Surrendering your weapon

[in625shooter]

Why is it that so many, especially in law enforcement, use the old "if you've got nothing to hide" idea?

You don't have to tell the police the truth. About anything. You don't have to answer any questions. About anything.

That's why we have the 5A. If you don't like that then there are plenty of other countries that don't have that protection built into their laws. I figure you could always find a job as a LEO there.

(the "you" above was a generalized "you" not necessarily you, in625shooter, since you don't work as a cop anymore. However you are enabling illegal behavior by the cops so you are a part of the problem.)



That only gives the officer RS about that particular infraction, not RS for anything beyond that.

If that wasn't the case then EVERY stop could (would?) turn into a full blown search of the vehicle & the person. Obviously that is not allowed so what you just said is false on its face.



CERTAIN things, yes but I don't necessarily agree with those things either.



No.

It has been shown by Kirk in the case he posted that it is NOT ALLOWED.

You say that taking someone's firearm from them is not a "seizure". Ok, what is defined as a siezure then? Can you take the persons wallet, phone, TV or any other thing from them for "officer safety"? I've never heard of any cop asking for the keys to a persons car on a simple traffic stop. Isn't that a very obvious & large "weapon" as well?

How long do you have to have it before it is "seized"? 5 minutes? An hour? A day?

As the case above shows the RS you say exists disappears the instant the LTCH is presented. Anything that is done with the gun after that is an illegal seizure. Get used to it. It's the law of the land now & is no longer open for debate.

If I have to follow the court's decisions on those things that have been ruled "OK" to be done for "officer safety" then cops have to follow the laws (ie. Constitution) & other court decisions that protect ME from illegal actions by them. You see, it DOES work both ways...whether the cops like it or not.

Finity,

You can argue that you don't like something.
I was just simply relaying from an LEO's perspective. Wether you agree or not dosn't matter. Some things I don't agree with but argue about them on the spot will not make it go you way and like I pointed out there are common sense people and some not so, and both serve as LEO's. Some LEO's might push the boundries and be a horse's #$% on a traffic stop just like some civilians might be horse's #$%'% when the officer never spoke yet. You (or whoever) can act whichever way you think will get the results in your favor. As for the officers that pushed the limit in my first post I stated others and my self would try to remind those to remember why they were here.

On the siezure you are not keeping the firearm/weapon etc more than a reasonable amount of time (what you think is reasonable dose not matter) and it is not unreasonable to seperate the subject from a firearm/knife etc until the conclusion of the traffic stop/contact etc. The person stopped leaves with said firearm/knife etc so it is not a "siezure". If you have an issue when or if you are stopped then hire an attorney.

I'm glad your ok with me since you think I am not an LEO. However I only said I don't work as a Municiple LEO. Now I am Federal LE but telling you that you will probably think I am some kind of evil. So have fun with that too!

 

[bassplayrguy]

Finity,

.

On the siezure you are not keeping the firearm/weapon etc more than a reasonable amount of time (what you think is reasonable dose not matter) and it is not unreasonable to seperate the subject from a firearm/knife etc until the conclusion of the traffic stop/contact etc.

Total B.S. answer. You have NO good reason to seperate my from my weapon. There is no law broken with it and you are in no danger. Just another way to intimidate a law abiding citizen. This is why people are not comfortable telling you they are following the law. You treat them like a criminal. And some even take your gun apart?????? B.S. Like it was posted earlier, if you are that scared, find new work.

 

[terrorizer]

Issue as well

My instructor had a issue were he had to call the police because his room mate decided to try and kill himself. Well he goes outside to greet the officers mind you this is on his property and the cop walks up and reaches for my instructors gun. Well he of course moved so the officer stumbled and my instructor asked him what are you doing. Another officer grabs my instructor of course again not have done anything he gets out of grab and the officer yells at him to get on the ground so he gets down and questions the officer asked him what they hell they are doing there is someone dying in his house and there out there harassing him for his weapon. The officer yells for him to give them his weapon he told them are you stupid? He said all you had to do was ask me if you could grab it or have me put it away. They cuff him take the weapon and then they finally goes inside to the guy who decided to take a bottle of pills.

Later after they finished every thing and took the room mate to the hospital they gave him his gun back and told him never to resist an officer like that again. We asked around to a few officers that we know and they all said it was for his safty and officers safty. But why were they more concerned for the guy who called 911 that has a weapon then a young man dying inside the house? I can understand for there safty and they probably didnt know what all was going on maybe they were not listening when the call came in and thought he was the guy trying to commit suicide.. Should they be able to grab your weapon without saying anything to you ?

 

[in625shooter]

Finity,

.


