Relinquishing Your Sidearm To LEO's At Minor Traffic Stops.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The legal requirement to inform the officer that you are carrying legally give the officer the knowledge that you have a firearm and the legal authority to temporarily seize it for the duration of the contact if he/she wishes.
Click to expand...

In Washington vs. State, Washington informed the police officer that he had a firearm and a concealed weapon permit.

The court ruled that the officer DID NOT have the legal authority to temporarily seize it without a reason to believe his safety was at risk.

...He merely testified that, as a matter of general practice, he inquired as to whether Washington had any weapons, and when Washington stated he had a handgun, Officer Reynolds searched under the driver’s seat to retrieve it. As in Malone, we conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed, the search of Washington’s car for a handgun was not justified. Here, because neither of these conditions was satisfied, the search was illegal, and the trial court should have suppressed the evidence.
Click to expand...

I think we're confusing the term search and/or seizure. Both of these actions require legal justification. Generally they cannot be severed from each other.
in Malone, the officer was ruled unjustified in searching and seizing a handgun from the waistband of a subject, as he could not articulate why there's any criminal activity afoot.

Even if a carrier informs an officer of his handgun, it still becomes a seizure when the officer decides to remove it.
 
Last edited:
The question is why the policeman has the SN, Personally, take my gun, for your safety,
YOU WILL give me an property tag, I don't care if I give it to you and you my gun back in 5 minutes (after all that's part of the process, and I'm sure it's in the handbook somewhere...)

But once you run the SN, that's past safety, and that is the PC for that?
so what, maybe I bought it at a Police auction and 'somebody' forgot to remove it from the database (many examples of this)

I would think that a decent lawyer would make hay of that case, and it would start with a 4 amendment challenge.

The officer does not 'Ask'
rather under force of law, he instructs you to disarm.

sadly none of that will matter as you wait to be bailed for possession of stolen property.
 
Just to clarify,

In Kentucky,

No person, unit of government, or governmental organization shall, during a period of disaster or emergency as specified in KRS Chapter 39A or at any other time, take, seize, confiscate, or impound a firearm, firearm part, ammunition, ammunition component, or any deadly weapon or dangerous instrument from any person.
(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the taking of an item specified in subsection (1) or (2) of this section from a person who is:
(a) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040;
(b) Forbidden to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law;
(c) Violating KRS 527.020;
(d) In possession of a stolen firearm;
(e) Using a firearm in the commission of a separate criminal offense; or
(f) Using a firearm or other weapon in the commission of an offense under KRS Chapter 150.
Effective: July 12, 2006
 
Jeff White said:
What court has ruled that way? Serial numbers of all kinds of property that is in temporary custody are run all of the time. I have recovered plenty of stolen property by running serial numbers that I came into possession of without PC of it being stolen. It's routine.

Do you also feel that it is a fourth amendment violation to run all the occupants of a vehicle through NCIC? A few years back the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that you had to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion to require the occupants (other then the driver of a vehicle) to ID themselves during a traffic stop. Yet I am aware of no other states and no federal court that has ruled similarly.
Click to expand...

Jeff,

As far as I know the question has not been settled by a court, yet. There is no ruling as to whether running the serial number of a gun that was seized for officer safety only violates the fourth amendment or not. I would love to see a case brought to court to decide the issue. So far, I have not had the opportunity, but I think I would pursue it if I did. Unfortunately, on my gun, the damn serial number is in bright white lettering plastered across the top of the backstrap of my gun, clearly visible even when I am wearing my gun.

But, if I had a gun that the serial number wasn't visible while in the holster, and a police officer did seize the gun "for officer safety", and did run the serial number.... I would pursue that in court in a heartbeat.

It's no different than Hicks v. Arizona. The serial number of the stereo in Hicks v. Arizona was thrown out because the officers had to move the stereo to see the serial number. In the case of the gun, it would be exactly the same situation - the officer would have to move the gun to see the serial number - and the reason for moving the gun would be completely unrelated to whether or not the gun was stolen - moving the gun would be under the pretext of "officer safety" ONLY - and I'll bet you if the officer knew the person possessing the gun had a CCW permit and did run the serial number absent any behavior on the part of the subject that would indicate a danger to the officer, it would be pretty easy to prove the pretext of "officer safety" was nothing more than a ruse.
 
Whether or not one might think it unsafe, you had better do as directed by a LEO. You refuse at your peril.
Click to expand...

Basically this. Passing a loaded weapon between persons certainly does increase the chance of a discharge, but I'd rate the risk as relatively low, and regardless, it's one of those situations where time has come that you must accept that risk.
 
You are all approaching this from a legal standpoint.
On the side of the road, your knowledge of the law is irrelevant.
It would be nice if the LEO's knew the law, but I wouldn't expect it.

Answer honestly, and you should be on your way.
Stand your ground and you'll probably regret it. You will not be allowed to be in charge.

