Westfield PD disarms me during traffic stop

[churchmouse]

My last interaction with an armed citizen went smooth as silk. He had his hands on the wheel when I walked up and told me "sir, I just want to let you know I have a Kentucky concealed carry permit and the gun is with me." I asked where it was and then told him just to leave it there. When I asked for his license and registration he told me where they were before he reached for them. When I walked back up to his car the second time he seemed a lot more relaxed. I gave him a warning for speeding and told him I was glad to see responsible citizens carrying and I appreciated him letting me know.

I'm not relating this story for a pat on the back, but rather to say that absent other circumstances it doesn't need to be any more of an issue than that. I've always understood the wording in Terry to be "armed and presently dangerous." I assume they put the "and" in there because they felt that "armed" doesn't always mean "dangerous."

He respected you from the 1st moment and you treated him the same. Way it should be.
If you open up on LEO with attitude you will most likely get it back in spades.

 

[Whosyer]

Now THIS, is clearly illegal. That officer had no right to enter the vehicle without consent. If there was something illegal discovered in your son's vehicle, there'd be no way he'd be convicted for having it.

My son debated this with the backup officer. ( they know each other through a mutual friend) Their argument was that my son couldn't stay in the vehicle with a weapon in there. (PUPD sop) And it was unsafe for him to stand along side the road. They had him exit vehicle. Then they retrieve firearm. ( without consent) Then had him return to the driver seat for his own "safety"

 

[Birds Away]

My last interaction with an armed citizen went smooth as silk. He had his hands on the wheel when I walked up and told me "sir, I just want to let you know I have a Kentucky concealed carry permit and the gun is with me." I asked where it was and then told him just to leave it there. When I asked for his license and registration he told me where they were before he reached for them. When I walked back up to his car the second time he seemed a lot more relaxed. I gave him a warning for speeding and told him I was glad to see responsible citizens carrying and I appreciated him letting me know.

I'm not relating this story for a pat on the back, but rather to say that absent other circumstances it doesn't need to be any more of an issue than that. I've always understood the wording in Terry to be "armed and presently dangerous." I assume they put the "and" in there because they felt that "armed" doesn't always mean "dangerous."

Unfortunately you seem to be the exception rather than the rule. I was raised to be pro-LEO and really want to be pro-LEO but the bottom line is we, as citizens, have no idea what we are going to get in any interactions with LEO. I just try as hard as I can to avoid any interaction at all. Anyone with that much power and that little oversight is a threat to my safety.

 

[Sgtusmc]

I hate hypotheticals but here's one anyway...

You're pulled over in a traffic stop. Officer comes to your window and say's "do you know why I pulled you over?"

You say nothing and hand him/her your DL/insurance/registration.

Officer detects an attitude of dismissal.

Officer then asks, "Do you have any weapons in your vehicle?"

You say, "I have nothing illegal in this vehicle."

Officer then says, "Do you have a gun in this vehicle?"

His question is now to the point and you can't lie so you say, "yes"

Officer says, "Where is it?"

You say, "it's in the vehicle."

Officer not amused with your flippant response and decides to exacerbate the situation.


From here, it's probably going to go every which way but right and you are going to lose. In the end, the cops will say, "now see, we wouldn't have had to go through all this if you had simply complied in a respectful manner..."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Guys, there are a LOT of officers that will disarm you, I'd say most in fact. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is. I once backed up another officer, who had stopped a couple on Keystone, coming from sort of firearm event. Both were (at least what they told me), firearm instructors, and carrying on their hip. The stopping officer wanted them disarmed. THAT's not an argument were going to have on the side of the road, so he disarmed the male, and I the female. After the stop, I tried to explain to the couple my opinion, on the matter, apologized, and sent them on their way. I then spoke to the other officer (who had more time on than I, btw), and he simply didnt want to hear it. I've even brought this up in roll call, where (like here), I'm a rabble rouser. Some listen, some don't.

Intersting enough, I pulled over that couple myself, again, a few months ago. I didn't remember him, but he remembered me. He was carrying, and I told him good, and sent him on his way.

I may **** off a bunch of members off here, due to my leftist-leanings, but I'm a bred-Alabama kid, that has backwoods gunty (ghetto-county) family that love their guns....and Obama (lol), it doesn't make since, I know, but then again I never claimed they were rocket scientists either.

 

[nakinate]

Guys, there are a LOT of officers that will disarm you, I'd say most in fact. I don't agree with it, but it is what it is. I once backed up another officer, who had stopped a couple on Keystone, coming from sort of firearm event. Both were (at least what they told me), firearm instructors, and carrying on their hip. The stopping officer wanted them disarmed. THAT's not an argument were going to have on the side of the road, so he disarmed the male, and I the female. After the stop, I tried to explain to the couple my opinion, on the matter, apologized, and sent them on their way. I then spoke to the other officer (who had more time on than I, btw), and he simply didnt want to hear it. I've even brought this up in roll call, where (like here), I'm a rabble rouser. Some listen, some don't.

Intersting enough, I pulled over that couple myself, again, a few months ago. I didn't remember him, but he remembered me. He was carrying, and I told him good, and sent him on his way.

I may **** off a bunch of members off here, due to my leftist-leanings, but I'm a bred-Alabama kid, that has backwoods gunty (ghetto-county) family that love their guns....and Obama (lol), it doesn't make since, I know, but then again I never claimed they were rocket scientists either.

I started a trend!

 

[SteveM4A1]

I hate hypotheticals but here's one anyway...

You're pulled over in a traffic stop. Officer comes to your window and say's "do you know why I pulled you over?"

You say nothing and hand him/her your DL/insurance/registration.

Officer detects an attitude of dismissal.

Officer then asks, "Do you have any weapons in your vehicle?"

