Westfield PD disarms me during traffic stop

[Kutnupe14]

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

I would think criminal activity was afoot (if I asked), and you'd sitting on the curb, disarmed, most likely in cuffs, as I try to figure out what's going on.
Lying about carrying a gun, to ALL police officer is bad business if the gun is discovered.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I would think criminal activity was afoot (if I asked), and you'd sitting on the curb, disarmed, most likely in cuffs, as I try to figure out what's going on.
Lying about carrying a gun, to ALL police officer is bad business if the gun is discovered.

I rarely agree with Kutnupe14, but he's right on with this one. It may not be right, it may not be how it should be, but this is how it's going to turn out.

No, it's not fair. No, you aren't doing anything wrong. You're at the mercy of the officer's mindset.

 

[jumpjet]

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.

So when you offered up the fact that you are armed, you basically put yourself in the situation of being detained or having your firearm confiscated, for the reason of "officer safety" - defined by that officer's discretion, for a reason other than the traffic stop.

I just don't see why people feel they need to offer that information. There is nothing to be gained by that, unless you consider frustration and inconvenience something to be gained. The legitimate answer to a question regarding whether you have a firearm is either silence or "Is that what you pulled me over for?" Isn't that just common sense? I don't see why people make an issue out of this.

I think the real problem is that people get emotions involved rather than just applying logic. Being pulled over does make purely rational thinking somewhat difficult, but to cave in just tells me the person really hasn't prepared for the situation. You have to know what your convictions are ahead of time and be ready to stand firm by those convictions.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So when you offered up the fact that you are armed, you basically put yourself in the situation of being detained or having your firearm confiscated, for the reason of "officer safety" - defined by that officer's discretion, for a reason other than the traffic stop.

I just don't see why people feel they need to offer that information. There is nothing to be gained by that, unless you consider frustration and inconvenience something to be gained. The legitimate answer to a question regarding whether you have a firearm is either silence or "Is that what you pulled me over for?" Isn't that just common sense? I don't see why people make an issue out of this.

I think the real problem is that people get emotions involved rather than just applying logic. Being pulled over does make purely rational thinking somewhat difficult, but to cave in just tells me the person really hasn't prepared for the situation. You have to know what your convictions are ahead of time and be ready to stand firm by those convictions.

You're right, and when I offered up the fact, it was early in my carrying days. Today, I choose not to.

I think the problem is the officer's reaction. The officer can ask me if I'm white, and I can answer yes. They can ask me if I'm hungry, and I can answer yes or no. They can ask me if there's a puppy in my trunk, and I can say no. They can ask me if I have a gun in the car, and somehow it becomes a big deal, when I'm breaking no laws.

 

[jumpjet]

They can ask me if I have a gun in the car, and somehow it becomes a big deal, when I'm breaking no laws.

Bingo^^^

This is the crazy thing to me. People get themselves all messed up in the head with this question. To me it's a matter of lack of confidence in their own conviction.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Officer: Are you classified as human?
Me: Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

Apologies to Luc Besson.

 

[dmarsh8]

I've never offered my pink card or info voluntarily at a stop.
Fortunately, I don't guess I've been asked. Also, during dozens of hours of ride alongs, I've never heard the officer
ask if there was a gun in the car. The person always opens their mouth about it. So, I think I've seen the gun taken back and checked one time. I'd have to ask if they remember why they did that particular time.
Every other stop, regardless of the officer they simply said, not a problem just leave it where it is. Only time I've seen them ask for LTCH is when the person brings it up first.
It seems to me this happens a lot more at the city/county level but that's just an assumption.
Bottom line, education and accountability on all sides is always a plus. Again....

 

[KG1]

Was waiting for someone to point out that federal 4th amendment law, applied to law of a 'foreign' jurisdiction, does not dictate what Indiana courts must do.

One would hope that Indiana ossifers would realize this, or that the local PA would edumacate them.

I think this may be what's going on with IMPD's policy shift toward having RAS of a threat before taking possession of a firearm to bolster avoidance of an possible search and seizure violation.

I applaud their efforts in this regard.

This is admittedly only my understanding based upon comments presented without any personal knowledge.

 

[Somemedic]

I would have to believe that not telling the truth during a traffic stop and getting caught in said lie could give an officer RAS. I would prefer a deflationary answer.

 

[AndersonIN]

I would have to believe that not telling the truth during a traffic stop and getting caught in said lie could give an officer RAS. I would prefer a deflationary answer.

I don't really agree with you but then I don't condone FLATULENT answers either!

 

[GunnerDan]

I would have to believe that not telling the truth during a traffic stop and getting caught in said lie could give an officer RAS. I would prefer a deflationary answer.

So from what I am hearing from you, that if an officer who pulled you over for a traffic infraction asks in the course of your business if you are armed, and you LIE and say no, what RAS do you think the officer now has? Number one he probably doesnt have a clue you are armed, and if you answer no, and your pistol is sitting in plain site well then well you need to think about what is around you. So now you have answered no, and the officer takes your license, insurance and registration, goes to his cruiser and writes a ticket for your infraction, returns hands you your stuff, you sign the ticket, say thanks, and continue on your way. What RAS does he have? And RAS for what, that you were running 60 in a 55, or rolled thru a stop sign? OK, yea RAS for the infraction, but nothing more...

