Can a LEO require you to show them your gun?

[ArcadiaGP]

So we all know the script of "Am I being detained, am I free to go"...

How about declining to hand over your firearm? How do you say it?

 

[ghuns]

How about declining to hand over your firearm? How do you say it?

Pry it from my cold dead hands copper!

Let me know how it works out for ya.

 

[ATM]

So we all know the script of "Am I being detained, am I free to go"...

How about declining to hand over your firearm? How do you say it?

Something like this:

Hand over the gun.

No.

Hand it over, NOW!

Not gonna happen.

BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!

Hand it over or you will be tased again!

Pound sand.

BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!

HAND OVER THE WEAPON!

Am I being detained?

...

 

[Classic]

They have the power to take it, but I don't believe they have the right.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Something like this:

Hand over the gun.

No.

Hand it over, NOW!

Not gonna happen.

BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!

Hand it over or you will be tased again!

Pound sand.

BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!

HAND OVER THE WEAPON!

Am I being detained?

...

Alright, I'll give it a shot. You, of all people, have never led me astray.

Slightly confused on the BZZZ parts. Is that a sound the officer will make with his mouth or something? Just want to get the script right.

 

[merotek]

Respectfully tell them you would rather have it remain safely right in its holster.
If they demand that you disarm, tell them you would rather not handle the gun in the presence of an officer.
Make them disarm you themselves.
File a complaint after they disarm you.

If they want you to hand them the gun, or unholster it and set it down, or any other number of things they are not concerned about safety. Make sure to keep that in mind.


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.

Best Answer ^

I would be very unwilling to pull out my firearm during a traffic stop...

Also why does everyone keep saying that LEO can ask to see your LTCH, you are not required to carry the paper with you.

 

[Indy317]

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.

There doesn't have to be a law for a police officer to be able to do it, there just has to be a law, or court ruling, that states they can't. Right now, there is no court ruling that I know of that has ruled either way on this issue. If you want a prediction, the courts are going to likely allow LEOs to take possession of the firearm. Future rulings would likely come dealing with the running of the firearm serial number. It would take a very specific set of actions to get this going. Here are a few scenarios:

#1: License holder is stopped for running red light. License holder likes to smoke marijuana. License holder has marijuana wrapped in glove box. License holder is asked about weapons, says "I have a Glock in the glove box." LEO demands handgun....

#1a: Person feeling they have no other option, possibly fearing an interfering w/LE charge, opens the glove box to get requested pistol for LEO. Pot falls out, person is arrested. Person's lawyer argues there was no reason for the LEO to demand the weapon, and the demand placed the person who was lawfully carrying under duress.

#1b: Person says "I've done nothing wrong criminally, I have a license, I'm not giving you my firearm. I don't consent to any search or confiscation of my property or this vehicle (if not owned by driver)." Officer says "I want the firearm and if you resist/interfere, you will be charged..." Driver says, "Officer, I'm not saying I will physically interfere with your actions, only that I personally won't handover the firearm and I don't consent ......." LEO goes into vehicle and grabs gun, finds pot. Lawyer files motions to dismiss based on illegal search, over-reach under "officer safety", etc..

It will take that, or a successful civil lawsuit outside of a criminal case, to really see how a judge(s) would rule. There are many avenues for a defense attorney to argue: Illegal search, "officer safety" doesn't apply due to valid handgun license/lack of criminal record, personal placed under duress depending on what words the officer used, etc..

 

[ATM]

Alright, I'll give it a shot. You, of all people, have never led me astray.

Slightly confused on the BZZZ parts. Is that a sound the officer will make with his mouth or something? Just want to get the script right.

It represents, for internet purposes, the crackling of current coursing through your body.

Interestingly enough, you are technically "resisting" at this point (on a purely electrical level) and the officer may even encourage you to stop doing it.

Also, if you are not able to actually scream AHHHHHH! because your jaws are clenched shut, any guttural utterance indicating extreme discomfort will do.

 

[dansgotguns]

So we all know the script of "Am I being detained, am I free to go"...

How about declining to hand over your firearm? How do you say it?

