If an Officer asks for your gun...

Diesel-n-Lead · Feb 13, 2010

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:

Top three priorities for LEOs:
1. Officer Safety
2. Officer Safety
3. Officer Safety

Don't take it personally. Disarming you is the quickest way to ensure officer safety. Besides, if a situation arises such that you need your weapon to protect yourself while you have 1 or more officers on scene then the "fit has hit the shan" and you're probably screwed anyway.

Click to expand...

And in a small number of cases, not all, but at least some, the top three EXCUSES for LEO for inappropriate and unlawful actions are:
1. Officer Safety
2. Officer Safety
3. Officer Safety

Case in point, you now have my firearm in your possession for "officer safety", what justifies the action of running the serial to check to see if it is stolen...yet there have been many instances where LEO have said on these forums that it is departmental policy to check ANY firearm they come across against the hot list.

You're right, running the serial # is inappropriate unless you have PC to believe that the weapon is stolen or otherwise in violation of the law. I think the officers stating that it is departmental policy to run ALL serial numbers either didn't understand the memo or work for poorly advised departments. You'll note I didn't mention running the serial number, only taking temporary possession of the weapon (while conducting an investigation).

Diesel-n-Lead · Feb 13, 2010

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

Officer Safety seems to be an excuse for the prior restraint of a constitutional right, with no RAS required for said restraint.

Perhaps it would be prudent to muzzle the LAC as well for fear of the possibility that they might verbally abuse or threaten you.

My apologies, perhaps I failed to appropriately qualify the situation. I'm referring to the time during which an officer is conducting an investigation. If an officer is driving down the street and decides to stop you just because you have a firearm then he needs to keep driving and go get a donut, then sign up for a continuing education class on judicial interpretation of the 4th amendment.

diesel556 · Feb 14, 2010

imported post

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:

My apologies[SNIP]

No apology necessary. Out of curiosity, do most traffic violation stops fall under your category of "investigation" providing proper RAS for the seizure of a weapon?

Diesel-n-Lead · Feb 14, 2010

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:

My apologies[SNIP]

Click to expand...

No apology necessary. Out of curiosity, do most traffic violation stops fall under your category of "investigation" providing proper RAS for the seizure of a weapon?

Traffic violations are "infractions" as opposed to misdemeanors or felonies, so no. However it's a gray area where the courts tend to side with LEOs. As with most other "gray areas" it is prone to unrebuked abuse. For instance, here in PRK we have been blessed with PC section 12031 which denies citizens the right to carry a LOADED firearm, so if someone calls 911 and assumes your gun is loaded and says "There's a guy walking down the street with a loaded gun!" Then the officer is investigating [an allegation of] a misdemeanor.

diesel556 · Feb 14, 2010

imported post

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:

Traffic violations are "infractions" as opposed to misdemeanors or felonies, so no. However it's a gray area where the courts tend to side with LEOs. As with most other "gray areas" it is prone to unrebuked abuse. For instance, here in PRK we have been blessed with PC section 12031 which denies citizens the right to carry a LOADED firearm, so if someone calls 911 and assumes your gun is loaded and says "There's a guy walking down the street with a loaded gun!" Then the officer is investigating [an allegation of] a misdemeanor.

Unfortunately I know at least one police officer who believes that any time he detains someone that it is within his power to disarm them, including traffic stops; hence my question.

Your example is interesting, because as I understand the law in PRK officer's can inspect a firearm at any time to determine that it is unloaded. I would think that the 911 caller's statement about the condition of the gun would be irrelevant (the officer already has the authority).

Diesel-n-Lead · Feb 14, 2010

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:

Traffic violations are "infractions" as opposed to misdemeanors or felonies, so no. However it's a gray area where the courts tend to side with LEOs. As with most other "gray areas" it is prone to unrebuked abuse. For instance, here in PRK we have been blessed with PC section 12031 which denies citizens the right to carry a LOADED firearm, so if someone calls 911 and assumes your gun is loaded and says "There's a guy walking down the street with a loaded gun!" Then the officer is investigating [an allegation of] a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I know at least one police officer who believes that any time he detains someone that it is within his power to disarm them, including traffic stops; hence my question.

