JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
If a cop asks you to do something you should say no. If you voluntarily comply with a request then you give up your rights involving search and siezure. After saying no he tells you to do something then you must comply but then you are still protected from self incrimination. A young stater saw my permit when I was getting out my drivers license and asked about a pistol which I told him was under a rag on the driveline hump. He took it and I was worried the whole time he messed with it that he would have an accident. As far as being heroes cops and wsp are the highest paid state employees and love their jobs and can't work enough hours in a day. There is no shortage of people wanting in on that. I will say that rural County Deputies work alone and at lower pay have to use their wits to get out of dangerous situations without backup close by.
 
Absolutely legal. It's gone to the WA State Supreme Court and been upheld.

Also, they didn't "confiscate" it. They removed it from your control is all.

You got to give the cite for that one... You make a Statement like that, produce the PROOF. Because I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.

If you have been involved in CRIMINAL activity, or they have reason to believe you have been involved in CRIMINAL activity...ok, but traffic violations are NOT criminal activity.\\\

So where is you PROOF that any officer can sieze your carry at a traffic stop!

To the OP, I would file a formal complaint with the local WSP commander.
 
Is it actually stated in a previous post that well payed, pension earning LEO's should be thanked for "volunteering"? They should be compensated properly and acknowledged for valor when due, but calling someone that is very well paid a volunteer is absurd. I pesonally respect LEO's. Because I respect everybody. The god complex that is in what seems to be 50% or so of the LEO's makes it hard to just blindly give over your rights "because they said so". I have never had so much as a parking ticket. No one has the right to disarm me. What about my safety? Isn't that why I have the right to possess the gun anyway? Kip.
 
Maybe up in the ultra liberal north part of the state. I've stopped plenty of vehicles and individuals open carrying or advising they are carrying a concealed weapon. Never a big deal to me. I simply tell them, "If you keep your hands off yours, I'll keep my hands off mine, deal?" Occasionally people are surprised on how easy going our Deputies are when dealing with citizens with firearms. I think it's because it's so common. I figure if somebody has it and plan on using it, they have the advantage. If I see it (especially in plain view) their is usually no intention to shoot me. I guess it changes between regions within the state. To be honest, when I run sombody and they return as a ccw holder, I am slightly relieved. I figure if the Sheriff has authorized them to carry a concealed weapon then more likely than not, that person is not a dirt bag.

Why couldn't you have stopped me today?:s0112:

I do have a question though... If the Trooper's safety was the issue, why did they take my word for it that I only had one gun? If their safety is that important, why didn't they clear me and the entire vehicle?
 
Why couldn't you have stopped me today?:s0112:

I do have a question though... If the Trooper's safety was the issue, why did they take my word for it that I only had one gun? If their safety is that important, why didn't they clear me and the entire vehicle?

No PC to do so. They could have asked but you would have very easily said no. I will not voluntarily let an LEO search my vehicle, I am not a criminal I just don't want them upsetting my stuff.
 
Maybe up in the ultra liberal north part of the state. I've stopped plenty of vehicles and individuals open carrying or advising they are carrying a concealed weapon. Never a big deal to me. I simply tell them, "If you keep your hands off yours, I'll keep my hands off mine, deal?" Occasionally people are surprised on how easy going our Deputies are when dealing with citizens with firearms. I think it's because it's so common. I figure if somebody has it and plan on using it, they have the advantage. If I see it (especially in plain view) their is usually no intention to shoot me. I guess it changes between regions within the state. To be honest, when I run sombody and they return as a ccw holder, I am slightly relieved. I figure if the Sheriff has authorized them to carry a concealed weapon then more likely than not, that person is not a dirt bag.

Good man,,,our local sheriff is as yours...and his deputies as you are...more power to you Sir!
 
Don't screw with the LEOs. They have a dangerous job, and be thankfull that someone volunteers to do that job.

No... no they don't have a dangerous job. It generally doesn't even make the list of "most dangerous" jobs, when various publications review various sources for various statistics for on-the-job injury or death. I don't think I've ever seen it ranked higher than 45.

MY job is "dangerous," and so are my hobbies. I can't get a worthwhile life insurance policy to save my life (har). Are you thanking me? No... you're certainly not. I chose my dangerous job, for which I am satisfactorily paid, and I certainly chose my dangerous hobbies, for which I risk life and limb for no compensation at all.

