AZ: LEO disarming CCW Civil


PDA






banditti
December 17, 2008, 05:57 PM
Here is my situation:

I got pulled over, (my license is GUNXXX)
Asked me if I was carrying
Asked for my license and ccw
Said I was speeding
asked me to get out of the car and put my hands behind my back, thumbs together
grabbed my thumbs, disarmed me
asked why I had a gun
I told him "it is my 2nd amendment right"
He wrote me a ticket and asked to put my gun in the trunk when he gave it back.


This was a Gilbert LEO. I called one of my best friends who is a Gilbert LEO, he said that their PD council said they could not disarm me unless the suspected a criminal violation.

I think he pulled me over due to my plate and I am looking for the law or court case to back up my friends claim.

Thoughts, comments?

If you enjoyed reading about "AZ: LEO disarming CCW Civil" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
22lr
December 17, 2008, 06:05 PM
HMM im not remembering any cases from class other than you should contact the NRA and see what they think. They might provide a Lawyer, or at least some assistance. Im not sure how interested the NRA would be in this case but im sure someone out there would be.

withdrawn34
December 17, 2008, 06:12 PM
Well, if that is the whole story, then it sounds like you may want to file a complaint with the Gilbert PD. Since he gave you a ticket you should have his name and badge number.

Drail
December 17, 2008, 06:13 PM
You now know why a lot of people advise not to place pro gun stickers or license plates on your vehicle. I believe you have an absolute right to do that but it will draw the attention of people you probably don't want to talk to, like cops and thieves. It's not right but that how it is. I don't think it's worth pursuing, you're right, he was wrong but you can't beat city hall or the cops most of the time and even if you can it can get very expensive.

banditti
December 17, 2008, 06:19 PM
I am changing my plate.

waterhouse
December 17, 2008, 06:28 PM
Were you speeding?


he said that their PD council said they could not disarm me unless the suspected a criminal violation.

If you were speeding, that is a criminal violation. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime (such as speeding), he can stop you. Under Terry, if he has reasonable suspicion that you are armed (your license plate, carry permit, and verbal confirmation would all go towards this) he may frisk and disarm you.

shotgunjoel
December 17, 2008, 06:29 PM
You could try raffling off your plates to pay for a law suit. Not a lot of money but it would help. Just a thought.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
December 17, 2008, 06:30 PM
and asked to put my gun in the trunk when he gave it back.

Sounds to me like that's the only thing he did wrong - and make no mistake, that WAS wrong. Your response could have been (properly) "No thank you, I'm under no obligation to do so."

I think he pulled me over due to my plate. Thoughts, comments?

Well, WERE you speeding? If so, then wrong; that's not why he pulled you over, or at least not the only reason. If you weren't speeding, then you're likely right. Not complicated. :)

Wvladimire
December 17, 2008, 06:37 PM
I am a former LEO. Before I retired 4 years ago, the higher ups in the department were making sure that we got the training we needed to disarm the private citizens. It's been in the news, use Ask.com instead of Google, and you will see that Police Departments are being Federalized. By receiving money from Homeland Security, who in turn tries to make the regular beat officer think that civies are the enemy. Also the Federal Government is using the military against it's citizens, under the guise of helping the public servants by assisting in car accidents and such. When in reality they are setting up check points for the general public.

Be warned gun owners, they are coming for our guns. Those who do not submit, or fall for their brainwashing, will be neutralized.

expvideo
December 17, 2008, 06:47 PM
If you were speeding, that is a criminal violation.
No it's not. That is a traffic violation. A criminal violation is a different thing. Call your local court house and ask if speeding is a traffic violation or a criminal violation.

waterhouse
December 17, 2008, 06:57 PM
My mistake. My point is that speeding is all the reason a cop needs to pull you over and detain you. As soon as that happens, Terry kicks in.

expvideo
December 17, 2008, 07:52 PM
As soon as that happens, Terry kicks in.
Wrong. It gives the officer the ability to detain you, not to search you. He has to have probably cause that you have committed a crime or have a warrant to search or seize your property. A traffic stop does not constitute a terry stop. A terry stop requires that the officer has reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. A speeding violation is not a crime.

eta

The officer had reasonable suspicion that the op was carrying a gun, but carrying a gun is not a crime.

waterhouse
December 17, 2008, 08:07 PM
It gives the officer the ability to detain you, not to search you. He has to have probably cause that you have committed a crime or have a warrant to search or seize your property. A traffic stop does not constitute a terry stop.

So, just to be clear, traffic stops are not covered under Terry? Are you an attorney?

We were taught that Terry covered traffic stops. I'll have to do some more research on this.

eta: Terry frisks are not automatic for all traffic stops, but under the case I mentioned in post 6 (reasonable suspicion of an armed person) I think terry comes into play. When I said "terry kicks in", I meant in the way I described in post 6, when the officer could articulate reasonable suspicion of an armed driver.

waterhouse
December 17, 2008, 08:22 PM
This is from a google search on Terry stop.

http://www.districtattorney.slco.org/html/news/uplink/vol6iss1.pdf

It is from the Salt lake DA office.

In order to properly analyze whether a law
enforcement encounter with a vehicle’s driver or
passengers is constitutionally permissible, a
determination must first be made as to whether a
seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
has occurred. . .
Simply put, when the driver or the occupants
of a vehicle have been seized, law enforcement must
have a justification for the stop. Examples of common
justifications for a vehicle stop include: (1) an
observed traffic violation;

Later, while discussing Terry:
The United
States Supreme Court has long held that an officer
may perform a protective frisk during a lawful stop
when the officer reasonably believes a person is
armed and presently dangerous to the officer or
others. In addition to the requirement that an officer
justify the initial reason for a traffic stop, in order to
conduct a Terry Frisk, a law enforcement officer is
required to further articulate the justification for
conducting the protective frisk. Frisking as a matter of
routine cannot meet this standard. The sole purpose
for allowing a protective frisk is to protect the officer
and other prospective victims by neutralizing potential
weapons.

As I mentioned in post 6, if the officer had reasonable suspicion that the driver was speeding, he may "seize" the driver for the traffic violation. This is what the officer is doing when he pulls you over.

After that, if an officer can articulate reasonable suspicion that there are weapons present, he may disarm the seized person for the sole purpose of protecting the officer and others from the weapon.

I don't believe any probable cause or warrant is needed in this procedure. I also see no differentiation between a stop for a traffic violation and a stop for a criminal violation. Can you please direct me to case law that points to the fact that officers cannot perform a Terry Frisk for traffic stops if they can articulate reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed?

Ron-Bon
December 17, 2008, 08:45 PM
When I get pulled over,(all the time) the officer always unloads my gun and asks that I leave it unloaded with the slide in the open position until I am out of his sight or he is out of mine

Rodentman
December 17, 2008, 08:51 PM
Forgive me for being naive. I know that a LEO must protect himself, but do they believe that a permit holder poses a threat? Unloading the weapon until he is out of sight--are you gonna fire at him as he drives away?

I honestly thought that LEO's support permit holders' rights and have no issue with it. Clearly I am wrong.

waterhouse
December 17, 2008, 09:02 PM
I know that a LEO must protect himself, but do they believe that a permit holder poses a threat?

Try to think of cops as any other subset of America. Some of them are gun people. Some of them never held a gun until the academy.

Some know the process for getting a concealed handgun permit. Others know of its existence, but not much else about them.

For these reasons, different cops will react differently around people with guns.

DKSuddeth
December 17, 2008, 09:04 PM
He wrote me a ticket and asked to put my gun in the trunk when he gave it back.

I would have laughed at him myself.

expvideo
December 17, 2008, 09:07 PM
I don't believe any probable cause or warrant is needed in this procedure. I also see no differentiation between a stop for a traffic violation and a stop for a criminal violation. Can you please direct me to case law that points to the fact that officers cannot perform a Terry Frisk for traffic stops if they can articulate reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed?
No, do your own homework. Can you show me a case law where they are?

Terry stops are different from a vehicle stop, because the courts have ruled that you have an expectation of privacy in your vehicle.

Are you an attorney?
Are you?

Trust me. Go to the ACLU website and do some research. You are very wrong in your assumptions and I don't want to spend 20 minutes explaining why. Do your own homework instead of asking me to proove mine. I know what I'm talking about and you kind of think you have a basic idea of what you are talking about. Which one of us needs to be researching case law?

Reyn
December 17, 2008, 09:32 PM
If the officer can articulate that your actions placed him in fear then he can disarm you or pat you down for weapons.

Waterhouse,if an officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation that by itself is not enough to perform a frisk for weapons and to disarm.

