Traffic Stop Situation

Gunslinger said:

This is not a Terry case. It is an officer safety case. Terry requires RAS--which as Citizen notes does not have to be stated to the detainee, of a crime having been or about to be committed. The cop had no RAS--OP was legally seized of the firearm under MO law. No crime had or was about to be committed; the cop took the gun under the pretense of officer safety, specious, but arguable. Further to Terry, the cop can only search in such areas where a gun could be concealed, with RAS, not every single nook and cranny of the vehicle--no more than he can take the detainee's wallet and look in it. A search warrant--or arrest--both requiring probable cause, is required for anything more in depth. There is a Terry quote from a case (that I can't recall the citation) to the effect that looking in a cigar box is legit; looking in a cigarette pack is not.

Click to expand...

I am not saying it is a Terry case, although it read that way. I am saying that with te knowledge given by the driver that there was a loaded weapon within reach, the officer just took that as the threat is in the console. Removing the threat would clear up officer safety then.

Terry would not work in this case. But reading Terry led me to the conclusion.

cshoff said:

Actually, I find it totally important to the post I replied to. The person who made the post implied that, since the OP disclosed the fact that he had a legally possessed firearm, that disclosure alone "gave the officer the articulable reasonable suspicion" to perform a search.

Under Terry, disclosing you have a weapon after you have been stopped for a traffic violation would definitely give the officer legal authority to perform a frisk of you and your immediate area, but only if he reasonably believed that you presented a danger to him or another. Whether or not this officer had a legitimate concern that his safety was in jeopardy is highly debatable. The way the OP described the events, it certainly doesn't sound like he felt he was in any danger. Heck, the OP wasn't even in the vehicle near the gun at the time the LEO came to seize it.

Click to expand...

You are not taking into account the officer safety issue that a loaded gun in the immediate reach of a person presents. The officer, although extremely late in my opinion, was not taking the gun based on an illegal act of the RS that an illegal act was going to be commited. He took it because he found out that the drive has acess to it. Officer Safety. You are just looking for a way to justify your your bantering now. You are not reading the original post in its entirety. YOu just took out that the Officer pulled the driver out of the car to get a gun. The officer removed the potential threat. The gun was returned conpletely throwing out any grounds for a siezure toward any investigation of a crime. That completely throws out Terry all together.

Just for the record here, this is not, at least to me a "who is right contest" and I am not sure it will be a topic agreed upon at any point.

To me this debate has been whether or not the officers actions were indeed legal. I have seen nothing from anyone indicating that they were not from my personal opinion.

I have posted the link and info from the police chiefs association and I may look into it more but now it is time to ask others to cite.

As you believe the officer has broken the law cite it complete. What law did he break as I see him as innocent of any crime?

Again, I think everyone is on the same page, it SHOULD have been a non-issue, but that does not make it a violation just because we THINK it should not have happened.

LMTD said:

Well I am not sure I agree with that at all.

The officer is not going to reach in through the window and try and get the firearm, the op is in the vehicle, the officer asked him to exit so he COULD get the firearm. There was a news report about an officer just getting out of the hospital yesterday after he tried to get the keys out of a drunks ignition and was severely injured when the drunk drug him several hundred yards before crashing.

That whole link is kind of interesting as it pretty well defines what an officer is supposed to do during a traffic stop and while it is not case law, I doubt that the chiefs would have something publicly accessible that blatantly violated folks rights, but then again dumber stuff has happened.

Click to expand...

My point is once the officer removed the OP from the vehicle there was no firearm in reach or as the chiefs put it-

The officer may also frisk or secure any areas within the detained person's immediate reach, if the officer reasonably suspects that such areas might contain a weapon or dangerous instrument.

Unless their were passengers that were not removed from the vehicle, once the OP was removed so was the threat. I don't know to many people that would define "immediate reach" as being outside the vehicle.

Again I will say, however, that once he removed the OP I believe he would be justified in frisking him.

The gun was within reach of the op, the op had to be asked to move in order for the officer to get the gun, that does not mean it is suddenly out of reach, it simply means the op was in the way and was ordered out of the way.

