AZ: LEO disarming CCW Civil

[rjewell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

could someone self police and clean this up a little?

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.