Give up weapon upon request when pulled over?

[Ted]

Possible learning experince for me here.

Personally I would not touch my gun let alone unholster it even at the request of a LEO. If he/she wants to take it against my consent, I think it's best that the LEO unholster and unload it if they are going to insist on it.

Reaching for my gun in the presence of a LEO just seems like a bad idea to me. I would rather stand there with my arms away from it and refuse to touch it than end up with a few new holes due to a misunderstanding.

I understand what you're saying. But at the time it seemed a bad idea not to follow the officer's specific directions. BTW the gun was in the glove box. He said "Remove the gun and place it on the passenger seat." After this he said, "clear the cylinder and hand me the 'bullets'." Then he said, "hand me the gun handle first." (to the best of my recollection).

I'm just not into giving an LEO crap in a small community. Life's too short.

I'm with Burnsy on this one.

A LEO instructions to handle their own weapon, even with the best of intentions, seems like setting someone up to fail.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

And then there is this question:

How did you end up OUTSIDE the vehicle? Same as showing our LTCH, and having an end to any further GUN queries, are citizens required to exit on demand? Can one legally remain buckled and engine off, etc. Do we get a "Why?" "Am I being detained," etc. Have LE call for Supv?

Possible learning experince for me here.
Personally I would not touch my gun let alone unholster it even at the request of a LEO. If he/she wants to take it against my consent, I think it's best that the LEO unholster and unload it if they are going to insist on it. <snip> I would rather stand there with my arms away from it and refuse to touch it than end up with a few new holes due to a misunderstanding.

 

[Denny347]

How did you end up OUTSIDE the vehicle? Same as showing our LTCH, and having an end to any further GUN queries, are citizens required to exit on demand? Can one legally remain buckled and engine off, etc. Do we get a "Why?" "Am I being detained," etc. Have LE call for Supv?

If directed, you are required to exit the vehicle. Failure to do so CAN be a "resisting law enforcement" charge. Quite possibly you will be shown the process of exiting your vehicle without the use of your legs

 

[Glock19]

Only time I ever told a cop I was armed, he said" you keep yours holstered and i'll keep mine holstered." ....nuff said...state trooper.

 

[cobber]

However, that is my choice, there is no legal precedent/law that says we can't, it is officer choice.

Erm, Evansville Zoo?

If directed, you are required to exit the vehicle. Failure to do so CAN be a "resisting law enforcement" charge. Quite possibly you will be shown the process of exiting your vehicle without the use of your legs

What if they reasonably believe your "direction" is unlawful?

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property

 

[Colts]

Finally, just slow down and don't get pulled over.

Now that is a novel idea!

 

[Denny347]

Erm, Evansville Zoo?



What if they reasonably believe your "direction" is unlawful?

Well, that will be ugly. Regardless of what you may THINK, it is 100% lawful. If I need to, I can invite my friends over to assist me. Thankfully I have never had to do that.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/20/u...er-people-cars-routine-stops-court-rules.html

 

[cobber]

Well, that will be ugly. Regardless of what you may THINK, it is 100% lawful. If I need to, I can invite my friends over to assist me. Thankfully I have never had to do that.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/20/u...er-people-cars-routine-stops-court-rules.html

The question is not what I THINK, or what you THINK. The question is what the person resisting 'reasonably' believes, even though they may later be shown to have been wrong. Sooner or later the new 'right to resist' statute is going to play a role in what we all assume should be an innocuous traffic stop.

I would hope that no one would be flip about dragging people, who may have committed no offense, from their cars, because they're 'resisting'.

I would hope that neither you nor I would have such an experience. I'm sure it's not pleasant.

 

[CathyInBlue]

What the SCOTUS taketh, the Indiana Supreme Court giveth back? Citation, or it didn't happen.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Don't shoot me, bro.

 

[cobber]

What the SCOTUS taketh, the Indiana Supreme Court giveth back? Citation, or it didn't happen.

Indiana case law does allow officers to remove the driver and passengers in the course of a traffic stop.

The Indiana Courts of Appeal could change that, or the Legislature could pass a new law that would supersede the case law. (I'm still waiting for the Legislature to repeal the ban on Chinese throwing stars.)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Denny is talking about Wilson:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1268.ZO.html

No 4th Amendment violation for police to order driver out of car.

Of course, there is Article I, §11 and our case law on passengers.

Failure to do so CAN be a "resisting law enforcement" charge. Quite possibly you will be shown the process of exiting your vehicle without the use of your legs

Yeah, I've always wondered how one can sit there like a turtle on a log but it is RLE. No force or violence I think would be another statute.

I never get anything cool like Failure to Get Out of Car.

 

[cobber]

Denny is talking about Wilson:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1268.ZO.html

No 4th Amendment violation for police to order driver out of car.

Of course, there is Article I, §11 and our case law on passengers.



Yeah, I've always wondered how one can sit there like a turtle on a log but it is RLE. No force or violence I think would be another statute.

I never get anything cool like Failure to Get Out of Car.

What if I passively resist Officer Chompy, what then???

