Tense Florida Traffic Stop with Firearms

[oneounceload]

Again, IF this was an Alachua County sheriff deputy and not one of the local speed trap town cops, I would bet you got stopped by a fairly new deputy who was probably a little scared and nervous with what might have been his first solo stop

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

please be kind and considerate towards the LEO. He or she is just doing a job to make the streets safer for all of us and can easily make life very difficult for you.

As you'll note I was friendly and cooperative with the officers. I appreciate the risks they take every day for the sake of public safety. In my opinion, disarming citizens whom have no record (traffic or otherwise), whom have permits to legally carry firearms, and whom are 100% cooperative is an escalation of an otherwise mundane scenario. It would seem much safer to leave things as they are rather than to handle firearms they may not be familiar with and put civilians at untenable risk. As noted, that is just my opinion and it seems that opinion is inconsistent with law enforcement practice in some regions.

This wasn't a poorly trained cop, it was a never trained person in a cop uniform. Or it is a fabricated story.

With all due respect, I am an active member of this community and shared this story to promote discussion. Every story has subjective bias, however my description of the event is as accurate and objective as I am able to write about it. I have no doubt they were real officers of ACSO, as well.

Just so I am clear. You were intentionally exceeding the posted speed limit by 15 mph but feel it was safe to speed 20 mph over at night endangering your wife and infant son?

I freely admit I was going too fast based on the posted speed limit. The officers were correct to pull me over. I have no qualms with that, and I would like to thank you for the reminder to practice motor vehicle safety. We all share the road and have a responsibility, to ourselves, our passengers, and others in the community to drive safe.

I am not particularly interested in pursuing a conversation about the speed limit further, although if you'd like we can speak over PM. This public discussion is about the events, which I perceived as irregular, that occurred once the vehicle was stopped. Whether the officers acted with poor judgement or not is a question I would like to learn more about through open communication here on the forums.

Yes you can legally resist an unlawful command but you better be darn sure it is an unlawful command and you can justify it in court later on.

Unfortunately, it appears that citizens that do not wish to risk having guns pointed at them, spending a few hours in the slammer, going through a strip search, a state level child abduction, a legal and financial headache, and other inconveniences to an otherwise splendid evening have little choice but to comply with all officer commands.

I'd like to thank my fellow travelers on The High Road for a mostly civil and informative discussion so far. Please continue to comment as you see fit as I feel there is much more to learn here about police protocol, the rights of armed and unarmed citizens, and appropriate related behaviors.

 

[Hunter125]

My personal feelings are that I will comply with anything an LEO asks me to do whether I feel it is justified or not. Even if I lose my gun, get disarmed, or have to get proned out. If I feel an injustice has occurred I will get the badge number and report it to the proper authorities later. I can take everything up until it threatens the safety of my family, then I come unglued and I'll deal with the consequences.
If I haven't done anything wrong (or only did something like speeding) I'm not going to make things worse by being beligerant or challenging an LEO. I'll leave that to those who feel they know the law better than the LEO's.

 

[DaisyCutter]

Asking a cop if you are free to leave is fine. It forces him to commit. It will catch every officer off guard the first time.

His second day on patrol he learns the response. "You are under investigative detainment until my investigation is complete. I will advise you when you are free to leave."

 

[Yoda]

In Florida, you DO have to tell them, if they ask...

In Florida, you are not obligated by law to volunteer the information that you are carrying concealed. However, if you are asked by a LEO, you are then obligated to inform him.

In the classes I teach in Florida, I tell my students that many lawyers advise folks not to volunteer whether they're carrying or not. I tell them that my opinion is that cops don't like surprises. I tell them that I always volunteer that I am carrying WHEN I AM THE SUBJECT OF THE COP'S ATTENTION. If I'm just casually talking with a cop instead of being questioned, I don't volunteer the information. For example, when I found someone unconcious on the street and called 911, I didn't tell the responding cops that I was armed.

I suggest to my students that they decide in advance whether they want to volunteer the information or not. It's not the sort of thing that they should want to think through just as a traffic stop is going down. Handing the cop both the drivers license and the CCW license at the same time is one good way to handle situations when you're pulled over.

YMMV.

