Westfield PD disarms me during traffic stop

[Somemedic]

It does however pave the road for your court case.

Or, you can come to this part of cyberspace and wring your hands and complain about what ifs to us on this forum. You might even arm yourself with the knowledge that can be found here and pass it on to others. After awhile if law enforcement continues to disarm citizens in this manner someone with the sand to take them to task will inevitably and maybe some SOPs will get changed.

Most if not all of these guys know theyre full of **** when they pull this type of seizure. When you let them know that you know its a load of BS then they tend to lose their bravado. Simply whipping a camera out deters most rabid jackboots when they know theyre doing something wrong.

Don't just arm yourself with the newest XDm, get some training on how to use it and load up on the laws that concern carrying. Thats why I keep case laws and IC's in my phone. Nobody loves the uneducated peasantry more than the kings and lords who rule over them.

 

[Tobey]

I am a total noob here (and to the whole carry scene, recent LTCH issuee) and this thread has been incredibly informative but after reading through them all, I do have a purely hypothetical question. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about responding with questions when asked "Do you know why I pulled you over" or "Do you have any weapons" which gave rise to my hypothetical. I certainly understand the officer's concern and perspective but the Washington and Malone cases make you cognizant of paying attention to the situation. In doing so, if the LEO is violating the 4th amendment by searching your car when you were pulled over for speeding or a broken taillight, couldn't the owner simply ask the officer before exiting the vehicle, "By searching my car you consent you are willfully violating my 4th amendment protection from illegal search and seizure?" (Or something similar in more proper legalese?).


I know this is a little facetious and crazy noob, but it is just one of those "begging the question" scenarios. I am all for cooperation with the officer and firmly believe they would all prefer a cooperative interaction rather than even the mildest of confrontational (stemming from the simplest of silences) but the argument of unnecessarily handling of my firearm by someone other than me makes me nervous. The scenario of what happens if that officer accidentally discharges my weapon and hits himself, me, or some bystander, oh my what a nightmare that would be.. It is enough to make me want to leave my gun either at home or unloaded in the trunk. Would it be seized if it was unloaded in the trunk (I ask somewhat tongue-in-cheek)? I say that simply to beg the question of isn't a handgun within reach of the owner enough to create concern for officer safety (not condoning, just looking at the possibility)? We all know many stories of less-than-stellar performances by fellow licensees giving gun ownership a bad name. Having a license does not absolve anyone from causing trouble.


Feel free to flame, big post for #2.


Very informative stuff here. Thanks everyone,
Tobey

 

[Sgtusmc]

I am a total noob here (and to the whole carry scene, recent LTCH issuee) and this thread has been incredibly informative but after reading through them all, I do have a purely hypothetical question. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about responding with questions when asked "Do you know why I pulled you over" or "Do you have any weapons" which gave rise to my hypothetical. I certainly understand the officer's concern and perspective but the Washington and Malone cases make you cognizant of paying attention to the situation. In doing so, if the LEO is violating the 4th amendment by searching your car when you were pulled over for speeding or a broken taillight, couldn't the owner simply ask the officer before exiting the vehicle, "By searching my car you consent you are willfully violating my 4th amendment protection from illegal search and seizure?" (Or something similar in more proper legalese?).


I know this is a little facetious and crazy noob, but it is just one of those "begging the question" scenarios. I am all for cooperation with the officer and firmly believe they would all prefer a cooperative interaction rather than even the mildest of confrontational (stemming from the simplest of silences) but the argument of unnecessarily handling of my firearm by someone other than me makes me nervous. The scenario of what happens if that officer accidentally discharges my weapon and hits himself, me, or some bystander, oh my what a nightmare that would be.. It is enough to make me want to leave my gun either at home or unloaded in the trunk. Would it be seized if it was unloaded in the trunk (I ask somewhat tongue-in-cheek)? I say that simply to beg the question of isn't a handgun within reach of the owner enough to create concern for officer safety (not condoning, just looking at the possibility)? We all know many stories of less-than-stellar performances by fellow licensees giving gun ownership a bad name. Having a license does not absolve anyone from causing trouble.


