Traffic stop - trooper asked about guns

[rmcrob]

I really don't question the officer's decision to hold the gun while he did his paperwork. That really makes sense to me as a general practice. I know my wife is the least dangerous person in the world, but he doesn't know it.

I'm really only asking how the officer knew to ask about guns, or even if he knew. Was he taking a shot in the dark when he asked? Or did he already know about the LTCH?

 

[Sasquatchhunter]

Abother factor might have been good ol fashioned police officer intuition. A lot of it is following what your gut tells you. I think a lot of us at one time have spotted someone CC ing because there was just something about them, and sure enough. BUT, i would say that since he asked first thing, it was on the computer. That would be the first question id ask too

 

[Denny347]

I'm really only asking how the officer knew to ask about guns, or even if he knew. Was he taking a shot in the dark when he asked? Or did he already know about the LTCH?

That I cannot answer. Since they are the keepers of the database, they could have blended it with the license plate BMV files so they get a LTCH hit when they run a plate. I know that us lowly city boys have no such acess. We can only access it with a name and DOB and it is a separate screen and can be a slow return and many do not even know how to access it.

 

[Scutter01]

Posts making negative blanket statements about all LE have been removed. As per usual, if you have a specific complaint about a specific LEO, please take it up with that LEO's department.

 

[jeremy]

I am in fact not an Officer of the Law and this statement is very far from what fact is. I have Rights. Every American has Rights! If you choose to not use yours then that is your issue not mine. If an issue with a LEO or LEA occurs there are measures in place to address this problem. Learn them. Learn the Law. Learn your Rights. Use your Rights or lose them. The Law is not designed to side atupmatically with the Government.

As far as Officers doing whatever they want, I am pretty sure several of the Veteran Officers on here could enlighten you on that false charge also.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yeah, you probably wouldn't like the outcome. Please feel free to do so if so inclined. Let us know how it turns out.

Your right, I probably wouldn't like the outcome. Because I'm sure the officer would refuse. But other than that, I see nothing bad about simply asking the officer for his sidearm in exchange for yours. If he wants mine for his safety or to run the numbers, I would like his for my safety. Other than the officer saying no what else wouldn't I like about it?

I am not so sure resisting wouldn't fly. I think the courts would side with officer safety on the issue. I also don't think the state would ever forbid officers from disarming folks. It isn't like we don't have criminals with permits. Any "routine" traffic stop could turn into a shootout, you just don't know. You stop a guy who just beat the crap out of his wife, recently lost his job, is loosing his home...sometimes people just snap. Yea, everyone might be safer from negligent discharges, but if an officer can't disarm a person who they stopped, then the officer could end up in danger if there is more to the story than just the guy driving fast late to work.

I agree with Kirk that it probably wouldn't fly if you simply declined to hand it over. IC states forcibly, if you forcibly resisted the officer taking it that's another thing altogether ie blade at 45 degree angle while putting your hand on it and shouting "YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY WEAPON" then that might stick. There is something in the IC about refusing an officers lawful orders, but I believe that applies to traffic control. Unfortunately I can't find the statute at the moment, anyone know where it is located?

And yes any routine traffic stop can turn into a shootout, as we have recently unfortunately seen an officer simply sitting in their car or sitting in a coffee shop can also. Does that give them the power to relieve the person of their means of self defense because they are simply in the same area as an officer?

Just MHO but an officer should have RAS to disarm a person.

Im going to say you would be eating pavement to say the least, once you are pulled over you ARE under arrest, you will do what the officer asks or you will find yourself in a WOS, resisting arrest is not takin very lightly, if an officer asks you to hand over your weapon & you refuse i can almost guarantee you will find yourself being forced to do so

As has been mentioned you are NOT under arrest at a traffic stop, therefore you would not be resisting arrest. And as has also been mentioned for a resisting charge it has to be force involved.

But I agree that most likely you will be forced to do so.

