Got pulled over; Officer took my sidearm.

[buy guns]

originally posted by: Deanimator


That criminal act by police doesn't justify me breaking the law. Why does somebody else's criminal act, CCW holder or not, justify the LEO breaking the law by violating your rights during a traffic stop?

"Officer safety" is NOT the rootkit for the Bill of Rights.

Any officer who feels that he cannot both obey the law and "go home safely" is completely justified in finding another career and I strongly advise him to do so.

Excellent post.


I have no problem with a cop asking to see a carry permit but it is complete BS to disarm someone legally carrying a gun. It goes against all statistical rational. We all know permit holders are less likely to commit violent crimes and I would even bet that police have more violent confrontations with unarmed people than they do with those carrying guns, legal or otherwise.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I've been pulled over probably 6 times since I got my CPL. No officer felt the need to disarm me, or even really cared. I basically said "I need to tell you I have a CPL and have a pistol on my right hip" and each time the officer said some version of "Alright" and it didn't come up after that. BUT, if the officer felt like holding on to my G19 would make sure he goes home that night and not to the hospital, I won't begrudge him. It's a strange thing to have a job where "Am I going to die at work today" is actually a question you have to ask.

 

[TexasRifleman]

BUT, if the officer felt like holding on to my G19 would make sure he goes home that night and not to the hospital, I won't begrudge him. It's a strange thing to have a job where "Am I going to die at work today" is actually a question you have to ask.

Then as mentioned above, they should find another job. If they cannot do the job without violating my rights, they don't need to be working in that field. Sorry, it's just that simple.

The number of cops shot by legally licensed concealed carry HAS to be so absolutely miniscule that it might not even be statistically measurable. .001% of the time? Maybe less?

Yet this is about officer safety? If it never happens, what exactly is he trying to be safe FROM?

This has nothing to do with officer safety.

 

[ArmedBear]

That hasn't been addressed. I'm assuming the Trooper opened it...

That's why I'd like to know.

Disarming someone for the duration of the stop, in the dark, may be legal if the cop can articulate a reason for it (not all that hard to do).

Opening the trunk without permission is a different matter.

What really happened here?

 

[TCOV]

"Am I going to die at work today" has nothing to do with taking a firearm from a permit holder or even someone who has honestly replied "yes I have a gun". The bad guy is not going to have a permit and will not tell you he is armed. If you read the news the last couple weeks you know that a lot of people can wonder if they are going to die at work that day, coal miners and refinery workers come to mind. Disarming a permit holder over a minor traffic stop is all about control and fear, nothing to do with safety. As far as violating traffic law my last two stops have been for brake light out or wife forgot to put new tabs on plates. I certainly wasn't flaunting the law.
I like this post, it just goes on and on but there are some interesting opinions here.

 

[skoro]

I don't know if I should be angry b/c he disarmed me. I can certainly understand why they do & I know I'm not the only one this has happened to. I suppose if it gets me only a warning, I can be ok with it. *shrug*

Bizarre...

Sounds like the cop was nervous. Maybe there was something going on in the area you don't know about that made him extra cautious. Who knows?

But the bottom line is that you were able to drive off w/o an expensive traffic ticket. And that's not a bad deal.

 

[searcher451]

I've sat where the officer was; better safe than sorry is something that I can relate to. As a side note, a longtime family friend and former LEO was shot in the head, leg, and chest after a traffic stop in a small Michigan town many years ago. He lived and is still with us, if you can call his current state living in any meaningful sense, and not a day goes by that he wishes he could handle that otherwise routine stop far differently.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Exactly skoro. Everyone is approaching this like every cop is receiving secret orders from Homeland Security to crack down on gun owners in preparation for the NWO.

In reality, it could very well have been some cop who is 2 weeks into his post-FTO period who is nervous as hell and worried about getting killed or getting bad marks on his file. I refuse to get angry about some cop going through a procedure that makes him feel safe, especially when nothing bad actually happened.

Let me know when they cuff you for carrying or end up keeping your weapon. I'll be first on the list to march with you against the injustice. But when Occam's Razor tells me it's just a nervous newbie be extra cautious, I'll save the outrage for when it really matters.

 

[harmonic]

............

 

[sgt127]

A Concealed carry permit is simply a piece of paper that says, at the time it was issued, it was a valid permit to carry a weapon and, the person it was issued to passed a background check and was not wanted.

Same with the Drivers License. I know when it was issued, it was valid.

Until I run that person through the computer, I do not know if the license is valid and current. I don't know that the Permit is valid and current and, I don't know if the person is wanted.

So, I could make an argument either way. Leave them with the gun, or, hold it for safekeeping until everything checks out.

The fact that you got a free ride on two violations tells me the Officer wanted to make sure the CHL and License were valid and you were not wanted, that put you in the "good guy" category, he felt bad for taking up your time and sent you on the way with no tickets.

