Traffic stop - trooper asked about guns

[ThrottleJockey]

Wow, I'm not going to read through ALL of this, but my is that this is a PERFECT example of why you should always carry 2 or more guns.

Officer: Do you have any guns in the vehicle?
Me: Yup.
Officer: Give it to me.
Me: Okee Dokee (handing over a single gun).
Officer: returns to squad car happy that you are unarmed......


Notice how once you gave him his carrot, he went about his business and didn't ask if you have any MORE guns in the car? And you don't even have to lie.

 

[thompal]

I also agree with the logic here. I believe the 5th is largely misunderstood.

I agree with that: the 5th is not really an issue here. I would say it is more a 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.

The right to free speech must, by all logic, include the right to not speak.

The right to keep and bear arms means that you can, until having those rights taken by a court of law, and;

the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure surely includes being free from being coerced into "volunteering" that you have a firearm, and then coerced into "voluntarily" handing it over.

If this was not the case, then any police officer could knock on your door at 3am, say he was "investigating a barking dog," and demand that you hand over all of your firearms so he can run all the serial numbers (which would then be put in a database).

 

[thompal]

i was pulled over in east indy for failure to signal lane change. the officer asked for licence and reg, when i dug out my wallet he saw my LTC and asked if i was carrying. when i told him yes he had me get out of the car and he took my pistol, LTCH and drivers license back to his car. when he came back he had me pop my trunk and he put it in there with instructions not to get it out till he left. WAS THIS LEGAL????

Well, if you opened your trunk for him, you voluntarily gave up your 4th Amendment. If you had NOT opened your trunk for him, according to some LEOs, that in itself is apparently "probable cause" for a search, because "you have something to hide."

Sounds like the 4th Amendment is out the window in either case.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The right to keep and bear arms means that you can, until having those rights taken by a court of law, and;

I must have missed that last part in the COTUS.....checking.....nope, not there. Here is some really good advise when dealing roadside with a LEO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk

 

[erik7941]

I have something to say about all of this and something that happened to a friend of mine which is similar to what some people in this thread had happen to them about the LEO taking their gun. I can understand why LEO's ask if people have weapons in the car and I can understand why they would want someone to give them the gun so the LEO will know for a fact, that gun is not a threat to them anymore (not that it may have ever been). That being said, I believe if you have a LTCH and are carrying a gun in your car (which is your property) or on your person, you should not have to give it to the LEO because they believe they may be at risk. It's not the people with LTCH's, the LEO should worry about, it's the people that carry guns without LTCH's that should be their concern. Especially if you hand them your LTCH permit to them with your driver's license and registration. I have a friend that was at a county 4H fair a few years ago while he was carrying his Sig. He was in one of the livestock barns standing near a fan that blew his shirt up enough that his holstered Sig became visible for a couple seconds. An elderly man sitting near by, went to find a LEO and told him that my friend was carrying a gun. The LEO came up to my friend and asked him if he was carrying a gun and if my friend had a permit for it. My friend answered yes to both, and asked the LEO if he would like to see his permit. The cop said yes he would like to see the permit and would also like for my friend to take the gun back to his car and lock it up. My friend said he would take it back to the car but he did not see why he should have to do so being that it was concealed and it was legal for him to have it. The cop answered that it was bothering people (by people, he probably meant the one old man who saw it while he was sitting next to the fan my friend was standing near). Then the cop reached over, pulled up my friend's shirt, and took the gun out of his holster and told my friend to walk to his car and the officer would follow him and would place the gun in my friend's glove box and watch him lock it in. My friend complied with his requests at the time. After he and the officer locked the gun in my friend's car, my friend called his uncle who is a cop for IPD. His uncle told him to go back to the officer and ask him for his name and badge number and to file a theft report on that officer. His uncle also said that it would hold up because the cop took my friend's gun from him even though he was legal to carry it in a place that was not marked with any "no firearms" signs.
I felt I should share this because sometimes LEO's overreact and I think in that case, the LEO stepped over a line and some action should be taken to correct it. I'm not advocating anyone should look for a reason to screw over a LEO or to try to be deliberately confrontational towards them, but I believe that your property is your property (this includes yourself, anything on you that is legal for you to have such as your clothes, holster, keys, wallet, and phone, your vehicle, etc) and that you should be able to uphold your constitutional rights. Even if that means telling a LEO "no, it's my property, I won't move my hands anywhere you can't see them, but that's my right to be able to keep my property in my vehicle or on me."

 

[dburkhead]

I must have missed that last part in the COTUS.....checking.....nope, not there.

Then you missed the 5th Amendment, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." RKBA is part of "liberty." Thus it can be taken away with due process of law.

 

[ocsdor]

 

[R3ydium]

 

[dross]

Then you missed the 5th Amendment, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." RKBA is part of "liberty." Thus it can be taken away with due process of law.

