LEO disarm during traffic stop

[youngda9]

Its faster on my phone if I keep it at 10

You should drive more and text less.

 

[BillD]

Then why have a gun? Someplace to store drugs?
It's not like they can use it with drugs in place of ammo.

 

[youngda9]

Now I know why they call it "shooting up"

 

[Bang-bang]

"but would notify him/her that I am no threat and I would file a complaint"

1) Everybody thinks they are not a threat. 2) If you tell them you will file a complaint, thats just like asking for neg reaction, dont say it, just do it!!

 

[Kutnupe14]

In principal, I agree. But in practice, I can see the officer escalating polite non compliance to a disorderly conduct charge.

I would like to hear from someone who has actually tried the proposed tactic to understand how it actually worked out.

"...in an effort to alleviate the effects of the, anyone?***anyone?..."

Plenty of people deny the request. If it's a request, you have the option to deny it. No one goes to no one gets a disorderly charge, no one goes to jail. A simple, "I'd rather not" will suffice sans any extenuating circumstances (which kinda relegates the "request" portion moot).
And to be honest (and don't flame me, I'm being candid here), if one does deny the request, I would suggest being as polite as you can because most officers will probably ticket you for whatever offense they pulled you over for.

 

[pirate]

They stick them up their own ass. Why wouldn't they stick them up the butt of a gun?

That made me spit out my Mt. Dew.

 

[Compatriot G]

Plenty of people deny the request. If it's a request, you have the option to deny it. No one goes to no one gets a disorderly charge, no one goes to jail. A simple, "I'd rather not" will suffice sans any extenuating circumstances (which kinda relegates the "request" portion moot).
And to be honest (and don't flame me, I'm being candid here), if one does deny the request, I would suggest being as polite as you can because most officers will probably ticket you for whatever offense they pulled you over for.

Can you expand upon the "extenuating circumstances" part a little bit? At what point is it "more" than just a request? I think that is the part most people are confused about. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, what action or actions on my part, allow you to take my firearm from me during a traffic stop?

 

[Rookie]

There are two ways an officer can take possession of your firearm.
1. He asks and you give up your fourth amendment right.
2. He takes it. This would be covered under IC 35-47-14-3

Indiana Code 35-47-14

 

[Concerned Citizen]

^^^This^^^

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.
As added by P.L.1-2006, SEC.537.

This tells me the officer can take your weapons to protect you from yourself or others without consequence, and if the court determines he did not have grounds to label you as a "Dangerous" person, you get the weapons back, with no penalty towards the officer.

 

[Rookie]

^^^This^^^




This tells me the officer can take your weapons to protect you from yourself or others without consequence, and if the court determines he did not have grounds to label you as a "Dangerous" person, you get the weapons back, with no penalty towards the officer.

I didn't see anywhere about no penalty. If the officer takes your firearm without cause, and your firearm is returned, there is still the issue of the violation of your fourth amendment rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can you expand upon the "extenuating circumstances" part a little bit? At what point is it "more" than just a request? I think that is the part most people are confused about. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, what action or actions on my part, allow you to take my firearm from me during a traffic stop?

I'm speaking generally, as there is no specific litmus test. There are certain instances when people can be viewed as a potential threat without ever having broken the law. For instance, and this happens rarely, some people, after being stopped, jump out of their vehicles and began screaming and yelling. If I find out one of these people is arms, they are disarmed. Or if there is a strong smell of marijuana coming from the car (which isn't indicative of current possession), they will be disarmed.

If you're in you car doing nothing, with hands in plain view, there's no reason to disarm, unless one can articulate it. My point is that it should rarely occur, as most gun owners are upstanding citizens. Most guys hear I have a gun, and automatically go "officer safety" and want to obtain the weapon. I'm certainly not going to second guess the officer on the street, as I don't know how his "spidey sense" works BUT... I will say that disarming citizens universally is wrong.

