Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

[brboyer]

Originally Posted by Phatty
Thanks. Being from Illinois, I'm not familiar with PA law.

I'm from Florida and I [and every other reasonable person] completely understood his post.

There, I fixed it for you.

So, since you did not understand, are you implying that you are not reasonable

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cassandrasdaddy
funny they run everygun they handle here. what law are they breaking? got a case law reference? or is this just on the internet
If I (being a non police civilian) were to take your gun away from you for my own safety, would that be ok?

Police do not have some sort of magic pass card when it comes to the law. They are bound by the same laws as the rest of us, excepting specific powers that they are granted by the law, in order to enforce the law. If there is no law specifically granting them the power to do something, if there is no exception to the law built in for police officers, they are bound by it just as much as you and I are.

So you tell me: What case law, what statute, gives police the power to confiscate a gun, just because it is there, and run the serial numbers? What case law, what statute, gives police the right to enter the car of a citizen, to open the trunk of the car, to open the gun itself? Or is it just internet BS that you are spouting?

so does that mean yes its only on the internet? i never spouted that it was legal i just challenged your assertion. if that takes you outside your comfort zone well thats a shame. or you could cite the case law

 

[brboyer]

There are multiple problems.

1. Flat out incorrect answers to legal questions:

2. Misinterpreting a question, and subsequently providing an answer that does not correctly respond to the question:


There's absolutely nothing illegal about running the serial numbers on a pistol. The process of obtaining those serial numbers may or may not be legal, which is likely what TexasRifleman was getting at but wasn't responsive to the actual question.

3. People giving their opinion of what the Constitution truly means, rather than what the Constitution has been interpreted to mean by the Supreme Court, without providing the helpful caveat.

4. People assuming they are being challenged or called liars when clarifying questions are asked or case authority is requested so that a person has a starting point to conduct their own research.

The vast majority of the people here are posting in good faith and truly just want to learn more about a certain subject. Don't provide helpful advice with one hand and provide a backhand to the face with the other hand.

The underlying problem is that those people lack even a minimal understanding of the topic and fail to use common sense/critical thinking when responding to those of us that do.

 

[brboyer]

That's understandable to me since some states have a minimal amount of law regarding firearms and they simply shouldn't have to worry about going to prison for nothing more than being in possession of their own property.

I would suggest it's somewhat reckless, if their intent is to remain alive and free.

You also need to understand search and seizure law, self incrimination, self defense, trespassing, assault, etc., not simply the laws surrounding mere possession.

 

[TexasRifleman]

for 9 years? and no one had gigged em?

Correct, the DoJ didn't do anything about it. The State of PA argues that their database, since it doesn't include 100% of all firearms sold in the state, cannot be considered a "registry" since it's known to be incomplete.

However, that said, they have arrested people for having a gun that wasn't in their incomplete database. Nice huh?

Go read over at the Penn Firearm Owners Association website for some of this.

It's bizarre stuff.

 

[ChaoSS]

so does that mean yes its only on the internet? i never spouted that it was legal i just challenged your assertion. if that takes you outside your comfort zone well thats a shame. or you could cite the case law

I can't cite specific case law stating that it is illegal for police officers to rape a woman on the side of the road as part of their interrogation techniques either. However, law has been presented, if you bother to pay attention, that states when police are allowed to disarm someone. Since you can't run the numbers without taking the gun....

 

[TexasRifleman]

so does that mean yes its only on the internet? i never spouted that it was legal i just challenged your assertion. if that takes you outside your comfort zone well thats a shame. or you could cite the case law

I cited 2 cases that cover it. There are more.

And the argument that when police are allowed to disarm someone they can automatically run the numbers is not necessarily true either. If they have to manipulate or move something to get to the serial numbers it doesn't hold up.

THAT is the reason many LE unload the firearms in the name of "safety" since in the act of unloading they can get to the serial numbers. That gives them a legitimate reason to "move or manipulate" and then if they see the serial numbers it's OK.

You guys that think all this stuff is just random need to read up a little bit more.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

I cited 2 cases that cover it. There are more.


i hope this wasn't what you call support

While concern for safety during
a routine traffic stop may justify the “minimal” additional intrusion of
ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself
justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full fieldtype
search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers
have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves
from danger.