The United
States Supreme Court has long held that an officer
may perform a protective frisk during a lawful stop
when the officer reasonably believes a person is
armed and presently dangerous to the officer or
others. In addition to the requirement that an officer
justify the initial reason for a traffic stop, in order to
conduct a Terry Frisk, a law enforcement officer is
required to further articulate the justification for
conducting the protective frisk Frisking as a matter of
routine cannot meet this standard. The sole purpose
for allowing a protective frisk is to protect the officer
and other prospective victims by neutralizing potential
weapons.

cassandrasdaddy
December 17, 2008, 09:59 PM
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk”, or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio


last sentence is clear i think.

coyotehitman
December 17, 2008, 10:01 PM
If the laws there are anything similar to the laws in some states, this has nothing to do with "Terry", "PC" for a search, or anything else. If you are CCW in some states, you have a duty to inform and you can be disarmed for the duration of the stop. Failure to comply and your privilege to CCW is revoked with the simple singing of a document. Perhaps this is how the law is the OP's home state reads. What do you mean by council, city council (the board) or a city attorney/solicitor? Also, were you speeding, were you not speeding, or do you honestly not know if you were speeding?

Well, if that is the whole story, then it sounds like you may want to file a complaint with the Gilbert PD.

To this poster, what would be your basis for a complaint, being disarmed, being told to put it in your trunk, having the officer control your hands while he disarmed you?

Was he rude or did he behave professionally and did he violate a civil right, a lawful policy/directive, or a law?

If I questioned anything that was already established, I apologize in advance.

Ron-Bon
December 17, 2008, 10:01 PM
The majority of the police that I have encountered seem to hate the fact that I can legally carry a pistol. They always seem almost happy that I have a gun that they think is illegal, then when they discover that it is completely legal, they seem a little disappointed. I'm not exaggerating

cassandrasdaddy
December 17, 2008, 10:04 PM
how much case law you want exp?
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavtx/0303031.txt

http://www.9thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLOpinion.asp?OpinionID=8754

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1009/hughes.pdf

theres more where that came from kinda

thesecond
December 17, 2008, 10:18 PM
In this case, it's peculiar that the officer went immediately from a traffic detention to an "order out". Was there anything to indicate Banditti was presently dangerous to the officer's safety? Having a license to be armed does not make one, by necessity, presently dangerous.

The following was posted by me in another thread asking about Terry stops. Please take note that, for now, at least, sidewalk detentions (Terry) are not the same as traffic violation detentions or subsequent "order outs" (Mimms):

expvideo is correct in that, generally, you can't jump from a detention to a frisk and seizure without something more. The frisk may only commence upon a reasonable belief that the person is “(1) armed and (2) presently dangerous.” (emphasis added.) See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981). True that the “reach and seizure” into a specific area of the suspect’s garments may occur after a frisk, I.e., “a limited patdown based upon plain feel”, confirms that a weapon is there. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993). But the “limited patdown-plain feel-frisk” and subsequent “reach/seizure” cannot be justified before the officer reasonably can explain that the “stopped and detained” suspect was both (1) armed and (2) presently dangerous. Note that the “reach” also may occur, without a preliminary frisk, when an officer is given “specific information regarding hidden weapons” in an area where it is prohibited. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).

Remember also that the circumstances of the “stop and detention” under Terry are justified, dependent upon (1) the purpose of the stop, (2) the reasonableness of the time in effectuating the purpose of such stop and (3) the reasonableness of the means of investigation. See U.S. v. Sharpe 470 U.S. 675 (1985). Thus, for now, the police are not entitled to stop, detain, frisk, and seize items (and people) from the public at large, while the latter is going about their business in public, without a good ‘reason‘.

The automobile detention stop (without arrest) and searches proceeding from an auto stop are informed by, but not necessarily analyzed under, the Terry rules. See, generally, Michigan v. Long 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1978); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). Terry applies to a “stop”, for example, on a public sidewalk. If an officer orders a driver and/or passengers out of the car under Mimms, he then may proceed under Terry. You cannot go from traffic stop to Terry “frisk”, without something more. Arizona v. Johnson, argued recently in front of the SCOTUS, will have an effect on all of the foregoing.

Don’t draw too many conclusions from what you read here. All of the Fourth Amendment analysis occurs after the fact of an arrest and indictment, pursuant to pretrial hearing on a motion to suppress evidence which is discovered, seized, and intended for use in a criminal trial. Maybe section 1983 litigation for the illegal detention leading to arrest (being physically restrained), and illegal seizure, considering Banditti was lawfully armed, but without more, could not then be considered "presently dangerous".

Note: I am not a lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express …. J

thesecond
December 17, 2008, 10:38 PM
And there is no duty to inform an officer that you have a CCW, and are armed, in the state of Arizona.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't notify, under some circumstances, in order to alleviate any concerns an officer may have that you are 'presently dangerous'.

akodo
December 17, 2008, 10:43 PM
here is the meat and bones from those links

Christian contends the trial judge erred in ruling that the police lawfully frisked
him for weapons during a traffic stop. We agree and reverse the conviction for possession of
cocaine with intent to distribute.

Clearly something more than just a traffic stop is needed for Terry Search to be okay

Officer Michael Stowe testified that he was patrolling a high crime area of Conroe when he approached an illegally-parked vehicle in which Williams was a passenger. When Officer Stowe looked inside the vehicle, he saw Williams furtively reaching into his waistband, and Officer Stowe believed Williams was attempting to conceal something. Officer Stowe asked the driver to get out of the vehicle, and he performed a Terry frisk on the driver

Again, just pulling someone over is not enough. However, if the driver 'adjusts the boys' that is going to give reasonable suspicion that a weapon is being hidden, and that is going to be enough

a police officer need not possess reasonable suspicion that an
individual is involved in criminal activity before the officer may conduct a Terry frisk for
weapons. Fleenor, 133 Idaho at 556, 989 P.2d at 788. This is so because a “stop-and frisk under
Terry constitutes two independent actions, each requiring separate justifications.” United States
v. Flippin, 924 F.2d 163, 165 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, each action must be analyzed separately
and the reasonableness of each must be independently determined. Fleenor, 133 Idaho at 556,
989 P.2d at 788. Accordingly, the purpose of the initial vehicle stop is not dispositive of the
issue of whether the frisk was lawful...

....the issue is whether the officer’s observations at the scene provide a
reasonable basis to conclude that Hughes may have immediate access to a weapon in his vehicle,
thus creating a reasonable fear of present danger to the officer.1 A weapons frisk is lawful if the
officer possesses a reasonable belief that the subject poses such an immediate danger...

....the height of Hughes’ truck prevented the officer frombeing “able to look into the pickup truck and see what the defendant’s gestures were.” In the end
it was those furtive movements, coupled with Hughes’ refusal to cease his actions after the
officer requested several times for him to do so, which led the officer to remove Hughes from the
vehicle and frisk him for weapons.

Again, it is not related to the traffic stop. It is keyed on the officer observing something suspicious and possibly/probably weapon related.

As far as Terry is concerned, that white powder on your nose might be from a powdered donut, it doesn't care, but you reach to scratch your arm-pit, that will be enough to trigger a Terry stop.

I guess what this really shows to me is 'don't fidget' and the advice to keep your hands at 10 and 2 is GREAT protection against a Terry search. Also, if being batted down, say I do not comply with a search, and ask 'what is your reason for this search'

In the OPs case, had he asked the officer at the time, the officer might have said something dumb. As it stands now, if the OP files a complaint, the LEO has time to think it over and cite a movement as what caused his suspicion.


Now, unrelated to Terry, which clearly would allow an officer to take control of a hidden weapon that the person being frisked did not reveal, what is the legal grounds for controlling an openly carried or openly revealed legal weapon?

deaconkharma
December 18, 2008, 08:48 AM
Those of us that feel police are more regularly overstepping and expanding Terry and PC and other searches and seizures (by either intimidation, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation) will forever be dogged by the "thin blue liners" who need no naming.
These laws are up for interpretation and we can argue this here, in court, and wherever else but I feel they were intentionally ambiguous in certain laws to allow leveraging in situations. Subjective things like if the officer feels a disturbance in the Force, he may disarm search etc. Reminds me of the "South Park" episode where you had to be in immediate danger of the animal to shoot it. So the hunters said "he's coming right for us" before they shot everything in the woods.
My advice is to shuddup, hide the firearm where it becomes legal to NOT INFORM, go more incognito (license plate), and go look up the 5000 other posts about duty to inform and disarmament by the thin blue line. You'll see the usual "suspects" and the usual "Uber citizens" espousing their opinions and can draw your conclusions from there.
-Deacon-Usual-suspect-kharma:uhoh:

Rocco
December 18, 2008, 09:08 AM
I agree with DRAIL. I contemplated putting an NRA decal on the back of my new truck a couple of months ago then came to my senses. It would just alert everyone to the fact that I'm carrying a weapon in the vehicle.

