Refused to disarm

[Marco]

imported post

I don't inform that I'm carrying and don't answer when asked.
Legal where I live.

I verbally refuse consent to all search and seizures even if temporary.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

I don't inform that I'm carrying and don't answer when asked.
Legal where I live.

I verbally refuse consent to all search and seizures even if temporary.

So do I.....

 

[dyver1]

imported post

So let me sum up what I think I read in these posts and court cases. (Thanks BTW to LEO for posting the court cases).

1. It is reasonable for an officer to ask passengers to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop.

2. It is reasonable for an officer to ask passengers for identification during a traffic stop.

3. If I notify the officer that I am leagally CC'ing or in fact if I am OC'ing or he determines that I might be CC'ing by running my ID (remember Va notes your DMV record with that info)and he asks me to disarm in the interest of "officer safety", It would probably be the best thing if I complied, because there is case law supporting the concept of "officer safety"

If I have any of this wrong, please let me know.

From a personal point of view, if I am either a passenger or a driver and I am CC'ing, I will volunteer the info to the officer that I am armed and that I do have a permit, if CC'ing. I would also surrender the weapon to him if he asks, after clearing it" so that everyone involved is comfortable with the situation. I have a great respect for the LEO's and the job they do and anything I can do to make their day a little better, I will do.

Let me add, that I have only had my CC permit since May andonly recently started carrying at all because I did not know it was legal to OC until I discovered this site a couple of months ago, so I have never had any run ins witha LEO over this particular issue, but Ipersonally know the Chief of Police in Fairfax and have dealt with many officers in both FFX. Prince William and the State while running fire and rescue and all of them have been the picture of professionalism and service. So if one of them wants to hold my firearm because it will make them feel safer and his request makes even the slightest sense to me, I feel that is the right thing to do for me.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Xeni wrote:

I have an issue with voluntarily disarming for 'officer safety'. What if any cite within the Virginia Code allows for it?

Additionally, with the advent of the Virginia Fusion Center the chance for my weapons S/N now being documented (registered) to me and my inability to FOIA the record and have it destroyed is an invasion into my privacy.

I don't feel comfortable at all with those two things and I believe that I would decline to disarm and invoke my 4th amendment right.

There is no Virginia cite that expressly allows it....

I did provide several court decisions early on that directly covered "Officer Safety" and how the courts allow things to be done because of it.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Refuse CONSENT to everything. Immediately ask if you're free to leave. Unless the officer presents you with an immediate and credible threat to life and limb, do not resist. Where lawful, a voice recorder is your friend.

If you are in the right, you don't need to worry about the ride. It's the letter writing campaign and lawsuit he needs to worry about.

And if you are wrong :question:

Please do not give advise that may cause someone to get killed or charged with the death ofpolice officer. :banghead:

I do not believe advice on "consent" is being asked here either....

The question is about refusal to be disarmed.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/177/529/case.html

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.

So, what you're saying is that ifthe officerbegins savagely beating you forno reason or attempts to shoot you, you shouldn't defend yourself? If somebody is trying to maim or murder you, how is resisting going to CAUSE you to get killed or charged with the death of a police officer?

I advised anyone stopped who thought the stop was improper to refuse consent, and comply anyway. Apparently, you have a problem with the person OBEYING your instructions if he doesn't do so ENTHUSIASTICALLY.

Sometimes that chip on your shoulder blocks your vision.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Xeni wrote:

Sometimes that chip on your shoulder blocks your vision.

Edited....

The name calling's starting again. Ill just sit this one out!

 

[ChinChin]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

There is no Virginia cite that expressly allows it....

I did provide several court decisions early on that directly covered "Officer Safety" and how the courts allow things to be done because of it.

You provided court decisions. . .for Maryland. My original questions only pertained to the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am still looking for the law cite (read code) which states a VIRGINIA LEO may lawfully disarm a person who is not suspected of any crime.

Unless Maryland law has suddenly become accepted in Virginia, the information you provided is not applicable to this debate.


If the account i overheard was true: The passenger of the car was not suspected of any crime, demonstrated/proved he was lawfully carrying a concealed firearm and thus for only the stated purpose of "officer safety" was he requested to surrender his 4th amendment rights; which he refused.