LMTD said:

The reason I said that hoff, is because the suspicion of having a weapon authorizes a "frisk" and I am not sure that the second element of "danger" is required Since the OP told the officer the weapon was there, that was all he needed to secure the weapon for the detainment period.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. The way I read Terry, there indeed must be an element of perceived threat to the officer in addition to the presence of a weapon, to justify a seizure of the weapon. The part of Terry I am referring to is quoted below. In both instances, the court made specific references to two qualifers; #1: Armed, and #2: Dangerous:

We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts. 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. [p31] Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken.

Click to expand...

It was a while back, but the OP was NOT separated from the weapon, the officer returned to the vehicle and askd him if he had a gun, he said yes, the officer asked where,, he told the officer, he asked him to get out, entered only the area the weapon was said to have been, secured it.

From the op "When he got back to my car, he asked if I had my firearm with me. I said yes. He asked where it was, and I said the center console. He had me step out of the vehicle and he went into my car and rooted through the console til he found it"

Click to expand...

Which admittedly changes things, for sure. Perhaps I read the OP too quickly, as I was under the assumption that the OP had already stepped out of the vehicle prior to the LEO inquiring about his firearm.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

You are not taking into account the officer safety issue that a loaded gun in the immediate reach of a person presents. The officer, although extremely late in my opinion, was not taking the gun based on an illegal act of the RS that an illegal act was going to be commited. He took it because he found out that the drive has acess to it. Officer Safety. You are just looking for a way to justify your your bantering now. You are not reading the original post in its entirety. YOu just took out that the Officer pulled the driver out of the car to get a gun. The officer removed the potential threat. The gun was returned conpletely throwing out any grounds for a siezure toward any investigation of a crime. That completely throws out Terry all together.

Click to expand...

And just exactly what legal standard are you using to reach the conclusion that the presence of a firearm, within reach of a law abiding citizen, in and of itself, is a threat to a police officer? Do you realize the implications of your line of thought here? BEHAVIOR is used to establish whether or not a person is a danger to a LEO, NOT the mere presence of a perfectly legal inanimate object. By your line of what warrants "reasonable suspicion", LEO's could just go about their days disarming anyone who had access to a firearm because the gun is a potential threat. And we all know that a such a broad standard doesn't meet the legal requirements for search and seizure.

Now, like I said above in my previous reply, I was under the impression that the OP had already stepped out of the vehicle prior to being asked about his gun. Having been made aware of the clarification, I do concede that what this officer did would likely be found legal by a court, whether any of us like it or not.

cshoff said:

I am not so sure about that. The way I read Terry, there indeed must be an element of perceived threat to the officer in addition to the presence of a weapon, to justify a seizure of the weapon. The part of Terry I am referring to is quoted below. In both instances, the court made specific references to two qualifers; #1: Armed, and #2: Dangerous:

Click to expand...

This is sort of why I said I did not feel Terry applied. For the officer to frisk/search he would need a reason and a concern so to speak. If the OP had not offered the "reason" there never would have been any element to consider and need to develop a "concern" at all.

I have been pulled over on more than one occasion where there was no doubt what so ever that there was a gun in the truck, there were likely 2 on many occasions in the gun rack in the back window and I have never had an officer seem even slightly concerned.

While I do not think this should have happened, I am not sure how it could be changed to prevent it AND keep the officers on the street safe.

I think in retrospect, the officer could have handled it better on the officer safety thing by saying "Go ahead and lock it up and step back to my car while we finish this up so I do not have to take control of your weapon for my safety" or something like that instead of taking control of the weapon itself as he was indeed notified of its existence.

cshoff said:

And just exactly what legal standard are you using to reach the conclusion that the presence of a firearm, within reach of a law abiding citizen, in and of itself, is a threat to a police officer? Do you realize the implications of your line of thought here? BEHAVIOR is used to establish whether or not a person is a danger to a LEO, NOT the mere presence of a perfectly legal inanimate object. By your line of what warrants "reasonable suspicion", LEO's could just go about their days disarming anyone who had access to a firearm because the gun is a potential threat. And we all know that a such a broad standard doesn't meet the legal requirements for search and seizure.

Now, like I said above in my previous reply, I was under the impression that the OP had already stepped out of the vehicle prior to being asked about his gun. Having been made aware of the clarification, I do concede that what this officer did would likely be found legal by a court, whether any of us like it or not.