It's the same as the guy that has stickers all over his back window describing all the wonderful stereo equipment installed inside. I wonder why that vehicle gets broken into ?

It's best to be ANONYMOUS in traffic (IMHO).

Byron Quick
December 18, 2008, 09:23 AM
I honestly thought that LEO's support permit holders' rights and have no issue with it. Clearly I am wrong.

Many are. Some aren't. It depends on where you are at mainly. Now police chiefs don't often support us, it seems.

I live in Georgia. I've been driving now for 38 years. I speed regularly and get stopped a LOT. Usually with firearms in the car. This has sometimes resulted in the officer wanting to take control of the firearms during the duration of the stop. It has usually also resulted in us leaning against the fender talking guns and hunting for 30 minutes or so or heading for coffee.

I've had exactly one stop in 38 years by an anti cop in Georgia who acted similar to the AZ cop and, boy, that guy was a whiner. The Arizona cop is probably as rare as the Georgia cop is.

expvideo
December 18, 2008, 09:30 AM
Many are. Some aren't. It depends on where you are at mainly.

I live in Georgia. I've been driving now for 38 years. I speed regularly and get stopped a LOT. Usually with firearms in the car. This has sometimes resulted in the officer wanting to take control of the firearms during the duration of the stop. It has usually also resulted in us leaning against the fender talking guns and hunting for 30 minutes or so or heading for coffee.

I've had exactly one stop in 38 years by an anti cop in Georgia who acted similar to the AZ cop and, boy, that guy was a whiner.
I used to speed a lot. I don't anymore, but that's beside the point. Anyway, I have had a lot of cops disarm me and make sure my gun was clean, put it in my trunk unloaded and asked me not to load it until they had left. I have also had a lot of cops not care at all that I was carrying a gun. They are almost never rude, but sometimes you get that one special guy that wants to be a total dick for no reason. More often, I get missinformation from a cop about the law. I've had two cops so far lecture me about leaving my gun in the car loaded being illegal (even though I was being pulled over and there was no indication that I was planning on doing anything like that). Of course, with a CWP in WA, it's not illegal. I've heard a lot of interesting impressions of what the law is. I let it go, because I don't want to get in an arguement with a cop that doesn't understand the law. Kind of sounds like firmly lecturing a grizzly about how the salmon on the camp fire is yours and not his. It's not going to end well.

waterhouse
December 18, 2008, 10:07 AM
No, do your own homework. Can you show me a case law where they are?

Terry stops are different from a vehicle stop, because the courts have ruled that you have an expectation of privacy in your vehicle.

Courts have also ruled that you have an expectation of privacy on your person. What could be more of a privacy issue than your own body and what you have on it? I think what we are discussing is a situation in which the courts have ruled that our right to not be searched without probable cause is, well, infringed.

Just to be clear, before I start putting some effort into it:

A terry stop requires that the officer has reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. A speeding violation is not a crime.

I think that Terry can come into play any time a police officer legally seizes a person for any reason. By legally I mean both that the seizure was a seizure under the law and that the officer made the seizure lawfully, after he had reasonable suspicion. Terry does not automatically come into play, but any time a police officer seizes a person, if they can articulate that they had reasonable suspicion that they person was armed and presently dangerous, they may perform a Terry frisk. This would include interactions where cops seized a driver for a traffic violation.

From what I can gather, you believe traffic violation do not have anything to do with Terry, because Terry only applies to criminal violations. Therefore, Terry does not apply at all to any traffic stop, because there has been no criminal violation. The cops suspicion as to weapons or danger would not come into play, as it is only a traffic violation. Am I understanding what you are writing correctly?

I am happy to be proven wrong in this matter. I would love to have more freedom than I currently think that I do. I just don't think it is the case, and I think Terry can apply to traffic stops if the right conditions are met.

beatcop
December 18, 2008, 11:26 AM
Lot's of great stuff being kicked around, finally a post with some meat!

Not to overly generalize, but if you get stopped on the street (walking), there has to be some kind of reasonable suspicion (criminal activity afoot). When it comes to vehicles, the initial stop (if valid) meets the requirements. Regardless of your interpretation of Terry, if the Ofc thinks you're armed, he may disarm you.

Obviously the gray area is "legal" carry. If you're being detained in the course of police work, assume you'll be disarmed. The whole nature of Terry is to protect the police while doing their jobs, that's it. The courts have afforded LE a lot of leeway in this regard for many years.

I'm not in an OC State, but if a permit holder mentions he's carrying during the course of a "routine traffic stop" it's not a big issue, unless there's something "more"...my .02

BBQLS1
December 18, 2008, 11:33 AM
Why did he ask you to put it in the trunk?

mljdeckard
December 18, 2008, 12:22 PM
beatcop and expvideo are absolutely right. Terry v Ohio is one of the most misinterpreted and....overused precedents by police. There are many police officers who have been trained or conditioned to believe that Terry allows them to search everyone they pull over. Many cops get away with it for a long time. It allows police to search a person for weapons if they have reason to believe the person is armed. The grey area is trick because when you have a permit, you are ALLOWED to be armed. If a cop uses Terry to search you, and subsequently finds other incriminating material, they have frisked you under suspicion of a crime when no crime has been committed.

The judge who taught my criminal law class has police come into his court all the time and testify that they had the suspect outside of his car, and did a Terry search. He asks them to articulate the reasonable suspicion that led to the Terry search.

They say, "I was in fear for my safety."

"Why?"

At this point, the cop better say something to the effect of, "I saw a magazine lying on the back seat", or "I saw a knife or barrel shaped bulge" under his waistband or in his pocket. Something specifically concealed weapon related. If they say, "I routinely frisk people outside their vehicles to protect my safety", he will throw the search out. Terry allows the officer to protect their safety under specific circumstances, NOT to frisk everyone they have outside a car. But the same cops keep doing it. (He admits not all judges care as much about privacy as he does. And he is a former cop and former prosecutor.)

In Utah, there is a duty to inform, but CCW info doesn't pop up with plate info, it pops with license info. This way the police can't drive around and target CCW holders. A few years ago there was a flap because police were randomly running plates to verify insurance, because we had a really bad uninsured motorist problem. In effect, that is using information with a degree of privacy attached to it to randomly search for crime. I never heard if a court ruled on it, but our uninsureds went from 20% to less than 5.

But they are right. Seek out more education. With three classes I took that are directly related to this subject, Criminal Law, Arrest, Search, and Seizure Law, and Professional Responsibility, I got 130 hours of classroom instruction from field professionals. One had a law degree, one was a prosecutor, and one was a judge. By way of comparison, a Cat I police officer in Utah might hit the street with as little as 8 hours total instruction in the same subjects. We had a lot of off-duty cops in these classes.

Jim K
December 18, 2008, 12:39 PM
I don't know if there is a court case on the subject, but I think some license plates or bumper stickers could be construed as "reasonable cause" to believe the driver is armed.

Further, bumper stickers like "OFF THE PIGS" and "I (heart) KILLING COPS" do not present a very good image to a police officer. Stickers like "STOP HONKING - I AM RELOADING" and "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" are not much better.

Some folks, even otherwise law-abiding people, just love to provoke and antagonize police and others in authority. In this country, they mostly get away with it; in some countries they would be found dead in a ditch.

But why? Yes, you may have a right, but why be deliberately nasty and make yourself look like a dirtbag criminal just to have "fun" and "tweak the cops." That is a very immature attitude which most of us get over around the 16th birthday.

Jim

expvideo
December 18, 2008, 12:47 PM
waterhouse, you are correct in your understanding of what I have said. And yes, you have more rights than you were aware of.

melikesguns
December 18, 2008, 12:59 PM
I love that people will use any excuse for a law suit this day and time. It is getting ridiculous. nd we wonder why the gun haters view use as slobbering redneck retards. I think anyone that files a "dumb" lawsuit should be shot on sight!! People should try to gett off there lazy azz and get a job!!

mljdeckard
December 18, 2008, 01:00 PM
Jim, I will agree inasmuch as: it's a bad idea to give the cop a reason to start sniffing in the first place. You absolutely do have the right to be inflammatory, disrespectful, and attract negative attention to yourself. This is not reasonable suspicion of any crime. But a person is being naive if they have "Bad cop, no donut", pot culture stickers, etc. in their rear window and they expect to get treated exactly the same as everyone else. You are allowed to exercise your right of free speech well past the point of stupidity. It absolutely can make the difference between, "I'm just letting this guy know his taillight is out" and "I'm checking every piece of data I have access to and shining a flashlight on every exposed inch of this car until I can scrape together a reason to search it."

sendarope
December 18, 2008, 01:05 PM
First off: this cop was a jerk. sounds like some rookie fresh out of the academy. Though with the militarization and the "us vs them" mindset that creeps in over time it is hard to say. We can leave it at Jerk.

