Pistol confiscation during traffic stop by WSP

[hermannr]

A Terry stop's officer safety search is covered within the parameters of a traffic stop. When the OP volunteered that he was armed, the cop had the legal right to disarm him. Considering that the weapon was in the same compartment as his registration, asking for the gun makes more sense. Again, this stuff has been through the courts repeatedly. The cop had every legal right to do what he did. No consent is required to temporarily disarm someone during a legal contact. And FYI, WA is a common law state. Unless there is a law prohibiting it, it's legal. No specific authorizing RCW is needed.

I disagree. A traffic stop is not a "Terry Stop". For a "Terry Stop" There MUST be "reasonable suspician of criminal activity". A traffic infraction is NOT "criminal activity"

 

[hermannr]

Amazing how polarizing this issue is. Kinda' like the open carry thing.

Personally I do not see this as an invasion of my privacy. I would not get butt hurt if a cop asked me for my gun. I do see it as a personal safety issue. I would like it returned to me promptly though after they run me through the computer and realize I'm not a criminal.

It absolutely is a personal safety issue...MY safety. A pistol in a holster is a danger to no-one. a loaded pistol (and they are all loaded unless in pieces) is a danger to everyone, including you, the officer and any passer by.

The secondary issue is the 4th ammendment, where we a given the right to be secure in our persons.

 

[hermannr]

Interesting read - thanks for starting this thread.

Last time I encountered a LEO it was for a traffic accident (not my fault). I was carrying and forgot to tell him (I was probably in a bit of shock). It never came up and I wondered afterwards if I should have told him.

You did fine not telling the officer, the fact that you are legally armed was totally irrelivant to the situation.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I disagree. A traffic stop is not a "Terry Stop". For a "Terry Stop" There MUST be "reasonable suspician of criminal activity". A traffic infraction is NOT "criminal activity"

Apparently many state courts have now decided that a traffic infraction is indeed "criminal activity" for the purposes of interpreting "Terry". Not that I agree. It's an overreaching legal concept and it needs to be overturned. Soon they'll be searching your person and vehicle for a +3 mph radar stop.

 

[wichaka]

Next will be impounding of vehicles, strip searches, and having the kids taken away by child services just for blowing a stop sign.

 

[hermannr]

Apparently many state courts have now decided that a traffic infraction is indeed "criminal activity" for the purposes of interpreting "Terry". Not that I agree. It's an overreaching legal concept and it needs to be overturned. Soon they'll be searching your person and vehicle for a +3 mph radar stop.

They won't be searching my car...and if they force the issue, I will be a few $$$$$ richer out of their personal pocket (as well as their jusristiction's). Why do you think they ask "mind if we seach your car?"???? They are asking for your permission because they know they cannot legally search without a reason. The proper answer is, Got a warrent? No warrent, sorry, no you cannot search my car.

 

[Kevatc]

Our military is an all volunteer force. No Draft as of now. Firemen and LEO are vollunteers. Well paid volunteers, perhaps. If no one volunteered for these dangerous jobs, guess what...Draft

volunteer: : a person who voluntarily undertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service: as a : one who enters into military service voluntarily

employee: : one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level


It's absurd to call a fireman or LEO a volunteer. Is every public employee actually a volunteer? Military folk volunteer and then are trained. LEO's, firemen, teachers as examples are trained and then employeed.

 

[RB87]

Firemen and LEO are vollunteers. Well paid volunteers, perhaps.

If they're paid, they're not volunteers. This reminds me of schools that require some sort of volunteer work to graduate. Uh, if its required (to graduate), its not volunteering.

 

[MountainBear]

volunteer: : a person who voluntarily undertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service: as a : one who enters into military service voluntarily

employee: : one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level


It's absurd to call a fireman or LEO a volunteer. Is every public employee actually a volunteer? Military folk volunteer and then are trained. LEO's, firemen, teachers as examples are trained and then employeed.

In that respect then, it's also absurd to call a soldier a volunteer, as they are paid public employees as well. Just saying...

 

[Doc Maker]

Not exactly the same thing but I see your point, Bear. Police, historically, are not conscripted like soldiers. If you force someone to be a cop, there's a high probability that you'll only get a criminal with a badge. An "All Volunteer" military is correct, if you consider that the main difference is the job description. A conscripted soldier is essentially considered expendable whereas a police officer is not. Taking life vs. preserving life.