- - - Yoda

 

[zxcvbob]

Asking a cop if you are free to leave is fine. It forces him to commit. It will catch every officer off guard the first time.

I wouldn't lead with that, as soon as he walks up to your window. Wait until it appears his official business *might* be over, or it's obvious to both of you the stop was bogus to begin with.

You don't have a trump card. Don't play your good cards too early and waste them.

 

[Bladesmith2000]

The fact that the OP cooperated and complied as instructed by the LEO, even though it was uncomfortable for all, led to everyone going their merry way sans the $240 citation for the admitted speeding violation makes me believe cooperation and honest answers to questions will get you much more mileage than standing on principles alone. The stop could have been much more costly than the time spent, and potentially much more uncomfortable as well. Just my 2 cents.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I have the trump card because I customarily iniate the traffic stop.

I haven't been the subject of a traffic stop in a vehicle since the 1990s.

I suppose I appreciate when people volunteer. I don't really care, because no true bad guy will volunteer that info. I don't need to see the gun and I don't want to touch it. Never had a person who volunteered armed status fail to be decent and in possession of required documentation. Never had a CCer pop for a warrant. Never written a CCer a cite. In fact, I seem to rarely pull em over. Most are wise enough to be the gray driver.

The fact is that there are sooo many legitimate criminals out there that I don't waste my time making decent folks into criminals. When I do a traffic stop I'm after dope, extreme DUI, or warrants.

Before I pull a driver over, I already know the answer to 90% of the questions I ask. The integrity of the known responses determines whether I believe the unknown ones, and determines whether I dig deeper. I've done a warrant check before I even contact the driver. I know how many times he's been convicted for drug possession. I know whether his insurance in canceled or his license is suspendes. This is why it took the cop _____ seconds to pull you over. He was digitally digging to see whether it was worth getting out of his car.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Tony: Do you have tinted windows in your car?

Cops in Florida do not like approaching the drivers side door when they can't see if someone in the back seat has a shotgun pointed at them. That may explain why the cop asked you to get out and walk towards him.

 

[brboyer]

In Florida, you are not obligated by law to volunteer the information that you are carrying concealed. However, if you are asked by a LEO, you are then obligated to inform him.
[snip]

Under what statute?

 

[Ianp240]

Without probable cause to believe the weapon is stolen the office seizing the weapon and running a background check on that weapon commits a THIRD DEGREE FELONY !!! The officer is in fact creating a form of registration as the serial number will now be recorded in the system or in some other form of record. Not to mention 4th Amendment issues relating to unlawful seizure of property

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—…….

(2) PROHIBITIONS.—No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms.

(3) EXCEPTIONS.—The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(a) Records of firearms that have been used in committing any crime.
(b) Records relating to any person who has been convicted of a crime.


(4) PENALTIES.—
(a) Any person who, or entity that, violates a provision of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(d) The state attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction shall investigate complaints of criminal violations of this section and, where evidence indicates a violation may have occurred, shall prosecute violators. Shall prosecute the offender.

Without probable cause to believe the weapon is stolen the office seizing the weapon and running a check commits a THIRD DEGREE FELONY and under Florida law a citizen may arrest any person who in his presence commits a felony (Common Law). Further more the provision of 776.013 of the Florida statute states:-

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Forcible Felony is defined at 776.08 

Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
The question that needs to be brought to the attention of all LEO’s in Florida is that we the people have a course of action open to us if they intend to follow the “Officer Safety” Disarmament route.

As a former LEO (Retired) I take great exception to anybody abusing the law and infringing on my rights in the name of officer safety, instead of proper training and correct procedure, in other words laziness, I do not endorse the use of force against any LEO unless justified by the law and in the case of unlawful disarmament of a lawfully permitted individual I have to consider whether officers and there senior management are blatantly ignoring the rule of law and are thereby placing the safety of their subordinates in unnecessary danger, I refer to the instruction issued by the Florida Highway Patrol.

http://www.flhsmv.gov/Bulletins/ConcealedLegalTraining.pdf

 

[brboyer]

Without probable cause to believe the weapon is stolen the office seizing the weapon and running a background check on that weapon commits a THIRD DEGREE FELONY !!! The officer is in fact creating a form of registration as the serial number will now be recorded in the system or in some other form of record. Not to mention 4th Amendment issues relating to unlawful seizure of property
[snip]

Wrong and wrong.