Second: I would have a real hard time having somebody disarm me. Mainly because of accidental discharge. I am safer for all concerned if I just stay in my car and let the LEO write the ticket. With that said sounds like this cop was both a jerk and stupid.

I would defiantly file a complaint with the local PD. The legal side is debatable but I happen to think that he had NO PC or any other reason to disarm you.

If I wasn't in a hurry I would have politely asked to speak with his commanding officer immediately. Most departments have a policy of compliance with that. I would have also dialed 911 to get the encounter recorded. LEO's are after all just employees of somebody and have a boss. Though, many don't like to think that is the case.

Fortunately for me at this time the local PD is very supportive of OC and CCW.

expvideo
December 18, 2008, 01:05 PM
mljdeckard,
+1. If you have a pot culture sticker on the back of your car, I don't feel sorry for you when the cop digs up a reason to search it.

Art Eatman
December 18, 2008, 02:42 PM
I've been moderating here and at TFL since almost ten years ago. I do believe I've read more than one or two threads of this sort. :)

My conclusion: There are a very few cops out there who get as berzerkoid about a non-cop with a gun as anybody in the Brady Bunch, and with the same lack of reason or rational thought.

But most don't.

expvideo
December 18, 2008, 02:48 PM
Pretty well put, Art. For the most part, having run into more cops than I care to remember in my speeding days, they don't really care that you carry a gun. Either they want to make sure that you aren't going to shoot them, so they take it for a minute, or they just ask you to keep your hands away from it and don't really care.

The worst I've met are cops that just don't understand the law as well as they should. I haven't run into a cop with a political agenda that disarmed me just because he hates gun owners.

CoRoMo
December 18, 2008, 03:22 PM
I'd agree with the notion that most LEOs are not hysterically rabid antis, but they do exist. Although like Byron mentioned, police chiefs seem to be different. Certainly it varies from place to place, but every time I happen to catch a news story regarding concealed carry or an AWB, I ALWAYS hear that law enforcement agencies and sheriff's departments resoundingly oppose concealed carry and support any AWB. Hearing this make one think that every LEO is one command away from willingly executing door-to-door 'Katrina confiscation'.

Back to the OT, I've only had one encounter while I was heading up the hill to hunt some deer and the model '94 was on the back seat and the cop only asked if it was empty or loaded. I got the ticket.

mljdeckard
December 18, 2008, 03:23 PM
I've never been issued a citation while I was carrying, but I drive a lot safer now than I used to.

Most of the time it turns into a conversation about guns.

waterhouse
December 18, 2008, 03:27 PM
exp, did you read the link I posted earlier?

The salt lake District Attorney's office wrote a paper on what is necessary to perform a Terry Frisk after a routine traffic stop, for a traffic violation. The name of the report is "Conducting a Terry Frisk During a Traffic Stop."

http://www.districtattorney.slco.org/html/news/uplink/vol6iss1.pdf

I posted it earlier, but I'll post it again, emphasis added:

A frisk is not normally considered to be within
the scope of a routine traffic stop. The discovery of
evidence that results from a Terry frisk incident to a
traffic stop is one of the more common scenarios
reviewed by the Utah Appellate Courts. The United
States Supreme Court has long held that an officer
may perform a protective frisk during a lawful stop
when the officer reasonably believes a person is
armed and presently dangerous to the officer or
others.5 In addition to the requirement that an officer
justify the initial reason for a traffic stop, in order to
conduct a Terry Frisk, a law enforcement officer is
required to further articulate the justification for
conducting the protective frisk. Frisking as a matter of
routine cannot meet this standard. The sole purpose
for allowing a protective frisk is to protect the officer
and other prospective victims by neutralizing potential
weapons. A frisk cannot be used as an effort to
search for evidence or contraband other than
weapons.6 If a protective search goes beyond what is
necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, the
frisk will no longer be valid under Terry and its fruits
will be suppressed.

It appears that an officer may, if conditions are met, use Terry for a simple traffic violation, and not just for criminal violations. I went to the ACLU site and read what they had to say about Terry as well.

You said you would not do my homework for me. I found a DA who seems to contradict what you are saying. I'll be happy to change my mind, but I'm going to need you to point to some evidence that Terry cannot be used for routine traffic stops.

WardenWolf
December 18, 2008, 03:29 PM
Gilbert and Mesa are rather backwards. This does not surprise me. Mesa is strongly influenced by a certain religious group from Utah and Gilbert isn't much more than a rural suburb of Mesa. There's a small but existant cultural gap between Mesa and Phoenix, despite their proximity. I did IT work for a school system in Mesa / Gilbert for 18 months and there was definitely a different feel to it than Phoenix. Slightly xenophobic, and family-favoritism runs deep.

expvideo
December 18, 2008, 04:23 PM
I'd agree with the notion that most LEOs are not hysterically rabid antis, but they do exist. Although like Byron mentioned, police chiefs seem to be different.
That's because people become police chiefs for political reasons. People generally become police officer because they want to help people. Two completely opposite goals.

expvideo
December 18, 2008, 04:28 PM
Waterhouse, thank you for doing the research and keeping an open mind. You are a pleasure to debate with.

A frisk is not normally considered to be within
the scope of a routine traffic stop. The discovery of
evidence that results from a Terry frisk incident to a
traffic stop is one of the more common scenarios
reviewed by the Utah Appellate Courts. The United
States Supreme Court has long held that an officer
may perform a protective frisk during a lawful stop
when the officer reasonably believes a person is
armed and presently dangerous to the officer or
others.5 In addition to the requirement that an officer
justify the initial reason for a traffic stop, in order to
conduct a Terry Frisk, a law enforcement officer is
required to further articulate the justification for
conducting the protective frisk. Frisking as a matter of
routine cannot meet this standard. The sole purpose
for allowing a protective frisk is to protect the officer
and other prospective victims by neutralizing potential
weapons. A frisk cannot be used as an effort to
search for evidence or contraband other than
weapons.6 If a protective search goes beyond what is
necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, the
frisk will no longer be valid under Terry and its fruits
will be suppressed.
(emphasis is mine)

Simply having a legal concealed weapon and a permit for it are not grounds to perform the search. The underlined portion of the above shows that the officer must have a valid reason for thinking that the person with the weapon is a threat. Simply having the weapon is not enough, or there wouldn't be that requirement (underlined)

mljdeckard
December 18, 2008, 07:02 PM
Um, yeah, the passage I read, and exp emphasized, says that the search hinges on being able to articulate a clear and present danger to the officer PRIOR to the search. Just incident to a traffic stop does not meet this standard.

rjewell
December 18, 2008, 07:17 PM
Once I was pulled over for speeding and they took my firearm and i had to go to the station with a bill of sale to get it back.. I didnt have a ccw but in missouri you dont need one to carry one in your vehicle, but the officers didnt know this, and was really not happy with me when i asked "how can you uphold the law when you dont even know the law"..

KBintheSLC
December 18, 2008, 07:19 PM
Forgive me for being naive. I know that a LEO must protect himself, but do they believe that a permit holder poses a threat? Unloading the weapon until he is out of sight--are you gonna fire at him as he drives away?

I honestly thought that LEO's support permit holders' rights and have no issue with it. Clearly I am wrong.

I think you hit the nail on the head. A lot of LEO's harbor irrational fear and resentment against CCW permit holders. The ironic thing is that we are probably the farthest thing from an actual threat they will ever come across.
I wonder if they are threatened by the fact that we are not at their mercy like the rest of the population. Perhaps that fact is threatening to those with more delicate egos... those who join the force to have power over others. Perhaps their power and dominance is what is really being threatened... not their safety.

coloradokevin
December 18, 2008, 07:48 PM
I honestly thought that LEO's support permit holders' rights and have no issue with it. Clearly I am wrong.

Don't kid yourself on this one. Right or wrong, opinions on gun ownership vary among law enforcement officers, just like the opinions vary among private citizens. Obviously we have to behave as the law requires in the performance of our duties as officers, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a range of opinions on this subject. In other words, a blanket statement about what cops support is often no more accurate than a blanket statement about what musicians or mechanics support!

As a career cop myself, I'd say that --at least based on my region of the country-- 80% of officers are pro-gun, 10% are neutral, and 10% are anti-gun. I've encountered a number of armed CCW folks in the course of my duties. I never disarm them, I never tell them to unload their gun, and I never treat them any differently than I treat other citizens (honestly, I treat everyone as if they are armed when I'm on-duty).

