This was a little weird...

[E5RANGER375]

For criminal recklessness for pointing a loaded weapon at you.

i dont know about that, but ....

I dont think its appropriate for them to be reaching into your car. thats like them coming into your house without a warrant. a man with a gun call is not probable cause to violate peoples rights.

 

[pig957]

Just be glad he wasn't TSA. You would have been sexually viloated.​

 

[Disposable Heart]

I gotta ask the question:

So, if they ask the foolish question about guns in the car, should I present my LTCH and remind them of Washington vs. Indiana? I mean, what is a good block to this dangerous behavior of awkwardly disarming folks? We see alot of threads on this, but never a reminder of how to counter this sort of overbearing action at scene...

What would have happened if the cop shot himself? Poor dude would have been up on charges instantly and have to pay TONS in court costs because of the stupidity of the method of disarming...

 

[grimor]

no matter what you do, it won't end well if you refuse to be disarmed. right or wrong, you may still get your ass beat on the side of the road.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Start the hidden video recorder before the LEO gets to your car. Politely produce DL and registration and then begin to repeat: Officer I do wish to answer any questions at this time. Am I being detained? I do not consent to a search of myself, my vehicle, or any other place or thing. Am I being detained?.... Eventually they will get bored and give up or do something that will end their career and make you rich.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Start the hidden video recorder before the LEO gets to your car. Politely produce DL and registration and then begin to repeat: Officer I do not wish to answer any questions at this time. Am I being detained? I do not consent to a search of myself, my vehicle, or any other place or thing. Am I being detained?.... Eventually they will get bored and give up or do something that will end their career and make you rich.

FIFY

 

[tr1gg3r]

Update

I called and talked to another friend of mine on North District about this situation and he was empathetic. He backed up what I believe is common sense and said that this was handled wrongly. He also told me that the officer that stopped me was not one of his rookies (my friend is an FTO), but was a fella that is relatively new to the scene. He also said that he would talk to him and tell him the err of his ways.

I'm not mad at the guy by any means. That being said, I do think this is a teachable moment, and hopefully he will learn from this. Thanks for all the support, guys!

 

[cosermann]

... remind them of Washington vs. Indiana ...

A little more discussion on INGO by the legal-types about this case (not necessarily in this thread) and it's potential application to situations like the subject of this thread would be helpful (to me anyway).

I've read the case, and there's sure a lot of suggestive language in there,

(i.e. "articulable basis of concern for officer safety", "cooperative," "no furtive movements," "no articulable reasons to believe Washington was dangerous," "permits a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the officer, where the officer has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual," would a, "prudent man in the circumstances . . be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger," "absence of an articulable basis that there was a legitimate concern for officer safety," "defendant had been respectful and not threatened the officers in any way," "showed no disrespect to the officer," etc.)

but the appeal question directly involves a question about the validity of the search, and I'm not sure how broadly it can be applied.

It would seem to suggest that the mere possession of a weapon by a LTCH holder should/does NOT, by itself, constitute an articulable/legitimate basis of concern for officer safety; espcially if an individual is otherwise polite, respectful, generally cooperative, makes no furtive movements, etc. In other words, this "officer safety" thing really ought not be the justification for all this dangerous gun fondling.

So, what do/can I do/not do in the context of Washington v Indiana? Is it applicable? What should the citizen's strategy be?

(if this takes us too far off we can start another thread)

 

[modelflyer2003]

I didn't have time to read the other posts, but here is mine. You'll find that opinions are like rear-ends. Everyone has one and they all stink. That aside here's mine...opinion that is: I think it is crap that he saw your LTCH and still disarmed you. INGO should have a Wall of Fame and a Wall of Shame to alert folks to the goodies and baddies out there. Simple answer, someone called the police and he was checking it out. Overkill. I can be polite and steal your money at the same time. He can be nice to you and walk all over your rights with a smile on his face. You did the right thing by staying calm and not escaleting the situation, though. +1

 

[Hammerhead]

A little more discussion on INGO by the legal-types about this case (not necessarily in this thread) and it's potential application to situations like the subject of this thread would be helpful (to me anyway).

I've read the case, and there's sure a lot of suggestive language in there,

(i.e. "articulable basis of concern for officer safety", "cooperative," "no furtive movements," "no articulable reasons to believe Washington was dangerous," "permits a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the officer, where the officer has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual," would a, "prudent man in the circumstances . . be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger," "absence of an articulable basis that there was a legitimate concern for officer safety," "defendant had been respectful and not threatened the officers in any way," "showed no disrespect to the officer," etc.)

but the appeal question directly involves a question about the validity of the search, and I'm not sure how broadly it can be applied.

It would seem to suggest that the mere possession of a weapon by a LTCH holder should/does NOT, by itself, constitute an articulable/legitimate basis of concern for officer safety; espcially if an individual is otherwise polite, respectful, generally cooperative, makes no furtive movements, etc. In other words, this "officer safety" thing really ought not be the justification for all this dangerous gun fondling.

So, what do/can I do/not do in the context of Washington v Indiana? Is it applicable? What should the citizen's strategy be?

(if this takes us too far off we can start another thread)

Washington v. Indiana is only part of the equation, but I don't believe it's the one that applies here. State v. Richardson is what I believe the OP was trying to refer to. However, Richardson deals with producing a valid LTCH and this ending all further inquiry into firearms. However, it this instance, the LTCH wasn't produced but merely potentially observed.