ETA: I neglected to note the final cite was indeed a SCOTUS case; however the facts pertained more to an individual who was already suspect of committing a crime (speeding, eluding, fleeing) and the LEOs had PC for a detainment and search vs. my account of a passenger not under any such PC to warrant being disarmed under any known legal standing. I continue to maintain being in a vehicle with an individual who has a bench warrant, nor carrying lawfully a firearm are factors which would allow an officer to violate the 4th amendment for some "officer safety."

I also maintain there should be no differentiation between officer safety and non-officer safety.

 

[XD40GINA]

imported post

I have had such an experience in Loudoun County Virginia. I few months back, My husband and I got a call our son had been pulled for a minor speeding ticket, in our car. He was on a learners permit at the time and had his uncle with him. His uncle had a few beers so he could not drive the car. We arrived to retrieve them and drive the car home. The sheriff asked for our ID. No problem we showed our ID. Our mistake seams to be that we volunteered to inform theofficers that we were permitCC holders. This changed everything. When asked if we were armed we told the officer that I was and my husband was not at the time. Suddenly we were separated, I was asked to take a breathalyser test and to show the officer my gun. I showed him it was in my purse and hetook my purse from me. Snatched it from me! He behaved like I had a bomb. :what:

I did not resist physically. I asked for my purse back. He refused and placed it in the street by the car. I told him that was unacceptable. He had no right or cause to disarm me. If he was so concerned, I would place it in my trunk. He picked it up and walked to his cruiser. My husband and I the demanded a superior on the scene. We waited in the rain for about an hour for the Superior officer to show up. The officers laughed and joked about us being foolish to make a big deal. They insisted we were wrong and they were right. When the Superior officer arrived he first asked the officers what was going on. They told their side to him. Then he asked us, we told him what had happened. To the smart ass officers surprise. He told us we completely with in our rights and asked if we wanted to file a complaint. We told him that what we wanted the officers to know and understand the laws. So that law-abiding citizens did not have our rights infringed by ignorant officers.

I understand that both the Loudoun County Sheriff and the Town of Leesburg havehad gun law re-training of their officers since this. I hope that it was worth it. :celebrate

Sadly, #1 lesson learned; Don't volunteerinformation you don't need to. #2 lesson learned; don't carry in a purse.

 

[buster81]

imported post

vt357 wrote:

...I have decided that I will not voluntarily surrender my weapon for "officer safety" as I see it as an unreasonable seizure. But if the officer forces the issue I will not resist. I will say if he feels that he has the authority (not the right) to take my weapon, then I will not stop him from doing so, but that I still don't consent to the seizure...

A question for LEO. You seem fairly confident that you have the authority to disarm a passenger under the circumstances outlined in this thread. I have not argument with you on that. Does the response from vt357 seem reasonable to you? Would you actually put your hands on this individual and remove their weapon?

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

dyver1 wrote:

So let me sum up what I think I read in these posts and court cases. (Thanks BTW to LEO for posting the court cases).

1. It is reasonable for an officer to ask passengers to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop.

2. It is reasonable for an officer to ask passengers for identification during a traffic stop.

3. If I notify the officer that I am leagally CC'ing or in fact if I am OC'ing or he determines that I might be CC'ing by running my ID (remember Va notes your DMV record with that info)I can't find the cite right now soI'll askLEO 229 to please confirm thisbut your chp is not directly connected to anything in your dmv file. The only connection between the dmv and your chp comes when the DMV system provides the name and info for the resgistered owner of the vehicle involved in a traffic stop or you give them your drivers license and the PO then runs that info through a completely seperate system tocheck out the registered owner looking for warrants etc. The fine folks at DMV do not have access to your chp information.and he asks me to disarm in the interest of "officer safety", It would probably be the best thing if I complied, because there is case law supporting the concept of "officer safety"

If I have any of this wrong, please let me know.

From a personal point of view, if I am either a passenger or a driver and I am CC'ing, I will volunteer the info to the officer that I am armed and that I do have a permit, if CC'ing. I would also surrender the weapon to him if he asks, after clearing it" so that everyone involved is comfortable with the situation. I have a great respect for the LEO's and the job they do and anything I can do to make their day a little better, I will do.

