Disarmed by cop during stop

[Titanium_Frost]

I always find these threads interesting. Our civil rights which and interpretation of the "law" verses officer safety and arguably common sense. My LEO friends are quick to point out that if a person they don't know has a gun then how do they know that person won't lose their temper? So to have better control of the situation and increase officer safety they want to hold the weapon. Also like it has been mentioned the pinky itself does not neccessarily varify it is valid. (They even used to run serial numbers but the cheif put a stop to that). Now lets interject a little common sense.

1) If an officer pulls over a non-LTCH holder. How does the officer know they don't have a gun?
2) If an officer pulls over an LTCH holder how do they know they don't have a gun?
3) If an officer secures the LTCH holders gun, how does the officer know that person does not have a second gun?

Hmm...seems to me that securing the gun does not increase officer safety much. Still boils down to situational awarness. Hey at least they know I have the first gun right?

Now we know that removing guns from the holster and messing with them on the side of road and in parking lots is dangerous. (Seems an INGO mod keeps preaching this.)

All this leaves us with three options that will in reality makes it safer for the officers. Pick one please:
1) Leave the darn guns alone! Stop playing with them.
2) Remove every person from the car at every stop and cuff them. Better yet call back up.
3) Find a safer profession. (I don't recommend farming, truck driving, traveling sales, fishing, logging, mining, etc - all of these have a greater percentage of injuries and deaths then law enforcement) May I recommend telemarketing, everybody loves those guys.

​

REPPED!!!!! Great post and it brings up a good point: multiple guns not necessarily on the person. When I was disarmed I was allowed to get back in my vehicle where I had 3 more loaded and accessible guns. My wife was also armed in the passenger seat. Taking my pistol was nothing than an unnecessary danger since I still had weapons and he put my wife and child in danger when he pointed it at them trying to unload it!

 

[tbhausen]

...(and no, I don't really wish I had a Glock on)

Thanks for the inspiration for my new signature

 

[billybob44]

Hell, I think I'll spend the rest of the day in my closet where it's all safe an

So far I've seen some state, with IC backing, that you can't ask for the weapon after you've confirmed the LTCH is valid and carried by the person whose name is on it. I've also seen just as firm opinions, with court rulings, that a PO can disarm a citizen if he is concerned for his safety, a very subjective call. So where does the 4th amendment come into play? LEOs, like anyone else, are all individuals with different levels of fear or paranoia. Does Officer Chicken Little view the stop the same way that Officer Bruce Lee does? Why does Officer Little have the right to disarm someone because of his paranoia? Also, what good does it do to take someone's pistol when they could step out of the vehicle and stick a 6" blade into his gut in just as little time as trying to shoot him? Why then can't Officer Little spread the potential perp out and pat him down for knives or search a ladies purse for the same? I'm starting to conclude that whatever I do could head to a trip to the pokey for a date with Bubba then a court date for some new case law. Hell, I think I'll spend the rest of the day in my closet where it's all safe and snuggly!

It's OK Mort--You're among friends, you can "Come out of the Closet"....HA..Bill.

 

[jsharmon7]

1) If an officer pulls over a non-LTCH holder. How does the officer know they don't have a gun?
2) If an officer pulls over an LTCH holder how do they know they don't have a gun?
3) If an officer secures the LTCH holders gun, how does the officer know that person does not have a second gun?​

It can't be said any better than this. The only thing an officer is doing is protecting himself from imaginary trouble and subjecting himself to real trouble, both legal and physical. Unless there are other circumstances, securing firearms as a matter of routine on every traffic stop or encounter is a bad idea.​

 

[Hammerhead]

In Richardson the questioning was improper because of the specific wording of the seatbelt act and the lack of any other articulated suspicion. Actually, her "articulated suspicion" was the bulge, and then when she went to validate his LTCH, she couldn't do math (he'd received it 13 mos. prior, and the expiration date was visible, but the issue date was obscured) and when she attempted to confirm with dispatch, she received no proper validation from them, and some confusing information on some misdemeanor arrests for drugs. She couldn't believe that he could have a valid LTCH and searched him. This search was found to be illegal. 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. We agree here. LEOs have authority to view and validate a LTCH. Once validated, any further inquiry into firearms must cease. 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. Actually, they did have a problem with him being disarmed. They also had a problem with the subsequent search of his vehicle just because he was armed. They tossed the search and said she shouldn't have done anything further because his LTCH was valid. 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. Yes, my opinion is that disarming me is not required to validate a LTCH, especially in light of the IC that Rookie posted. Richardson also referenced Washington, because Richardson was cooperative prior to the illegal search. I'm happy to offer my LTCH for validation. I do not have to willingly relinquish my firearm for that to happen, especially because being cooperative precludes any inference to being dangerous, which thanks to the IC Rookie posted means that disarming me requires a warrant. Take into consideration the point that Titanium Frost makes about a traffic stop being a Terry stop, and the requirement that someone must be armed AND dangerous for the legal search and disarmament.

