disarmed during traffic stop

[boyscout399]

The seizure of the firearm could be deemed unlawful given the totality of the circumstances, as is required by Terry and now by a decision based on a North Carolina incident. The OP is about being disarmed and not being stopped. The OP should retain legal counsel and sue that cop and his department.

The OP admitted that he was being argumentative to the officer. That would give the officer plenty of reason to believe that the OP may be dangerous. Then the OP admitted to being armed, satisfying both requirements for a Terry seizure.

 

[boyscout399]

NO it is not alright, you were not there, and you keep making stuff up. I don't care how outspoken you are, if you are going to make claims, BACK them up!

You have no idea if it was a perfectly legal stop, and after the posts you have posted I would damn well take the word of the OP BEFORE YOU. Also you don't have a clue whether he should sue or not. It is not your decision!

I ask you again~~Where you there?

I'm not "making stuff up" I'm basing my comments on the OP. The OP stated that the officer told him the reason for the stop was for dimmed tail lights. Remember, to make a stop, the officer doesn't have to be right about the dimmed tail lights. He just has to have reasonable suspicion that they are below spec.

 

[OC for ME]

The OP admitted that he was being argumentative to the officer. That would give the officer plenty of reason to believe that the OP may be dangerous. Then the OP admitted to being armed, satisfying both requirements for a Terry seizure.

Being argumentative does not equate to dangerous as the word dangerous is used in Terry. That premise is false. I have not read anything, re Terry, where those individuals were argumentative. A cop has zero authority to act because a citizen is being argumentative. Unfortunately cops will act because their definition of dangerous is what "gives" them their justification at that moment.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

 

[eye95]

Isn't the "dangerous" part only required for the cursory pat-down? To disarm, the stop merely needs to be lawful, and RAS makes it lawful.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[boyscout399]

Isn't the "dangerous" part only required for the cursory pat-down? To disarm, the stop merely needs to be lawful, and RAS makes it lawful.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Terry required RAS+Armed+Dangerous to pat down AND seize weapons. Merely having a firearm is not reason enough to disarm.

 

[boyscout399]

Being argumentative does not equate to dangerous as the word dangerous is used in Terry. That premise is false. I have not read anything, re Terry, where those individuals were argumentative. A cop has zero authority to act because a citizen is being argumentative. Unfortunately cops will act because their definition of dangerous is what "gives" them their justification at that moment.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

So you're saying that if you were talking with a stranger, and you knew they were armed, and they suddenly became argumentative that you wouldn't go from yellow to orange? Being argumentative does indicate dangerous and any officer trained on such things as body language would recognize the danger signs and act on them. Remember, you don't have to BE dangerous to the officer, the officer just has to reasonably believe you are dangerous, reasonably believe you are armed, and be engaged in a reasonable detainment.

An officer DOES have the authority to act when a person is lawfully detained (Bad tail light), has admitted to being armed (Handed over CCW), and is now showing signs of being dangerous (arguing with the officer). Haven't you heard lawyers say that arguing with the officer on the street is not wise, argue in court later.

 

[OC for ME]

i was recently pulled over by a state trooper who claimed he pulled me over for having tinted taillights. just fyi they are not tinted they are the factory installed taillights he argued with me about this for a few minutes but that is not the point no ticket was issued. my issue was that my firearm was taken at the beginning of the traffic stop. <snip>

"He" as in the cop, and the OP "argued", the OP was not being argumentative.

So you're saying that if you were talking with a stranger, and you knew they were armed, and they suddenly became argumentative that you wouldn't go from yellow to orange? Being argumentative does indicate dangerous and any officer trained on such things as body language would recognize the danger signs and act on them. Remember, you don't have to BE dangerous to the officer, the officer just has to reasonably believe you are dangerous, reasonably believe you are armed, and be engaged in a reasonable detainment.

An officer DOES have the authority to act when a person is lawfully detained (Bad tail light), has admitted to being armed (Handed over CCW), and is now showing signs of being dangerous (arguing with the officer). Haven't you heard lawyers say that arguing with the officer on the street is not wise, argue in court later.

