Other State Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit

[RicInOR]

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit

CT Conn. Conneticut Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski,
Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski,

"Any contrary holding 'would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals' by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid."


The Driver was stopped, parked, on side of the road, engine running.. Cop approached to find out why -- that was not questioned as the initial search (questions) were legal and reasonable.

Driver identified to cop that he had a gun, and permit -- not in his hand, but within reach in the car.

Cop gets the driver out of the car, handcuffs him, and detains him in the back of the cruiser.


This was what was determined to be unreasonable.


"[the cop] conceded at oral argument that his conduct following the initial stop and check of Plaintiff's driver's license exceeded the bounds of a Terry stop, but that the conduct was still justified because he had probable cause to believe Plaintiff was possessing a firearm without a permit as he had not yet been able to verify the validity of the permit….:



That is an interesting point, we have just seen that in the NW where cops can't stop / pursue people until they have determined probable cause. Here, since hte permit had not yet been validated, is probable cause for being detained. Sort of a negative. But also, sort of a you are guilty until we prove/demonstrate reasonably, otherwise.

Shared for your consideration.

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit

From Friday's decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.): At approximately 8:34 pm on…

reason.com

Read More

 

[Hueco]

Here's another good one: https://youtube.com/shorts/qfa9cA01vQg?feature=share

TLDR; get a badge number, record the interaction, file complaints.

The cop's logic is no different than saying: "well he was driving a car so I suspect him of car theft so I'm going to detain him until I know otherwise." Prime example of guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Stomper]

I'll boil it all down thusly…

Heads I win, tails you lose.

-Deputy Barney Fife

 

[ma96782]

Why do some cops even ask you if you're carrying drugs? On a simple TRAFFIC STOP?

But YES.....I could/can see a time perhaps, when the question might just be appropriate.

Aloha, Mark

PS....don't confuse probable cause with reasonable suspicion. And how far the police could /maybe act given circumstances that we may not know fully of (Rrrrright....just from reading a news article).

 

[nehalemguy]

Why do some cops even ask you if you're carrying drugs? On a simple TRAFFIC STOP?

Because sometimes the driver will actually say "yes" during these fishing expeditions. It boggles my mind how many people hang themselves by engaging in discussion with LEO's.

Hand them your license and proof of insurance, and then roll up the window.

-E-

 

[Connor Murphy]

Because sometimes the driver will actually say "yes" during these fishing expeditions. It boggles my mind how many people hang themselves by engaging in discussion with LEO's.

Hand them your license and proof of insurance, and then roll up the window.

-E-

Excited utterance.

 

[billdeserthills]

Maybe this will teach said driver to stop volunteering unasked for info-

 

[The Heretic]

Why do some cops even ask you if you're carrying drugs? On a simple TRAFFIC STOP?

Same reason they ask most questions - to get you to incriminate yourself.

My answer last time a LEO asked me why I was speeding; "no good reason officer". He asked multiple times, I gave him the same answer each time. Better yet, is to just say nothing. Not saying don't comply with requests for ID/etc., just do not answer questions.

 

[Bushman]

Same reason they ask most questions - to get you to incriminate yourself.

My answer last time a LEO asked me why I was speeding; "no good reason officer". He asked multiple times, I gave him the same answer each time. Better yet, is to just say nothing. Not saying don't comply with requests for ID/etc., just do not answer questions.

I don't answer questions without counsel. Am I being detained or am I free to go. If detained what am I being detained for. Get them to say it on video.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

If I get stopped, I simply hand over the license, registration, insurance and my CPL. I don't mention carry or the word "gun" etc. Let them do the talking and keep things succinct and relevant if you answer any required questions, but use your rights as afforded by the beautiful thing called the constitution.

 

[red442joe]

Maybe this will teach said driver to stop volunteering unasked for info-

In Michigan, Immediate Disclosure is part of the CPL(concealed pistol license) statute, as is consent to Authority for the officer to disarm you for the duration of the stop.
bubblegum elitist-prick "officer safety".
I disclose only one gun, the statute only requires I "disclose" that I am carrying.(in a vehicle is defined as "concealed" even in plain view).

Joe

 

[ma96782]

Same reason they ask most questions - to get you to incriminate yourself.

My answer last time a LEO asked me why I was speeding; "no good reason officer". He asked multiple times, I gave him the same answer each time. Better yet, is to just say nothing. Not saying don't comply with requests for ID/etc., just do not answer questions.

Yeah....here in the mainland they do it (it's all over on the cop TV shows).

In Hawaii......we were told not to. Because asking.....was prying/searching. It had something to do with a Court's ruling......that asking stupid questions (unrelated questions to the reason for the traffic stop) was fishing and delaying the driver's freedom unnecessarily. Hummm.....call it, "invasive/fishing".

