Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

[Straight Shooter]

The old "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" comes to mind

I agree with that.

Eighth Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

A life-long loss of your rights, in some cases, is excessive, IMO.

 

[Leaky Waders]

Hmmm...I actually read all 12 pages of this stuff.

I side with the cop.

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the law, but I am in the military and have been to several combat deployments and have known people who did not come back.

It's a normal day, just like every other day...then something bad happens. Many people question the what if's and such afterwards. It sucks.

The likelihood of a plumber being killed at work, or someone delivering copy paper is much lower than the police or EMT's etc who work the streets. The non-police families don't worry every late shift for 20 plus years.

The poster is only sharing one side of the scenario. For some reason, the cop's spider sense was tingling and he did his best to safely defuse the situation for his safety and the safety of the person pulled over. He checked things out and then sent the person on their way with a warning despite them being in error for a driving infraction.

I don't have a CCW. But the few times I've been pulled over to be checked by a gamewarden or something I've told them what kind of firearm I had and where it was even before they even knew my name. They never asked to even look at them. Just checked my license or whatever and said good day.

I think...and who am I...that a CCW doesn't let you carry your weapon anywhere/anytime you want - there are some restrictions: bars, churches, schools etc iirc.

I would think from a common sense perspective that if an officer thought someone looked a little too young to own a handgun, or too nervous in a situation that shouldn't be so nervous, or other situations were going on in/near the area that a stop was made and the person could be involved then no one should fault an officer from using common sense and good judgement as was displayed in the op.

Look at it this way...if it were 2 am and someone was changing a flat tire on the side of a deserted road with an 870 propped against their leg...would you feel comfortable stopping with all guards down? Or, would you prefer them to put their shotgun up while youo had your back to them helping change a tire? Or would you just drive on by?

L.W.

 

[brboyer]

Hmmm...I actually read all 12 pages of this stuff.

I side with the cop.

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the law, but I am in the military and have been to several combat deployments and have known people who did not come back.

It's a normal day, just like every other day...then something bad happens. Many people question the what if's and such afterwards. It sucks.

The likelihood of a plumber being killed at work, or someone delivering copy paper is much lower than the police or EMT's etc who work the streets. The non-police families don't worry every late shift for 20 plus years.

The poster is only sharing one side of the scenario. For some reason, the cop's spider sense was tingling and he did his best to safely defuse the situation for his safety and the safety of the person pulled over. He checked things out and then sent the person on their way with a warning despite them being in error for a driving infraction.

I don't have a CCW. But the few times I've been pulled over to be checked by a gamewarden or something I've told them what kind of firearm I had and where it was even before they even knew my name. They never asked to even look at them. Just checked my license or whatever and said good day.

I think...and who am I...that a CCW doesn't let you carry your weapon anywhere/anytime you want - there are some restrictions: bars, churches, schools etc iirc.

I would think from a common sense perspective that if an officer thought someone looked a little too young to own a handgun, or too nervous in a situation that shouldn't be so nervous, or other situations were going on in/near the area that a stop was made and the person could be involved then no one should fault an officer from using common sense and good judgement as was displayed in the op.

Look at it this way...if it were 2 am and someone was changing a flat tire on the side of a deserted road with an 870 propped against their leg...would you feel comfortable stopping with all guards down? Or, would you prefer them to put their shotgun up while youo had your back to them helping change a tire? Or would you just drive on by?

L.W.

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the law

Perhaps you should study it then.

The poster is only sharing one side of the scenario. For some reason, the cop's spider sense was tingling and he did his best to safely defuse the situation for his safety and the safety of the person pulled over. He checked things out and then sent the person on their way with a warning despite them being in error for a driving infraction

While violating his Constitutionally protected right, that is unacceptable. Disarming the driver did not in any ay make him safer, just the opposite.

no one should fault an officer from using common sense and good judgement as was displayed in the op.

Violating some one's Constitutionally protected rights is wrong in any situation.

Look at it this way...if it were 2 am and someone was changing a flat tire on the side of a deserted road with an 870 propped against their leg...would you feel comfortable stopping with all guards down? Or, would you prefer them to put their shotgun up while youo had your back to them helping change a tire? Or would you just drive on by?

This just silly, only a fool would drop their guard around any unknown, for any reason, firearm or not. A prudent person will insure their safety at all times. In a lawful manner.

Policing is dangerous work. If you cannot do it without breaking the law, do something else.