I'll sometimes ask on a stop if there are any weapons in the vehicle, especially if I see a LTCH in a wallet while they are getting their license out. If I'm told there is a weapon I just ask them to keep it where it is and everything will be fine. I've not had a problem yet doing it that way.

Thank you for that sir, IMO that is how it should be done unless the officer has RAS that there is a need to disarm them.

As someone posted once, I think it was Rhino, the best answer to the firearm question is, "I have nothing illegal in the vehicle. May I leave?" If the officer insists, clarify that it's an order, not a request.

I have a question regarding this, if you say there is nothing illegal in the vehicle or just refuse to answer the question. Does that give probable cause for a terry frisk which can include the vehicle?

IMO no because the officer has to have RAS for it, and refusing to answer does not give RAS for it, same as if an officer asks to search a vehicle and you refuse that is not RAS that there is contraband in the vehicle and does not allow them to do a search. But I'd like to hear others opinions on it.

For all those that scream "Violating my rights!!!" it is not so black and white. You will be hard pressed to find a court to side against the officers who have legally stopped the person and KNOWS that person to be armed and took control of that firearm during the duration of the stop. Be it a traffic stop, investigatory stop, fight, domestic...etc. How does the officer know that person is armed? It is either in plain view or the person volunteers the info. Courts allow it and that is why recruits are trained that way.

Denny I have to disagree, just because courts allow it does not make it okay.

 

[dross]

For all those that scream "Violating my rights!!!" it is not so black and white. You will be hard pressed to find a court to side against the officers who have legally stopped the person and KNOWS that person to be armed and took control of that firearm during the duration of the stop. Be it a traffic stop, investigatory stop, fight, domestic...etc. How does the officer know that person is armed? It is either in plain view or the person volunteers the info. Courts allow it and that is why recruits are trained that way. Where problems can occur is stopping someone solely for the purpose of checking a LTCH. That is an untested area that could go either way. However, I'm getting off topic. This thread is not challenging the validity of the stops but the validity of taking custody of a known weapon. I do believe this has been contested before to no avail. The officer does take responsibility for it's safe return. With time, recruits will be able to make determinations about who is less than a threat than others and act accordingly. This cannot be learned in a classroom but on the streets with experience.

I've appreciated your thougtful comments over the time I've posted here, and I've often wished you would enter the fray more extensively when we get into the threads that illustrate the conflict that sometimes comes up between LEOs and citizens. People do make stupid blanket statements at times, and it's probably frustrating, but I think the dialogue is very informative. And frankly, I've seen my share of tossed off and aggressive comments from LEOs on the this site - it's not just from anti-cop posters. I've only read well thought out posts from you.

That said to set the tone, I think the fundamental issue between citizens and LEOs is just perspective. As citizens, we have very few interactions in our life with cops, so they tend to take on much higher importance. As a cop, you interact with citizens every day all day.

As a citizen, I want to err on the side of my rights being protected to the maximum. Sure, I understand officer safety needs, and I can understand the practical considerations of your job if they are explained to me. Yet, the practical part of your job will never be as important to me as it is to you. By the same token, you have to do a tough job and get home alive every day. You don't want to inconvenience or irritate honest citizens, but you know that sometimes that's what's required, so part of the job is to get used to that.

This difference is where a lot of the conflict resides. I have friends who are rude to any cop who stops them. They are angry at being stopped, and think that the cop should have something better to do than enforce "minor" traffic laws against honest citizens.

I have very limited experience with the police, but in my small sample, I've experienced a much higher level of unwarranted rudeness from LEOs than say, dentists, or teachers, or other professions. This is combined with the fact that when I've been stopped by a cop, he has an inherent power over me.

Besides the fact that it just doesn't make sense to disarm a person with a permit who informed you, it's just rude. I'm expected to feel comfortable with you being armed, because you're a police officer. I have an LTCH - that should provide an assumption on my behalf that I'm generally law-abiding. Pushing it beyond that, while not an abuse of power, is IMO, a misapplication of your power. If you came to my house to ask some questions about local robberies, and I invited you in, would you ask if I had weapons in the house and then hold them after I'd invited you in?

Also, rights have nothing to do with the courts. Rights are absolute, endowed at birth, and while the courts can interpret the law anyway they want, rights don't change. Disarming a person without cause may or may not rise to a violation of rights - that is debatable - but the courts have nothing to do with whether its a right or it isnt.

 

[ocsdor]

...This crap will never stop as long as people remain complacent about it.

 

[ocsdor]

Here's an idea: If asked if you have any weapons (or anything illegal) in your car, tell the officer that what is in your car is your private business.

If he ask if it's ok to search your car, you tell him (or her) that he does NOT have your permission to search the car. When asked to exit the car, lock the door and refuse to unlock it for him without a search warrant.

"Rights aren't given to cowards; they are earned and exercised by those with courage." -- ocsdor

 

[ocsdor]

How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

YouTube - BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

 

[ocsdor]

Here's another good video, though somewhat off-topic.

YouTube - Dont Talk to Police

 

[R3ydium]

I have very limited experience with the police, but in my small sample, I've experienced a much higher level of unwarranted rudeness from LEOs than say, dentists, or teachers, or other professions. This is combined with the fact that when I've been stopped by a cop, he has an inherent power over me.

Dross, I think your whole post was nicely stated. And I think you hit the nail on the head. So much of it is about your perception. Officers deal with the worst people on a day to day basis. My step father was in law enforcement, and mainly dealt with juvenile criminals. After a few years, he started to look at his own kids as Juvenile criminals even at home. It's a job that can spill over big time.

The reason I quoted this portion was because I have had the same experience. I have actually had more contact with police than most people I know simply because of odd circumstance throughout my whole life. I have had genuinely nice guys, and I've had guys that were not so nice. I think the term "unwarranted rudeness" is a VERY fine choice of words. That really is what it is. Yeah, I understand that maybe this guy had a bad day/night, but in my opinion, their job is to be professional and courteous, and this is coming from a person that is close to a few LEO's.

Anyways,

Back on topic, I bet anything they have a flag in the database for permit holders. I bet your wife was flagged. Honestly, I don’t have a problem with that. If the LEO is level headed, this means the mere sight of a weapon wont cause him to loose his cool, as he will already know on approach that you are (more than likely) an upstanding person. I know that city level police don’t have access to such a database, but I would bet the state does. This flag might also help catch those that might be trying to carry a revoked license.

 

[Denny347]

Your right, I probably wouldn't like the outcome. Because I'm sure the officer would refuse. But other than that, I see nothing bad about simply asking the officer for his sidearm in exchange for yours. If he wants mine for his safety or to run the numbers, I would like his for my safety. Other than the officer saying no what else wouldn't I like about it?

I understand where you are coming from but I assure you the message will be received as being a smarty butt and cannot imagine it doing one thing to help your situation...more likely to harm it. But hey, I do not pretend to know the inner working of my brothers/sisters, I COULD be wrong.

As has been mentioned you are NOT under arrest at a traffic stop, therefore you would not be resisting arrest. And as has also been mentioned for a resisting charge it has to be force involved.

But I agree that most likely you will be forced to do so.