The law doesn't matter until you get to court, and even then you'll be at a huge disadvantage.
It will be a case of "who do you believe", and the judge will (almost) always believe the LEO.
 
The law doesn't matter until you get to court, and even then you'll be at a huge disadvantage.
It will be a case of "who do you believe", and the judge will (almost) always believe the LEO.
Click to expand...
Judges tend to believe audio recordings, and I guarantee you there will be one if I'm in Ohio. No permission, nor notice required.
 
You are all approaching this from a legal standpoint.
Click to expand...
...which is the ONLY standpoint from which to approach it.

Everybody has a choice, obey the law or not. Not is usually a bad choice. That goes for LEOs as well as citizens.
 
Judges tend to believe audio recordings, and I guarantee you there will be one if I'm in Ohio. No permission, nor notice required.
Click to expand...

Well, while I'm certainly going to cooperate, in general, even in the places that have tried to rule that you can't record LEO's on duty, those laws have typically been struck down as unconstitutional when challenged. As a result, even where stated as illegal, you're probably fine to record the stop if you're willing to challenge the law.

Personally, I typically have my phone attached to my dash into a holder when driving as I play music from it and use it as a GPS navigation device. If I'm stopped, I typically just tap the screen a few times to start a video recording. It's basically a dash cam recording video out of the front windshield (so typically doesn't get much of anything interesting in the video), but you do get a full audio recording of the incident that way.

YMMV.
 
I feel like these conversations always turn into either being with cops or against them.

We can fully support the safety and security of our police officers while upholding basic freedoms and liberties. Yea it's a tricky balancing act, but that's why we have these discussions.

It would be much easier to just be able to stop anyone at anytime and demand their firearm or other defensive weapon absent any wrongdoing. It would be much easier to detain anyone at any time based on a nothing more than a hunch. But this isn't the way our country works.

We have laws against unreasonable search and seizure not to impede the officers whom respect order and liberty, but to obstruct those who wish to harass.
 
Not safe but necessary. What should you do with your backup? Keep it if he doesn't ask if you have more guns? What about the door mounted gun you have to protect against carjackers? He'd have to help me unbolt that one.
 
Well, while I'm certainly going to cooperate, in general, even in the places that have tried to rule that you can't record LEO's on duty, those laws have typically been struck down as unconstitutional when challenged. As a result, even where stated as illegal, you're probably fine to record the stop if you're willing to challenge the law.
Click to expand...

Not saying you shouldn't record a contact, but bear in mind that in most departments the officer(s) are at least running audio of their own, if not video as well. While those recordings do rarely capture officers acting in violation of policy or the law, for the most part they just make life much easier for IA or supervisors by demonstrating that in the vast majority of complaints about traffic stops boil down to citizens who don't know the traffic code in the first place, don't comply with reasonable (and utterly legal) commands during the stop, or get upset for some basic variation on the premise that, yes, the violation did occur, but it's not fair that the officer should hold that citizen accountable (or that citizen is only being harassed because he/she is black/white/yellow/purple/a Democrat/a republican etc etc etc).
 
Not saying you shouldn't record a contact, but bear in mind that in most departments the officer(s) are at least running audio of their own, if not video as well. While those recordings do rarely capture officers acting in violation of policy or the law, for the most part they just make life much easier for IA or supervisors by demonstrating that in the vast majority of complaints about traffic stops boil down to citizens who don't know the traffic code in the first place, don't comply with reasonable (and utterly legal) commands during the stop, or get upset for some basic variation on the premise that, yes, the violation did occur, but it's not fair that the officer should hold that citizen accountable (or that citizen is only being harassed because he/she is black/white/yellow/purple/a Democrat/a republican etc etc etc).
Click to expand...

Really depends. Sometimes that video has a habit of not showing up when there is a fault on the officer's fault. IE, when a motorcycle rider was recently pulled over for speeding but the officer ran up with his weapon drawn. The department tried to suppress that video but was unsuccessful. In general, video/audio recording by citizens just helps to keep them in check. A badge doesn't mean someone is dishonest, but it doesn't mean the reverse it true either. A public servant's actions while on duty are a matter of public record.
 
slabuda said:
Just a wee bit racist and NOT very High Road...You are suggesting "minorities" and are not as smart as "non-minorities". That train of thougt should have gone the way of Jim Crow laws....
Click to expand...
People who make such comments are usually not the brightest anyway in addition to being painfully ignorant. I laugh at this nonsense which unfortunately is occasionally thrown around. In any case how complicated really is a firearm? Its a simple tool with only a few parts that doesn't take much to figure out.