Do you see now why it isn't just my opinion? Do you see now that the INSC ruled that in any official interaction between a citizen with a valid LTCH ceases inquiry into firearms after it's production? Being cooperative precludes being dangerous (in most cases). The IC Rookie posted about requires a LEO to articulate specific dangers present for disarmament to occur, otherwise it requires a warrant. Does my cooperation in your quest to validate my legal LTCH give you any indication that I'm dangerous? If not, then does it give you a warrant to do so?

The INSC, the Indiana Code, and several lawyers that I've had this discussion with here before say that once my legal LTCH has been validated, LEOs have no legal leg to stand on when it comes to my firearms. Push past it, and my lawyer will have a field day.

 

[Hammerhead]

Vert, typically it's not an INGO Mod that keeps espousing gun safety, although they do, it's typically Mr. Kirk "Stop Coonfingering the Guns" Freeman, Esq., one of our resident legal eagles.

 

[DragonGunner]

I'll have to remember to stay away from Lake Co. Sounds like the IL LEO gun view has overflowed into it.

 

[VERT]

Vert, typically it's not an INGO Mod that keeps espousing gun safety, although they do, it's typically Mr. Kirk "Stop Coonfingering the Guns" Freeman, Esq., one of our resident legal eagles.

Ahh you are correct sir! I was thinking it was Bill of Rights but am mistaken. Now I have to apologize to both Kirk and Bill. How dare I accuse the wrong person of being an INGO moderator.

Oh, and stop playing with your guns! See I do read and learn.

 

[Benny]

As far as I can tell, officers can seize your weapon under "terry stop" guidelines, they feel you're armed AND dangerous. This brings us to IC 35-47-14-3 which clearly lays out what steps are to be taken. Any other seizure requires a warrant.

So, if an officer wants my weapon, my question will be, "sir, do you believe I am a danger to you or others?" Regardless of what his answer is, my next statement will be, "I do not consent to an unlawful search or seizure of my property, but I will not stop you from doing what you think you need to do." After the officer seizes my firearm, I will politely ask for a receipt. After I receive my ticket (you know I'm getting one), I will refuse to take possession of my firearm explaining to him that IC is clear on what steps to take.

Then it's off to court. If the officer can convince the judge he felt I was dangerous, we'll go from there. If he can't, I'll try to file suit for violating my rights.

This is what I was originally getting at...If the officer wants your gun, he/she is going to get it.

Great idea on the receipt though...What would happen if he/she realized they ****ed up and just tossed it in your back seat? If they are going to illegally seize it, why stop there?

 

[rw496]

I'll have to remember to stay away from Lake Co. Sounds like the IL LEO gun view has overflowed into it.

Not really. This is a discussion about legal theory and the authority police have or do not have. It doesn't mean I'm going to yank your pistol...just a hypothetical discussion.

 

[Rookie]

This is what I was originally getting at...If the officer wants your gun, he/she is going to get it.

Great idea on the receipt though...What would happen if he/she realized they ****ed up and just tossed it in your back seat? If they are going to illegally seize it, why stop there?

If they tossed it in my car, there's nothing I would do. Hopefully rw496 would remember me on the next stop.

 

[Benny]

If they tossed it in my car, there's nothing I would do. Hopefully rw496 would remember me on the next stop.

You mean there is nothing you would do right then and there, correct?

You're still filing a complaint with the full story, right?

 

[Rookie]

You mean there is nothing you would do right then and there, correct?

You're still filing a complaint with the full story, right?

Absolutely.

 

[Benny]

Absolutely.

Actually, I guess you could just lock your doors and only have your window down far enough to receive your ticket when he/she tries to return your pistol...I guess they could still just sit it on the trunk though.

 

[Rookie]

I would definitely flick a booger on their windshield.

 

[Hoosierdood]

You mean there is nothing you would do right then and there, correct?

You're still filing a complaint with the full story, right?

And this is a good reason to have some sort of audio recording device with you. You can make a copy of the interaction and give it to the Chief LEO along with your complaint. A cop who is dishonest enough to illegally confiscate your firearm, then throw it back into your vehicle when he realized his error, just may be dishonest enough to deny the whole thing to his chief.

 

[mrortega]

Ahh you are correct sir! I was thinking it was Bill of Rights but am mistaken. Now I have to apologize to both Kirk and Bill. How dare I accuse the wrong person of being an INGO moderator.

Oh, and stop playing with your guns! See I do read and learn.

Be careful of whom you call a "moderator" in public. They've probably both told their mothers that they are piano players in a hootie house