imported post
My entire argument for disarming someone during a traffic stop was a reasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment) set forth with case law in Terry v Ohio (the most simple concept in police work). Not only do you get to search a person, but you always get the "lunging area". Lunging area can apply to a vehicle, as well as anywhere else. Here is a snip from a legal update that I got that you might find interesting:
Ordering Driver Out of a Vehicle: A driver may be directed out of a car lawfully stopped by the police for a moving violation or on a “Moving Terry Stop” with no additional justification. The U.S. Supreme Court made this decision primarily based on “officer safety.” This is a tactical decision for the officer / agent. Some officers like the idea of ordering a driver out of a car for officer safety and control of the suspect. It may also be easier to see items in plain view, handguns concealed on the driver’s person, and to watch for contraband falling onto the roadway as the driver steps out. to make
Frisking the “Lunging Area”: An officer / agent, with lawful authority to conduct a stop and frisk, may frisk not only the person of the suspect for weapons, but also any “lunging area” from which the suspect could obtain a weapon. This will include such nearby areas as a newspaper on the ground, a trash barrel, a jacket in the back seat of a car, under the car seats (if the suspect was originally sitting in the car).
Frisking Containers: An officer / agent who finds a closed container within lunging distance of a suspect who is being lawfully stopped and frisked, may open the container to see if it contains a weapon if: a) in light of the officer’s experience and training the item could contain a weapon, and b) the container is NOT locked.
Also, as one comment above stated that an officer should not fear a "law abiding citizen", but I argue that there is no way to look at someone and know if they are law abiding or not.
Also, one comment above brings up that police are corrupt, or that the driver fears an officer just as much as the officer fears the driver. It is difficult for me to believe that a citizen is in as much danger as the officer during the traffic stop. Sure there are bad apples out there that found themselves with a badge, but I argue that it is very few. I also argue that even the worst police out there don't pose a lethal threat to an innocent driver during a traffic stop.
The only rebuttal that I can see for my argument is someone stating that Terry doesn't apply because someone is not dangerous, but armed (since you need both). The determination of "armed and dangerous" is not determined by the citizen, and there is no rules set forth as to what determines this. This is determined by the articulation of the officer (opinion). In my previous post, I have touched upon (not nearly in detail as I could have) why I believe someone who is open carrying of a firearm can be considered "armed and dangerous" enough to apply Terry to seize that weapon.
Just my two cents.
P.S. I can see that some individuals that have posted on here must have had some serious negative experience with police, like one member said-
"snip What would possibly be our motivation to assist one of them other than out of the goodness of our own hearts?" snip"
I'm sorry you feel this way, but it is discouraging to see comments like this. I can't even begin to tell you how much help I have given, along with my coworkers, to citizens. With this job you are almost gauranteed to be spit on, assaulted, mocked, called names, and have citizens try to take your job away from you. However, we understand there are bad apples out there and still work for the good ones.
My entire argument for disarming someone during a traffic stop was a reasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment) set forth with case law in Terry v Ohio (the most simple concept in police work). Not only do you get to search a person, but you always get the "lunging area". Lunging area can apply to a vehicle, as well as anywhere else. Here is a snip from a legal update that I got that you might find interesting:
Ordering Driver Out of a Vehicle: A driver may be directed out of a car lawfully stopped by the police for a moving violation or on a “Moving Terry Stop” with no additional justification. The U.S. Supreme Court made this decision primarily based on “officer safety.” This is a tactical decision for the officer / agent. Some officers like the idea of ordering a driver out of a car for officer safety and control of the suspect. It may also be easier to see items in plain view, handguns concealed on the driver’s person, and to watch for contraband falling onto the roadway as the driver steps out. to make
Frisking the “Lunging Area”: An officer / agent, with lawful authority to conduct a stop and frisk, may frisk not only the person of the suspect for weapons, but also any “lunging area” from which the suspect could obtain a weapon. This will include such nearby areas as a newspaper on the ground, a trash barrel, a jacket in the back seat of a car, under the car seats (if the suspect was originally sitting in the car).
Frisking Containers: An officer / agent who finds a closed container within lunging distance of a suspect who is being lawfully stopped and frisked, may open the container to see if it contains a weapon if: a) in light of the officer’s experience and training the item could contain a weapon, and b) the container is NOT locked.
Also, as one comment above stated that an officer should not fear a "law abiding citizen", but I argue that there is no way to look at someone and know if they are law abiding or not.
Also, one comment above brings up that police are corrupt, or that the driver fears an officer just as much as the officer fears the driver. It is difficult for me to believe that a citizen is in as much danger as the officer during the traffic stop. Sure there are bad apples out there that found themselves with a badge, but I argue that it is very few. I also argue that even the worst police out there don't pose a lethal threat to an innocent driver during a traffic stop.
The only rebuttal that I can see for my argument is someone stating that Terry doesn't apply because someone is not dangerous, but armed (since you need both). The determination of "armed and dangerous" is not determined by the citizen, and there is no rules set forth as to what determines this. This is determined by the articulation of the officer (opinion). In my previous post, I have touched upon (not nearly in detail as I could have) why I believe someone who is open carrying of a firearm can be considered "armed and dangerous" enough to apply Terry to seize that weapon.
Just my two cents.
P.S. I can see that some individuals that have posted on here must have had some serious negative experience with police, like one member said-
"snip What would possibly be our motivation to assist one of them other than out of the goodness of our own hearts?" snip"
I'm sorry you feel this way, but it is discouraging to see comments like this. I can't even begin to tell you how much help I have given, along with my coworkers, to citizens. With this job you are almost gauranteed to be spit on, assaulted, mocked, called names, and have citizens try to take your job away from you. However, we understand there are bad apples out there and still work for the good ones.