Let me add, that I have only had my CC permit since May andonly recently started carrying at all because I did not know it was legal to OC until I discovered this site a couple of months ago, so I have never had any run ins witha LEO over this particular issue, but Ipersonally know the Chief of Police in Fairfax and have dealt with many officers in both FFX. Prince William and the State while running fire and rescue and all of them have been the picture of professionalism and service. So if one of them wants to hold my firearm because it will make them feel safer and his request makes even the slightest sense to me, I feel that is the right thing to do for me.

 

[Virginiaplanter]

imported post

We use the term LEO to describe all law enforcement or policeman. But legally that term is too broad for certain circumstances. The State police and the police of local jurisdictions are generally an arm of the executive branch of government. Sheriff's on the other hand are arms of the judicial branch. The use of the term sheriff above reminded me of that.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

Refuse CONSENT to everything. Immediately ask if you're free to leave. Unless the officer presents you with an immediate and credible threat to life and limb, do not resist. Where lawful, a voice recorder is your friend.

If you are in the right, you don't need to worry about the ride. It's the letter writing campaign and lawsuit he needs to worry about.

And if you are wrong :question:

Please do not give advise that may cause someone to get killed or charged with the death ofpolice officer. :banghead:

I do not believe advice on "consent" is being asked here either....

The question is about refusal to be disarmed.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/177/529/case.html

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.

So, what you're saying is that ifthe officerbegins savagely beating you forno reason or attempts to shoot you, you shouldn't defend yourself? If somebody is trying to maim or murder you, how is resisting going to CAUSE you to get killed or charged with the death of a police officer?

I advised anyone stopped who thought the stop was improper to refuse consent, and comply anyway. Apparently, you have a problem with the person OBEYING your instructions if he doesn't do so ENTHUSIASTICALLY.

Sometimes that chip on your shoulder blocks your vision.

Please stop with the personal attacks.

I am trying to turn over a new leaf and whether I have a chip or not does not matter here and only to you.

Iam posting information and sometimes a personal opinion here, OK?

You want to take this way beyond "refusing to bedisarmed"to "The cops was going to kill me so I had to kill him first!"

If you were being lawfully arrested for a crime and refusedto be arrested... the beat down would end up being legal up until you submitted to his commands. Any beating beyond that would turn into something unlawful and you would be entitled to fight back at that point.

Nobody expects you to sit there and take a beating or execution.

Please recall what you said... "credible threat" as this is not the same as actively causingyou serious injury or death.

Just because the officer has a gun and could shoot you would not be ground to kill him first.

 

[hsmith]

imported post

Welcome back LEO and thanks for the cites.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Welcome back LEO and thanks for the cites.

+1

 

[Xeni]

imported post

From a purely rational point of view I see it as illogical to assume that an officer will assault me (in which case I would need my sidearm) and not balance that out with the officers concern that I may assault him (in which case he would need his sidearm).

From that POV it would make sense that both persons remain armed and not make a move for thier firearms.

Should one be allowed to disarm the other? No. While it has been pointed out that civil law enforcement works for us, the citizens we also empower them with certain 'powers' over us. Does that power include the right to disarm a legally carried firearm? I don't think so. But, a situation where I'm OC'ing at a Starbucks is quite different from me playing loud music in a car at 2am with 4 people in the car. While in both situations those persons are all assumed to be innocent realisticaly a hightened sense of caution would be advisable dealing with the driver and passangers.

How would we rate the situation on the color scale if we were in the LEO's shoes?

So, I think it's context and how people negotiate with one another. At the end of the day if I'm disarmed my civil rights have been violated and I can seek action via the court system. Am I going to win over an armed police officer that seeks to disarm me or violate my civil liberties? No. Atleast not on the street. In a court room after the fact is a different story.

So, at least from my perspective I will not disarm and if forced to will seek counsel to sue for a civil rights violation.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

buster81 wrote:

vt357 wrote:

...I have decided that I will not voluntarily surrender my weapon for "officer safety" as I see it as an unreasonable seizure. But if the officer forces the issue I will not resist. I will say if he feels that he has the authority (not the right) to take my weapon, then I will not stop him from doing so, but that I still don't consent to the seizure...

A question for LEO. You seem fairly confident that you have the authority to disarm a passenger under the circumstances outlined in this thread. I have not argument with you on that. Does the response from vt357 seem reasonable to you? Would you actually put your hands on this individual and remove their weapon?

First.... I do not disarm peopleunless I believe they may cause me harm.

If I have just cause to legally control you... and want your gun... I will do what is required to get it starting with the lowest level of force to the highest.

If I can go hands on and take it safely... OK.

If you resist.... :shock:

You may take the 5 second ride if the gun is holstered... If not.... Iwill end up matching or beating the weapon you have.

Anyone that refuses my order to disarm must nowbe taken as a threat!!

Unless I know you.. I have no idea you are just being "difficult." For all I know... You could be a convicted felon in possession of a stolen gun.

And you "aint goingback to prison!!!" :uhoh:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Xeni wrote:

From a purely rational point of view I see it as illogical to assume that an officer will assault me (in which case I would need my sidearm) and not balance that out with the officers concern that I may assault him (in which case he would need his sidearm).

From that POV it would make sense that both persons remain armed and not make a move for thier firearms.

Should one be allowed to disarm the other? No. While it has been pointed out that civil law enforcement works for us, the citizens we also empower them with certain 'powers' over us. Does that power include the right to disarm a legally carried firearm? I don't think so. But, a situation where I'm OC'ing at a Starbucks is quite different from me playing loud music in a car at 2am with 4 people in the car. While in both situations those persons are all assumed to be innocent realisticaly a hightened sense of caution would be advisable dealing with the driver and passangers.

How would we rate the situation on the color scale if we were in the LEO's shoes?

So, I think it's context and how people negotiate with one another. At the end of the day if I'm disarmed my civil rights have been violated and I can seek action via the court system. Am I going to win over an armed police officer that seeks to disarm me or violate my civil liberties? No. Atleast not on the street. In a court room after the fact is a different story.

So, at least from my perspective I will not disarm and if forced to will seek counsel to sue for a civil rights violation.

If both would agree to not go for their gun.... then we wouldnot need guns at all as both the police and the community mutually agree not the kill the other.

But the bad guy does not play nice. He maygo for his gun and try to kill the cop.

Remembering that we have rules in place now that are not followed.

It is against the law to shoot at or kill another person. The police agree not to do this unless a deadly threat is presented. But... there are plenty of criminals that do not obey that rule and try to kill the cop. So it is one sided rule.

If a cop finds it necessary to disarm you and you feel he was wrong... you can sue him. The courts can decide if he was legally permitted to take away your gun during a legal stop to maintain a safe environment.




The supreme court allows the police to remove you and passengers from a vehicle.

Pennsylvania v Mimms







The supreme court allows the police to pat you down for weapons and remove them.

Terry v. Ohio







The supreme court allows the police to search the interior of your car for weapons and remove them.

Michigan v. Long





So what makes anyonethink that if you are armed that the officer cannot take your gun and you have some right to refusebeing disarmed?

 

[taurusfan]

imported post

chinchin wrote, "This gentlemen relating the story said he informed the officer he had a concealed firearm which he had a permit to carry and provided the officer with his ID and permit from his shirt pocket as he was instructed to do"

leo wrote,"So what makes anyonethink that if you are armed that the officer cannot take your gun and you have some right to refusebeing disarmed?"


BECAUSE he provided the ID and concealed permit.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

glockfan wrote:

chinchin wrote, "This gentlemen relating the story said he informed the officer he had a concealed firearm which he had a permit to carry and provided the officer with his ID and permit from his shirt pocket as he was instructed to do"

leo wrote,"So what makes anyonethink that if you are armed that the officer cannot take your gun and you have some right to refusebeing disarmed?"


BECAUSE he provided the ID and concealed permit.

So you believe that a ID and CC permit voids the supreme courts ruling and also over-rides the officers abilityto maintain a safe environment?

Please think before answering... :lol:

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Please recall what you said... "credible threat" as this is not the same as actively causingyou serious injury or death.

Just because the officer has a gun and could shoot you would not be ground to kill him first.

And of course that is NOT what I said. Here is the ACTUAL quote, which is in most places the standard for using DEAD:U FORCE in one's defense:

"Unless the officer presents you with an immediate and credible threat to life and limb"

You misquoted me, directly underneath an EXACT quote which contradicts your misquote. An officer merely having a firearm would not be considered under the "reasonable man" standard AN IMMEDIATE AND CREDIBLE THREAT TO LIFE AND LIMB. Of course more than a few cops don't feel the same way about citizens lawfully carrying a firearm, either concealed or openly.

Feel free to appologize for MISQUOTING me any time you'd like.