Odd CCW/LEO encounter today...

[jmstevens2]

And "'running' the serial number" is a borderline illegal search, IMO, as there was no probable cause.

Ohio, I note, is relatively new to CCW.

Not borderline, there is no "probable cause". Plain view doesn't apply, still no probable cause to suspect it being illegal.

Been around 10 years or so.

 

[Sam1911]

As a guy with no handgun training and only a little sporadic exposure, my question involves what I read about a new type of holster.

Is one of the main risks when somebody inserts a handgun into a specific style of new holster, where a small part can catch the trigger?

You're probably thinking of several different issues -- the SERPA type retention holsters and the reported issues with finger-on-trigger NDs, and also many other holsters when used with striker-fired guns without external safeties which can lead to NDs as well when trigger finger discipline is not strictly observed while holstering. (And, in theory, a shirt tail or such could also press the trigger. That's a theory, not an observed phenomenon at this point.)

Could the awkwardness and road noise of a traffic stop interrupt normal safe, routine habit patterns for an LEO or CCW person? The noise itself is enough of a distraction, as in other situations.

While it is possible that either of these safe holstering/drawing issues could be exacerbated under the conditions of a traffic stop, the problems of nervousness, shakey hands, distraction could lead to a sharp increase in accidents. Especially coupled with the fact that few of us are acusstomed to drawing or holstering our sidearms while seated in the car, nor are many LEOs practiced at safely drawing SOMEONE ELSE's gun while that person is seated in a car (because it CAN'T be safely done).

The situation is simply a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

[Susanna]

I don't think him asking you to disarm was all that unusual, maybe he was a recent import from gangland and was used to handling things that way... or, more likely, someone at the academy or his training officer told him he was responsible for disarming "subjects" ... because there are nutcases who would shoot a cop, because they are a cop, some officers are touchy... because even when he runs your plate, he hasn't run your license to see if a CCW permit shows up... so while you may be 110% legit, he doesn't know that yet.

NOW, saying that, him reaching in your MV to pull your pistol is stupid and suicidal, and someday he may run into a nutcase why waits for a cop to do that to do him in... I hope and pray not, but still, were I in your shoes, I would call the shift Lt. and have him talk to officer Opie... because, well, that really **is** an officer safety issue, and I'd hate not to say something and have the Sandusky Strangler meet this cop on what could be his last day...

 

[floorit76]

(Devils advocate) How would this go over if it was a male officer drawing a pistol from an IWB of a female ccw holder?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Devil's advocates are not the same things as pot-stirrers.

Plain view doesn't apply, still no probable cause to suspect it being illegal.

Probable cause applies to searches. Here, no search is necessary, as the LEO knows you're armed.

Terry is silent on what an officer may do if he knows you're armed, so he doesn't need to search you to establish that--and so doesn't (perhaps) need probable cause. At least, that's how the NM Supreme Court figger'd it.

 

[floorit76]

That probably is a better title for that.

 

[gspn]

All other issues aside...is it legal to take a legally owned firearm and "run" it without probable cause?

At that point it would seem he could take any personal property in your car and check it too to see if it's stolen.

I'm no lawyer...but it doesn't sound legal.

 

[jmstevens2]

That was my point. There is no probable cause to suspect it illegal and run the serial number. The "search" of your firearm if it happened would be illegal. Holding it during the stop dangerous, not illegal, except that he gave it back to a driver. In Ohio it is illegal to "touch your firearm while driving" If you are behind the wheel and the engine is running, you are "driving". He may not make you commit a crime legally, yet he did.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

As an OTR truck driver I've dealt with LEO's in more different states than I care to admit...You need to ditch the "concealed carry spiel" and just hand him your permit ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE....so he sees it FIRST.

I never say a word besides maybe "hello" as I hand them my carry permit, CDL, and permit book (truck permits).

They always ask where the gun is...I tell them, they want it, I give it to them...they give me a ticket or do the DOT inspection on my truck ( or whatever the case may be, I haul oversize heavy equipment so I deal with them more than your average truck driver)....when they're done, they give my gun back and tell me to have a nice day.

I've never had a LEO hand me a loaded pistol...and I don't expect them to....as long as I get it back, I don't care if its completely disassembled.

There has been a few (very few) that told me to "just leave it there" (in the holster)...they were in KY, TN, and MT.


EDIT:
They run the numbers to see if its stolen, mine isn't...so I don't mind.

 

[sixgunner455]

I have had one officer, Utah Highway Patrol, ask me if I minded if he held on to my pistol while we were doing our business.