Click to expand...

Does the police officer know for a fact that he is one a law abiding citizen, NO.
Does the police officer know, even if he is a law abiding citizen, that he did not have a bad day and could use te gun, NO. That's my logic. Again plain and simple.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

Does the police officer know for a fact that he is one a law abiding citizen, NO.
Does the police officer know, even if he is a law abiding citizen, that he did not have a bad day and could use te gun, NO. That's my logic. Again plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Your "logic" is not congruent with court precedent or the Fourth Amendment. In a case where the officer already has the detainees CCW Endorsement in his possession, it's pretty obvious that the person is lawfully entitled to possess said firearm. In addition, if no threatening behavior was observed, there is no reasonable grounds for suspicion unless some other RAS or PC already existed. You can stick with your "plain and simple" feelings if you'd like, but I'd guess the rest of us prefer to work with actual legal standards that must be met, rather than just gut feelings or emotionally driven "hunches".

Whew, this is one hell of a thread. Makes me wish I was carrying it in my SmaryCarry. At least then I would have gotten *something* for my $75. ::wink::

cshoff said:

Your "logic" is not congruent with court precedent or the Fourth Amendment. In a case where the officer already has the detainees CCW Endorsement in his possession, it's pretty obvious that the person is lawfully entitled to possess said firearm. In addition, if no threatening behavior was observed, there is no reasonable grounds for suspicion unless some other RAS or PC already existed. You can stick with your "plain and simple" feelings if you'd like, but I'd guess the rest of us prefer to work with actual legal standards that must be met, rather than just gut feelings or emotionally driven "hunches".

Click to expand...

There is nothing emotional about my statement. I guess it is easier for a person like me to put myself in someone else’s shoes. Statistics show that officer evolved shootings happen quite frequently when on routine traffic stops. With that knowledge it is only reasonable to suspect that someone with a loaded gun in the vehicle could be a threat. Now that we have that the level of threat is completely up to the officer perception. The officer really has no idea if I have had a really bad day, or something in the officer's demeanor may have set me off. He only has that an unknown to him male has a loaded gun within reach. The unknowns in the situation fall in the officer's favor. You seem to think it falls the other way. I do not. I know you think, per some of your other post on different threads, that you are some great master of the legal points, when in fact none of us on this thread really are. You seem to lack the ability to just look at it for face value. It is what it is, legal. No 4A violation. No Terry, issue here.

CUT AND DRY. I know you hate it being simple, but this situation was very simple, from start to finish. End of discussion really. Let us all move on to a different topic.

I personally will not continue replying on this thread. I think the topic has been exhausted.

peterarthur said:

SNIP ...Do your own research, I am not your legal gofer. I mentioned Terry. I have read Terry many times and I THINK one of the main points of Terry is that reasonable suspicion IS a legitimate cause for search...You disagree, I don't care. I am not going to find a "passage" to quote because my opinion comes from reading the whole thing. I could copy and paste it here but that would be pointless.If my opinion is wrong, you explain why by quoting case law. The problem with citing passages is that it removes the CONTEXT of the whole case...But since you seem unable to google the terry text here is a link. Comes up on first page of google on terry vs ohio
http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/case.html

Is that all you wanted? No wonder America is failing, no one can do anything for themselves. I have no interest in debating the merits of the case.

Any bets as to whether anyone reading this post has or will read the whole case? Unlike MOST people, I read entire documents before I express an opinion...So if you are just looking to tear someone's post down because I expressed an opinion not based on a specific passage of text, but rather a whole document, knock yourself out. I believe I met the forum rule requirement by mentioning Terry in the first place.

Click to expand...