This is not to say that the concern for officer safety is
absent in the case of a routine traffic stop. It plainly is not.
See Mimms, supra, at 110; Wilson, supra, at 413–414. But
while the concern for officer safety in this context may justify
the “minimal” additional intrusion of ordering a driver
and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the
often considerably greater intrusion attending a full fieldtype
search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges,
officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons
and protect themselves from danger. For example, they
525US1 Unit: $$U6 [10-23-00 11:39:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
118 KNOWLES v. IOWA
Opinion of the Court
may order out of a vehicle both the driver, Mimms, supra,
at 111, and any passengers, Wilson, supra, at 414; perform
a “patdown” of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable
suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous, Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); conduct a “Terry patdown” of the
passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion
that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate
control of a weapon, Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049
(1983);

the case dealt with the concept of a full search, and that didn't happen here. it also addressed and affirmed the right/ability of the cops to order folks outa the car and secure any weapons. i don't see it saying they can't run the numbers while they have em.

 

[brboyer]

I cited 2 cases that cover it. There are more.


i hope this wasn't what you call support

While concern for safety during
a routine traffic stop may justify the “minimal” additional intrusion of
ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself
justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full fieldtype
search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers
have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves
from danger.



This is not to say that the concern for officer safety is
absent in the case of a routine traffic stop. It plainly is not.
See Mimms, supra, at 110; Wilson, supra, at 413–414. But
while the concern for officer safety in this context may justify
the “minimal” additional intrusion of ordering a driver
and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the
often considerably greater intrusion attending a full fieldtype
search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges,
officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons
and protect themselves from danger. For example, they
525US1 Unit: $$U6 [10-23-00 11:39:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
118 KNOWLES v. IOWA
Opinion of the Court
may order out of a vehicle both the driver, Mimms, supra,
at 111, and any passengers, Wilson, supra, at 414; perform
a “patdown” of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable
suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous, Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968); conduct a “Terry patdown” of the
passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion
that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate
control of a weapon, Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1049
(1983);

the case dealt with the concept of a full search, and that didn't happen here. it also addressed and affirmed the right/ability of the cops to order folks outa the car and secure any weapons. i don't see it saying they can't run the numbers while they have em.

Key phrase:

upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous

Simply being armed does not equal dangerous.

 

[brboyer]

[Just hit the report button... don't quote the offense. Thanks -- <Sam>]

 

[divemedic]

And the argument that when police are allowed to disarm someone they can automatically run the numbers is not necessarily true either. If they have to manipulate or move something to get to the serial numbers it doesn't hold up.

That one I gotta disagree with you on:

Once an officer had a valid reason to secure and possess the handgun, he was able to obtain the serial numbers without violating appellee's Constitutional rights. See United States v. Lara (C.A.9, 1991), 932 F.2d 973, (deputy testified that when nonofficer personnel are present at a search site, weapons found in plain view are disarmed as a safety precaution, and therefore, having a valid reason to pick up the weapon and lawfully possess it, the decision that officer was entitled to examine both guns for missing serial numbers was not erroneous); State v. Wilson (1998), 93 Wash App. 1025 (there is warrantless seizure exception for officer safety, and where officer is lawfully in possession of gun, officer is lawfully in possession of serial numbers; plain view analysis of Arizona v. Hicks is inapplicable when Hicks involved extent to which officers can expose to view items in their presence, but not in their possession); United States v. Watts (C.A.8, 1993), 7 F.3d 122.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Key phrase:
Quote:
upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous
Simply being armed does not equal dangerous.

key point being he didn't search the car just disarmed the driver which is kosher in the eyes of the court, if not the law

 

[brboyer]

Key phrase:
Quote:
upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous
Simply being armed does not equal dangerous.

key point being he didn't search the car just disarmed the driver which is kosher in the eyes of the court, if not the law

Incorrect, he seized the firearm without a reasonable suspicion that the driver was armed and dangerous.

 

[ChaoSS]

key point being he didn't search the car just disarmed the driver which is kosher in the eyes of the court, if not the law

What, do you think he closed his eyes while he was crawling through the guy's car or putting the gun in the trunk?

 

[Leaky Waders]

I find it interesting the number of self appointed constitutional lawyers due to a google search function.

Even after reading the diatribe, I see no problem with the officer's actions. Remember the OP is a one sided discussion of events. A polite traffic stop which resulted in a warning.

From a common sense perspective...

The stop wasn't a prolonged attempt to prevent someone from keeping and bearing arms, it was a brief interlude to, most likely, insure that a routine traffice stop didn't escalate to a bad outcome.

It infringes on your right to keep and bear arms no more than someone being pulled over and detained on their way to church for 15 minutes for speeding, being infringed upon their freedom of religion.

Or someone heading out to vote and then pulled over for speeding for a 15 minute stop, infringes upon their right to vote.

If the police had made some sinister attempt to impound the legal firearm, or purposely keep someone from going to church, or purposely prevent someone from voting then that would be one thing.