How are people supposed to preserve their fragile cherished opinions when you keep throwing facts around like rocks?

Killjoy.

 

[samot]

I must have missed that last part in the COTUS.....checking.....nope, not there. Here is some really good advise when dealing roadside with a LEO. YouTube - The RIGHT Way to Handle a Police Stop

I just watched that video, interesting to say the least.
What if the officer would have told him to leave his keys in the car & leave his window down, would he then have the right to search the vehicle?
IMO you would have no choice but to to as instructed by the officer ?
From my experiences, that traffic stop wouldnt have went that way for me

 

[modelflyer2003]

Good words!

I have a few law enforcement friends, and I get such a mixed story. Some of them almost despise other officers, and tell me all the time about how many rights they violate.

Then others just pass it off as "doing a job"

I know what you mean. When I was LEO in the Air Force, we had cops that harrassed people. They had a poole to get drunks off the street. Everyone who participated would throw $5 in the pot and the first one to get the drunk driver would win the pot. The same couple of guys "won" it every weekend. I could hear them calling traffic stop after traffic stop giving only warnings, then they get a drunk driver, a pat on the back, and the money. Cross the radio we would hear something bogus, like "Reason for stop: He put his turn signal on to turn 20 feet from the turn (rather than the required 50 feet or something like that)", or "When I passed by passanger looked nervous." I understand that getting drunks off the road is important, but these guys would harrass the public on power trips. There are good police officers. I knew some. I got so tired of the games. I make a better nurse.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

Not trying to derail the thread but...

My POV on this is that it is the first shifting of loose earth on a slippery slope. First it's just confiscating the firearm because you know "Guns are dangerous" and the LEO is just thinking of his safety. OK, now what if LEO's begin taking your car keys as a matter of course? After all, you could take off and instigate a high speed pursuit or reverse into the LEO or his vehicle. Just thinking of his safety, right? What if removal and restraint with handcuffs becomes standard for any traffic stop? After all, "officer safety", you might physically attack him.

Allowing the "officer safety" justification of personal property, lawfully possesed and used, being confiscated and taken out of your control and possesion seems very dangerous to me.

Where does the line get drawn? After the standard MO for a traffic stop involves removal, restraint and interrogation?

Don't get me wrong on this, I have tremendous respect for officers of the law. They deal with the worst of our society on a regular basis, and God Bless them for it. I just have a problem with the expansion of police authority, the increase in the incidents of police brutality and the encroachment on our civil liberties. You only need to read the news to see this happening all across the country, not just in Indiana. The taser has gone from being a less-lethal self-defense device to being a portable pain-compliance device.

Again, where does the line get drawn? I'm a student of history and the parallels between the current state of our country and that of a certain other world power in the 1930s has me concerned.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have something to say about all of this and something that happened to a friend of mine which is similar to what some people in this thread had happen to them about the LEO taking their gun. I can understand why LEO's ask if people have weapons in the car and I can understand why they would want someone to give them the gun so the LEO will know for a fact, that gun is not a threat to them anymore (not that it may have ever been). That being said, I believe if you have a LTCH and are carrying a gun in your car (which is your property) or on your person, you should not have to give it to the LEO because they believe they may be at risk. It's not the people with LTCH's, the LEO should worry about, it's the people that carry guns without LTCH's that should be their concern. Especially if you hand them your LTCH permit to them with your driver's license and registration. I have a friend that was at a county 4H fair a few years ago while he was carrying his Sig. He was in one of the livestock barns standing near a fan that blew his shirt up enough that his holstered Sig became visible for a couple seconds. An elderly man sitting near by, went to find a LEO and told him that my friend was carrying a gun. The LEO came up to my friend and asked him if he was carrying a gun and if my friend had a permit for it. My friend answered yes to both, and asked the LEO if he would like to see his permit. The cop said yes he would like to see the permit and would also like for my friend to take the gun back to his car and lock it up. My friend said he would take it back to the car but he did not see why he should have to do so being that it was concealed and it was legal for him to have it. The cop answered that it was bothering people (by people, he probably meant the one old man who saw it while he was sitting next to the fan my friend was standing near). Then the cop reached over, pulled up my friend's shirt, and took the gun out of his holster and told my friend to walk to his car and the officer would follow him and would place the gun in my friend's glove box and watch him lock it in. My friend complied with his requests at the time. After he and the officer locked the gun in my friend's car, my friend called his uncle who is a cop for IPD. His uncle told him to go back to the officer and ask him for his name and badge number and to file a theft report on that officer. His uncle also said that it would hold up because the cop took my friend's gun from him even though he was legal to carry it in a place that was not marked with any "no firearms" signs.
I felt I should share this because sometimes LEO's overreact and I think in that case, the LEO stepped over a line and some action should be taken to correct it. I'm not advocating anyone should look for a reason to screw over a LEO or to try to be deliberately confrontational towards them, but I believe that your property is your property (this includes yourself, anything on you that is legal for you to have such as your clothes, holster, keys, wallet, and phone, your vehicle, etc) and that you should be able to uphold your constitutional rights. Even if that means telling a LEO "no, it's my property, I won't move my hands anywhere you can't see them, but that's my right to be able to keep my property in my vehicle or on me."