Below is the passage. I knew it all along. I was giving you the opportunity to discover your own error and clear it up. I'm sorry you took the tack you did in the above quoted post; I'm sorry to have to do this. Nothing personal, you understand. Here is the passage from Terry; it is from the legally operative/binding part of the decision--the holding:


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. Terry v Ohio, literally the last paragraph. Bold and red emphasis added by Citizen.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html



It does not authorize a search for any and all evidence merely on reasonable suspicion, as you indicated in your Assert post by not limiting your representation to weapons and officer safety. It carefully limits the search to exactly what it says--1) reasonable suspicion re: crime, 2) reasonable suspicion of armed, 3) reasonable suspicion of dangerousness, 4) nothing very early in the encounter serves to dispel cop's concern, 5) patdown for weapons for officer and other's safety.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

You are not taking into account the officer safety issue that a loaded gun in the immediate reach of a person presents. The officer, although extremely late in my opinion, was not taking the gun based on an illegal act of the RS that an illegal act was going to be commited. He took it because he found out that the drive has acess to it. Officer Safety. You are just looking for a way to justify your your bantering now. You are not reading the original post in its entirety. YOu just took out that the Officer pulled the driver out of the car to get a gun. The officer removed the potential threat. The gun was returned conpletely throwing out any grounds for a siezure toward any investigation of a crime. That completely throws out Terry all together.

Click to expand...

1. Regarding officer safety, only one case I've come across equates a weapon with dangerousness. Both Terry, and Long which I quoted in my first post in this thread, treat dangerousness as a separate element from being armed. Terry went so far as to implicitly require the officer to judge whether anything in the initial stages of the encounter served to dispel his concern for safety--clearly not a license to ignore signs of non-dangerousness, nor a license to just automatically seize a weapon just because it has potential use.

2. The officer did not take the gun for officer safety. One nail in the coffin is the fact that plenty of cops do not seize the weapon when disclosed during a traffic stop, saying things like, "OK, do me a favor and don't reach over there." Or, "Do me a favor and just keep your hands on the wheel." If the mere presence of a gun really were dangerous, every cop would seize the gun every time. In short the judgement exercised by some cops proves the lack of judgement exercised by other cops who just automatically seize the gun.

3. Another nail is that the officer proved he did not consider the driver dangerous. a) the officer actually said he didn't mistrust the driver, and b) if the officer really thought the driver was dangerous, he wouldn't have climbed in the car to get the gun while leaving the driver standing outside. If the cop really suspected the driver was dangerous, he would have cuffed him, and probably patted him down for any weapons not disclosed, then seated him on the curb, before fishing in the console. And, possibly called for back up. If the cop really, really thought the driver was dangerous, he would have turned the simple traffic stop into a felony stop procedure--gun at low ready.

What the cop does not do tells as much as what he does.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

I personally will not continue replying on this thread. I think the topic has been exhausted.

Click to expand...

Before you make that decision, I offer this case is in fact NOT simple at all and that is why there are such divided and well founded discussions on both sides.

I really do not think it is correct for the government to be able to seize your property for any reason what so ever if you have not broken the law or any reasonable person would think you might be ready to break the law. If that was the case, an officer could indeed walk up to anyone he saw carrying a weapon and detain them simply because they had a weapon that he saw.

What is the point of discussion is a citizen was detained legally for an unrelated offense aka traffic violation. Under law, the officer may only search in direct connection with THAT violation. He may indeed ask questions that one is not obligated to answer and he can even request permission to search for evidence of other crimes, however he may not do so without limits, nor may he do so just because he "thinks it might be" or just because he wants to do so.

Hoof is 100% correct (within limits) that the CCW endorsement clearly identifies that the op was of a legal status at the time of his application to possess the weapon without any doubt. It is also noted that the op did not need such an endorsement to have the weapon, anyone over the age of 21 would be legal assuming they qualify under the rest of the regulations aka not a convicted felon or other person not able to have guns. The burden is on the officer to be able to say WHY he thought the op was not able to possess, not just check and see, he can not say "well how do I know he is not a felon until I check" he has to say why he thought so in order TO check.

The part where it gets fuzzy is where the officer is alerted to the presence of a dangerous weapon while he is detaining for a separate "law violation" and while a lot changes, not everything does and since the firearm could never be proven to have had a part in the failure to yield violation, the whole thing is now focused on it, a perfectly legal item to have exactly where it is located.

One other item of note, in the state of Missouri, a traffic stop IS an arrest. Depending upon where you are they will seize your drivers license or your signature to promise to appear is required for you to regain your freedom, if you refuse to do whichever is required, you will be hauled to jail and will have to have bond set before the judge or magistrate.

