Being stopped by a LEO

[10-32]

You could have stated that you didn't permit him to take possession of your property. That would have established, in my eyes at least, that he could not check them.

If it happened recently, you may try contacting whoever is in charge if you feel the trooper was out of line.

About 3 months after it happened I was able to speak with the FTO that was also there during the stop. We talk probably about 10 - 15 minutes about it and he acted as if he understood my side of it. I just don't know if it went anywhere after that. Also the FTO didn't say the rookie trooper was in the wrong but I'm sure he's not allowed by policy.

 

[KW730]

Just so it's clear, I was never asked anything. With his holster retention loop rotated forward and his hand on his sidearm, I was TOLD "Take your firearm out of the holster, place it on the passenger seat, then step to the back of your vehicle." The trooper then entered my car from the passenger side, took my firearms and stated "I'm going to taking these (Meaning my 1911 and Glock 26) and run them to see if they're stolen".

I'll be damned if I'm going to unholster my firearm with a LEO staring me down. That's a bad idea altogether.

 

[Liberty1911]

I'll be damned if I'm going to unholster my firearm with a LEO staring me down. That's a bad idea altogether.

Yep. That's just asking for a nervous cop to shoot you if you move in a way that he feels threatens him.

Then, while you're laying there dead, he has the perfect alibi, since you were "reaching for your gun".

I think the proper course of action would be to say "No sir, I'm not touching my firearm and I don't consent to you touching it either since it would create an unsafe situation."

If he's intent on (illegally) disarming you, then he can have you step out, put your hands on the hood, and disarm you himself. As you step out, make it clear that you do not consent to any searches or seizure of your property, and that if he proceeds, you would like a supervisor present.

At that point, he can still do what he wants, but at least I think you're now on solid legal ground to file a complaint and/or lawsuit.

Someone with more experience/knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yep. That's just asking for a nervous cop to shoot you if you move in a way that he feels threatens him.

Then, while you're laying there dead, he has the perfect alibi, since you were "reaching for your gun".

I think the proper course of action would be to say "No sir, I'm not touching my firearm and I don't consent to you touching it either since it would create an unsafe situation."

If he's intent on (illegally) disarming you, then he can have you step out, put your hands on the hood, and disarm you himself. As you step out, make it clear that you do not consent to any searches or seizure of your property, and that if he proceeds, you would like a supervisor present.

At that point, he can still do what he wants, but at least I think you're now on solid legal ground to file a complaint and/or lawsuit.

Someone with more experience/knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong.

This is how I would handle it. The one time I've been disarmed it was by the officer - turn around, hands on head....

 

[Roadie]

This is how I would handle it. The one time I've been disarmed it was by the officer - turn around, hands on head....

"turn around, hands on head" for a traffic stop? oy

 

[Lep36]

Most of us JBTs have better things to than run random plates and stop random vehicles to see if the driver is carrying. I have personally never done it and don't know of any officer on my shift that has either. Sure it could happen, but the frequency of it happening is pretty low.

You've given me an idea though. I think I will start stopping random vehicles to see if the driver is carrying. If they are, I will congratulate them and pat them on the back for doing their part to support the 2nd Amendment. If they aren't, I will chastise them mercilessly to the point that they will want to immediately buy a gun, just to get me to leave them alone.

 

[JollyMon]

so if you get stopped and do not consent to a search, but allow the officer to disarm you(for his safety, which I believe the courts say they have the right to do), the officer can run a check on my firearm?

Wouldn't that be a direct violation of my 4th amendment right just like the refusal for them to search your car.

 

[Denny347]

so if you get stopped and do not consent to a search, but allow the officer to disarm you(for his safety, which I believe the courts say they have the right to do), the officer can run a check on my firearm?

Wouldn't that be a direct violation of my 4th amendment right just like the refusal for them to search your car.

NO

 

[AndersonIN]

NO

Stop sugar coating your answers. :-)

 

[Denny347]

Stop sugar coating your answers. :-)

 

[j706]

Just so it's clear, I was never asked anything. With his holster retention loop rotated forward and his hand on his sidearm, I was TOLD "Take your firearm out of the holster, place it on the passenger seat, then step to the back of your vehicle." The trooper then entered my car from the passenger side, took my firearms and stated "I'm going to taking these (Meaning my 1911 and Glock 26) and run them to see if they're stolen".

Of all the ISP troopers I know, work with and have ever seen, none wore the Safariland 6280 or 6285 series of holsters with a rotating hood. I am relatively sure their only authorized and issued uniform duty holster is the Model 2. It does not have a "rotating hood". It is a snap only and therefore could not be rotated forward. Sure it was ISP?

 

[10-32]

Of all the ISP troopers I know, work with and have ever seen, none wore the Safariland 6280 or 6285 series of holsters with a rotating hood. I am relatively sure their only authorized and issued uniform duty holster is the Model 2. It does not have a "rotating hood". It is a snap only and therefore could not be rotated forward. Sure it was ISP?

I know it was ISP. Hobbs was the FTO. BTW, I have no complaints against Hobbs in any way, shape, or form.

If it wasn't a "hood" on the holster, maybe the way the Officer had his hand on the weapon was pushing the strap forward.

 

[norman428]

Of all the ISP troopers I know, work with and have ever seen, none wore the Safariland 6280 or 6285 series of holsters with a rotating hood. I am relatively sure their only authorized and issued uniform duty holster is the Model 2. It does not have a "rotating hood". It is a snap only and therefore could not be rotated forward. Sure it was ISP?

Not to bump this back up, but many ISP troopers now have the "rotating hood" safariland holster. They were given the option to buy it when they had to transition to the Glock 21. I know several that choose to do so.

And as far as the whole running the handgun to see if it stolen, while total BS, there is no law that says they can, or cannot do that. So many will use it as a way to disarm you, for "officer safety". it just depends on the officer.

 

[10-32]

Not to bump this back up, but many ISP troopers now have the "rotating hood" safariland holster. They were given the option to buy it when they had to transition to the Glock 21. I know several that choose to do so.

And as far as the whole running the handgun to see if it stolen, while total BS, there is no law that says they can, or cannot do that. So many will use it as a way to disarm you, for "officer safety". it just depends on the officer.

Funny thing is, if the Trooper would of said he was taking it for "Officer Saftey" I probably wouldn't of given it a 2nd thought.

I'll let this thread die now.

 

[BRILEY]

At the end of the day, the LEO's can do whatever they want, disarm you, search you, search your car and put you in cuffs for no apparent reason, trust me I know this from first-hand personal experience! The key to this is, do you have the time, effort, resources, money and energy to fight it in court, and that's after you go through the process of filing a complaint with the Citizens Complaint Board... The so called "system" is broke, and is in place to protect officers, if they get in trouble or blatantly step out of line, they get a (high-paid) attorney appointed to them, we on the other-hand have to dig deep in our pockets, our time and our effort to fight against blatant disregard of our Constitutional Rights!

Sorry, I do know that not all LEO's are like this, and that a good majority do stand behind the oath that they took to uphold the law of the land, however that small group tends to make the overall majority look bad!

 

[Bill B]

When you get out of the car, lock it.