Gunner

 

[ryknoll3]

Seems to me like it's a roll of the dice any way you approach it.

1. You're asked and tell the cop you have a firearm. You're rolling the dice as to which mindset this particular cop has. They may or may not disarm you.

2. You answer with a deflectionary question. "Why am I being detained?" "I have nothing illegal in the vehicle." You're rolling the dice as to how far the cop wants to pursue it. If he orders you out of the car (which they can do at any time, for any reason as I understand it) there's a good chance he sees your firearm and takes it.

3. You lie and say no. Again, you roll the dice. If the cop suspects otherwise and pulls you out, your gun will likely be seized for the duration of the stop. Unfortunately, the highest probability of keeping your gun on you is probably to lie. I don't think cops regularly pull people out of their cars.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Seems to me like it's a roll of the dice any way you approach it.

1. You're asked and tell the cop you have a firearm. You're rolling the dice as to which mindset this particular cop has. They may or may not disarm you.

2. You answer with a deflectionary question. "Why am I being detained?" "I have nothing illegal in the vehicle." You're rolling the dice as to how far the cop wants to pursue it. If he orders you out of the car (which they can do at any time, for any reason as I understand it) there's a good chance he sees your firearm and takes it.

3. You lie and say no. Again, you roll the dice. If the cop suspects otherwise and pulls you out, your gun will likely be seized for the duration of the stop. Unfortunately, the highest probability of keeping your gun on you is probably to lie. I don't think cops regularly pull people out of their cars.

You're 100% right, but by lying, you are essentially (besides being dishonest) saying that you are afraid to speak up for your legal rights. If an officer is one that will disarm somebody during a traffic stop, and you lie and get away, good for you. But what about the next person? If you're proud of you right then why lie about it, you might be disarmed, you might not. If you are, express your displeasure, and try to educate. It may fall on deaf ears, but it just might sway an opinion. As a rookie, I disarmed EVERYBODY. That was the way my FTO taught me things, so I mimiced them. Then, during a traffic stop, I met an old-timer, and when I told him I was taking his gun, he said "why?" He let me take the gun, but he was upset and went on and on about not being a criminal etc, etc, etc. Now, I did disarm people after that, but that guys words gnawed on me. I ended up relaxing my FTO's teaching to a point, that I don't disarm anyone unless I deem it absolutely needed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You're 100% right, but by lying, you are essentially (besides being dishonest) saying that you are afraid to speak up for your legal rights. .

Then officers should be better examples, and make us less afraid to stand up for our legal rights. Too many bad stories go around of power-hungry cops harassing people. Yeah, those are the bad stories, and we don't always hear the good ones out there... but it can be intimidating standing up to a LEO when you know you're in the right... and they begin twisting the law and what they think should be the law to fit their argument. I've encountered these on multiple incidents, and it's not a comfortable feeling.

The path of least resistance is just saying "Yes", but then you've got to roll the dice on "What kind of officer did I get today?"

 

[Kutnupe14]

Then officers should be better examples, and make us less afraid to stand up for our legal rights. Too many bad stories go around of power-hungry cops harassing people. Yeah, those are the bad stories, and we don't always hear the good ones out there... but it can be intimidating standing up to a LEO when you know you're in the right... and they begin twisting the law and what they think should be the law to fit their argument. I've encountered these on multiple incidents, and it's not a comfortable feeling.

The path of least resistance is just saying "Yes", but then you've got to roll the dice on "What kind of officer did I get today?"

True, but you change no minds by being silent. That's my only point.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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.

Since my last interaction with a bully Trooper, my response to the question "any weapons or drugs in the vehicle?" is "nothing illegal"! Not a lie, and not an admission!

 

[Somemedic]

An answer that would deflect his previous question...

I could remain silent or repeat my answer of "nothing illegal". But if he asked me to step out of the car he'll notice the openly carried glock.

Still, unless he perceives me as armed AND dangerous he shouldn't be touching my weapon. There's code for that.

IC 35-47-14-3 Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Indiana Code 35-47-14

 

[Dirtebiker]

An answer that would deflect his previous question...

I could remain silent or repeat my answer of "nothing illegal". But if he asked me to step out of the car he'll notice the openly carried glock.

Still, unless he receives me as armed AND dangerous he shouldn't be touching my weapon. There's code for that.

IC 35-47-14-3 Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Indiana Code 35-47-14

But that still would not (does not) stop MOST officers from disarming you. No matter how much you object!

 

[Rookie]

An answer that would deflect his previous question...

I could remain silent or repeat my answer of "nothing illegal". But if he asked me to step out of the car he'll notice the openly carried glock.

Still, unless he receives me as armed AND dangerous he shouldn't be touching my weapon. There's code for that.

IC 35-47-14-3 Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Indiana Code 35-47-14

In before the "that's not what it means".

 

[pgfrmr]

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.

All very true but what if it's just a numbers game-the department decides in a secret meeting to always ask if you are carrying. A certain percent of people asked will answer yes and not contest further. Now it's that many more serial numbers connected to an armed citizen so when mothership comes calling for ALL arms, they know where to go. Hypothetical yes, crazy talk maybe, but certainly possible.