A fine point of law, but it does change the rules a bit perhaps from other states where it is a 100% civil infraction. I do not know enough about this to discuss it well, but it most certainly is the truth.

I do not think the officer broke the law, I think under the color of law he may well NOT have violated the op's rights, but I also know that it is REAL fuzzy and could go either way. I also know I stirred some folks up cause I ain't always real nice and that clouded rational discussions a bit, I also am not real unhappy about it because nothing offered in retort had ground breaking merit at any level.

Citizen said:

What the cop does not do tells as much as what he does.

Click to expand...

Despite previous discussions and disagreements sir, with all due respect, you can not possibly pretend to know how the officer "felt" from a third party dialog that is without any doubt missing HUGE parts of the puzzle. Police officers are even trained on such things as eye movement when it comes to determining if a person is on adrenaline overload and about to "fight or flight" just based upon eye movement.

I am not one to err on the side of police, I am in fact fairly critical of them, but the bottom line is, under Missouri law and the law in probably all 50 other states, there may indeed be things that happened that in the officers view were potentially threatening.

We have exactly one view point and within that singular viewpoint there remain significant opportunities for lots of laws beyond Terry to apply. While one MIGHT be able to conclude the officer MIGHT have violated the law, there is far more questions than there are answers and those questions have significant merit.

You asked for polite I did not give it, the above sir is as polite as it gets and if that does not work so be it.

LMTD said:

SNIP you can not possibly pretend to know how the officer "felt" from a third party dialog that is without any doubt missing HUGE parts of the puzzle. Police officers are even trained on such things as eye movement when it comes to determining if a person is on adrenaline overload and about to "fight or flight" just based upon eye movement...there may indeed be things that happened that in the officers view were potentially threatening...while one MIGHT be able to conclude the officer MIGHT have violated the law, there is far more questions than there are answers and those questions have significant merit.

You asked for polite I did not give it, the above sir is as polite as it gets and if that does not work so be it.

Click to expand...

That was polite enough for me. I did not consider it particularly antagonizing.

You are right there can be lots of things not reported in the OP. Having witnessed plenty of threads degenerate into arguments over assumptions made by posters to fill in missing info in the OP, I pretty much decided a few years ago to just stick to whatever description is given in the OP. Not always, but most of the time. We could go around in circles--both ways, and maybe even figure-eights--saying "can't conclude that", etc. That is usually how the arguments I'm talking about got started. Plus, when the door is open to unreported info all kinds of things can get added in and the conversation go way off and become unwieldy to follow and reply, even for non-arguers.

But, just for fun--emphatically not to argue--just for fun. Lets explore just a little further the idea that the cop may have observed something to trigger concern for dangerousness; lets explore and see where it leads. I'll go first, taking the error-cop view, until you or somebody else discovers something (maybe even more than one something) that really upsets the apple-cart into my lap. Never hurts to have my ideas cross-checked before I slap them down on paper in a formal complaint; it just builds better arguments, the non-argumentative kind.

To me, the fact that the cop walked back to his car after the initial contact tells me there was likely nothing to indicate dangerousness. It is too easy for a cop to dismount the driver--Mimms makes it legal for almost any safety reason: dangerous suspect, separate the interviewees, get everybody off to the side of the road away from traffic, etc. If the cop saw something that made him think the OPer was dangerous, the cop had and passed up plenty of opportunity during the initial stages.

The cop coming back and asking about whether there was a gun provides food, too. If the cop had seen something earlier to indicate dangerousness, why bother to ask "whether"? If I thought there was dangerousness, I'd just dismount the driver first, and then ask, "Where's the gun?" No matter what he said, I'd search the car interior, after cuffing him. Dangerous is dangerous. I'd assume he could lie about a gun's absence. I'd assume there might be more than one.

Also, the cop returned the gun to the console. Here, I'll break my semi-rule and read something into the post: the cop did not hand him the bullets and say "don't load until I leave." I'm reading this into the post because I think the poster would have mentioned it if the cop had done it--per reports it can be darn annoying to be on the receiving end such treatment.