 

[downzero]

I will be waiting anxiously for one of the posters on here to prove me wrong. I was around when the law was created. I know WHY it was created. I have been in Judge Collins' Court (it's in her court because she specializes mental/emotional illness) testifying for taking action via this law. Her "mental illness" court is the ONLY court taking these cases. I tire of these internet lawyers. Put your money where your mouth is. Plenty of posters create a thread about their weapon getting removed during a traffic stop and everyone whines and moans but NOTHING gets done. I have yet to see a single lawsuit for this "obvious" breach of law. I will happily accept that I am wrong if someone would actually PROVE me wrong...by taking this to court.

I am anxiously waiting for that day as well.

If you are a police officer, you should be more familiar with search and seizure law than almost anyone else. You should understand that prolonging a stop that was otherwise justifiable can turn it into an unconstitutional seizure. You should understand the bounds of your authority. Courts have struggled, but they have attempted what I believe are their best possible efforts to create bright line rules that protect law enforcement from threats and citizens from unreasonable and unlawful seizures.

I fully empathize with your position as an LEO during traffic stops and the difficulty in dealing with armed citizens. It doesn't follow that there are no rules, that you can do whatever you want, and that entirely otherwise cooperative, law-abiding citizens must submit to your every demand during a traffic stop, no matter how unreasonable.

The other problem with how the law develops is that most of the people who end up making history with how they contest these sort of constitutional rights violations are not good people. Miranda was a rapist. Many people who are subjected to an unlawful search or seizure are factually guilty and courts and the public do NOT have much sympathy for them.

I really enjoy that this forum pits conservative values against libertarian values on a regular basis. I appreciate those debates because they demonstrate the importance of the rights-based/natural law views that some of our framers appreciated AND the "rule of law" types who sought to assure that we had an orderly and safe society.

I hope that in the future, this sort of situation won't be so adversarial. The government is bigger and more powerful than ever, and you are part of that. As citizens, we've come to accept that to some degree and appreciate the increased public safety that comes with somewhat aggressive law enforcement.

All we ask in return is that you appreciate that we want to be treated like human beings, with rights that are important and should be respected. Rather than getting defensive and telling those who disagree with you that they are wrong and have no hope of prevailing, you should appreciate the interests at stake and conduct yourself accordingly.

I really don't think that's too much to ask, and I mean this in the nicest way possible. Try to see this situation from our perspective, too. The vast majority of people on this forum are NOT the scumbags you deal with on a daily basis.

 

[Denny347]

Indiana case law does allow officers to remove the driver and passengers in the course of a traffic stop.

The Indiana Courts of Appeal could change that, or the Legislature could pass a new law that would supersede the case law. (I'm still waiting for the Legislature to repeal the ban on Chinese throwing stars.)

USSC allows us to do so...not likely to change. If I ask you out of the car, I have a reason. On a simple traffic stop, not usually unless I ask if you want to see the broken equipment that caused you to get pulled over. If you don't want to get out for that..that's cool. But if I am standing there and tell you "please step out of the car" you are going to end up out of the car and it would be so much better if you dd it on your own.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What if I passively resist Officer Chompy, what then???

How does one do that?

 

[cobber]

USSC allows us to do so...not likely to change. If I ask you out of the car, I have a reason. On a simple traffic stop, not usually unless I ask if you want to see the broken equipment that caused you to get pulled over. If you don't want to get out for that..that's cool. But if I am standing there and tell you "please step out of the car" you are going to end up out of the car and it would be so much better if you dd it on your own.

The Indiana courts or legislature can decide tomorrow that officers cannot remove citizens from their vehicles, and SCOTUS can't (and won't) do a thing about it. Indiana courts have limited plenty of SCOTUS holdings.


I will just hope that if you pull over my wife or daughter they will get the same consideration you would want an officer to show to your own family in the same situation, and that it doesn't escalate needlessly into a COPS episode.

 

[Denny347]

The Indiana courts or legislature can decide tomorrow that officers cannot remove citizens from their vehicles, and SCOTUS can't (and won't) do a thing about it. Indiana courts have limited plenty of SCOTUS holdings.


I will just hope that if you pull over my wife or daughter they will get the same consideration you would want an officer to show to your own family in the same situation, and that it doesn't escalate needlessly into a COPS episode.

Meh, whatever makes em happy, I don't really care. Like I said before, I don't ask you to step out unless I have a good reason (like your going to jail or your car is getting towed) so I would be fine with it being narrowed. Why wouldn't I be nice to ANYONE'S wife, daughter, son, mother, etc? I don't think I have said anything on here that would make one believe otherwise. I was just trying to convey that on the side of the road is not a good place to argue the legality of my actions. I am confident in my actions and follow the law in performing my job. So, if I need a driver to step out, I am not concerned that they don't agree or think I'm breaking the law...I most assuredly am not. So by you refusing to do as I asked only escalates the situation needlessly. I cannot tell you how many people I have arrested who thought I was doing so illegally only to be told by their lawyers that I was 100% legal in my actions. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[downzero]

Most of the people you arrested were probably factually guilty. Many of the people reading this thread have probably never committed a more serious infraction than jaywalking or speeding.

 

[Birds Away]

So what I am reading is that IC clearly states that the Officer must be able to articulate why he felt the person was potentially dangerous and why he felt it necessary to disarm said person. However, the Officers say they all know the judge and that they can get away with it so rights be damned they will do as they please. Oh, and any passive, verbal resistance will be met with brute force. Ok, got it.