Stopped by LEO, gun taken for officer safety, how not to take it back

[Kirk Freeman]

No, it's definitely an Indiana case and probably 3-4 years ago that I have in mind.

There's Washington but that did not involve a movie theatre.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The million dollar question is a smart phone a "police radio" per the text above? That is where my "a case for/against" can be made in court. Smart phones are cabpable of receiving signals transmitted by feqs assigned by the FCC. The law does not state that those freq have to be via "the airways" as most radios pick up the signal.

Really? And how do you imagine that data gets to and from the cell phone? Pixies?

Cell phones are radioes. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.

They are radioes with powerful signal processing and information processing digital systems attached to them, but at the communicative heart of a cell phone is a module that is still called a radio. Those radios have dedicated RF bands assigned to them by the FCC, just as IC 35-44.1-2-7(c) refers, but those bands are objectively separate from the bands they have set aside for "police emergency purposes". In various flavours of catastrophes, when the police radio system craps itself, do police turn to the cell phone network for their field communications needs? Yes, they do, but that does not transmute a cell phone into a police radio, or alter the RF frequencies with which the respective devices are capable of interacting.

I don't know when the statute that now stands as IC 35-44.1-2-7 was first drafted, but I'm willing to bet that it was after the advent of cell phones. In fact, IC 35-44.1 was revised into that form from IC 35-44 just this year. If the GA had thought it important enough to indicate, "As used in this section, "police radio" means a radio that is capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes, or that is capable of receiving said signals via alternative means", I'm sure it would have occurred to them to have mentioned it.

There's Washington but that did not involve a movie theatre.

I think the vagarities of biologic memory are getting the best of him. All this crap about guns in movie theatres is getting unwarrantedly connected with his knowledge of Richardson and Washington, etc.

 

[KG1]

Nor is it a civilian's job to keep everybody safe.

We're not talking about keeping everybody safe. You made the statement about your own personal safety and not as a LEO and I responded with a non LEO couldn't just disarm someone for their own personal safety because of a 6th sense vibe sans any articulable reason without placing themselves into some kind of legal jeopardy.

My original response was to the post you made about disarming someone without being able to articulate a specific reason why.

IDK if that statement would hold up in a court of law but I get the impression from a subsequent post that it probably wouldn't matter to you if it did or not because your 6th sense will always guide you as your principal MO and you will act on that, right or wrong, no matter what.

 

[jbombelli]

Have you ever met an officer that subscribes to that ruling?
There are plenty of things that are "according to the Supreme Court..." that I'm sure you dont agree with, no?

Well, if there were no police officers that agreed with that point of view, those cases wouldn't have happened, right?

And if IMPD fails to keep me safe, and I suffer a loss as a result, and I sue, are they going to pay off, or are they going to fight it?

That's what I thought.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Really? And how do you imagine that data gets to and from the cell phone? Pixies?

Cell phones are radioes. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.

They are radioes with powerful signal processing and information processing digital systems attached to them, but at the communicative heart of a cell phone is a module that is still called a radio. Those radios have dedicated RF bands assigned to them by the FCC, just as IC 35-44.1-2-7(c) refers, but those bands are objectively separate from the bands they have set aside for "police emergency purposes". In various flavours of catastrophes, when the police radio system craps itself, do police turn to the cell phone network for their field communications needs? Yes, they do, but that does not transmute a cell phone into a police radio, or alter the RF frequencies with which the respective devices are capable of interacting.

I don't know when the statute that now stands as IC 35-44.1-2-7 was first drafted, but I'm willing to bet that it was after the advent of cell phones. In fact, IC 35-44.1 was revised into that form from IC 35-44 just this year. If the GA had thought it important enough to indicate, "As used in this section, "police radio" means a radio that is capable of sending or receiving signals transmitted on frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission for police emergency purposes, or that is capable of receiving said signals via alternative means", I'm sure it would have occurred to them to have mentioned it.
I think the vagarities of biologic memory are getting the best of him. All this crap about guns in movie theatres is getting unwarrantedly connected with his knowledge of Richardson and Washington, etc.