The one subtle difference in my handling of a stop like this might involve me asking the person where the gun is located, and requesting that they don't handle the weapon during the course of the stop. In fact, even that rarely comes up! I've honestly found that most CCW folks who ID themselves to me are already behaving in a way that appears non-threatening: hands in sight, not moving around in the car, respectful, etc... just like I act when I'm occasionally stopped off-duty. Plus, I don't feel that those are unreasonable requests for me to give a citizen, at least in IMO... Simply put, I won't play with my gun if they don't play with their gun!

coyotehitman
December 18, 2008, 07:54 PM
A lot of LEO's harbor irrational fear and resentment against CCW permit holders.

I disagree. What facts are you basing this on?

The ironic thing is that we are probably the farthest thing from an actual threat they will ever come across.

I agree that most of the time CCW holders pose no threat; however, if CCW holders are "probably" not a threat, how does one distinguish them from the remainder who pose a threat. As long as there is a second category of CCW permit holder out there, any fear or concern for safety is rationalized. Like I said, most are fine folks, but I have also seen the ones who believe they are a cross between a cowboy and superman because of that CCW permit.

In addition, most folks never see how quickly someone's personality can take a 180. I have had guys who were extremely affable one minute turn violent the next. If that person has a CCW, it can be a problem.

I have said this before, I'll say it again. Most LEO's are not opposed to lawful CCW, most have no ill intentions, and some would rather talk guns with you than write you a citation. It is also a fact that the majority of communication is non-verbal in nature, and that most LEO's do not appreciate receiving comments like "I am carrying because it is my right" or being told" You can't do this or that". You cannot imagine how many folks I have encountered who automatically assumed I was out to get them and went on the defensive, when I had every intention of simply mediating a matter without any charges. Use some tact and courtesy when dealing with the police and it will make your life easier, guaranteed.

expvideo
December 18, 2008, 08:20 PM
coyotehitman, CCW holders are statistically the most law-abiding demographic. Statistically speaking, not having a CCW permit makes you a much bigger threat to the officer's safety.

mljdeckard
December 18, 2008, 10:04 PM
Absolutely. There is no more identifiable safe demographic than CCW holders. Even top secret security clearance holders have shown themselves to be somewhat risky. (Crazy NASA chick who drove across the country in a diaper, Wen Ho Lee,) As soon as that cop sees the permit, he knows he is talking to someone who has voltuntarily raised their hand to surrender to a background check, sacrificing a bit of privacy, to show LE and anyone else who is interested, that they can pass a background check, and that they have at least a bit of knowledge of the law.

DMF
December 18, 2008, 10:21 PM
There is no more identifiable safe demographic than CCW holders. Even top secret security clearance holders have shown themselves to be somewhat risky . . . As soon as that cop sees the permit, he knows he is talking to someone who has voltuntarily raised their hand to surrender to a background check, sacrificing a bit of privacy, to show LE and anyone else who is interested, that they can pass a background check, and that they have at least a bit of knowledge of the law.Well all those risky TS clearance people also volunteered for their background checks. So your own post contradicts your theory.

However, in the real world I've arrested people who were violent criminals, and/or members of street gangs/organized crime, who had concealed carry permits. Just because they had not been convicted of a crime that prevented them from having guns or a concealed carry permit didn't change the fact that they were violent criminals. They just happened to have gotten a concealed carry permit before they got caught committing their crimes.

Any cop who assumes someone is not a safety threat, simply because that person possesses a concealed carry permit, is a fool and unsafe.

Richbaker
December 19, 2008, 01:05 AM
Waterhouse-
In AZ, speeding is a CIVIL violation, unless it is over 20MPH over the posted limit, or in excess of 85MPH.
That makes it easier for the Gov. to find us "responsible", NOT guilty.

zxcvbob
December 19, 2008, 01:31 AM
Once I was pulled over for speeding and they took my firearm and i had to go to the station with a bill of sale to get it back.. I didnt have a ccw but in missouri you dont need one to carry one in your vehicle, but the officers didnt know this, and was really not happy with me when i asked "how can you uphold the law when you dont even know the law"..

In other words, he committed armed robbery? (why doesn't anyone ever get the FBI involved when this happens?)

TCB in TN
December 19, 2008, 01:44 AM
My question is this, if the OP answered the question of are you armed, yes, presented his CCW permit, then why would an officer need to do a "terry frisk" to determine if he is armed? Not trying to be a smart A here, the "logic" of the situation just escapes me.

Seems like the officer just wanted an excuse to disarm the OP. Not sure what the rules are there about doing that, so it may be perfectly "legal" and probably is SOP whether legal or not, but as far a justifications go, it is a crock!

WardenWolf
December 19, 2008, 02:13 AM
It's Gilbert / Mesa. They're the ones raising a ruckus because Sheriff Joe Arpaio did a sweep for illegal immigrants in their city, even though the sheriff has jurisdiction everywhere in the county. They apparently don't think the laws apply to them.

Norinco982lover
December 19, 2008, 10:57 AM
It's pretty obvious...

An LEO cannot frisk/disarm you just because you are armed. Look:

The United
States Supreme Court has long held that an officer
may perform a protective frisk during a lawful stop
when the officer reasonably believes a person is
armed and presently dangerous to the officer or
others. In addition to the requirement that an officer
justify the initial reason for a traffic stop, in order to
conduct a Terry Frisk, a law enforcement officer is
required to further articulate the justification for
conducting the protective frisk Frisking as a matter of
routine cannot meet this standard. The sole purpose
for allowing a protective frisk is to protect the officer
and other prospective victims by neutralizing potential
weapons.

waterhouse
December 19, 2008, 11:06 AM
Exp, I read everything you wrote and I still think Terry can come into play with a traffic violation (as opposed to a criminal violation). The paper I linked to mentions that in certain criminal proceeding, (armed robbery) it is sort of assumed that the criminal is armed and dangerous, so not much is needed from the officer in terms of reasonable suspicion. It goes on to say for traffic stop, there is not the same assumption, so the officer must be able to articulate certain facts, namely the reasons they think the driver is armed and dangerous.

Everyone please read the next line: I do not believe Terry automatically comes into play after a traffic stop. I do not believe Terry automatically comes into play after a traffic stop. I always maintained that more was necessary than just a traffic stop. I was never trying to say that all that was needed was a traffic violation. I was trying to say that there are cases where a traffic violation, plus other circumstances, will make Terry come into play.

Consider the following situation. A cop pulls Mr. Smith over for speeding. This is a legal seizure.

Mr. Smith has a concealed carry permit. Mr. Smith, like many people, gets upset that he was pulled over. Without thinking, he leans over to the glove compartment to grab his registration/proof of insurance/whatever other paperwork cops usually ask for.

The cop is alone, and he sees Mr. Smith reaching around in the car. The cop gets on the PA system and tells Mr. Smith to please sit up, stay still, and place his hands where they are visible. When the cop approaches the vehicle, Mr. Smith, who has been having a really bad day already, raises his voice in a n agitated manner at the officer and says "what the hell are you worried about, hurry up and write the damn ticket. The last time a guy made me this late for something regretted it." The cop also notices a bulge under Mr. Smith's left armpit, and as Mr. Smith turns to hand him the driver license the cop thinks he sees the butt of a revolver in a shoulder holster.

I think we can all agree that it would be a pretty stupid thing to say to a cop, but at this point, the cops has made a lawful stop, for a traffic violation. The cop can articulate that Mr. Smith is agitated and has a history of making people regret things, and that he was quickly reaching around for something after the stop was made, and he can articulate reasonable suspicion that Mr. Smith is armed.

So, with only a traffic violation (no criminal violation), and reasonable suspicion that Mr. Smith is armed and presently a danger, is this enough to ask Mr. Smith to step out of the vehicle and lawfully perform a Terry frisk? Or is something else needed?

cassandrasdaddy
December 19, 2008, 11:10 AM
i can't currently find the reference(still looking) but iirc a court has allowed that being unable to get backup raises the ante enough to justify terry

waterhouse
December 19, 2008, 11:17 AM
From the link I posted earlier, and interesting read:

The Utah Supreme Court has recently made an effort to clarify the standard for determining when it is reasonable to conduct a protective frisk for weapons during the course of a traffic stop. The determination of whether there is a reasonable basis for conducting a frisk is an objective standard and the proposed justification is examined under the totality of the
circumstances.9 Having articulable or particularized suspicion means that the officer is able to point to specific facts in the particular case which, considered with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the belief that the suspect is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or others.10

The amount of evidence needed to rise to the level of articulable suspicion is no different in a traffic stop than in any other circumstance. However, some factors distinguish a traffic stop analysis from other circumstances. These factors can assist the officer, and later, the reviewing court in determining whether the articulable suspicion standard has been met.

