Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO - Page 6
Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 177

Thread: Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    Is a request a demand? I only said I'd rather not, not that I would not. He only requested. Do requests magically become demands because someone with a uniform says them?
    I said this before and now I'm saying it again. Navy has already posted the SCOTUS ruling that the cop can take you out of the car, pat you down and but you in handcuffs for his safety. Sooner or later you are going refuse that "request" and (right or wrong) the cop is going to take yopu out of the car and put you in handcuffs.

    What are you going to do then?
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  2.   
  3. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    Do all states have a system like mules that flash that you have a ccw when you're license is run?
    I can't sat "No" in fifteen characters
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    I said this before and now I'm saying it again. Navy has already posted the SCOTUS ruling that the cop can take you out of the car, pat you down and but you in handcuffs for his safety. Sooner or later you are going refuse that "request" and (right or wrong) the cop is going to take yopu out of the car and put you in handcuffs.

    What are you going to do then?
    Probably ask why I'm being detained, cite that I've broken no law (other than the speed limit perhaps) and let him do what he's gotta do. What, you think I'd resist an officer? Uh...no.

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    What, you think I'd resist an officer? Uh...no.
    I think the main point here is that if you had never told him about your gun in the first place you wouldn't have this problem in the first place
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    I think the main point here is that if you had never told him about your gun in the first place you wouldn't have this problem in the first place
    Ding, ding, we have a winner!
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    I think the main point here is that if you had never told him about your gun in the first place you wouldn't have this problem in the first place
    I Don't really have a problem, but he asked if I was armed. Do you think it would have gone better if I'd refused to answer?

    I Also think you're missing the point about the Missouri mules system.

  8. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    I Don't really have a problem, but he asked if I was armed.
    Interesting, because that's not what your OP says.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    I was stopped tonight by an officer here in MO. We're not a must inform state, but I treat everywhere I go as a must inform just as a general principle. The officer approached the car and I handed him my license and ccw permit and told him I was a conceal carrier and had my weapon on me. It was even in a console that was visible to him and I pointed it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    Do you think it would have gone better if I'd refused to answer?
    I think this thread would go better if you'd tell one story and stick to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    I Also think you're missing the point about the Missouri mules system.
    If they ask then you tell.


    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Ding, ding, we have a winner!
    Actually, I think what we have here is a troll
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right "to neutralize the threat of physical harm," id. at 24, when he possesses an articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous. We did not, however, expressly address whether such a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest. In the present case, respondent David Long was convicted for possession of marihuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the [p1035] automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. We hold that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. We also examine Long's argument that the decision below rests upon an adequate and independent state ground, and we decide in favor of our jurisdiction.

    treo, you look at laws the way you look at scripture (from evidence I have seen in other threads and posts...) YOU only seem to see the parts that you want... the parts that support your views... and you ignore the parts that dont line up with your views....

    What I bolded in the first paragraph above is what YOU ignored..... and what you ignored totally makes your statements made here WRONG....

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    US v. Rice, No. 06-5138 (10 Cir. 2007)-[Officer] Weakley did not need reasonable suspicion to request identification from Rice [driver], run a background check on him, or remove Rice or any other passenger from the car. These actions are fully justified by officer safety concerns no matter how innocuous the traffic violation and need not be supported by additional reasonable suspicion.
    -
    US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)-... a Terry stop does not become unreasonable just because police officers use handcuffs on a subject or place him on the ground. See Perdue, 8 F.3d at 1463. Further, the "use of guns in connection with a stop is permissible where the police reasonably believe the weapons are necessary for their protection." "Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are `authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985)).
    -
    If you want to quote law, don't stop once you find what you like, decisions are frequently made which clarify or expand upon previous laws. Here's a link if you want to learn more:
    Case Law 4 Cops-Stop & Frisk or "Terry Stop" Case Law
    -
    And just so you know, Articulable just means they can explain their actions. For the stop described by the OP, that might sound like "the driver informed me that he had a weapon, for my safety I needed to ensure I knew the whereabouts of the weapon(s) and make them safe for the duration of the stop. When the driver refused, I became suspicious and was concerned for my safety." After which dragging him to from the car, cuffing him face down and performing a Terry search would be "Articulable". Doesn't mean it makes sense, just that the officer can reasonable justify his actions.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), we upheld the validity of a protective search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest because it is unreasonable to deny a police officer the right "to neutralize the threat of physical harm," id. at 24, when he possesses an articulable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous. We did not, however, expressly address whether such a protective search for weapons could extend to an area beyond the person in the absence of probable cause to arrest. In the present case, respondent David Long was convicted for possession of marihuana found by police in the passenger compartment and trunk of the [p1035] automobile that he was driving. The police searched the passenger compartment because they had reason to believe that the vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. We hold that the protective search of the passenger compartment was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. We also examine Long's argument that the decision below rests upon an adequate and independent state ground, and we decide in favor of our jurisdiction.

    treo, you look at laws the way you look at scripture (from evidence I have seen in other threads and posts...) YOU only seem to see the parts that you want... the parts that support your views... and you ignore the parts that dont line up with your views....

    What I bolded in the first paragraph above is what YOU ignored..... and what you ignored totally makes your statements made here WRONG....
    I would suggest that you bolded the wrong portion of your quote, there Axeanda45. Take a look at the portion I bolded.

    Judge: "Officer, why did you believe the subject was armed and dangerous?"

    Officer: "Because he told me he was armed and at the time of the initial stop I had no idea if I had the Pope sitting in front of me or a person who had multiple felony warrants out for his arrest. He showed me a Concealed Carry Permit, but at the time, I had no idea if the permit was real or valid because I had not had the opportunity to verify it with the issuing authority. Therefore, until such time as I could verify the identity of the person I had lawfully detained, I feel it is reasonable for me to assume that a firearm in their possession presents a danger to myself and, therefore, temporarily seized the firearm and performed the allowed searches for other weapons. As soon as I verified the identity of the person I had stopped and the validity of their permit, I returned the firearm to the subject."

    Judge: "Mr. Joe Public, can you explain to this court why you feel the officer's actions were in error?"

    Mr. Public: "Yes, your honor. Terry v. Ohio says that the officer must have reasonable suspicion that I was both armed AND DANGEROUS. I clearly was not dangerous because I told him I was not dangerous and showed him my permit, he just chose not to believe me."

    Which argument do you think the Court will go with? Mr. Officer's, or Mr. Public's?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast