New Mexico Supreme Court Rules "Officer Safety" Supercedes Rights

[longknife12]

A little over a year ago, blown engine, just east of Raton, I met a young state trooper that was the nicest and most professional that I had met in a long time. He was advised up front that I had a 357 in the car. He shrugged...we shook hands and visited for a few minutes.His only comment was not to leave it in car....if I had to leave it, take it with me.( help was on the way).
Dan

 

[YewPlucker]

New Mexico Supreme CourtPolice officers in New Mexico can take guns away from drivers who pose no threat.

...not with a bang, but with a whimper.

The State Constitutions can be changed.

 

[azmjs]

What I have a problem with is the court meddling in the purview of constitutions and legislators

.

They call what you're complaining about "separation of powers."

 

[azmjs]

It's worth remembering that a year or so ago a pharmacist shot a policeman over a traffic stop. If I remember right, he had a ccw.

Dangerousness isn't a measure of someone's intentions, it is a measure of his capabilities.

 

[J_McLeod]

I think it's a bad ruling.

Off topic, but I also think that sobriety checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[Davek1977]

Dangerousness isn't a measure of someone's intentions, it is a measure of his capabilities.

i disagree entirely. Whether one is dangerous or not depends not on his capabilities, but solely one his intentions. By your reasoning, anyone trained in any sort of self-defense is dangerous, and thus should be treated as such by the police. One can carry all the weaponry in the world and be trained extensively in its use, but circumstances alone dictate whether or not the person is dangerous. I sa US Marine, home on leave, playing with his infant child considered "dangerous"? i would say no, most people wouldn't consider him dangferous in such a situation. Would that same Marine, on patrol and in under fire in some Middle east warzone be dangerous? I'd sure hope so.

As for the case of the CCW holder shooting a cop over a traffic stop (if that were indeed the case...without citation, its simply hearsay)....One's man's actions should NOT adversly affect the freedoms others enjoy. The idea of... "If it only saves one life, its worth it" is a seriously flawed idea that only idealists cling to, IMO. While tragic, isolated incidents like that shouldn't be used to stereotype all concealed carriers. There are bad apples in every bunch, but that doesn't mean every apple crop should be destroyed in order to prevent a bad apples from reaching store shelves

 

[azmjs]

i disagree entirely. Whether one is dangerous or not depends not on his capabilities, but solely one his intentions. By your reasoning, anyone trained in any sort of self-defense is dangerous, and thus should be treated as such by the police. One can carry all the weaponry in the world and be trained extensively in its use, but circumstances alone dictate whether or not the person is dangerous. I sa US Marine, home on leave, playing with his infant child considered "dangerous"? i would say no, most people wouldn't consider him dangferous in such a situation. Would that same Marine, on patrol and in under fire in some Middle east warzone be dangerous? I'd sure hope so.

As for the case of the CCW holder shooting a cop over a traffic stop (if that were indeed the case...without citation, its simply hearsay)....One's man's actions should NOT adversly affect the freedoms others enjoy. The idea of... "If it only saves one life, its worth it" is a seriously flawed idea that only idealists cling to, IMO. While tragic, isolated incidents like that shouldn't be used to stereotype all concealed carriers. There are bad apples in every bunch, but that doesn't mean every apple crop should be destroyed in order to prevent a bad apples from reaching store shelves

Since it is impossible to know someone's intentions, we can not rely on trying to imagine or guess what they are.

Traffic stops already entail an almost total deprivation of 'freedom' for the duration. There's nothing special about being deprived of the means to quickly kill the officer with your gun as opposed to being deprived of the same means vis a vis your car.

I remembered correctly that Bart Johnson, the pharmacist-with-no-record-of-violence cop killer had a ccw.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/12/pharmacist_charged_in_officers.html

 

[jhco50]

You know what is really scary? Many of our own community are all too willing to give up little pieces of our rights if it sounds ok. But bit by bit, they are giving up their rights. Sure it sounds good that police should be able to grab your gun for safety, but then what makes you think you are safe from them? you do know not all police are reputable...right? Think East Texas.

 

[RobXD9]

NM resident.

Don't see how this makes things any different from before. I think folks are reading a lot more into this ruling than is there.

 

[azmjs]

You know what is really scary? Many of our own community are all too willing to give up little pieces of our rights if it sounds ok. But bit by bit, they are giving up their rights. Sure it sounds good that police should be able to grab your gun for safety, but then what makes you think you are safe from them? you do know not all police are reputable...right? Think East Texas.