 

[ChaoSS]

I am very glad that a convicted armed robber who was just released from prison last week can not go into True Value hardware and pick up a full auto MP5 with nothing more than a smile and some cash. That is logical and realistic firearm legislation to me. I would find it odd that anyone would think him being able to do so would not cause them any concern.

I'm more concerned that the armed robber is getting out of prison at all.

You see, that's the difference between you antigunners and us pro second amendment folks. You see the problem as easy access to guns. I see the problem as the system being soft on crime. There once was a time when those who went around sticking their guns in people's noses and robbing them were given long drop with a short rope. To me, that is logical and realistic legislation.

Anyway, why does it concern you that the man could go down and pick up the MP5? Criminals obviously have no problems getting their hands on firearms, wouldn't it be better if we could get them easily too?

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

it's subjective.

that officer was just being cautious---some might say overly cautious. he just wants to go home at the end of the night. how would you handle the same scenario? most officers will not disarm you like that, but some do. some states require you to inform the officer, and some don't. check your local laws.

what he did is not illegal, and frankly, who cares? he gave it back right?


i'm sure there are members that will strongly disagree with my post, as they don't like "the man" taking their heaters. even if only for a minute.

 

[Polar Express]

It's late, and I did get through the first 5 pages of posts. I do want to finish this thread but I will do so tomorrow.

Some have pointed out that the officers do not always know the law accuratly. The problem arrises when they don't, but think they do.

Based on the details of the account given by the opening poster; Unless my lawyer was sitting in the passenger seat, I think I would have complied at the time. I certainly would be filing a complaint with the department.

Ticket or not, warning or not, Police officers, Peace officers, Patrolmen, Troopers or whatever they refer to themselves as, should not violate our rights.

I'm a fireman, we work side by side at accident scenes, assaults, etc, and we view each other as family most of the time. But, even family can be wrong. And while it pains me to think of this concept, as one poster already wrote, the lives of a few police officers (or firemen as well) are less important that the rights of a Nation's people.

I can remember when I was 22 years old, I got pulled over by an exuberant County Sheriff. He thought I was peeling out, when in fact it was the two rice-burners in front of me that were racing. He removed me from my vehicle, took my sidearm (I had my current permit), and when he returned, he took issue that it was not registered in my name. He claimed that I was "required to register it in my name". As a 22 YO kid, I'm not in a position argue with a Sheriff deputy on the side of the road. I was saved more hassles by a more urgent call on his radio. It didn't help that I was a foot taller than he was, and had 40 lbs of muscle on him.

We must fight to keep our rights. But, we also must pick the occasion. If I have a law firm on retainer and deep pockets, I can "push back" against right violations differently than if I don't. I would hope the opening poster will educate, and arm himself with facts, and file a formal complaint. Even if the officer was within his legal authority (I don't belive he was, based on the story), his methods were unsafe, and he needs to be educated. Also, profiling is real. I am 35, I dress my age, and speak respectfully and articulately. But, people routinely guess my age around 25. So, if I LOOK like a kid or young adult, right or wrong, the fact of human nature is that a cop is likley going to view me differently than if I look 55.

So, in summary, I sure hope the OP'er will decide to file a formal complaint, and lawfully pursue the issue. Frankly, our 'cause' needs him too. Do I blame him for his actions in the 'heat of the moment'? No, I don't. I wasn't there to view all the intangeables of a scenario like that.

I do not wish ill on the police officer in this event. In fact, I wish him and his family a long lifetime, full of health and happiness. I wish the same for the OP'er. But more importantly, I wish all of us Freedom.

PE

 

[Gouranga]

Personally, I would not take issue with what he did. I would have seen it as him just doing what he THOUGHT would make the situation safer. He may have had what he felt was reasonable suspicion to think you were doing something else. Maybe you met the description of someone. When he pulled you over, disarmed you and determined through the course of events you were not who you said you were, he realized he disarmed an innocent person, and let you go with a warning on the moving violation. Just a complete guess but an angle you may not have considered.

That being said, this is America. If you feel an authority has violated your rights, I would definitely file a complaint against him. As much as I can understand the cops side, I also realize we cannot sit back and allow freedoms to be whittled away. If you feel your rights were violated, I would file that complaint.

Another option some departments will work with, chat with his chief, before filing a formal complaint, sit down with the chief, tell him/her you concern, ask him to bring in the officer and you can civilly chat on it. Keeps the paperwork to a minimum and you may educate the officer on 2 points (1. CCW is NOT his enemy, and 2. He may learn something additional on the laws around disarming law abiding citizens.). The chief may just shoot you down on that proposal, in which case I would file the complaint.