Your world is so black and white, it would be easier if that were the case but it isn't. Until a judge rules on it or more legislation is passed we can only guess and speculate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We're not talking about keeping everybody safe. You made the statement about your own personal safety and not as a LEO and I responded with a non LEO couldn't just disarm someone for their own personal safety because of a 6th sense vibe sans any articulable reason without placing themselves into some kind of legal jeopardy.

My original response was to the post you made about disarming someone without being able to articulate a specific reason why.

IDK if that statement would hold up in a court of law but I get the impression from a subsequent post that it probably wouldn't matter to you if it did or not because your 6th sense will always guide you as your principal MO and you will act on that, right or wrong, no matter what.

How's that phrase go again? Oh yes, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".... I believe that's a common INGO mantra.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, if there were no police officers that agreed with that point of view, those cases wouldn't have happened, right?

And if IMPD fails to keep me safe, and I suffer a loss as a result, and I sue, are they going to pay off, or are they going to fight it?

That's what I thought.

Negative Ghostrider, those cases involve inept officers, not guys intentionally shirking their duty.

 

[MikeDVB]

Ahh but what if gun is not loaded?

All guns are loaded, all the time. The moment you start treating an "unloaded" gun like it's unloaded is the moment you shoot yourself, somebody else, or a hole in something else that you didn't intend.

Beyond that, I hope if I'm ever disarmed against my will that the weapon isn't pointed at me. Officer safety is good for them, but as members of law enforcement have posted in this very thread - they are looking out for themselves. I have to look out for number 1 as well (myself).

*If* you disarm me, I will make it known vocally that I do not consent to the seizure of my weapon as well as vocally requesting that the weapon not be pointed at me on purpose or accidentally.

I hope to god that nobody ever gets shot by an officer with the person's own gun due to the officer's poor firearms handling, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time if disarming legal citizens and unloading their firearms in public is 'the norm' for 'officer safety'.

Now here is another curious question...

It's been generally advised that removing your weapon from your holster while being pulled over is a bad idea (i.e. as you are being stopped, or just after being stopped, before the officer gets up to your car) and putting it say - under your seat or elsewhere. These movements could be seen as 'suspicious' (understandable) but would these 'suspicious' movements be probable cause alone for a search, our would there need to be more?

Personally I'd rather be seen as suspicious and retain control over my weapon (even if it's under the seat of my car) than be assumed to be suspicious simply because I'm armed and, as as a result, being disarmed and my weapon unloaded and/or coonfingered in public.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Now here is another curious question...

It's been generally advised that removing your weapon from your holster while being pulled over is a bad idea (i.e. as you are being stopped, or just after being stopped, before the officer gets up to your car) and putting it say - under your seat or elsewhere. These movements could be seen as 'suspicious' (understandable) but would these 'suspicious' movements be probable cause alone for a search, our would there need to be more?

Personally I'd rather be seen as suspicious and retain control over my weapon (even if it's under the seat of my car) than be assumed to be suspicious simply because I'm armed and, as as a result, being disarmed and my weapon unloaded and/or coonfingered in public.

This is like saying "Martians are purple if they exist."

It is wasted breath. There is so much about a traffic stop that is subjective that what may work great once will get you hassled the next time.

The way I handle it is what I have discussed with my lawyer and will preserve my rights the best in that situation. It may not be what works for everyone and it is certainly different than what I previously recommended but it is the plan I'm going with until it backfires or I come up with a better one.

Inform, hand LTCH with other info and remove all cause for suspicion thereby taking away all reason for disarmament or other searches. If they go ahead and disarm me simply becuase I possess a weapon I will have my recorder running and necessary steps will be taken afterward.

 

[rw496]

This is like saying "Martians are purple if they exist."

It is wasted breath. There is so much about a traffic stop that is subjective that what may work great once will get you hassled the next time.

The way I handle it is what I have discussed with my lawyer and will preserve my rights the best in that situation. It may not be what works for everyone and it is certainly different than what I previously recommended but it is the plan I'm going with until it backfires or I come up with a better one.