Yes, we have stopped people that had warrants with a CHL and were carrying. We have stopped people that presented a CHL that had been revoked, yet, they failed to send it in like they were supposed to.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here is the way I see it... and it took me a bit to figure this out in my mind...

1. The disarming of a person during a stop which is made with RAS is a fact that we are going to have to accept because the US Supreme Court has said so. IF a cop has the RAS to detain you, they have the right to disarm you during the detainment, "for officer safety." So, the first question is, was there RAS for a stop? The answer is yes, the person committed a traffic offense observed or measured (radar) by the officer. Was the presence of a weapon reasonably suspected by the officer? The answer is yes, the person told him he had a gun. Therefore, was the officer within his rights to disarm the person under the guise of "officer safety?" The answer is yes, because the US Supreme Court has said so.

2. HOWEVER, at this point in the story is where things went wrong. IF the officer was truly concerned about his safety, the proper action would have been for the officer to ask the subject to step out of the vehicle and disarm him outside the vehicle. The fact that the officer took no immediate action regarding his own safety in that he left the subject in the car, and walked around the vehicle to the passenger side and then placed himself in a position of limited mobility by leaning and reaching into the vehicle highly suggests that the officer had no concern for his own safety, and thus, it could be logically deduced that the disarming was not "for officer safety".

3. Then the question of did the officer check the serial number of the gun against a stolen list? That is totally and completely beyond the scope of a search and seizure for officer safety. The officer had absolutely no indication that gun might be stolen, and at that point, also running the serial number of the gun would give no additional evidence nor protect evidence already gathered for the traffic stop. So the actions of running the serial number would be completely unjustified and against the 4th Amendment.

4. Then the return of the weapon to the trunk of the car? How did the officer gain entry to the trunk? Certainly the officer can ask the subject if he can place it there, but cannot demand it.

So, if I were the OP, at the scene I would have complied with all the officer's requests up to the point of asking to put the gun in the trunk. At that point, I probably would have refused his entry. My trunk is usually completely empty, but it's the principle. Then, because of the nature of the officer's actions after he found out I was armed, I would do a FOIA request, find out if the officer ran the serial number of the gun, and filed a formal complaint that the actions of the officer were either very obviously conducted solely for the purpose of obtaining the serial number of the gun, or the officer was just incredibly untrained and/or stupid in his method of disarming.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Question for sgt127

If you disarm a person for officer safety during a stop, do you run the serial number of the gun against the stolen items database?

 

[TT]

If the disarm was really about ‘officer safety’ it would have been followed by a search of the OP’s person and the reachable areas of the interior of the car. The fact that the officer took the declared weapon without bothering to search for any additional weapons clearly demonstrates he had no fear of the OP and the disarm and subsequent unloading of the weapon were simply dominance displays.

 

[GrimmLV]

And now that you've both (presumably) read through the thread and have a better grasp of all the issues involved, how has your inital expectation changed?

Yes, but I still feel robbed, in some way...

 

[Flintknapper]

Beaux Nehr wrote:

In TX, the cops have explicit permission to disarm people.

NO SIR!

This is absolutely incorrect.

Texas law concerning the matter is very much conditional.

You have already cited the law in your previous post....so I won't reprint it here, but the condtion under which an LEO may lawfully disarm is: Anytime the officer REASONABLY believes it is necessary for his/her protection, your protection of that of a third person.

In other words....the officer MUST be able to articulate a REASONABLE cause for his action. It can not just be personal or departmental "policy".

While it can be argued that an officer "will come up with something" to support the disarming, it will not stop until formal complaints are made and the officer's superiors are made to "review" the stop.

 

[huntsman]

Until I run that person through the computer, I do not know if the license is valid and current. I don't know that the Permit is valid and current and, I don't know if the person is wanted.

But did the LEO take the LTCF did he even look at it? If he did then the current reason is out because mine clearly has an expiration date on it.

I wasn't there so I don't know but I'll bet the whole effort was to run the gun through the data base.

He then went back to his, with my pistol, car to run my info.

 

[NMGonzo]

golly ... imagine if it was a Glock ...

Or a 1911 ...

 

[squinty]

I'm pretty annoyed by it, actually. A valid CCP and a holstered gun = no real need to disarm you, nor any reason for the officer to fear for his safety. The mere presence of a weapon isn't a threat. I think safety would have been better served by leaving the pistol in the OP's holster instead of taking it out and manipulating it (it seems like a slightly awkward procedure to lean in through the passenger door and wrestle the gun out of a hip holster.)
If the mere presence of a citizen's holstered weapon constitutes a threat to the officer safety, doesn't the mere presence of an officer's holstered weapon constitute a threat to the citizen?

