Westfield PD disarms me during traffic stop

[Kutnupe14]

Traffic stop doesn't have much to do with it. It's the presence of the LTCH that should stop all further inquiries/actions regarding the firearm. I do believe that the standard holds whether one is stopped in his vehicle or on the street.

Found it: Washington v State, 2010. Presentation of LTCH immediately limits grounds for fishing expedition by LE (regarding the firearm), as well as the bounds of "officer safety" claims used to justify said firearm's seizure.

That standard doesn't apply. Washington was removed from his vehicle, and cuffed, meaning he had no access to the firearm (which was under his seat). It's obvious that officer safety doesn't apply, and the seizure of the weapon out of bounds. It's quite another thing, in the eyes of the court, when an officer seizes a firearm on the person of a stopped motorist.

 

[ajeandy]

I had this happen to me in Richmond, IN. The officer didn't even clock my speed. He pulled me over (I'm assuming because I was in a sports car). He asked if I had any weapons I said yes, he asked where it was. I told him. He had me hand it over. Took it to his car, brought it back, gave me some huge lecture on having a loaded gun in the car. THERE WASN'T EVEN A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER, and the gun was secured in a holster. Said how dangerous it was to keep a "loaded" gun in the car. Said if I hit a bump it could chamber a round I just kept my mouth shut and he gave me my weapon back and let me go...He must have been bored and felt the need to entertain himself. I was only about 21 at the time.

 

[TTravis]

One should never give up their rights to an illegal search and or seizure in the hopes it will get you out of a ticket. YMMV. "Officer I have nothing illegal on my person or in my vehicle. I do not consent to any searches or seizures"

Good point but I am suprised that it took till reply #37 to bring this up.

From what I read, you did not object to being disarmed. It would have been totally different if you would have objected or said "I do not concent to being disarmed". By not saying anything probably ment implied concent. IANL though.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Good point but I am suprised that it took till reply #37 to bring this up.

From what I read, you did not object to being disarmed. It would have been totally different if you would have objected or said "I do not concent to being disarmed". By not saying anything probably ment implied concent. IANL though.

One must have a chance to object first, can't go yelling at him as he is stealing your weapon.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That standard doesn't apply. Washington was removed from his vehicle, and cuffed, meaning he had no access to the firearm (which was under his seat). It's obvious that officer safety doesn't apply, and the seizure of the weapon out of bounds. It's quite another thing, in the eyes of the court, when an officer seizes a firearm on the person of a stopped motorist.

Do you pat everyone down and disarm them?

 

[88GT]

That standard doesn't apply. Washington was removed from his vehicle, and cuffed, meaning he had no access to the firearm (which was under his seat). It's obvious that officer safety doesn't apply, and the seizure of the weapon out of bounds. It's quite another thing, in the eyes of the court, when an officer seizes a firearm on the person of a stopped motorist.

How does it not apply? This isn't just about officer safety. This is about the presentation of the LTCH whether the individual is cuffed or not, in a motor vehicle or not. If my understanding, and that of several other INGOers, many of whom are responsible for teaching this with legal repercussions, is wrong, please tell me how.

 

[SteveM4A1]

How does it not apply? This isn't just about officer safety. This is about the presentation of the LTCH whether the individual is cuffed or not, in a motor vehicle or not. If my understanding, and that of several other INGOers, many of whom are responsible for teaching this with legal repercussions, is wrong, please tell me how.

I would like to know as well.

 

[KG1]

It's no doubt why alot of posters take the position of not answering the question of a firearm being present when you have no idea whether you will get pulled over by a Leo that truly does appreciate an affirmative answer to the question and chooses not to make a bigger issue of it or you get one like described in the OP.

I am duly licensed by the State of Indiana to have a handgun in my possession and I am not required by law to inform the officer. If I do not exhibit any overtly reasonable articulable threat that I am a danger then leave the damn firearm alone and get on to dealing with the alleged infraction I was pulled over for. Period.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How does it not apply? This isn't just about officer safety. This is about the presentation of the LTCH whether the individual is cuffed or not, in a motor vehicle or not. If my understanding, and that of several other INGOers, many of whom are responsible for teaching this with legal repercussions, is wrong, please tell me how.

