Stopped by LEO, gun taken for officer safety, how not to take it back

[Kutnupe14]

So one is going to refuse taking their gun back to make a point? Riiiiight.
Good luck with that lawsuit.

 

[rw496]

I do enjoy theses legal debates on INGO, but they are just that, debates of theory. You need to think about the huge gap between legal theory and practical recourse. First, most cops would just probably set your gun down and say take it or don't..I don't care. Or, maybe they would drop it in property like Denny said and it would be a long, long time before it gets sent for testing (every gun that comes in does) and you finally get it back. In reality our property room is a mess and things get lost. If you wanted to blow your life savings to defend your principals in this matter you can, but the realities of filling, waiting, re-filing, more waiting, years of litigation, more money..more money, etc. would get old real quick. The battle for justice is not one of principal, it's a war of attrition..your resources v. the governments.

 

[downzero]

Clarification, I'm Not defending all officers or the practice of disarming everyone in the name of Officer Safety. It sometimes may be a necessary evil But I feel that it is Over Used and will one day be ruled Illegal, if these Crazies, STOP shooting People

It is probably already illegal. The problem is who watches the watchers? Nobody's going to jail over this sort of thing, because there just isn't the political will to believe that this sort of behavior is that unacceptable that it ought to be severely punished.

A civil suit is always the solution, except for the fact that there are essentially no economically quantifiable damages. Maybe we should just pass a statute that says that the minimum damages a jury can award is $50,000 in an illegal seizure case and call it a day. I know I'd be far more polite and calm during an illegal seizure if I knew there was a good chance of a $50k payout at the end.

Barring that, I don't really know any way to make police officers be more careful. They are all trained that the standard is armed AND "dangerous." The problem is that once they learn the person is armed, they just think that they can presume that all armed persons are dangerous. And courts give them a lot of leeway. There's just not much we can do about that at this point.

Personally, I just try to avoid any interaction with police. Let them be heavy handed with the scum on the streets who really are a danger to all of us and I'll just mind my own business. If they ever mistreat me, I'll take whatever legal steps I need to take. But as long as it's happening to "them" and not me, I'll just try to pretend that this sort of stuff is not happening.

I will say that recording these kinds of incidents is almost priceless. Then there will be far less arguing about the facts and no coverups. That's one of the things we need to work on--assuring that it is legal to record the police on the public streets everywhere in the United States. The First Amendment is much more broad than the Fourth and may provide the golden goose here. If the officers know they're being watched every second of every day they're on duty, they will be far more likely to do the right thing--which benefits all of our society.

 

[Denny347]

It is probably already illegal. The problem is who watches the watchers? Nobody's going to jail over this sort of thing, because there just isn't the political will to believe that this sort of behavior is that unacceptable that it ought to be severely punished.

A civil suit is always the solution, except for the fact that there are essentially no economically quantifiable damages. Maybe we should just pass a statute that says that the minimum damages a jury can award is $50,000 in an illegal seizure case and call it a day. I know I'd be far more polite and calm during an illegal seizure if I knew there was a good chance of a $50k payout at the end.

Barring that, I don't really know any way to make police officers be more careful. They are all trained that the standard is armed AND "dangerous." The problem is that once they learn the person is armed, they just think that they can presume that all armed persons are dangerous. And courts give them a lot of leeway. There's just not much we can do about that at this point.

Personally, I just try to avoid any interaction with police. Let them be heavy handed with the scum on the streets who really are a danger to all of us and I'll just mind my own business. If they ever mistreat me, I'll take whatever legal steps I need to take. But as long as it's happening to "them" and not me, I'll just try to pretend that this sort of stuff is not happening.

I will say that recording these kinds of incidents is almost priceless. Then there will be far less arguing about the facts and no coverups. That's one of the things we need to work on--assuring that it is legal to record the police on the public streets everywhere in the United States. The First Amendment is much more broad than the Fourth and may provide the golden goose here. If the officers know they're being watched every second of every day they're on duty, they will be far more likely to do the right thing--which benefits all of our society.

I can tell you that the practice is taught by ILEA and has been cleared by their legal office. Until a Judge says "stop" it will continue to some degree.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I can tell you that the practice is taught by ILEA and has been cleared by their legal office. Until a Judge says "stop" it will continue to some degree.

Which part is taught? Disarming for officer safety? Or returning the pistol afterward?

 

[Denny347]

Which part is taught? Disarming for officer safety? Or returning the pistol afterward?

Both.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[1nthechmber]

IDK.....I think being a cop is a paranoid job....if the cop felt like he needed to remove my gun from the situation,then fine....I would be Pissed if I couldn't get it right back though.

guilty people look guilty and act guilty when pulled over....police pick up on that,and then throw a gun into that situation......seems like a normal response from a Leo..

 

[jbombelli]

Just as "detaining" you isn't the same as "arresting" you, how much do you want to bet that the first judge that had to preside over a lawsuit based on this would rule that temporarily retaining a firearm until the end of a traffic stop is NOT a "seizure" as such?

 

[Expat]

Just as "detaining" you isn't the same as "arresting" you, how much do you want to bet that the first judge that had to preside over a lawsuit based on this would rule that temporarily retaining a firearm until the end of a traffic stop is NOT a "seizure" as such?