But if I was a jerk to everyone I met, if I had the "authority" to, and liberally did, issue expensive traffic tickets to people all day long, if I refused to render basic first-aid of any kind to pretty much anyone because "I could get sued" for trying to help.... if I drove like a prick everywhere I went, if I stared people down and talked down to people even twice or three times my age and wisdom, if I had an ego the size of a pig testicle and claimed I had a tough and dangerous job, despite the fact that I actually had a relatively safe job, and had it during the single safest time in the history of that job.... then you'd admire me?
 
You got to give the cite for that one... You make a Statement like that, produce the PROOF. Because I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.

If you have been involved in CRIMINAL activity, or they have reason to believe you have been involved in CRIMINAL activity...ok, but traffic violations are NOT criminal activity.\\\

So where is you PROOF that any officer can sieze your carry at a traffic stop!

To the OP, I would file a formal complaint with the local WSP commander.
Sorry you don't like the truth, but it's EXACTLY as I posted. It's been the subject of more than one thread on this forum as well as reported by Dave Workman.

You can start with this:
130 Wn. App. 622, State v. Day

[No. 23192-5-III. Division Three. December 8, 2005.]

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON , Respondent , v. CHARLIE BERNNETT DAY , Appellant .

[1] Criminal Law - Evidence - Suppression - Conclusions of Law - Review - Standard of Review. An order entered by a trial court following an evidence suppression hearing is reviewed de novo if error is assigned solely to the trial court's conclusions of law.

[2] Searches and Seizures - Automobiles - Warrantless Search - Incident to Detention of Occupant - Protective Search - In General. A police officer who stops and detains a motor vehicle occupant based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may search the vehicle for weapons if the officer reasonably believes that his or her safety or the safety of others is endangered. The initial stop and detention is justified if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the occupant has committed or is about to commit a crime or traffic infraction. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor Const. art. I, § 7 prohibits the admission of evidence discovered by a police officer in the course of a limited protective search of a motor vehicle made incident to a lawful investigative stop and detention.

[3] Public Lands - Automobiles - Parking - State-Owned Land - Public Access Area - Permit Requirement - Nature of Offense. Under chapters 43.30 and 7.84 RCW and chapter 352-20 WAC, parking without a permit in a public access area on state-owned land is a traffic infraction.

Dec. 2005 State v. Day 623
130 Wn. App. 622

[4] Searches and Seizures - Automobiles - Warrantless Search - Incident to Detention of Occupant - Protective Search - Justification. A police officer is justified in making a limited protective search of a motor vehicle incident to the detention of a vehicle occupant for investigative purposes if, when the officer approaches the vehicle, the occupant appears to be looking for something, the officer observes an open handgun case on the floor at the occupant's feet, and the occupant states that there is a firearm in the vehicle behind the passenger seat.

[5] Searches and Seizures - Automobiles - Warrantless Search - Incident to Detention of Occupant - Protective Search - Scope. The scope of a police officer's protective search of a motor vehicle conducted incident to the detention of a vehicle occupant in the investigation of a traffic infraction should be limited to the extent necessary to assure the officer's safety. The officer may search for weapons within the occupant's immediate control. The search may also apply to any companion in the vehicle. The front seat of the vehicle is in the immediate control of a passenger seated next to the driver. A search in that area to discover whether the suspect's furtive gesture hid a weapon under the front seat is similar to an investigative stop and frisk for officer safety.
Nature of Action: Prosecution for unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance. Evidence of the crime was found in a motor vehicle in the course of a search incident to the defendant's arrest. The defendant and a companion were parked in the vehicle in a public access area on state land when they were approached by a police officer who was investigating whether the vehicle had a proper parking permit. After the officer observed an open handgun case near the defendant's feet, he conducted a limited search of the vehicle to find the handgun, which turned out to be stolen. The defendant was arrested for possessing a stolen handgun.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Benton County, No. 03-1-00254-6, Carolyn A. Brown, J., entered a judgment of guilty on June 11, 2004.

Court of Appeals: Holding that the search of the defendant's vehicle was justified for officer safety in the course of investigating a traffic infraction, the court affirms the judgment.

624 State v. Day Dec. 2005
130 Wn. App. 622

Dennis W. Morgan , for appellant.

Andrew K. Miller , Prosecuting Attorney, and Tamara A. Taylor , Deputy, for respondent.