First, the courts recognize that all traffic stops are inherently dangerous. This fact should be included in the totality of the circumstances analysis. Weighed against this factor should be any reduction in the danger inherent in a traffic stop that may result from ordering the person out of the vehicle before performing a frisk.11 Second, the officer’s subjective belief is also a factor to be considered in the totality of the circumstances used to determine if there was an objective basis for concluding that an individual sought to be frisked was armed and presently dangerous to
the officer or others. Of course, an officer’s subjective belief that a suspect may be armed, by itself will not justify a pat down Although not determinative, an officer's subjective belief may still be factored into the objective analysis. On the other hand, an officer’s lack of subjective belief that a suspect is armed will not end the inquiry. Due weight must be given, not to an officer's inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or “hunch,” but to specific reasonable inferences which an
officer is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. This process allows officers to draw upon their own experience and training to make determinations based on the cumulative facts before them that may elude an untrained person.

The appellate courts have recognized a number of circumstances that rise to the level of
articulable suspicion justifying a pat down. These include: "a sudden and otherwise inexplicable move toward a pocket or other place where a weapon may be concealed;" a failure by the suspect "to respond to the officer's directive that he remove his hands from his pocket;" "a characteristic bulge in the suspect's clothing;" "a boisterous or aggressive attitude" by the suspect; "previously obtained information that this person carried a weapon;" or something "in addition to the minor offense" to suggest there is some reason "to suspect the individual of much more serious criminal
conduct" (such as a defendant driving a car with a missing license plate, running a stop sign in an area where a burglary was recently reported, or failing to provide any identification).12

expvideo
December 19, 2008, 11:39 AM
Everyone please read the next line: I do not believe Terry automatically comes into play after a traffic stop. I do not believe Terry automatically comes into play after a traffic stop. I always maintained that more was necessary than just a traffic stop. I was never trying to say that all that was needed was a traffic violation. I was trying to say that there are cases where a traffic violation, plus other circumstances, will make Terry come into play.
I guess there was a misunderstanding, because this is the way I see it as well.

So, with only a traffic violation (no criminal violation), and reasonable suspicion that Mr. Smith is armed and presently a danger, is this enough to ask Mr. Smith to step out of the vehicle and lawfully perform a Terry frisk? Or is something else needed?
That sounds like a justified terry frisk. The officer has a reasonable suspicion that the suspect may be armed, or at least dangerous due to his harsh tone and behavior. For officer safety, asking Mr. Smith to step out of the car and quickly frisking him would be acceptable. This is only because the officer can articulate that there was some kind of suspicion that Mr. Smith might become violent and may be armed.

Great hypothetical example of how a traffic stop could lead to a terry frisk.

waterhouse
December 19, 2008, 11:44 AM
I guess there was a misunderstanding, because this is the way I see it as well.

I knew you understood, I just wanted to make sure everyone else did.

My main question with you was the quote:

A terry stop requires that the officer has reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. A speeding violation is not a crime.

I was pretty sure that there could be a Terry frisk without a criminal violation (i.e., coming from a traffic violation). I think I know what you were saying now, sometimes it is hard to get the exact point across with typing. This is what I was trying to get at in post #32.

deaconkharma
December 19, 2008, 11:21 PM
"I think anyone that files a "dumb" lawsuit should be shot on sight!! People should try to gett off there lazy azz and get a job!!"

This is a board that many (also non members) including non firearm inclined people read. Please, even though this may be tongue in cheek, don't give people any more "WYATT EARP" or "gun crazies" ideas about firearm owners just wanting to shoot people. thanks ;)

beatcop
December 20, 2008, 06:36 AM
The issue of criminality durind a traffic stop is interesting. Your State may define the traffic "stop" in a similiar manner:

Infraction - An Infraction is an offense for which the only penalty is a fine. An infraction is not a crime. You may pay your infractions or plead not guilty by mail. Infractions are described in the****** General Statutes

Violation - A Violation is an offense for which the only sentence authorized is a fine. Some violations require a court appearance; some can be paid by mail.

Old Guy
December 20, 2008, 10:00 AM
Kind of sounds like firmly lecturing a grizzly about how the salmon on the camp fire is yours and not his. It's not going to end well

Now that is funny!

Any Police Officer who approaches any person he has had an official reason to have stopped, driving any vehicle, who has not got a mind set that this could go really bad! Is in the wrong job. By the same token, you as a driver must appreciate this, and act accordingly.

Pull over mindful of the fact the Officer will have to come to your car, try to pull off the Road, out of traffic, turn engine off, keep hands in plain sight, and BE NICE! All things being equal, situation will end with no body being hurt, and the day will proceed as it should for all concerned.

Me? Stopped once in my five years in Florida, speeding, was I? Yes! motioned in to a Funeral Parlor parking area (regular traffic stop spot) Ticket given, I was in a marked Security Vehicle, no unnecessary conversation, certainly none about guns, and off I went, paid reduced ticket by mail, went to traffic class, which I enjoyed, and picked up tips on driving, a painless process, other than the cash involved.

harmonic
December 20, 2008, 10:41 AM
If an officer has reasonable suspicion that you.....are about to commit a crime (such as speeding), he can stop you.

Please tell me you're not a cop. You honestly believe if a cop suspects someone might speed, that's reasonable suspicion?

I was also going to point out that speeding is not a criminal violation, but someone beat me to it.

waterhouse
December 20, 2008, 12:52 PM
Please tell me you're not a cop. You honestly believe if a cop suspects someone might speed, that's reasonable suspicion?

Harmonic, first, please quote the whole quote, and then take it in relation to the thread as a whole. I was never a cop, but I was formerly a federal agent.

No, I am not saying that at all. Absolutely not. In fact, I don't know where you think I wrote "suspects someone might speed." Suspecting that someone might do something and having reasonable suspicion that they might do something are completely different.


Terry involves 2 parts, a legal seizure and a reasonable belief that the person is armed and a danger to the officer.

The first part, a legal seizure, takes place when and officer stops you after having reasonable suspicion that you are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a crime. This is what I was referring to. Although we can say that speeding violations are not a crime, cops can legally stop you for them, and they fall under the same subject when it comes the seizing someone.

A typical example of "about to commit" is an officer sees you pull up in front of a bank and put on a ski mask. While pulling in front of a bank and putting your ski mask on is typically not a crime, the officer, based on past experience, probably would have reasonable suspicion to believe that you are about to commit a crime and thus could legally stop you to perform a brief investigatory interview.

I cannot think of a situation where a cop could have reasonable suspicion that you were going to speed in the future. I was laying out the rules for a legal stop, not saying that cops pull people over for future speeding.

Erik
December 23, 2008, 04:58 PM
The AZ LEO in question had several options. He chose the one were he temporarily disarmed the OP and in returning the firearms made a request as to where and how to secure it. Should he have? It depends on his training, experience, and articulation of events as he perceived them.

As he perceived them...

And it does not take much, in that traffic stops are deemed inherently dangerous. An inherantly dangerous scenario, the precense of a firearm, and... something else the officer articulates. That's the bar. It is purposely set rather low.

Dbro20
December 23, 2008, 05:30 PM
A traffic stop is very dangerous for an officer, the officer asked you if you were carrying, for his protection he has the right to disarm you. He is doing this for his safety, that is the first thing an officer is concerned with. An officer has to use the back of their hands to search, if they feel that their is a weapon in your pocket they will ask you to empty your pockets. If you pull out an ounce of marijuana, the officer can use that as evidence, even if their was no knife or weapon in that pocket. The officer only needs to believe that their is a weapon, if the cop feels a cell phone or any hard object they can ask you to empty your pockets.

2nd 41
December 23, 2008, 10:42 PM
I am changing my plate.

I you're doing the right thing. Why ask for trouble. Next issue would be some A-hole will break into your car looking for something interesting.

Steve in PA
December 23, 2008, 11:50 PM
"An officer has to use the back of their hands to search........."

No they do not. However, they cannot manipulate the object.

beatcop
December 24, 2008, 07:15 AM
Dbro20-... An officer has to use the back of their hands to search, if they feel that their is a weapon in your pocket they will ask you to empty your pockets. If you pull out an ounce of marijuana, the officer can use that as evidence, even if their was no knife or weapon in that pocket. The officer only needs to believe that their is a weapon, if the cop feels a cell phone or any hard object they can ask you to empty your pockets.

Since we are talking Terry...

You pat down during a Terry "style" encounter for weapons, not evidence (drugs, contraband, etc.) The exception to the rule is "plain feel doctrine"; if you feel something and it's READILY APPARENT that that it's a dime bag, crack pipe, syringe, etc. the evidence stands.

The manner in which the search is conducted is really not an issue, the ofc may use any part of their hand they desire, or a kubotan for that matter. Out of "courtesty" to the opposite sex, most will try to avoid palming any sexual areas. The most common technique employs the knuckle-side of the hand.

As far as items in the pockets, if it feels like a phone there's really no need to remove it unless we articulate the dreaded "cell phone gun". There's a limit on the amount of "feeling" that can be used. It's a grab,grope, squeeze, not a braille reading class.

arizonaguide
December 24, 2008, 09:14 AM
If I get pulled over for a traffic stop...