Total B.S. answer. You have NO good reason to seperate my from my weapon. There is no law broken with it and you are in no danger. Just another way to intimidate a law abiding citizen. This is why people are not comfortable telling you they are following the law. You treat them like a criminal. And some even take your gun apart?????? B.S. Like it was posted earlier, if you are that scared, find new work.

You don't have to agree with it. I just answered the OP's question with a view point from the LEO's part. It sounds like you are lumping all LEO's into one. Like I stated there are common sense people and not so just some are LEO's and some get pulled over for violating state statutes.

If some LEO took your firearm apart then take that up with them their department etc. I also stated you might know you are not a threat but the officer does not know you are not a threat. If thats hurts your feelings well too bad. The drivers infraction etc is what got them stopped etc. That has nothing to do with if anyone is "scared" or trying to "intimidate" or whatever. But people do some pretty irrational things when they get pulled over for a ticket. So as for the "no good reason to seperate you from your firearm" thats up to you. Do what your career, check book or arrest record can handle and argue if that happens to you because it sounds like the only "scared one is you"!

I don't conduct traffic stops now however when I did I had minimal issues with attitudes. There were a few that "why are you hassleing me etc" but it's all in the LEO's approch. Just like the LEO's approch the drivers rational or irrational behaiver adds to it as well.

Everyone is for crime control until they or a reletive get arrested/incarcerated then they become an activist for police/prison reform!

 

[bassplayrguy]

I am all for treating a criminal like a criminal but if I tell you up front that I have a firearm there is no threat. If someone is going to shoot you, they will not tell you up front that they have a gun. Thin blue line bull****.

 

[wolfts01]

I know that in IN you are not required to let them know, and I would bet that if you've got it concealed there should be no trouble in keeping it out of sight and mind.

As for them taking it and unloading it, they are being unnecessarily dangerous. Handguns do not always function the same way, and I'm sure that very few officers have experience with every type of firearm. My PPS has the mag release that forms around the trigger guard, and it is hard to notice it if you aren't familiar with that design.

I find it interesting that nobody has thought about just removing the gun & the holster. I have an IWB holster that I could easily remove when seated, and it would be much safer than unholstering the weapon.

 

[Sylvain]

Never give up your rights!
Never surrender your weapon!

 

[semperfi211]

While driving I keep my pistol in my gun vault that is secured to the floor next to me with the door open. I havent been pulled over in over 10 years but if I see lights in my mirror I will just flip the door shut. If LEO asks if I have gun in my vehicle I will say yes and show him my pink card. If he wants to see my gun I will say sorry but in all this excitement I have forgotten the combo and my key is at home.

 

[joshuametivier]

From reviewing contemporary court cases in relationship to this discussion the evidence as expounded upon by the judges involved is this:
A LEO can NOT claim the "officer safety" clause IF the occupant(s) in question are removed from "reaching distance" of any compartment of the vehicle that the officer plausibly feels might contain a firearm. If a LEO can not feasibly claim officer safety then he/she has no power to request to inspect/handle a firearm UNLESS he/she secures a warrent or consent from occupant (it is assumed the officer has no other plausible reason to search the vehicle ie: drugs ect, and also that you are being cooperative).
The above statement by no means accounts for a situation in which the firearm is actually on the occupant in the situation described above.

My opinion is that it is completely reasonable and safe for an officer to request that you are out of reach of your firearm during a traffic stop. I do not feel that under the above stated circumstances that an officer should handle any firearm as long as the occupants of the vehicle are physically unable to use it against him/her. At this point it becomes merely an initiative of safety and nothing more.

 

[finity]

finity. arguing this case idealistically (or abstractly) is one thing. realistically (or practically) LEO's will have the immediate upper hand. The first word. If you want to have a say yourself it will be saved for another arena; the courtroom. With that said it would certainly be interesting to see a cost ratio to benefit. If you have the money and interest to really fight for what you believe (which I support any American who knows and values his rights) then how many of these cases are really being won by the law abiding citizen and how often does the ruling favor the LEO? More important, how much did it cost? We as "the people" are not represented by law enforcement. We are represented by who we elect into office, and frankly if you have a problem with this your local representative is the guy to take this up with. Thats how laws get enacted, repealed, and amended. Thats the real beauty of being an American. Joshua

I wasn't arguing in the abstract.

Everything I posted was based on the law.

Now, just because LEO's don't actually FOLLOW the law, well, that's another issue entirely.