I can see a point there. The driver was not free to go......while being questioned. So, it would/could be/might be seen as NOT conforming to the "reasonable suspicion" standard. Maybe, expand that to "search without a warrant". If not....a custody and questioning issue. Rrrrrright.....MIranda.

You even said it......"to get you to incriminate yourself".

But what do I know?


The courts play their games. Until stuff goes to the Supreme Court we have to play with the hand that is dealt to us.

In other words......
Write the ticket or not? AND, unless, there is/are other "reasonable suspicion" concerns..... keep the traffic stop to the business of enforcing the traffic code.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....extend that to questions about firearms within the vehicle too.

 

[jbett98]

A couple of years ago, I left a dentist office with half my mouth super numb from novacaine.
There was an accident right at the street corner near the office, so I drove behind the building next door and turned into a side street to avoid the traffic jamb.
As I proceeded down the side street, I saw a motorcycle cop race up behind me with his lights on and as I pulled over, this ticked off cop struts up to my passenger door window and starts yelling at me that I was getting a ticket for illegally avoiding an intersection or some such garbage infraction.
On top of his crappy attitude, the cop also had a bad stutter and when I tried to tell him that I was leaving the dentist office and not avoiding the congested intersection, he got all bent out of shape, as he certainly thought I was making fun of his stutter and I thought he was going to drag me out of the car though the passenger window.
I managed to show him the dentist bill, all the while trying not to drool and stutter my way through my explanation.
He finally let me go, but not until he ran my ID and plates.

 

[ma96782]

That was funny.

_______________________________
_______________________________

As for......

He finally let me go, but not until he ran my ID and plates.

I could imagine........
That certain states and PDs have found that it's useful to keep "contact info" done by the police. Anyway....keeping digital data is just so cheap nowadays. And sometimes......it's required by some DOJ order.

Hummm.......counting how many stops were made in comparison to actual ticketing? Then add......racial information to the counts? Rrrrright......another political talking point.



Aloha, Mark

 

[Knebel]

Why even disclose anything? 'Sir are you okay? You are stopped here with the car running!"

-yes...i pulled over to (take a phonecall... look at maps...) thank you have a good day

Not in a million years would I blurp out that I have a firearm on first contact. There are no illegal firearms in the car, is the correct answer.

 

[billdeserthills]

Why even disclose anything? 'Sir are you okay? You are stopped here with the car running!"

-yes...i pulled over to (take a phonecall... look at maps...) thank you have a good day

Not in a million years would I blurp out that I have a firearm on first contact. There are no illegal firearms in the car, is the correct answer.

I used to immediately let any cop I came into contact with know that I had a ccw & weapon. This caused me a lot of hassle, one time a cop went so far as to accuse me of having a gun with 3 out of 5 serial numbers matching a stolen gun. I told him if 3 out of 5 numbers was a lucky winner there would be a lot more lottery winners around--he took my gun in for having 3 out of 5 matching serial numbers...

Finally one day a cop told me there was no requirement in Arizona to divulge my weapon and added that it made him paranoid to hear me mention it so I quit

 

[po18guy]

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit

CT Conn. Conneticut Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski,
Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski,

"Any contrary holding 'would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals' by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid."


The Driver was stopped, parked, on side of the road, engine running.. Cop approached to find out why -- that was not questioned as the initial search (questions) were legal and reasonable.

Driver identified to cop that he had a gun, and permit -- not in his hand, but within reach in the car.

Cop gets the driver out of the car, handcuffs him, and detains him in the back of the cruiser.


This was what was determined to be unreasonable.


"[the cop] conceded at oral argument that his conduct following the initial stop and check of Plaintiff's driver's license exceeded the bounds of a Terry stop, but that the conduct was still justified because he had probable cause to believe Plaintiff was possessing a firearm without a permit as he had not yet been able to verify the validity of the permit….:



That is an interesting point, we have just seen that in the NW where cops can't stop / pursue people until they have determined probable cause. Here, since hte permit had not yet been validated, is probable cause for being detained. Sort of a negative. But also, sort of a you are guilty until we prove/demonstrate reasonably, otherwise.

Shared for your consideration.

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit

From Friday's decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.): At approximately 8:34 pm on…

reason.com

Stupid move.
$$$$$$

 

[Knebel]

I used to immediately let any cop I came into contact with know that I had a ccw & weapon. This caused me a lot of hassle, one time a cop went so far as to accuse me of having a gun with 3 out of 5 serial numbers matching a stolen gun. I told him if 3 out of 5 numbers was a lucky winner there would be a lot more lottery winners around--he took my gun in for having 3 out of 5 matching serial numbers...

Finally one day a cop told me there was no requirement in Arizona to divulge my weapon and added that it made him paranoid to hear me mention it so I quit

Yeah you just want there to not be any surprises and be courtious but it creates more hassle and drama than neccessary. I would definately not disclose it upon any ordinary encounter...