I am going to keep my hands visable on the stearing wheel in plain sight when the officer comes to the vehicle. I am going to tell the officer I'm carrying and offer him my ccw automatically with my license, and ask him if he wants me to disarm.

I will then do exactly as the officer directs me to do with the weapon.
If he asks me to unload it and keep it open with the slideback, that's not too much trouble for me.
If he asks me to put it in the trunk for my trip home, or until he's gone, I will gladly do so.

It may NOT be the exact letter of the law, but if it makes one of my sworn officers comfortable for that small amount of time out of my life, I will gladly offer to do so.

I don't think that will set a bad precidence that will effect my future CCW or second amendment rights.

Remember, this is the guy that drives/runs TOWARD the gunshots fired in anger...and puts his butt on the line everyday.
If this small show of respect on my part puts him more at ease with My little traffic stop...well it's not too much to ask, for me anyway.

cassandrasdaddy
December 24, 2008, 10:01 AM
arizona guide
i couldn't agree more. and have gotten decent results from that policy. i can believe there are some cops out there that are jerks but whenever i hear of one person with multiple bad experiences i start to wonder is it the cops or someone who creates situations

Guns and more
December 24, 2008, 11:18 AM
So many jailhouse lawyers. The bottom line is: when it's you and the LEO, he is the law. He may be right or wrong, but at that time (unless you like being tasered) he is in charge. Now, after the fact, you can hire an attorney at great expense, and see how far it goes. I'm guessing most reasonable people will shut up and then lose respect for LEO's.

akodo
December 24, 2008, 03:19 PM
Waterhouse writes

Exp, I read everything you wrote and I still think Terry can come into play with a traffic violation

yes, sort of.

An officer can do an Terry search any time he/she "reasonably believes a person is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or others." This covers any lawful LEO interaction with the general public, including traffic stops.

In a traffic stop, Terry can ONLY be sued to frisk if the officer can articulate something specific that is causing him to be in fear of being harmed.

akodo
December 24, 2008, 03:22 PM
Arizonaguide writes

I will then do exactly as the officer directs me to do with the weapon.

Does this include giving it to the officer and allowing him to drive away with it, expecting you to come to the station later with a purchase recipt and 3 letters from character witnesses, notorized, saying you are a safe, upstanding citizen?

zxcvbob
December 24, 2008, 03:50 PM
Does this include giving it to the officer and allowing him to drive away with it, expecting you to come to the station later with a purchase recipt and 3 letters from character witnesses, notorized, saying you are a safe, upstanding citizen?

The thing is, you don't know when you hand it over what the conditions will be to get it back. I don't think there's a good answer to your question. You're in an untenable position when they ask (demand) that you hand it over.

Jeff White
December 24, 2008, 03:59 PM
Does this include giving it to the officer and allowing him to drive away with it, expecting you to come to the station later with a purchase recipt and 3 letters from character witnesses, notorized, saying you are a safe, upstanding citizen?

Yes it does. The side of the road is no place to argue law. You do that in the courtroom. You can be totally right about the issue you are disputing and still be convicted for obstructing justice or a similar offense. Right or wrong, on the side of the road, what the officer says goes. Hand it over, call your lawyer and win in court. You will not win on the side of the road and an attempt to could land you in a totally different kind of trouble.

arizonaguide
December 24, 2008, 05:04 PM
Does this include giving it to the officer and allowing him to drive away with it, expecting you to come to the station later with a purchase recipt and 3 letters from character witnesses, notorized, saying you are a safe, upstanding citizen?

Yeah, unfortunately it does. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.
I may not agree with the person, but I have to respect the "office" of police officer. That's our system.

Yes, there are some officers that may have a bad attitude, or not be correct on the law...but I have to follow their wishes in that Dangerous situation. Each traffic stop (to them) is one of the MOST dangerous situations a LEO can put himself in (day in/day out), and anything I can do to make him more "at ease" will be more likely to end with each other being treated with respect (and my Gun going home with me).

Having many friends and family in Law Enforcement, I realize that after a while an attitude develops in an officer that they have a hard time trusting ANYONE (civilian) outside their circle of LEO buddies. Civilians almost get "assumed" as "the enemy". Not busting on Police here(at all!), It's just the way it is, because of their jobs!

This is human nature, and survival instinct on their part. There are people that will kill them JUST because they wear the uniform...(and AT RANDOM!).

Think of it this way:
A police officer is like a soldier in Iraq, except they "fight" in the same "area of operations" (town/city) as their own family, and never really get to "go home on leave" because their AO is their home area. Bad stuff can even "follow them home"(and sometimes DOES) to their family. They have to be paranoid at all times, and they NEVER really "get a rest" from "Operational Security"!!!.

That would be exhausting and draining to me, and I'm learning that I couldn't live that way. But they DO! (and Hopefully it's because of their sense of HONOR, in the GOOD officers, at least!) Many Police Officers are killed each year in just such traffic stops, and they get a picture on a wall somewhere, and the widow gets a folded American Flag.


But, for whatever reason, our sworn and uniformed officers (yes, even including security guards, who we laugh and sell short usually as "cop wannabes" or "mall ninjas") DO live that way, day in/day out. People will kill you for no other reason than because you represent "authority"!!! (or for a set of NIKE tennis shoes, or to initiate into a gang, etc, etc, etc.)
I ALWAYS cooperate ANY way I can, and 98% of the time have good results (am sent on my way, with respect). The other 2% does suck.
:)

twoclones
December 25, 2008, 12:14 PM
When I get pulled over,(all the time) the officer always unloads my gun and asks that I leave it unloaded with the slide in the open position until I am out of his sight or he is out of mine

Wow. I've been pulled over for dead trailer lights and expired plates, etc and have NEVER had the LEO ask to even see my weapon. I once volunteered mine to a WA hiway patrolman who gave me a ride when I ran out of gas. He thanked me repeatedly and handed the loaded revolver back to me when we returned to my truck.

The one time a LEO asked me why I was carrying, I replied, "Same reason you are."

TCB in TN
December 27, 2008, 05:11 AM
t may NOT be the exact letter of the law, but if it makes one of my sworn officers comfortable for that small amount of time out of my life, I will gladly offer to do so.

I don't think that will set a bad precidence that will effect my future CCW or second amendment rights.

Remember, this is the guy that drives/runs TOWARD the gunshots fired in anger...and puts his butt on the line everyday.
If this small show of respect on my part puts him more at ease with My little traffic stop...well it's not too much to ask, for me anyway.

Sorry, cant agree with far to much here. I have no desire for any officer to be harmed. Happen to have both family, and life long friends in the LE business. But I am not going through life to make someone else comfortable. I am a citizen, and as such I have the right to be just as "comfortable" as anyone else, that include a LEO. I will not put my legally carried weapon in the trunk for the ride home. I will if ordered put my weapon in the trunk until the officer takes off.

Now if I was treated in an unfair manner, then I would be on my cell phone to the particular agency requesting the proper complaint forms before the officer got out of sight. Were the officer to TAKE my legally carried weapon, then I would be requesting a supervisor on the scene immediately, and would be having my lawyer meeting me there. If at the end of the day I felt my rights were infringed upon then I would be taking the officer to court as fast as my lawyers little fingers could write up the papers.

Lastly I know even less about the officer pulling me over then he knows about me. He can find out my date of birth, driving record, Carry permit information, where I live, phone info, family records, and I am sure a host of other information in only a few seconds. If he doesn't think he can trust me, then why pray tell should I be trusting him. We have seen the statistics on here time and time again that permit holders have lower crime rate than officers, and so why would I feel more comfortable with him then he does with me?

BTW I have pulled articles in the past for many small towns and have seen LOTS of dirt on officers that work there. Nothing magical about putting on a LE uniform. Officers are just people too. Some good, some bad, some that are just somewhere in between. An officer's safety is less of my concern than my own. Sorry if you don't agree.

arizonaguide
December 27, 2008, 06:52 AM
Think of it this way:
A police officer is like a soldier in a war zone, except they "fight" in the same "area of operations" (town/city) as their own family, and never really get to "go home on leave". They HAVE to be paranoid...even "at home"...that's 24/7/365!!! Think about it!

Each traffic stop (to them) is one of the MOST dangerous situations a LEO can put himself in (day in/day out), and anything I can do to make him more "at ease" will be more likely to end with each other being treated with respect, and good results.

It's about both of our comfort levels, and working through a difficult situation using dignity and respect towards a positive end for both parties.

Yes, even if I was treated in a slightly "unfair manner", (rookie, perhaps? even a jerk maybe) I try to give them a lot of leeway, because this is human nature, and survival instinct on their part. To the point of Danger, NO...but to the point of my mild "discomfort", heck yeah!