Finity,

You can argue that you don't like something.
I was just simply relaying from an LEO's perspective. Wether you agree or not dosn't matter. Some things I don't agree with but argue about them on the spot will not make it go you way and like I pointed out there are common sense people and some not so, and both serve as LEO's. Some LEO's might push the boundries and be a horse's #$% on a traffic stop just like some civilians might be horse's #$%'% when the officer never spoke yet. You (or whoever) can act whichever way you think will get the results in your favor. As for the officers that pushed the limit in my first post I stated others and my self would try to remind those to remember why they were here.

On the siezure you are not keeping the firearm/weapon etc more than a reasonable amount of time (what you think is reasonable dose not matter) and it is not unreasonable to seperate the subject from a firearm/knife etc until the conclusion of the traffic stop/contact etc. The person stopped leaves with said firearm/knife etc so it is not a "siezure". If you have an issue when or if you are stopped then hire an attorney.

I'm glad your ok with me since you think I am not an LEO. However I only said I don't work as a Municiple LEO. Now I am Federal LE but telling you that you will probably think I am some kind of evil. So have fun with that too!

Did you actually even read the case that Kirk posted.

Here's the important & pertinent parts that you & all of your compadres need to be aware of:

Officer Reynolds activated his emergency lights, initiated a traffic stop, and approached the car to speak with the driver, later identified as Washington. As a matter of his own practice, the officer inquired as to whether Washington had any weapons or guns in the car that the officer "should be aware of." [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Tr[/FONT][/FONT]. at 12. Washington informed Officer Reynolds that he did have a handgun, and it was located beneath the driver’s seat. He also informed the officer that he had a valid license to carry the handgun.
.
.
.
He contends that the search of his car was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
.
.
.
Washington alleges that, because he was completely cooperative with Officer Reynolds and made no furtive movements, the officer had no articulable reasons to believe Washington was dangerous.
.
.
.
Although Washington admitted that a handgun was present inside of the car, he was at all times totally cooperative with Officer Reynolds.
.
.
.
As in [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Malone[/FONT][/FONT], we conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed, the search of Washington’s car for a handgun was not justified.
.
.
.
As in [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Malone[/FONT][/FONT], we conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed, the search of Washington’s car for a handgun was not justified.
.
.
.
...the search was illegal...

If I have a valid LTCH & I am cooperative you have no power UNDER THE LAW of IN to take it from me. "Wether you agree or not dosn't matter."

If you & your fellow officers decide to VIOLATE THE LAW then, again, that is a different matter entirely.

That's what I was talking about before when I said that, while I may not like some of the decisions that the court has made, I still have to follow them. While you or your fellow officers may not LIKE the decision the court made in this case it is still the law & you have to follow it just the same as I do.

Otherwise, you would be just as much of a criminal (& I would actually argue that you would be MORE OF A CRIMINAL given the HUGE amount of power you are allowed) as any of the people you arrest.

Also, I don't hold any more or less animosity toward federal LEO as opposed to any other type of LEO. If you (again general "you") do your job properly without violating the rights of the people you interact with (you know, THE LAW - i.e. Constitution) I have no problem at all with you. We need cops. We need good cops. Ones that, as you said, remember the reason why they are there and are cognizent of the limitations placed on them by the Constitution & simple human decency.

While driving I keep my pistol in my gun vault that is secured to the floor next to me with the door open. I havent been pulled over in over 10 years but if I see lights in my mirror I will just flip the door shut. If LEO asks if I have gun in my vehicle I will say yes and show him my pink card. If he wants to see my gun I will say sorry but in all this excitement I have forgotten the combo and my key is at home.

Just remember this phrase - "I do not consent to any searches".

 

[finity]

Double post.

Stupid computers...

 

[joshuametivier]

finity

I understand now what you feel were the most important clauses of the case Kirk posted. The case in itself is not directly related to the issues being debated in this thread. Washington was appealing for his motion to supress a marijuana charge. It just so happens that it was via the voluntary admission by Washington of a firearm in the vehicle that the drugs were found.
At the end of that pdf provided by Kirk the judge overseeing the case elicitly states that as long as an LEO can plausibly claim the "officer safety" clause then he is well with in Indiana code to remove your firearm from your possession (if only for the duration of the traffic stop). He goes on to explain that an LEO can claim this clause IF you are within arms reach of it. The LEO has two choices: remove you, or the firearm. I dont understand what is ambiguous or unlawful about that. The judge openly states it at the end of the case report.

 

[joshuametivier]

That said.. the reason the search was unlawful is because Washington was handcuffed on a curb. Same with the Gant case out of Arizona: all occupants of the car were handcuffed and sitting in seperate police cars therefore there was no officer safety clause to claim in order to warrant a search of the car for firearms. The judge cited the Gant case as grounds for dismissing the denial of Washingtons motion to suppress. So yes.. unfortunately a LEO can remove your firearm from your possesion... granted you can reach it.

