Traffic Stop WHY Is It Safer To Inform

[bensdad]

I don't buy that crap about it being for anyone's safety. A holstered gun is a 100 % safe gun. By taking it out, you (cop) are endangering me. This process is no different than gun control. It's not about the gun (safety) it's about control.

If I have a gun, and I have any inclination whatsoever to use it on a cop who just pulled me over, why the hell am I gonna hand it over? If I'm a normal dude who just drove too fast or needs a new headlight, why should we (cop and me) be exposed to the danger of a loaded gun in the hands of someone who has no practice/familiarity with that model? Cops disarming people as part of a traffic stop is a joke. Zero to do with safety. Everything to do with power trip.

 

[Old Dog]

Gee, and I thought this thread was about the relative merits of the "inform-don't inform" question, but now some have decided it's about cops disarming lawfully-carrying citizens during traffic stops?

Just where does this happen? How often? How many of you have personally experienced this? Or is getting disarmed during a routine traffic stop just like a bigfoot sighting?

Cops disarming people as part of a traffic stop is a joke.

No, it's actually deadly serious.

At least up here, if Joe Trooper, Jane Deputy or John Townie is compelled to disarm a driver, they must have a pretty darn good reason and be able to articulate said reason in the subsequent report. No duty for CPL holders to inform, but the cop will generally ask the question at night, and that's about it.

Zero to do with safety. Everything to do with power trip.

Ah, another voice of reason. And you know this to be, how?

Much freakin' ado about nothing, as usual.

 

[Zundfolge]

Zero to do with safety. Everything to do with power trip.

Ah, another voice of reason. And you know this to be, how?

Because one of the basic rules of gun safety is "Don't touch it unless you MUST!".

A gun left in its holster is the absolute safest it can be, so an officer handling someone else's gun is not as safe. Period.

Since nobody is actually made safer by an officer disarming a law abiding citizen there must be another reason for the practice.

 

[Old Dog]

Zundfolge, apparently you missed the context in which I made my statement. No worries, it happens.

My point was that, under normal circumstances, it is not common practice to disarm legally-carrying drivers during routine traffic stops. I challenge any of you easily-offended folks to document jurisdictions where it is common practice, and spelled out in an agency's policies. Oh, and that would be any jurisdiction where every traffic stop involving a CPL/CHL/CCW holder results in the officer, by department policy, having to disarm the lawfully-packing citizen subsequent to being provided a look at the citizen's license to carry.

Second, IF an officer deems it necessary to do so, there must be a compelling reason, and it is nothing to do with a power-tripping LEO.

Sheesh. Again, our OP (who seems to love starting LEO vs. citizen threads) spoke only on the question of informing the officers.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

As far as being let go because you have a CPL, CHP, install state acronym here, I have heard of it once. At least that what the person thought. A friend of mine was stopped and immediately surrendered his DL, reg, POI, and CPL, per Michigan law. When the cop came back he asked where the firearm was and was told. He then asked WHAT it was and then proceeded to talk guns with my friend for several minutes. He wasn't even sure what he was stopped for, though he assumed it was for speeding, because the cop told him to "slow it down a bit" and "have a nice day." This was definitely one of his more pleasant brushes with the law, and he was pleased with the cop's knowledge of firearms. Which brings up another point:

I have no reason to believe the cop knows what he's doing.

Do cops have any formal training from the job that familiarizes them with the various operations of today's autos, or is it mostly OTJT so to speak?

 

[Jeff White]

Because one of the basic rules of gun safety is "Don't touch it unless you MUST!".

Funny, that's not listed in my copy of the four universal rules. So guns are only for your viewing pleasure? I bet you never get yours out of the safe, after all, it's dangerous if you touch it....You just admire yours from a distance..right?

A gun left in its holster is the absolute safest it can be, so an officer handling someone else's gun is not as safe. Period.

Why is the subject even carrying that dangerous gun? He had to touch it to put it in his holster. I guess he managed to get it out of the safe and put it in it's holster without being bitten. Do you have to handle them like venomous snakes?

Since nobody is actually made safer by an officer disarming a law abiding citizen there must be another reason for the practice.

If the stopped driver was a law abiding citizen, there wouldn't be a traffic stop. The fact is, he's already being detained while an investigation into a violation is done.