 

[Deanimator]

what he did is not illegal, and frankly, who cares? he gave it back right?

Really?

I wonder what the odds are of me here in Ohio going into a Chipotle either openly carrying or with a concealed firearm that gets exposed, eating a meal without bothering anyone in any way, and having a cop say, "Who cares if it's illegal, he didn't hurt anybody."

This idea that police not only don't need to know the law, but that they don't need to OBEY it will be the destruction of this country, at least as we know it.

 

[PandaBearBG]

Leaky Waders, I agree with you and you basicly said what I wanted to say without butchering the basic point I was expressing and getting things too hot and off topic. My personal experiences, my local crime rates, my own opinions, I think the cop was just doing his job and I still do not feel violated.

Personally if 5 minutes of your time is worth a cops peace of mind and perhaps the same procedure down the road with another individual might save his life, I have no problem with it. I think they put it out of reach in the backseat or trunk for safety reasons when they walk back to their patrol car because their back is towards you, nobody wants to get shot in the back. There's nothing saying you cannot get out of your car and retrieve your firearm before you pull away. I don't see 5 minutes without your firearm in your possession while your next to a patrol car with lights blazing a particularly dangerous situation, especially if the officer was kind enough to give you a freebie on the ticket.

 

[unloved]

I think...and who am I...that a CCW doesn't let you carry your weapon anywhere/anytime you want - there are some restrictions: bars, churches, schools etc iirc.

Most of those restrictions don't exist here in PA, where the incident described by the OP took place. It's perfectly legal for me to carry my weapon into bars, churches, and etc..

 

[Deanimator]

Personally if 5 minutes of your time is worth a cops peace of mind

When I don't want to leave my firearm in the car when I eat at a nice restaurant, NOBODY, least of all cops, cares about my "peace of mind".

When I don't want to leave my firearm in the car when I check my mail late at night at the Post Office, NOBODY least of all cops, cares about my "peace of mind".

When I can't have a gun AT ALL when I'm chauffeuring my relatives around the south side of Chicago late on Christmas night, NOBODY least of all cops, cares about my "peace of mind".

Explain again, why that cop's "peace of mind" when he's dealing with somebody who's passed a background check trumps my peace of mind when I'm driving down Stony Island after midnight, totally unarmed?

 

[ChaoSS]

what he did is not illegal, and frankly, who cares? he gave it back right?

Really? So it is now legal for a police officer to perform multiple illegal searches without probable cause or a warrant?

Who cares? I'd say the millions of men and women who died to protect our freedom in the past would care.

 

[bababooey32]

multiple illegal searches

Well, since the driver TOLD him there was a firearm, at which point the officer has the option to disarm (according to Texas law, at least). Precisely where did the illegal search occur? I believe on a traffic stop, anything the officer can see in plain view (including a CCL) is fair game and not considered an illegal search.

I think the officer was within his rights to do what he did. I'd much prefer that police didn't do this routinely, but we don't know the whole situation. A series of armed robberies in the area, for example could cause officers to treat this situation differently (and rightfully so, in my opinion). Trying to extrapolate this instance to big brother/jackbooted thug type rhetoric is a bit melodramatic. We give the police some leeway to protect themselves while they do their work - I am OK with that.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Precisely where did the illegal search occur? I believe on a traffic stop, anything the officer can see in plain view (including a CCL) is fair game and not considered an illegal search.

It is not legal to run the serial number on a gun to see if it is stolen unless there is reasonable cause to believe it's stolen.

A legally licensed concealed permit holder's simply having a firearm would never pass that "reasonable" test.

So no, the officer was not well within his legal rights, if he did in fact run the numbers against a stolen gun database (which is unknown at this point other than the OP's guess).

officer has the option to disarm (according to Texas law, at least)

Same problem. Officers in Texas do not have an open option to disarm. They may disarm if they have a reasonable cause to believe it is safer. The mere presence of a firearm shouldn't pass that test.

We give the police some leeway to protect themselves while they do their work - I am OK with that.

Do you have a limit to how much leeway you will give? Where is that line for you? Violating the 4th Amendment doesn't cross it for you, so what does? Not arguing, it's a serious question. Many in this thread are OK with this 4th Amendment violation, and that's certainly their right, but when does it get too much?

Is it OK to violate that 4th Amendment right as long as there is a happy ending? That basically seems to be what people are saying.

