pistol is her safety, and a legally possessed weapon presents just as great a danger to her safety as an illegal one. U.S. v. King (1993)
As in other cases, the courts use the term "entitled" in describing that an officer has a right to do what they need to do to ensure their safety. Officer LeMasters was entitled to separate Defendants from the pistol by ordering them out of the car for the duration of her advisement. Officer LeMasters had an articulable safety reason justifying the initial intrusion, and any additional intrusion in asking Defendants to exit the car could "only be described as de minimus." Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111, 98 S.Ct. at 333. To hold otherwise, would "`unreasonab[ly] [] require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.'" .................Once she saw the gun, Officer LeMasters could separate Defendants from the gun for her own safety by ordering Defendants out of the car. U.S. v. King (1993)
If you are still reading this, kudos to you for making it this far. I just wanted to make sure that what my understanding of the law was could be justified with ample case law. I know we have been though extensive discussion on open carry vs RAS, and you thoroughly educated me on the pertinent case law that shows that there is no RAS in open carry. But the discussion does change when it comes to a legitimate stop, whether that's based on RAS of a crime, or a motor vehicle infraction. In those situations, the officer does have the right to disarm you for his/her safety regardless of how much you disagree with it, and regardless of your permit to carry. On a personal note, I know for a fact that there are officers out there who are power hungry and are just plain do***bags when it comes to guns. But with any category of people you will have the good and the bad, cops included. There are plenty of good cops out there who have no interest in violating your rights, and are not anti-gun. Recent national surveys, as well as politics in the news (especially those Colorado sheriffs) have shown that 90% of LEOs are not in favor of gun control. But at the same time, we tip-toe this line of gun rights v.s. officer safety. The reality is officers do get shot and killed every year throughout this country. When faced with scenarios, we have to make on-the-spot decisions that really could mean life or death for us. At the end of the day, we don't want to be jerks, we just want to make it home at night to be with our families. I know that some people feel like we cry and whine about our safety, but go watch some youtube dash cam videos of officers getting killed on traffic stops and tell me if you were now a cop on a traffic stop, you wouldn't be a little nervous.
My wife, who would describe herself as a "hardcore libertarian" was initially annoyed with me when I described the motor vehicle stop I made where I disarmed the guy. But later, after she had time to think about it, she came to me and said "You know I consider myself a hardcore libertarian......but i'm glad you did what you did. I want you to make it home every night. I want you to be safe."
I hope I have addressed everything that was raised. If I missed anything let me know.
To Davidmcbeth, don't bother responding to this because I will not be reading or responding to your posts. I don't think I need to explain why. Everyone else - have at it.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Soooo,,,,,
The whole point of this post,,,
Is that ,, knowing that he was indeed Armed,
You did not have RAS, that he was "presently, dangerous"...
And in spite of All the cites you quote,,,
You disarmed him Anyway,,, Cause you just didnt know...
After All,,, You just need to go home at the end of your shift...
Even IF, that means Violating his 4th amendment rights!
Neat!!!
The whole point of this post,,,
Is that ,, knowing that he was indeed Armed,
You did not have RAS, that he was "presently, dangerous"...
And in spite of All the cites you quote,,,
You disarmed him Anyway,,, Cause you just didnt know...
After All,,, You just need to go home at the end of your shift...
Even IF, that means Violating his 4th amendment rights!
Neat!!!
luckyykid
Regular Member
Ummmmm read it again - the court has held that BEING armed IS RAS of presently being dangerous.
The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."
BECAUSE Mimms was armed, he THUS posed a serious and present danger. You may disagree, but the case law has "spoken."
Also from the King case: her concern for her safety was based on specific articulable facts. What facts did she have? She saw a gun under his leg. That's it. Mere presence.
How is it a 4th violation if the courts have called it reasonable and justified?????? You may disagree, but the court disagrees with you. And i'm sure you'd be the first person to go quoting case law when it benefits your position right?
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
Lucky,
While this is not the worst case of an officer stopping someone I have heard of, it is not what I want to see. I am going to speak from more of a philosophical note with this one.
A few comments:
1) A government enforcer does not have 'rights' bestowed upon them. Your badge might give you powers or privileges, but human beings all have the same rights for the mere fact that they are human. You don't have a 'right' to disarm someone, you might have a court permission slip. This is important, because you should be judging not what you can get away with as a LEO, but instead as what any other human being would be able to do. If I pulled over to help someone on the side of the road and they had a gun in their waistband or anywhere else, I would not order them around or disarm them or anything else. I would either stay and help if I felt comfortable or leave if they made me uncomfortable. Remember, every time you exercise power over people that anyone without a badge wouldn't have it is a 'bad thing'.
2) I agree that the courts have been sympathetic towards officers during traffic stops with the reason of 'officer safety'. While I wish you, personally, a safe life and career, 'officer safety' is a BS excuse for doing questionable things. You have the same 'right' towards self defense and life as any of the rest of us. The difference, as I am sure you would note, is in the fact that LEOs go out and purposely put themselves in harm's way. But that is not something that then makes them more than human. You accept that risk and responsibility on your own. It does not confer extra rights or powers because you put yourself in a risky situation. Each time that you utilize more power over someone else, you take from them.