However, the OP as well as the above scenarios, the police did not start the scenario haphazardly...the driver who was not following posted traffic laws started the scenario. Both the policeman and the OP were polite and respectful of one another and the situation resolved itself in a timely manner - no fine, no harm.

I'm curious to see how a similiar situation with some of the namecalling constitution citers would turn out? In a needless arrest? A call for back up? A thread entitled "I got pulled over for speeding in a school zone at 2 am with an open sixpack and 30-30 in my truck and got arrested so now my rights are violated because the cop looked in my trunk while i cited internet constitutional law!"

IMHO being courteous in confrontational situations goes a long way in making a good outcome possible.

I call policemen Sir...because it's respectful and I'm from the South.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The stop wasn't a prolonged attempt to prevent someone from keeping and bearing arms, it was a brief interlude to, most likely, insure that a routine traffice stop didn't escalate to a bad outcome.

If it had happened in a state besides Pennsylvania you might be right. However, if you paid attention to this stuff long term like many of us do you would know that this is an ongoing issue in Pennsylvania and has been for many years up to and including a letter from the Department of Justice ordering them to stop doing it, which they ignored.

Go take a look at the Penn Firearms Owners Association website if you want to read up on it.

http://www.pafoa.org/

You probably won't, it's easier to just say "it's no big deal" and move on. Not everyone is willing to do that.

 

[Straight Shooter]

It infringes on your right to keep and bear arms no more than someone being pulled over and detained on their way to church for 15 minutes for speeding, being infringed upon their freedom of religion.

A more accurate analogy would be if you were on your way to church and were stopped, the officer told you he was going to take your Bible because he thought it was dangerous and hold on to it until he let you go.

How would you feel about that?

 

[brboyer]

I find it interesting the number of self appointed constitutional lawyers due to a google search function.

Even after reading the diatribe, I see no problem with the officer's actions. Remember the OP is a one sided discussion of events. A polite traffic stop which resulted in a warning.

From a common sense perspective...

The stop wasn't a prolonged attempt to prevent someone from keeping and bearing arms, it was a brief interlude to, most likely, insure that a routine traffice stop didn't escalate to a bad outcome.

It infringes on your right to keep and bear arms no more than someone being pulled over and detained on their way to church for 15 minutes for speeding, being infringed upon their freedom of religion.

Or someone heading out to vote and then pulled over for speeding for a 15 minute stop, infringes upon their right to vote.

If the police had made some sinister attempt to impound the legal firearm, or purposely keep someone from going to church, or purposely prevent someone from voting then that would be one thing.

However, the OP as well as the above scenarios, the police did not start the scenario haphazardly...the driver who was not following posted traffic laws started the scenario. Both the policeman and the OP were polite and respectful of one another and the situation resolved itself in a timely manner - no fine, no harm.

I'm curious to see how a similiar situation with some of the namecalling constitution citers would turn out? In a needless arrest? A call for back up? A thread entitled "I got pulled over for speeding in a school zone at 2 am with an open sixpack and 30-30 in my truck and got arrested so now my rights are violated because the cop looked in my trunk while i cited internet constitutional law!"

IMHO being courteous in confrontational situations goes a long way in making a good outcome possible.

I call policemen Sir...because it's respectful and I'm from the South.

I find it interesting the number of self appointed constitutional lawyers due to a google search function.

You have no idea what the background is of any of those that post here. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the knowledge that is available instead of resorting to off-topic, sophomoric, emotional rants.

You need to keep up with the discussion, we are discussing 4th Amendment violations, more so that 2nd Amendment violations.

I'm from the south too. I'm one of the most polite people around. I call LEO's officer/deputy/ranger/agent/corporal/sergeant/etc as appropriate for their department and rank.

In my personal experience when the officer's realize they are dealing with one of the limited number of people that actually understand our rights and the LEO's authority (as opposed to those idiots -- <Sam> you see on TV spouting "I know my rights!" - When they obviously do not) it's always ended up in "have a nice day, sir". Or "sign here, press hard, three copies, have a nice day."

I've never gotten out of the car, never been frisked, never had a lecture that I stayed around for (I posted about that before - drove away from a Deputy while he was rambling something) and only had a gun pointed at me by a LEO once - back when I was 18 - had nothing to do with guns/searches/seizures/argument - but perfectly prudent on the officer's part...long story...

ETA: My BIL's best friend just retired from a local department this year - 20 years. We would some times have discussions about these topics - he would always end the discussion with "You know if every one I pulled over had your knowledge of the law and was not int imitated by the presumed LEO powers, my arrest numbers would be less that a quarter of what they are."

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Incorrect, he seized the firearm without a reasonable suspicion that the driver was armed and dangerous.

did they rule terry invalid for a vehicle stop and i missed it?