I don't know that I'd file a "stolen property" report before I went in and had a civil, polite conversation with his chief. I might retain an attorney prior to doing so, but more to advise me whether I was in the right or not according to the law than to represent me in a lawsuit. The most likely action I might have the attorney take at first would be to write a letter to the chief advising him that his officers are exposing his department to legal risk by exceeding their authority.

Much as with a firearm that we use to stop a threat, we don't always have to kill. We don't even necessarily have to wound, to fire, or even to draw. Sometimes the mere presence of a gun on the intended victim's person is enough, though if you're going to show it, I am of the opinion that you had better be ready to use it... or ready to not use it.

So it is with the chief. A polite conversation with him/her is at the same level as exposing your firearm to the BG/threat. The letter from the attorney is analogous to clearing leather. From there, though, you have to think about the fact that a stolen property report, especially when the property was returned after a brief confiscation, is not likely to result in the prosecutor filing charges against the officer or his department. You can still file a civil suit, of course.

Honey vs. vinegar. You can always escalate, if needed. You can't always de-escalate so easily.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[thompal]

Honey vs. vinegar. You can always escalate, if needed. You can't always de-escalate so easily.

I agree. My concern with a REALLY stupid officer such as this one is that if you hadn't been particularly paying attention to him (after all, he's a 'good guy,' right?) is that if you suddenly feel someone attempting to take your handgun from your holster, it could have very quickly turned into a really bad situation. The fact that the officer didn't suffer broken fingers, or an elbow to the gut says volumes about the restraint used by the citizen in this case.

The officer stupidly put himself in danger by his own actions, but, of course, the results (resisting law enforcement, battery on an officer, etc) would have been blamed solely on the "crazed" gunowner.

The fact that the officer then walked the guy to his car and demanded that he open the trunk so the officer could have access is just icing on the cake.

 

[cce1302]

Then you missed the 5th Amendment, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." RKBA is part of "liberty." Thus it can be taken away with due process of law.

Just going over things in my mind, as I think everyone is in this thread...
So if it takes due process, then shouldn't a cop have a court order to relieve me from my handgun, even temporarily? specifically:
Cop: do you have a gun in the car?
me: yes.
Cop: please hand it to me
Me: sure, if you have a court order/search warrant/whatever.

Would that work?

 

[Scutter01]

The fact that the officer then walked the guy to his car and demanded that he open the trunk so the officer could have access is just icing on the cake.

Assert your refusal to a search of your vehicle but then open it anyway. If your rights are being violated, nothing you can do on the side of the road will help your situation. That comes later on in the court room, whether it's defending yourself against a charge for something found in your trunk, or it's a civil complaint against the officer.

 

[jeremy]

Just going over things in my mind, as I think everyone is in this thread...
So if it takes due process, then shouldn't a cop have a court order to relieve me from my handgun, even temporarily? specifically:
Cop: do you have a gun in the car?
me: yes.
Cop: please hand it to me
Me: sure, if you have a court order/search warrant/whatever.

Would that work?

I'll have to remember that one.

 

[dross]

Just going over things in my mind, as I think everyone is in this thread...
So if it takes due process, then shouldn't a cop have a court order to relieve me from my handgun, even temporarily? specifically:
Cop: do you have a gun in the car?
me: yes.
Cop: please hand it to me
Me: sure, if you have a court order/search warrant/whatever.

Would that work?

You've already been deprived of some of your liberty when he stopped you, and he didn't have a court order and you haven't been convicted of anything. I'm sure the courts, (and I would agree) that this is a reasonable deprivation of liberty, outweighed by the fact that we all must use and cooperate on the public roads. The question is whether temporarily handing over your weapon is reasonable.

 

[dburkhead]

Just going over things in my mind, as I think everyone is in this thread...
So if it takes due process, then shouldn't a cop have a court order to relieve me from my handgun, even temporarily? specifically:
Cop: do you have a gun in the car?
me: yes.
Cop: please hand it to me
Me: sure, if you have a court order/search warrant/whatever.

Would that work?

Fourth Amendment is defense against unreasonable search and seizure with the implication that "reasonable" searches and seizures (such as taking a gun) are permitted. It all hinges on what is "unreasonable." I happen to believe that disarming a citizen over something like a traffic stop "for officer safety" is unreasonable. The law and the courts, at the moment (and probably for the foreseeable future) decree otherwise.

 

[ocsdor]

Interesting how "for officer safety" sounds very much like "do it for the children".

A nice little politically-correct catch phrase to get people to comply regardless of its true intentions.