¶1 SCHULTHEIS, J. - Charlie Day and his wife were parked in a Benton County public access area. An officer who investigated to see if they had a proper parking permit observed an open handgun case near Mr. Day's feet. The officer conducted a limited search of the vehicle to find the handgun, which turned out to be stolen. Mr. Day was arrested and the search of the vehicle incident to the arrest uncovered evidence he was involved in manufacturing methamphetamine.

¶2 On appeal from his conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine, former RCW 69.50.401 (a)(1) (1998), he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during the warrantless search of his vehicle. Because we conclude that the search was justified for officer safety during the investigation of a traffic infraction, we affirm.

FACTS

¶3 In late March 2003, Deputy Jeff Hayter noticed a vehicle backed into shrubbery under a tree in a public access area along the Yakima River. Deputy Hayter knew that migrant workers formerly camped in that area before it was designated public access. He also knew that vehicles parked in that area were required to have a permit tag attached to their rear bumper. The deputy approached the vehicle on foot to determine whether it had a proper permit and whether it was being used as a home for migrant workers.

Dec. 2005 State v. Day 625
130 Wn. App. 622

¶4 As Deputy Hayter approached, he saw that the vehicle was occupied with a man in the driver's seat and a woman in the front passenger seat. The vehicle was cluttered with garbage, including cigarette lighters and rubber gloves. While talking with the couple, who identified themselves as Charlie and Alice Day, Deputy Hayter noticed an empty handgun case on the floor of the car near Mr. Day's feet. The deputy asked Mr. Day if there was a gun in the car. When Mr. Day answered yes, Deputy Hayter asked him to step out of the car, patted him down, and handcuffed him. Mr. Day said the gun was under the passenger seat. Consequently, the deputy also asked Ms. Day to step out of the car, patted her down, and handcuffed her. He told the couple they were not under arrest.

¶5 By this time, another officer had arrived. Deputy Hayter searched under the passenger seat, but eventually found the handgun - a .45-caliber Glock - under the driver's seat. Dispatch reported that the handgun was stolen and that Ms. Day had a felony warrant for her arrest. Mr. and Ms. Day were arrested. The subsequent search of the vehicle incident to their arrest uncovered substantial evidence of the manufacture of methamphetamine.

¶6 Mr. Day was charged with one count of manufacturing a controlled substance, former RCW 69.50.401 (a)(1).«1»His pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the pre-arrest warrantless search of the vehicle was denied and he was convicted on stipulated facts in a bench trial.

WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENT TO A CIVIL INFRACTION

[1]¶7 Mr. Day asserts that, because Deputy Hayter was investigating a civil natural resource infraction rather than a traffic infraction, the deputy was not justified in detaining him and his wife and searching the vehicle for the handgun. He contends the deputy was not authorized to conduct a

«1»An amended information additionally charging possession of a stolen firearm was withdrawn by the State before trial.

626 State v. Day Dec. 2005
130 Wn. App. 622

Terry investigation under the circumstances of a nontraffic violation. Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Because he assigns error solely to the trial court's conclusions of law in the suppression order, our review is de novo. State v. Mendez , 137 Wn.2d 208 , 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999).

[2]¶8 Generally, warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable and violate the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. State v. Duncan , 146 Wn.2d 166 , 171, 43 P.3d 513 (2002). Courts recognize a few carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement, including consent, exigent circumstances, inventory searches, plain view searches, searches incident to arrest, and Terry investigative stops. Id . at 171-72. A Terry stop is a brief detention based on an officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Terry , 392 U.S. at 20-27. If the initial stop is justified, the officer may make a limited search for weapons if he or she reasonably believes that his or her safety or the safety of others is endangered. Duncan , 146 Wn.2d at 172 . To justify the initial stop for Terry purposes, the State must show that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person stopped had committed or was about to commit a crime. Terry , 392 U.S. at 21; Duncan , 146 Wn.2d at 172 .

¶9 Mr. Day was not stopped because he was suspected of committing a crime. As he notes, certain civil infractions, such as the one investigated by Deputy Hayter here, have been decriminalized. See RCW 7.84.020 (a natural resource infraction is not a criminal offense); RCW 46.63.020 (a traffic infraction may not be classified as a criminal offense, subject to enumerated exceptions). Although the courts have extended application of the Terry stop exception to traffic infractions, Duncan declined to extend the exception to include all civil infractions. Duncan , 146 Wn.2d at 174 . Mr. Day contends parking without a permit in a public access area is a civil infraction that does not justify a Terry stop.