The actual charge is resisting law enforcement...not arrest.
IC 35-44-3-3
Resisting law enforcement; mandatory sentence
Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties;
(2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
(3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop;
commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The offense under subsection (a) is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the offense is described in subsection (a)(3) and the person uses a vehicle to commit the offense; or
(B) while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person draws or uses a deadly weapon, inflicts bodily injury on or otherwise causes bodily injury to another person, or operates a vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person;
(2) Class C felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes serious bodily injury to another person; and
(3) Class B felony if, while committing any offense described in subsection (a), the person operates a vehicle in a manner that causes the death of another person.
(c) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer includes an enforcement officer of the alcohol and tobacco commission and a conservation officer of the department of natural resources.
(d) If a person uses a vehicle to commit a felony offense under subsection (b)(1)(B), (b)(2), or (b)(3), as part of the criminal penalty imposed for the offense, the court shall impose a minimum executed sentence of at least:
(1) thirty (30) days, if the person does not have a prior unrelated conviction under this section;
(2) one hundred eighty (180) days, if the person has one (1) prior unrelated conviction under this section; or
(3) one (1) year, if the person has two (2) or more prior unrelated convictions under this section.
(e) Notwithstanding IC 35-50-2-2 and IC 35-50-3-1, the mandatory minimum sentence imposed under subsection (d) may not be suspended.

I have a question regarding this, if you say there is nothing illegal in the vehicle or just refuse to answer the question. Does that give probable cause for a terry frisk which can include the vehicle?

IMO no because the officer has to have RAS for it, and refusing to answer does not give RAS for it, same as if an officer asks to search a vehicle and you refuse that is not RAS that there is contraband in the vehicle and does not allow them to do a search. But I'd like to hear others opinions on it.

No-no grounds for search on this alone.

Denny I have to disagree, just because courts allow it does not make it okay.

Unfortunately that is the system we have and is the only way we operate. It's not perfect but it's still pretty darn good.

 

[Denny347]

I've appreciated your thougtful comments over the time I've posted here, and I've often wished you would enter the fray more extensively when we get into the threads that illustrate the conflict that sometimes comes up between LEOs and citizens. People do make stupid blanket statements at times, and it's probably frustrating, but I think the dialogue is very informative. And frankly, I've seen my share of tossed off and aggressive comments from LEOs on the this site - it's not just from anti-cop posters. I've only read well thought out posts from you.

That said to set the tone, I think the fundamental issue between citizens and LEOs is just perspective. As citizens, we have very few interactions in our life with cops, so they tend to take on much higher importance. As a cop, you interact with citizens every day all day.

As a citizen, I want to err on the side of my rights being protected to the maximum. Sure, I understand officer safety needs, and I can understand the practical considerations of your job if they are explained to me. Yet, the practical part of your job will never be as important to me as it is to you. By the same token, you have to do a tough job and get home alive every day. You don't want to inconvenience or irritate honest citizens, but you know that sometimes that's what's required, so part of the job is to get used to that.

This difference is where a lot of the conflict resides. I have friends who are rude to any cop who stops them. They are angry at being stopped, and think that the cop should have something better to do than enforce "minor" traffic laws against honest citizens.

I have very limited experience with the police, but in my small sample, I've experienced a much higher level of unwarranted rudeness from LEOs than say, dentists, or teachers, or other professions. This is combined with the fact that when I've been stopped by a cop, he has an inherent power over me.

Besides the fact that it just doesn't make sense to disarm a person with a permit who informed you, it's just rude. I'm expected to feel comfortable with you being armed, because you're a police officer. I have an LTCH - that should provide an assumption on my behalf that I'm generally law-abiding. Pushing it beyond that, while not an abuse of power, is IMO, a misapplication of your power. If you came to my house to ask some questions about local robberies, and I invited you in, would you ask if I had weapons in the house and then hold them after I'd invited you in?

Also, rights have nothing to do with the courts. Rights are absolute, endowed at birth, and while the courts can interpret the law anyway they want, rights don't change. Disarming a person without cause may or may not rise to a violation of rights - that is debatable - but the courts have nothing to do with whether its a right or it isnt.

