Can a LEO require you to show them your gun?

[TheSpark]

I have a little problem with the premises of the question, because if there is a pullover it is probably because there is a reasonable suspicion in the first place. example of this, case yesterday came down from INdiana Sups about tinted window violation, reasonable belief was good enough for pullover even if it turned out to be incorrect; motion to suppress the dope and ensuing appeal after conviction failed.
Erving Sanders v State of Indiana

if there is a reasonable suspicion, then then a safety search of the passenger compartment is permissible. I dont remember that case name but its not too hard to find-- thats a US Sup case. I dont think the LTCH makes a safety check off limits for an officer. It just doesnt. Maybe, however, you could make a good argument that there is a big difference between a LTCH licensee having a piece, and somebody else having one-- obvioulsy one thing is a crime and the other isnt; but there may be issues of officer safety either way.

bottom line if they want to see the piece, better show them, because they are in a position to force you to show them in a really unpleasant way

I'm sure it is probably best to comply, especially if they become aggressive about it. My question really though is, if no crime was committed or there is no reasonable suspicion that there was, do they have the law behind them to require you to hand over the gun?

If you refuse could you face a charge for failure to comply?

 

[dansgotguns]

I have a little problem with the premises of the question, because if there is a pullover it is probably because there is a reasonable suspicion in the first place. example of this, case yesterday came down from INdiana Sups about tinted window violation, reasonable belief was good enough for pullover even if it turned out to be incorrect; motion to suppress the dope and ensuing appeal after conviction failed.
Erving Sanders v State of Indiana

if there is a reasonable suspicion, then then a safety search of the passenger compartment is permissible. I dont remember that case name but its not too hard to find-- thats a US Sup case. I dont think the LTCH makes a safety check off limits for an officer. It just doesnt. Maybe, however, you could make a good argument that there is a big difference between a LTCH licensee having a piece, and somebody else having one-- obvioulsy one thing is a crime and the other isnt; but there may be issues of officer safety either way.

bottom line if they want to see the piece, better show them, because they are in a position to force you to show them in a really unpleasant way

This is that ish that I dont like. This mindset is exactly what makes us less free than we truly are.

 

[dansgotguns]

I'm sure it is probably best to comply, especially if they become aggressive about it. My question really though is, if no crime was committed or there is no reasonable suspicion that there was, do they have the law behind them to require you to hand over the gun?

If you refuse could you face a charge for failure to comply?

Nooooo. If your not complying to something that ypu have no legal bound to comply to how can you be charged?

Thats like Adam Kokesh being arrested for resisting arrest. What happened? He was freed and theres going to be a lawsuit.

 

[TheSpark]

Nooooo. If your not complying to something that ypu have no legal bound to comply to how can you be charged?

Thats like Adam Kokesh being arrested for resisting arrest. What happened? He was freed and theres going to be a lawsuit.

That doesn't answer the bigger question though, do they have the law behind them in forcing you to hand it over. The second question only applies if the answer to that is yes.

 

[MPH]

Not to be rude, but I think your question has been answered. IF there is an articulable reason that the officer can explain to anyone who asks Why he/she felt their safety was threatened, then yes, you can be disarmed.

 

[Booya]

I have a little problem with the premises of the question, because if there is a pullover it is probably because there is a reasonable suspicion in the first place. example of this, case yesterday came down from INdiana Sups about tinted window violation, reasonable belief was good enough for pullover even if it turned out to be incorrect; motion to suppress the dope and ensuing appeal after conviction failed.
Erving Sanders v State of Indiana

if there is a reasonable suspicion, then then a safety search of the passenger compartment is permissible. I dont remember that case name but its not too hard to find-- thats a US Sup case. I dont think the LTCH makes a safety check off limits for an officer. It just doesnt. Maybe, however, you could make a good argument that there is a big difference between a LTCH licensee having a piece, and somebody else having one-- obvioulsy one thing is a crime and the other isnt; but there may be issues of officer safety either way.

bottom line if they want to see the piece, better show them, because they are in a position to force you to show them in a really unpleasant way

LOL WUT?!

 

[TEK]

lol why do you think I am incorrect? did somebody tell you so? I am just going off the US Supreme Court's holding in Michigan V Long and related cases, but maybe you know better than them

.... Ugh TEK, you are absolutely incorrect, they cannot search your vehicle because they had a reason to stop you, not even for Officer's Safety. If something like a firearm is visible, or you tell them you have a firearm, they can go straight to that firearm and seize it for the duration of the stop, but they cannot search your back seats, under your front seats, your trunk, etc for other items.

Michigan v. Long - 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)



Michigan v. Long - 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them. Pp. 463 U. S. 1045-1052.

you say they cant search under seats? thats exactly not what they said. they said they can, see italics above. if its in the passenger compartment, and a piece can be hidden there, then they can search it.

 

[ATM]

That doesn't answer the bigger question though, do they have the law behind them in forcing you to hand it over...

They cannot force me to "hand it over". I won't be touching it regardless of their orders.

They have all the force necessary to take it from me, but whether they had the lawful authority to do so would still depend upon the circumstances of the detainment.