 

[Gottahaveone]

Perhaps I've just been lucky. I carried in PA for 4 years and here in SC for the last 8. In PA, my policy was to not announce until I was asked to step out of my vehicle. At that point I was going to say "OK, but before I do you should know I'm legally carrying. How do you want me to proceed?" That situation never came up. In the years here in SC I've been stopped a few times for minor traffic violations (all warnings ) and have contacted the local SO several times about theft's/break in's at work. In each of those contacts including a stint sitting in the front seat of a SC State Troopers vehicle while he did an accident report, I have never had a response to my required disclosure except to have it brushed off by the officer. I have thought about how I will respond to a demand to disarm should I ever run across a ninny with a badge and have decided that I will do so after informing them that A) I am doing so under protest and B) they had better be ready to articulate their reasoning in a court of law, because I WILL go the lawyer route. I am guessing that that will be the end of my warning ticket streak, but I'm willing to accept a ticket for my legitimate wrongdoing rather than roll over and wag in hopes of getting away with a warning. If he asked me to open my trunk I would politely decline and ask that he call for a supervisor. I spent 4 years in the USAF as a K9 cop, and have the utmost respect for the men and women who do that job today. But wrong is wrong and I cannot condone the slow erosion of my rights even by a well meaning but misinformed officer.

 

[squinty]

Exactly skoro. Everyone is approaching this like every cop is receiving secret orders from Homeland Security to crack down on gun owners in preparation for the NWO.

In reality, it could very well have been some cop who is 2 weeks into his post-FTO period who is nervous as hell and worried about getting killed or getting bad marks on his file. I refuse to get angry about some cop going through a procedure that makes him feel safe, especially when nothing bad actually happened.

Let me know when they cuff you for carrying or end up keeping your weapon. I'll be first on the list to march with you against the injustice. But when Occam's Razor tells me it's just a nervous newbie be extra cautious, I'll save the outrage for when it really matters.

Not acting on secret orders, but maybe acting out of either personal or institutional prejudice against "civilian" gun owners, which prejudice I'd like to see dispelled by education.

 

[sgt127]

Question for sgt127

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you disarm a person for officer safety during a stop, do you run the serial number of the gun against the stolen items database?

Unless there was more to the story, I would not run the gun for stolen. I have never actually disarmed a CHL holder. I'm just making the argument that the CHL license in hand does not automatically make one a good guy. When the great computer in the sky says its good, then its good, just like the DL.

The odds are, the CHL is good. If the CHL is good, odds are the DL is good and, the odds are, the driver does not have warrants...

 

[NavyLCDR]

You sound like a very professional LEO sgt127, and very respectful of others' rights. Thank you for your service!

 

[Beaux Nehr]

NO SIR!

This is absolutely incorrect.

Texas law concerning the matter is very much conditional.

You have already cited the law in your previous post....so I won't reprint it here, but the condtion under which an LEO may lawfully disarm is: Anytime the officer REASONABLY believes it is necessary for his/her protection, your protection of that of a third person.

In other words....the officer MUST be able to articulate a REASONABLE cause for his action. It can not just be personal or departmental "policy".

While it can be argued that an officer "will come up with something" to support the disarming, it will not stop until formal complaints are made and the officer's superiors are made to "review" the stop.

You know what Flint, you are absolutely right.

Also, here's a little something every Texan should have for situations like the one in the OP.

http://www.concealedcarrylegal.com/index.cfm

It's basically an insurance that provides legal protection.

 

[Snakum]

When I hear fellow gun enthusiasts lament the erosion of our rights in general I always tell them "Look in the mirror if you want to blame someone." Now I can point them to this thread, where many think it is totally fine for an officer of the law to take your legally owned and properly carried weapon from you and run the numbers during a stop, with (evidently) no reasonable suspicion. You guys who say you'd be happy with it as long as you got off without a ticket are exactly the kind of apathetic American I used to be. We'll all pay for it one day, I fear.

BTW, I've been stopped a couple of times in NC over the years while open carrying (not just locked in glove box) and I always put my hands out the window resting on the door with my license and reg and let 'em know, first thing. Never had an officer give it a second thought. That's as it should be.

 

[wldgoos]

Personally, I don't think he had any right to 'disarm' you -- you had a permit.. Doing what he did was to practically treat you as if YOU were a criminal.. How his personnal feelings are as to whether or not he like us to legally carry weapons is NOT the case.. After all, if he ended up needing help if another 'bad' situation came about he'd be damn glad to have you there -- remember this '''self-appointed holier than thou cop''', and if he ever does need assistance, tell him to wait while you put your chambered round and magazine in the trunk of your vehicle.. Cops like that don't realize that WE are on their side, and we can be a great added 'friend' if we're ever needed -- but to treat us legal holders of firearms like a criminal is putting distance between 'us' and 'them'... Oh well, it's my opinion...