I can see some judges being unimpressed, with their over loaded court calendar, with a guy that refused to take his gun back when offered. Maybe I am wrong though.

 

[Denny347]

Just as "detaining" you isn't the same as "arresting" you, how much do you want to bet that the first judge that had to preside over a lawsuit based on this would rule that temporarily retaining a firearm until the end of a traffic stop is NOT a "seizure" as such?

Winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just as "detaining" you isn't the same as "arresting" you, how much do you want to bet that the first judge that had to preside over a lawsuit based on this would rule that temporarily retaining a firearm until the end of a traffic stop is NOT a "seizure" as such?

Does not make it anymore right. It is still wrong no matter how you frame the question.

 

[Hotdoger]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Denny is banned for using the line I used an hour ago in another thread.

 

[foszoe]

Hmm. I know I am supposed to defend my rights, but geez, if I am pulled over and it is an officer in uniform or a marked car and he is being professional, I have absolutely NO issue handing over my pistol on request. I understand that he is not sure what he is facing. Now after he runs my license and sees my LTCH. He finds I am no threat to him, then I expect the same treatment in return and I believe I will get it. Maybe I am just naive, but in the few times I have had interactions with the law, I have been pleased with the results I have obtained.

 

[pftraining_in]

Officer safety would mean that I am an unsafe person, and the ISP shouldn't have issued me a LTCH in the first place huh?

So you are saying that just because someone is issued a permit, they loose the ability to commit crimes?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Hmm. I know I am supposed to defend my rights, but geez, if I am pulled over and it is an officer in uniform or a marked car and he is being professional, I have absolutely NO issue handing over my pistol on request. I understand that he is not sure what he is facing. Now after he runs my license and sees my LTCH. He finds I am no threat to him, then I expect the same treatment in return and I believe I will get it. Maybe I am just naive, but in the few times I have had interactions with the law, I have been pleased with the results I have obtained.

If they confiscate your gun you will not get it back until the stop is over, and it will likely not be loaded, but we should trust them just because they are in a pretty car and have a uniform on, I do not know them from a hill of beans and have no reason to trust them with my safety.

Denny, Phylo, Kut and anyone else I forgot, please do not take this personally, but I know you about as well as you know me.

 

[foszoe]

Well, if I hand it over on request, it has not been confiscated, it has been surrendered.

If you don't trust them, why would you stop for them in the first place?

 

[CathyInBlue]

@ Denny347: Was that ILEA curriculum set before or after P.L.1-2006 (IC 35-47-14) was passed? Was it set before or after P.L.152-2011 (IC 35-47-11.1) was passed? Arguably, -11.1 does not affect the ISP, but it does affect all other police agencies across the state. As such, I find it difficult to impossible to believe that -11.1 does not void blanket policies, be they departmental or personal, formal or unwritten, of baseless (or boilerplate manufacture of a basis) interference with the "possession or carry of firearms". -14 establishes black letter law for the State to abide by. If they are not required to abide by their own law, then neither are any of us.

 

[btgarner0]

My question is, What is the reason on WHY LE takes the firearm? If it is consealed, why offer it? They still would need PC to do a search. just asking ??

 

[downzero]

I can tell you that the practice is taught by ILEA and has been cleared by their legal office. Until a Judge says "stop" it will continue to some degree.

That's exactly the sort of ignorance and indifference for well-established constitutional rights that it could result in a punitive damage award. Remember, any time a police officer violates a well-established right, he has NO immunity from a personal lawsuit. What that means is that you might keep your job, but the taxpayers will not be footing the bill, YOU will, and the judgment will come from your pocket.

The standard for an investigatory detention under Terry is armed AND dangerous, not one of the other. There is actually caselaw in Indiana on this also, because there was a peaceful, law abiding citizen who was detained in a movie theater just a few years ago in Indiana for simply being armed, which resulted in a pretty strongly worded opinion from a judge.

Concealed carry has been on the books for a long time, but it's much more in the public radar now that 49 states issue permits and a larger amount of the population is carrying. It is therefore inevitable that judges are going to be far less forgiving of involuntary and illegal searches and seizures of otherwise law-abiding citizens and their property when absolutely no suspicion that they are dangerous arises.

Every police officer has a handgun which is to be used in a last resort to defend his or her life. No sane person would go into a known fight armed with only a handgun, which is why nearly all, if not all, police officers have a shotgun or rifle in the car. Your handgun is your lifeline. Similarly, my handgun is mine. I don't go anywhere without it. And given that I am a competitive pistol shooter, a NROI trained Range Officer, an NRA certified Range Safety Officer, and otherwise a law-abiding citizen with absolutely no criminal record, I demand and deserve to be treated with deference and respect when I'm on the street and an officer discovers that I am armed. A free society demands this level of deference and respect of someone who is extraordinarily unlikely to be any threat to the officer. I will extend the same respect to the officer if he respects my right to be armed on the street just as I respect his. Anything less than that on both sides is simply an unacceptable manner for a public servant to conduct himself and thus deserving of criticism in any public forum, this one included.