Your example is interesting, because as I understand the law in PRK officer's can inspect a firearm at any time to determine that it is unloaded. I would think that the 911 caller's statement about the condition of the gun would be irrelevant (the officer already has the authority).

Yeah, 12031(e):

Code:

In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.

However, anything beyond the 5 to 10 seconds it takes to check the condition of the weapon and it's no longer an "e-check", it's a seizure.

mlacey56 · Feb 26, 2010

imported post

Tell them that THEY can retrieve the weapon from you, you don't want to startle them, and then ask them to safety check it. It's an indication to myself that the person is fairly level headed even before any records are checked, if they can ask an officer this. And I feel safer. If all is on the up and up, and it's not loaded, I'll tell them to put one in the pipe. An unloaded weapon is fairly useless.

SavageOne · Feb 27, 2010

imported post

I had a similar discussion with a former MO State Highway Patrol trooper. In MO it is legal to carry a loaded gun concealed(or open) in the passenger compartment. I asked if an officer has the right to seach the area around a driver for his safety. He said yes that's a "Terry Stop". I then asked if I refuse(politely) the search, but offer to exit the vehicle to ensure the officer's safety , would that that also remove the justification of a search. He got a rather shocked look on his face and then smiled responding that yes it should. The officer would still be able to search me but the reason to search the vehicle would be gone. Along those same lines if I am carrying on my person while in my vehicle and asked to give over my firearm. I can't see where stating you will remove the gun and exit the vehicle(locked for both our protection) leaving the firearm in the vehicle, should not also remove the reason to seize my gun.

I know there are those that will argue you should not have to give over your firearm or exit your vehicle, but I realize thattheofficer is as worried about his safety as I am about myrights.

mlacey56 · Feb 27, 2010

imported post

SavageOne wrote:

I had a similar discussion with a former MO State Highway Patrol trooper. In MO it is legal to carry a loaded gun concealed(or open) in the passenger compartment. I asked if an officer has the right to seach the area around a driver for his safety. He said yes that's a "Terry Stop". I then asked if I refuse(politely) the search, but offer to exit the vehicle to ensure the officer's safety , would that that also remove the justification of a search. He got a rather shocked look on his face and then smiled responding that yes it should. The officer would still be able to search me but the reason to search the vehicle would be gone. Along those same lines if I am carrying on my person while in my vehicle and asked to give over my firearm. I can't see where stating you will remove the gun and exit the vehicle(locked for both our protection) leaving the firearm in the vehicle, should not also remove the reason to seize my gun.

I know there are those that will argue you should not have to give over your firearm or exit your vehicle, but I realize that the officer is as worried about his safety as I am about my rights.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Safety is paramount, and if you aren't involved with any illegal activities...than why would it matter? My rights are important, but damn....a loaded gun with a nervous officer at the other end is more of an immediate concern.

diesel556 · Feb 27, 2010

imported post

SavageOne wrote:

I had a similar discussion with a former MO State Highway Patrol trooper. In MO it is legal to carry a loaded gun concealed(or open) in the passenger compartment. I asked if an officer has the right to seach the area around a driver for his safety. He said yes that's a "Terry Stop". I then asked if I refuse(politely) the search, but offer to exit the vehicle to ensure the officer's safety , would that that also remove the justification of a search. He got a rather shocked look on his face and then smiled responding that yes it should. The officer would still be able to search me but the reason to search the vehicle would be gone. Along those same lines if I am carrying on my person while in my vehicle and asked to give over my firearm. I can't see where stating you will remove the gun and exit the vehicle(locked for both our protection) leaving the firearm in the vehicle, should not also remove the reason to seize my gun.

I know there are those that will argue you should not have to give over your firearm or exit your vehicle, but I realize thattheofficer is as worried about his safety as I am about myrights.

How does being stopped for a non-criminal traffic violation give the officer RAS to search you, or your vehicle? Without RAS of a crime or consent any search performed by an officer is illegal!

"Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity." - (emphasis mine) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

As Diesel-N-Lead pointed out in my query concerning RAS vis-à-vis normal traffic stops, "Traffic violations are "infractions" as opposed to misdemeanors or felonies, so no. "

"The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger." - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1

None of the opinion from the attached case states that an Officer may willy nilly search people. He must first and foremost have RAS that the citizen in question was a criminal for the stop to fall under Terry. If this requirement is met and he has RAS that his safety or that of others is in danger he may disarm the citizen.

It is not reasonable to assume that a person who is only pulled over for having a cracked windshield, who is otherwise lawfully carrying a weapon is a threat to anyone's safety.

diesel556 · Feb 27, 2010

imported post

mlacey56 wrote:

Couldn't have said it better myself. Safety is paramount, and if you aren't involved with any illegal activities...than why would it matter? My rights are important, but damn....a loaded gun with a nervous officer at the other end is more of an immediate concern.

Perhaps it matters because if you aren't involved in any illegal activities and the officer cannot reasonably articulate otherwise it is illegal for the officer to search you without consent?

You wouldn't want the officer to break the law, now would you? :quirky

SavageOne · Feb 27, 2010

imported post

If the officer is asking to searcha vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS have already been met to his belief. My question was more to prevent 1)an invasive search of my vehicle 2)relinquishing control of my firearm. Let's be honest in the real world we live in a DA can indict a ham sandwich and a LEO can find RAS . All he would have to say is your eyes were darting around the passenger compartment. That wouldn't show on a dash cam video.

That's why I asked the former trooper the original question. I want to be able to limit any intrusions(should they arise) on my rights. Just as you plan and practice your responses to various SD situations, I was trying to develop a response to what may be an RD(rights defense)situation.

Diesel-n-Lead · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

SavageOne wrote:

If the officer is asking to searcha vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS have already been met to his belief. My question was more to prevent 1)an invasive search of my vehicle 2)relinquishing control of my firearm. Let's be honest in the real world we live in a DA can indict a ham sandwich and a LEO can find RAS . All he would have to say is your eyes were darting around the passenger compartment. That wouldn't show on a dash cam video.

That's why I asked the former trooper the original question. I want to be able to limit any intrusions(should they arise) on my rights. Just as you plan and practice your responses to various SD situations, I was trying to develop a response to what may be an RD(rights defense)situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk&feature=related

A bit corny, but it highlights the subtle nuances an officer can use to: 1. "develop" RAS, or 2. Convince(borderline coercion) someone to waive their rights.

diesel556 · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk&feature=related

A bit corny, but it highlights the subtle nuances an officer can use to: 1. "develop" RAS, or 2. Convince(borderline coercion) someone to waive their rights.

Good video; I hadn't seen that one before.

SouthernBoy · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

mlacey56 wrote:

SavageOne wrote:

I had a similar discussion with a former MO State Highway Patrol trooper. In MO it is legal to carry a loaded gun concealed(or open) in the passenger compartment. I asked if an officer has the right to seach the area around a driver for his safety. He said yes that's a "Terry Stop". I then asked if I refuse(politely) the search, but offer to exit the vehicle to ensure the officer's safety , would that that also remove the justification of a search. He got a rather shocked look on his face and then smiled responding that yes it should. The officer would still be able to search me but the reason to search the vehicle would be gone. Along those same lines if I am carrying on my person while in my vehicle and asked to give over my firearm. I can't see where stating you will remove the gun and exit the vehicle(locked for both our protection) leaving the firearm in the vehicle, should not also remove the reason to seize my gun.

I know there are those that will argue you should not have to give over your firearm or exit your vehicle, but I realize thattheofficer is as worried about his safety as I am about myrights.

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. Safety is paramount, and if you aren't involved with any illegal activities...than why would it matter? My rights are important, but damn....a loaded gun with a nervous officer at the other end is more of an immediate concern.

I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote;

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

One might say, "sure officer, you can come into my house and have a look around... I have nothing to hide" because they don't wish to be confrontational with an LEO. An officer has no authority to search you or your car without RAS. Do not let him or at least if he insists, continue to express your disapproval of his actions. If you are asked to get out of your car, close the windows and lock the door.

