Was there a court decision about temporarily seizing gun during a traffic stop?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • magic man

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    31   0   1
    Mar 7, 2010
    20,357
    48
    NWI
    Was there a court decision over the last year or 2 about officers temporarily taking a gun during a traffic stop? A friend was asking and I thought I remember a court opinion regarding that in the last few years, but can't seem to find anything.

    Thanks
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    All I know is that my goal during a traffic stop is to make the officer comfortable. I like to meet him (or her) and shake his hand, so I immediately get out of my car and walk back to him and and tell him in a loud and clear voice: "I have a gun!"
     

    femurphy77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,268
    113
    S.E. of disorder
    All I know is that my goal during a traffic stop is to make the officer comfortable. I like to meet him (or her) and shake his hand, so I immediately get out of my car and walk back to him and and tell him in a loud and clear voice: "I have a gun!"

    It must be true, he's here telling the story!:runaway:
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    In each instance, officers seem to feel they may violate a citizens rights, based on their belief that, even though they`ve seen no aggressive or threatening behavior, that they may "be in danger". What a load of hooey. Unconstitutional as well as unacceptable.

    *rubs temples*


    Ok, we have Pinner now. Everyone relax and do some deep breaths.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I love these threads. One should probably simply get used to the idea that officers have the ability to disarm anyone they have made legal contact with, for suspicion of violating the law or ordinance. I didn't do it as course of habit, but there were times, when "something didn't seem right," and the person disarmed.

    Kut (sees clouds gathering)
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    I love these threads. One should probably simply get used to the idea that officers have the ability to disarm anyone they have made legal contact with, for suspicion of violating the law or ordinance. I didn't do it as course of habit, but there were times, when "something didn't seem right," and the person disarmed.

    Kut (sees clouds gathering)
    Police officers should probably get used to the notion that when the constitution requires them to have articulable evidence to support a reasonable believe that a person is armed AND dangerous, they should maybe actually have some articulable evidence before seizing property.

    The only thing I've seen more suppressions one off of than bad Terry pat downs is police officer's inability to figure out how to follow IAC 260.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    Police officers should probably get used to the notion that when the constitution requires them to have articulable evidence to support a reasonable believe that a person is armed AND dangerous, they should maybe actually have some articulable evidence before seizing property.

    I think people should be able to articulate why it is "unreasonable" for an officer to disarm a person who is suspected of being in violation a law or ordinance. So if I was to articulate it, I would say "Judge, I disarmed this person because they were in violation of XYZ. I would not have disarmed this person if they were not suspected of violating XYZ. In my experience and many others that serve in LE, people whom I make contact with due to suspicion of violating XYZ, are far more likely to pose a risk to myself than those who have not violated XYZ, hence why that person was disarmed."
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    I think people should be able to articulate why it is "unreasonable" for an officer to disarm a person who is suspected of being in violation a law or ordinance. So if I was to articulate it, I would say "Judge, I disarmed this person because they were in violation of XYZ. I would not have disarmed this person if they were not suspected of violating XYZ. In my experience and many others that serve in LE, people whom I make contact with due to suspicion of violating XYZ, are far more likely to pose a risk to myself than those who have not violated XYZ, hence why that person was disarmed."
    The state bears the burden in every seizure absent a warrant. People don't have to articulate crap. What you describe is what's called an "unparticularized hunch", something explicitly addressed in Terry.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    1. “‘Where a search or seizure is conducted without a warrant, the State bears the burden to prove that an exception to the warrant requirement existed at thetime of the search or seizure.’” Mullen v. State, 55 N.E.3d 822, 827 (Ind. Ct.App. 2016) (quoting Brooks v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1234, 1240 (Ind. Ct. App.2010), trans. denied).
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    The state bears the burden in every seizure absent a warrant. People don't have to articulate crap. What you describe is what's called an "unparticularized hunch", something explicitly addressed in Terry.

    I articulated the reasoning. Explain why such articulation isn't valid.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    I articulated the reasoning. Explain why such articulation isn't valid.

    Because it's non-specific to the person or the circumstances of the particular person. You have to have something specifically about that person to say that they are dangerous. Saying that because they speed or let their grass grow too high or drink under age makes him dangerous is simply not going to meet the legal standard. Now if the stop is for armed robbery or some other crime of violence, sure you can probably get there based off the offense for which the Terry stop is made. Also, if you have a speeder who won't show you his hands, won't obey your directions as far as getting in and out of the vehicle, etc. you can get there too. Blanketly saying that people are dangerous just because the police stop them is exactly why the evidence was suppressed in the Washington case that I posted for the OP.
     

    jbombelli

    ITG Certified
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    May 17, 2008
    13,010
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    All I know is that my goal during a traffic stop is to make the officer comfortable. I like to meet him (or her) and shake his hand, so I immediately get out of my car and walk back to him and and tell him in a loud and clear voice: "I have a gun!"

    It works better if you take your pants off so they can see that you aren't concealing anything.
     

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    524,489
    Messages
    9,794,215
    Members
    53,638
    Latest member
    Dhlawson
    Top Bottom