Secondly, the officer has no way of knowing that the person he's stopped is only a traffic offender. For all the officer knows, this "law abiding citizen", this "certified good guy", just lost it and killed his wife and is on his way to do himself in, or it could be that he just lost his job and that speeding ticket is going to be the straw that broke the camels back and he's ready to go off the deep end. Sorry you guys are just whining because you feelings are hurt. You have no argument and you know it.

Every one of you would do the same if the situation was reversed and your gut feeling was that you should disarm this "law abiding citizen".

Jeff

 

[moooose102]

well, in michigan, it is required, and the cop knows when he runs my plates! so it is much better as if i do not inform him/her, i could be spending a while in metal bracelets. not my idea of a good time. i have told a couple of officers, and they didnt even blink an eye, they just said thanks for informing them, and we got on with out business. anyway, i am sure it has to do with the suprise that comes about if the officer does accidently see your weapon without him knowing. at that point, he would be FORCED to assume that you are a bad guy, and are carrying illeagaly. also he would probably (if he values his life) have to assume that you are going to do him serious bodily harm with the gun. in that split second, he will have to draw his weapon, and demand you exit the car, and disarm you one way or the other. best case scenario is you will end up in those metal bracelets for a while, worse case is he might slip in all the comotion and shoot you. imo, it would just be safer to tell him up front, and avoid all the hassle. if you tell him, and show your permit, it should (theroreticly) put him at ease, at least somewhat. by you showing him your permit, he knows that you have undergone a criminal background check, and you are not one.:banghead: that is why, imo, it is safer to tell an officer that you are carrying, and have a permit.

 

[Treo]

Sheesh. Again, our OP (who seems to love starting LEO vs. citizen threadS)

Actually I've started 4 threads along this line in 10 months and I haven't started one( except this one) since February 15th

 

[Czar]

As long as the actions you take are not in ignorance to the laws or your rights, what you choose as right for you given the situation is up to you. For me personally, how I would respond to a situation in one jurisdiction is different than how I would respond in another. I know there's a lot of discussion about pro's and con's/safety issues/etc and my answer (be it right or wrong) is the old accurate copout: It depends on the situation.

While you may have the right not to inform, sometimes it is in your best interest beyond the situation of an officer interaction while armed. As with most things, there are no absolutes.

If you have no duty to inform and you choose to do so anyway, you know the possible reactions of the officer – we discuss these at length from our varied experiences. As long as people are not making decisions in ignorance, it comes down to a "whatever floats your boat". However, once you choose to inform, you can't take it back during that encounter. I don’t think there is a safety issue to informing or not, or at least that’s not what I worry about when I consider LEO interactions. `

Case in point:
This morning I was stopped in a speed trap doing 57 in a 45. I don't know how fast I was going since I was in a pack of 8-10 cars and I was humming along with the flow of traffic -My bad. Now, unfortunately, I work at one of those places where I have signed as a condition of employment an agreement allowing random inspections of my car and we have a no weapons policy. When I was stopped, I was one of 3 cars on the side of the road who got pulled over. The motorcycle cop (local sheriff’s office) came up to my (right) window and asked for license/registration/proof of insurance (which was unfortunately expired... stupid 6 month cards). I was not carrying my sidearm, but I chose to hand over my CCW license issued by the same sheriff’s dept with my other info. He looked at it, and promptly handed it back to me. He goes and runs my info and comes back with a summons to appear for failure to present proof of insurance (which I can't blame him - but will be dismissed as my current card is at home) but nothing other than a polite "please slow down" for the 57 in a 45.

Boiling it down, I have to believe the only reason I got out of a 57 in a 45 speeding ticket in a speed trap run by at least the 5 units I saw, was because I chose to inform the officer. I never told him I had a firearm, just handed him the card. Will I always inform? Probably not. Will I always inform in a substantially similar situation where I am not carrying and was speeding and got caught? Probably... In that case I had nothing to lose and everything to gain. My license paid for itself today!

 

[bensdad]

Old Dog said:

Gee, and I thought this thread was about the relative merits of the "inform-don't inform" question, but now some have decided it's about cops disarming lawfully-carrying citizens during traffic stops?

Yeah. That's the reason to not inform. It goes directly to the OP.