 

[kelo4u2]

Living next to you in Communist New Jersey and having to be controlled to only 1 handgun a month I would love to have that happen to me. We cant carry a toy gun without fear of being shot by the anti-gun police depts

 

[brboyer]

Incorrect, he seized the firearm without a reasonable suspicion that the driver was armed and dangerous.

did they rule terry invalid for a vehicle stop and i missed it?

Nope, Terry requires reasonable suspicion that the individual has/is/will commit a crime. Or Probable Cause to believe the individual is armed and dangerous.

In most states, including the OP's, most traffic infractions are not criminal in nature, so absent RS of some crime (the traffic stop is not a crime) no search is authorized.

 

[ChaoSS]

I find it interesting the number of self appointed constitutional lawyers due to a google search function.

Even after reading the diatribe, I see no problem with the officer's actions. Remember the OP is a one sided discussion of events. A polite traffic stop which resulted in a warning.

From a common sense perspective...

The stop wasn't a prolonged attempt to prevent someone from keeping and bearing arms, it was a brief interlude to, most likely, insure that a routine traffice stop didn't escalate to a bad outcome.

It infringes on your right to keep and bear arms no more than someone being pulled over and detained on their way to church for 15 minutes for speeding, being infringed upon their freedom of religion.

Or someone heading out to vote and then pulled over for speeding for a 15 minute stop, infringes upon their right to vote.

If the police had made some sinister attempt to impound the legal firearm, or purposely keep someone from going to church, or purposely prevent someone from voting then that would be one thing.

However, the OP as well as the above scenarios, the police did not start the scenario haphazardly...the driver who was not following posted traffic laws started the scenario. Both the policeman and the OP were polite and respectful of one another and the situation resolved itself in a timely manner - no fine, no harm.

I'm curious to see how a similiar situation with some of the namecalling constitution citers would turn out? In a needless arrest? A call for back up? A thread entitled "I got pulled over for speeding in a school zone at 2 am with an open sixpack and 30-30 in my truck and got arrested so now my rights are violated because the cop looked in my trunk while i cited internet constitutional law!"

IMHO being courteous in confrontational situations goes a long way in making a good outcome possible.

I call policemen Sir...because it's respectful and I'm from the South.

It's funny how you call us "name callling constitution citers", yet you insult us, insinuating that we would get arrested for drunk driving.

The constitution is not just some internet drivel. It is the supreme law of the land, it is the law upon which all legal authority in this nation is derived. It is also, for the most part, quite clear on a number of things, and I don't care what you think, it gives us certain rights that the police no longer respect.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

ARIZONA, PETITIONER v. LEMON MONTREA
JOHNSON
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
ARIZONA, DIVISION TWO
[January 26, 2009]
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the authority of police officers to
“stop and frisk” a passenger in a motor vehicle temporarily
seized upon police detection of a traffic infraction. In a
pathmarking decision, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968),
the Court considered whether an investigatory stop (tem-
porary detention) and frisk (patdown for weapons) may be
conducted without violating the Fourth Amendment’s ban
on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court upheld
“stop and frisk” as constitutionally permissible if two
conditions are met. First, the investigatory stop must be
lawful. That requirement is met in an on-the-street en-
counter, Terry determined, when the police officer rea-
sonably suspects that the person apprehended is commit-
ting or has committed a criminal offense. Second, to
proceed from a stop to a frisk, the police officer must rea-
sonably suspect that the person stopped is armed and
dangerous.
For the duration of a traffic stop, we recently confirmed,
a police officer effectively seizes “everyone in the vehicle,”
the driver and all passengers. Brendlin v. California, 551
Page 5
2
ARIZONA v. JOHNSON
Opinion of the Court
U. S. 249, 255 (2007). Accordingly, we hold that, in a
traffic-stop setting, the first Terry condition—a lawful
investigatory stop—is met whenever it is lawful for police
to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry
into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in
addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is
involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the
driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just
as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of
criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspi-
cion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous



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

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever handled a firearm before?

never.

are they dangerous?

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

Misinterpreting a question, and subsequently providing an answer that does not correctly respond to the question

you're the only one misunderstanding the issue here:

There's absolutely nothing illegal about running the serial numbers on a pistol. The process of obtaining those serial numbers may or may not be legal, which is likely what TexasRifleman was getting at but wasn't responsive to the actual question.

read the OP again, Phatty. when you advise a LE that you're concealing a pistol, there's nothing illegal about that officer running the serial number. period.

this is not a case of an "illegal search and seizure".

long winded responses don't give us the impression that you're an expert on this topic. no offense, but you need to reread the OP for a better understanding of this particular happenstance. researching the law concerning this issue would do you well too.