When we start to surrender our rights, even a little, the camel's nose under the tent will soon drag his whole body into the muck.

SouthernBoy · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

SavageOne wrote:

If the officer is asking to searcha vehicle I would assume the requirements for RAS have already been met to his belief. My question was more to prevent 1)an invasive search of my vehicle 2)relinquishing control of my firearm. Let's be honest in the real world we live in a DA can indict a ham sandwich and a LEO can find RAS . All he would have to say is your eyes were darting around the passenger compartment. That wouldn't show on a dash cam video.

That's why I asked the former trooper the original question. I want to be able to limit any intrusions(should they arise) on my rights. Just as you plan and practice your responses to various SD situations, I was trying to develop a response to what may be an RD(rights defense)situation.

May I suggest you obtain "You & The Police" by Boston T. Party and read it.

SouthernBoy · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

Diesel-n-Lead wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk&feature=related

A bit corny, but it highlights the subtle nuances an officer can use to: 1. "develop" RAS, or 2. Convince(borderline coercion) someone to waive their rights.

Click to expand...

Good video; I hadn't seen that one before.

I've seen this several times and it is a good lesson on what to do and not do.

mlacey56 · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

mlacey56 wrote:

Couldn't have said it better myself. Safety is paramount, and if you aren't involved with any illegal activities...than why would it matter? My rights are important, but damn....a loaded gun with a nervous officer at the other end is more of an immediate concern.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it matters because if you aren't involved in any illegal activities and the officer cannot reasonably articulate otherwise it is illegal for the officer to search you without consent?

You wouldn't want the officer to break the law, now would you? :quirky

I see your point.....I should have specified. I wasn't referring to the officer needing to search your vehicle or you. There is absolutely (relative term) no need for that. I was referring towards letting the officer know you got a firearm on you, etc etc etc... they have no right to know that.....not disarmament :X , just friendly information.

,,,,,,,,I've been on many stops now,and when was the last time I saw a criminal incriminate himself? Well honestly, I've seen twice with handguns. But those were odd circumstances....I no way does any officer I know search a vehicle without a really good reason. People tend to get pissed off with that sort of thing.... I should mention I live in Oregon, guns are fairly commonplace. :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

mlacey56 · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

Oregon is one of those states where if you are pulled over by a LEO, they're going to know you have a CHL as soon as they run your License. So the common recommendation in Oregon is to hand over both your License and CHL at the same time, because they're going to know no matter what.

I've heard reports that some officers simply ask where the handgun is, while others have reported that the LEO insisted on disarming the citizen and holding the gun (putting in on or in their cruiser) until the traffic stop is complete.

I believe that for a "Terry Stop" (Officer has reasonable suspicion a crime has been, is being, or will be committed), an officer has the power to frisk and disarm you (tell me if I'm wrong), but what if it's just a traffic infraction? Does the officer have the power to force you to hand over your weapon, or to even take it from you? Isn't that considered a "seizure" of your property, even if it's temporary?

If a LEO does NOT have the power to disarm me for an infraction, what's the best way to respond? I would think that "I understand you are asking for your personal safety, but I believe my handgun is in the safest place right where it is," or "I do not consent to being disarmed" would be some appropriate responses, but what do I say or do if the issue is pushed?

I do not want to have my hand anywhere near my firearm in the presence of a police officer, and I certainly do not want them removing it from my IWB holster.

...Officer, if you're going to remove my gun from my pants, I should inform you that I am a very happily married man...
...Orygunner...

Naw. Can't seize your property. HOWEVER they may spend time running the serial numbers....well you know why. I know this from personal experience (both sides of the car) and I need to find a direct answer.....there seems to bee some sort of loop hole like this one.

SouthernBoy · Feb 28, 2010

imported post

I seem to recall that there is case law in Virginia regarding LEO's running serial numbers and the fact that this is a violation of the law without RAS. Does anyone here know if this is true?

If an Officer asks for your gun...

Regular Member

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Lone Star Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member