Westfield PD disarms me during traffic stop

[GunnerDan]

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.

And then the good taxpayers will be paying for my children to go to college, or a nice retirement fund for myself.

 

[Birds Away]

And then the good taxpayers will be paying for my children to go to college, or a nice retirement fund for myself.

Not necessarily. If it's your word against his/hers I wish you good luck.

 

[GunnerDan]

Not necessarily. If it's your word against his/hers I wish you good luck.

Oh so you are saying that the LEO will lie?

 

[45fan]

Well, under your fact pattern, I imagine the cop would be blamed since he shot himself.

No, I am talking about those having the guns pointed at themselves or their property, either the motorist or the officer. I don't want anyone, police or non-police, to get shot without cause over all this silly coonfingering of guns.

I had my own gun pointed at me by an officer who looked at my 1911 like an ape with a bone on 2001.

There needs to be a valid line so both police and non-police know when the police can finger guns. All this extraneous gun handling will only end in tears.

Your situation/experience brings up another question. It is a felony to point a loaded gun at anyone in this state. If an officer points a loaded gun at you, be it yours, theirs, or anyone else's, without just cause, could that be considered grounds to file charges against them?

I understand that there is a time and place that an officer should have every right to point a loaded gun at someone, but a speeding ticket is not one of them, nor is disarming an armed civilian that has committed no crime.

 

[actaeon277]

I backed up a rookie who had called for another officer because a guy had a gun in his glovebox. When I arrived, the driver was standing outside the car, and the rook asked me to watch him. He then walked over to the car, and opened the door. I then yelled to him "hey, what the heck are you doing?!?" And he told me "getting the gun." Now typically, it's bad form to argue with another officer, during a traffic stop, but I called the rook back over, had him give the guy back his info, and allowed him to leave. Me and the rookie had a pretty in-depth talk about officer safety, and the 4th Amendment.

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."

Thank you guys.

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

Not necessarily.
An Illinois police officer (I forget which jurisdiction) wanted to search my car. I refused permission.
He kept stating he could get a warrant, and it would take time, and if I had nothing to worry about it would be easier to let him search.
Time kept ticking, I kept refusing permission.
I was calm.
I was polite.
In the end, I was let on my way, car unsearched.

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.

I agree.

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.

That's my life. Things happen whether I am cooperative or not.
If I speed, or in some other way break the law, I have no problem with paying the consequences of that action.
That does not mean I give up all my rights.

Not necessarily. If it's your word against his/hers I wish you good luck.

You do know, they make these things now called cameras? They're a new invention. But I hear some officers have them installed in cars, and even some citizens have been known to install a couple.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

There's really no way to refuse to answer the question without answering the question, or lying.

"Do you have a firearm?"

If you answer yes: Officer is aware you have a firearm.
If you answer no: You are being dishonest
If you refuse to answer: You've escalated the situation, and given the officer reason to believe you likely are armed.

I prefer to answer "no" to avoid escalating. But refusal to answer, although your right to do so, isn't going to help.

 

[SteveM4A1]

There's really no way to refuse to answer the question without answering the question, or lying.

"Do you have a firearm?"

If you answer yes: Officer is aware you have a firearm.
If you answer no: You are being dishonest
If you refuse to answer: You've escalated the situation, and given the officer reason to believe you likely are armed.

I prefer to answer "no" to avoid escalating. But refusal to answer, although your right to do so, isn't going to help.

No. Refusal to answer a question does not give one reason to believe anything other than the person doesn't wish to answer the question.

 

[rhino]

No. Refusal to answer a question does not give one reason to believe anything other than the person doesn't wish to answer the question.

I was talking with a couple of US Secret Service agents one day about their investigations. They were working primarily on identity theft and fraud at the time. When they talked about going to people's homes and such, I asked why anyone would ever consent to a search or answer questions without a warrant. They told me that in their experience, the people who had something to hide would never assert their right to refuse because they thought it would make them appear guilty. I told them I wouldn't consent and they agreed that was the correct course of action, both to assert my rights and because most people who refused them were the non-criminals.

 

[Birds Away]

Oh so you are saying that the LEO will lie?

LEOs are human beings just like you or I. Have you ever lied? I have. I'm not proud of it but I am fallible just like anyone else.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I was talking with a couple of US Secret Service agents one day about their investigations. They were working primarily on identity theft and fraud at the time. When they talked about going to people's homes and such, I asked why anyone would ever consent to a search or answer questions without a warrant. They told me that in their experience, the people who had something to hide would never assert their right to refuse because they thought it would make them appear guilty. I told them I wouldn't consent and they agreed that was the correct course of action, both to assert my rights and because most people who refused them were the non-criminals.

Good point.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

Sounds as if BA is making the argument for the immediate disbandment of all police forces. He believes they apparently cannot be trusted to follow either the Constitution or the laws.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

No. Refusal to answer a question does not give one reason to believe anything other than the person doesn't wish to answer the question.

Eh, in most cases I'd say that's fine... but we live in a pretty "innocent" populace. If someone has trouble saying "Yes" or "No" when asked a question, most of the time it's because they don't want to give you the answer that makes them feel guilty.

Lois Lerner pleads the 5th in regards to IRS questions. Why? Because she doesn't want to incriminate herself.

In regards to an Officer wanting to know if you're armed... I'd say 100% an officer isn't going to drop the subject if you politely refuse to answer a question regarding a gun. I'd bet money on it. They want to know, and if you don't tell them, they're going to likely feel less comfortable, and feel like you're hiding something.