The one time it happened to me it went horribly. I was very courteous and respectful. Leo freaked out called for back up and almost shot me in my face.

Heres a link to the story.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tage_traffic_stop_second_attempt_to_post.html

I was new to Ingo so theres details throughout the thread. Sorry. Lol. I just read it all and wow have I gotten a lot more intelligent since then.

 

[iChokePeople]

Something like this:

Hand over the gun.

No.

Hand it over, NOW!

Not gonna happen.

BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!

Hand it over or you will be tased again!

Pound sand.

BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!
BZZZZZZZZZZ
AHHHHHHH!

HAND OVER THE WEAPON!

Am I being detained?

...

What do you expect if you don't blow kisses?

 

[Captain Morgan]

The one time it happened to me it went horribly. I was very courteous and respectful. Leo freaked out called for back up and almost shot me in my face.

Heres a link to the story. I was new to Ingo so theres details throughout the thread. Sorry. Lol. I just read it all and wow have I gotten a lot more intelligent since then.

No link in your post.

 

[dansgotguns]

No link in your post.

Lmao good point


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...tage_traffic_stop_second_attempt_to_post.html

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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).

If you're looking in IC code, you're looking in the wrong place. Case law is what is relevant to searches and seizures, both at the state and federal level. In the end, its about what is "reasonable." Who decides what "reasonable" is? The courts, eventually.

You're also confusing the argument by adding the ridiculous. A firearm is a weapon. A box in the back seat MIGHT contain a weapon, but isn't a known weapon. A phone isn't a weapon, even though it might be used as such. Much like on a Terry pat, something that is a known weapon is treated much differently legally than something that might be a weapon but is not immediately identifiable as such.

Now, some will disagree with what I'm about to tell you. Some will misread case law, some will confuse the way things are with the way they wish things to be, and a few will legitimately understand the underlying case law and just interpret it differently. That's understandable, even SCOTUS justices disagree all the time. However, it is how I've seen things go down in our local court systems.

1) On a traffic stop, you are already detained for whatever they stopped you for. This is not a Terry stop. No additional reasonable suspicion needs to be developed, as you are already detained.

2) If there is a KNOWN weapon, no search is required, the officer can take it for officer safety for the duration of the stop. This is different from when an officer can search for a POSSIBLE weapon.

3) A police officer can order you in and out of the vehicle on a traffic stop, per SCOTUS, at their discretion.

4) There is no charge for failing to hand over your firearm. There is no "failure to comply" law in Indiana for this instance (there is a code, but it applies to ignoring an officer directing traffic.)

5) If you do fail to comply, however, the officer can simply order you out of your vehicle and take the firearm. If you fight, its resisting. If you comply, there's still no charge.

6) Seat belt stops are different. IC code specifically prohibits investigatory questions, absent additional reasonable suspicion, for a traffic stop based solely on seat belt enforcement.

 

[dansgotguns]

If you're looking in IC code, you're looking in the wrong place. Case law is what is relevant to searches and seizures, both at the state and federal level. In the end, its about what is "reasonable." Who decides what "reasonable" is? The courts, eventually.

You're also confusing the argument by adding the ridiculous. A firearm is a weapon. A box in the back seat MIGHT contain a weapon, but isn't a known weapon. A phone isn't a weapon, even though it might be used as such. Much like on a Terry pat, something that is a known weapon is treated much differently legally than something that might be a weapon but is not immediately identifiable as such.

Now, some will disagree with what I'm about to tell you. Some will misread case law, some will confuse the way things are with the way they wish things to be, and a few will legitimately understand the underlying case law and just interpret it differently. That's understandable, even SCOTUS justices disagree all the time. However, it is how I've seen things go down in our local court systems.

1) On a traffic stop, you are already detained for whatever they stopped you for. This is not a Terry stop. No additional reasonable suspicion needs to be developed, as you are already detained.

2) If there is a KNOWN weapon, no search is required, the officer can take it for officer safety for the duration of the stop. This is different from when an officer can search for a POSSIBLE weapon.