Most people are unable to operate one, or fumble it (carelessness?) not because it is so complicated, but because of learned fear of fire arms ingrained into them by society from pretty much an early age.
 
mgmorden said:
Really depends. Sometimes that video has a habit of not showing up when there is a fault on the officer's fault. IE, when a motorcycle rider was recently pulled over for speeding but the officer ran up with his weapon drawn. The department tried to suppress that video but was unsuccessful. In general, video/audio recording by citizens just helps to keep them in check. A badge doesn't mean someone is dishonest, but it doesn't mean the reverse it true either. A public servant's actions while on duty are a matter of public record.
Click to expand...
From what I have seen recording an officer doing their job really pisses them off. It was the case with bike incident (MD you are referring to no?) and it was the case with Army dude who was in the incident at the Mexican border with US CBP officers. Once they realized he was video-taping, things went from calm to ugly in a hurry. They did not care he was recording them violating his rights. Anger just took over. They are human, and you have to admit while its completely unprofessional, you'd be a bit irritated yourself.
 
They are human, and you have to admit while its completely unprofessional, you'd be a bit irritated yourself.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm a public employee too - we not only have cameras all about our building but we have had people recording in there too when they thought they were being unfairly treated. We also (due to the Freedom of Information Act). have to hand over just about any piece of information a citizen requests of us.

Realistically, the simple fact is that the government is a function paid for by the people any and all actions in the public sector should be open for observation.

I'm not out to make a point when an officer pulls me over - I'm not smart mouthing and spouting off technicalities. I do what they say and keep my mouth shut unless asked about something. That said, I will record the encounter simply as a backup. of what's said. Most of them likely never even know it unless it becomes an issue, but either way, it's a way of keeping an honest cop honest.
 
Right now, in the area I just moved too, they probably will take your weapon...but there have been an obscene number of of good honest LEOs killed LOD in the last few months, and they are being cautious...I have no issue with that...you may even be detained in hand cuffs until the situation is resolved...but I for one and tired of reading of LEO deaths in this area, and will not begrude their officer safety mindset...as long as I am treated with courtesy, and my property is returned.

If one extra LEO goes home safe because of this current mindset, I am ok with it.
 
CHP and Traffic stops

If you are a LEO or have been ,only you know from a LEO mind set what you will do on a so called routine traffic stop. I have never had a routine traffic stop.My life was on the line everyday from the time my shift started till I got to home and that might be 8hrs or it might be 12hrs.The only one that was going to be sure I got home that day was me.I said to my self I was going to do what ever it took for me to be alive at the end of my shift that is what I would do.If I stopped a subject for a violation I didn't know if you had just committed a major crime such as shooting your spouse and ect.When I approached the violator if you show me your permit that only tells me that at that time you had a clear history.That could have changed 1 hour ago.I'm going to remove your weapon until such time as I release you and if everything checks out you will get it back.If you want to get in my face about it you can go to jail and I'll still get the weapon.If you think I did an improper search a you can hire yourself a lawyer and fight it out in court.LEO are threatened with law suites all the time I sure think I can convince a jury that I was concerned about my safety.
 
I'm going to remove your weapon until such time as I release you and if everything checks out you will get it back.
Click to expand...
IF the driver is honest and law-abiding enough to tell you about it.

If the driver is not honest and/or law-abiding enough to tell you he's got a gun, I guess we hope and pray that's the only "naughty" thing he's going to do today.
 
Winchester1886 said:
If you are a LEO or have been ,only you know from a LEO mind set what you will do on a so called routine traffic stop. I have never had a routine traffic stop.My life was on the line everyday from the time my shift started till I got to home and that might be 8hrs or it might be 12hrs.The only one that was going to be sure I got home that day was me.I said to my self I was going to do what ever it took for me to be alive at the end of my shift that is what I would do.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. Police officer is about the 10th most dangerous job in America, 11th or 12th depending on the source.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...3#no-10-police-and-sheriffs-patrol-officers-7

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf

Garbage collectors die more often on the job than police. Taxicab drivers are murdered 40% more often than police.

There is only one reason for you to take a gun from a CHL holder who has already informed you that they have a gun, and I ain't buying "officer safety".
 
Last edited:
NO for a miriad of reasons

he doesnt trust me just because I have a CCW, I dont trust him just because he has a badge, but Ill lose as he has the full law behind him, not a rebated watered down version like us mere peons have

Ive been muzzle swept when disarmed, then they hand back an unloaded gun and empty mags and lose round and tell me to go down the road that way etc

Its Bull no matter what which is why i dont state i am armed or have a CWP anymore unless directly asked
 
and Im not surprised to see LEOs are still paranoid and more concerned about themselves than the people they are supposed to serve, I dont regret leaving that mentality behind. The most important thing for an actual public servent not these modern LEOs is serving and protecting the people, and that means even at your own detriment and loss of life if need be...used to anyway...so much for service. glad i left the circus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Traffic stop/you're CCW-legal & cop wants your gun ....
2 3
Replies
74
Views
3K
Matt G
M
T
  • Locked
LEO contact
Replies
5
Views
905
oldfart
O
C
  • Locked
Law Enforcement, training, and sidearm capacity
Replies
24
Views
886
thorazine
T
M
  • Locked
CWP question for LEO's and experianced,
Replies
15
Views
711
Zach S
Z
S
  • Locked
Traffic Stop and CWL
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
StuckInMA
S
Back
Top