"what makes you think you are safe from them" is another way of saying "what if you decide you need to shoot the cop."

People do shoot policemen during traffic stops, it happens every year. I think you'll have a lot of trouble finding any that were doing the right thing when they made that decision.

 

[Geckgo]

It has been noted, that being detained by the police is usually due to some sort of law being broken.

There are exceptions, DUI checkpoints and such, which are arguably violations of the 4th amendment, but that's a little off topic. Another would be someone stopped for OC in an OC state because somebody saw them and called the police.

In the case that you are stopped for violating a traffic law, I believe you are being detained so any rights you have are temporarily suspended until the detention is over with. Constitutional or not, that's the way it is, and logic would dictate that being disarmed is within the power of the police at that point.

I have not been "detained" in years, and anyone who follows traffic laws should likewise not be, unless you fall into one of the exemptions (Seatbelt check, DUI check, Insurance check, etc).

I guess my basic point is don't break the law, and if we are to talk about the 4th amendment being violated with the exemptions then make it a seperate thread. Right or wrong I believe the PO in this incident was well within the legal structure by taking the weapon, from what I've read. If you are being detained for breaking the law, then POs have a right to disarm you while they investigate/cite/etc. The only way to change this is through legal battles and by putting POs at a higher risk then they are already, but I think things have been like this for a long time.

 

[Deanimator]

Routine traffic stops are not without justified cause

Not so much.

There's a pretty long history of documented "pretext" stops for a WIDE variety of reasons.

I was once being driven to the train station very early in the morning by my best friend's wife. She was stopped for "weaving". She was doing NOTHING of the sort.

Just because a cop "articulates" a reason for stopping someone doesn't mean that it's a TRUE reason.

 

[Geckgo]

^--good point

 

[azmjs]

Not so much.

There's a pretty long history of documented "pretext" stops for a WIDE variety of reasons.

I was once being driven to the train station very early in the morning by my best friend's wife. She was stopped for "weaving". She was doing NOTHING of the sort.

Just because a cop "articulates" a reason for stopping someone doesn't mean that it's a TRUE reason.

Yet we do not kill the policemen by running them over with our cars when we feel that they've stopped us on a "pretext."

Why should shooting them to death with our guns be considered any different?

A traffic stop already suspends many of our most basic rights. The only justification for having a gun at hand during a traffic stop is to shoot the policeman who has stopped you, as a poster above pointed out with his "how do you know you're safe from the cop" comment.

One of the beautiful things about the Presumption of Innocence is that it allows us to give the police the benefit of the doubt when it comes to traffic stops and arrests, because we in turn receive the benefit of the doubt later, in the stage of justice that really matters.

 

[clutch]

Not to be paranoid but how are we sure that the cop that stopped you really is a cop?

I was listening to a gun related podcast today where one of the news bits was about some guy that had a badge that played cop when he wasn't one.

Used cop cars get sold, I'm sure you have had a car behind you that made you believe some LEO was on your tail that turned out to just be a private citizen that bought a cruiser at auction.

Heck, last week I turned off a road because after a few miles, I got tired of car that looked like a cruiser sitting on my rear bumper. The car wasn't a marked car anymore but I've had real cop cars follow me longer than I liked. Seriously, most cops do 65 around here when the limit is 55, anytime they stick to your tail, something is up like they are looking for you do do something wrong. I don't care for that level of scrutiny. I don't get stopped much, I just don't like how you loose your rights during a traffic stop.

Couple a poser with a few bits of uniform and a retired cruiser and now you are setup to be a victim if the poser has bad intents.

Citizen safety is just as much a 'right' as officer safety. So for a routine stop for a minor traffic violation w/o alcohol (which would invalidate my carry permit) how about we treat each other as equals? Just two blokes that want to go home at the end of the day.

I'll leave out 3am no knock home invasions that seem to happen from time to time in the name of officer safety. That would divert the thread but I'm sure everyone gets what I'm saying.

Clutch

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

azmjs: Yet we do not kill the policemen by running them over with our cars when we feel that they've stopped us on a "pretext."

Why should shooting them to death with our guns be considered any different?

A traffic stop already suspends many of our most basic rights. The only justification for having a gun at hand during a traffic stop is to shoot the policeman who has stopped you, as a poster above pointed out with his "how do you know you're safe from the cop" comment.

One of the beautiful things about the Presumption of Innocence is that it allows us to give the police the benefit of the doubt when it comes to traffic stops and arrests, because we in turn receive the benefit of the doubt later, in the stage of justice that really matters.

Nice post.




If a cop stops you, whether you think it is un-just or not, you stop. If you feel you were wronged you will get your day in court.





The time to challenge an officer is in the courtroom, not on the street.



.

 

[ManBearPig]

If a cop stops you, whether you think it is un-just or not, you stop. If you feel you were wronged you will get your day in court.

The time to challenge an officer is in the courtroom, not on the street.

I think the reason we are seeing so many instances of taserings, is because many people forget this simple principle. If a cop is actually violating your rights, it will come out in court. All arguing during the actuall instance does, is come off in court as resisting.

 

[JerryM]

Someone has said that the side of the road is not the place to argue the Constitution with a police officer.
I agree.
Jerry

 

[kis2]

"Yet we do not kill the policemen by running them over with our cars when we feel that they've stopped us on a "pretext."

Why should shooting them to death with our guns be considered any different?"

I'm not sure I understand this quote. I don't kill policemen. With cars or guns. Or anything else potentially hazardous. Because I'm a rational thinking, law abiding, American.

It seems to me there would need to be some kind of 'immediate' threat. Is my firearm a threat to anyone if it's not being handled?

It looks like, to me, the court is trying to do the right thing, it's just a tough situation. I'd be interested to hear if it goes the the supreme.

 

[azmjs]

kis2, until you can develop some kind of test, perhaps a device that scans peoples brains, to determine whether or not someone is going to use his car or his gun to harm a police officer, then we have no choice but to measure the danger a person poses by his capability to do harm, not his intentions. His intentions are otherwise always unknown to us.

The immediacy of a threat is just the measure of how quickly it can be brought to bear.

A gun on hand is an immediate threat, because it can almost instantly be used to hurt or kill someone.

When a policeman stops you and makes you turn off your car and remove the keys, or allow your gun to be placed out of your reach, he's nullifying immediate threats. It's still your gun and your car, it's just that the threat of you using them to harm him or escape is minimized.

 

[kis2]

(just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue or sound disrespectful. I know how things can get slanted in text form.)

"we have no choice but to measure the danger a person poses by his capability to do harm"

I don't entirely disagree, but by that same rationale, I should assume everyone at a shooting range (or people out on BLM land with guns) wishes to do me harm, because they have the capability to do so. But every time I go, I don't think that. Because they aren't behaving as threats. If something in their attitude, body language or elsewise indicated that they are or could be a threat, then I change my mentality.

I just don't feel I should be treated as a threat until proven otherwise. I should demonstrate ability, opportunity and intent. There are ways to tell somebodies intent than a brainscan. For instance, the way I started this post

 

[JerryM]

A traffic stop is not the same as being on a firing range. Police officers are too often shot at a traffic stop. I am not aware of anyone who has been attacked and shot at a firing range, although such a thing is possible. But it is a rarity. Officer shooting at traffic stops are not all that rare.

When you have disobeyed the law, and been stopped you have become a lawbreaker which those at the range have not.
A gun within reach gives you the ability, being close gives you the opportunity, and only a mind reader can determine your intent at a traffic stop.

The court made a good call in my view.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[kis2]

What about random DUI checkpoints? I haven't broken the law there. Not talking about the validity of dui checkpoints, just this issue inside that reality.

Could anyone please provide the cited statistics of officers shot at routine traffic stops?

I again submit that not only mind readers can tell intent.

I don't necessarily disagree with the courts decision, I just wonder what we give up in return.

(again, not trying to start an argument, just trying to figure if I have this right) but would this statement be true?: As an 'citizen' I have to look for ability, opportunity and intent. As a police officer, I don't have to worry about intent because I can disarm my subjects legally if they simply have the abililty to do me harm.

 

[azmjs]

There's a total, categorical difference between people going about their everyday lives and people being stopped and detained by the authorities.

Nevertheless, you'll find a large number of gun carry proponents who advise you to consider everyone you see a potential threat. They call it having "situational awareness."

Escaping from the authorities is a strong motivation for using violence, as is proven again and again every year.

It is very easy for a person to suppress aspects of his demeanor or body language that telegraph his intentions, especially if he intends to surprise his victim.

This leads us again to the inescapable fact that dangerousness is a measure of ability, not intention, because it is impossible to measure intention.

 

[kis2]

I understand and respect what you're saying, but can you answer any of my above questions?

Situational awareness does NOT equal situational control. Being aware someone has a firearm and controlling whether someone has one are two very different things.