However, if a coworker asks an ultra-personal question, and you politely refuse to answer them... they're more likely to drop the subject.

It's all about the situation you're in. You're in an encounter with an officer... and firearms are a touchy subject. I don't like it. I'd love to be able to politely refuse and think it'd be dropped right there... but it just won't happen that way.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Eh, in most cases I'd say that's fine... but we live in a pretty "innocent" populace. If someone has trouble saying "Yes" or "No" when asked a question, most of the time it's because they don't want to give you the answer that makes them feel guilty.

Yet criminals lie all of the time and do not remain silent. The idea that remaining silent is a sign of guilt is ridiculous. And thanks to the SCOTUS ruling on Salinas v Texas, it is not going away anytime soon. I will gladly remain silent and fight it in the courts.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yet criminals lie all of the time and do not remain silent. The idea that remaining silent is a sign of guilt is ridiculous. And thanks to the SCOTUS ruling on Salinas v Texas, it is not going away anytime soon. I will gladly remain silent and fight it in the courts.

That's ok, and the law is on our side in that respect. But consider this:

You're pulled over, the officer says "Do you have any firearms in your car?"

You are silent.

What do you think the officer's next question or action is going to be? This question is for anyone participating in this thread.

I expect he/she'd repeat the question, or ask you to step out of the car. When do you break your silence and start quoting laws? How do you think the officer is going to take that? Probably in a hostile manner.

Don't take my view on this as opposition to our right to be silent... I'm just saying, in our world, an officer will not take that silence as a "good" thing. I think, in this case, it's best to lie for the sake of the situation. You know you're doing nothing wrong, you know your gun is safest where it's at, and you don't want to prolong or escalate the encounter by offering up the presence of a gun.

But, I've offered up the fact that I'm armed to a few officers. Some didn't care, some thanked me, and some took it and ran the numbers for a half hour.

 

[SteveM4A1]

That's ok, and the law is on our side in that respect. But consider this:

You're pulled over, the officer says "Do you have any firearms in your car?"

You are silent.

What do you think the officer's next question or action is going to be? This question is for anyone participating in this thread.

I expect he/she'd repeat the question, or ask you to step out of the car. When do you break your silence and start quoting laws? How do you think the officer is going to take that? Probably in a hostile manner.

Don't take my view on this as opposition to our right to be silent... I'm just saying, in our world, an officer will not take that silence as a "good" thing,

If he kept repeating the question, I would answer with questions of my own. I don't care if I hurt his feelings or make him angry. I will remain calm and collected, ask to get back on the subject of the illegal activity that led to the interaction in the first place, and take my ticket. Granted, I obey the laws and have only been pulled over once in my life.

 

[Birds Away]

Sounds as if BA is making the argument for the immediate disbandment of all police forces. He believes they apparently cannot be trusted to follow either the Constitution or the laws.

I am most certainly NOT making any such argument. However, to assume just because they are LEO that they will follow said documents would be foolhardy.

 

[Indy317]

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.

Where in Washington v State does it say, " 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?" I think you have your cases wrong because I couldn't find it. Every this issue comes up, we get these two cases tossed out as the word of God. People gloss over specific factual differences. In one, the person didn't have a firearm on their person, they were handcuffed, and they were placed on a curb. This doesn't sound like the OP situation at all. In the other case, the officer stopped the person for nothing more than a seat belt violation. That specific law forbids fishing for anything absent something that is in plain sight. In that case, there was no gun in plain sight, just a bulge, so the officer shouldn't have asked anything to begin with due to the underlying reason for the stop (ie: The seat belt infraction).

I would just like for someone to post a case where the courts, based on Indiana law, said the following:
#1: An officer can't take a firearm off a person's person if they show an LTCH during the course of a traffic stop for a non-seat belt related infraction.
#2: An officer can't handcuff a person carrying a handgun if they show an LTCH during the course of a traffic stop for a non-seat belt related infraction.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Where in Washington v State does it say, " 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?" I think you have your cases wrong because I couldn't find it. Every this issue comes up, we get these two cases tossed out as the word of God. People gloss over specific factual differences. In one, the person didn't have a firearm on their person, they were handcuffed, and they were placed on a curb. This doesn't sound like the OP situation at all. In the other case, the officer stopped the person for nothing more than a seat belt violation. That specific law forbids fishing for anything absent something that is in plain sight. In that case, there was no gun in plain sight, just a bulge, so the officer shouldn't have asked anything to begin with due to the underlying reason for the stop (ie: The seat belt infraction).

I would just like for someone to post a case where the courts, based on Indiana law, said the following:
#1: An officer can't take a firearm off a person's person if they show an LTCH during the course of a traffic stop for a non-seat belt related infraction.
#2: An officer can't handcuff a person carrying a handgun if they show an LTCH during the course of a traffic stop for a non-seat belt related infraction.

She meant State v Richardson

Edit: And regarding the case you wanted, look at Terry v Ohio. There are some saying it doesn't apply here, but I have seen courts apply it to traffic stops.

 

[Dirtebiker]

The only difference being that he didn't reach into my holster and take it off my person. In my case the pistol was in a soft zippered case in the door pocket. He didn't intrude into my personal space, but other than that minor difference, very similar. There was no justification for him to take possession of it.

But the interior of your car IS your personal space. To me, not much difference!

 

[actaeon277]

Some explain to me how "officer safety" has anything to do with "running the numbers"?