• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

CC experience

heresolong

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,318
Location
Blaine, WA, ,
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
Only reasonable suspicion need exist during a contact for a temporary Officer safety disarm.
Although hopefully you will admit that a man carrying a gun in a holster no longer qualifies as reasonable suspicion in Washington.
 

Johnny Law

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
462
Location
Puget Sound, ,
imported post

heresolong wrote:
Johnny Law wrote:
Only reasonable suspicion need exist during a contact for a temporary Officer safety disarm.
Although hopefully you will admit that a man carrying a gun in a holster no longer qualifies as reasonable suspicion in Washington.
That is true, there would have to be other factors present to warrant it.
 

G27

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
573
Location
Kitsap County, Washington, USA
imported post

Thanks for the case law, Johnny. I do understand the object of officer safety and I am all for it. If I worked in that profession I would want to make it home to my wife and kids, too. But my question is when does officer safety begin to violate a person's rights? An officer cannot just disarm you if he is giving you a ticket for speeding? So do you think it would just be best to not say anything unless specifically asked?
 

expvideo

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
1,487
Location
Lynnwood, WA, ,
imported post

I used to offer my CPL with my license because officers seemed to appreciate it. I don't do that anymore. Officers have a tendancy to show their appreciation by disarming me, unloading my gun (sometimes unsafely), putting it in my trunk, and lecturing me about how I shouldn't be carrying a gun. So long story short, now I don't give a rat's ass what makes them more comfortable. It's none of their damn business.
 

sv_libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,201
Location
Olympia, WA, ,
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
Only reasonable suspicion need exist during a contact for a temporary Officer safety disarm. This applies to any contact be it pedestrian, vehicle stop, or wherever. The gun is then returned (usually unloaded) at the end of the contact.

A social contact (Police walk up and say hi) would not qualify, as the Officer has chosen to be in the proximity of the armed person.

Confiscation is a separate topic, and usually applies to arrest situations, where if someone is going to jail, obviously their gun isn't going with them. Confiscation can be temporary or permanent.
Please cite. Please also clarify when the entire stop is unjustified per Terry. Things are going to get VERY expensive for Olympia if they keep this crap up, and so far none of them have been able to justify any of their insane behavior.

Steve
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
Cue-Ball wrote:
Just to clarify Johnny Law's post - an officer can take your weapon for the duration of a stop, citing officer safety - but ONLY if the Terry Stop is legal. If you're pulled over for speeding, they can confiscate. If you're stopped for investigation of a crime, they can confiscate. But they cannot confiscate just because you have the gun (unless, as in this instance, you appear to be too young to own a weapon). There has to be reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime first.

If they don't have PC for a stop, they also don't have the authority to disarm you.
Only reasonable suspicion need exist during a contact for a temporary Officer safety disarm. This applies to any contact be it pedestrian, vehicle stop, or wherever. The gun is then returned (usually unloaded) at the end of the contact.

A social contact (Police walk up and say hi) would not qualify, as the Officer has chosen to be in the proximity of the armed person.

Confiscation is a separate topic, and usually applies to arrest situations, where if someone is going to jail, obviously their gun isn't going with them. Confiscation can be temporary or permanent.
Again we have cops, saying they can violate the Constitution at will, whenever the whim strikes them. This is of course how the cops see that case, but I can't see where case law can over ride the Constitution, ever, no how, just because cops want it to. If they want to be safe they need to change careers but part of being a cop is dealing with the danger. But violating the Constitution is not now or ever will be "upholding the law"; it's violating the supreme law of the land.
 

Morris

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
173
Location
North of Seattlle, South of Canada, Washington, US
imported post

Here's your rub: you willfully drove past a road closed sign and into an area closed off to the general public. Not at work so give me a few to find the RCW but in short, driving past emergency signage like a road closed is a misdemeanor. I cited to it a couple of years ago for a soccer mom who really needed the reminder and nearly flooded me out.

So technically, driving past that sign did violate the law and committed a criminal act.
 
Top