You're wrong. You can present a LTCH all you want, but if you've encountered a police officer during a traffic stop, and he wishes to disarm you, don't expect legal recourse to bear any fruit. Unfortunately for you, FEDERAL caselaw makes a difference between being in a motor vehicle. Until Penn v Mimms is struck down, there's nothing illegal about disarming a person during a traffic stop. If you're teaching the opposite, well you're doing it wrong.

 

[nakinate]

There's no case law to support your stance. Granted I don't believe it's a good thing to universally disarm people, but there's nothing illegal about if a person is stopped for a legal reason.

As far as complaints, nothing wrong with it, just know, most administrations see absolutely nothing wrong with disarming a motorist that is legally stopped. In other words, a written complaint will probably go nowhere. People need to get off their butts and march
To their respective PDs, show their face to the chief, and express their displeasure.

who needs case law when you have the BILL OF RIGHTS?

 

[Kutnupe14]

By the way Justice Thurgood Marshall, explains his stance, almost exactly as some here have stated. The problem? It's a dissenting opinion (from Mimms).

 

[Kutnupe14]

who needs case law when you have the BILL OF RIGHTS?

I'm not arguing the "right" or "wrong" of it, only how it is. I've already said I don't universally disarm people.

 

[nakinate]

Also, this is a great example of why you should hit record on your phone when you get pulled over while carrying.

 

[Disposable Heart]

If the officer cannot articulate how you are a threat to him, then it's a violation of your 4th amendment rights.

To the OP: If you don't file a complaint, you are doing not only your community a disservice, but the gun owning community in general. It's these grey area situations that need to be defined, slap their wrist and say NO, you cannot violate my rights. Just because "he's a cop" and starts acting like a jagov, like following you b/c you filed a complaint, then file more complaints, contact an attorney, etc... This is the grandest example of slippery slope politics leaking into our minds: First, "well, it's okay, I don't want to cause any trouble" by not filing a complaint, then you have cops on that department disarming anyone for any reason they can conjure up in their minds. HELP them reinforce the existing laws and the existing policies that should be in place, or remind them of the laws when their policies violate them, official policies or not.

 

[Bunnykid68]

You're wrong. You can present a LTCH all you want, but if you've encountered a police officer during a traffic stop, and he wishes to disarm you, don't expect legal recourse to bear any fruit. Unfortunately for you, FEDERAL caselaw makes a difference between being in a motor vehicle. Until Penn v Mimms is struck down, there's nothing illegal about disarming a person during a traffic stop. If you're teaching the opposite, well you're doing it wrong.

IMPD is doing it wrong then because that is exactly what they are teaching now, not to disarm someone without RAS

 

[KG1]

IMPD is doing it wrong then because that is exactly what they are teaching now, not to disarm someone without RAS

They're doing it right and I would be willing to bet that their officers are in no more danger doing it that way than if they chose to do it in the manner of taking possession of the firearm as a matter of protocol like described in the OP. If i'm wrong I would welcome anyone to show me stats to prove otherwise.

 

[Bunnykid68]

They're doing it right and I would be willing to bet that their officers are in no more danger doing it that way than if they chose to do it in the manner described in the OP. If i'm wrong I would welcome anyone to show me stats to prove otherwise.

Denny347 posted up a thread about the training based on what a lawyer thinks is coming down the road regarding violations of the 4th

 

[Rookie]

You're wrong. You can present a LTCH all you want, but if you've encountered a police officer during a traffic stop, and he wishes to disarm you, don't expect legal recourse to bear any fruit. Unfortunately for you, FEDERAL caselaw makes a difference between being in a motor vehicle. Until Penn v Mimms is struck down, there's nothing illegal about disarming a person during a traffic stop. If you're teaching the opposite, well you're doing it wrong.

And this is exactly why I'd rather avoid any and all police interaction.

 

[Bunnykid68]

And this is exactly why I'd rather avoid any and all police interaction.

Agreed.

Reported too,

 

[Glock19]

Has Mr.Relford replied in here yet?