For Those Who Don't Disarm For LEO's

[mtgasten]

Whenever you have been stopped by an Officer of the law and are not free to travel as you were prior to the stop, you have been arrested in order to stop that behavior.

You are correct, technically you have been detained, but the purpose of the detainment is to stop the dangerous, ilegal behavior. Whether it is a traffic infraction or misdemeanor, you have been stopped from continuing the actions which triggered the official response fro the Officer.

Where I went wrong in my previous post was to not clarify at what point you were detained and where that devolved into a legal arrest that is recognized by the court.

For the purposes of the OP's post, if you refuse to comply with the investigating Officer's requests to disarm, you might regret it.

 

[MeechisGotAGun]

i remember when I had my first beer....

 

[Cemetery-man]

Just don't carry when you're in a car and you will never have to worry about having such an encounter with the "LAW".

 

[Roadie]

Does it bother anyone else that we have a Police Officer here who is actually under the impression that every time he pulls someone over, they are "under arrest"??

 

[rw496]

Whoa, you guys got some craziness going on here.
1. Indiana law defines a crime as a felony or misdemeanor..not an infraction
2. There are traffic misdemeanors that are arrestable..i.e. HTV, DWS-prior, etc.
3. I'm not aware of an IN law allowing you to arrest people from out of state if they do not sign an infraction ticket..Iowa and some others do that in their states
4. a traffic stop is a "temporary detention"
5. "in custody" is any circumstances that would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstance to believe that they are not free to leave or that their cooperation is compulsory. While you are not free to leave during a traffic stop, this type of seizure does not constitute custody for purposes of Miranda or Pirtle rights and does not necessarily mean you are going to jail.
6. Custodial arrest is when a reasonable person would believe they were under arrest..such as cuffed and in the back of a car. Miranda applies.
There is a very fine line that separates each of these and each has additional rights and responsibilities attached to it. Failure to properly apply any of these to your situation will lead to your case getting tossed in a hurry.

 

[FFM173]

I think what fueled the OP to ask the question he did was because you see so many posts on here about interactions with the Police that end with them asking you to turn over your gun or disarming you. And when someone states that they did hand over thier firearm, so may of you jump on the bandwagon that you would never allow that to happen.

In response to his question he got only one person to tell their story about what happened when he didnt hand over his firearm after being requested, and got 7 pages of "Detained vs Arrest" debate.

With all the talk about how you wouldn't hand it over, there has to be more than one person out there that has a story to tell. If he is the only one, then there are alot of people out there that are all talk and would/did hand it over to the officer.

I have been asked once, after ISP seen my LTCH and he asked to see my gun. I advised him it was under my seat and was loaded. I told him that I was not going to give him my loaded gun, but I would unload it and let him hold on to the magazine, if it made him feel safe. He complied and went to his car. I carry more than one magazine with me. No ticket issued.

Another time I pulled off the road to help a ISP with flat tire on his cruiser. Advised him I was OCing a Glock, He looked right at me and said. "No Problem" I kept my gun and he never said a word about it.

 

[ATM]

...when someone states that they did hand over thier firearm, so may of you jump on the bandwagon that you would never allow that to happen.

I think you're confusing "never allowing that to happen" with "I won't be handling my gun but won't resist being disarmed."

The bandwagon jumping is generally in response to consentually handing it over and feeling like that's in some way reasonable.

...With all the talk about how you wouldn't hand it over, there has to be more than one person out there that has a story to tell. If he is the only one, then there are alot of people out there that are all talk and would/did hand it over to the officer.

Most of us won't have a story to tell until an officer actually asks us to disarm rather than doing it themselves without consent.

 

[thebishopp]

Does it bother anyone else that we have a Police Officer here who is actually under the impression that every time he pulls someone over, they are "under arrest"??

Most definitely. He did go on to explain his reasoning and it being a matter of his own definition versus what the courts see as an "arrest" (at least that's what I got).

However his later posts actually contained elements which were cause for concern as well.

Especially mention that he has been training young officers in this mentality as well as his opinions that traffic infractions are criminal offenses, all traffic infractions are "dangerous illegal behavior", as well as comments that he will always follow a judges orders (implying even unlawful ones) and how one might "regret" not obeying a police officer's orders (which in this context concerned obeying an order by a police officer that was not necessarily lawful).

I am hoping that this guy is just trying to bait some people on here (I believe "trolling" is the new term). It is surprising that I have not seen a few other leo's (former as well as current) who have been on this thread come out and say "WTF?" over some of this person's self-stated practices.

 

[thebishopp]

Whoa, you guys got some craziness going on here.
1. Indiana law defines a crime as a felony or misdemeanor..not an infraction
2. There are traffic misdemeanors that are arrestable..i.e. HTV, DWS-prior, etc.
3. I'm not aware of an IN law allowing you to arrest people from out of state if they do not sign an infraction ticket..Iowa and some others do that in their states
4. a traffic stop is a "temporary detention"
5. "in custody" is any circumstances that would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstance to believe that they are not free to leave or that their cooperation is compulsory. While you are not free to leave during a traffic stop, this type of seizure does not constitute custody for purposes of Miranda or Pirtle rights and does not necessarily mean you are going to jail.
6. Custodial arrest is when a reasonable person would believe they were under arrest..such as cuffed and in the back of a car. Miranda applies.
There is a very fine line that separates each of these and each has additional rights and responsibilities attached to it. Failure to properly apply any of these to your situation will lead to your case getting tossed in a hurry.

Quoted for truth.

 

[j706]

For all the INGO legal genesis's. A TS is technically an arrest, like it or not. You are being legally deprived of your choice to leave period. I think that is what sloughfoot is trying to tell you people.

Arrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Benny]

For all the INGO legal genesis's.

 

[Rookie]

 

[Roadie]

For all the INGO legal genesis's. A TS is technically an arrest, like it or not. You are being legally deprived of your choice to leave period. I think that is what sloughfoot is trying to tell you people.

Arrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"you people"? hmm

As for your "thin blue line" defense of your fellow LEO, his original quote was:

Whenever you have been stopped by an Officer of the law and are not free to travel as you were prior to the stop, you have been arrested in order to stop that behavior.

He said "have been arrested" you said "technically arrested". Not quite the same thing..

As for the definition of arrest..
From your "wiki"..

When there exists probable cause to believe that a person has committed a serious crime, the police typically handcuff an arrested person, who will be held in a police station or jail pending a judicial bail determination or an arraignment.

That doesn't sound like a traffic stop to me.
A traffic stop basically falls under "Terry" does it not? Therefore wouldn't it be defined as a detainment for the purpose of investigation, which can END in an arrest pending the outcome of the detainment?

While IANAL, I cannot fathom that detainment, and arrest, are the same thing. Not in the US at least..

 

[Hawkeye]

Roadie:

I would not classify a traffic stop as a Terry stop in all cases. A terry stop is based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. There would have to be something more than a mere traffic stop to have it rise to a Terry stop, at least as I understand the law. While I am a lawyer, I am not practicing traffic or criminal law in Indiana so take it for what its worth.

Hawkeye

 

[Roadie]

Roadie:

I would not classify a traffic stop as a Terry stop in all cases. A terry stop is based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. There would have to be something more than a mere traffic stop to have it rise to a Terry stop, at least as I understand the law. While I am a lawyer, I am not practicing traffic or criminal law in Indiana so take it for what its worth.

Hawkeye

Well don't stop there man! Chime in on the original statement being debated! lol

Whenever you have been stopped by an Officer of the law and are not free to travel as you were prior to the stop, you have been arrested in order to stop that behavior.

Is a traffic stop an "arrest"?

 

[Hawkeye]

That would require me to do some research which I don't really feel like doing on Saturday night! �� But based on what I've seen posted distinguishing traffic laws from criminal laws and my own general background, I'd say a mere traffic stop is not an arrest. Actually that seems so patently obvious, that I'm a bit surprised at the discussion, not so much from the "laymen" ( if I can use that as a term to describe non-lawyers/non-police) but from those representing themselves as LEO's.

 

[Roadie]

That would require me to do some research which I don't really feel like doing on Saturday night! �� But based on what I've seen posted distinguishing traffic laws from criminal laws and my own general background, I'd say a mere traffic stop is not an arrest. Actually that seems so patently obvious, that I'm a bit surprised at the discussion, not so much from the "laymen" ( if I can use that as a term to describe non-lawyers/non-police) but from those representing themselves as LOE's.

Nah, no need for research, thanks for the opinion though... and agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[Dead Duck]

From now on, I'm going to drive with my handcuffs on. This way I'll be a one step ahead of him.

Ooooh - Hope its a her!

 

[concrete dog]

I think what fueled the OP to ask the question he did was because you see so many posts on here about interactions with the Police that end with them asking you to turn over your gun or disarming you. And when someone states that they did hand over thier firearm, so may of you jump on the bandwagon that you would never allow that to happen.

In response to his question he got only one person to tell their story about what happened when he didnt hand over his firearm after being requested, and got 7 pages of "Detained vs Arrest" debate.

With all the talk about how you wouldn't hand it over, there has to be more than one person out there that has a story to tell. If he is the only one, then there are alot of people out there that are all talk and would/did hand it over to the officer.

I have been asked once, after ISP seen my LTCH and he asked to see my gun. I advised him it was under my seat and was loaded. I told him that I was not going to give him my loaded gun, but I would unload it and let him hold on to the magazine, if it made him feel safe. He complied and went to his car. I carry more than one magazine with me. No ticket issued.

Another time I pulled off the road to help a ISP with flat tire on his cruiser. Advised him I was OCing a Glock, He looked right at me and said. "No Problem" I kept my gun and he never said a word about it.

In my story( post 49) the LEO never asked me to give it up,she took it with weapon drawn. I didn't have the option to say no.LOL

 

[sloughfoot]

Cops are keenly cognizant of the difference between a "good guy" and a "bad guy". The person stopped for a traffic infraction really does lead where the stop goes. I don't care if you have a bazooka in the car until you start acting like a fool.

If you have a citation coming because you screwed up while driving, just take the ticket and pay the fine or explain to the Judge.

Either is fine by me.

I have to admit that my worksheet filling out days are long over, but there is a spot on the daily worksheet for...

1.Traffic Arrest
A. Infraction
B. Misdemeanor

2. Misdemeanor Arrest

3. Felony Arrest.

4. Warrant Arrest.

5. Written warning.

6. Verbal warning.

This data for the PD's Stats, not necessarily the legal definition. This is what my previous posts were mainly referring to.

I still suggest that anyone being detained by a Police Officer in a traffic stop be polite and compliant with the Officer's requests on the side of the highway.

If you feel you were wronged during this detention and possible arrest, there are options available to you afterward.

You guys cite all these IC's but our judges in Allen County consider you "arrested" the moment a citation is issued. That is a fact here. All you roadside lawyers can cite the IC's and that is fine, but there are Court of Appeals rulings and local rules that modify how the IC's are enforced. Usually, these changes ease up on the IC, but sometimes not.