Inform, hand LTCH with other info and remove all cause for suspicion thereby taking away all reason for disarmament or other searches. If they go ahead and disarm me simply becuase I possess a weapon I will have my recorder running and necessary steps will be taken afterward.

Sometimes I think you are the only person on that end of the argument who thinks rationally...most of the time

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Sometimes I think you are the only person on that end of the argument who thinks rationally...most of the time

Thanks. I take that as a really good compliment. Most of the time

 

[blamecharles]

All guns are loaded, all the time. The moment you start treating an "unloaded" gun like it's unloaded is the moment you shoot yourself, somebody else, or a hole in something else that you didn't intend.

Beyond that, I hope if I'm ever disarmed against my will that the weapon isn't pointed at me. Officer safety is good for them, but as members of law enforcement have posted in this very thread - they are looking out for themselves. I have to look out for number 1 as well (myself).

*If* you disarm me, I will make it known vocally that I do not consent to the seizure of my weapon as well as vocally requesting that the weapon not be pointed at me on purpose or accidentally.

I hope to god that nobody ever gets shot by an officer with the person's own gun due to the officer's poor firearms handling, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time if disarming legal citizens and unloading their firearms in public is 'the norm' for 'officer safety'.

Now here is another curious question...

It's been generally advised that removing your weapon from your holster while being pulled over is a bad idea (i.e. as you are being stopped, or just after being stopped, before the officer gets up to your car) and putting it say - under your seat or elsewhere. These movements could be seen as 'suspicious' (understandable) but would these 'suspicious' movements be probable cause alone for a search, our would there need to be more?

Personally I'd rather be seen as suspicious and retain control over my weapon (even if it's under the seat of my car) than be assumed to be suspicious simply because I'm armed and, as as a result, being disarmed and my weapon unloaded and/or coonfingered in public.

I was being facetious to hear Kirk's response. Trust me i know gun is always loaded, almost lost 3 friends to a M2 on a tank because a Cpt didn't unload and the Pfc assumed it was unloaded.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I was being facetious to hear Kirk's response. Trust me i know gun is always loaded, almost lost 3 friends to a M2 on a tank because a Cpt didn't unload and the Pfc assumed it was unloaded.

I recommended GREEN for facetiousness, BTW.

 

[MikeDVB]

Well, I'm trying to take rationality out of it - basically what I'm asking is, will moving around prior to the officer coming up to the vehicle be probable cause for a search, or do they need more?

I.e. does it meet the legal standard for probable cause?

 

[jedi]

Well, I'm trying to take rationality out of it - basically what I'm asking is, will moving around prior to the officer coming up to the vehicle be probable cause for a search, or do they need more?

I.e. does it meet the legal standard for probable cause?

for

the simple fact that you are still breathing is enough.

1) turn on your interior light
2) roll down your windows
3) stick your hands outside the window & have your passengers do the same
(to show you don't have anything)
4) wait for the law

you are guilty until you prove your innocents in court. For officer safety don't move, don't talk back, don't even look at them and don't record them.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Mike, the standard is not Probable Cause, it is Reasonable Suspicion.

And yes, "furtive" movement is basis for RS, so don't do it if you don't have to. I would say the act of moving a weapon specifically so a cop doesn't see it is a bad idea. If you don't want a cop to see it, hide it before it becomes an issue, as soon as you see lights it is too late.

 

[MikeDVB]

Mike, the standard is not Probable Cause, it is Reasonable Suspicion.

And yes, "furtive" movement is basis for RS, so don't do it if you don't have to. I would say the act of moving a weapon specifically so a cop doesn't see it is a bad idea. If you don't want a cop to see it, hide it before it becomes an issue, as soon as you see lights it is too late.

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer so sometimes I mix things up. And yes, that is what I wanted to know - if it was reasonable suspicion.

I don't have anything I wouldn't want to be found, but would ideally like to avoid searches just for the simple fact that I don't wish to have my privacy invaded for no good reason.

I'm not ultra-concerned that my weapon will become an issue in a stop, but I do like to feel I have a solid grasp of the situation, what is happening, and why as well as what the repercussions are of my actions.

It's better to ask here and feel a little silly than to do something silly and end up with an issue I could have avoided.

Thanks.