I said, "Nope," pulled it out of my Thunderware and unloaded it without pausing, just matter-of-course, and handed him the unloaded, slide-locked pistol.

Every other time, of the very few times I have interacted with an officer and been required to notify, they have just asked where it is and instructed me to leave it there.

I would not be very sanguine about an officer doing what the one in the OP did, especially not with the way I was carrying my pistol the day the officer asked me for it.

 

[dcludwig]

As an OTR truck driver I've dealt with LEO's in more different states than I care to admit...You need to ditch the "concealed carry spiel" and just hand him your permit ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE....so he sees it FIRST.

If you are driving in Ohio and are pulled over AND ARE CARRYING you are required to notify as soon as reasonably possible (lots of ambiguity over what reasonable means). So, if you are stopped in Ohio while carrying, hand the officer your carry permit, but make sure to verbally notify as soon as you can. I try to make notification the first words out of my mouth. Hopefully, we can get the notify requirement removed in Ohio.

because even when he runs your plate, he hasn't run your license to see if a CCW permit shows up... so while you may be 110% legit, he doesn't know that yet.

I'm pretty sure that when they run your plates in Ohio (on your personal vehicle) it will flag you as a CHL holder.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I've been stopped in Ohio numerous times (OH is as bad as CA for truck drivers)...I never had to verbally do anything, when they see the permit....they ask.

And I have seen that video that you're probably going to mention...Most of my dealings are with State Troopers (DOT), in general....they seem to be more level headed than local cops.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

We seem to be forgetting one thing: the officer had probably cause to stop, cite, and fully arrest if necessary. The OP was detained, and was in temporary custody/detention, until the officer was through. The officer was not going to BE through until he established his "safety" during the stop, secured the weapon (s?) during his detention of the OP, and possibly made sure the gun was not stolen. That is the PROBABLE action the officer was taking (by the way, I was an Ohio cop, but trained at the Ohio State Patrol Academy, so I "possibly" know a little bit about their philosophy on traffic stops). As mentioned before, OSP contributed to what they wanted on the statute when the CCW law was being drafted, and their contact SOP was included somewhat in the AG's booklet on CCW law (generally, part of the CCW course), on how to co-operate with LE's, etc. This is nothing new, but it was mentioned in the course I took that it was discretionary; officer's discretion. I will say this: if an OSP trooper takes your gun, 99%, if not 100% of the time, they will handle it with respect, and you will get it back in the same condition (and within minutes), as long as no other wants or warrants crop up, or some other thing related to the gun (stolen, etc) becomes a problem. They ARE a pretty professional bunch of guys, even though they can be pricks on traffic.

 

[dcludwig]

Not to belabor this, but you have been fortunate to have been stopped by OSP officers who used discretion and didn't make an issue of "prompt notification" or simply accepted being handed the carry permit as sufficient notification. That is the unfortunate thing about our present law in Ohio - what IS "prompt"? Perhaps within a minute into the conversation in the interpretation of one officer, and then maybe it means with 10 seconds to a "barney fife" looking for a reason to cite someone. The following is from the ORC (the bold pertains to my own encounter).

Ohio Revised Code 292316 (E) (3) If the person is the driver or an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped as a result of a traffic stop or a stop for another law enforcement purpose and if the person is transporting or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle in any manner, fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the vehicle while stopped that the person has been issued a license or temporary emergency license to carry a concealed handgun and that the person then possesses or has a loaded handgun in the motor vehicle.

Ironically, I have been told that I'm going overboard to comply because I normally notify whether I am carrying or not while driving my personal vehicle. I do so just to avoid any confrontation with an uninformed or ill-informed officer. Of course, this didn't help in my case since I was in my company truck and it didn't even cross my mind to notify (since we are not allowed to carry at work.)

This is a bit off-thread from what was originally posted, but I think it all has to do with an officer using discretion (and plain common sense). In your case, the state trooper(s) may have been very aware of the Ohio law, and if they wanted to, could have cited you for failure to promptly notify. They just used discretion, as they should have, IMO.

Same with the OP. The officer wasn't required to take the firearm, even though he had the "right" to do so. Discretion, IMO, should have dictated that "I've run his plates, I now know this guy had to pass a thorough background check, he has notified me he was armed, so he is obviously not a 'gangsta' or any real threat - and I have no need to acquire his firearm." Sometimes the reason they still do so is lack of experience or knowledge, lack of discretion, or perhaps just plain ego to "assert my authority because I can"

At the end of the day, it wasn't a "horrible" stop for the OP. Just some needless handling of a firearm, that fortunately did not go bad.