 

[dmancornell]

In that respect then, it's also absurd to call a soldier a volunteer, as they are paid public employees as well. Just saying...

He learns. It's a miracle.

 

[Redcap]

Not exactly the same thing but I see your point, Bear. Police, historically, are not conscripted like soldiers. If you force someone to be a cop, there's a high probability that you'll only get a criminal with a badge. An "All Volunteer" military is correct, if you consider that the main difference is the job description. A conscripted soldier is essentially considered expendable whereas a police officer is not. Taking life vs. preserving life.

There is already a high probability of it, with or without conscription.

 

[Misterbill]

This entire thread has progressed into the asinine.

I, as a cop, pull you over for X traffic violation.

You then volunteer that you not only are armed, but that your gun is in the same place you'll reach for to produce registration and proof of insurance.

NO KIDDING I'm going to take the gun from your immediate control as I proceed with the traffic stop. You get it back after the stop. WTF exactly are you complaining about?

If it's somehow a violation of your rights to take the gun away from you, it's every bit as much of a violation of law for me to disarm the known gangbanger I've stopped for a different stop. The key factor is if you get it back at the end of the contact, which in this case, the OP did.

WTF is the matter with some of you people that can't discern between a cop trying to NOT GET SHOT and some horrifying violation of your rights under state constitutional law? The courts will not agree with you for one second.

A cop, doing his job has every right in the world to disarm an unknown, possibly dangerous felon, at the initial point of his lawful stop. He has no way to know who you are, what kind of character you may have, etc. All he knows is that there is a weapon present, he is about to take adverse action upon you. Given those factors, again, NO KIDDING the cop will sometimes disarm you for all of fiv3 minutes. Seriously, some of you need to take a chill pill.

 

[slicediceputinrice]

that's what you get for telling HENCHMEN you are armed

 

[The B]

This entire thread has progressed into the asinine.

I, as a cop, pull you over for X traffic violation.

You then volunteer that you not only are armed, but that your gun is in the same place you'll reach for to produce registration and proof of insurance.

NO KIDDING I'm going to take the gun from your immediate control as I proceed with the traffic stop. You get it back after the stop. WTF exactly are you complaining about?

If it's somehow a violation of your rights to take the gun away from you, it's every bit as much of a violation of law for me to disarm the known gangbanger I've stopped for a different stop. The key factor is if you get it back at the end of the contact, which in this case, the OP did.

WTF is the matter with some of you people that can't discern between a cop trying to NOT GET SHOT and some horrifying violation of your rights under state constitutional law? The courts will not agree with you for one second.

A cop, doing his job has every right in the world to disarm an unknown, possibly dangerous felon, at the initial point of his lawful stop. He has no way to know who you are, what kind of character you may have, etc. All he knows is that there is a weapon present, he is about to take adverse action upon you. Given those factors, again, NO KIDDING the cop will sometimes disarm you for all of fiv3 minutes. Seriously, some of you need to take a chill pill.

I've had a lot of contact with police over the years... I've always been armed, I've never been disarmed. The vast majority of armed non-cops are NOT disarmed... I don't even know anyone who's been disarmed. All of your "of course!" is pretty moot, when it's very uncommon for cops to disarm citizens.

Furthermore... you're disarming gang-bangers because they're suspected of crimes. A citizen being pulled over for speeding, and especially one with a CHP, is NOT in the least bit suspected of crimes.

Furthermorer... I can't remember, off the top of my head, all the criteria I used, once, in calculating the odds for a CJA school project (FBI stats on sworn-officer slayings, number of actively patrolling LEOs, estimated numbers of traffic stops per day, per active patrolling LEO, etc), but I think I estimated that a statistically average cop in a statistically average day pulling over a statistically average motorist has a 1 in 5 billion chance of dying during the encounter.

One in five billion.

So unless your spidy-sense is seriously tingling, you can STFU with all this "NOT GET SHOT" bullbubblegum. That statistically-average motorist is probably more likely to be unlawfully shot by YOU than you are by him.