Dec. 2005 State v. Day 627
130 Wn. App. 622

¶10 With a civil infraction, an officer may briefly detain a person only long enough to check his or her identification and to issue the notice. Id. at 174 (citing RCW 7.80.060 ). Traffic infractions, due in part to the ready mobility of vehicles and safety concerns, justify a broader scope of detention. Id. The person may be detained for the reasonable period of time required to identify him or her, check for outstanding warrants, check his or her license, insurance card, and vehicle registration, and complete the notice of the traffic infraction. Id. at 174-75 (citing RCW 46.61- .021(2)). A nontraffic civil infraction that did not occur in the presence of the officer does not justify a Terry investigative detention. Id. at 182.

¶11 The questions before this court are first, whether this civil parking violation constituted a traffic infraction, and second, whether additional circumstances justified the search for the handgun.

[3]¶12 Both parties agree that the authorization for Mr. Day's parking infraction is under chapter 7.84 RCW, which describes the procedure for issuing infraction notices for violations of the natural resource laws. The administrative rule adopted pursuant to this statute provides that no vehicle shall be parked in a state park area without an appropriate permit or purpose. WAC 352-20-010 . According to the general statute on natural resources, chapter 43.30 RCW, a violation of a rule pertaining to the use by the public of state-owned lands is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. Former RCW 43.30.310 (1987) (recodified as RCW 43.12.065 by LAWS OF 2003, ch. 334, §128). Specifically, "violation of a rule relating to traffic including parking, standing, stopping, and pedestrian offenses is a traffic infraction." Former RCW 43.30.310 . Under the clear terms of the statutes relating to civil natural resource violations, parking in violation of the rules for use of state-owned land is a traffic infraction.

[4, 5]¶13 As noted above, a brief Terry investigative stop is justified by a reasonable suspicion of a traffic infraction. Duncan , 146 Wn.2d at 174 . During such a stop,

628 State v. Day Dec. 2005
130 Wn. App. 622

an officer may make a limited search for weapons if he or she reasonably believes the search is necessary for officer safety. Id. at 172. Here, the findings indicate that Mr. Day acted as though he were looking for something as Deputy Hayter approached. The deputy then noticed an open handgun case on the floor at Mr. Day's feet. When asked, Mr. Day said that there was a gun in the car behind the passenger seat. These facts support the deputy's reasonable safety concerns. As noted in State v. Kennedy , 107 Wn.2d 1 , 12, 726 P.2d 445 (1986), the scope of a search during a Terry stop based on a traffic infraction should be limited to the extent sufficient to assure the officer's safety:

This means that the officer may search for weapons within the investigatee's immediate control. We also recognize that such a limited search applies to any companion in the car because that person presents a similar danger to the approaching officer. The front seat of the car is in the immediate control of a passenger seated next to the driver. Consequently, a search in that area to discover whether the suspect's furtive gesture hid a weapon under the front seat is similar to a Terry frisk where an officer may frisk a suspect to protect himself from danger.

¶14 Given Deputy Hayter's objectively reasonable concerns for his safety, his limited search for the handgun under the passenger seat (where Mr. Day said it was), and under the driver's seat was reasonable. "It would be unreasonable to limit an officer's ability to assure his own safety." Id. Because the seizure of the handgun was lawful, Mr. Day's arrest for possession of the stolen gun was justified,«2»as was the search of the vehicle incident to that arrest. The trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the evidence of methamphetamine manufacture that was revealed during that search.

¶15 Affirmed.\

KATO , C.J., and THOMPSON, J. Pro Tem., concur.
 
Unfortunately there are alot of egos (have to keep it g rated here) and guys full of themselves drawn into law enforcement. There are also a lot of good guys trying to make a difference. A few bad cops make an impression for many. I'm not going to play "who has the biggest tool" contect with anyone. I do my job as reasonable as I can and treat people as I would like to be treated. I can't speak for any other officer, but I am sorry there are so many people out there that feel they have been harassed, annoyed, or had an unprofessional experience with the police. Most of the complaints I get are from intoxicated people who refuse to listen or simply are incapable of understanding. I got into law enforcement in an attempt to better the world. If sombody doesn't like me we won't be friends. I don't do this job to make friends.
 
Sorry you don't like the truth, but it's EXACTLY as I posted. It's been the subject of more than one thread on this forum as well as reported by Dave Workman.