Czar said:

Boiling it down, I have to believe the only reason I got out of a 57 in a 45 speeding ticket in a speed trap run by at least the 5 units I saw, was because I chose to inform the officer. I never told him I had a firearm, just handed him the card. Will I always inform? Probably not. Will I always inform in a substantially similar situation where I am not carrying and was speeding and got caught? Probably... In that case I had nothing to lose and everything to gain. My license paid for itself today!

I know we all have different perspectives. I don't want favors from cops. This is because I don't want them to expect favors from me. Their job is to enforce the law. Write me the ticket - you caught me. I won't fetch a ball like a puppy so trooper can scratch me behind the ears.

Jeff White said:

Every one of you would do the same if the situation was reversed and your gut feeling was that you should disarm this "law abiding citizen".

Wow. You either didn't read or didn't understand Terry. It specifically rules out a "gut feeling" as an acceptable reason.

Jeff White said:

Sorry you guys are just whining because you feelings are hurt.

My feelings are just fine. Seems to me some cops (and ex cops) are the ones with hurt feelings. The idea of people protecting their civil rights just can't be fathomed by some.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Using Common Sense

My encounters with LEOs while armed have actually gone BETTER because I kept my hands on the steering wheel, informed the officer that I was a CCW permit holder and that my 'sidearm' (don't call it a g...g...g..GUN) is on my strong side. Keeping my hands where the officer can see them, and using the good manners my parents & aunts & uncles taught me (Yes Ma'am, Yes Sir) etc., I cooperate and put the officer at ease.

Makes common sense. Moreover, once they know you're a CCW permit holder (with a background check), they know you're an armed certified Good Guy and they have less to worry about with someone like you than they would with an armed Bad Guy.

Once my identity and permit status has been checked out, in every case (so far), I've been given a friendly verbal warning instead of a ticket, and sent on my way after a friendly conversation comparing my sidearm with the officer's and some discussion about IDPA matches, etc.

Bottom Line: be a Goodwill Ambassador for the 2nd Amendment and give more law enforcement officers more reasons and live example to increase their respect and appreciation of armed citizens.

 

[hoosier8]

My feelings are just fine. Seems to me some cops (and ex cops) are the ones with hurt feelings. The idea of people protecting their civil rights just can't be fathomed by some.

The idea of cuffing you and securing your weapon has nothing to do with feelings or civil rights and everything to do with safety. If you don't want the officer to mess with your weapon, keep it in the car, not visible, and don't give him/her permission to search your vehicle. That is a right which can be waived if the officer got a search warrant. On the other hand, for the officer's safety, and yours by the way, securing your weapon if you are carrying will insure the safety of all. This is some of the training that I have heard about and it is being given due to officers being killed during "routine traffic stops". The fact that officer deaths are down is partly contributed to new training and stronger requirements to practice at the range. Why do you think some officers, in your opinion, over-react? Could it be due to the deaths in the LEO community?

Usually, if the LEO cuffs you, you will be un-cuffed once the weapon is secure. This has not happened to me, but has happened to one of my acquaintances, twice. There are good and bad LEOs but I think everyone would agree that they have a potentially dangerous.

My advice is still not to inform the officer that you are armed, unless it is required by law or that it will become apparent. Never volunteer anything.

 

[Jeff White]

Wow. You either didn't read or didn't understand Terry. It specifically rules out a "gut feeling" as an acceptable reason.

I understand Terry just fine. You on the other hand obviously don't have a clue. When a traffic stop is made a violation has already occurred. The officer is not using his specialized experience to recognize a crime is about to be committed and making contact with a subject and patting him down for weapons.

In this case, the violation has already occurred and the subject has volunteered he has a weapon (either because he's statutorily required to, or because he did anyway). In that instance the officer has every right to disarm that person based on a gut feeling. It's no different then making contact with the man who ran the neighbor kids out of his yard with a baseball bat and is still holding the bat. Anyone with any sense is going to ask him to put the bat down before continuing.

My feelings are just fine. Seems to me some cops (and ex cops) are the ones with hurt feelings. The idea of people protecting their civil rights just can't be fathomed by some.

NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ARMED WHILE THE POLICE ARE TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST YOU!!!

That's right, you have no right to have a gun, sword, brass knuckles, laser cannon or any other weapon you can think of while you are being arrested. A traffic citation is an arrest.

