Refusing to hand over firearm at a traffic stop - MO - Page 7
Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 177

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

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    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?
    I think he actually bolded the right part. Key phrase being reasonable articulable suspicion. A preconceived assumption that anybody who is armed is automatically also dangerous is not reasonable suspicion and is not articulable in court. If that were true a LEO could walk up to anybody OCing, and say that he had reasonable suspicion that that person was about to rob the bank down the street, or commit a homocide, which is simply not true.

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    Talked to a second amendment attorney. He said that the officer couldn't do that, but advised me that it's probably better to go ahead and comply, regardless of how unconstitutional the request is since the officer could try to make up some criminal charge.
    Sounds just like every other lawyer...not a 2A lawyer.
    If you find any 2nd amendment lawyer that advises you to fight the constitutionality of a statute or LEO action on the street, with the officer involved, rather than fighting it through the court system, then you need to find another lawyer lickety split because yours is trying to get you killed, or in a lot of trouble anyway. What his lawyer advised him was absolutely correct. You never fight constitutionality on the street with an adversarial cop, unless you're a masochist or have some sort of death wish. You fight it through the legal system. Any attorney who advises you otherwise should be disbarred. That doesn't mean you lay down and wee on yourself like a whimpering puppy. You should note your objections and emphatically state why without being beligerant. The cop might even see your side and end up agreeing with you as long as you aren't acting bull headed. That happens quite often. But trying to resist an adamant cop on the street, and over a loaded gun no less, would be a major step toward the idiot category. Your day in court will come. Your days in jail would be unnecessary and pointless. And your resistive behavior on the street would likely work against you when you finally got that day in court anyway.
    .
    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 wish we had that option in Ohio. Notification is mandatory here.
    .
    As a side note, on a couple of occasions when officers have temporarily taken possession of firearms during traffic stops here, it resulted in admiration of the gun and some very friendly discussions of guns and shooting in general. So not all such encounters are necessarily going to be a bad thing.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    The courts have ruled ( like I give a darn what the "courts" do) that the simple fact that someone is visibly armed, that in itself is NOT grounds for a "terry stop" because it is a "legal" activity..... Why would it suddenly be a big deal on a traffic stop when the stop had nothing to do with anything about violence or a felony? (speeding or a light out for instance) IF you tell the officer about being armed, WHY would you have done so if you were planning on doing anything that endangered him or the public????

    The ONLY reason I can come up with that the cop would need to disarm you when you have shown no reasonable reason to be disarmed is because the cop is either an idiot or a thug.. in either case, I do not want them to have my weapon because they have just shown ME that THEY are the one in the situation who cannot be trusted..... ANY time a "loaded" firearm is handled there is a chance/possibility of a negligent discharge... so LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS and just deal with why you stopped me you &%#@* cop......

  5. Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    I think he actually bolded the right part. Key phrase being reasonable articulable suspicion. A preconceived assumption that anybody who is armed is automatically also dangerous is not reasonable suspicion and is not articulable in court. If that were true a LEO could walk up to anybody OCing, and say that he had reasonable suspicion that that person was about to rob the bank down the street, or commit a homocide, which is simply not true.
    Two entirely different scenarios. The person openly carrying the firearm walking down the street has not been arrested or detained. The subject of a traffic stop is being detained.

    Bottom line - I'm not going to voluntarily offer a police officer an invitation to disarm me by telling them about a gun when I am not required to by law and when in all likelihood it will be of no issue at all unless I make it an issue. Probably in 99% of the traffic stops across this country there is never any mention made of a firearm by either the subject or the police officer, regardless of whether there is a lawfully possessed firearm present or not (except maybe in must inform by law states).
    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.

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Key phrase being reasonable articulable suspicion. A preconceived assumption that anybody who is armed is automatically also dangerous is not reasonable suspicion and is not articulable in court. If that were true a LEO could walk up to anybody OCing, and say that he had reasonable suspicion that that person was about to rob the bank down the street, or commit a homocide, which is simply not true.
    You need to make sure that you understand "articulable suspicion". It has nothing to do with probable cause or anything preconceived. All it means is Explaining your actions. For the OP, that could be easily stated using the NAVYLcdr's scenario:
    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.
    -
    There need be no evidence of a crime or potential crime. As NAVY also said, the random OC's thing doesn't apply here. Once a cop stops you, you are "detained", or restricted in your movements. While detained, the safety of the situation is the responsibility of the detainer (officer) and all he needs to articulate is what made the hair on the back of his neck stand up.
    -
    As I've said earlier, the OP was lucky (if not just trolling).

  7. Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    You need to make sure that you understand "articulable suspicion". It has nothing to do with probable cause or anything preconceived. All it means is Explaining your actions. For the OP, that could be easily stated using the NAVYLcdr's scenario:

    -
    There need be no evidence of a crime or potential crime. As NAVY also said, the random OC's thing doesn't apply here. Once a cop stops you, you are "detained", or restricted in your movements. While detained, the safety of the situation is the responsibility of the detainer (officer) and all he needs to articulate is what made the hair on the back of his neck stand up.
    -
    As I've said earlier, the OP was lucky (if not just trolling).
    How the hell is this trolling? Get over yourself. I asked a question and people still aren't even answering it. They're answering a question I didn't ask.

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by whodat2710 View Post
    As I've said earlier, the OP was lucky (if not just trolling).

    I have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that the OP is a troll based on the CLEARLY ARTICUABLE FACT that his story keeps changing.

    See how that works?
    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. Quote Originally Posted by bigb360 View Post
    How the hell is this trolling? Get over yourself. I asked a question and people still aren't even answering it. They're answering a question I didn't ask.
    Calling in to revoke your permit was all smoke. There is no basis in law for revoking your permit under the situation you described in your OP. You broke no laws.
    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.

  10. #69
    JSDinTexas Guest
    "He then asked for the weapon to place on top of the vehicle" - this tells me he was maybe a newbie on the job. I say this because the last thing I want is to give permission to a suspect (or whatever label you wish) to put a gun in their hand. The idea is to separate the gun from the person, but not that way.
    Furthermore, saying "next time" only reinforces my idea here.
    Also, NEVER offer more than they are asking for - sort of similar to walking around, telling every cop you see, "I've got a gun."

  11. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Lowcountry of South Carolina
    Posts
    2,039
    Quote Originally Posted by JSDinTexas View Post
    "Also, NEVER offer more than they are asking for..."
    For example, "do you know how fast you were going?" you don't know exactly when he clocked you, so any answer other than NO could get you a bigger ticket. If you answer with a speed less than he got, you are wrong. If you answer with a speed more than he got, wrong. If you answer with a simple "yes" then you dive into one of the first two. "Do you have a gun?" - yes. then wait for instructions. Always answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer.
    -
    I agree that this was either a very new cop, a very lax cop, or you are a very innocent looking person for him to ask you to touch your gun.

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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