Feel free to flame, big post for #2.


Very informative stuff here. Thanks everyone,
Tobey

Good post. Good question.

 

[DragonGunner]

I am a total noob here (and to the whole carry scene, recent LTCH issuee) and this thread has been incredibly informative but after reading through them all, I do have a purely hypothetical question. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about responding with questions when asked "Do you know why I pulled you over" or "Do you have any weapons" which gave rise to my hypothetical. I certainly understand the officer's concern and perspective but the Washington and Malone cases make you cognizant of paying attention to the situation. In doing so, if the LEO is violating the 4th amendment by searching your car when you were pulled over for speeding or a broken taillight, couldn't the owner simply ask the officer before exiting the vehicle, "By searching my car you consent you are willfully violating my 4th amendment protection from illegal search and seizure?" (Or something similar in more proper legalese?).


I know this is a little facetious and crazy noob, but it is just one of those "begging the question" scenarios. I am all for cooperation with the officer and firmly believe they would all prefer a cooperative interaction rather than even the mildest of confrontational (stemming from the simplest of silences) but the argument of unnecessarily handling of my firearm by someone other than me makes me nervous. The scenario of what happens if that officer accidentally discharges my weapon and hits himself, me, or some bystander, oh my what a nightmare that would be.. It is enough to make me want to leave my gun either at home or unloaded in the trunk. Would it be seized if it was unloaded in the trunk (I ask somewhat tongue-in-cheek)? I say that simply to beg the question of isn't a handgun within reach of the owner enough to create concern for officer safety (not condoning, just looking at the possibility)? We all know many stories of less-than-stellar performances by fellow licensees giving gun ownership a bad name. Having a license does not absolve anyone from causing trouble.


Feel free to flame, big post for #2.


Very informative stuff here. Thanks everyone,
Tobey

Any officer searching your car without your consent or a search warrant had better have a good case.......cause your lawyer and the judge is going to hear about it. Its up to you if you want to tell the officer he is doing wrong. That may or may not stop him.....who knows?

 

[KG1]

Any officer searching your car without your consent or a search warrant had better have a good case.......cause your lawyer and the judge is going to hear about it. Its up to you if you want to tell the officer he is doing wrong. That may or may not stop him.....who knows?

Inform the officer that you have nothing illegal in the vehicle. Any searches and or seizures performed are strictly non consensual.

This is about all you can really do at the scene if he/she wishes to expand an infraction stop.

 

[TheSpark]

So I was speeding and coming my direction was a Westfield Police Officer. It was my fault and I can own up to it. However, he asked me if I had any weapons in the vehicle (I usually just say no) however these cops know me well enough to know I'm usually carrying, so I was honest and said yes. He asked where it was and I told him on my side. He asked me to keep my hands where he can see them and to step out of the vehicle. He the proceeds to remove my firearm from its holster and take it to his car to run the #'s.
He returns to my truck with the mag removed, slide open, the round from the chamber, and a speeding ticket.


Is this protocol? I understand there position as far as Saftey, but if I was a threat I would not of informed him of the firearm. SMH

An officer in Indiana has every right to ask you this question. You also have every right to refuse to answer (if you do answer just make sure to tell the truth). I'm not sure if they can search your person for just a speeding infraction if you refuse to answer.

My opinion on your situation though: The officer made the situation more dangerous by disarming you. Also, IANAL, but I believe he had no right to run the serial number on your gun.

 

[SMiller]

An officer in Indiana has every right to ask you this question. You also have every right to refuse to answer (if you do answer just make sure to tell the truth). I'm not sure if they can search your person for just a speeding infraction if you refuse to answer.

My opinion on your situation though: The officer made the situation more dangerous by disarming you. Also, IANAL, but I believe he had no right to run the serial number on your gun.

I have seen several officers have people exit the vehicle and search them without cause...

 

[Indiana Camper]

A police officer can have you step out of the car. He can pat you down for weapons but not search you.

 

[Bunnykid68]

A police officer can have you step out of the car. He can pat you down for weapons but not search you.

A pat down is a search but according to Terry stop it is allowed

 

[SteveM4A1]

A pat down is a search but according to Terry stop it is allowed

If you are considered (RAS) armed AND dangerous. Right?

 

[Bunnykid68]

If you are considered (RAS) armed AND dangerous. Right?

Hell, I am not sure now. I was thinking the pat down was good on a Terry stop if they asked you to exit the vehicle. I need to take a break from these threads for a day or two

 

[SteveM4A1]

Hell, I am not sure now. I was thinking the pat down was good on a Terry stop if they asked you to exit the vehicle. I need to take a break from these threads for a day or two

Same here. My little brain hurts!

 

[CathyInBlue]

BK does likes him a good pat down. Being told to "assume the position" gets him excited.

 

[Mr. Habib]

For Terry to apply, the LEO MUST have RAS that the person is armed, dangerous, AND committing or just committed a crime. If he doesn't have all three the search / pat down is illegal period.
A traffic violation does not meet the definition of a crime under Terry.

 

[Robert Richardson]

If the LEO commands you to exit the vehicle, roll up the window, pull the keys, and lock the doors when you exit. This action very strongly says that you do not consent to his searching your vehicle.

 

[SteveM4A1]

For Terry to apply, the LEO MUST have RAS that the person is armed, dangerous, AND committing or just committed a crime. If he doesn't have all three the search / pat down is illegal period.
A traffic violation does not meet the definition of a crime under Terry.

http://www.mahaneylaw.com/files/the_law_of_traffic_stops.pdf

That link states traffic stops fall into Terry stop parameters. It would seem to me that it would fall under Terry, but IANAL. Clarification anyone?

 

[Bunnykid68]

BK does likes him a good pat down. Being told to "assume the position" gets him excited.

Depends on who is doing the patting

 

[Mr. Habib]

http://www.mahaneylaw.com/files/the_law_of_traffic_stops.pdf

That link states traffic stops fall into Terry stop parameters. It would seem to me that it would fall under Terry, but IANAL. Clarification anyone?

I'm not familiar with Alabama law, so I don't know how much of that applies here in Indiana. It has always been my understanding that traffic code violations are different than
criminal code violations. I believe that more that one LEO on here has expressed that opinion as well. Terry seems pretty clear that RAS of criminal activity is one of the necessary
requirements for Terry to apply. Don't forget too, that there must also be RAS that the person is dangerous. If you are acting in a calm, respectful, and courteous manner, that will be
hard for them to sell in front the judge also.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I'm not familiar with Alabama law, so I don't know how much of that applies here in Indiana. It has always been my understanding that traffic code violations are different than
criminal code violations. I believe that more that one LEO on here has expressed that opinion as well. Terry seems pretty clear that RAS of criminal activity is one of the necessary
requirements for Terry to apply. Don't forget too, that there must also be RAS that the person is dangerous. If you are acting in a calm, respectful, and courteous manner, that will be
hard for them to sell in front the judge also.

I'm not talking about just the patdown, but the whole stop. I'm not saying that Terry does apply to traffic violations, just that it might and would like some clarification from one more knowledgeable than I. Either way, an officer can't legally just take your firearm without RAS for officer safety, in my opinion. Yes, it happens, obviously way too much, and it is time that something is done about it. If I am ever in that situation, then I will tell the officer that unless he has specific and articulable facts that I am both armed and dangerous, he should expect legal consequences if he touches my firearm or property.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If I am ever in that situation, then I will tell the officer that unless he has specific and art—

*blam* *blam* *blam* Stop resisting! Let me see your hands! I need backup! Officer down!