Duty to Inform

[Bunnykid68]

Guess who I ran into tonight
The officer acknowledge that there is no duty to inform, but followed that up with "it goes smoother for you if you tell me than if I see it and you didn't." (Not exact words) He said he had NEVER written a ticket to someone that informed him. If they show him respect, he'll return the favor.
As for disarming for his safety... he said (and it makes sense if your in his shoes) that he will disarm you because he has to turn his back to you to walk to his car...

Horse answer on a reason to disarm you. He is just a pansy

 

[eachitandi]

Horse answer on a reason to disarm you. He is just a pansy

As much as I'd prefer not to be disarmed, I see his point...traffic coming at you from one direction, someone with a gun from the other. Which way does he watch?

 

[Bunnykid68]

As much as I'd prefer not to be disarmed, I see his point...traffic coming at you from one direction, someone with a gun from the other. Which way does he watch?

Then he should just give you a verbal warning or arrest you if he thinks you are that dangerous. Cops that are that scared of pulling people over for infractions that they feel the need to disarm everyone should be working security at the mall or a bank. **** on them unless they have a damn good reason for disarming them.

 

[Destro]

Which way does he watch?

He SHOULD be watching both, being cognizant of traffic, yet keeping the vehicle and occupants in his peripheral. Informing the officer should simply be a confirmation of what he assumes, that you are carrying a gun

 

[Mark 1911]

As for disarming for his safety... he said (and it makes sense if your in his shoes) that he will disarm you because he has to turn his back to you to walk to his car...

Maybe he should walk backwards then.

If there is no RAS, then there should be no disarming.

 

[nakinate]

Maybe he should walk backwards then.

If there is no RAS, then there should be no disarming.

I was about to say the same thing!

 

[SteveM4A1]

Then he should just give you a verbal warning or arrest you if he thinks you are that dangerous. Cops that are that scared of pulling people over for infractions that they feel the need to disarm everyone should be working security at the mall or a bank. **** on them unless they have a damn good reason for disarming them.

Exactly.

I'm tired of the spiel cops use to disarm you. If this happens to me, I will not be one happy camper. I would pursue it until I was broke. It isn't about the money.

 

[eachitandi]

Maybe he should walk backwards then.

If there is no RAS, then there should be no disarming.

Walk backwards into traffic?

Has it ever been challenged, and if so what was the results?

After spending a couple hours in bed thinking about this last night, the phrase "shall not be infringed on" kept coming to mind.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Walk backwards into traffic?

Has it ever been challenged, and if so what was the results?

After spending a couple hours in bed thinking about this last night, the phrase "shall not be infringed on" kept coming to mind.

Yes it has been challenged. Look at James Malone v Indiana and Melvin Washington v Indiana.

 

[eachitandi]

Yes it has been challenged. Look at James Malone v Indiana and Melvin Washington v Indiana.

Thanks, I'll look that up tonight after work.

 

[Tay]

Here's my take on all of this. I have no problem informing the officer I have a firearm. If I was really out to cause harm to him why would I tell him I have a firearm? The fact that I was courteous enough to inform him I am carrying should have ended it all. The same goes for gun control. Criminals don't register their firearms and making a law that says EVERYONE has to isn't going to force them to register them. That's why they're CRIMINALS. I don't look like a thug. I don't have tattoos. I don't have a record. I drive a nice car.I'm your average "pretty little white boi." I'm courteous to every officer I've ever come into contact with (except this one, because he was blatantly in the wrong.) And I always informed the officers because it avoided any altercation.

I was stopped down in Westfield one time in the middle of the night and the officer approached my car on the passenger side. I had my firearm tucked in between the seat and the center console. It was well within view. The officer didn't even notice it until I handed him my DL and LTCH. Then he asked where it was and I pointed to it. I was beyond surprised that it wasn't the first thing he noticed. He took it, ran my info, and gave it back to me in pieces. We then talked about guns and carrying for probably a good 5 or 10 minutes. I was doing 75 in a 55. He let me off with a written warning. I give mad props to that officer. He was kind and courteous throughout the entire stop and didn't give me an attitude or have an ego problem. Even when he first approached the vehicle. He was simply doing his job and upholding the law. That's how every stop should be irregardless of the preceding events. Unless of course it requires force and an attitude.

 

[Bunnykid68]

He took your property and disassembled it. That would be like him taking one of the tires off of your car so you dont run over him and then handing you the jack and the tire when you were done with the stop.

 

[Tay]

Well, never thought of it that way. xD

 

[chezuki]

Well, never thought of it that way. [strike]xD[/strike] M&P

FIFY.

 

[SteveM4A1]

He took your property and disassembled it. That would be like him taking one of the tires off of your car so you dont run over him and then handing you the jack and the tire when you were done with the stop.

Hey, he doesn't know you. For all he knows you could run him over? That IS RAS!

 

[KLB]

He took your property and disassembled it. That would be like him taking one of the tires off of your car so you dont run over him and then handing you the jack and the tire when you were done with the stop.

That is a great analogy.

 

[KG1]

He took your property and disassembled it. That would be like him taking one of the tires off of your car so you dont run over him and then handing you the jack and the tire when you were done with the stop.

Don't forget the part about being asked to not put the tire back on until the Leo is out of sight.

 

[Tay]

Don't forget the part about being asked to not put the tire back on until the Leo is out of sight.

 

[Destro]

do keep in mind that if asked if you are in possession of a weapon and it is subsequently discovered you were untruthful, your experience might be less pleasant. Of course your experience can vary.

 

[Jack Burton]

On another note, as the Driver of the vehicle, you are the ONLY one that has to answer questions or provide identification. He can not interrogate the other passengers of the vehicle... (there is a case on this, but Im too lazy today to look it up...). He has stopped you the driver, not the others as passengers, incident to the stop...

Let me add a few clarifying notes. (First and most important note, I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding of the law.)


By and large, Sheepdog is correct. Under a simple/routine traffic stop the passengers in the vehicle do not have to answer questions or identify themselves.

IIRC, under this actual circumstance there was a report of "words and utterances" tossed back and forth between this car and another car. Since this is not a legal transgression in of itself, I would believe that the passengers are still protected by law in not id-ing themselves. There has been no crime or infraction that the police can hang a reason on.

However, if the actions had included something such as an object thrown out of a window towards another car then we might have a different case. I don't know if the officer actually has to witness such a deed or if he can take the word of another driver about it before beginning the legal process of investigating it. Perhaps someone can add to this part. If the officer is indeed formally investigating certain things then he can legally require the passengers ID.