A point from my earlier post: The the officer actually said he didn't mistrust the driver. And, if the officer really thought the driver was dangerous, he wouldn't have climbed in the car to get the gun while leaving the driver standing outside. If the cop really suspected the driver was dangerous, he would have cuffed him, and probably patted him down for any weapons not disclosed, then seated him on the curb, before fishing in the console. You don't turn your back or put yourself in a position where defending yourself is very difficult on somebody you think is dangerous.

And, the cop hung around to chat for a little bit about guns. After writing a ticket. That is not the behavior of someone who thinks the driver is dangerous, to whom he has just returned a gun--unless he took out the firing pin . A written warning is one thing, but whatever "dangerousness" we suppose was just increased by the citation. Yet, the cop hung around to chat.

Conclusion: There was no dangerousness perceived. The cop took the gun to run the serial number. Or, maybe rotely because department policy says to automatically take the gun for "officer safety" and "while you've got it" check the serial number.

ALOTAGLOCK said:

There is nothing emotional about my statement. I guess it is easier for a person like me to put myself in someone else’s shoes. Statistics show that officer evolved shootings happen quite frequently when on routine traffic stops. With that knowledge it is only reasonable to suspect that someone with a loaded gun in the vehicle could be a threat.

Click to expand...

No, that is not "reasonable" to assume. And I've yet to see a precedent that backs up such a blanket, broad-sweeping standard. Perhaps you care to cite one since you seem so adamant about it?

Despite what you like to post here, there are real, bona fide legal standards that must be met before police officers can perform certain functions involving frisks, searches, and seizures. Those standards are established through statute and court precedent to PREVENT exactly what it is you advocate; cops acting on "hunches" or "feelings". While, in some cases, those legal standards are rather easy to meet, the more invasive the action of the LEO, the more stringent the standards are that must be met.

Now that we have that the level of threat is completely up to the officer perception.

Click to expand...

Based off of the BEHAVIOR of the detainee, NOT the mere presence of a lawfully possessed inanimate object.

The officer really has no idea if I have had a really bad day, or something in the officer's demeanor may have set me off.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if he knows whether or not you've had a bad day or if his presence is going to set you off. He must have a reasonable suspicion that you actually pose a real and articulable danger to him or others. The fact that you MAY have had a bad day is not, in and of itself, enough to justify a seizure of your property. By that line of reasoning, EVERYBODY could be disarmed based off of the presumption that they MIGHT have had a bad day.

He only has that an unknown to him male has a loaded gun within reach. The unknowns in the situation fall in the officer's favor. You seem to think it falls the other way. I do not. I know you think, per some of your other post on different threads, that you are some great master of the legal points, when in fact none of us on this thread really are.

Click to expand...

I've never claimed to be anything that I am not. When I make a point or engage in an argument regarding a legal point, I back it up by citing statute and/or court precedent as often as possible. I am not a lawyer, I am not a judge, and I am not a legal scholar. I am, however, someone who is pretty well versed in Missouri Firearms and Use of Force statutes, and I have a pretty in-depth knowledge of case law regarding the two aforementioned subjects. I am also a good researcher and have a very good understanding of HOW to research case law and statute. You, on the other hand, come into these debates with conjecture, unsubstantiated opinion, and snippets of what some police officer you know told you regarding the subject at hand. If you want your posts to be given any credibility, it would be a good idea to back up your statements, and quit asking police officers for legal advice.

You seem to lack the ability to just look at it for face value. It is what it is, legal. No 4A violation. No Terry, issue here.

CUT AND DRY.

Click to expand...

If this situation was cut and dry, there would be no need for 3 pages of discussion on it. Based on the fact that the OP admittedly committed a traffic violation, and the fact that he disclosed he had a CCW and a loaded firearm within his reach when the officer asked, I do believe this officer acted within the law (as I already stated in two previous replies to this thread), and I believe a court would back him, despite whether or not any of us agree with it. But you see, in this case, there were standards that WERE met, and they weren't subverted just because the officer had a "hunch" or suspected the OP MIGHT have had a bad day. THAT, my friend, is the "face value" of the situation.

I know you hate it being simple, but this situation was very simple, from start to finish. End of discussion really. Let us all move on to a different topic.

I personally will not continue replying on this thread. I think the topic has been exhausted.

Click to expand...

Suit yourself. But the discussion doesn't end just because you say it does. You've yet to substantiate your claims and until you do, those claims remain suspect.