 

[zxcvbob]

@Ianp240: Be careful. You don't know that the officer actually entered your SN into a database, or if he just read the database. Just by searching he is committing an unlawful act (4th Amendment violation) but if you push the issue the entire justice system will back him up -- because gun ownership by law-abiding citizens sticks in their craw.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

I'm curious if the firearm is considered to be used in the commission of a crime, "armed speeding", or some such. It seems like if you have drawn an officers attention and happen to be armed that your right to be armed is momentarily invalidated as a result of your crime or unlawful traffic violation in this case.

 

[Ianp240]

brboyer........ Wrong and wrong.

I have quoted the Florida statue as it is, so for the sake of discussion please expand on your interpretation of the law as quoted, I for one would like to benefit from understanding your point of view.

From my point of view the porperty (lawful provable ownership and lawfully carried firearm) is not seen differently from anyother type of property under the law, and as such unless the officer has justifiable and substantiated probable cause to believe it is in fact contraband, he or she has no legal right to take possession of the firearm. (Unless Tery v Ohio comes into play)

In addition for the sake of arguement it could be argued that I have the same probable cause to believe that he or she has stolen their uniform and police cruiser.

I can prove ownership of all my firearms and carry such with me at all times and I have a Florida issued license to carry a concealed weapon which I carry with me at all times.

If he or she asked to take possession of your wallet and money clip would you see it differently?

The fact that he has called in the serial number is in fact a form of registration as he or she has no justifiable cause to do so, that call and serial number enquiry will have been checked against a database and will have been linked to that officer in that database enquiry and possibly linked to me, this is further strengthend if the officer wrote the serial number down in his notebook or on a piece of paper.

That act of noting the serial number of my lawfully owned and possessed firearm is a form registration and is probable cause to believe that a third degree felony has been commited in my pressence and as such the power of arrest by a Flroida citizen is likely justifiable.

In addition the law states that a prosecutor shall prosecute any infraction of this section of the law, that's what the law says and leaves no discretion to the prosecutor.

I would be interested in your interpretation.

 

[crossrhodes]

Lucky

Your lucky you weren't in Vermont and holding a cell phone or you would of took one of the seven rounds fired at you in the back.

 

[Ianp240]

Another point of contention with the Florida Highway Patrol Legal brief is that it is not factually correct in it interpretation of the law. In particular as it applies to carrying a loaded weapon in a vehicle.

Under Florida statute the law states that a firearm carried in a vehicle needs to be either securley encased or carried concealed in accordance with a permit.

However the law exempts shotguns and rifles from that definition and as such a loaded long gun may be carried across the dashboard, on the rear seat, even hanging from the roof lining using string, a long gun does not need to be securely encased, as long as it is carried for a lawful purpose, ie self defence.

790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.—
(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

The bolded section above is the key, so in my humble opinion the legal briefing by the Highway Patrol is in fact intilectual dishonesty, that document may prove to be very useful in a court if as instucted to do so by that flyer the officer arrest somebody for carrying a longun not secured or not concealed

Additionally, when encountering the firearm or weapon in a vehicle in Florida, you must determine if the weapon or firarm is securely encased or readilly available for immediate use......

 

[brboyer]

I have quoted the Florida statue as it is, so for the sake of discussion please expand on your interpretation of the law as quoted, I for one would like to benefit from understanding your point of view.

From my point of view the porperty (lawful provable ownership and lawfully carried firearm) is not seen differently from anyother type of property under the law, and as such unless the officer has justifiable and substantiated probable cause to believe it is in fact contraband, he or she has no legal right to take possession of the firearm. (Unless Tery v Ohio comes into play)
[snipped all the nonsense]
I would be interested in your interpretation.

Try this:

901.151 Stop and frisk Law.—
(1) This section may be known and cited as the “Florida stop and frisk Law.”
(2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
(3) No person shall be temporarily detained under the provisions of subsection (2) longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that subsection. Such temporary detention shall not extend beyond the place where it was first effected or the immediate vicinity thereof.
(4) If at any time after the onset of the temporary detention authorized by subsection (2), probable cause for arrest of person shall appear, the person shall be arrested. If, after an inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the temporary detention, no probable cause for the arrest of the person shall appear, the person shall be released.
(5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized.

