timf343
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Bflamante wrote:
Agreed on officer safety. As some of you may know, my brother is active LE and my father is retired LE. I would never want anything bad to happen to them, or any LE for that matter!
That being said, there are lots of things that are illegal. During a traffic stop we all agree we are being detained on suspicion of violating traffic law. During such a detention, the officer may disarm you for his safety. But...
It's illegal to have marijuana. Does the fact that he found a pack of Marlboros in my pocket during the pat down give the officer the right to search the pack of cigarettes to make sure there's no joints in there?
It's illegal to hire a prostitute. Does the fact that a good looking woman is in my car give the officer the right to detain and interrogate her to make sure she's not 'working'?
It's illegal to carry a loaded gun without a permit. Does the fact that my firearm was temporarily seized for officer safety give the officer the right to search it to verify it is not chambered? I would suggest not. He may temporarily seize it for officer safety. Unless I give him permission to search it (ALWAYS POLITELY REFUSE), he has illegally searched, and whether it is loaded or not, the results of his search would violate the exceptions granted under Terry and be inadmissable.
Those who may disagree, let me only point out that the firearm is not being seized as evidence of a crime (in which case the police are free to search and conduct whatever tests upon it they desire in order to acquire incriminating information), but rather to protect officer safety. I believe this distinction was made in the Terry case to limit the infringement upon the 4th amendment. Clearly there is a need for officer safety, but that need is limited in scope. The permitted temporary seizure in the name of officer safety ensures I do not shoot the officer, not that the property violates any laws. As such, so long as the officer is safe from having said firearm used against him, he should not be permitted any further liberties with my property. Sitting on his seat, chambered or not, the firearm no longer represents a threat of my using it to shoot him, which is the only reason he was able to seize it in the first place.
OTOH, without a permit, those who may OC a Glock (and maybe other pistols) should be cognizant of the "chambered" indicator tab. It's obviously recommended you do not depend on such a tab (and manually clear the weapon to verify it is not loaded), the presence of that tab, and the positive indication thereof should in fact be enough reasonable cause to justify the search to determine whether the weapon is actually loaded.
Bflamante wrote:
Not to start an argument, BUT...
Agreed on officer safety. As some of you may know, my brother is active LE and my father is retired LE. I would never want anything bad to happen to them, or any LE for that matter!
That being said, there are lots of things that are illegal. During a traffic stop we all agree we are being detained on suspicion of violating traffic law. During such a detention, the officer may disarm you for his safety. But...
It's illegal to have marijuana. Does the fact that he found a pack of Marlboros in my pocket during the pat down give the officer the right to search the pack of cigarettes to make sure there's no joints in there?
It's illegal to hire a prostitute. Does the fact that a good looking woman is in my car give the officer the right to detain and interrogate her to make sure she's not 'working'?
It's illegal to carry a loaded gun without a permit. Does the fact that my firearm was temporarily seized for officer safety give the officer the right to search it to verify it is not chambered? I would suggest not. He may temporarily seize it for officer safety. Unless I give him permission to search it (ALWAYS POLITELY REFUSE), he has illegally searched, and whether it is loaded or not, the results of his search would violate the exceptions granted under Terry and be inadmissable.
Those who may disagree, let me only point out that the firearm is not being seized as evidence of a crime (in which case the police are free to search and conduct whatever tests upon it they desire in order to acquire incriminating information), but rather to protect officer safety. I believe this distinction was made in the Terry case to limit the infringement upon the 4th amendment. Clearly there is a need for officer safety, but that need is limited in scope. The permitted temporary seizure in the name of officer safety ensures I do not shoot the officer, not that the property violates any laws. As such, so long as the officer is safe from having said firearm used against him, he should not be permitted any further liberties with my property. Sitting on his seat, chambered or not, the firearm no longer represents a threat of my using it to shoot him, which is the only reason he was able to seize it in the first place.
OTOH, without a permit, those who may OC a Glock (and maybe other pistols) should be cognizant of the "chambered" indicator tab. It's obviously recommended you do not depend on such a tab (and manually clear the weapon to verify it is not loaded), the presence of that tab, and the positive indication thereof should in fact be enough reasonable cause to justify the search to determine whether the weapon is actually loaded.
An officer may not search your shed without a warrant...but if he's in the process of chasing a bad guy who decides to hide in your shed, the officer does not need a warrant to enter the shed to capture him. If he discovers a stash of pot, he may collect it as evidence and possibly charge the shed owner with possession. An obvious defense would be that the bad guy, nearing capture, ditched the stash to try and avoid compounded charges, but the warrantless search is still legal.