Concealed Carry Traffic Stop

[chipbennett]

I would suspect that if an officer was drilling you with many questions or bating you into an argument to give them cause to take your weapon, that a court would demonstrate that as entrapment along with law enforcement harassment. But thats another issue until case law is set.

Situational-dependent things are situaltionally dependent. The scenario you describe is rather far removed from a blanket prohibition on police officers asking a specific question during a traffic stop.

 

[chipbennett]

That's not entrapment and having an argument doesn't meet the standard anyway. At least, not by itself.


Not quite. Following a valid traffic stop, police have to have to have reason to believe that they is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. If there is "reason to believe" that, then a search for "officer safety" is allowed. However, where the "reason to believe" comes from can be any number of things like criminal history (if they ran it), behavior at the time of the stop, environmental factors (where and when the stop takes place), etc. No one factor has to be enough, it is the cumulative effect.

Triblet v. State, 169 N.E.3d 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). The Pinner case did not follow a valid traffic stop and was based solely on the report of someone with a gun. That, in and of itself, does not demonstrate that a person is "armed and dangerous".

And IIRC, current circuit court decisions (not sure which might be controlling in our circuit) tend to interpret a lack of distinction between "armed" and "dangerous" - that is, rather than needing to prove two, separate elements - "armed" and "dangerous" - the "armed and dangerous" element is interpreted to be satisfied as "armed therefore dangerous".

 

[HoughMade]

And IIRC, current circuit court decisions (not sure which might be controlling in our circuit) tend to interpret a lack of distinction between "armed" and "dangerous" - that is, rather than needing to prove two, separate elements - "armed" and "dangerous" - the "armed and dangerous" element is interpreted to be satisfied as "armed therefore dangerous".

Yes. This makes sense. If the purpose of the search is to see if there is a weapon, you don't have to know there is a weapon present. I quoted the language from Terry.

 

[DragonGunner]

That's not entrapment and having an argument doesn't meet the standard anyway. At least, not by itself.


Not quite. Following a valid traffic stop, police have to have to have reason to believe that they are dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether they have probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. If there is "reason to believe" that, then a search for "officer safety" is allowed. However, where the "reason to believe" comes from can be any number of things like criminal history (if they ran it), behavior at the time of the stop, environmental factors (where and when the stop takes place), etc. No one factor has to be enough, it is the cumulative effect.

Triblet v. State, 169 N.E.3d 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). The Pinner case did not follow a valid traffic stop and was based solely on the report of someone with a gun. That, in and of itself, does not demonstrate that a person is "armed and dangerous".

Hmmmm. I thought that was what I said? They have to have a reason for officer safety to take your gun. No record, no threat, no nothing that shows a threat then they have no reason for officer safety. I thought Indiana court upheld this years ago? Or are you saying any officer at any time at a traffic stop can take your gun at anytime and every time if the so desire under the protection of officer safety? Seems you really can’t have it both ways. But maybe so….

 

[gassprint1]

Situational-dependent things are situaltionally dependent. The scenario you describe is rather far removed from a blanket prohibition on police officers asking a specific question during a traffic stop.

Oh, i have been in an argument in the past when a cop was trying to make stuff up and he made me get out of the car. Not while carrying though, but i have had jerks say i was being combatant(arguing). He said that gave him suspicion i was supposedly hiding something and the probable cause to do what he wanted. Said i was speeding on us30..went thru arguments about it, then changed his tune to i wasn't wearing a seat belt. Idiot gave me a ticket for seat belt..i showed up to court in Plymouth, no cop and prosecutor gave reasons that made no sense why he wasn't there.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes. This makes sense. If the purpose of the search is to see if there is a weapon, you don't have to know there is a weapon present. I quoted the language from Terry.

But on what basis is the search reasonable? "Armed and dangerous" and "armed therefore dangerous" are two, entirely different standards.

Are the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens who carry firearms daily, legally speaking, considered to be inherently dangerous merely by virtue of exercising the natural, constitutionally protected right to be armed?

No. Clearly no. The basis for determination of dangerous is and must be distinct from the lawful conduct of a natural, constitutionally protected right.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, i have been in an argument in the past when a cop was trying to make stuff up and he made me get out of the car. Not while carrying though, but i have had jerks say i was being combatant(arguing). He said that gave him suspicion i was supposedly hiding something and the probable cause to do what he wanted. Said i was speeding on us30..went thru arguments about it, then changed his tune to i wasn't wearing a seat belt. Idiot gave me a ticket for seat belt..i showed up to court in Plymouth, no cop and prosecutor gave reasons that made no sense why he wasn't there.

IMHO, police officers have far too much legal imprimatur to order drivers/passengers out of vehicles. The claim of "officer safety" is so ambiguous and nebulous that it cannot reasonably meet any standard of RAS. (That said: that's never something to assert while on the side of the road.)

 

[chipbennett]

Hmmmm. I thought that was what I said? They have to have a reason for officer safety to take your gun. No record, no threat, no nothing that shows a threat then they have no reason for officer safety. I thought Indiana court upheld this years ago? Or are you saying any officer at any time at a traffic stop can take your gun at anytime and every time if the so desire under the protection of officer safety? Seems you really can’t have it both ways. But maybe so….

Again, IANAL, but to my understanding, an officer merely asserting that it is "for my safety" is sufficient to disarm and/or command a driver/passenger to get out of the vehicle. No RAS - specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion - required.

 

[DragonGunner]

Again, IANAL, but to my understanding, an officer merely asserting that it is "for my safety" is sufficient to disarm and/or command a driver/passenger to get out of the vehicle. No RAS - specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion - required.

Well then all this reading and learning on INGO and we are back to square one. I had learned from others and seeing posted Court cases that officers were not to be asking if you have a gun in the car, and “officer safety” was not satisfactory to the courts to take one’s guns. Now we back to an officer can do anything he wants at a stop.

 

[chipbennett]

Well then all this reading and learning on INGO and we are back to square one. I had learned from others and seeing posted Court cases that officers were not to be asking if you have a gun in the car, and “officer safety” was not satisfactory to the courts to take one’s guns. Now we back to an officer can do anything he wants at a stop.

Actual court decisions, and the jurisdictions where such decisions hold, seem to be pretty murky and inconsistent at the moment. I think most of those decisions are still in the circuits; I'm not aware of SCOTUS deciding anything particularly relevant, perhaps since Terry v Ohio. (Again, IANAL; I could be completely wrong.)

 

[Rick Mason]

I’ve seen people say that if pulled over while legally concealed carrying a firearm that you should always let the officer know, and I’ve also seen people say the opposite. I have my carry permit, I just want to know the right way to go about it incase I’m ever stopped while carrying.

I was pulled over about two years ago in Lake County by Officer Vindrice for a missing headlight. Just to see what would happen, I did notify her when asked that I had a LTC and was carrying in my front pocket. That was it. Nothing else exciting going on.

By the time we finished almost an hour later we had four cop cars there clogging up 93rd Ave for the rush hour traffic, six cops, and I was out of the car, patted down and searched, and me almost in cuffs. My gun was disassembled, put in the trunk, and I was ordered (ordered) not to get it out until I got home.

Being the nice guy that I was I put up with all this, and was laughing and having a good time the whole hour. I am retired, and not in a real rush to get to places. And since I was perfectly legal in carrying a handgun I got it out of the trunk, put it together and put it in my pocket, and dared her or any of the other cops to do a thing about it.

My advice? Don't tell unless you want the possible experience of watching a cop melt down in front of you because she panics over the idea that you might, somehow, possibly, are a wanna-be cop-killer who is just itching for the chance to fulfill you lifelong dream.

 

[Rick Mason]

I heard that traditional baby shower gifts in Kentucky are, dentures, chewing tobacco, cinder blocks, and firearms.

Do you know why we know the toothbrush was invented in Kentucky? Because anywhere else it would have been named the teethbrush.