3) If the firearm made you at all nervous or in fear for your safety, you had every right to leave the person alone and leave the proximity while defending your life in escaping if you are engaged. The extra fear that might occur comes from the fact that you are already exercising a power that another person does not have. By pulling this person over, you put yourself in an adversarial role to their rights and liberty. I dare say that if I, for instance, did the same thing to this person, he probably would have shot me. And I wouldn't really blame him.
As a side story - I had someone try to 'pull me over' in New Haven. He ended up making roadrunner dust clouds back around my car and leaving about 30 feet of rubber when he noticed the muzzle of a Glock 22. He was right to do that too, because I was not bluffing. My concern was not whether he had a government permission slip to do what he was doing or anything else. My concern was that he had blocked my travel and was approaching my vehicle in a threatening manner. Now think about how they tell you to approach a car in the academy and how many times a police officer will approach a car with their hand on their sidearm. What would you think/do if you were in your car and someone walked towards your door with their eyes fixed on you and their hand on their firearm?
Remember that not everyone believes that a LEO has some sort of extra power/rights/authority over them and will treat a LEO the same way. They are not all just 'gangbangers' or 'on drugs' or whatever will be used to justify their behavior in the reports. Some people just understand that they are human and so are you. This kind of understanding is going to become more common and more pronounced over time. It is important that you understand it completely.
Don't lose sight of what is good and right by justifying actions with the law. If what I am describing makes you think "Well, it would be difficult to do any of my job if I lived by those rules" then congratulations. This is why 'law enforcement' is wrong. It is why policing was so very different even a few decades ago. Look at the way police forces have changed. Look at the avalanche of man made laws that have no victim. Police once upon a time called themselves 'peace officers' and would have been appalled at what goes on today on a regular basis. The job of a peace officer is meant to be difficult and very limited in power. Sound familiar? The same principle was to be applied to all elements of the government.
While this is not the worst case of an officer stopping someone I have heard of, it is not what I want to see. I am going to speak from more of a philosophical note with this one.
A few comments:
1) A government enforcer does not have 'rights' bestowed upon them. Your badge might give you powers or privileges, but human beings all have the same rights for the mere fact that they are human. You don't have a 'right' to disarm someone, you might have a court permission slip. This is important, because you should be judging not what you can get away with as a LEO, but instead as what any other human being would be able to do. If I pulled over to help someone on the side of the road and they had a gun in their waistband or anywhere else, I would not order them around or disarm them or anything else. I would either stay and help if I felt comfortable or leave if they made me uncomfortable. Remember, every time you exercise power over people that anyone without a badge wouldn't have it is a 'bad thing'.
2) I agree that the courts have been sympathetic towards officers during traffic stops with the reason of 'officer safety'. While I wish you, personally, a safe life and career, 'officer safety' is a BS excuse for doing questionable things. You have the same 'right' towards self defense and life as any of the rest of us. The difference, as I am sure you would note, is in the fact that LEOs go out and purposely put themselves in harm's way. But that is not something that then makes them more than human. You accept that risk and responsibility on your own. It does not confer extra rights or powers because you put yourself in a risky situation. Each time that you utilize more power over someone else, you take from them.
3) If the firearm made you at all nervous or in fear for your safety, you had every right to leave the person alone and leave the proximity while defending your life in escaping if you are engaged. The extra fear that might occur comes from the fact that you are already exercising a power that another person does not have. By pulling this person over, you put yourself in an adversarial role to their rights and liberty. I dare say that if I, for instance, did the same thing to this person, he probably would have shot me. And I wouldn't really blame him.
As a side story - I had someone try to 'pull me over' in New Haven. He ended up making roadrunner dust clouds back around my car and leaving about 30 feet of rubber when he noticed the muzzle of a Glock 22. He was right to do that too, because I was not bluffing. My concern was not whether he had a government permission slip to do what he was doing or anything else. My concern was that he had blocked my travel and was approaching my vehicle in a threatening manner. Now think about how they tell you to approach a car in the academy and how many times a police officer will approach a car with their hand on their sidearm. What would you think/do if you were in your car and someone walked towards your door with their eyes fixed on you and their hand on their firearm?
Remember that not everyone believes that a LEO has some sort of extra power/rights/authority over them and will treat a LEO the same way. They are not all just 'gangbangers' or 'on drugs' or whatever will be used to justify their behavior in the reports. Some people just understand that they are human and so are you. This kind of understanding is going to become more common and more pronounced over time. It is important that you understand it completely.
Don't lose sight of what is good and right by justifying actions with the law. If what I am describing makes you think "Well, it would be difficult to do any of my job if I lived by those rules" then congratulations. This is why 'law enforcement' is wrong. It is why policing was so very different even a few decades ago. Look at the way police forces have changed. Look at the avalanche of man made laws that have no victim. Police once upon a time called themselves 'peace officers' and would have been appalled at what goes on today on a regular basis. The job of a peace officer is meant to be difficult and very limited in power. Sound familiar? The same principle was to be applied to all elements of the government.
Last edited: