Traffic stop - Do you have to tell them you're armed?

imported post

[deleted]

imported post

As a courtesy to the officer, I think it would be best to let them know you're armed. I usually don't tell them if it's just a stop checking drivers license and insurance cards, stuff like that. But if they want me to get out of the vehicle, then I let them know. I once got a ticket by a state trooper and he had me sit in the front seat of his car while writing the ticket. I told him when I got out of mine that I had a pistol in my pocket and a permit to carry it. He didn't even ask to see it or wanted me to take it out while writing the ticket.

imported post

I agree that in AL police can't go around snatching up lawfully possessed guns solely for the purpose of determining if they are stolen or not.
However, once a firearm has been temporarily seized I don't find it unreasonable to run the s/n so long as it does not extend the duration of the stop for an unreasonable amount of time.

Once the gun is in my hands I'm going to make sure you can lawfully possess it before I turn it over to you.

It's a large grey area mostly undefined by case law. Maybe this will change.

As for the Knowles case, it deals with searches incident to citation, not Terry/Officer safety issues.

One fact that you guys haven't grasped it how easy it is to articulate reasonable suspicion.

imported post

How would you articulate the reasonable suspicion that, during a traffic stop, a gun--that the owner told you about and had a permit for--was stolen and that you needed to run its numbers?

Again, absent RAS that the gun is stolen (or that some criminal activity is going on), I submit that taking the gun for your safety would not permit increasing the scope of your actions to include running the numbers.

imported post

terminal.logic wrote:

One fact that you guys haven't grasped it how easy it is to articulate reasonable suspicion.

Click to expand...

Would you mind giving an explanation of of why an officer would articulate reasonable suspicion if the party involved had told the officer that he/she was armed and had a concealed carry permit.

To obtain a concealed carry permit, one must submit to a criminal background check by their local Sheriff's office, so IMHO that should justify that there would be no reasonable suspicion. And also IMHO it would seem to me that if a person had a concealed carry permit, that would justify that they were highly likely to be a law abiding citizen, don't you think.

imported post

Almtnman wrote:

Would you mind giving an explanation of of why an officer would articulate reasonable suspicion if the party involved had told the officer that he/she was armed and had a concealed carry permit.

--I decline to, on grounds that each situation is different and each officer has his/her own way of articulating things.

To obtain a concealed carry permit, one must submit to a criminal background check by their local Sheriff's office, so IMHO that should justify that there would be no reasonable suspicion. And also IMHO it would seem to me that if a person had a concealed carry permit, that would justify that they were highly likely to be a law abiding citizen, don't you think.

--Unfortunately this is not the case. I routinely stop people with conceal carry permits. And scanners tuned to our radio frequency. And the inside of the car reeks of marijuana.
10% of people ruin it for the 90% of good law abiding folks.

Basically we run s/n because there's no law that says we can't, and we feel that we can come up with a reasonable reason to do so. Judges and prosecutors in my jurisdiction don't have a problem with it.

Maybe someday a court will hand down a concrete ruling on the subject.

Click to expand...

imported post

That reply is dangerous double-talk.

You say that RAS is easy to come up with, but refuse to come up with it when two posts ask you to.

You claim that no law says that you cannot run the numbers on a gun that you ostensibly seized for your personal safety when an earlier post cites language from a court ruling that says almost precisely that: that you cannot extend the scope in an intolerable way. Extending the scope from protecting yourself to using the seizure to investigate a crime for which you have no RAS, that search otherwise being illegal, is intolerable.

Please, stop me. If you run my numbers, there will be a formal complaint on file the next day.

imported post

Sounds like the message here is ... " you have a right to remain silent... anything you say can, and will be used against you before you ever get to court".

imported post

terminal.logic wrote:

...I routinely stop people with conceal carry permits. And scanners tuned to our radio frequency. And the inside of the car reeks of marijuana.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I call BS on this one pal. I can see how this may have happened once in your alleged career but "routinely"...Yeah, I don't think so. You just lost any credibility you may have had. Go back to whatever pretend cop board you came from and brag to someone else how you routinely violate rights of law abiding citizens and get away with it. Unless of course you can cite all these possession arrests and subsequent permit revocations.

imported post

I think it is an exaggeration more than it is BS.

I don't think that calls for him to be called a pretend cop. I think that he has visited us in good faith. I think he is truly not aware that running gun number absent RAS specifically related to a crime involving that gun is an unreasonable search.

We are better served trying to convince him otherwise, rather than flaming him.

JMO.

imported post

terminal.logic wrote:

10% of people ruin it for the 90% of good law abiding folks.
]

Click to expand...

I wish that when you reply that you wouldn't type your replies back inside the quotes so that it makes others on here think that I said all that.

Now, I'm getting a fuzzy feeling here that you are wanting to trod on the rights of that 90 percent of law abiding folks because you think that 10 percent of them are not law abiding. Back when I used to be a LEO many years ago and got a criminal justice degree to help me with my work, we had to study The Constitution with many classes in Constitutional Law to obtain that degree. I would suggest that you dig a copy out and read what it has in it. There's a wealth of court cases in it that will help in making decisions on traffic stops, arrests etc. I'm not wanting to get into a rant, but personally I think you are not entirely legal in the way you are either doing your job or that 10 percent has caused you to think that every Joe driving down the highway is included in the 10 percent. Like one of the other commentators on a post above mentioned, you might pull over the wrong guy one day and find yourself speaking to the judge making an explanation of your actions as it has happened from time to time.

I haven't got a thing wrong with LEO's and what they do or anything, but I do think that if they get into that profession, then they need to be very professional about it. I

imported post

terminal.logic wrote:

On my traffic stops I typically ask if there are any guns in the vehicle. So, if an officer asks you can either lie or tell the truth. If you get caught in a lie this this will provide the officer with a large amount of suspicion of criminal activity. If you tell the truth be prepared for the officer to check your permit and possibly run the serial number on the weapon.

When someone tells me they have a gun in the car I check the permit and simply ask where its located. After I know where it is I just remind them not to reach towards the area where the gun is without letting me know first.
There's plenty of thugs hiding guns from me. I don't have time to mess with people who appear to be squared away. But that's just the way I handle things. To each officer his own.

Click to expand...

According to state law, that is not a requirement to answer that question. The only time I have ever been questioned about having a gun on me are times that I did not. Now that I carry EVERYWHERE, I'm not exactly sure how I would answer such an irrelevant and unjustified question. As far as I know (and I recognize that it is not nearly ALL), all I am required to answer when approached by an officer is identification. That is it. I have not even seen in state law where proof of insurance is law (even though I am sure it is, I'm just stating I have not seen it).

Might I inquire as to what area in AL you are a supposed "cop"?

imported post

terminal.logic wrote:

15-5-31:
"If such officer finds such a weapon or any other thing, the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person."

The key phrase is "possession of which may constitute a crime."

Possession of a stolen gun is a crime.
Possession of a handgun in a vehicle without a valid permit is a crime.
Possession of a gun by a convicted felon is a crime.

While an officer attempts to confirm that the weapon is legally possessed it may be seized.
Absent any articulable suspicion any seizure is unjustified.
It falls back on each officer and what he can articulate.

I'm not sure where your trying to go with the search for evidence thing. Perhaps you can clarify.

Click to expand...

The means of reaching your "key phrase" is the question. I believe that you'd have to have a means of conducting a search LEGALLY prior to "finding a weapon...". Since nobody is legally bound to answer your question if they are armed or not and it's irrelevant to the reason one was stopped, I'm pretty sure you'd lose out on that one in court (unless the courts' obvious bias chooses to shine on your side - pending you found nothing illegal of course).

In other words, you have no right to conduct a search as you see fit at the whim of a hat. The only reason you would get a way with it is ignorance and/or fear of/from the public and/or corruption/incompetence within the courts. I also detest the idea that somehow a guy with a badge and patrol car is given the "authority" to disarm me for doing nothing wrong (carrying a pistol is not "wrong", even without a permit = paying for the right to carry), all the while he is armed the entire time. The idea that all are guilty until proven innocent, and are SUBJECT class citizens is disgusting.

imported post

Just spoke to an officer about this topic and he said there is something called "reach of span" that "allows" them to secure any firearms physically within reach of the driver in the vehicle...even in a closed compartment. I'm looking for this but have yet to find it in any code as of yet.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Every tyrannical government has had to disarm the citizen for reasons of the government's safety.

While I honestly do see your point, smttysmth02gt, though, I will abide by the current law, however, allowing this extra margin of protection afforded to police officers during this encounter, because that is the law and it doesn't violate what is my personal comfort level of continuing to protect the citizen's rights.

However, the law DOES NOT allow and specifically forbids broadening the scope of a seizure of a weapon for officer safety into a search for evidence, and on that, I will draw the line, and if I find out an officer checks the serial number of a gun that I lawfully possess, we will be going to court.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, however, I subtly disagree with the premise that just because one man has a badge and a patrol car, he can be armed and I cannot, because of HIS safety. What about my safety? I reject the notion that the badge grants his human rights and authority to disassemble others' rights while they "prove" innocence of a crime that does not exist, nor any reasonable suspicion. But then again, I'm probably viewed as a "crazy" since I think it's morally and lawfully wrong of the county sheriff to force me to pay $20 yearly to his office for his "permission" for me to carry concealed, or in my vehicle.

imported post

The key difference is that the officer is required to carry a gun and is in repeated routine contact with some who illegally carry guns and who would not hesitate to use them on an officer.

Since the officer is constantly forced to place himself in danger, it is reasonable to have the law afford him an additional measure of safety.

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The key difference is that the officer is required to carry a gun and is in repeated routine contact with some who illegally carry guns and who would not hesitate to use them on an officer.

Since the officer is constantly forced to place himself in danger, it is reasonable to have the law afford him an additional measure of safety.

Click to expand...

I disagree, eye95. The police officer is not forced to do anything. Military members are not forced to place themselves in harms way to protect the Constitution either. It is a CHOICE. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. We have a voluntary military force and a voluntary police force.

Along with those choices comes risks and benefits. However, for neither the military nor the police officer should those benefits including disarming the law abiding citizen.

Click to expand...

The choice is to be a police officer. After that decision is made, the officer will routinely be placed in danger. It is reasonable to permit him to take actions to mitigate the danger.

imported post

eye95 wrote

The choice is to be a police officer. After that decision is made, the officer will routinely be placed in danger. It is reasonable to permit him to take actions to mitigate the danger.

Click to expand...

I disagree. That is still a voluntary choice he made, just as yours to carry a weapon. Just because he has a badge does (or should not) merit him powers to disarm anyone without probable cause that a relevant crime has been committed.

terminal.logic said:

Once an officer has legal reason to seize the firearm I find it reasonable to ensure it is lawfully possessed by its owner, as long as doing so doesn't cause the owner of said firearm to be unreasonably detained. Once the firearm is lawfully seized the S/N is in plain view, so there's no search.

The same thing with any property. If I see an XBOX in your car and I get a lawful reason (via P.C. or consent) to put my hands on it, I think its reasonable to run its' s/n to ensure it isn't stolen.

I'm not aware of any US Supreme Court ruling indicating otherwise, if you have knowledge of one please share.

Click to expand...

UMMMM not true just cuz u got property in ur car does not mean they can run it same with fire arms Its not in plain view for instance u must manipulate the firearm for read sn thats a search

No..., but do not give up your Rights, BUT do be aware that Carrying a Pistol in a Motor Vehicle WITHOUT a License is a Crime under Alabama Law 1975 13A-11-73.
If you have a License, there is no Penalty for telling a Law Enforcement Officer whether you are Armed.