3) A police officer can order you in and out of the vehicle on a traffic stop, per SCOTUS, at their discretion.

4) There is no charge for failing to hand over your firearm. There is no "failure to comply" law in Indiana for this instance (there is a code, but it applies to ignoring an officer directing traffic.)

5) If you do fail to comply, however, the officer can simply order you out of your vehicle and take the firearm. If you fight, its resisting. If you comply, there's still no charge.

6) Seat belt stops are different. IC code specifically prohibits investigatory questions, absent additional reasonable suspicion, for a traffic stop based solely on seat belt enforcement.

Link to 6 plz

 

[inccwchris]

Reasonable suspicion is not good enough for a vehicle search. The officer must develop probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is basically the thought process of, "I have pulled this gentleman over, I have issued him a ticket before, he had a firearm then, he may have one now." Probable cause, is "I smell weed, there is most likely weed in the car." or "I see a gun, there is a gun in the car." There is a reason when filing for a warrant that an officer has to write a probable cause affidavit, not a reasonable suspicion affidavit. An officer must have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed using the vehicle in some manner in order to search it without a warrant. Reasonable suspicion alone is not enough. Oh and for future reference, you dont even have to have reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop, thats a good faith decision. Good faith is basically, oh, well, the manager of Kroger saw the car peel out, therefore he did a burnout and is driving recklessly. An officer does NOT have to witness the traffic violation to stop you for it, just have a reason to think it might have happened, such as another officer saying it did, a complaint, or hearing tires squealing then seeing your vehicle.

 

[daddymikey1975]

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.

Officer: Why don't you hand me your weapon
you: I do not consent to any search of my person, vehicle, or other property and I do not consent to the seizure of any of my property. Respectfully, I will not hand you my weapon but if you want to take it from me, I will not resist you.

There is no law that permits an officer to force you to hand over the gun.

They must have BOTH of the following to legally seize your weapon:

a) Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that you are armed AND dangerous (presence of a gun alone does not meet this requirement) AND
b) Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that you are committing or are about to commit a crime (speeding alone isn't enough to qualify)

reference: Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daddymikey1975]

Link to 6 plz

IC 9-19-10-3.1
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle; checkpoints
Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement agency may not use a safety belt checkpoint to detect and issue a citation for a person's failure to comply with this chapter.
As added by P.L.214-2007, SEC.8.

source: Indiana Code 9-19-10

 

[dansgotguns]

That wouldve been nice to know

 

[BehindBlueI's]

reference: Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terry is not, and never has been, about when you can seize a known weapon during a traffic stop. Per SCOTUS, it is about 'stop and frisk' of suspicious persons.

Terry and Chilton were not stopped for a specific crime (like speeding). Det. McFadden stated they were stopped because they were suspicious in their behavior. They appeared to be "casing a job, a stick-up" per the detective who had observed them walking back and forth various store windows and conferring with each other. He did not believe a specific crime had been committed but believed it deserved further investigation and detained the men. Terry addresses when this investigatory detention is reasonable.

Terry drew lines between an investigatory stop and an arrest, the idea that you could be detained by the police (seized) but not yet under arrest. Terry then went on to define when a frisk, aka a pat down, could take place.

"When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm"

"We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of theparticular items which he sought."

(Quotes taken from 2005 edition of "Leading Constitutional Cases on Criminal Justice, 2005 ed).

A traffic stop for a known infraction is NOT a Terry stop. Whren vs US, any traffic stop for traffic offense is a legal detention on its own merit.

Dealing with a KNOWN weapon is not a Terry pat. You are not searching, you already know its there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why would they ask? If it's not pertinent to the stop/interaction? I would lie because (as you will soon learn on here) a lot of LEO aren't like you. I'm not trying to be disarmed nor am I trying to introduce an entirely new scenario into the interaction, lengthen the interaction. Admitting to having a firearm, most times, seems to be "opening a whole new can of worms".

So let me ask you this. If you do lie, and by chance it's discovered you have a firearm, have you escalated the situation?

But you're right, "why would they ask?" I see no reason to ask, unless safety is a legit concern.