• 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.

When stopped in your car

C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Hal wrote:
I've been stopped three times. (Really, I'm not a bad driver). None of the officers asked me to hand over the weapon, and ... none of them seemed surprised, concerned or distressed at all.
Click to expand...

Which just proves the utter failure to use judgement on the part of those who automatically seize a firearm. And proves that the presence of a firearm does not translate automatically into danger.
 
A

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Hal wrote:
I've been stopped three times. (Really, I'm not a bad driver). None of the officers asked me to hand over the weapon, and ... none of them seemed surprised, concerned or distressed at all.
Click to expand...

Which just proves the utter failure to use judgement on the part of those who automatically seize a firearm. And proves that the presence of a firearm does not translate automatically into danger.
Click to expand...

I've been pulled over a few times myself I think 5 to be exact lol not that I was doing anything bad. My running lights had a short and kept going out at night so I got rid of the truck. All 5 times I told the officer, and they were fine with it didn't ask where it was or anything. 3 of them did have their hand on their gun, but many cops use their guns as a hand rest so who knows.
 
Tucker6900

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
imported post

This just in. Pulled over last night on Howell Rd between 52 and Meridian. Heres how it went:

Ingham Co. Deputy, after my telling him I was armed,

Dep: Ok,please hand it to me, slowly, through the window

Me:Iwill not hand it to you, but if you want totake it, I will step out of the vehicle and you can take it yourself. However, I think we would both feel safer if all weapons here stayed where they are, dont you?

Dep: (he seemed to ponder the previous statement for about 10 seconds as he looked at my DL, CPL) Agreed, just dont shoot me!

Me: Same goes for you.

It was quite the pleasant encounter. After he handed me back my paperwork, no ticket for not using my turn signal, he said: "Thanks for being upfront and honest with me. I usually disarm people at night, but turing your overhead light on and the fact that you kept your hands where I could see them, made a big difference, and I appreciate that. Have a good night."
 
smellslikemichigan

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
imported post

Tucker6900 wrote:
This just in. Pulled over last night on Howell Rd between 52 and Meridian. Heres how it went:

Ingham Co. Deputy, after my telling him I was armed,

Dep: Ok,please hand it to me, slowly, through the window

Me:Iwill not hand it to you, but if you want totake it, I will step out of the vehicle and you can take it yourself. However, I think we would both feel safer if all weapons here stayed where they are, dont you?

Dep: (he seemed to ponder the previous statement for about 10 seconds as he looked at my DL, CPL) Agreed, just dont shoot me!

Me: Same goes for you.

It was quite the pleasant encounter. After he handed me back my paperwork, no ticket for not using my turn signal, he said: "Thanks for being upfront and honest with me. I usually disarm people at night, but turing your overhead light on and the fact that you kept your hands where I could see them, made a big difference, and I appreciate that. Have a good night."
Click to expand...
well done! although, i probably would have said "i'd rather not hand it to you" vs "i will not hand it to you". since he legally has the right to disarm you.
it doesn't make sense that any officer would try to disarm someone who is being upfront about the fact they are armed. many nightmare scenarios have crossed my mind in this regard. you obviously can't hand the gun out barrel forward, but when the officer takes it from you, he's got the barrel pointed at you.
i haven't been pulled over while carrying yet, but if an officer wanted to disarm me, i think i might suggest to him that he allow me to carefully place the gun on the passenger seat and exit the vehicle and just leave the gun there until he was done ticketing me or whatever. that way the gun is out of my reach and he knows where i am at all times. i think that might be a good, safe, compromise.
 
Big Gay Al

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
imported post

Tucker6900 wrote:
This just in. Pulled over last night on Howell Rd between 52 and Meridian. Heres how it went:

Ingham Co. Deputy, after my telling him I was armed,

Dep: Ok,please hand it to me, slowly, through the window

Me:Iwill not hand it to you, but if you want totake it, I will step out of the vehicle and you can take it yourself. However, I think we would both feel safer if all weapons here stayed where they are, dont you?

Dep: (he seemed to ponder the previous statement for about 10 seconds as he looked at my DL, CPL) Agreed, just dont shoot me!

Me: Same goes for you.

It was quite the pleasant encounter. After he handed me back my paperwork, no ticket for not using my turn signal, he said: "Thanks for being upfront and honest with me. I usually disarm people at night, but turing your overhead light on and the fact that you kept your hands where I could see them, made a big difference, and I appreciate that. Have a good night."
Click to expand...
Must have been a rookie. ;)
 
Big Gay Al

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
imported post

Bronson wrote:
If he insisted I handed it to him I would unsnap my holster and hand it over holster and all.

Bronson
Click to expand...
Well, that's certainly an option, but in general, if the LEO wants to take possession of your weapon, I'd prefer he took it from the holster, rather than have me hand it to him.
 
G

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

Big Gay Al wrote:
Bronson wrote:
If he insisted I handed it to him I would unsnap my holster and hand it over holster and all.

Bronson
Click to expand...
Well, that's certainly an option, but in general, if the LEO wants to take possession of your weapon, I'd prefer he took it from the holster, rather than have me hand it to him.
Click to expand...
I'm of the same frame of mind. They are allowed to do a Terry Frisk for this very purpose.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Hal wrote:
I've been stopped three times. (Really, I'm not a bad driver). None of the officers asked me to hand over the weapon, and ... none of them seemed surprised, concerned or distressed at all.
Click to expand...
Which just proves the utter failure to use judgement on the part of those who automatically seize a firearm. And proves that the presence of a firearm does not translate automatically into danger.
Click to expand...


I'm glad this thread came up again. I just saw something in Terry vs Ohio that I had forgotten about. Notice this is the holding. Its not just discussion leading up to the statement of law:

We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, 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.

(emphasis added)
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

I posted this a while back on another thread, but think it has good information so I'll post it again. It has to do with being stopped by an LEO for open carry and what the SCOTUS has to say about it.

WHEN APPROACHED BY POLICE WHILE OPEN CARRYING.
[/b]By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts[/b]

Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun if properly licensed, a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.[suP]1[/suP] Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,[suP]2[/suP] it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."[suP]3[/suP]

State laws vary regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms, but courts are usually sensitive to officer and public safety concerns over the presence in public of firearms. Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.[suP]4[/suP]

Anonymous Tip
In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.[suP]5[/suP] More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.[/b][suP]6[/suP] Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.[suP]7[/suP] In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.[suP]8[/suP] The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.[suP]9[/suP]

Clearly, not every report of a citizen is worthy of belief or sufficient to justify a response by an officer. A caller could, for example, intend merely to harass someone by making an anonymous call to police and claiming someone had a gun hidden in his or her vehicle or on his or her person.

The ultimate issue on the report's usefulness is whether the contents (and other attendant circumstances) create a reasonable suspicion that a dangerous situation exists, creating authority to detain or frisk or both. It certainly helps if the report contains particular facts that do one or more of the following: [/b]

  • Create a suggestion of threats of violence in this situation
  • Are themselves acts of violence
  • Indicate impending criminal activity
  • Raise a reasonable concern for public safety
Of course, in the many jurisdictions where carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, this analytical step may be obviated and inquiry will proceed to the next issue, the likely veracity of the information source. In the case of an anonymous tip, the question will be whether corroboration of detail goes beyond the mere description of a person already in public.

Examples of Appropriate Police Actions
Examples may be helpful here. Police officers would be acting reasonably in stopping and frisking an individual after receiving information on the street from a known bystander that the person was displaying a handgun on a street corner in a high crime area at 5:30 in the morning, or if it reasonably appears that a suspect is not only armed but also dangerous, as would be the case if the individual appeared to be reaching for his or her weapon. The possession of a firearm by a minor in many states may be viewed as presumptively illegal, and thus sufficient to justify an investigatory stop of the minor by the police, again provided the information source is sufficiently credible. A constitutionally reliable report of the sighting of someone carrying a sawed-off shotgun-especially in states where this is illegal-would likely justify an immediate investigatory stop. Loading a weapon in public, especially where there is no clearly lawful reason for doing so (to begin hunting or target shooting, for instance), and especially in a high crime area at night or during early morning hours, could provide the extra information some courts require in order to allow police officers to conduct an investigatory stop and frisk of a person reportedly in possession of a firearm.

Enforcement Guidelines
Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:

  • Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.
  • If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.
  • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.
  • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview.
  • If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon.
  • Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter.
[suP]1[/suP][size= See, for example, [i]Com. v. Couture[/i], 407 ][size=Mass.][size= 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498][size=U.S.][size= 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
][suP]2[/suP][size=][size=Id.][size=
][suP]3[/suP][size= See [i]Terry v. [/i]][size=Ohio][size=, 392][size=U.S.][size= 1, 88][size=S. Ct.][size= 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
][suP]4[/suP][size= [i]Com. v. Alvarado[/i], 423 ][size=Mass.][size= 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998).
][suP]5[/suP][size=][size=Alabama][size= v. White][size=, 496][size=U.S.][size= 325, 110][size=S. Ct.][size= 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
][suP]6[/suP][size=][size=Florida][size= v. J.L][size=., 529][size=U.S.][size= 266, 120][size=S. Ct.][size= 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
][suP]7[/suP][size=][size=Pennsylvania][size= v.][size=D.M.][size=,][size=U.S.][size= 120][size=S. Ct.][size= 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
][suP]8[/suP][size=][size=Id.][size=
][suP]9[/suP][size=][size=Alabama][size= v. White][size=, 496][size=U.S.][size= 325, 1105][size=S. Ct.][size= 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990);][size=U.S.][size= v. Diallo][size=, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994);][size=U.S.][size= v.][size=Taylor][size=, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top