Being stopped by a LEO

[KW730]

Personally, I would never refuse to receive back my firearm after it has been confiscated. SCOTUS has ruled that officers are legally allowed to confiscate the weapon for "their safety," which may be bull****, but still doesn't seem to warrant me waiting six months to receive my firearm back.

Do as you please, but I think I would rather file a complaint than go without my G19 for six months.

 

[10-32]

So the ones of you that have been disarmed, what is the reason given by the officer for taking your firearm?

I've been disarmed twice by ISP. Both times their reason was "I need to run the number to see if it's stolen". I did get out of both tickets, one right there on the roadside and the other one in court. Gotta love Rookie Troopers

 

[92ThoStro]

If you refuse it back, they get to play with it longer. They only disarm you because they like your gun, and want to check it out, without asking you to draw, which would be unsafe for them.

I wouldn't refuse it back, well unless you have numerous handguns you can carry in its place, and you just want to waste tax dollars and yours and their time.

 

[KW730]

So the ones of you that have been disarmed, what is the reason given by the officer for taking your firearm?

I've been disarmed twice by ISP. Both times their reason was "I need to run the number to see if it's stolen". I did get out of both tickets, one right there on the roadside and the other one in court. Gotta love Rookie Troopers

This is most definitely illegal. The only legal reason they have is "for officer safety." Running the serial number without your consent is a violation of your fourth amendment rights without reasonable suspicion that the firearm is stolen.

That said, good luck telling a JBT that he has no cause to run your legal means of protection against the FBI database.

 

[public servant]

I want to see 'em take my gunz...

 

[Denny347]

This is most definitely illegal. The only legal reason they have is "for officer safety." Running the serial number without your consent is a violation of your fourth amendment rights without reasonable suspicion that the firearm is stolen.

That said, good luck telling a JBT that he has no cause to run your legal means of protection against the FBI database.

We are allowed to run serial numbers to anything we are legally allowed to have in our possession or in a legal place to view it. Arizona v. Hicks - 480 U.S. 321 (1987) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In Az v Hicks, the USSC ruled that the running of serial numbers from property that they did not have legal authority to move/possess it illegal. The inverse therefore it true...if the LEO has the property in his possession legally, they may run the serial numbers. Now if you argued that the "officer safety" rule is not enough to seize the firearm during a traffic stop, THEN running the serial number is a nono. However, if the argument is that the officer has lawfully obtained the firearm, then running the serial number is legal.

 

[jrogers]

In Az v Hicks, the USSC ruled that the running of serial numbers from property that they did not have legal authority to move/possess it illegal. The inverse therefore it true...if the LEO has the property in his possession legally, they may run the serial numbers.

While this may be true as a matter of enumerated case law, it is not logically sound. That is to say, not A implies not B is not equivalent to A implies B.

 

[Denny347]

While this may be true as a matter of enumerated case law, it is not logically sound. That is to say, not A implies not B is not equivalent to A implies B.

Ok-I was paraphrasing. Here is an excerpt:
"It would be absurd to say that an object could lawfully be seized and taken from the premises, but could not be moved for closer examination. It is clear, therefore, that the search here was valid if the "plain view" doctrine would have sustained a seizure of the equipment."

 

[iChokePeople]

Ok-I was paraphrasing. Here is an excerpt:
"It would be absurd to say that an object could lawfully be seized and taken from the premises, but could not be moved for closer examination. It is clear, therefore, that the search here was valid if the "plain view" doctrine would have sustained a seizure of the equipment."

IANAL, but I don't think the "plain view" doctrine is what allows a LEO to temporarily take possession of a firearm for officer safety. I could certainly be wrong, but it would not SEEM to apply here.

 

[Denny347]

IANAL, but I don't think the "plain view" doctrine is what allows a LEO to temporarily take possession of a firearm for officer safety. I could certainly be wrong, but it would not SEEM to apply here.

THAT'S the million dollar question. "Is officer safety, minus RS that they are dangerous, enough to take temporary custody of a firearm during an otherwise routine traffic stop?" I do not believe I have found a clear ruling one way or another. If it's ok, then running the serial number is ok. I welcome a ruling to clarify. Playing the the gray too much can come back and bite you.

 

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

Ok-I was paraphrasing. Here is an excerpt:
"It would be absurd to say that an object could lawfully be seized and taken from the premises, but could not be moved for closer examination. It is clear, therefore, that the search here was valid if the "plain view" doctrine would have sustained a seizure of the equipment."

LEOs running firearm serial numbers during a stop has nothing to do with plain view. You didn't write down the serial number while it was in plain view and run it without seizing the gun, did you? Nor are you dealing with something that you already know you can seize and take back to the police department as evidence. Those scenarios are what the Hicks opinion said would be legal to check, and I agree. But you're not doing anything like that.

It has everything to do with prolonging a temporary seizure (the gun) and temporary detention (the owner) to check something for stolen when there is NO articulable suspicion whatsoever that it is stolen.

 

[Denny347]

LEOs running firearm serial numbers during a stop has nothing to do with plain view. You didn't write down the serial number while it was in plain view and run it without seizing the gun, did you? Nor are you dealing with something that you already know you can seize and take back to the police department as evidence. Those scenarios are what the Hicks opinion said would be legal to check, and I agree. But you're not doing anything like that.

It has everything to do with prolonging a temporary seizure (the gun) and temporary detention (the owner) to check something for stolen when there is NO articulable suspicion whatsoever that it is stolen.

Seizing the firearm is the heart of the argument. If I have a legal right to have that firearm in my hands, you will be hard pressed to find a court that will rule that the 30 seconds it takes to run a serial number is excessive. Now, do I have a legal right to hold onto it during a stop?

 

[iChokePeople]

THAT'S the million dollar question. "Is officer safety, minus RS that they are dangerous, enough to take temporary custody of a firearm during an otherwise routine traffic stop?" I do not believe I have found a clear ruling one way or another. If it's ok, then running the serial number is ok. I welcome a ruling to clarify. Playing the the gray too much can come back and bite you.

Agreed, particularly about hoping for a ruling on it. I still think, though, that there's a difference in being able to snag something that's ILLEGAL, because it's in plain view, vs. temporarily taking it "for officer safety" (something that's NOT illegal, or which you have no reason to believe is illegal). The courts have allowed some lenience for officer safety, but I DON'T think that should turn into a fishing trip.

 

[Sonick]

If i was pulled over in my car. They are supposed to dis arm you!! yes or no

Nope

 

[Ted]

Seizing the firearm is the heart of the argument. If I have a legal right to have that firearm in my hands, you will be hard pressed to find a court that will rule that the 30 seconds it takes to run a serial number is excessive. Now, do I have a legal right to hold onto it during a stop?

Government doesn't have rights. People have rights.

Government has authority ceded by the people, that is capable of being reclaimed by the people.

 

[stephen87]

I know someone is going to say don't do anything to get stopped. But what happens if they randomly run your plate and stop you to see if you are carrying. << Which again i dont think thats legal.

If they run your plate and stop you to see if you're carrying then they probably aren't doing it right. Running a license plate returns no information on a LTCH, only a driver's license will return a hit for the LTCH. I'm not a cop, but I do play one on TV and have seen the system. If they stop you and ask if you're carrying, ask what you've done to warrant being stopped first.

 

[Denny347]

Government doesn't have rights. People have rights.

Government has authority ceded by the people, that is capable of being reclaimed by the people.

Seizing the firearm is the heart of the argument. If I have the authority ceded by the people to have that firearm in my hands, you will be hard pressed to find a court that will rule that the 30 seconds it takes to run a serial number is excessive. Now, do I have the authority ceded by the people to hold onto it during a stop?

Better?

 

[92ThoStro]

If they run your plate and stop you to see if you're carrying then they probably aren't doing it right. Running a license plate returns no information on a LTCH, only a driver's license will return a hit for the LTCH. I'm not a cop, but I do play one on TV and have seen the system. If they stop you and ask if you're carrying, ask what you've done to warrant being stopped first.

All they need is name and DOB to look up the DL which they can get by running the plate, right? Assuming the driver is the registered owner.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

All they need is name and DOB to look up the DL which they can get by running the plate, right? Assuming the driver is the registered owner.

The DL number of the registered owner is part of the plate information, DOB is not.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I thought if an LTCH is presented to an officer that was supposed to stop all questioning concerning the firearm? Wouldn't that mean seizing the firearm and running the numbers would be a no no based on that ruling alone?