Pistol confiscation during traffic stop by WSP

[beavertonbuck]

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.

First the case quoted is a 4th amendment case which deals with detaining the person and searching the car without a warrant. In the case presented by OP he was pulled over for a traffic violation and was suspected of a criminal act nor did officer detain him to conduct a Terry Stop. Also your statement about common law is quite accurrate. Common law speaks to private interactions or private to government interactions; however, it does not address government to citizen interactions. I believe that absent some RCW authorizing the cop's actions it probably isn't legal; however, the bar to these cases is a statement of damages. Even if you believe your rights are being violated you have to be able to articulate damages to have an action (some civil rights issues exempt).

 

[Kevatc]

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.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[DCKilla]

If the LEO thinks he has the "right" to disarm you, then he might as well drag you out of your car and forcibly remove the firearm.

 

[The B]

If the LEO thinks he has the "right" to disarm you, then he might as well drag you out of your car and forcibly remove the firearm.

Cops don't resort to dragging non-violent resistors unless their X26s fail.

 

[Sun195]

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.

 

[1950jcb]

He could have cited you for not having it on your person, but he didn't--see i below. Jim

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

 

[FarmerTed1971]

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.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

He could have cited you for not having it on your person, but he didn't--see i below. Jim

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

Those commas aren't "and"....for example, you can't have it on your person AND leave it locked within the vehicle....

You can replace the comma with an 'or'...

You have to have a license to carry and (i) the pistol is on the licensee's person or (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle....

 

[eganx]

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.

There ya go, slander the veteran. Showing your a$$ once again are we.....

 

[Grunwald]

He could have cited you for not having it on your person, but he didn't--see i below. Jim

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

points (i) and (ii) and especially (iii) sort of contradict each other. If the gun is required to be ON that person, how could he leave the pistol in the vehicle? Haven't these lawmakers heard of "AND" and "OR".

 

[lamrith]

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.

Yeah very polarizing. And unfortunately the LEO's are just as polarized themselves which makes the decision on sharing your a cpl holder or not a difficult decision.

Tell them you have a cpl and the weapon is on you they could say don't reach near it, OR they could ask you to surrender it for thier safety, OR ask you out of the vehicle to secure it if you cannot surrender it safely due to location. NOT saying any of those is specifically correct or legal, but on the side of the road, they honestly are "calling the shots".

Don't tell them. They don't run that you carry, you are fine. They run it and find you have a cpl, but are relieved and don't mention it since your "a good guy". They run it, find you carry and wonder what else you are hiding, though not required to present the cpl you concealed something THEY think is vital to thier safety. Perception matters regardless of the law or our rights...

Being polite, courteous and non confrontational goes a long way regardless of your choice to share or not. If it gets to a point you are ask to surrender it and are uncomfortable having them disarm you or surrending it, let them know why calmly and politely, then ask how you can all proceed in a way that works for everyone. Your uncomfortable, but wish to comply goes a long way to de-escalating a situation. Even if you don't wish to comply, calm and cool is the way to go. Acting wound up, or spouting 2a, 4a, 5a in thier face and flat our refusing to cooperate only antagonizes the situation.

 

[billdeserthills]

I was a bit surprised at the request and I really don't have an issue with it, when it's necessary. It was his answer, "...because I told you too." that is most troubling. This was no criminal stop and yes, I believe that the murder of Trooper Tony (who was my parent's neighbor, nice guy) had something to do with this policy.

I did get it back, unloaded with the slide locked back. He placed it on the passenger seat with the magazine and handed me the single round that was chambered. After I got the ticket, of course. Probably to be sure I wouldn't freak out over the $144 fine. All I was asking for was the RCW that gave him that authority. Funny thing is, I could see them playing with it in my rearview mirror. Looking at the rounds (Hornaday z-max,) placed it on the dash and picked it up no less than three times and most troubling, I think they logged the serial number. I could see the rookie in the passenger seat of their new SUV reading it to his partner, who was on the computer.

I don't think I'll offer anymore.

Here in Arizona, I have had this happen before,
I have even heard from others that occaisonally the police man will actually disassemble the entire gun, throw all the pieces into a bag & hand it back all taken apart.
One cop told me he hadn't liked the reaction he got from the driver, so he took apart the kel-tec p3at .380 the guy had been carrying & then spread the parts throughout the trunk area of the car. We need cops like this guy, the same way we need another term with the current potus

 

[bikejunkie]

points (i) and (ii) and especially (iii) sort of contradict each other. If the gun is required to be ON that person, how could he leave the pistol in the vehicle? Haven't these lawmakers heard of "AND" and "OR".

Perhaps you should re-read it. A CPL is required. Additionally one of the other 3 conditions (i), (ii), or (iii) must be the case...not several as they are mutually exclusive

 

[ZigZagZeke]

After conducting a little research it would appear that the State of Washington and several other states have taken a 1996 modification of the Terry v. Ohio "stop and frisk" USSC landmark decision and run with it. The 1996 case is Whren v. U.S. in which drug enforcement officers conducted a justified traffic stop after observing possibly drug related suspicious behavior by the vehicle's occupants. They then found in plain sight several bags of cocaine. The defendants presented some rather lame arguments about the officers' motivations in conducting the traffic stop, but didn't contest the validity of the stop itself. Once the police SAW the drugs they had probable cause for a subsequent search of the whole vehicle under the 4th. Now several state courts have decided, apparently on the basis of this case, that a stop for a traffic infraction justifies at least a search of the area under the suspect's control for "officer safety", which was formerly reserved for a "search incident to arrest" situation. In these states a traffic stop is now equivalent to an arrest for purposes of search and seizure. This is how our rights as citizens slowly evaporate.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

There ya go, slander the veteran. Showing your a$$ once again are we.....

Its his MO.

 

[deen_ad]

points (i) and (ii) and especially (iii) sort of contradict each other. If the gun is required to be ON that person, how could he leave the pistol in the vehicle? Haven't these lawmakers heard of "AND" and "OR".

There is a legal opinion issued by the WA AG's office some years ago that having the pistol in the car was the same as having it concealed on your person if you have a CPL. I used to have a copy of it in my car just in case.

 

[dmancornell]

Its his MO.

Because pointing out the factual absurdity of a statement is slander.

 

[USAF Medic]

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

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

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

Now, now, don't confuse him with the truth. He'll just come back with saying we were working for big oil or some other corporate big wig and not really defending the US or something.

 

[hermannr]

IMHO and experience, no, a pistol in plain sight..like on my hip were it belongs..is not something that can "raise suspician". It is totally legal..would you say that a person that has a baseball cap on backwards "raised suspician"? A gun on you hip is no different. It is a legal "accessory".

I don't know in OR, but in WA when the officer runs your Drivers License he will also get the information that you are a cpl holder, and with that information it is totally irrelevant if the weapon is loaded, or not, concealed, or not..whatever way you wish to carry is legal activity, and not "suspicious", therefore there would be no reasonable reason to disarm you. I have never been asked, I have never volunteered I am armed, and I have been stopped while open carrying by the WSP. This is since July 1970.

To "raise suspician", there must be a stateable reason that the activity is/may be/illegal.