LEO disarm during traffic stop

[U.S. Patriot]

I have been on the other side. When we did boardings (same as doing a trafic stop) in the Coast Guard that's the first question we asked, do you have any firearms on yourself or on your vessel. If they did, we kept control until the boarding was finished and they checked out, no felonies. So, I can understand it from a safety stand point. Just because someone legaly owns a gun, does not mean they may not cause bodily harm with said gun. I know what I said is going to cause some peoples butts to flair, that's fine. I'm just trying to give the perspective of an LEO. I will say that I do not agree or disagree with disarming someone during a trafic stop. I think a lot comes down to the individual siuation that the LEO is faced with. If someone is calm and compliant, I see no reason to do so. If someone acts beligerant, that's another story.

 

[Stschil]

I have seen several times where a stash of drugs are kept in the magazine in an auto pistol. Several officers ask for the gun just to see if any drugs are there.

And their probable cause for such a search would be???

If I don't comply, what happens, I will most likely be disarmed anyway. So when does it switch from a legal consent search to a violation of 4A?

I'd love to hear an officer testify in court that he wasn't asking the person to disarm for his safety, he was looking for dope in the magazine.

If someone had an intent to shoot and officer during a traffic stop, would they leave the gun holstered or concealed in the console until after the officer walks up? I wouldnt thinks so. Officer safety is one thing, but violating a citizens rights is a whole 'nuther issue.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

To your signature -- which is far too long, except for highly placed friends

"How many Catholic schools do you think teach the students to question
the authority of the Pope? (The POPE-job is an elected position, and POPE-isms change with the times. He is only a man. Why can't a POPE be a woman? But ******s are O.K.?) Do you believe Christian schools teach students to question or challenge the authority of Jesus Christ? (The Messiah's job is an appointed position, in immortality.) Do military schools teach the cadets to challenge the authority of superior officers? (Yes; they are taught to challenge the "lawful authority" of an order from any of the elected positions of any officer. )
Why should we then expect government schools to teach children to question the authority of government?" (It's not the government's place to invalidate the Constitution given to Man by God -- God being an assumed position.)

 

[dusterboy49]

A Terry Stop is based on the "officers belief that criminal activity is afoot" He would have to show justification.

 

[dusterboy49]

So the Court rules in your favor, Time to file a complaint against the officer.

 

[yotewacker]

If your not honest and go along with what the officer is asking. Then you are blowing your chance for a warning of any kind and a citation is probably what you will get.
Always try to put yourself in the officers shoes.
1. The officer is not familiar with or even knows the subjects in the car he is stopping.
2. Is he going to try to harm the officer when he approaches your car?
3. Is there more than one head showing while looking through the back window?
4. Is the driver on alcohol or drugs and thinking of doing something stupid?

Lots of questions the officer is trying to figure out while approaching your car. And the little things like having your radio off, your drivers window down, your hands on the steering wheel, will help put the officer at ease.

I have saw drugs kept in the magazine area of the grip of auto pistols. Meth stashed in the cylinders of 38's.
Yes, I would ask you to give me your weapon if I was an officer , and lay it on the hood for both of our safety. This keeps the subjects in the car from fidgeting from being nervous and keeps the officer in much better spirits and his weapon in the holster.

You know I love our second amendment fully, and if the officer knew whom he was stopping beforehand, and if the officer could tell the future a minute in advance, things would go much smoother. He does'nt and the officer is trying to do hios best to figure you out way before you are thinking of what your going to tell him.
The officers are just doing there job the best and safest way they know how.
I know some of you dislike the police. Even those that dislike the police still dial 911 when they loose control and want help.

It's like when your fighting with your big brother and you realize that nether one of you wants mom around to settle your dispute. But when you realize your big brother is about to get the best of you, yell MOM and she comes and straightens your mess out. out. And you know your both going to get in trouble.

 

[ATM]

If your not honest and go along with what the officer is asking. Then you are blowing your chance for a warning of any kind and a citation is probably what you will get...

That's fine, let's get on with the reason I was stopped and dispense with 20 questions and this whole disarming nonsense.

I'll be polite but I won't play games.

 

[hpclayto]

If your not honest and go along with what the officer is asking. Then you are blowing your chance for a warning of any kind and a citation is probably what you will get.
Always try to put yourself in the officers shoes.
1. The officer is not familiar with or even knows the subjects in the car he is stopping.
2. Is he going to try to harm the officer when he approaches your car?
3. Is there more than one head showing while looking through the back window?
4. Is the driver on alcohol or drugs and thinking of doing something stupid?

Lots of questions the officer is trying to figure out while approaching your car. And the little things like having your radio off, your drivers window down, your hands on the steering wheel, will help put the officer at ease.

I have saw drugs kept in the magazine area of the grip of auto pistols. Meth stashed in the cylinders of 38's.
Yes, I would ask you to give me your weapon if I was an officer , and lay it on the hood for both of our safety. This keeps the subjects in the car from fidgeting from being nervous and keeps the officer in much better spirits and his weapon in the holster.

You know I love our second amendment fully, and if the officer knew whom he was stopping beforehand, and if the officer could tell the future a minute in advance, things would go much smoother. He does'nt and the officer is trying to do hios best to figure you out way before you are thinking of what your going to tell him.
The officers are just doing there job the best and safest way they know how.
I know some of you dislike the police. Even those that dislike the police still dial 911 when they loose control and want help.

It's like when your fighting with your big brother and you realize that nether one of you wants mom around to settle your dispute. But when you realize your big brother is about to get the best of you, yell MOM and she comes and straightens your mess out. out. And you know your both going to get in trouble.

Kudos. It all depends on the circumstances at the time.

 

[BillD]

Being a police officer is a tough and dangerous job. They knew that when they applied.

 

[SPINNDOC]

Got this string of s'poses for you all:

How about this scenario?? :
Why would I even consider exiting my vehicle? 1., 2., 3., 4., 5. Please give examples of what and why the LEO would LEGALLY require it, NOT merely fishing for reason or evidence -- with no clue of any crime is rejected. May I say that? "I'm keeping my doors locked and window open only 6-inches for my own protection." <==== Will that work? "Got a gun in there?" "There is nothing in my vehicle that is illegal." "Care if I search it then?" "Yes. I do NOT consent. For what purpose, sir?" <=== Will that work? "Investigatory stop" needs more than some LEO's spidey feeling to get me out of the car (... for my own safety ...) What do I do when the "detained" word gets trumped by "... arrested"? What could possibly lead to an arrest based on the above dialog? What are my rights at that point and beyond? Does reading MIRANDA add power to the arrest? The only thing in the vehicle is my GLOCK. Can LEO remove me against my will (on preceding statements) and confiscate WHAT of my belongings?

Being a police officer is a tough and dangerous job. They knew that when they applied.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

How about this scenario?? :
Why would I even consider exiting my vehicle? 1., 2., 3., 4., 5. Please give examples of what and why the LEO would LEGALLY require it, NOT merely fishing for reason or evidence -- with no clue of any crime is rejected. May I say that? "I'm keeping my doors locked and window open only 6-inches for my own protection." <==== Will that work? "Got a gun in there?" "There is nothing in my vehicle that is illegal." "Care if I search it then?" "Yes. I do NOT consent. For what purpose, sir?" <=== Will that work? "Investigatory stop" needs more than some LEO's spidey feeling to get me out of the car (... for my own safety ...) What do I do when the "detained" word gets trumped by "... arrested"? What could possibly lead to an arrest based on the above dialog? What are my rights at that point and beyond? Does reading MIRANDA add power to the arrest? The only thing in the vehicle is my GLOCK. Can LEO remove me against my will (on preceding statements) and confiscate WHAT of my belongings?

You need to do a lot of research yourself on this subject and a lot of those questions you can answer yourself. Look up Terry Stop for starters and read ALL of the links in the article (wikipedia is a great resource). You will realize your 4th amendment rights are already significantly weakened during a legitimate traffic stop. A cop has the power to ask you out of the vehicle at any time. That is where the search should end unless he has PC.

 

[SPINNDOC]

@ #72

I did search many sites, and even on INGO the "opinions" vary on even showing or declaring a LTCH. And you yourself don't know the definitive answers either, or are just being supercilious or coy. Am I to assume that EVERY LEO @ EVERY STOP is considering me worthy of "Terry Stop" parameters? I just would like to know the innocent citizens' real-life standings re: LAW. Not opinion. Not Barney Fife feelings-at-that-moment. Thanks for the help; I'll be there when/if you need me. <purple off>

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Okay, not going to read 8 pages, just offering my 2 cents...
According to the case Washington vs IN I believe, once it has been established that you have a LTCH any line of questioning about it or your gun must cease. The LEO cannot take possession of your weapon unless you volunteer it or he has PC or RS.

 

[Smokepole]

I have given my firearm to an officer to hold while running information on me. The way I see it I am doing nothing wrong, the gun not stolen, and I have a permit. Until he runs my information he has every right to protect himself from the possibility of harm. If he doesn't give it right back...then we have a problem.