So yes I think your feelings are hurt.

Jeff

 

[SCKimberFan]

When a traffic stop is made a violation has already occurred.

Jeff

I must repectfully disagree. My most recent encounter occurred while driving on I24 from Nashville to Chattanooga. I was in a rental car that had a plate mounted cock-eyed on the front. That was the reason I was given for pulling me over, he implied it was hanging - ready to fall off. No speeding, at limit or 1-2 mph over at best. I wasn't carrying at that time so that is not an issue, but there was no violation.

Quite simply it was a BS stop.

 

[Old Guy]

Florida!

This is easy, my vehicle is a marked Security vehicle.

Stopped once in 20 plus years, robotic voice "License/Insurance and registration driver please"

Gave same

"You were doing 50 in a 35 do you wish to check my radar?"

"No"

"Have a nice day" and I did.

All plastic I.D.s in left rear pocket, in hand when the young Officer approached the open window, Jeep in park, now know not to let that speed creep up in Winter Park.

 

[Jeff White]

I must repectfully disagree. My most recent encounter occurred while driving on I24 from Nashville to Chattanooga. I was in a rental car that had a plate mounted cock-eyed on the front. That was the reason I was given for pulling me over, he implied it was hanging - ready to fall off. No speeding, at limit or 1-2 mph over at best. I wasn't carrying at that time so that is not an issue, but there was no violation.

Does the Tennessee Vehicle Code require license plates to be securely mounted? Does it state that there is a penalty for not securing them? If it does, a violation did in fact occur. That you were not given a citation is immaterial to the issue. If that law is on the books, you could have been.

The vehicle codes in most states are full of violations that are seldom enforced so people think they aren't really violations, but they are. If it's on the books it can be enforced. In this case it would have been up to the officer to prove it was hanging if he decided to cite you.

Jeff

 

[SCKimberFan]

Once again I disagree.

It was mounted cock-eyed, but it was secure. He pulled ahead of me in the left lane, looked back at the front of the vehicle, then proceeded to pull me over. It was NOT flapping in the wind. It was secure.

 

[Jeff White]

I didn't see it, so I'll take your word for it. The officer obviously felt differently.

Jeff

 

[SCKimberFan]

You're right - all you have is my side, but if there had been a violation, I would have received a citation, or at least a warning. I left with neither.

 

[bensdad]

NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ARMED WHILE THE POLICE ARE TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST YOU!!!

That's right, you have no right to have a gun, sword, brass knuckles, laser cannon or any other weapon you can think of while you are being arrested. A traffic citation is an arrest.

So yes I think your feelings are hurt.

I'm not the one screaming. Like I and others have said, know your state and local regs. Give no more than is required. That is all.

 

[dalepres]

A traffic citation is an arrest.

Can you back that up with the section of law? Two minutes, please.

Whoops. Time's up. It's not a true statement, therefore you cannot back it up.

In Douglas v. Buder, 412 U.S. 430, 431-432 (U.S. 1973), the United States Supreme Court wrote,
"The apparent premise upon which respondent proceeded in revoking petitioner's probation was that petitioner had failed promptly to report an 'arrest.' But the issuance of the traffic citation was not an 'arrest' under either Missouri or Arkansas law. By statute, Missouri defines an 'arrest' as 'an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or . . . submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise.' Mo. Rev. Stat. � 544.180 (1953). Similarly, Arkansas defines an 'arrest' as the 'placing of the person of the defendant in restraint, or . . . submitting to the custody of the person making the arrest.' [*432] Ark. Stat. Ann. � 43-412 (1947). The record before us discloses absolutely no evidence that petitioner was subjected to an 'actual restraint' or taken into 'custody' at the scene of the accident or elsewhere. Consequently, we conclude that the finding that petitioner had violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report "all arrests . . . without delay" was so totally devoid of evidentiary support as to be invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960); Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961)."

 

[Jeff White]

It's an arrest in Illinois and many other states.

(725 ILCS 5/107‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑5)
Sec. 107‑5. Method of arrest.
(a) An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person or by his submission to custody.
(b) An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
(c) An arrest may be made anywhere within the jurisdiction of this State.
(d) All necessary and reasonable force may be used to effect an entry into any building or property or part thereof to make an authorized arrest.
(Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

Posting bond at the time of arrest (the citation) as is required in Illinois is submitting to custody. Here a traffic violator can post bond with the arresting officer using cash, an insurance company bond card or what's known as an I Bond which is a promise to appear in lieu of cash bond. Non residents who are residents of one to the 43 states Illinois has a traffic compact with may sign a promise to comply. An officer may issue a notice to appear.