What if the gun were purchased in a private transaction by the OP and it came up stolen in the gun database? Or a serial number entered wrong (that's happened before too). There would be an arrest and booking guaranteed, at the very least.

Would you be OK if things had played out that way? Hiring a lawyer, spending a night or 2 in jail, having to defend against a charge like this because your rights were violated? Is it OK then too?

 

[Deanimator]

We give the police some leeway to protect themselves while they do their work - I am OK with that.

That "leeway" doesn't trump the 4th and 5th Amendments, regardless of what they may think or want.

 

[gearhead]

it's subjective.

that officer was just being cautious---some might say overly cautious. he just wants to go home at the end of the night. how would you handle the same scenario? most officers will not disarm you like that, but some do. some states require you to inform the officer, and some don't. check your local laws.

what he did is not illegal, and frankly, who cares? he gave it back right?


i'm sure there are members that will strongly disagree with my post, as they don't like "the man" taking their heaters. even if only for a minute.

If I were a LEO and I weren’t on some sort of fishing expedition I would follow normal protocol. I would run the plate and if it came back clean I would approach cautiously while using my training and skills of observation to look for anything threatening or suspicious. If informed of a weapon or if presented with a CWP I would ask where the weapon was located, and I would retreat to my vehicle to run the license, registration, and CWP. IF (and here’s where I would have a significant difference with the actions of the officer in the OP’s case) I thought I had reasonable suspicion that the stop was more than just a routine traffic stop (car or subject fit a description, I thought I witnessed something suspicious, etc.) THEN I would have the subject step out of the car so that I could assess the subject and neutralize any situation through detaining/disarming the subject. In the OP’s case the LEO trusted the subject enough to believe his answer as to where his weapon was located for the purpose of entering the vehicle to disarm him, why wouldn’t he believe the subject’s answer as to where the weapon was located for purposes of keeping an eye on the subject to ensure he didn’t reach for the weapon at some point during the stop? If the LEO was truly concerned for his own safety he could simply have instructed the subject to keep both hands outside the window.

If the officer has no PC or reasonable suspicion, he protects himself much more by simply returning to his vehicle to run the paperwork while not turning his back to the subject than he “protected himself” by entering the subject’s car to disarm him. As long as he’s vigilant and follows his training and protocol he’s much more safe in his own vehicle with the (legally) armed subject in HIS vehicle than he made himself by entering the subject’s vehicle.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, since the driver TOLD him there was a firearm, at which point the officer has the option to disarm (according to Texas law, at least).

I know this point is wholly irrelevant in most gun-law discussions but this didn't happen in TX.

Precisely where did the illegal search occur? I believe on a traffic stop, anything the officer can see in plain view (including a CCL) is fair game and not considered an illegal search.

Further, the officer entered the O.P.'s car -- twice -- without consent. Both of those would appear to qualify as "fishing expeditions" as we like to call them.

Even further, IF he ran the numbers, which PSP officers have a bad repuatation for doing, then he needs to have reasonable suspicion that the gun is stolen. Can't just do that as a matter of routine.

 

[bababooey32]

Explain again, why that cop's "peace of mind" when he's dealing with somebody who's passed a background check trumps my peace of mind when I'm driving down Stony Island after midnight, totally unarmed?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you are asking why LEOs are given leeway to restrain, search, pull over and otherwise interrupt your law-abiding day, then I submit we are onto a different topic. LEOs, unlike private citizens, have a job description that includes seeking out and interacting with people that have [allegedly] broken some law. Because of this, society has decided that we should provide these officers with some leeway to protect themselves from people that have no regard for the law. (BTW, the OP had apparently begun this interaction by violating multiple traffic laws).

A LEO approaches a traffic stop knowing nothing about the occupants. before even talking to the driver he assesses movements in the car, he approaches, with lights in your mirrors so you can't see him, and looks into your car with a flashlight to detect any contraband or suspicious movements in the rear. When talking to you, he really doesn't care if you "knew that your were speeding", he is reading your body language and assessing your tone and speech patterns for nervous ticks or "tells". When you open your wallet and he sees a CCL, it seems reasonable to me that he ask if you have a weapon. When you say yes, he calculates his risk based on everything he has seen up to that point. If the bell goes "ding", he may wish to proceed with you unarmed.

Society has given him the leeway to proceed in that manner, because there is value in having officers on the street who can operate without fear of getting jumped while interacting with scum. We all may agree that OP is definitely not scum, but all the officer knows is that he has pulled over someone who violated multiple traffic laws and has declared a weapon.