I am stating that being argumentative is not being dangerous. You contend that arguing is the same as being argumentative which equates to being dangerous, that is the LE view and not a liberty-centric view. And it may be shown that it is found to be a unlawful act/practice. It seems that judges are determining that the "dangerous" portion of Terry is important where it seemed that the dangerous portion was merely inserted into the Terry decision to meet a word count requirement.

Terry required RAS+Armed+Dangerous to pat down AND seize weapons. Merely having a firearm is not reason enough to disarm.

The perceived infraction authorized the detainment and then the detainment authorized the seizure in the view of that cop regardless of whether or not the cop would be able to articulate the specific threat (being dangerous) that the citizen posed to that cop. I submit that the cop is not interested in meeting the requirements of Terry. He has been trained, or is predisposed, to seize a firearm regardless of the facts of the situation.

 

[OC for ME]

Isn't the "dangerous" part only required for the cursory pat-down? To disarm, the stop merely needs to be lawful, and RAS makes it lawful.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I do not know if you are wrong, I only know what I read in Terry.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

A citizen volunteers that he is armed, according to Mr. boyscout399, equates to the OP being dangerous.

I contend that a law abiding citizen who freely provides a cop information of this nature, where no legal mandate to do so exists, is no threat (a danger) to that cop. Mr. boyscout399 disagrees or does not recognize the intent of the citizen (OP), or does not care. The issue for him is "cop in presence of gun= seize gun."

Mr. boyscout399 equates the stop as the only justification to seize the firearm. I disagree and read Terry as the court stating that a cop could not claim that he feared for his safety by the mere presence of a firearm.

US v. Black hints at this. A citizen was unlawfully seized and relieved of his lawfully possessed and carried firearm for merely associating with "suspicious" looking folks in a "rough" neighborhood. I suspect that Mr. boyscout399 would likely disagree with the decision of the court re the disarming of Mr. Troupe in US v. Black. In other words, it is always reasonable and lawful to disarm a citizen for "officer safety" where the stop/detainment is lawful regardless of the particular facts of the stop/detainment.

I reject the foundational principal of LE that all lawful stops/detainments of citizens is all the justification that LE requires to seize a citizens lawfully possessed and carried firearm.

I also understand the reality and will work to hold a cop who acted as the cop in the OP accountable according to the laws of my state and to publicly brand that cop as a rights abusing thug at worst and a idiot at best.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I'm not "making stuff up" I'm basing my comments on the OP. The OP stated that the officer told him the reason for the stop was for dimmed tail lights. Remember, to make a stop, the officer doesn't have to be right about the dimmed tail lights. He just has to have reasonable suspicion that they are below spec.

CITE where the oP stated "dimmed" taillights? I saw tinted in the OP, you are turning tinted into dimmed which is a outright LIE.

I have pointed this our several times, and the OP is still there for you to verify. I can only come to the conclusion that your are lying and making stuff up about the original post.

I have to admit I am puzzled when not only I, but every member can double check to see that what you are claiming is NOT what was posted. Why?

 

[WalkingWolf]

So you're saying that if you were talking with a stranger, and you knew they were armed, and they suddenly became argumentative that you wouldn't go from yellow to orange? Being argumentative does indicate dangerous and any officer trained on such things as body language would recognize the danger signs and act on them. Remember, you don't have to BE dangerous to the officer, the officer just has to reasonably believe you are dangerous, reasonably believe you are armed, and be engaged in a reasonable detainment.

An officer DOES have the authority to act when a person is lawfully detained (Bad tail light), has admitted to being armed (Handed over CCW), and is now showing signs of being dangerous (arguing with the officer). Haven't you heard lawyers say that arguing with the officer on the street is not wise, argue in court later.

NOTHING in the OP's post indicates he was being argumentative. AND then the officer did NOT write him a ticket. Plus the OP stated he had original taillights and said NOTHING about them being "Bad". I again ask you to stop making fecal matter up, it is clear it is a pattern with you and intentional.

In the OP the member stated the OFFICER ARGUED, he did not say HE argued.

"just fyi they are not tinted they are the factory installed taillights he argued with me about this for a few minutes but that is not the point no ticket was issued. "

 

[eye95]

I don't know that "all" stops do (nor am I contending that they should) justify seizing the firearm. I am just saying that during a lawful stop, if State law allows (I don't know about Maine, but I can assure you that Alabama and Ohio do) an officer to seize a firearm "for officer safety" during a lawful stop, then RAS makes the stop lawful, and the firearm may lawfully be seized.