You say, "I have nothing illegal in this vehicle."

Officer then says, "Do you have a gun in this vehicle?"

His question is now to the point and you can't lie so you say, "yes"

Officer says, "Where is it?"

You say, "it's in the vehicle."

Officer not amused with your flippant response and decides to exacerbate the situation.


From here, it's probably going to go every which way but right and you are going to lose. In the end, the cops will say, "now see, we wouldn't have had to go through all this if you had simply complied in a respectful manner..."

Lots of fail in this. I hope one can see that. Never just hand over your ID/registration without first asking why. Also, you do NOT have to answer the question. You can look at the officer and blow kisses or ask him for a hamburger, but you do not need to answer a question that is not relevant.

 

[Birds Away]

Lots of fail in this. I hope one can see that. Never just hand over your ID/registration without first asking why. Also, you do NOT have to answer the question. You can look at the officer and blow kisses or ask him for a hamburger, but you do not need to answer a question that is not relevant.

That's all well and good but it will play out just as he described. Being right won't be much consolation.

 

[SteveM4A1]

That's all well and good but it will play out just as he described. Being right won't be much consolation.

Only if someone gives that information up will it play out that way. Being right has nothing to do with it. It is about keeping your mouth shut and only answer relevant questions.

 

[Birds Away]

Only if someone gives that information up will it play out that way. Being right has nothing to do with it. It is about keeping your mouth shut and only answer relevant questions.

You are either cooperating or not cooperating. One MAY get you a positive interaction the other most definitely won't.

 

[SteveM4A1]

You are either cooperating or not cooperating. One MAY get you a positive interaction the other most definitely won't.

I definitely agree, but you can answer relevant questions, not answer irrelevant questions, and still be cooperating.

 

[Birds Away]

I definitely agree, but you can answer relevant questions, not answer irrelevant questions, and still be cooperating.

I think I understand where you are coming from. If it isn't brought up it shouldn't be an issue. But if the Officer asks you a direct question and you deflect you will probably be in for a hard time. How hard depends very much on the Officer in question and is a roll of the dice for you or I.

 

[GunnerDan]

You cant lie to a leo. (false informing) So what would happen then?

Yes to "OP should file a complaint "

Yes you can lie to a LEO, and it is NOT illegal. It is only illegal to knowingly provide false information to a LEO during a criminal investigation.

Gunner

 

[rhino]

Situation dependent, it all depends on what you're lying about. If you know Jimmy robbed the gas station and you tell me Timmy did it to try and throw me off the trail, that's illegal. If you tell me your dad was in the Civil War and your a certifed blimp pilot, that's not illegal. The relevant part here is "gives false information in the official investigation of the commission of a crime, knowing the report or information to be false;"

Thank you, sir! An informative and concise answer!

 

[Mr. Habib]

I'm not relating this story for a pat on the back, but rather to say that absent other circumstances it doesn't need to be any more of an issue than that. I've always understood the wording in Terry to be "armed and presently dangerous." I assume they put the "and" in there because they felt that "armed" doesn't always mean "dangerous."

For Terry to apply there also has to be RAS that the person "has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." Since a traffic violation is merely an infraction, not a crime, Terry should not
apply. Once a valid LTCH is produced, absent any other evidence of a crime, the committing a crime portion of Terry is removed. Without RAS that the person is somehow dangerous, being armed isn't enough, the "dangerous" portion of Terry now no longer applies. The officer is now left with only one of the three requirements for a Terry stop and frisk. Any nonconsensual search is now illegal. I understand the officers desire to "go home at the end of their shift", but if their personal desires prevent them from doing their job within the frame work of the laws that they have sworn an oath to uphold, then maybe they should find an occupation that makes them feel safer, like accounting.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes you can lie to a LEO, and it is NOT illegal. It is only illegal to knowingly provide false information to a LEO during a criminal investigation.

Gunner

You can, but it's not smart. Bad guys always lie to police, and good guys rarely do. If a person is armed, they lie about it, and it is discovered that they are in-fact armed; is it then reasonable to believe that criminal activity may be "afoot?" Tell me how it's not?

 

[nakinate]

It sounds like too many people around here go into an LEO interaction like they're going to battle. I've been pulled over 7 times with zero tickets. If they ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?", I answer, "No". I already have my license and registration ready to go and it's all "Yes sir/no sir". Refusing to answer some simple questions will cause problems for you.

 

[rhino]

It sounds like too many people around here go into an LEO interaction like they're going to battle. I've been pulled over 7 times with zero tickets. If they ask, "Do you know why I pulled you over?", I answer, "No". I already have my license and registration ready to go and it's all "Yes sir/no sir". Refusing to answer some simple questions will cause problems for you.

Seems like some people have different priorities. Some have the highest priority of going on their way without a ticket. Some wish to assert and preserve their rights.

 

[GunnerDan]

You can, but it's not smart. Bad guys always lie to police, and good guys rarely do. If a person is armed, they lie about it, and it is discovered that they are in-fact armed; is it then reasonable to believe that criminal activity may be "afoot?" Tell me how it's not?

So because if I am pulled over for a traffic infraction and because my tag will come back that I have a LTCH and if I am asked if I am armed which has NOTHING to do with the traffic infraction stop I tell the officer no, I am a bad guy? I will obviously be armed, but I will NEVER offer that information because of the number of bad experiences that people seem to have when they do notify. And NO, it would not be reasonable to believe that criminal activity would be "afoot" because someone doesnt want to escalate a traffic infraction stop past the traffic issue and notify that they are carrying a weapon and bring that into the mix.

Gunner

 

[Birds Away]

Right or wrong, legal or illegal, rights or not have nothing to do with whether a LEO is going to ruin your day or not. We might not like it but if you are perceived as being uncooperative bad things are very likely to happen.