I do strongly disagree with how the officer handled this situation. He had NO PC or RAS to disarm the OP. He also didn't articulate the reason for the stop (according to the OP) because he got caught up in the MWAG mindset, which begs the question why and doesn't pass the smell test. I'm glad to hear that the OP got in touch with someone who might have an influence over this officer. I hope the officer learns what he did was wrong on many, many levels.

On a side note, since this seems to come up often with this type of situation, I'm wondering if the mere "sighting" or "glimpse" of a LTCH/pink laminated piece of paper is always the cause of such incidents? I do not keep my LTCH behind my license, at least not directly. I'm wondering if anyone has considered making a pink laminated card that says something to the effect of "This isn't a LTCH, and under advice from my lawyer, I'm not answering questions at this time. Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Or perhaps a bit more sarcastic/comedic/devious/evil than that ("Why are you freaking out at a laminated piece of pink paper?"). It just seems odd that the pink paper and/or lamination causes such grief. Then again, stories like this serve to remind me that some people still don't see us legal carriers as the good guys.

 

[tr1gg3r]

Two questions:

Did he sweep your thighs (or worse) with the muzzle as he pulled it out?

Did you think about tickling him under the arm, or goosing his ribs as he reached across you?

Sorry I missed one this earlier.

I don't know how he could have gotten that thing off me without sweeping me, but I was looking the other way just hoping the thing wasn't going to go off. So I guess my honest answer is, "I don't know."

As for your second question, the thought crossed my mind, but I didn't want things to escalate to a point that I REALLY wouldn't be comfortable with.

Yeah...

 

[88GT]

the back seat thing happend to me before. asked my friendly neighborhood cop and he said... well it gives the officer time to get back and into a safer position before u can get your weapon and shoot his ass

Sure, if the guy he stopped is only carrying one firearm. Ever notice how there's an implicit assumption that the one that is seen or acknowledged is the only one that exists?

If disarming the detainee was really truly about officer safety, it wouldn't stop at simply removing the KNOWN firearm from the possession of the individual.

 

[grimor]

If someone was going to shoot a cop, they would typically have the gun in hand when the cop approached....

 

[J10]

Sure, if the guy he stopped is only carrying one firearm. Ever notice how there's an implicit assumption that the one that is seen or acknowledged is the only one that exists?

If disarming the detainee was really truly about officer safety, it wouldn't stop at simply removing the KNOWN firearm from the possession of the individual.

This was exactly what was running through my head when i read this thread. I always have more than one pistol in the car.

And besides that. How can i explain to the officer that handling my loaded and chambered firearm is not SAFER than leaving it in its holster? Especially while my wife and two children are in the car.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I probably wouldn't have thought of it at the time, but it seems to me that when the officer is leaning in the window, across the front of the driver, the ideal comment is, "This is about what? Officer safety?"

And just let that disturbing question hang in the air afterward.

This officer was lucky that he was dealing with a good citizen.

Rep inbound to the OP for handling this well and even more so for not being focused on getting the LEO in trouble for it. He will remember far longer that your intent was to help, not hinder or harm him.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[roscott]

Dross is right. He should have tickled him.

 

[ATM]

...it seems to me that when the officer is leaning in the window...

...I should make a mental note to not leave the window that far down next time.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Sure, if the guy he stopped is only carrying one firearm. Ever notice how there's an implicit assumption that the one that is seen or acknowledged is the only one that exists?

If disarming the detainee was really truly about officer safety, it wouldn't stop at simply removing the KNOWN firearm from the possession of the individual.

Many of us carry more than one firearm at a time and more than one weapon at a time! I think if it was me, I would have retrieved the gun from the back seat, reloaded, replaced in my waistband or put on my lap before driving off. What would the Leo have thought if you pulled out another gun or two, ( or, for that matter, a couple knives, collapsible baton, etc.) and asked him if he needed to check those also? I don't think he has any reason or any right to disarm me, and the way it's allegedly been done to the o.p. and others, seems completely unsafe for both the officer and the citizen!
I'd like to hear from all the police officers on here!
Have you done anything like this? And what was your reasoning?
Do you think it is safe to reach into a vehicle, putting yourself in a compromising position, sweeping an innocent citizen with his own weapon, not knowing anything about the person or the weapon?
Believe me... I respect most officers, ( until you give me a reason not to!) and don't want anyone getting hurt, (or killed!) because of a reckless, negligent, move by either party.
I also think that most of us want to cooperate with with you, we don't want to give you a hard time, but on the other hand, we don't want to be disrespected or treated like a criminal, just because we choose to exercise our right to carry a weapon.
Show me respect and I will reciprocate!

 

[Roadie]

I can't see how this is accomplished without sweeping several body parts...
If he was personally retrieving your carry, I guess you should just be glad you weren't deep concealing...

P.S. You should have asked why you were being pulled over.

Someone already beat me to the idea of wearing a Smart Carry, but I had to back it up with a pic

"Yes Officer, I am armed, shall I loosen my belt for you, or would you prefer to buy me a drink first?"

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Have you done anything like this? And what was your reasoning?

Never done anything like that, so I didn't have any reasoning.

Do you think it is safe to reach into a vehicle, putting yourself in a compromising position, sweeping an innocent citizen with his own weapon, not knowing anything about the person or the weapon?

Hell no. I personally know officers that have been dragged by cars after reaching in them so I make it a point to not do it. I also don't disarm LTCH holders when I stop them for traffic violations (unless circumstances deem that I need to, i.e. arrest). I don't know most of the people I stop and they don't know me, so I try to keep our "relationship" on even ground. I have been swept by enough guns over the years and it still makes me uncomfortable, so I completely understand how someone would feel if I did it to them.