imported post
I am very thankful that I do not live in comifornia. How incredible that this officer thinks he can get away with this!
By his logic, he can stop EVERY car to determine if the driver has a license. By his logic, it is per se illegal to drive without a license, so, therefore, he can perform a terry stop to investigate if the driver has a license. While doing this, he can remove you from the car, after all, you could drive away and/or use it as a weapon while he checks on this.
His logic is flawed, at least here in WA where no special circumstances are needed to get a CPL. Maybe in California a court would decide that, because getting a license is rare (in most of California), that it is per se illegal to have a gun on your person, and therefore, you are likely violating the law and knowledge or belief that you have a weapon is reason for a terry stop to investigate if you have the license.
Here in WA, it is certainly illegal to detain someone for possessing an openly carried gun, as it is legal to do so.
I wonder though, thinking back to my stop with the police a month or so ago, if the logic he used to justify the terry stop was the same as the California logic that a permit is required, thus it may be illegal... I was in a car, so a permit was required, and he then performed a seizure of me and my vehicle why he searched for legal items. It was clearly wrong, I chose not to push it for various reasons, especially since it was more of a CCW issue than an Open Carry issue, but none-the-less...
I do wonder though, at what point CAN an officer disarm you for officer safety. Cleary in any legal terry stop this would be logical, but what about a traffic stop. It seems to me that because I informed the officer of one legal gun, he used the fact that I had one to justify a complete search of my vehicle AFTER he had verified my permit. At that point, it certainly became illegal to search my vehicle. However, before verifying my permit, might hehave been reasonable in searching my body and/or the area within my reach?
I wish there was more case law on what an officer can do for safety during a traffic stop. All of the cases wind up being about drugs, and what an officer can see/smell. I find very little about searching incident to learning of a lawful item that a person has informed an officer about. I would love to find a great case that talks a lot about "officer safety" and the authority to search/detain/etc. when they know of nothing illegal. In my opinion, me informing an officer I have a gun and a CPL is no different than me not doing so. In either case I may have another one, or not. I would also think that informing an officer about a weapon would actually lower the PC or RS to search--it seems likely a criminal with an illegal gun would not mention it, but, in reality, how often does a criminal, while pulled over illegally carrying a gun, inform the officer of a concealed weapon... that would seem mighty stupid! It is FAR more likelier that an officer will find an illegal weapon on a random search than on a search where they are informed of a weapon (I would have to assume that logic would work like this... no stats to back up that claim, sorry).
Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I know I rambled a bit, but please comment/expand as you see fit. I wish I had more time to edit/make the thoughts clearer, but I am in the middle of law school exams right now and need to get back to studying.