Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Relinquishing Control of a personal weapon

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    A question was posed to me at work. At what point are we - whether OC or CC - required by law to relinquish control of our sidearm? At a traffic stop, we are required to disclose our CC status. Does this give the officer the right to seize our weapon under the guise of officer safety?

    My initial response to the question was only if we are being detained (?) or placed under arrest. Any other situation would constitute illegal search and seizure.

    I will research it on my own when I am able to do so, but I would love to have the input of others.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    A lawful Terry Stop (like a traffic stop) or arrest is definitely a reason for a cop to take away your gun. Anything less, no.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273

    Post imported post

    emptypockets wrote:
    A question was posed to me at work. At what point are we - whether OC or CC - required by law to relinquish control of our sidearm? At a traffic stop, we are required to disclose our CC status. Does this give the officer the right to seize our weapon under the guise of officer safety?

    My initial response to the question was only if we are being detained (?) or placed under arrest. Any other situation would constitute illegal search and seizure.

    I will research it on my own when I am able to do so, but I would love to have the input of others.

    Thanks.
    As listed on the MSP website:





    Proper Conduct During Encounters with Police



    Responsibilities of Individuals With a CCW License:

    1. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol who is stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise) while in possession of a pistol shall immediately discloseto the police officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol either on their person or in their motor vehicle.


    • Failure to disclose this information to a police officer carries the following penalties:


    • First offense = State Civil Infraction - $500 fine and 6-month CCW license suspension.
    • Second offense = State Civil Infraction - $1000 fine and CCW license revocation.
    1. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall have the license in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.


    • Failure to possess CCW license when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and a $100.00 fine.
    1. Upon request, an individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall show bothof the following to a police officer:


    • His or her license to carry a concealed pistol
    • His or her driver license or personal identification card


    • Failure to show CCW license and Michigan driver license or Michigan personal identification card when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and $100.00 fine.
    1. A pistol carried in violation of numbers 1, 2, or 3 is subject to immediate seizure by a police officer.


    • If a weapon is seized for failure to possess a CCW license while carrying a concealed pistol:


    • Individual has 45 days in which to display their license to carry a concealed pistol to the law enforcement agency that seized the pistol and the pistol shall be returned.

    • If the individual does not display their license to carry a concealed pistol within 45 days the pistol is subject to forfeiture.
    To Ensure Safety During Police Encounters If you are stopped by a law enforcement officer you should:


    • Keep your hands where an officer can see them.
    • Cooperate fully with the police officer.
    • If you have a gun with you, tell the police officer as soon as possible.
    • Do not make any quick movements, especially toward the weapon.
    • If in a vehicle at night, turn on your vehicle's dome light.
    In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    "In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

    The question that was qualified later in our discussion at work was what is meant by "certain circumstances" As Michigander has stated, I can understand the traffic stop situation (sort of) and the arrest issue.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Well at least they have to return it to you, and not disable it and leave
    it on the corner. I am glad we don't have those crazy you have no
    right to keep quite laws in the south.
    Although the section that says you have to produce the permit when asked
    doesn't make sense when the one before it says you only need it if you are carrying.
    So if you only need it when you carry, then how can you be required to produce
    it at any time?

    Now for the big $64 question. Are you required to tell them that you still
    have your bug after he takes the primary? I read nothing that says you need
    to keep notifying till he gets them all.

  6. #6
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    SlackwareRobert wrote:
    Well at least they have to return it to you, and not disable it and leave
    it on the corner. I am glad we don't have those crazy you have no
    right to keep quite laws in the south.
    Although the section that says you have to produce the permit when asked
    doesn't make sense when the one before it says you only need it if you are carrying.
    So if you only need it when you carry, then how can you be required to produce
    it at any time?

    Now for the big $64 question. Are you required to tell them that you still
    have your bug after he takes the primary? I read nothing that says you need
    to keep notifying till he gets them all.
    shhhhh

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    emptypockets wrote:
    A question was posed to me at work. At what point are we - whether OC or CC - required by law to relinquish control of our sidearm? At a traffic stop, we are required to disclose our CC status. Does this give the officer the right to seize our weapon under the guise of officer safety?

    My initial response to the question was only if we are being detained (?) or placed under arrest. Any other situation would constitute illegal search and seizure.

    I will research it on my own when I am able to do so, but I would love to have the input of others.

    Thanks.
    Your addressing two different things here.

    First. You are NEVER required to relinquish control of your sidearm, nor should you. That would be a consensual action, and it is not the same as the officer "seizing" it. You have no say (at that time) if the officer seizes it. You can relinquish control and turn it over to him, but remember that doing so is "consent", and a waive of your rights.

    The "circumstances" under which an officer may seize control of the weapon is during the Terry Stop, and You have no discretion on when and where that can happen. It is up tot he courts to decide however, the courts worded it that an officer may do a brief "frisk", if he has RAS, and believes the suspect is "armed and dangerous" (I always find this interesting since being armed does not necessarily mean "dangerous". If I'm detained, I'm asking if the officer thinks "I'm dangerous?". Hopefully, he'll say, "I don't know if your dangerous or not." I'm not sure it'll fly, but I want to give my lawyer as much ammo as I can).

    If an officer is not detaining you, and you are not under arrest, then you are free to leave, and I suggest you do so. Not doing so opens a Pandora's box giving him opportunity to develop RAS/PC, and you may not know when that happens.


    Go read "WASH, RINSE, REPEAT". What an officer can and can't do to you on the street encounter does not matter to you at that time, because you can't do anything about it. What's important is that you assert your rights without antagonizing the situation. If the officer chooses to violate your rights, it's for your lawyer to pursue in court later. Knowing if the officer has the right to do it or not doesn't matter if you adamantly refuse consent.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    SlackwareRobert wrote:
    Well at least they have to return it to you, and not disable it and leave
    it on the corner. I am glad we don't have those crazy you have no
    right to keep quite laws in the south.
    Although the section that says you have to produce the permit when asked
    doesn't make sense when the one before it says you only need it if you are carrying.
    So if you only need it when you carry, then how can you be required to produce
    it at any time?

    Now for the big $64 question. Are you required to tell them that you still
    have your bug after he takes the primary? I read nothing that says you need
    to keep notifying till he gets them all.
    It probably doesn't make sense because it's a paraphrase that can be misleading to someone who hasn't actually read the actual law.

    Everybody has a right to keep quiet.

    The section that says, "...you have to produce the permit when asked.." doesn't make sense because it doesn't say that. What it says is that if you are carrying concealed, and the officer requests your ID/CPL, then you are required to do so. The caveat is that if an officer does this, then your are by definition by the courts being detained. The court ruled in Terry that one is detained when a reasonable person beleives they are not free to leave. They used examples of a show of force such as another officer blocking your exit, or flashing lights, or hand on the gun, but it's reasonable to think that your not free to leave as long as the officer keeps your ID/CPL. Since it's a requirement to turn it over upon request, it is no longer a consensual submission, and therefore represents detainment.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    emptypockets wrote:
    A question was posed to me at work. At what point are we - whether OC or CC - required by law to relinquish control of our sidearm? At a traffic stop, we are required to disclose our CC status. Does this give the officer the right to seize our weapon under the guise of officer safety?

    My initial response to the question was only if we are being detained (?) or placed under arrest. Any other situation would constitute illegal search and seizure.

    I will research it on my own when I am able to do so, but I would love to have the input of others.

    Thanks.
    Your addressing two different things here.

    First. You are NEVER required to relinquish control of your sidearm, nor should you. That would be a consensual action, and it is not the same as the officer "seizing" it. You have no say (at that time) if the officer seizes it. You can relinquish control and turn it over to him, but remember that doing so is "consent", and a waive of your rights.

    The "circumstances" under which an officer may seize control of the weapon is during the Terry Stop, and You have no discretion on when and where that can happen. It is up tot he courts to decide however, the courts worded it that an officer may do a brief "frisk", if he has RAS, and believes the suspect is "armed and dangerous" (I always find this interesting since being armed does not necessarily mean "dangerous". If I'm detained, I'm asking if the officer thinks "I'm dangerous?". Hopefully, he'll say, "I don't know if your dangerous or not." I'm not sure it'll fly, but I want to give my lawyer as much ammo as I can).

    If an officer is not detaining you, and you are not under arrest, then you are free to leave, and I suggest you do so. Not doing so opens a Pandora's box giving him opportunity to develop RAS/PC, and you may not know when that happens.


    Go read "WASH, RINSE, REPEAT". What an officer can and can't do to you on the street encounter does not matter to you at that time, because you can't do anything about it. What's important is that you assert your rights without antagonizing the situation. If the officer chooses to violate your rights, it's for your lawyer to pursue in court later. Knowing if the officer has the right to do it or not doesn't matter if you adamantly refuse consent.

    ghostrider!

    It couldn't have been said any better than that.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    "First. You are NEVER required to relinquish control of your sidearm, nor should you. That would be a consensual action, and it is not the same as the officer "seizing" it. You have no say (at that time) if the officer seizes it. You can relinquish control and turn it over to him, but remember that doing so is "consent", and a waive of your rights." Ghostrider

    Thanks, now I understand the wording of the procedure. "Take, seize" is much different than letting him have the gun.

    "In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

    At the end of the day we came to the conclusion that when we sign our CPL that we agree to the rules the have been put in place. If, for whatever reason, Mr. Officer decides to temporarily seize the weapon, it might be best to request that he take the gun from its holster. It is certainly the best to make sure the he and any other officer knows exactly what is taking place.


    Now, here is a piggy back question. Is the officer lawfully allowed to run a search on the gun while it is in his possession, even if it has nothing to do with his reason for stopping you, i.e. a traffic stop?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    emptypockets wrote:
    "...


    At the end of the day we came to the conclusion that when we sign our CPL that we agree to the rules the have been put in place. If, for whatever reason, Mr. Officer decides to temporarily seize the weapon, it might be best to request that he take the gun from its holster. ...


    Again, why would you give consent. Requesting that he take control of the gun is giving consent. He doesn't need your permission or direction to take the gun, so the request is consent.

    You: "Officer, would you please remove the gun from my holster."

    Officer: "Honest your honor, He requested that I take possession of the gun. "



    emptypockets wrote:
    ... Now, here is a piggy back question. Is the officer lawfully allowed to run a search on the gun while it is in his possession, even if it has nothing to do with his reason for stopping you, i.e. a traffic stop?...
    This has not been determined in a court of law. There has been a USSC ruling where an officer was in an individuals apartment, and the officer moves some electronics equipment around so that he could read the serial numbers. That was ruled as an unconstitutional search because the serial numbers were not in plain view even though the officers had were legally in the apartment. They needed PC to believe the equipment was evidence in a crime, and since that wasn't established by the officers, it was thrown out.

    This is why you do not consent. It stands to reason that the officer cannot read the serial number while it is in a holster. He must first seize the weapon to do that. To seize the weapon, he must have RAS, and articulate that you are armed and dangerous.

    Running the SN is a search however, they use the "plain view"" doctrine to justify it, and it may or may not stand up under challenge (I would hope not since they have to seize it to run it).



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Jackson, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    692

    Post imported post

    Hell here in Jackson some of the cops dont really care that you have a Concealed Handgun. I have heard from a few people that they disclosd the have a CPL and they are carrying. The officer says " I dont care" there should be more peoplethat shold be carrying.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    I have searched and have yet to come up with any controlling authority (i.e. 'law') that states that:

    "In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

    The only place I've seen it is on the MSP website. I'll ask again; any legal references to this?

    Carry on.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    I have searched and have yet to come up with any controlling authority (i.e. 'law') that states that:

    "In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

    The only place I've seen it is on the MSP website. I'll ask again; any legal references to this?

    Carry on.
    Do a search for Terry v. Ohio.

    The USSC ruled that an officer may seize weapons and contraband used in a crime for purpose of officer safety during a detention or arrest.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    emptypockets wrote:
    "...


    At the end of the day we came to the conclusion that when we sign our CPL that we agree to the rules the have been put in place. If, for whatever reason, Mr. Officer decides to temporarily seize the weapon, it might be best to request that he take the gun from its holster. ...


    Again, why would you give consent. Requesting that he take control of the gun is giving consent. He doesn't need your permission or direction to take the gun, so the request is consent.

    You: "Officer, would you please remove the gun from my holster."

    Officer: "Honest your honor, He requested that I take possession of the gun. "

    I believe he was saying that during a legal Terry stop that if the officer wantedto sieze the gun he would have the officer remove it instead of removing it himself and giving it to the officer ....at least that's how I took it.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  16. #16
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    emptypockets wrote:
    ... Now, here is a piggy back question. Is the officer lawfully allowed to run a search on the gun while it is in his possession, even if it has nothing to do with his reason for stopping you, i.e. a traffic stop?...
    This has not been determined in a court of law. There has been a USSC ruling where an officer was in an individuals apartment, and the officer moves some electronics equipment around so that he could read the serial numbers. That was ruled as an unconstitutional search because the serial numbers were not in plain view even though the officers had were legally in the apartment. They needed PC to believe the equipment was evidence in a crime, and since that wasn't established by the officers, it was thrown out.

    This is why you do not consent. It stands to reason that the officer cannot read the serial number while it is in a holster. He must first seize the weapon to do that. To seize the weapon, he must have RAS, and articulate that you are armed and dangerous.

    Running the SN is a search however, they use the "plain view"" doctrine to justify it, and it may or may not stand up under challenge (I would hope not since they have to seize it to run it).


    Assuming a legal stop and the officer has made it clear that he is going to take control of my firearm:

    Since my holster snaps onto my belt and is easily removable if I asked the officer, for the sake of everyone's safety, to remove the entire holster/gun combo and he did sothen he couldn't legally remove it from the holster and run the numbers?

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    The officer can seize your weapon once he has detained you in a Terry Stop.

    Whether or not that Terry Stop was legal, or a violation of your rights, is a question for a latter time.

    One could argue that by an officer demanding or ordering you to yield your weapon, versus requesting, that the officer is performing a de facto Terry Stop, as one would reasonable believe that they are no longer free to go. (The cop siezed your weapon, after all.)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Midland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    Prior to posting this question to the forum, I fired off an e-mail to the State Police. Tpr Hawkins replied rather promptly (I was expecting an answer some time in the next few weeks). The following is what he replied:

    "Sir,

    The most common circumstance would be a Terry encounter [see Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)] where the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe a crime may be occurring. "What happens during this process" will vary as the circumstances which could lead to such an encounter will vary.

    Best Regards,
    Tpr C Hawkins
    Michigan State Police"


    It is what many of you had stated and what I suspected when first asked this question. The circumstances that warrant seizure of the gun seem to lie in the perception of the officer conducting the Terry stop. It may not be right, but I would rather go home having cooperated as much as necessary rather than end up on jail or the morgue.

  19. #19
    Regular Member SlowDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Redford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    emptypockets wrote:
    Prior to posting this question to the forum, I fired off an e-mail to the State Police. Tpr Hawkins replied rather promptly (I was expecting an answer some time in the next few weeks). The following is what he replied:

    "Sir,

    The most common circumstance would be a Terry encounter [see Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)] where the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe a crime may be occurring. "What happens during this process" will vary as the circumstances which could lead to such an encounter will vary.

    Best Regards,
    Tpr C Hawkins
    Michigan State Police"


    It is what many of you had stated and what I suspected when first asked this question. The circumstances that warrant seizure of the gun seem to lie in the perception of the officer conducting the Terry stop. It may not be right, but I would rather go home having cooperated as much as necessary rather than end up on jail or the morgue.
    A regular stop with no RAS does not qualify in my mind. I may be wrong but if there is no reason to believe there is any laws being broken what gives the LEO the right to sieze my weapon?



    Only two have offered their lives for you. A Soldier and Jesus....

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    SlowDog wrote:
    A regular stop with no RAS does not qualify in my mind. I may be wrong but if there is no reason to believe there is any laws being broken what gives the LEO the right to sieze my weapon?


    A regular stop IS a Terry Stop/detainment, and requires RAS.

    Without valid RAS, it is an unlawful stop. This of course is determined by the court later.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440

    Post imported post

    I don't understand the whole question of an officer "running the numbers" on your handgun. Are you carrying an illegal firearm? Questions like that make it this forum seen so anti LEO and very confrontational. Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse.

    ;

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    scot623 wrote:
    I don't understand the whole question of an officer "running the numbers" on your handgun. Are you carrying an illegal firearm? Questions like that make it this forum seen so anti LEO and very confrontational. Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse.

    ;
    Does he need to check every firearm? What if he just pulls random people over to make sure their driver's license is valid? Does that seem reasonable to you?
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  23. #23
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336

    Post imported post

    scot623 wrote:
    I don't understand the whole question of an officer "running the numbers" on your handgun. Are you carrying an illegal firearm? Questions like that make it this forum seen so anti LEO and very confrontational. Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse.

    ;
    I agree that "Not every LEO encounter has to be a game of cat and mouse". However, there are enough LEO interactions listed on OCDO to demonstrate that LEO's don't always act within the bounds of the law or common sense. See TheSzerdi's latest encounter at the Fairlane Mall thread to see what I mean.

    If I am stopped for a traffic violation, I can see an officer request or demand that I relinquish my firearm to him while the stop is ongoing as this is supported by law/legal interpretations. I do believe that this leads to an unsafe situation in which the officer may not be trained in handling my exact model and carry condition. What I cannot see is a check on the serial numbers of my firearm, unless that exact model has been reported stolen or been reported as used in a crime. To me, that is an Illegal Search.
    Rights are like muscles. You must EXERCISE THEM to keep them from becoming atrophied.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440

    Post imported post

    Now I understand some LEO's are dicks and make unreasonble requests...this is not the LEO encounter we are talking about in this thread. This discussion is about an officer requestiing you to relinquish your sidearm to insure yours and his saftey(essentialy make him feel safer) while during a legal stop. If it is not an unreasonable request, why not just do it. And as far as him then wanting to be sure you are carrying a legally registered weapon, again, why not just let him do it. If every request by a LEO is met with a "@#$% you, I don't haveto" type of response, all it does is foster their negative attitudes towards all CPL/OC'ers.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    scot623 wrote:
    Now I understand some LEO's are dicks and make unreasonble requests...this is not the LEO encounter we are talking about in this thread. This discussion is about an officer requestiing you to relinquish your sidearm to insure yours and his saftey(essentialy make him feel safer) while during a legal stop. If it is not an unreasonable request, why not just do it. And as far as him then wanting to be sure you are carrying a legally registered weapon, again, why not just let him do it. If every request by a LEO is met with a "@#$% you, I don't haveto" type of response, all it does is foster their negative attitudes towards all CPL/OC'ers.
    There are many reasons why it's a good idea to assert ones rights.

    A great one is that it's a matter of social engineering. The police have been doing it for years with things like, "If you have nothing to hide, ...?", or, "If they give me an attitude (euphemism for "If they stand up for their rights.), then they are escalating things. (never mind that it's the officer stepping on the citizens rights)"

    To surrender the sidearm is nothing more than bowing down, because the officer does not need any permission to take it. The only thing it accomplishes is a waive of ones rights. True, there are many officers who will go easier on a person if that person is submissive (and it IS submissive, not "polite", or "respectful") however, the sad part about that is that it indicates that officers will treat people with less regard if that person is not only aware of their rights (you would think and officer would appreciate a person knowing more about the law than most) but also takes measures to keep them intact. . Just because you think you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean a search won't turn up something that can cause you trouble. Just because you strive to be a law-abiding citizen, doesn't mean, "you'll be fine if you let the street cop come in and search your home for illegal drugs. ".


    You come on here and talk like this, yet there is a recent thread where a person was recording a LEO encounter, and the officers not only warned each other about the potential for the suspect recording the encounter, but actually taking ILLEGAL steps to stop that from happening, even to the extent of ILLEGALLY seizing the recorder, and turning it off. This is not the only time something like this has happened, and not only is it illegal, but it indicates attempts to cover up illegal behavior by the officers involved. This in turn creates an very dangerous environment where people are even more distrusting of LEO's and therefore more resistant.

    In the days of old, the general citizenry got along fine with LEO's and were on friendly terms. It's unfortunate that more and more (even people who used to be of the mindset of, "Cooperate with the officer because he's working for our benefit.") are starting to realize that doinig that in today's world is not such a good idea. People are starting to develop the mindset (through experience of their own and others) that, "Even though I've got nothing to hide, it's better to take a speeding ticket, than to let the officer search my car."

    Officers need to understand that people generally want to trust them. Unfortunately, when given that trust, many officers use that trust to trick people into waiving their rights or, the officers just outright violate the people's rights while breaking the law in the process. What they should also understand is that, "While people are going to go along for a period, those people will eventually figure out that the officer is not "working for their benefit." but instead working to see if there is anything to arrest them for." When the officers outright violate peoples rights, and break the law, it erodes trust in LE in general (It may not be fair, but due to the position of authority and privilege that LEO entertain, it is unavoidable). It also breeds a lack of respect for the law itself since even those tasked with upholding it instead violate it, and it then becomes arbitrary.

    It used to be that the general belief was that the only people who wouldn't consent to an unwarranted search were those that had something to hide. Now, even those people who don't have something to hide are reluctant to do so, because they have too much access to information.

    There is a member on this board whose family members were brought up on trumped up charges, just because the local prosecutor realized that he had a clear case for a civil rights lawsuit. The prosecutor couldn't go after him, so he tried to go after his family. This same department admitted to erasing the on board video of the incident (thereby destroying evidence). This is corruption, and it happens enough that ordinary people who aren't of the type to be considered "rabble rouses", are starting to stand up for their rights.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •