If a cop wants to disarm you...

[since9]

My statement which you quoted was rhetorical in nature but based upon a level of fact. Officers take an oath, and though I do not know the actual verbiage, I suspect it is pretty much the same across then nation. Once they step outside of the bounds of this oath and begin acting in concert with others in illegal operations, say selling guns and/or drugs from evidence lockers, they have ceased to be officers of the law and are now simple criminals. The only difference between them and any other criminal who is doing the same thing is the fact that they carry a badge and a gun and are still being paid by they employers -> meaning us.

+2, and this gets us into the darker side of the issues.

I'll say this: The vast majority of LEOs would never go down this road. Those that have, however, have earned their own destruction. They might get caught soon. It might be longer, or a very long time. Sooner or later, though...

 

[SouthernBoy]

+2, and this gets us into the darker side of the issues.

I'll say this: The vast majority of LEOs would never go down this road. Those that have, however, have earned their own destruction. They might get caught soon. It might be longer, or a very long time. Sooner or later, though...

And you can bet that the honest, hard-working, and decent LEO's abhor these miscreants even more than we do.

 

[JohnK87]

The time to fight an illegal arrest, search or seizure is AFTER the whole thing is over. While it is ongoing, you be polite, calm and follow directions. This is best for your safety and his.

After it is over, you can file a formal complaint, retain a civil lawyer, or fight the criminal case based on the legality of the search.

Snarky comments and amateur lawyering are a good way to have a good night ruined.

 

[eye95]

The time to fight an illegal arrest, search or seizure is AFTER the whole thing is over. While it is ongoing, you be polite, calm and follow directions. This is best for your safety and his.

After it is over, you can file a formal complaint, retain a civil lawyer, or fight the criminal case based on the legality of the search.

Snarky comments and amateur lawyering are a good way to have a good night ruined.

Wisdom.

 

[1245A Defender]

yea,,,,

Very, very wrong. If you do not fight the illegal arrest or search or seizure at the scene, when it happened, then you consented and you can't fight it later if you consented at the scene. Willingness to obey without question will be considered consenting. It is much easier to fight an illegal arrest or search or seizure in court later, if you were in handcuffs during the incident when it occurred.

I will never produce an identification document to provide to a LEO if I am not convinced that I am required by law to do so.
I will never produce my CPL to provide to a LEO if I am not convinced that I am required by law to do so.
I will not consent to any search, EXCEPT as a condition of entry onto a military base.
I will never hand my firearm over to an officer.
I will not engage in consensual conversation with a LEO under any circumstance that is even slightly questionable as to motive.

quoted for truth!
if you dont exercise your rights at the scene of the "crime", they wont be any good in court!

 

[JohnK87]

I never said give consent, in fact I would be up front and state I did not consent, but neither would I resist. Carrying a voice recorder is a good way to record what really happened in the stop and what you did or did not consent to.

 

[eye95]

Most understood what you said. A few will turn it into a strawman just cuz it is easier to dismantle.

Fighting the unlawful actions of an officer afterward does not mean you have to consent during--or that anyone said as much.

 

[palerider116]

And you can bet that the honest, hard-working, and decent LEO's abhor these miscreants even more than we do.

+1000

It makes the job very difficult. You can't tell a "good one" from a "bad one" until its too late as a citizen. The bad ones cause people to resent the police - and not cooperate at all. There are a lot of instances were we NEED that citizen who saw something to come forward, volunteer his name, and stand beside us at the trial. But you can't expect someone to do that if they keep running across those who are a disgrace to the profession.

I keep preaching community policing. And I will continue to do so because its the right way to get things done.

I've never disarmed a citizen when they have informed me of a firearm in the vehicle. I request that they make their hands visible on the return approach to the vehicle - gripping the steering wheel is just fine.

I've even stood on the side of the road and discussed Glocks with a driver after he told me he was carrying a firearm. Officer, I have a concealed firearm on my hip. Cool, whatcha carrying? A Glock XX... Sweet, I got this Glock and that Glock and wish I carried a Glock as a service weapon. We got the accident squared away and went our separate ways.

Not all officers are JBT's.

 

[WCrawford]

+1000

It makes the job very difficult. You can't tell a "good one" from a "bad one" until its too late as a citizen. The bad ones cause people to resent the police - and not cooperate at all. There are a lot of instances were we NEED that citizen who saw something to come forward, volunteer his name, and stand beside us at the trial. But you can't expect someone to do that if they keep running across those who are a disgrace to the profession.

I keep preaching community policing. And I will continue to do so because its the right way to get things done.

I've never disarmed a citizen when they have informed me of a firearm in the vehicle. I request that they make their hands visible on the return approach to the vehicle - gripping the steering wheel is just fine.

I've even stood on the side of the road and discussed Glocks with a driver after he told me he was carrying a firearm. Officer, I have a concealed firearm on my hip. Cool, whatcha carrying? A Glock XX... Sweet, I got this Glock and that Glock and wish I carried a Glock as a service weapon. We got the accident squared away and went our separate ways.

Not all officers are JBT's.

Can we get clones of you?

 

[palerider116]

Can we get clones of you?

There are plenty like me. We are eclipsed by those who do wrong. But I'm preaching to the choir on that issue. A law abiding Constitution cherishing gun owner doesn't want to get lumped into the same group that uses a firearm to commit crimes. A good LEO doesn't want to be lumped into the same group as a bad LEO. One bad apple will outshine the good deeds of the many.

If you do wrong, you are wrong. It doesn't matter on your profession or anything else. A person should own their actions.

 

[jrob33]

As an example, cop stops a person simply because they are carrying a gun and DEMANDS to see an identification document to check them for felonies. In most states, that is completely illegal. But if the cop says let me see ID, and you give him your ID, you have completely given up your rights, UNLESS you can prove in court that you were under circumstances where a reasonable person would assume they were under such coercion that they could not refuse the request. Such proof might be the position of the officer in such a way as to physically prevent leaving the scene, the presence of multiple officers directly involved in the incident, the presentation of handcuffs by the officer, the presentation of a gun by the officer, an actual threat of arrest if not complied with.

But if it's just a cop in a public place and he says show me your ID, and you do....you just consented to the whole thing.

Now, if in a public place the cop asks you for ID to check you out for a record only because you are carrying a gun and you say, "Sir, I am not required by law to show you identification under these circumstances, and therefore I am choosing to not honor your request until such time as you actually place me under arrest." and then the cop arrests you.... NOW you have a case in court.

I don't understand the desire some people have to simply acquiescence to every request simply because it is made by a person carrying a badge and wearing a uniform.

Thats not exactly true. Most courst have ruled that if the OFFICER demands ID then generally that is NOT considered consentual. its all in the wording. most courts have held that if an officer bin uniform on duty etc. DEMANDS something, a reasonable person would believe that the officer is acting under the color of law, therefore the encounter is consentual. however if an officer approaches you and asks to speak with you, or asks if you'd mind showing your id etc, and you comply thats is generally held to be consentual.

 

[eye95]

Thats not exactly true. Most courst have ruled that if the OFFICER demands ID then generally that is NOT considered consentual. its all in the wording. most courts have held that if an officer bin uniform on duty etc. DEMANDS something, a reasonable person would believe that the officer is acting under the color of law, therefore the encounter is consentual. however if an officer approaches you and asks to speak with you, or asks if you'd mind showing your id etc, and you comply thats is generally held to be consentual.

Can you provide cites for those "most cases"? Several cases have been posted here lately that seem to indicate a judicial predisposition to assume that encounters are consensual unless the "color of law" posture of the officer is clearly communicated by the totality of the circumstances or the lack of consent is clearly communicated by the citizen.

The case recently cited where a man was arrested for selling guns to proxies for illegal aliens clearly stated that the mere act of questioning a citizen or asking him to come with an officer does not constitute a stop under color of law. (In that case, the encounter was ruled a seizure of the citizen only because of two features: the citizen was confronted with several officers, and those officers surrounded the citizen, leaving the citizen with the reasonable belief that he was not free to go. Had there been fewer officers and had they not surrounded the suspect, the encounter would have been considered consensual.)

The bottom line is that during an encounter, we (the citizen) need to make the officer make it clear whether the encounter is consensual or not, and get that clarity on tape. Otherwise, even if we are sure that the encounter was not consensual, the courts will likely see it otherwise.

 

[since9]

Very, very wrong. If you do not fight the illegal arrest or search or seizure at the scene, when it happened, then you consented and you can't fight it later if you consented at the scene. Willingness to obey without question will be considered consenting. It is much easier to fight an illegal arrest or search or seizure in court later, if you were in handcuffs during the incident when it occurred.

I will never produce an identification document to provide to a LEO if I am not convinced that I am required by law to do so.
I will never produce my CPL to provide to a LEO if I am not convinced that I am required by law to do so.
I will not consent to any search, EXCEPT as a condition of entry onto a military base.
I will never hand my firearm over to an officer.
I will not engage in consensual conversation with a LEO under any circumstance that is even slightly questionable as to motive.

While I agree with you that all of those are either stated or implied by our Constitution, about half of them would violate state law in one to many states.

If I had deep pockets, I'd have no problem fighting them in court, preferrably with a personal camera and two lurkers recording the whole thing, but I'd not risk life or limb doing so.

I think there are ways of resisting inappropriate procedure without crossing the line of resisting arrest, but further conversations along this line would be closer to civil (i.e. lawful) disobedience, obeying higher laws in protest of intermediate and lower ones on the books, and being enforced, but which weren't right.

I think most police departments are correct in their view that in this day and age, any attempt to play the heavy would result in a media and political backlash that would not only end careers, but which would even further limit their authority over the general populace.

 

[Patriot Prepper]

They can only disarm you during an official detention with reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed. Your first question should be "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, end the encounter. or if you prefer to ask, "Am I free to leave?" and the answer is yes, then leave.

Once you verify that you are being detained, when the officer wants to disarm you, your only real option is to inform the officer, "I do not consent to surrendering my firearm to you, but I will not resist." You can physically resist if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

If you verify that you ARE being detained, and there is no RAS, the next step is to ask for a supervisor to come to the scene and to attempt to work it out with the supervisor. If that doesn't work, you'll have to take it to higher authority and/or lawyer up.

Also, if you are in a public place such as a restaurant, it is generally a good idea to not "step outside" with the officer. Keep the encounter in the public place. More chance of witnessess/vido surveilance that way.

Pretty bad when we have to strategize encounters with police officers in America.

Very good advice NavyLT.

As Americans we have rights, but when confronted with LE, those rights seem to vanish. Even if you are within your legal rights and the officer is wrong, you are often at their mercy. Use your head and do not provoke them. Remember, they have a badge and a gun and may just be having a bad day. They are human and can really screw up and often make bad decisions. Comply with them as much as possible without being abused or being a passive wimp. Be smart and stay out of jail and the court room. :uhoh:

 

[CenTex]

You may resist an illegal arrest in Virginia, too. And the force you may use can be up to and including the use of deadly force as long as the necessary conditions/requirements are met.

INAL, but here you go: Briggs v. The commonwealth, Clinton v. Commonwealth, and more sitings if y'all wish.

BTW.. This is NOT police bashing by any extent. Police who conduct themselves, involve themselves, in illegal activity are criminals. They are NOT police officers.

They are police officers until they are fired. What we have are police officers committing illegal activity. There are far too many of them committing illegal activity and getting away with it...even up until the time they retire.

In our ongoing financial woes, and the increasing difficulty it is to make ends meet, we will have more police officers engaging in illegal activity, just like a number of citizens will be doing.

btt

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

There are plenty like me. We are eclipsed by those who do wrong. But I'm preaching to the choir on that issue. A law abiding Constitution cherishing gun owner doesn't want to get lumped into the same group that uses a firearm to commit crimes. A good LEO doesn't want to be lumped into the same group as a bad LEO. One bad apple will outshine the good deeds of the many.

If you do wrong, you are wrong. It doesn't matter on your profession or anything else. A person should own their actions.

I have met two of your brothers. Both at Accident scenes where I was involved in the accident (neither my fault). Both times I informed them, they looked at me about 15 seconds and that was it. It probably helped a lot that I was calm and not cussing the other drivers.

BTW, I have been on the other side of that situation myself, before it was legal where I lived. That situation was also handled calmly.

 

[papa bear]

what the ACLU says

just got this in today. it should be in line with the discussion

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-righ...n-james-white-what-do-if-youre-stopped-police

 

[eye95]

How many unlawful stops have folks recorded? How many of these recordings have been destroyed? In my case one and zero. (Had I a recorder for my first stop, the answers would be two and zero.)

 

[eye95]

What then IF it occurs is the question to a fictional situation presented. Never said it does occur.

Then the question is as specious as asking about the possibility of a gun-grab from an OCer. It is a rare-to-nonexistent occurrence, the possibility of which is raised merely to convince folks not to participate in an activity.

What would I do if one of these two hugely unlikely events happen? I don't know. The exact circumstances of each hugely unlikely event. My response could range from, "There is nothing I could do," to, "The OC buddy with me caps the SOB," to, "Everyone knows I carry and run a recorder. The judge will construe the "accident" against the officer's credibility and toward mine."

Due to the huge unlikeliness of such events and the wide variety of circumstances that surround them, it is a silly "what if" and not worth playing, only worth dismissing.

Moving on.

 

[Saull Felipe]

I havn't had a LEO encounter yet, but I'm assuming it's not if but when. So, if they ask to disarm me, (or any OC'r) you know, for "officer safety", what do you do? All I've ever heard or seen is people letting LEO take the guns of the holster, inspect, run the permit yada yada yada, then put the gun back in. What if I don't want the LEO disarming me? Can I say "No sir, I would rather you not take my gun". Anyone have any thoughts on this? I always think of saying you can take my gun if I can take yours. But again, don't really know.

btw been CC'ing for 4 years, started open carrying about a year ago, in ND and MN.

Im in north carolina and I have yet to have a LEO stop me. If I was ever to be disarmed for "officer safety" I would simply say no, that it is my right to OC and you are unlawfuly detaining me so I will be on my way now.