Disarmed by cop during stop

[Rookie]

"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."

"Sir do you believe I'm a danger to you or others?"

 

[Rookie]

<--- patiently waits while rw496 decides how to handle this.

 

[Hammerhead]

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.

Sorry, but you need to read this:

There will, of course, be circumstances where something more than an “unusual bulge” will be visible, or other conditions that provide a police officer with the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct further inquiry. This is not one of them. And even if the facts were such that Officer Eastwood's questioning about the bulge was proper, the fact remains that Richardson's production of a valid gun permit should have resulted in the termination of any further questioning.

Richardson specifically says in the emboldened part there that even if the questioning was proper, the valid permit (LTCH) ends questioning. Validating a LTCH does not include disarming a person.

 

[Rookie]

Btw, I've handed you my DL and LTCH. I can promise I haven't handed you my firearm, so you're still standing at my car door (hope it isn't raining).

 

[Tim Enyeart]

I would describe several of the responses from would be attorneys posted as poor counsel. During a legal stop an officer can order you in or out of the car while conducting an investigation. Enough facts were not presented in the original question to answer the question of right or wrong in obtaining the weapon. If the crime warrants or if the officer can articulate reasonable fear based on the persons behavior, then obtaining the firearm would be within reason. Police are granted the right to violate your rights and we do so when probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists. As a police officer for several years, I appreciate citizens who exercise their rights to carry and I actually feel safer not threatened.

 

[TMU317]

Sorry, but you need to read this:



Richardson specifically says in the emboldened part there that even if the questioning was proper, the valid permit (LTCH) ends questioning.

How does the officer know that the pink piece of paper an individual has just handed him is A) valid and B) belongs to that individual?

 

[Rookie]

I would describe several of the responses from would be attorneys posted as poor counsel. During a legal stop an officer can order you in or out of the car while conducting an investigation. Enough facts were not presented in the original question to answer the question of right or wrong in obtaining the weapon. If the crime warrants or if the officer can articulate reasonable fear based on the persons behavior, then obtaining the firearm would be within reason. Police are granted the right to violate your rights and we do so when probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists. As a police officer for several years, I appreciate citizens who exercise their rights to carry and I actually feel safer not threatened.

Very few will argue that you cannot remove a person. I won't.
I won't argue that you can LAWFULLY seize my weapon. I will argue that you can return it because you feel better.

 

[Rookie]

How does the officer know that the pink piece of paper an individual has just handed him is A) valid and B) belongs to that individual?

Not my problem.

 

[Hammerhead]

Validation. This does not include, nor require, disarmament. If I'm carrying under an expired, forged, or wrong LTCH, I have a whole 'nother bag of worms I'm dealing with.

Mr. Enyeart, we've had this discussion ALOT on here. We've gotten several of the resident legal eagles to confirm.

Aside from Richardson, Washington states that if I'm being cooperative, officer safety isn't valid either.

If you find out that I'm armed (I ain't sayin' crap), you may validate my DL and LTCH match. After that, you can speak with my attorney if you believe you have a right to continue. He's going to love you.

 

[Rookie]

He logged off with me in my car and he's standing at my window!

I take it back, I hope it's a torrential downpour!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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.

A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;[10] for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.[11] In the interest of officer safety, drivers[12] and passengers[13] may be ordered out of the vehicle without additional justification by the officer.

Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[upchurch67]

BUT....

Sorry, but you need to read this:



Richardson specifically says in the emboldened part there that even if the questioning was proper, the valid permit (LTCH) ends questioning. Validating a LTCH does not include disarming a person.

Richardson was also in light of the seat belt law, which was written in such a manner to specifically keep police from using seat belt violations to find other crimes. Would this same standard be applied to other violations?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Richardson was also in light of the seat belt law, which was written in such a manner to specifically keep police from using seat belt violations to find other crimes. Would this same standard be applied to other violations?

Yes. The LTCH prevented it AND the seatbelt law prevented it. You should read that case law sometime, quite the read.

 

[jsharmon7]

He logged off with me in my car and he's standing at my window!

I take it back, I hope it's a torrential downpour!

That rain is going to turn into snow!

 

[Tim Enyeart]

Mr. Hammerhead it sounds like we're saying the same thing; without probable cause or reasonable suspicion there is no right for LE to take your gun. Some of my best friends are attorneys including my son in-law. Unfortunately, our government needs lots of them.

 

[Rookie]

That rain is going to turn into snow!

Well he better hurry up with this traffic stop!
Question: if he turns into a popsicle, can I go ahead and leave?

 

[Tripp11]

Well he better hurry up with this traffic stop!
Question: if he turns into a popsicle, can I go ahead and leave?

You could never live with yourself if he froze to death. How about leaning out your window to grab the radio transmitter and ask dispatch to get their "SMAC" on....you know, Start Me Another Car. He'll need one to thaw him out.

 

[billybob44]

Question??

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

Well he better hurry up with this traffic stop!
Question: if he turns into a popsicle, can I go ahead and leave?

Could you call the Officer a "Copsicle" without getting into anymore trouble?? Bill.

 

[DragonGunner]

"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."

Who needs educated???? Please contact ISP....an ask them to explain State vs Richardson since you think it only involves seatbelts.

 

[rw496]

Sorry, but you need to read this:



Richardson specifically says in the emboldened part there that even if the questioning was proper, the valid permit (LTCH) ends questioning. Validating a LTCH does not include disarming a person.

In Richardson the questioning was improper because of the specific wording of the seatbelt act and the lack of any other articulated suspicion. Even if the questioning was proper...any further questions of an investigative nature into whether or not he is carrying a handgun illegally should cease..I agree..at the production of a VALID permit..only a computer check verifies a valid permit. Still, they are talking about the intentionally narrowed authority after stopping solely for a seatbelt..i.e. Baldwin. They did not specifically mention the disarming so I assume they did not have a problem with that act..only how she got to that point. I did like how you added your own opinion to the end of the quote from the case to make it sound more credible..wrong, but more credible.