I agree. From what I know (I have a couple friends that are cops), the two most dangerous everyday runs a cop can take are domestic disturbances and traffic stops. In the domestics you have an already heated and passionate event in progress and with traffic stops the officer has absolutely no idea who is in the car (could be 1 or 8 individuals) and if one or more is a threat and/or armed in some way. So I have no problem with a LEO asking for my weapon while he runs his checks. He is trying to be safe and go home alive to his wife and kids. If he asks me would I give him my weapon, but I would advise that I am not comfortable with it. If asked why, my response would be: would you be comfortable just giving your weapon over to a stranger? What ever his answer though, if he still requests it I will hand it to him. If I don't get it back soon, then I will have an issue to be addressed.

I too have a lot of respect for LEO's and the difficult job that they have. And because of the inherent dangers involved, I really don't care to add to the level of stress. I wouldn't want it if I was in their shoes.

Just my

 

[Drail]

The whole argument of "an officer needs to secure your gun" for "officer safety" is ridiculous. I personally don't care if the officer "feels safe" or not. And if he does "feel safe" he is not being realistic about what may happen next. It's a very dangerous job and if no one explained that concept to them or they didn't figure it out themselves then they should not have gone into that line of work. They operate in the same environment we all do. Most police work involves writing traffic citations so the State can take some money out of your wallet. It has nothing to do with "safety". But if you give an officer any resistance to his requests you very well may recieve a rapid introduction to Mr. Asphalt and Mr. Handcuffs or Mr. Taser followed by a ride in his back seat. I have no disrespect for most LEOs but the reasons we are given for some of the actions they "feel" they need to take is outside of the bounds of the Constitution that they took an oath to defend. What would an officer say if you told him that you didn't "feel safe" because they carried a loaded gun and because of that you would like them to take it off and lock it in the trunk so that YOU "felt safe"? It's not about "safety" It's about submitting to Authority.

 

[Pocketman]

This subject has been cussed and discussed numerous times. I've always been of the belief that a gun is safest in its holster. I've worked with people who would always disarm the subject for "officer safety." Truth be known, some of them just liked to look at guns. IMO, the best approach is for everyone involved to remain courteous and level headed.

My fear is a tragic accident will occur before this subject is more definitively addressed.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I did search many sites, and even on INGO the "opinions" vary on even showing or declaring a LTCH.

They are just that, opinions. Legally in Indiana you do not HAVE to.

And you yourself don't know the definitive answers either,

I never said I had all the answers but I have done extensive research on the subject and I recommend that you do to because much of it is not defined by law, or in other words the determination of yourself or your lawyer is needed to test most theories.

or are just being supercilious or coy.

It usually isn't in good taste to insult someone trying to help you.

Am I to assume that EVERY LEO @ EVERY STOP is considering me worthy of "Terry Stop" parameters?

Yes. If you read what I recommended you wouldn't have to ask twice.

I just would like to know the innocent citizens' real-life standings re: LAW. Not opinion. Not Barney Fife feelings-at-that-moment. Thanks for the help; I'll be there when/if you need me. <purple off>

I don't even know how to respond to this so I'll just say, "No problem, glad to help."

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Okay, not going to read 8 pages, just offering my 2 cents...
According to the case Washington vs IN I believe, once it has been established that you have a LTCH any line of questioning about it or your gun must cease. The LEO cannot take possession of your weapon unless you volunteer it or he has PC or RS.

This is my understanding as well.

This subject has been cussed and discussed numerous times. I've always been of the belief that a gun is safest in its holster. I've worked with people who would always disarm the subject for "officer safety." Truth be known, some of them just liked to look at guns. IMO, the best approach is for everyone involved to remain courteous and level headed.

My fear is a tragic accident will occur before this subject is more definitively addressed.

Agreed

 

[Smokepole]

The whole argument of "an officer needs to secure your gun" for "officer safety" is ridiculous. I personally don't care if the officer "feels safe" or not. And if he does "feel safe" he is not being realistic about what may happen next. It's a very dangerous job and if no one explained that concept to them or they didn't figure it out themselves then they should not have gone into that line of work. They operate in the same environment we all do. Most police work involves writing traffic citations so the State can take some money out of your wallet. It has nothing to do with "safety".

So you willingly walk into the middle of heated domestic disputes to calm things down to make sure no one gets hurt or killed and walk up to strangers in cars having no idea where they have been or what they have been doing? Or willingly run into the area of flying bullets where everyone else is running away? That is your everyday environment??

 

[Drail]

Can you absolutely "know" what situation you're about to walk into when you enter a gas station or a bank or a convenience store? And it is ridiculous to assume that you can "make sure no one gets killed". Consider the North Hollywood shootout back in the 90s. None of the individuals involved in that incident could have known what they were walking into, police or citizens. How could that massacre have been prevented? Did those officers "feel safe" when they got out of their cars?