 

[Redneckbuckeye]

When you get pulled over just pull it out and put it under your seat before Leo is out of his car.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

At the end of that pdf provided by Kirk the judge overseeing the case elicitly states that as long as an LEO can plausibly claim the "officer safety" clause then he is well with in Indiana code to remove your firearm from your possession (if only for the duration of the traffic stop).

Thanks for the follow on, joshua.

The LEO has two choices: remove you, or the firearm. I dont understand what is ambiguous or unlawful about that.

It depends. If the officer has a legit concern for his safety, e.g. the driver is rocking back and forth and muttering about the neighbor's dog told him to or the guy is WoW for Robbery, then yes, remove the pistol(s) or remove the dog whisperer.

If the officer has no basis for officer safety (e.g. like stopping a handsome, immaculately-dressed most-interesting-man-in-the-world stud muffin for legal, but illicit, coffee consumption), like 99.9% of the traffic stops that INGO is subjected to, then arguably taking the piece is Criminal Conversion but I don't think a Prosecuting Attorney will give it the time of day. That's why this needs to be addressed politically. But that's just my .

When you get pulled over just pull it out and put it under your seat before Leo is out of his car.

Why not leave your pistol in the holster? Why fidget about and make the officer all nervous in the service? You're not doing anything wrong, just leave it alone.

 

[kludge]

So, Kirk, what happens if a person just says "no" if asked?

 

[Rookie]

I think ATF consumer can tell you what happened in his case.

 

[goinggreyfast]

Just a quick question.
Suppose you are pulled over for a supposed traffic violation and you have on your person a concealed weapon and you are properly licensed to do so.
The officer asks you if you have any weapons and you answer truthfully to the affirmative. The officer then asks for you weapon and permit. Does the officer have the legal right to take your weapon? I know that the officer does have the right to inspect my permit, but I have never been keen on the idea of handing my weapon over to anyone unless absolutely necessary.
I would appreciate any comments especially if you can reference Indiana Code to this type of situation.

As you can clearly see, while there may be quick questions, there is no such creature as a quick answer. Just like @$$****$ there are lots of opinions and everyone seems to have one. I would tend to lean more towards those I know of that are versed in what the Law says.

 

[INGunGuy]

Well, as I have said numerous times, I will NOT notify, and if I am found to have a weapon and it is seized, and I dont care how someone wants to define a seizure, but to me a seizure is when something is taken from me without my permission for ANY length of time no matter how short or long. I will be having a discussion with the CLEO.

INGunGuy

 

[GuyRelford]

I think that Kirk has answered this question as well as it can be answered - because as he said, we don't have a statute in Indiana that specifically addresses the issue. (Compare Ohio Rev. Code 2923.16, requiring a motorist to 1) promptly inform the LEO that there is a loaded firearm in the vehicle; 2) keep his hands in plain sight; 3) refrain from touching the firearm unless directed to do so by the LEO; and 4) comply with any other "lawful order" of the LEO concerning the firearm - which clearly contemplates surrendering the firearm to the LEO during the stop.)

Even though the Washington case is very important to this discussion, and the warrantless search in that case was found to be illegal, I think it's noteworthy that the court focused so much attention on the fact that the defendant was "cooperative" and "respectful" with the officer and voluntarily informed the officer of the presence of the firearm. That clearly helped his lawyers establish that the LEO never had a reasonable belief that the defendant was "dangerous" under the Terry standard, which would have justified a search for weapons. Imagine the same facts as the Washington case, but the defendant was uncooperative, or combative, or the LEO only discovered the existence of the firearm by chance - rather than being told about it by the defendant. Different result? Very possibly.

And as has been noted above, the issue in the Washington case wasn't whether the LEO had the right to ask about any weapons in the car - or whether the LEO could take possession of the firearm during the stop. The issue was solely whether the LEO's warrantless search was illegal under the 4th Amendment - leading to the inadmissibility of the drugs discovered during the search.

Personally, I've always just handed my LTCH to the LEO with my driver's license, registration and proof of insurance. That led the 2 LEO's to ask whether I had a firearm in the car and where it was. After I answered, they each said something similar - like "let's just leave it where it is, ok?" Pretty harmless. Interestingly - they each let me off with a warning for the infraction they'd pulled me over for - speeding and a seatbelt.

I tried to put myself in the shoes of the LEO, and in that situation, I'd definitely want to know that there's a loaded gun in the car within reach of the driver.

My course of action may not be for everyone - and we're obviously in a cloudy area of Indiana law - but it's worked well for me and I didn't feel like I had my rights intruded upon to any significant degree.

Guy