 

[kyletx1911]

I drive a big truck i have a chl when i get stopped paper work yadda yadda some times they it take it sometimes not.

Comming bsck from brownsville at the bp station
The dog hit on my tanker, gave them my paper work
He asked where it was 1 1911 on my hip one on the seat,
Pulled me out of the truck asked if they were hot(yes)
They didnt know how to clear them found the supervisor,
He cleared them x-ray the truck clean. Handed back my
weapons empty, loaded them on my way
Dont worry to much some clear them some not,
But i let them leave first then make em hot

 

[Sam1911]

They run the numbers to see if its stolen, mine isn't...so I don't mind.

Exactly! No law-abiding citizen should ever have any reason to fear being thoroughly investigated. Right...right? I think that's what the 4th Amendment says.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

I don't take that as I am being investigated...but I see what you're saying.

 

[Loosedhorse]

We seem to be forgetting one thing: the officer had probably cause to stop, cite, and fully arrest if necessary.

No, not at the start of the stop; he does not. Terry is very clear at what point, and under what conditions, a driver and his car may be searched. (If he is properly placed under arrest, for example, the conditions are met.)

The problem here (in terms of clarity of the law) is that since the officer already knows you are armed, no search is needed to establish that fact. If the officer knows you're armed, but has no reasonable suspicion that you are dangerous, is that sufficent cause for him to legally seize your weapon for the duration of the stop?

NM says yes.

 

[Sam1911]

I don't take that as I am being investigated...but I see what you're saying.

I know many people do not. However, when a law-enforcement official temporarily confiscates my property and makes an official investigation into its lawful status (and therefore into my lawful ownership of it, and possibly into my actions in obtaining it), I feel that is a search and an investigation, neither of which are cogent to the subject at hand.

Taken only a half-step farther, my local police chief stopped by a few weeks back to let me know some of my trees had overgrown my property line and were blocking a stop sign. Now, while he was there, he was able to see my car, truck, television, my wife's jewelry, and other property. Would it be reasonable for him to say, "I'm going to need to call in your vehicle registrations to verify that these aren't stolen, and while you're at it, let me see some receipts for the appliances and wedding ring"?

"Securing" a sidearm for "officer safety" is dumb, and quite unnecessarily dangerous but not, perhaps, an infringement. Taking my property and "running the numbers" I feel IS, as there is no relevant cause to do so.

And this is why: If the officer is investigating me because he has probable cause to believe I possess a stolen firearm, then running the numbers is cogent to that investigation. If the officer is detaining me because he has observed me breaking a traffic code, then my firearm (like my TV, or jewelry, etc.) has nothing to do with that official action. Any information discovered through that unrelated and unjustified search should be (IMHO) considered "fruit of the poisonous tree."

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It makes no sense to me to disarm somebody who tells you flat-out that they have a loaded gun on them & where they have it, and who had to pass a background check, etc. to obtain the "right" to do so.

By your description of events, the officer had not verified your CCW license. You saying you had one doesn't make it so. Nobody likes to be disarmed, but I can't see where the officer did anything that was legally inapropriate.

Want to talk about strange, I had a Spiro, OK cop pull me over for speeding and he disarmed me after I told him that I was carrying (both guns). He put the guns on the roof of my car and then took my licenses. As he was looking at the licenses, it started to sprinkle. He didn't run the #s and he didn't unload my guns. He then handed both guns back to me because "We don't want those getting wet." Then he wrote me a warning.

It really doesn't make any sense. If he took the gun to "run it", why would someone in possession of a stolen firearm admit to having it in the first place?

Yes. This sort of thing happens all the time. People admit to certain things with the hope that by appearing cooperative that the officer won't be thorough. There are folks that give officers permission to search their vehicles when they are carrying lots of dope, for crying out loud. It doesn't make sense, but people do it.

 

[bigfatdave]

Taken only a half-step farther, my local police chief stopped by a few weeks back to let me know some of my trees had overgrown my property line and were blocking a stop sign. Now, while he was there, he was able to see my car, truck, television, my wife's jewelry, and other property. Would it be reasonable for him to say, "I'm going to need to call in your vehicle registrations to verify that these aren't stolen, and while you're at it, let me see some receipts for the appliances and wedding ring"?

Obviously that would be wrong, in addition to being stupid and silly

"Securing" a sidearm for "officer safety" is dumb, and quite unnecessarily dangerous but not, perhaps, an infringement. Taking my property and "running the numbers" I feel IS, as there is no relevant cause to do so.