Although this statute does not entirely comport with Terry's "And presently dangerous" provision, it is currently clearly established in Florida, that if you tell a LEO (or he/she discovers) you are armed during a traffic stop he/she is well within their authority to remove the weapon for 'officer safety' and many departments SOP is to run all weapons. Like it or not, that is the current situation in Florida.

Your suggestion that an individual is justified in 'arresting' a LEO in the lawful performance of his/her duties is....well, I suppose I'll have to use a High Road description...nonsense, dangerous, uninformed, laughable, etc.

 

[Ianp240]

There you go!!!!
A traffic stop is not a criminal offence or a criminal act and possession of a legal permited weapon is not a criminal act per se.

(2) ...has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained

.

if section 2 falls then section 5 in null and void.

As to the following

Your suggestion that an individual is justified in 'arresting' a LEO in the lawful performance of his/her duties is....well, I suppose I'll have to use a High Road description...nonsense, dangerous, uninformed, laughable, etc.

I can only say the power of arrest is not the sole purvue of LEO's and maybe exercised by a Florida Citizen and exsisted long before the formation of LEO's. You be judge of which is High Road or Not

 

[Deanimator]

1. Never let them search? That seems pretty unreasonable. In my state if I have a suspicion of drugs then I can detain you for a reasonable period of time out of your vehicle while I await a k-9 to walk around your vehicle.

NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES will I CONSENT to a search.

I ALWAYS carry a voice recorder of some kind. My REFUSAL of consent will be documented.

If you try to unlawfully search after that, well you're free to play career Russian roulette to your heart's content. I won't resist, but I will do everything possible to wreck your career.

Get a K-9, get a velociraptor. I'm not CONSENTING to ANYTHING.

 

[gatorjames85]

I can only say the power of arrest is not the sole purvue of LEO's and maybe exercised by a Florida Citizen and exsisted long before the formation of LEO's. You be judge of which is High Road or Not

Even if you may be justified in executing a citizen's arrest on a LEO (which is highly doubtful under the circumstances you mentioned, you will probably be killed or end up in serious legal trouble if you do so.

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Lots of interesting debate here.

A.) Is a speeding violation a crime and is a traffic stop a criminal investigation?

B.) Is the passenger of a vehicle an accomplice to a crime and can they be detained as a result of the stop?

C.) Had the passenger refused to disarm, would she have been disarmed by force? If so, what implications does that have for lawful ccw... Armed but only at the pleasure of any LEO?

D.) Are public rights a moot point when they can take your child away and draw weapons on you at any sign of disagreement until you sort the details out at personal expense in a courtoom?

Note: obviously the situation could have been avoided by being more careful about speed. However, at times citizens have been pulled over for reasons less clear, and what happens after the stop is the subject of inquiry. To the poster that asked if I had tinted windows or not, the answer is no, the issue was a speed limit infraction.

 

[Deanimator]

Note: obviously the situation could have been avoided by being more careful about speed. However, at times citizens have been pulled over for reasons less clear, and what happens after the stop is the subject of inquiry. To the poster that asked if I had tinted windows or not, the answer is no, the issue was a speed limit infraction.

If you don't want to interact with the police, don't do things which precipitate such interactions.

I want NOTHING to do with the police, hence I go way out of my way to NOT do things which would cause me to have to interact with them.

In an involuntary interaction, my watchwords are:

1. Am I free to leave?
2. I do not consent [to ANYTHING].

 

[robhof]

My question would be; how would they react if it were them being treated as such or would they use their badge as a TREAT Me Special pass???? Thank GOD for dash cams and phone cams, I've already got the new ap that will record without the screen on so the Gestapo don't confiscate your phone, when they're doing something Wrong!!! I'm not anti-police, but I'm definitely against ANY abuse of power and recording is the best way to insure any abuse is stopped, at least by the threat of public scrutiny!!!

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

If you don't want to interact with the police, don't do things which precipitate such interactions.

Excellent point.

Let's continue with the discussion of what happens after such interactions have been precipitated.