As I said earlier, I wasn't there. I don't know if RAS existed. But, if it did, and if Maine law allows for "officer safety" seizures, then the OP has no legal recourse. If RAS for the stop did not exist or if Maine law does not all "officer safety" seizures, then the OP should pursue corrective measures.

Remember, when you are stopped, unless the officer discloses everything he knows, you can't possibly know if he has RAS. And there is no law that I know of that requires the officer to A his RS to the detainee. Always proceed as though the stop is lawful, and seek redress afterwards.

No one here knows if the officer had RAS for the stop. I think that is what BoyScout is trying to point out, that the officer might well have had RAS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

Without A it is ONLY RS!

 

[boyscout399]

NOTHING in the OP's post indicates he was being argumentative. AND then the officer did NOT write him a ticket. Plus the OP stated he had original taillights and said NOTHING about them being "Bad". I again ask you to stop making fecal matter up, it is clear it is a pattern with you and intentional.

In the OP the member stated the OFFICER ARGUED, he did not say HE argued.

"just fyi they are not tinted they are the factory installed taillights he argued with me about this for a few minutes but that is not the point no ticket was issued. "

An argument is two sided, otherwise it's a lecture.

They are not tinted, but the officer reasonably believed they WERE tinted based on his observations of the tail light. Again I ask you to stop attacking me and stick to the situation at hand. Don't accuse me of intentionally making stuff up. I read the OP. Is there really a difference between TINTED and DIMMED? Tinting dims a tail light. That's why it's illegal. Dirty lenses are essentially tinted by dirt. If the officer was following a car at night and saw dim tail lights, he would stop the person thinking that they are tinted. I'm not being unreasonable here. And when the officer cleared his suspicions, he would let the driver go. That's perfectly allowed under the 4th Amendment. Remember, the 4th Amendment does not say you will be free from seizures. It says you will be free from UNREASONABLE seizures.

 

[WalkingWolf]

An argument is two sided, otherwise it's a lecture.

They are not tinted, but the officer reasonably believed they WERE tinted based on his observations of the tail light. Again I ask you to stop attacking me and stick to the situation at hand. Don't accuse me of intentionally making stuff up. I read the OP. Is there really a difference between TINTED and DIMMED? Tinting dims a tail light. That's why it's illegal. Dirty lenses are essentially tinted by dirt. If the officer was following a car at night and saw dim tail lights, he would stop the person thinking that they are tinted. I'm not being unreasonable here.

Maybe in your world, there is nothing in the constitution that says a person who stands up for themselves, disagrees with a accusation is arguing, the OP stated the OFFICER was arguing. YOU keep wanting to put words in the OP's mouth that were not in his OP. [...] Again with the dim tail lights, the OP did not say dimmed lights. [...]

COMMENTS EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack

 

[boyscout399]

Maybe in your world, there is nothing in the constitution that says a person who stands up for themselves, disagrees with a accusation is arguing, the OP stated the OFFICER was arguing. YOU keep wanting to put words in the OP's mouth that were not in his OP. And those words by you are lies. Again with the dim tail lights, the OP did not say dimmed lights. Stop with the outright LIES! A person who tells lies and knows they are not true is normally described as a dishonest person. Now I am sure you do not want to be known for one, so why not cut it out.

You went past unreasonable with the repeated lies...

Okay, I'm disengaging from this thread. Good luck to you.

 

[Flashlight]

i was recently pulled over by a state trooper who claimed he pulled me over for having tinted taillights. just fyi they are not tinted they are the factory installed taillights he argued with me about this for a few minutes but that is not the point no ticket was issued. my issue was that my firearm was taken at the beginning of the traffic stop. i don't normally announce that i am armed in a stop but my gun was holstered between the console and the passenger seat and the officer approached from that side. i assumed he would notice it so i immediately handed my drivers licence and my ccw permit. he didn't see it but asked are you armed and where is it i told him and then he claimed for his safety he was taking my firearm, i understand the thought but what about my safety how many times have people been robbed or murdered under a false traffic stop? and i believe i should have been protected under illegal search and seizure am i justified in filing a complaint i was also flagged with my own firearm he pointed it directly at me.
QUOTE]

Another thing to remember is that if the officer took your gun to his vehicle and never unloaded it he is in violation of the law.
§11212 part B says:
A person may not, while in or on a motor vehicle or in or on a trailer or other type of vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle, have a cocked and armed crossbow or a firearm with a cartridge or shell in the chamber or in an attached magazine, clip or cylinder or a muzzle-loading firearm charged with powder, lead and a primed ignition device or mechanism, except that a person who has a valid Maine permit to carry a concealed weapon may have in or on a motor vehicle or trailer a loaded pistol or revolver covered by that permit. [2005, c. 477, §9 (AMD).]