I see no reason to cause a fuss or get lawyers involved if it's a mild annoyance situation (and yes, even including a trip to the station...I might even make some new friends). They (and their families) risk SO much for you and I.

Nothing magical about putting on a LE uniform. Officers are just people too. Some good, some bad
All true, but they still stand between you and I, and the dirtbags of the world...and so they get extra respect and cooperation from ME!
The LAST thing I'm gonna do is get a defensive attitude...likely that will NOT end well.

If it's a "jerk" or perhaps someone who's had a hard day...I'll try (gentle) humor...and usually the "jerk" part disappears, and is quickly replaced by a human being.

If that don't work (and usually it DOES!), I'll still cooperate, and then press on...with as much cooperation/little resistance as possible. As someone said above "The side of the road is no place to argue law", and in the "short term" you will lose.
"Officer Discression" can work for you, or against you, usually based on your attitude!

TCB in TN
December 27, 2008, 06:11 PM
All true, but they still stand between you and I, and the dirtbags of the world...and so they get extra respect and cooperation from ME!
The LAST thing I'm gonna do is get a defensive attitude...likely that will NOT end well.

No they don't. They do not stand between you and anyone else. LEO are there to pick up the pcs. Again I have family in the business and to be honest I rode along as a reserve here local for a short time. They are there to take notes, pictures, file a report, and occasionally arrest someone. I happen to appreciate the service. I happen to admire the courage that many display, and feel that they are paid far less than they deserve, but they are not there to stand between us and evil. And that is not just my opinion, I have case law backing me up on that!

arizonaguide
December 27, 2008, 06:20 PM
You may have a point there TCB.
Perhaps I'm brainwashed by too much TV, and what I "want" to believe.

I was also for sometime wanting to be a policeman, then after seeing some of the stuff with my LEO relatives(not using car seats for their children, etc), and riding along (as yourself) with law enforcement I was disillusioned. It's a Little thing, I know...but it does speak volumes.

Then after learning about the whole "all civilians are ____" attitude I kinda realized that it wasn't exactly about "helping people". Again, I'm not busting on LEO here, just speaking about the nature of the job from what I've seen.

So you may have some valid points TCB, and I probably just try (perhaps blindly) "to keep a positive attitude" and give each the benefit of the doubt (as being the exception) when I have to deal with them. I ran into a good one yesterday, in fact...who took the "reality" of the situation into acount, and gave me some "officer discretion" in my favor...on a traffic issue. It was Coming home from a "Cabella's" nightmare, with my pistol on the front seat that I had intended to trade in at Cabella's.
Never will I shop at the gun counter at Cabella's again! :barf:

The whole trip was a nightmare, but that's another story. He was one of the "good ones"...but I gave good attitude to start with.

aehall10
December 27, 2008, 06:45 PM
I am a lawyer and a police officer, so I'll offer my 2 cents worth. I also live in California, however, so everything I say is probably a little suspect. :rolleyes: As a LEO, an attorney, a member of the NRA and a gun collector, I have an interest in gun rights from a variety of perspectives.

Waterhouse has done a very good job of articulating case law. I agree with his legal analysis. Because we are discussing case law, however, it is good to remember that case law (interpretation of the law) is never quite set in stone. There may always be some distinguishing feature in the facts of each case. This is, in fact, how case law evolves. It is important for us to keep this in mind because case law is settled, if ever, long after an event occurs. Police officers apply evolving case law, as best as they understand it, to the unique circumstances of each case.

So without going into a long discussion of this event, I would say the officer was reasonable in disarming you for the duration of the traffic stop, to ensure his own safety. Indeed, I have surrendered my own weapon to an officer during a traffic stop, as have other officers to me.

In California, as in most states, speeding is an infraction and a violation of law. It may be a minor violation of the law, but a violation nonetheless. I'm not sure of the law in Arizona regarding this issue.

Even so, the manner by which the "disarming"was done in this case seems a bit more heavy-handed than necessary. CCW holders, generally speaking, are pleasant and law-abiding folk. Had the officer simply said he wanted to hold your weapon for safekeeping during the duration of the car-stop, I'm certain it would not have seemed so intrusive. This is particularly true, as Cassandrasdaddy points out, if the officer is alone.

All of the above being said, and all of the below being recognized as a vigorous and healthy discussion of an issue that would probably get a split vote by the Supreme Court (as did Terry, by the way), I would like to thank you for raising the issue and debating it. I found it thought provoking and will share it with others.

There you go. Barely worth 2 cents.

TCB in TN
December 27, 2008, 07:54 PM
ou may have a point there TCB.
Perhaps I'm brainwashed by too much TV, and what I "want" to believe.

I was also for sometime wanting to be a policeman, then after seeing some of the stuff with my LEO relatives(not using car seats for their children, etc), and riding along (as yourself) with law enforcement I was disillusioned. It's a Little thing, I know...but it does speak volumes.

Then after learning about the whole "all civilians are ____" attitude I kinda realized that it wasn't exactly about "helping people". Again, I'm not busting on LEO here, just speaking about the nature of the job from what I've seen.

So you may have some valid points TCB, and I probably just try (perhaps blindly) "to keep a positive attitude" and give each the benefit of the doubt (as being the exception) when I have to deal with them. I ran into a good one yesterday, in fact...who took the "reality" of the situation into acount, and gave me some "officer discretion" in my favor...on a traffic issue. It was Coming home from a "Cabella's" nightmare, with my pistol on the front seat that I had intended to trade in at Cabella's.
Never will I shop at the gun counter at Cabella's again!

The whole trip was a nightmare, but that's another story. He was one of the "good ones"...but I gave good attitude to start with.

I seriously thought about becoming a LEO as well. I have watched as very, very good officers were cussed and ridiculed for doing their job, and watched them behave in a respectful, professional manner. I have watched a couple of cowboy officers who really scared me, as well. My main concern is the mentality about an officer having a bad day. We talk a lot on here about the responsibility of those of us who conceal carry, and yet some of those same people will give just about ANY LEO a pass on improper behavior just because of the badge. My cousin (who is a THP officer) made the statement that bad cops are worse than criminals. They not only break the law, the break the publics trust. (He happens to be one officer I greatly admire.) I also have a good friend on the TBI who I have heard make very similar comments. I want to thank all of you good LEOs out there for you service. I am NOT anti LEO, I am very much anti BAD LEO, Power Tripping LEO, and the US against them LEO.

aehall10
December 27, 2008, 08:37 PM
You're cousin is right. LEO authority is derived from a grant of power given to them by the people. It only works so long as the people trust in law enforcement to do what's right. That trust is sacred and every good officer will treat it as such.

arizonaguide
December 27, 2008, 08:42 PM
I seriously thought about becoming a LEO as well. I have watched as very, very good officers were cussed and ridiculed for doing their job, and watched them behave in a respectful, professional manner. I have watched a couple of cowboy officers who really scared me, as well. My main concern is the mentality about an officer having a bad day. We talk a lot on here about the responsibility of those of us who conceal carry, and yet some of those same people will give just about ANY LEO a pass on improper behavior just because of the badge. My cousin (who is a THP officer) made the statement that bad cops are worse than criminals. They not only break the law, the break the publics trust. (He happens to be one officer I greatly admire.) I also have a good friend on the TBI who I have heard make very similar comments. I want to thank all of you good LEOs out there for you service. I am NOT anti LEO, I am very much anti BAD LEO, Power Tripping LEO, and the US against them LEO.

Yup, What he said! +1!!! I always start with a good attitude(and try to keep it at all costs), but even some of the time you get those "other" LEO's. Then I just shut-up, and pray.

Then after learning about the whole "all civilians are ____" attitude I kinda realized that it wasn't exactly about "helping people". Again, I'm not busting on LEO here, just speaking about the nature of the job from what I've seen.

The "us-vs-them" is what I saw a lot of, and that's what turned me off to it. I'm not sure there's a solution to that either.
It may be the nature of the 24/7/365 type job.:scrutiny: (I still have to respect that! I couldn't do it!)

I was told (by several officers) if I want to be liked and help people to become a Fireman! So it's Search-and-Rescue work for me.

KimKommando
December 28, 2008, 01:19 AM
Laws vary from state to state and agencies have different policies, which if they can defend then in court, makes what they do legal. I do not agree with it, but I understand it. I think there have been too many officers killed on "routine" stops for them not to want to protect themselves. We all want to go home to our families at the end of the night. I have been in TX, FL, NC, VA, SC, AL, and have NEVER had an officer ask me to step out of the car on a infraction and disarm me. I informed the officer that I carry CCH and hand over my permit and license and that's that. Never had an issue. And I have been stopped by locals and troopers, alike.

If you enjoyed reading about "AZ: LEO disarming CCW Civil" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!