You can start with this:

You can read the whole thing, but the summery is here (from your long quote): MY BOLD

8 Generally, warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable and violate the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. State v. Duncan , 146 Wn.2d 166 , 171, 43 P.3d 513 (2002). Courts recognize a few carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement, including consent, exigent circumstances, inventory searches, plain view searches, searches incident to arrest, and Terry investigative stops. Id . at 171-72. A Terry stop is a brief detention based on an officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
 
There are a lot of jobs where employees have plenty of freedom as to how they approach their work. Police work is one of those. By necessity, because incidents and individuals are very fluid, constantly changing and
unpredictable. The LEO has some wiggle room in how he operates according to his comfort level with the situation. Everyone gets a gut feeling about any given situation, those gut feelings are not always correct, but
I think people learn to trust those instincts and are comfortable in adhering to them.
Also, I think plenty of good gun owners on this forum would have varying ways to deal with this situation if they were the officer. Personally, I think its easy to be critical of the LEO if you have not had to make traffic stops (can be highly risky) for a living.
I am not saying what he is was right or wrong really, just his decision at that moment and as everyone apparently went their separate ways without anyone being shot.
In addition, even if I wanted to question why he was going to take my gun. I would not of asked until it was all over. The questioning of why, while the guy is standing on a bridge in traffic is not IMHO a very good idea. They want to get the thing overwith and back in their cruiser asap.
Just my two cents worth.
 
Personally, I think its easy to be critical of the LEO if you have not had to make traffic stops (can be highly risky) for a living.

Maybe if the police refused to harass motorists with money-grabbing traffic stops as ordered by greedy bureaucrats, this wouldn't be a problem.

I fail to see why I should sympathize with someone who willfully chooses to enforce the corrupt law for a living, even if they supposedly had good intentions.
 
Makes no difference if it's a "criminal stop" or traffic stop. They have the right to not only take the pistol but search your vehicle for items within your reach for their safety. Again, that has also gone to the WA State Supreme Court and been upheld.

Sorry, I don't agree. Searching the vehicle would be legal only if it were a search "incident to arrest". Being cited for a traffic infraction is NOT being arrested. The officer is entitled to note and examine anything that's in plain sight that raises suspicion, but a search would be a violation of the 4th. At least that's what they taught us in law school. There may be more recent decisions by the USSC that establish exceptions, but if so I'm unaware of them.

As for "taking" the weapon, again, if it was in plain sight they would have the right to examine it. They might even have the right to "stop and frisk" for a traffic citation. Not sure about that one. But generally, no, unless you are being arrested or legally detained with probable cause that a crime has been committed they do not have the right to "take" the gun.
 
I think it's important to remember that the Trooper had a trainee with him. I probably wouldn't have gotten the same attitude if he didn't feel a need to make an example of his authority. I doubt he even would've taken the gun, if he were alone. They usually don't come with an attitude like this without numerical superiority.
 
Yeah... How dare they pull someone over for driving recklessly, or going way too fast for the conditions and putting others at risk.... HOW DARE THEY?!

So going 10mph over some arbitrary government limit on a straight road is "reckless"? Only when there is money on the line.

LOL @ your sig by the way, just another brainless soundbite justifying your mindless obedience to the state much like your defense of cop on motorist aggression.
 
I have been pulled over a couple times for small things ((swerved late at night from a sneeze on my way home from work, lol, and no front plate (Oklahoma plate, no front plate required)). I always turn my vehicle off and point my wheels towards the curb, showing I'm not going to try and run. WSP pulled me over for swerving, asked if I had anything to drink. I explained what happened, and he asked for my license and insurance. I told him I was armed, and my wallet was next to my gun. He then just asked me for my DL number and full name, and told me to have a good night and be safe.

The no front plate was a Pierce Co Sheriff motorcycle. He felt kinda stupid once he realised OK doesn't do front plates, lol. I was in uniform (military) and he saw my gun in the center console. He just asked what kind it was and we ended up talking about motorcycles and guns for 45 minutes!

Some LEOs are jerks, no doubt. But the ones that are make a bad name for all. I'm friends with many LEOs and do Search and Rescue for Pierce County. As long as you are respectful and honest, you will be a lot better off.
 
You can read the whole thing, but the summery is here (from your long quote): MY BOLD

8 Generally, warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable and violate the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. State v. Duncan , 146 Wn.2d 166 , 171, 43 P.3d 513 (2002). Courts recognize a few carefully drawn exceptions to the warrant requirement, including consent, exigent circumstances, inventory searches, plain view searches, searches incident to arrest, and Terry investigative stops. Id . at 171-72. A Terry stop is a brief detention based on an officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

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.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top