Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

[brboyer]

[snip]


the op volunteered he was armed the dangerous part is a judgment call. good luck getting the court to get all antsy in a case where all that happened was being disarmed for the duration of the stop with no other charges . likewise goodluck getting them to specify exactly how the cop should disarm someone

Dangerous - Is that a judgement call, yep. One that requires the officer to articulate probable cause/reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot - not simply because it's department policy; the guns scares me; the driver might be a felon, bla bla bla.

Few courts would agree that the driver of a car that, during a stop for a traffic violation (not a criminal investigation), voluntarily disclosed the presence of a lawfully owned/carried firearm would provide sufficient evidence that the driver was "Dangerous".

goodluck getting them to specify exactly how the cop should disarm someone

Perhaps, but if I was his supervisor I would certainly knock his butt -- <Sam> in the dirt for being so stupid and reckless. Then apologize to the complaitant and then have proper search/seizure and lawful firearms carry classes for all of my officers. The Board of County Commissioners really, really, hates 1983 lawsuits.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Perhaps the clearest illustrations of this point are the recent Supreme Court cases that define the authority of officers to use force while effecting arrests or other seizures of persons under the fourth amendment.(2) In these cases, the Court has emphasized that any assessment of an officer's use of force in such circumstances must be "...judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight," while making "...allowance...for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly-evolving...."(3) A recent Federal court of appeals decision characterized the Supreme Court's approach to this issue in these words:

...the Supreme Court's standard of reasonableness is comparatively generous to the police in cases where potential danger, emergency conditions or other exigent circumstances are present....the [Court] intends to surround the police who make these on-the-spot choices in dangerous situations with a fairly wide zone of protection in close cases.(4)

 

[divemedic]

Well, we are going circular here, so I leave the discussion with these observations:

1 The police here engaged in an unreasonable search when they disarmed him (that one is arguable) and when they entered his trunk (that one is more obvious)

2 The running of the serial number has been ruled to be permissible by the SCOTUS, as long as the LEO is lawfully in possession of the weapon

3 You will not win a lawsuit based solely on the search above, but you may get criminal evidence excluded in a trial.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The running of the serial number has been ruled to be permissible by the SCOTUS, as long as the LEO is lawfully in possession of the weapon

I still disagree with this statement, and so do many others.

I'll borrow the following from another poster who I have a great amount of respect for. This is from another board so I won't post his name, but it's worth reading. I hope he wont' mind. I can't find a flaw in this line, but I'm tired of the going in circles. People will have to decide for themselves.

1. Person is stopped for speeding or running a stop sign.

2. Cop asks if there are weapons. Reply is yes.

3. US Supreme Court has ruled cop may disarm for safety during an official detainment arising out of RAS of a crime (or infraction) being committed. So officer disarms subject. Completely allowed. We have both RAS of the infraction and RAS of the presence of a weapon.

4. At this point, IF there is a license required to carry a firearm in the manner that it was being carried, certainly the officer may request and validate such license just as the officer is going to request and validate the license to drive.

5. The officer has NO reasonable nor articulable suspicion that the firearm is stolen. And yet he takes SPECIFIC ACTION in order to obtain evidence that the firearm is stolen. He is going BEYOND THE SCOPE of the original search and seizure, which was to temporarily seize the firearm ONLY for the purpose of OFFICER SAFETY.

6. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Knowles v. Iowa, specifically during traffic stops, that such actions to seek evidence of additional crimes not related to the traffic stop are unconstitutional.

This has gone circular though, with many people of the belief that cops can do whatever they want in the name of safety and we all just have to take it. And, as long as occasionally the cops let us off without a ticket that should be considered good enough compensation for the rights violations.

Strikes me as bizarre, but it seems to be the most commonly held belief.

I'm done.

 

[Sam1911]

Seeing as everyone seems to be coming to the "circular" conclusion, I'll turn out the lights.

It's been a great discussion, though. My personal thanks to all for expending so much effort in legal research and development of the arguments.