If I were a danger to a cop pulling me over, he would find out before I notified, not after.
Unless I was tricking him/her into leaning into the car for a nice game of "who's in charge now?"
... Seriously, leaning onto a vehicle is about as unsafe as it gets. Getting taken for a ride, getting a knife to the throat, or any of the other things that could happen to some idiot who seperates themselves from weapons and communication in the name of "officer safety". One possibility - officer reaches in, I simply grab them by the shirtfront and bonk their skull off of the top of the door frame
Or shove s stungun against their next
Or my accomplice in the backseat joins the party
Or I just grab on and start driving

These are traffic cops, not SWAT experts, not "operators", I'd imagine that their ability to fight in such a compromised position would be minimal.

===

And I still find it unacceptable to let someone sweep my body with my gun ... if someone has to muzzle my body, it is going to be ME or NOBODY unless I'm incapacitated. Safety is obviously not first in a traffic stop, but it should be in the top three, at least.

Traffic stop:
"someone of going too fast, I'll do an illegal U-Turn and chase them down even faster!"
or
"That guy isn't wearing a seatbelt, how about I flag him down and I'll stand outside my safety cage on the side of the road for a while!""
or
"I think this lady might be the armed robber from the BOLO, so I'll approach her all alone in the middle of nowhere and check it out."

Responding to crashes, stopping public hazards like impaired drivers, assisting stranded motorists ... these are good reasons to play traffic cop
Generating tickets, disrupting the flow of traffic, or enforcing nanny-state nonsense ... unsafe for cops, unsafe for citizens
Harlessing ... unsafe for everyone!

 

[Loosedhorse]

By your description of events, the officer had not verified your CCW license. You saying you had one doesn't make it so.

Carry of a firearm in a state that has provision for legal carry is NOT by itself probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you are carrying illegally.

So, again, we are caught: does the officer, during a stop, need reasonable suspicion that you are dangerous or in the act of committing a crime in order to legally disarm you; or is he legally empowered to disarm everyone routinely "for his safety"?

 

[gp911]

Okay folks, just to clarify a couple minor points here because my story left out some details:

1) I was driving my supervisor's car and he doesn't have a carry license

2) Supervisor was in the passenger seat, so he could have been sitting there with a Mac-10 in his briefcase but the officer was more concerned with removing the one pistol that he knew about like it was going to jump out of my holster on its own and shoot him

3) In Ohio some officers are crazy about the duty-to-inform clause. I had a Columbus PD officer flip out on me because I didn't verbally alert him before he saw my CHL. I had to calmly explain to him that he had been continuously asking me questions and talking since he walked up to my car and I could not get a word in to bring the subject up to him. He let it go with a "next time just make sure that is the FIRST THING YOU DO!" Funny thing though, he didn't disarm me and I didn't go on a shooting spree over it.

4) I have to go to court over this ticket anyway because for some reason the court never got the proof-of-insurance that I mailed in twice after my last speeding ticket, so to clear that up I'll be in front of a judge with that officer sitting on the other side (assuming he shows up). Until I do that I don't want to do anything to make that officer think about me at all, hopefully he just skips that court date altogether.

5) The officer was probably 30 or so, and again he was being kept very busy by the aircraft so he was in a bit of a rush. Also he did at least keep his fingers together and out of the trigger guard when he pulled the gun out, but I did have a moment of disbelief as I realized he had swept my whole pelvic area with my gun which is something I would never do to myself

6) Just a note to say thanks to everyone for the helpful suggestions, both on here and by PM. Very helpful feedback, one reason I like THR.

 

[hapidogbreath]

I have often asked the people who I stop who are CCW holders all kinds of questions like do you like it What club do you belong to, are you a NRA member. When some one tells me they are a CCW there is seldom( so far never) a problem except some of the FL permits being carried by people who have never been to FL and can't get through the Philadelphia CCW process. Stolen guns, No SR#.........:banghead:

 

[Sam1911]

...except some of the FL permits being carried by people who have never been to FL and can't get through the Philadelphia CCW process.

Hapidogbreath, are you in PA, then? If so, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106 says that a person may have a loaded firearm in their car so long as they possess "a valid and lawfully issued license
for that firearm which has been issued under the laws of the United States or any other state."

So, why is their FL permit a problem for you?

Stolen guns, No SR#

How do you know this? Do they tell you? Or are you disarming everyone you stop in order to fish for such information?