Disarmed by cop during stop

[Titanium_Frost]

It is my understanding that you do not have to step out of a vehicle if asked during a stop for a moving violation?

I've been asked to step out and declined before. I also was young and a smart&ss so to each his own

My research says that their authority is to ask you out of the vehicle only. That does not mean a search of you or your vehicle beyond what is already visible. I have heard of plenty of cases where people argue and stay in their car but everything I have seen says they have that authority for no other reason than they have had PC for the stop already.

 

[Rookie]

+1! I never even thought of that! I would hate to have my gun go into evidence though but it could be a good way to burn them for abuse of authority.

I agree, but I figure my rights are more important than one of my guns.

 

[billybob44]

I was recently stopped with a S&W .38 special in the car. I calmly toldthe officer I had a loaded weapon in the vehicle as I presented my permit withmy DL and registration. He asked where the weapon was located. I told him. Hesaid "Let's just leave it right there then" to which I responded"yes, sir." He was very professional and respectful of my rights. I'mnot convinced that the majority of law enforcement officers are going to bequick to disarm level-headed citizens.

+1 and Rep. to you, Guard.
My last example of this was about three weeks ago, when I was stopped by ISP, on I-69, in Allen County.
The Trooper ran all of my car/DL info, and from what I understand, as posted lately, could tell that I had a LTCH. I did have my G-22, in a Galco shoulder rig, under a vest. He did not ask+I did not tell??
On top of that--He gave me a warning!! +++1 for ISP...Bill.

 

[billybob44]

Carry a "Less Loved Handgun"

I agree, but I figure my rights are more important than one of my guns.

This is why at most times I carry a "Less than Best" handgun.
I like to carry my Kimber, Springfield Loaded, CZ-75's, and my pinned/recess S&W's, but, for this reason, I usually carry a well worn, but VERY dependable Glock 22/Gen. 2.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to have my G-22 tied up in a police property room either, but if it is, I will have another "Less Loved" gun to carry, and still have my "Baby's" in my safe..HA..Bill.

 

[tbhausen]

I have a family member who is a LEO and I asked him what he likes to see/hear when he approches someone in a vehicle that has legal firearm onboard.

He said that if the traffic stop is at night, he likes it when the driver turns on his dome lights and puts both hands on the steering wheel so he can see what the driver is doing and so he knows where the driver's hands are as he approches the car door. He also likes when the driver asks him for permission to reach for his wallet to get the CCW, DL, insurance card and registration, rather than just grabbing them on your own. Of course, telling the officer you have a CCW and a firearm FIRST when he comes up to the door, instead of waiting until during or after the traffic stop coversation is in your best interest too..

I guess the point he made clear is to be proactively very respectful, courteous and informative to the officer (even if he's a jerk) just to keep yourself out of inadvertant or accidental trouble due to a "honest" mistake.

My $.02

100% common sense, and the answers to most of the questions on this subject... If a LEO violates your civil rights, take it up later.

 

[rw496]

I don't think everyone is on the same page here. Are we referring to seizing a firearm for the duration of the stop only or seizing it and placing it into evidence?...two different things.

 

[Hammerhead]

I don't think everyone is on the same page here. Are we referring to seizing a firearm for the duration of the stop only or seizing it and placing it into evidence?...two different things.

What Rookie is saying is both. If an officer seizes your firearm, the IC he quoted makes it VERY clear what the steps are for seizure. If he can't articulate, in front of a judge, what his reasoning was, it's a violation of your rights, 4A specifically, and is an illegal seizure. That's grounds for a civil rights lawsuit against the dept, city, etc.

Rookie has decided that while most officers return the firearm at the end and generally give some order (don't reload, don't reholster, don't rearm - until I leave). Rookie does not want to receive his sidearm back because of the law. It's a specific law that Rookie has studied that most people don't know about, so they just allow the officer to take their gun and return it as if nothing is wrong.

 

[Rookie]

I don't think everyone is on the same page here. Are we referring to seizing a firearm for the duration of the stop only or seizing it and placing it into evidence?...two different things.

Why? What makes it different?

 

[TMU317]

Don't you think that any officer if given the choice would rather walk up to a night time traffic stop on a lonely road knowing that the driver PROBABLY didn't have much chance of having a gun? I would.

In a perfect world a police officer could assume everyone is a good guy and no one is going to attempt to hurt him/her. However, in a perfect world there would be no need for police. EVERY officer should approach EVERY traffic stop as if the person they are stopping is going to cause them harm. Regardless of whether the person they are stopping is in fact armed or not, it does not matter.

 

[DragonGunner]

"State vs Richardson" Once you present your permit to a LEO, "Officer Safety" is over with. The LEO can not take your gun, can not ask for your gun, an in fact can not ask you any more about guns. You never have to tell the LEO you have a gun which if this right is used stops alot of headaches. Learn your rights before a stop. If the LEO decides to break the law, tell him you do not comply, but as others have said, do not resist. But let him know you will be reporting an filing complaints against him an then follow through with....don't be a sheep, thats how nothing changes. My daughter-in-law had her gun wrongfully takin from her by an LEO an my son an her confronted the chief of police, he tried being a bully also until my son brought up "State vs Richardson" an then later called the ISP about the chief of police.

 

[Rookie]

If the officer can articulate a safety concern, then state vs Richardson would not apply.

 

[rw496]

Delatorre v. State, 903 NE 2d 506 - Indiana court of Appeals 2009

Recent case. What is important to note is that the officer first asked if there were any weapons (permitted by Lockett) second handcuffed occupants and removed the weapon..third checked to see if there was a valid LTCH. There was not and he was then officially under arrest. The officer's only articulated safety concern was that they were speaking Spanish. Fourth amendment was not violated and convictions were affirmed.

 

[Rookie]

Did he give the weapon back after the stop?

 

[rw496]

Why? What makes it different?

What I understand makes it different is that I can properly seize the weapon until I determine that you are properly licensed to carry it. Anything beyond that would be unreasonable. Also, officer safety concerns are weighty in the eyes of the court. Not necessarily more wieighty than your safety, but more so than your individual interest in maintaining possession of your weapon for the few minutes it takes to determine these things.

 

[DragonGunner]

If the officer can articulate a safety concern, then state vs Richardson would not apply.

Agree....but let him articulate it. His superiors an or the judge would like to hear it as well as I. Thats one reason why State vs Richardson came about....the LEO had better have a very good reason.

 

[Rookie]

What I understand makes it different is that I can properly seize the weapon until I determine that you are properly licensed to carry it. Anything beyond that would be unreasonable. Also, officer safety concerns are weighty in the eyes of the court. Not necessarily more wieighty than your safety, but more so than your individual interest in maintaining possession of your weapon for the few minutes it takes to determine these things.

"I am armed, and I am licensed to carry. Here is my LTCH."

My burden of proof has been met.

Btw, I've given IC showing when you can seize my weapon without a warrant. It clearly states what steps are to be taken for me to take possession of my firearm. Feel free to show IC to back your statement that you can temporarily take my firearm.

 

[jdg0724]

I have a family member who is a LEO and I asked him what he likes to see/hear when he approches someone in a vehicle that has legal firearm onboard.

He said that if the traffic stop is at night, he likes it when the driver turns on his dome lights and puts both hands on the steering wheel so he can see what the driver is doing and so he knows where the driver's hands are as he approches the car door. He also likes when the driver asks him for permission to reach for his wallet to get the CCW, DL, insurance card and registration, rather than just grabbing them on your own. Of course, telling the officer you have a CCW and a firearm FIRST when he comes up to the door, instead of waiting until during or after the traffic stop coversation is in your best interest too..

I guess the point he made clear is to be proactively very respectful, courteous and informative to the officer (even if he's a jerk) just to keep yourself out of inadvertant or accidental trouble due to a "honest" mistake.

My $.02

I agree with what you are saying up to the point where you say it will be in your best interest by telling the LEO that you have a firearm first. I just feel that would make the situation more tense right from the start. I will notify if asked, but I just don't see the reason to get the LEO on high alert or make him jumpy when the situation could just be a routine traffic stop. From a LEO point of view I could see where they would want to be notified though.

 

[rw496]

"State vs Richardson" Once you present your permit to a LEO, "Officer Safety" is over with. The LEO can not take your gun, can not ask for your gun, an in fact can not ask you any more about guns. You never have to tell the LEO you have a gun which if this right is used stops alot of headaches. Learn your rights before a stop. If the LEO decides to break the law, tell him you do not comply, but as others have said, do not resist. But let him know you will be reporting an filing complaints against him an then follow through with....don't be a sheep, thats how nothing changes. My daughter-in-law had her gun wrongfully takin from her by an LEO an my son an her confronted the chief of police, he tried being a bully also until my son brought up "State vs Richardson" an then later called the ISP about the chief of police.

Did you even read that case or is that something someone told you. That case revolves specifically around the controversial Seat Belt Act and concerns for expanding police powers. The Act prohibits further inquiries beyond the seat belt infraction itself. If he had been stopped for anything else or if she had articulated any kind of reasonable suspicion he would have been convicted.
You need to understand that the smallest details case to case can change judicial interpretation.

 

[TMU317]

"I am armed, and I am licensed to carry. Here is my LTCH."

My burden of proof has been met.

Is it not reasonable that the officer first confirm that A) the LTCH is still valid and B) You are in fact the individual who the LTCH is issued to?

 

[rw496]

"I am armed, and I am licensed to carry. Here is my LTCH."

My burden of proof has been met.

Btw, I've given IC showing when you can seize my weapon without a warrant. It clearly states what steps are to be taken for me to take possession of my firearm. Feel free to show IC to back your statement that you can temporarily take my firearm.

"OK, sir. As soon as I determine that to be true I will return your firearm and a warning(I'll let this one slide)..sit tight."