Hey thanks. I appreciate the complements. I try. However, there are some days I'm not in the mood to lend some knowledge or the thread would be better off if I did not jump in (some should just die as quickly as possible ). Much of the distrust on both sides is just as you suggested, perception. This is true for MANY of the different facets of our lives. we perceive high crime does not actually mean crime is high, we perceive a car company selling crappy cars does not actually mean the cars are truly junky. We tend to perceive non-leo's as belonging to a different group (wrongly) because we rarely deal with people who aren't breaking the law or creating some kind of grief requiring us to intervene. Non-leo's can perceive us as rude, dumb, bully, JBT's, etc (MOST of the time wrongly) because a lack of understanding of what the officer is trying to accomplish, type of training, the law, or just plain personality conflicts. We both can learn from the other and sometimes we can forget that.

 

[Roadie]

I've appreciated your thougtful comments over the time I've posted here, and I've often wished you would enter the fray more extensively when we get into the threads that illustrate the conflict that sometimes comes up between LEOs and citizens. People do make stupid blanket statements at times, and it's probably frustrating, but I think the dialogue is very informative. And frankly, I've seen my share of tossed off and aggressive comments from LEOs on the this site - it's not just from anti-cop posters. I've only read well thought out posts from you.

That said to set the tone, I think the fundamental issue between citizens and LEOs is just perspective. As citizens, we have very few interactions in our life with cops, so they tend to take on much higher importance. As a cop, you interact with citizens every day all day.

As a citizen, I want to err on the side of my rights being protected to the maximum. Sure, I understand officer safety needs, and I can understand the practical considerations of your job if they are explained to me. Yet, the practical part of your job will never be as important to me as it is to you. By the same token, you have to do a tough job and get home alive every day. You don't want to inconvenience or irritate honest citizens, but you know that sometimes that's what's required, so part of the job is to get used to that.

This difference is where a lot of the conflict resides. I have friends who are rude to any cop who stops them. They are angry at being stopped, and think that the cop should have something better to do than enforce "minor" traffic laws against honest citizens.

I have very limited experience with the police, but in my small sample, I've experienced a much higher level of unwarranted rudeness from LEOs than say, dentists, or teachers, or other professions. This is combined with the fact that when I've been stopped by a cop, he has an inherent power over me.

Besides the fact that it just doesn't make sense to disarm a person with a permit who informed you, it's just rude. I'm expected to feel comfortable with you being armed, because you're a police officer. I have an LTCH - that should provide an assumption on my behalf that I'm generally law-abiding. Pushing it beyond that, while not an abuse of power, is IMO, a misapplication of your power. If you came to my house to ask some questions about local robberies, and I invited you in, would you ask if I had weapons in the house and then hold them after I'd invited you in?

Also, rights have nothing to do with the courts. Rights are absolute, endowed at birth, and while the courts can interpret the law anyway they want, rights don't change. Disarming a person without cause may or may not rise to a violation of rights - that is debatable - but the courts have nothing to do with whether its a right or it isnt.

VERY well said! Especially liked the bolded part.
It has been said elsewhere in this thread "criminals have LTCHs too". While that is true, statistics show the LTCH, CCW etc holders are among the LOWEST percentage of criminals. (for example, the Texas study of 2007 that showed that only 0.25% of all criminal convictions that year, went to permit holders).

That being said, logic would seem to dictate that very very few criminals, are going to volunteer the fact that they are carrying. So one would think that statistically, it is probably more dangerous for the LEO to handle an unfamiliar weapon, than it is to just ask the citizen to keep their hands on the wheel.

I also have to wonder. Do LEOs confiscate tire irons, knives, baseball bats, hockey sticks, or anything else that MIGHT be used to inflict harm? If not, that combined with the 4th Amendment, makes seizing my weapon on shaky legal ground, would it not?

I have not been pulled over as of yet, since getting my LTCH earlier this year. I have not decided if I plan on volunteering the info when/if it happens, however, reading some of the negative reactions listed on INGO, and some of the downright dangerous practices by some LEOs, I am leaning toward keeping my mouth shut.