(725 ILCS 5/107‑12) (from Ch. 38, par. 107‑12)
Sec. 107‑12. Notice to appear.
(a) Whenever a peace officer is authorized to arrest a person without a warrant he may instead issue to such person a notice to appear.
(b) The notice shall:
(1) Be in writing;
(2) State the name of the person and his address, if known;
(3) Set forth the nature of the offense;
(4) Be signed by the officer issuing the notice; and
(5) Request the person to appear before a court at a certain time and place.
(c) Upon failure of the person to appear a summons or warrant of arrest may issue.
(d) In any case in which a person is arrested for a Class C misdemeanor or a petty offense and remanded to the sheriff other than pursuant to a court order, the sheriff may issue such person a notice to appear.
(Source: P.A. 83‑693.)

It may not be an arrest in MO or AR but it surely is here. There is nothing in the law that says the traffic violator can't be hooked up, taken to jail and required to post bond there.

Jeff



Jeff

 

[deaconkharma]

Old Dog
Senior Member





OLD DOG
"My point was that, under normal circumstances, it is not common practice to disarm legally-carrying drivers during routine traffic stops." "I challenge any of you easily-offended folks to document jurisdictions where it is common practice, and spelled out in an agency's policies. Oh, and that would be any jurisdiction where every traffic stop involving a CPL/CHL/CCW holder results in the officer, by department policy, having to disarm the lawfully-packing citizen subsequent to being provided a look at the citizen's license to carry." As I said in my post:
According to my stop with the young SCHP patrolman, it is common practice according to his T.O.. I have never ever had this before in SC but have in VA a long time ago. Thus my shock at the request and his statement about policy. I would be glad to provide the name and you could check my facts.

"Second, IF an officer deems it necessary to do so, there must be a compelling reason, and it is nothing to do with a power-tripping LEO."

I am not sure whether to be offended here or not?? Are you implying I'm some sort of miscreant and deserved it? I am always polite and courteous to officers when I interact with them. I don't speed as I am driving a minivan and am in no hurry in my not so young days. There was no reason I assure you. I presented my DL and my CWP as required since I was "carrying". had everything ready when he walked up...

 

[deaconkharma]

by the way

I fully admit it. my feelings are hurt!
Now, by the same token, there seems to be some heatedness (is that a word?) on the side of those who protect LEO rights to disarm. That, I do not decry if they have, as OD put it, "compelling reason". I hardly think a seatbelt violation and 25$ fine either means I am a hardened criminal or the 25$ worth shooting him for. I mean really, a guy in a minivan with no seatbelt not speeding and two child seats in the back? Compelling reason?:banghead:

Ya know?
In this state, I go through just as much background checks as a LEO. IF they are deemed ok why not I? Sigh, I'll quit arguing and justifying my beliefs on this and just do like Hoosier8 says and just Don't Ask Don't Tell. Officers can FEEL better and I can too by keeping my firearm in my control and not in the control of somone else who I am not sure of either their character or training. IF they don't know about me and I go through the same background checks as them, how do I know about them? (just a application of the same logic)
Anyway, I am just a "personal liberty first" sort of guy. Not meaning to get anyone's ire up. Just logical debate. I'm sure that someone will decide to lock this up soon to save the trouble of arguing the finer points of personal liberty. On the nanny nanny boo boo (light hearted jab) side of things...There are safer jobs out there.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

you know whats funny to me? folks don't realize how many folks get caught on something as dumb as an expired sticker. cops don't go looking for most folks on the run they wait for em to deliver themselves. and sure enough they do. example is a local gut son of a judge was driving his beemer with no inspection sticker not expired none speeding and smoking some pot with 250 k worth of bud in the back seat. oops. funnier is they were already looking for him since they got his mom along with his 3 year old son watering the plants at his grow house. boy was a harvard mba. smart feller

as it relates to this post the cops doesn't know what hes got most of em don't recognize the "certified good guy " hand shake they teach when you get your permit