 

[TheSpark]

Not to be rude, but I think your question has been answered. IF there is an articulable reason that the officer can explain to anyone who asks Why he/she felt their safety was threatened, then yes, you can be disarmed.

If someone could point me to the actual Indiana law for this that would be great. I've failed to find anything myself. I just see a problem with an officer having the right to remove legal property from you or your vehicle for their safety. Maybe they have a reason to believe your phone poses a danger to them because you could throw it at them. Can they take your phone during a traffic stop for that reason (and of course look through your stuff while back in their car).

The main reason I brought this up is because I've read some officers do ask/require you to give them your gun. Frankly, I think this is more dangerous. The chances of it going off during the transfer would be much greater than the person using it against the officer. Plus what about when they hand it back to you? You could just use it against them then.

If they unload it or hand it back in pieces you are then required to possibly reassemble and reload the weapon in public if you wish to continue to have your self defense until you get home. In some areas/state that might not even be legal to do so. In effect, they just temporally took away your right to bear arms on your person until you get home.

 

[TEK]

You got the main case right there. Terry v Ohio, Michigan V Long. they dont need any more authority than that.

 

[dansgotguns]

Someone legally in possession of a firearm is not probable cause for dittly squat

 

[ghuns]

They cannot force me to "hand it over". I won't be touching it regardless of their orders.

They have all the force necessary to take it from me, but whether they had the lawful authority to do so would still depend upon the circumstances of the detainment.

This has always been my feeling as well. If they want it, I will let them remove it. Last thing I wish to do in the presence of officer Itchy Trigger Finger is unholster my pistol.

 

[Booya]

You got the main case right there. Terry v Ohio, Michigan V Long. they dont need any more authority than that.

A traffic stop is not RAS for search. Even from your quote;

"if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons"

Just because my license plate bulb is out doesn't give you RAS to believe I'm a danger to anyone, nor does it give you RAS for any kind of search that cannot be completed with nothing more then your eyeballs. Obviously not "YOU", but you see my point. A traffic stop , in and of itself, is NOT RAS.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I've had mine removed at least a few times during a traffic stop.

1. Officer had me hand it to him to "run the numbers". This took 45 minutes.
2. Officer took it and my knife off and tossed them back in my car while I took a seat in his car for a... uh... test.
3. Officer had me remove it from my side and lay it unloaded on the passenger seat. Then, as he came back with the ticket, had me put my hands out the window as he approached.



On those same lines, I've also had a couple officers not care. They typically thanked me for informing them, and just asked me not to mess with it while they got the ticket/warning ready.

 

[TEK]

A traffic stop is not RAS for search. Even from your quote;

"if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons"

Just because my license plate bulb is out doesn't give you RAS to believe I'm a danger to anyone, nor does it give you RAS for any kind of search that cannot be completed with nothing more then your eyeballs. Obviously not "YOU", but you see my point. A traffic stop , in and of itself, is NOT RAS.

In theory I agree with what you said there. However, In practice, I think police departments adopt training and practice policies that justify ever single traffic stop as a Terry stop. I have heard more than one knowledgeable commentator say so at least.

 

[MCgrease08]

I've had mine removed at least a few times during a traffic stop.

1. Officer had me hand it to him to "run the numbers". This took 45 minutes.
2. Officer took it and my knife off and tossed them back in my car while I took a seat in his car for a... uh... test.
3. Officer had me remove it from my side and lay it unloaded on the passenger seat. Then, as he came back with the ticket, had me put my hands out the window as he approached.

On those same lines, I've also had a couple officers not care. They typically thanked me for informing them, and just asked me not to mess with it while they got the ticket/warning ready.

It sounds like you get pulled over a lot.

 

[dansgotguns]

In theory I agree with what you said there. However, In practice, I think police departments adopt training and practice policies that justify ever single traffic stop as a Terry stop. I have heard more than one knowledgeable commentator say so at least.

A policy isnt a law is it?

 

[Booya]

In theory I agree with what you said there. However, In practice, I think police departments adopt training and practice policies that justify ever single traffic stop as a Terry stop. I have heard more than one knowledgeable commentator say so at least.

I don't live my life according to the varying policies of different agencies. I know saying things like this give me the internet tough guy appearance, but I will continue as I always have in the past.

I will be (as) polite and respectful (as they are to me) and kindly keep my mouth shut as it regards to anything not pertinent to our interaction. If the gun issue comes up, I'll not volunteer to hand it over, nor will I agree to any search and seizure. If I'm ordered out of my vehicle, I will lock it behind me... We'll see how it goes I guess.

I highly doubt that my minimal encounters with LEO will go any different then they have in the past. I find most to be very polite and courteous and I will be the same. So far it's worked out pretty well.

 

[DragonGunner]

I would decline any requests to hand over my gun.

I would decline consent to take my gun.

I would not physically resist if they decided to disarm me anyway, but would follow up with some level of complaint after the event.

OR contact GUY about a possiable lawsuit.

 

[dansgotguns]

[STRIKE]OR[/STRIKE] and contact GUY about a possiable lawsuit.

Ftfy