 

[Concerned Citizen]

I didn't see anywhere about no penalty. If the officer takes your firearm without cause, and your firearm is returned, there is still the issue of the violation of your fourth amendment rights.

That's not the way I read it, I read it as the courts will decide if the officer was right or wrong in determining whether or not you were a dangerous person. I would assume if the courts determined he was wrong, it would end right there, and you could now get your weapons back.

I would also assume that if you wanted to, you could then hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit saying your rights were violated, but good luck winning.

I asked that same question to Guy Relford when he was on the radio, and he said the courts take the officers safety very seriously, and if the officer FELT you were a danger, they would probably side with him. Now keep in mind I am talking only about your weapons being confiscated, not about a search that might or might not have taken place afterwards.

 

[Rookie]

I agree that the courts will decide whether the officer was right or not. I also agree you would have a hard time winning if you were to sue. So, we should continue to allow our rights to be violated because we're fighting a losing battle?

 

[Concerned Citizen]

So, we should continue to allow our rights to be violated because we're fighting a losing battle?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. I am still going to dissagree politely with an officer if he asks to disarm me. I was simply stating the reality of the subject.

 

[upchurch67]

Plenty of people deny the request. If it's a request, you have the option to deny it. No one goes to no one gets a disorderly charge, no one goes to jail. A simple, "I'd rather not" will suffice sans any extenuating circumstances (which kinda relegates the "request" portion moot).
And to be honest (and don't flame me, I'm being candid here), if one does deny the request, I would suggest being as polite as you can because most officers will probably ticket you for whatever offense they pulled you over for.

Please don't take this as a flame, but if plenty of people deny the request, then someone on this board can surely explain their specific situation and how it worked out. There are plenty of people who are explaining what they WOULD do, but I haven't seen anyone who explained what they DID do and the officers reaction.

Also, I'd like to make a distinction between when the officer only disarmed during the stop and when the officer maintained possession or "confiscated" the firearm. In my personal situation, the firearm was returned to me after I received the speeding ticket. I say no harm, no foul.

 

[ultraspec]

I have seen several times where a stash of drugs are kept in the magazine in an auto pistol. Several officers ask for the gun just to see if any drugs are there.

Thats a new one to me.....

 

[vitamink]

Here's an example (true story)

Officer is on 65 when he hears a run of a domestic has come out on south district. 2 officers arrive and find a woman beat with a bat and now she has 3 extra elbows. The officers put out a description of a red and silver chevy pickup possibly enroute to the north side (mama's house). The officer, northbound on 65, sees the chevy driven by a white male of the same description. He pulls the vehicle over, gets the driver out, removes his gun, and puts him in handcuffs. The driver isn't carrying id but gives his name. The girlfriend advises that his name is earl, the man said his name was ted. The female then states he has a tattoo of a knife stuck in the ace of spades on his arm. This man does not have that. The officer uncuffs the man, explains what is going on, gives him back his gun.

Should the man have decided to complain later, the courts would find that the officer did what is reasonable per the totality of the circumstances.

Example 2 (not a true story)

A cop stops a truck for speeding. THe officer says "license and registration please". THe man states, "sir i'm going to keep my hands on the wheel, I have a LTCH and my Glock 22 is in a holster on my right side. The officer then junk punches the driver who doubles over in pain. The cop then strips naked and dives in through the window after smearing himself with petroleum jelly to make himself more tactically aerodynamic. He then kick flips across the cab of the truck and removes the gun from the holster while simultaneously pepper spraying the driver. The officer removes his dremel from his bat belt and grinds down the firing pin shortly after firing the entire magazine into the dirt to ensure there is no live ammo in the gun. He returns to his car to write a ticket. He gives the gun back with the ticket and says drive safe.

The driver of the truck is now a multi millionaire.

 

[Rookie]

Example two actually happened to me. I don't want to talk about it.

 

[public servant]

Example two actually happened to me. I don't want to talk about it.

You forgot to add that your 15 year old son was driving.

 

[Rookie]

I said, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT!

Therapy is going well.