SavageOne said:

peterarthur and LMTD

I am sure you are aware of the basic forum rules. Here is rule #5

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

This means if YOU cite a case(even by saying something like"some case in another state I can't remember now") then YOU are the person who needs to cite the specifics of that case.

Others are not "lazy" or asking you to be their "legal gofers" when they ask you to cite the case law you are referring to, they are asking you to simply follow the rules and cite it or not to cite if you can't show it.

While you may be correct peter that one the reasons America is failing now is that people won't do things for themselves, it is possible another is the fact some don't seem to want to follow rules when it inconveniences them.

Click to expand...

Ummm, did I not cite Terry and provide a link?... yes, I did. Must I pull EVERY reference to RAS, etc FROM Terry to be in line with the forum rules??? I could copy and paste 90% of the text but that would be pointless. Please read my other posts if you do not understand why I am not doing that, The WHOLE of the case text supports my position. How else can I be clearer? If 2 paragraphs would clarify the position of the court, why did they write so MUCH text? Because there are a great many nuances that have to be considered and it is naive to think that a good legal opinion could be rendered on the basis of 5 or 6 sentences. Why do you think we have lawyers? It takes a lot of legal wrangling to nail down all of the details. If I was off this week with nothing to do, I might spend a few hours spelling out in dozens of paragraphs how each point of the text may or may not apply. But I have a full time job teaching working 14 hours a day this week (day and night classes) and running my personal business and I don't have time to hand hold through pages and pages of text right now. Maybe next week when I am only working 60 hours Good text you picked though. I knew you could do it. Now back to work...

Citizen said:

1.....To me, the fact that the cop walked back to his car after the initial contact tells me there was likely nothing to indicate dangerousness.

2...... If the cop saw something that made him think the OPer was dangerous, the cop had and passed up plenty of opportunity during the initial stages.

3..... I'd assume there might be more than one.

4.......Also, the cop returned the gun to the console. Here, I'll break my semi-rule and read something into the post: the cop did not hand him the bullets and say "don't load until I leave." I'm reading this into the post because I think the poster would have mentioned it if the cop had done it--per reports it can be darn annoying to be on the receiving end such treatment.

5.......And, the cop hung around to chat for a little bit about guns.

6........Conclusion: There was no dangerousness perceived. The cop took the gun to run the serial number. Or, maybe rotely because department policy says to automatically take the gun for "officer safety" and "while you've got it" check the serial number.

Click to expand...

Numbered for my own clarity.

1 yes, sort of, or something tweaked the officers interest he could not put his finger on directly.

2 according to my understanding there is no time limit upon an officer changing his mind or becoming concerned, it is actually sort of defined as such as a dynamic situation that is constants evolving from the officer perspective and he is charged with the task of monitoring that evolution and makes decisions accordingly. At the same time, as told, the timing of the decision is questionable and does not lend itself to a high level of risk.

3 wise assumption, I in fact typically carry 2, it eliminates the "lying" aspect of "Do you have a gun" as by technicality that sentence is singular and if one has 2 it would not be a lie to answer "no" it would be an omission

4 I do not recall it saying returned to console but take our word for it, I did assume from what was posted the firearm was returned in some manner and it did not indicate unloaded or disabled which I found odd as standard practice and a good one from m perspective is unloaded, breech open or held open with an object. Not so much officer safety as much as general transfer of firearm safety. If you hand me a weapon I want it breech open so as I may easily identify no round in chamber myself. If he returned it to the console, it is odd to say the least.

5 nothing wrong with a little warm and fuzzy to follow a questionable encounter, not to mention I like talking gun stuff and I know several officers who do as well, neutral factoid imho, has potential for either side of discussion.

6 possible, according to the chief stuff I found, might be a standing order that is sketchy, but running the serial is another can of worms if he did so, this is indeed an assumption and if I may, I offer that I am not confident he did as it is indicated he did not unload the weapon, if he ran the serial there would be record he handled a citizens weapon, if his report did not clearly define he followed protocol and unloaded and cleared the chamber I would bet he would be in more dutch than he would for not having the right to secure the weapon. He might well be held accountable for knowing how many rounds were in the mag if it was a mag fed weapon.