I'm OK with his actions.

 

[Deanimator]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you are asking why LEOs are given leeway to restrain, search, pull over and otherwise interrupt your law-abiding day, then I submit we are onto a different topic. LEOs, unlike private citizens, have a job description that includes seeking out and interacting with people that have [allegedly] broken some law. Because of this, society has decided that we should provide these officers with some leeway to protect themselves from people that have no regard for the law. (BTW, the OP had apparently begun this interaction by violating multiple traffic laws).

The idea that somebody's "peace of mind" trumps the 4th or 5th Amendment is simply ludicrous.

A cop's "peace of mind" allegedly counts for more than the legal rights of somebody who's already passed a background investigation, yet MY "peace of mind" counts for NOTHING when I'm forced to live, work or travel in high crime locations, ABSOLUTELY DEFENSELESS.

Any LEO who thinks that his job makes it too dangerous to abide by the Bill of Rights, should find alternate employment forthwith.

We all may agree that OP is definitely not scum, but all the officer knows is that he has pulled over someone who violated multiple traffic laws and has declared a weapon.

That motorist doesn't know that LEO any better than vice versa. I've been in a car stopped for NO reason, other than a pretext which I absolutely knew to be untrue. If an LEO makes up a reason to stop me, should he still get to disarm me for his "peace of mind"?

 

[ChaoSS]

Well, since the driver TOLD him there was a firearm, at which point the officer has the option to disarm (according to Texas law, at least). Precisely where did the illegal search occur? I believe on a traffic stop, anything the officer can see in plain view (including a CCL) is fair game and not considered an illegal search.

Anything he could see when he opened the door and crawled into the car, that he couldn't see from the outside, constituted an illegal search. Anything he saw in the trunk constituted an illegal search (unless the OP offered to open it). Anything he saw when he opened the gun to unload it constituted an illegal search. Running the numbers on the gun constituted an illegal search. Hell, if he didn't have legal reason to take the gun, simply removing it, exposing the inside of the holster, constituted an illegal search.

I think the officer was within his rights to do what he did.

He exceeded his legal authority, so no, he most certainly did not have the right to do what he did, any more than you or I would have had the right to do that to the OP.

I'd much prefer that police didn't do this routinely, but we don't know the whole situation. A series of armed robberies in the area, for example could cause officers to treat this situation differently (and rightfully so, in my opinion). Trying to extrapolate this instance to big brother/jackbooted thug type rhetoric is a bit melodramatic. We give the police some leeway to protect themselves while they do their work - I am OK with that.

We don't give them leeway at all. We give them certain powers that the average citizen does not have, and we give them rules to follow in the carrying out of their duties. There is no leeway, any deviation from those rules or extensions of their powers that are not legally authorized should be treated as criminal acts, just as if you or I did it.


As for that tripe about how you don't know the circumstances, I don't care. I've been harassed and illegally arrested by the police, if I get pulled over do I suddenly have the right to disarm and search the police, for my own protection?

 

[unloved]

...but all the officer knows is that he has pulled over someone who violated multiple traffic laws...

Just since it keeps being mentioned, I thought I'd point out that any traffic violations the OP may have committed are summary offenses. Not evidence that he's a violent LEO murderer.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

I wonder what the odds are of me here in Ohio going into a Chipotle either openly carrying or with a concealed firearm that gets exposed, eating a meal without bothering anyone in any way, and having a cop say, "Who cares if it's illegal, he didn't hurt anybody."

your analogy makes no sense. what the officer in the OP did was not illegal. however, what you are comparing it to is.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

Really? So it is now legal for a police officer to perform multiple illegal searches without probable cause or a warrant?

again, incorrect analogy.

so, you believe that a LE officer securing a pistol for his own safety, once revealed to him by the carrier, is illegal?

does that make sense to you?

it's simply a cop being extra cautious for his own safety, while not breaking any laws, and not violating the CPL carrier's rights in any way. nothing to get broken up about.

 

[TexasRifleman]

so, you believe that a LE officer securing a pistol for his own safety, once revealed to him by the carrier, is illegal?

does that make sense to you?

It is illegal to run the numbers, if he did so. That's why the OP has been encouraged to file an FOIA request and find out.

That's up to him.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

Further, the officer entered the O.P.'s car -- twice -- without consent. Both of those would appear to qualify as "fishing expeditions" as we like to call them.

the OP mentioned no "fishing expedition". the officer simply entered the car to disarm him safely.

there's no mention of search, or the officer looking for anything else by the OP.