A person may have a pistol or revolver. Not both and notice the singular of whatever he chooses. With your gun and his gun he has two in his vehicle and is comitting a class E crime. There is no exception for law enforcement. If that did happen, file a complaint and insist on prosecution.

 

[Citizen]

I really don't think it is wrong. If an officer has reasonable suspicion of crime, and he believes that you are armed and also dangerous, then he can seize the weapon for the duration of the stop. This is not wrong at all.

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, fellas.

I'm with MAC702. A respectful complaint is in order. A complaint is an exercise of the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. There is no requirement that says you can only complain when the cop violates the law. If that were the case, the government could just keep passing laws and court decisions until all manner of government nonsense was legal and you couldn't petition for redress on any of it, thereby negating the right.

Regarding the OPs stop, under PAvs Mimms, the temporary gun seizure was legal. In Terry v Ohio, the Supreme Court set out three conditions for searching a detainee and temporarily seizing weapons:
1. Reasonable suspicion the detainee is armed.
2. Reasonable suspicion the detainee is presently dangerous.
2. Nothing in the initial moments of the encounter serves to dispel the officer's reasonable concern for his safety. (That is to say, the court is expecting cops to look over the situation and make an intelligent evaluation. More about this later.)

Thus, Terry had three requirements. But, the later Mimms case equated guns with dangerousness. Rather than requiring armed + dangerous as done in Terry, the Mimms court essentially said guns = dangerousness during traffic stops. So, the OPers temporary weapon seizure was legal.

It was wrong as hell, though. The proof is in the contrast. Lots of traffic stops have been reported here where the cop did not seize the gun. Lots. If all guns or all drivers were dangerous, no cop would ever fail to temporarily seize a gun during a traffic stop.

What we have here is a cop who can't or won't use judgement about whether the driver is dangerous (the third condition under Terry.) Further, some departments seem to make it policy to temporarily seize guns during traffic stops just so they can go on a little fishing expedition and run the serial number to see if it was reported stolen. Or, perhaps some cops are making it their personal policy. This is what happens when a massive central government's senior court hands cops a loophole.

In any complaint, I would definitely spend some time addressing the failure to use judgement and the fishing expedition for serial number. Just because a court said its legal because of officer safety concerns does not mean its OK for a cop who has no reason to think the driver dangerous to go on a fishing expedition.

 

[HP995]

You might be interested in a possible traffic stop effect in Missouri:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?114253-Traffic-Stop-Effects

due to part of a bill soon to be law:

HB436:HA2:3(2) In any jurisdiction in which open carry of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, open carry of a firearm shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following: ..... In the absence of any reasonable and articular suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest;

 

[MainelyGlock]

How did he take it? Did he reach in through the window and grab it, or were you removed first? Sorry to hear you had a negative experience. I've been pulled over twice by the staties, once I declared my firearm, the other time I didn't. The time I did, the trooper just said "OK" and went back to write the ticket. The other time, he only asked if I had a CCP for it, and that was that. I mount mine the same way, between the seat and the center console. Those rubberized pocket holsters are really good at keeping guns in place there.

 

[Marcus92183]

How did he take it? Did he reach in through the window and grab it, or were you removed first? Sorry to hear you had a negative experience. I've been pulled over twice by the staties, once I declared my firearm, the other time I didn't. The time I did, the trooper just said "OK" and went back to write the ticket. The other time, he only asked if I had a CCP for it, and that was that. I mount mine the same way, between the seat and the center console. Those rubberized pocket holsters are really good at keeping guns in place there.

he reached through the window and removed it. i was never removed from the car. i wouldnt have told him except i thought he would see it and figured it was better than surprising him.