Surrendering your sidearm at a traffic stop

[Dr. Fresh]

imported post

911Boss wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

OK, OK, I'll toss one more in here. Thanks, everyone! And you are correct in any case he has no legal basis to check the serial number.

But is there any law or court ruling that says they can't?

As wefrequently point out in defending OC, laws aren't made to allow something, they are made to disallow something.

If there is nothing saying it can't be done, then it can beand doesn't need anything "authorizing" it.

Incorrect. That logic model only applies to civilians. LEOs have powers that are specifically outlined. If there is not court case or law authorizing an activity, LEO cannot do it.

 

[5918mike]

imported post

Good info and discussion from all. Another part of my stop I would question is, did the trooper have the right to open my glove compartment and take my gun out just because I told him it was in there.

He never asked me for permission to open it and retrieve the gun or registration and I didn't object when I realized he was going to do it.

I should have pulled the registration out before he came to the window but I just wasn't thinking about it at the time. Lesson learned.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

antispam540 wrote:

That's excellent, halfway there. Now for the part that says "officers detaining someone under arrest can temporarily confiscate firearms."

Bonus points for the part that says "officers can temporarily confiscate firearms EVEN IF the person is NOT under arrest", to cover terry stops and encounters where a person is detained without RAS.

That is covered under Terry v. Ohio.

There is no right to disarm a person if a person is detained without RAS, such as a mwag call when the only behavior that is occurring is a person who is carrying their gun lawfully.

JohnnyLaw seemed to think differently. Earlier in this thread, across three posts,he said:

Remember that Officer safety is NOTreliant onthe elements ofaTerry stop or RAS. It can be enacted anytime, anywhere, for any reason that the Officer deems it necessary, and yes it does temporarily suspend one's rights...

...although the realm of Officer safety may encompass a Terry stop, it is not always limited only to the guidelines of a Terry stop.

My apoligies, I have a rather long document in a different computer (not available at the moment) that explains it in detail. I will post it later today.Officer safety is not based on court cases, nor is itaddressed in aRCW, so I totally understand that it is a hard concept to grasp. Nevertheless, it exists and is upheld in the courts.

I should like to see the court opinions. It would be new to me.

Johnny Law,

Alright. I've downloaded and read the .pdf documents you linked.

I do not see anything in the documents that even remotely adds up to what you wrote:

Remember that Officer safety is NOTreliant onthe elements ofaTerry stop or RAS. It can be enacted anytime, anywhere, for any reason that the Officer deems it necessary, and yes it does temporarily suspend one's rights...

...although the realm of Officer safety may encompass a Terry stop, it is not always limited only to the guidelines of a Terry stop.

Unless I overlooked something, everything in that document speaks to situations where the LEO had RAS, except one brief statement about an emergency. And even that statement said the LEO was dealing with a suspect. And did not say anything nearly as conclusive as youdid in the quote justabove.

Would you please quote the exact text for us.