-Ben

 

[slicediceputinrice]

This entire thread has progressed into the asinine.

I, as a cop, pull you over for X traffic violation.

You then volunteer that you not only are armed, but that your gun is in the same place you'll reach for to produce registration and proof of insurance.

NO KIDDING I'm going to take the gun from your immediate control as I proceed with the traffic stop. You get it back after the stop. WTF exactly are you complaining about?

If it's somehow a violation of your rights to take the gun away from you, it's every bit as much of a violation of law for me to disarm the known gangbanger I've stopped for a different stop. The key factor is if you get it back at the end of the contact, which in this case, the OP did.

WTF is the matter with some of you people that can't discern between a cop trying to NOT GET SHOT and some horrifying violation of your rights under state constitutional law? The courts will not agree with you for one second.

A cop, doing his job has every right in the world to disarm an unknown, possibly dangerous felon, at the initial point of his lawful stop. He has no way to know who you are, what kind of character you may have, etc. All he knows is that there is a weapon present, he is about to take adverse action upon you. Given those factors, again, NO KIDDING the cop will sometimes disarm you for all of fiv3 minutes. Seriously, some of you need to take a chill pill.

if you were trained to think that EVERYBODY with a gun is out to kill you then you are not a professional in whatever it is you do. Why shouldn't we worry about getting shot BY A COP? they are the one's who are CONSTANTLY in the news for shooting UNARMED homeless people and people with metal disabilities, bottom line for us peasants is "Piss a cop off and possibly get your brains blown out"

after hearing all the lovely stories about police in Oregon and all around the country beating people to death who are handcuffed and tasing elderly people, breaking ribs and beating to death homeless people who are malnourished and sick, oh don't forget the LYING they do, pretty much make up their own version of what happened and it is always the OFFICIAL version no matter what witnesses say....I have no respect for the police or the job they do. I will happily tell that to any police officer, lawyer and circuit court judge too.

Serve and protect haha yeah right, serve and protect THEMSELVES and the pocket book of the city/county

 

[Doc Maker]

I don't understand the "safety issue" when:
1) Engine was off, hands on the wheel with DL & CPL in hand.
2) Trooper had DL & CPL in hand before I TOLD him about the gun.
3) Trooper had the insurance card and registration in hand, from the same location as the gun, THEN asked for the pistol.
4) I was out gunned (2 troopers) and in a bad tactical position. They were behind me to my strong side. I'd have been killed before I managed to draw from the console.

Disarming me was overcautious at best. Most likely, he wasn't pleased with being challenged in front of a trainee.

 

[MountainBear]

I can't see how this thread actually has a point any longer. Some people dislike or at least don't trust the police. Others do. No one is changing anyone else's mind, so all we're doing is beating the same dead horse we've beaten in dozens of other threads...

 

[Father of four]

This entire thread has progressed into the asinine.

I, as a cop, pull you over for X traffic violation.

You then volunteer that you not only are armed, but that your gun is in the same place you'll reach for to produce registration and proof of insurance.

NO KIDDING I'm going to take the gun from your immediate control as I proceed with the traffic stop. You get it back after the stop. WTF exactly are you complaining about?

If it's somehow a violation of your rights to take the gun away from you, it's every bit as much of a violation of law for me to disarm the known gangbanger I've stopped for a different stop. The key factor is if you get it back at the end of the contact, which in this case, the OP did.

WTF is the matter with some of you people that can't discern between a cop trying to NOT GET SHOT and some horrifying violation of your rights under state constitutional law? The courts will not agree with you for one second.

A cop, doing his job has every right in the world to disarm an unknown, possibly dangerous felon, at the initial point of his lawful stop. He has no way to know who you are, what kind of character you may have, etc. All he knows is that there is a weapon present, he is about to take adverse action upon you. Given those factors, again, NO KIDDING the cop will sometimes disarm you for all of fiv3 minutes. Seriously, some of you need to take a chill pill.

I THINK... I remember reading something like that in the 2nd Amendment somewhere. Something like...A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless an officer's safety is in question. Then the officers safety trumps the citizens safety. Only for a few minutes mind you.

Yeah its in there somewhere....Maybe that information was recently added?

 

[Father of four]

Doing your job should be more important then Our Constitutional Rights?