 

[henktermaat]

How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

YouTube - BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

I will say that I did the crack my window thing to a Carmel cop. It did not work, and I did not have the balls to escalate the situation. He immediately asked me to roll down my window. I did- by a few inches. He asked again for me to roll it down all the way, and I complied. He looked spooked, called for backup and the second cop snuck up beside the passenger side of the car like I was some kind of dangerous thug. Their actions really put me on edge during that traffic stop, and I am one hell of a relaxed, amiable guy.

 

[samot]

[quote.
As has been mentioned you are NOT under arrest at a traffic stop, therefore you would not be resisting arrest. And as has also been mentioned for a resisting charge it has to be force involved.[/quote]

All my other posts have been deleted because they were thought to be "making negative blanket statements about all LE" which i understand the mods have to draw the line somewhere. However the above quote has been addresed a couple times as being untrue I happen to have personal experience with this issue.
I was absolutly tossed in the slammer for resisting arrest, this did not happen in Indiana. I resisted arrest by not getting on the ground when i was told to get on the ground, instead i thru my hands up in awe because there were guns put in my face, i was then immeadeatly football tackled from the back . While i laid on the ground with the officers on my back & neck, i asked why are you guys doing this ? They said, "because we heard you had a gun" i said "i did its in the car" .. I then proceeded to tell them how i felt about thier police work & they said "thats it we are taking you in " I asked why are you taking me in? what did i do"? they said resisting arrest & disturbing the peace," I said HUH" they said you resisted by not getting on the ground when you were asked(1 time), & u disturbed the piece by raising your voice .
My point is i never used any force, against anyone I was standing with my hands in the air, they used force & threw me in jail for not getting on the ground.Not getting on the ground justified resisting .....

Disclaimer: i am not making negative comments about LE, I am stating FACTS

 

[henktermaat]

[quote.
As has been mentioned you are NOT under arrest at a traffic stop, therefore you would not be resisting arrest. And as has also been mentioned for a resisting charge it has to be force involved.

All my other posts have been deleted because they were thought to be "making negative blanket statements about all LE" which i understand the mods have to draw the line somewhere. However the above quote has been addresed a couple times as being untrue I happen to have personal experience with this issue.
I was absolutly tossed in the slammer for resisting arrest, this did not happen in Indiana. I resisted arrest by not getting on the ground when i was told to get on the ground, instead i thru my hands up in awe because there were guns put in my face, i was then immeadeatly football tackled from the back . While i laid on the ground with the officers on my back & neck, i asked why are you guys doing this ? They said, "because we heard you had a gun" i said "i did its in the car" .. I then proceeded to tell them how i felt about thier police work & they said "thats it we are taking you in " I asked why are you taking me in? what did i do"? they said resisting arrest & disturbing the peace," I said HUH" they said you resisted by not getting on the ground when you were asked(1 time), & u disturbed the piece by raising your voice .
My point is i never used any force, against anyone I was standing with my hands in the air, they used force & threw me in jail for not getting on the ground.Not getting on the ground justified resisting .....

Disclaimer: i am not making negative comments about LE, I am stating FACTS

Folks around here don't always appreciate facts, and have thin skins to boot. Welcome to

 

[pftraining_in]

No, there is no link between your LTCH and your BMV information. They are two separate systems. The State Police use the same system as my department and we are only alerted to warrants, protection orders and license suspensions.

TN is the only state that combines BMV and LTCH information on a return.

An officer can ask any question he fills pertains to the stop, his safety or just to ask. You may do the same and ask anyone entering your car or home if they are carrying drugs or guns. You must remember that this is a question, not a request. You can always advise the officer that you believe it is none of his business or say nothing and just set there if you feel inclined. Myself and any good officer would look farther into a stop where the driver says nothing compared to someone who actually talks. Saying nothing tells me you have something to hide.

 

[henktermaat]

No, there is no link between your LTCH and your BMV information. They are two separate systems. The State Police use the same system as my department and we are only alerted to warrants, protection orders and license suspensions.

Cool- that clears it up for me! Info appreciated