Questioning and temporary confiscation of CCWs during routine traffic stops?

[kirkcdl]

Not LE myself,but many friends who are,and this has been discussed a bit.
I'm of the mind that on initial contact,I will inform the officer of my CHL and my armed status,and ask"how would you like me to proceed?".I'm not concerned about my rights being violated or that stuff,I think if I can make that officer comfortable dealing with me,it will make the outcome as favorable to me as it could possibly be,a win-win for both sides.Not to mention that particular officer WILL remember how easy I was to deal with,and that might have an effect on future encounters...Not to mention,as stated above,there's a really good chance that officer doesn't know me from anyone,at least at first,regardless of how often I see them in my work...

 

[coloneltim]

securing your firearms is a safety thing...its no different than taking the keys out of the ignition..they weren't confiscated...you got them back at the end of the stop.

as far as the gun handling part...becoming a LEO doesnt make you a gun guru and it sounds like a few errors were made..but thats why there are 4 cardinal rules of firearm safety..so you have to make 4 mistakes all at once for someone to get hurt

when I take a gun off a person..I dont unload it as soon as I get it...I secure it...I make sure the person I get it from is not a threat..then I unload it/make it safe...you cant do 2 things at once..divided attention is what gets people killed in police work....If Im farting around with your gun..Im not paying attention to you

it sounds like the LEO was not comfortable allowing you to keep your guns on your person..was trying to be polite about it... and that caused some logistical/safety problems in securing the firearms...once he determined you were not "bad guys" or the car they were looking for.. he returned your weapons and gave you a verbal warning to slow down. your CCW along with being polite and cooperative prob went along way towards that.

Once again a cop making up law in the field. When is it going to stop?

How many cops have been shot by chl holders since chl's became readily available to the public?


TS

 

[wichaka]

What law did he make up?

 

[coloneltim]

I am thinking oregon law here since that is where I live. However, "securing your firearms is a safety thing...its no different than taking the keys out of the ignition..they weren't confiscated". Huh?

Cops do a lot of things that are borderline or flat out illegal and the way they get away with it is because they may not charge you, just a good old harassment stop. Also, not many Citizen's know their rights nor are they willing to exert their rights by being sheeple and thinking that the cop knows that he/she is doing. ALl you have to do is watch an episode of COPS to have this one illustrated.

TS

 

[wichaka]

Look up the definition of Confiscation or Confiscated in both the dictionary and Oregon law.

The items you mention were not confiscated in any way. They were temporarily taken possession of, and returned.

Under Oregon Law, where is it unlawful to do that?

Making assumptions like "Once again a cop making up law in the field. When is it going to stop?" Doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[USMC1911]

Look up the definition of Confiscation or Confiscated in both the dictionary and Oregon law.

The items you mention were not confiscated in any way. They were temporarily taken possession of, and returned.

Under Oregon Law, where is it unlawful to do that?

Making assumptions like "Once again a cop making up law in the field. When is it going to stop?" Doesn't do anyone any good.

Confiscate - to seize by or as if by authority

Ummmm if I am not mistaken YOU need to look up the definition of confiscation. Just because he got it back has little to do with the fact it was taken, meaning it was confiscated.

 

[wichaka]

You missed the first definition;

1 : to seize as forfeited to the public treasury.

The guns were never seized or forfeited;

1: to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime
2: to subject to confiscation as a forfeit

It didn't happen.

So am still asking, and waiting an answer of "What law did he make up?"

 

[coloneltim]

So am still asking, and waiting an answer of "What law did he make up?"

The "law" which I call bs on is "I'd like to be the only one at this traffic stop with a weapon". What gives him the right to be the only one armed? What implied right do the police have to be the only ones armed?

The cops make too big of a deal about "officer safety". It has been preached and preached, which is fine, but they left out the "not everyone out there is out to get you" part. If you cannot determine who is a bad/good guy by the observations you get, you should not be a cop. Intuition is a huge part of the job and too many cops don't have it these days.

Tim

 

[treemanx]

The "law" which I call bs on is "I'd like to be the only one at this traffic stop with a weapon". What gives him the right to be the only one armed? What implied right do the police have to be the only ones armed?

The cops make too big of a deal about "officer safety". It has been preached and preached, which is fine, but they left out the "not everyone out there is out to get you" part. If you cannot determine who is a bad/good guy by the observations you get, you should not be a cop. Intuition is a huge part of the job and too many cops don't have it these days.

Tim

Unfortunately Tim, being an armchair quarterback doesnt work in police work either. Its easy for you to say these things, with never having been there. You think "cops make too big of a deal about "officer safety". It has been preached and preached".....well, your da*n right is a big deal! These guys may not be everything you want them to be all the time, but I promise you that they cant get there fast enough if you need them.

Every stop they make is a potential deadly risk. Treating every stop with the same level of caution is a universal tactic that keeps the officer sharp. In this particular situation, the officer wanted to be the only one armed, because the possibility was already there for a problem. The same type of vehicle these people were in was already being looked for. That is enough for any LEO's to use a little extra caution. If you dont understand that, sorry.

 

[wichaka]

The cops make too big of a deal about "officer safety". It has been preached and preached, which is fine, but they left out the "not everyone out there is out to get you" part. If you cannot determine who is a bad/good guy by the observations you get, you should not be a cop. Intuition is a huge part of the job and too many cops don't have it these days.

Tim

Sounds like the view is good from the cheap seats. Jump in the pool, the water is warm.

There is no law prohibiting any Officer from saying "I'd like to be the only one at this traffic stop with a weapon". If that's his way to keep things at a low level so be it.

There is no right for him to be the only one armed...am in complete agreement with you. But there is no law prohibiting him from what he requested.

The thing we need to focus on, is "requested" An Officer can request you to hand over your gun(s), but if there's nothing lawful that says you must, then you politely decline.

This all comes down the sheep thing...just because an LE requests, doesn't mean you have to do it. There are choices out there.

Knowledge is power.

 

[coloneltim]

The thing we need to focus on, is "requested" An Officer can request you to hand over your gun(s), but if there's nothing lawful that says you must, then you politely decline.

This all comes down the sheep thing...just because an LE requests, doesn't mean you have to do it. There are choices out there.

Knowledge is power.

SO, the problem is that the Officer is using the ignorance and universal belief that the police are always right tactic to disarm the Citizens. Look at post Katrina New Orleans. The police there "requested" citizens to hand over their guns and when they didn't, 80 year old women got beat up by the big bad police.

I believe than any infringement by the Government, ie police, no matter how minute should never be tolerated. NOW, given that the cop had an idea that the people in the car may have been bad guys, I don't personally see an issue for being on alert. HOWEVER, once he contacted the occupants of the car, it should have been pretty cleat that these were not the people he was looking for.

TS

 

[treemanx]

Sounds like the view is good from the cheap seats. Jump in the pool, the water is warm.


Knowledge is power.

Amen to that. +1

 

[coloneltim]

Unfortunately Tim, being an armchair quarterback doesnt work in police work either. Its easy for you to say these things, with never having been there. You think "cops make too big of a deal about "officer safety". It has been preached and preached".....well, your da*n right is a big deal! These guys may not be everything you want them to be all the time, but I promise you that they cant get there fast enough if you need them.

Every stop they make is a potential deadly risk. Treating every stop with the same level of caution is a universal tactic that keeps the officer sharp. In this particular situation, the officer wanted to be the only one armed, because the possibility was already there for a problem. The same type of vehicle these people were in was already being looked for. That is enough for any LEO's to use a little extra caution. If you dont understand that, sorry.

Oh, how ill informed you are! I have been there, done that, and I rarely had the hair on the back of my neck stand up when contacting Citizens in a traffic stop. I took a more passive approach, had my guard up always, but I tried to go out of my way to treat people with respect. In fact, if we weren't nice enough and the Chief heard about it we got a lecture. The City I was involved with love their police force and they are well respected there for a small town.

The tactic of "Universal Caution" has gone too far. Maybe the next time that CHL holder and you cross paths is when you need him to save your *** because you "universal cautioned" it to the wrong guy! Do you want to alienate EVERYONE you come into contact with? I do have to qualify my attitude because I live in Corvallis and pretty much the entire Corvallis Police force is a bunch of subhuman pond scum. I realize there is a difference out there in copland but I have seen bad stuff all over.

TS

 

[el gringo loco]

I wouldn't say the officer has met the "reasonably suspects" criteria based on a concealed handgun license holder admitting he was armed when asked. Please do show some case law though if you believe some exists where the person stopped showed no behavior that would indicate to the officer that he was dangerous. If it was "reasonable" to suspect that every person with a gun was dangerous then it would be a much more interesting game all around.

When a person is armed, a police officer has the authority to take steps to ensure their safety. The standard to determine whether one is a threat is reasonable suspicion--a rather easily met standard. The presence of a weapon and, in the case described, more than one subject, and a lone trooper, is likely to surpass this standard in the eyes of the court. Remember that it is not just the subject's behavior, but the totality of the circumstances. An officer's latitude to take safety precautions is articulated in State v. Bates, 304 Ore. 519, 524, 747 P.2d 991 (1987). The court noted that:

"it is not our function to uncharitably second-guess an officer's judgment. A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations."


This follows with verbage in almost every Oregon or Federal Supreme Court case involving search and seizure with regard to safety "frisks" and "pat-downs" for weapons. The search and seizure issues generally come into play when an officer extends the search beyond a check for weapons (ie. dope). The courts repeatedly uphold an officer's right to take precautions to ensure safety.

However, even if a court were to determine that a "seizure" occurred and that it was unlawful, the remedy would likely be a dismissal of any charges and return of the weapon. The intrusiveness of the seizure and the harm (being without a gun for a few minutes) would be determined to be minor or inconsequential. As no crime had been committed neither of the legal remedies would come into play.

The fact is that much of the law is not codified and is based on the court's interpretation of different cases. Every circumstance is different. If one is looking for a big black line that demarcates legal from illegal, they will need to look at a legal system somewhere other than the good old USA. Arguing, at the scene of the stop, what a police officer can and can't tell you what to do is a good way to get arrested or hurt. You might win later on in court (by that I mean found not guilty, not that the officer is going to be found to have been unreasonable), but it is a big gamble. An officer needs reasonable suspicion, which is a much lower standard than probable cause (necessary for arrest) which is itself much lower a standard than beyond a reasonable doubt (needed to prove you guilty), to take safety measures as described in Bates.

Once again a cop making up law in the field. When is it going to stop?

How many cops have been shot by chl holders since chl's became readily available to the public?


TS

I started to develop a well thought out and cogent response to this...then, I read :

I am thinking oregon law here since that is where I live. However, "securing your firearms is a safety thing...its no different than taking the keys out of the ignition..they weren't confiscated". Huh?

Cops do a lot of things that are borderline or flat out illegal and the way they get away with it is because they may not charge you, just a good old harassment stop. Also, not many Citizen's know their rights nor are they willing to exert their rights by being sheeple and thinking that the cop knows that he/she is doing. ALl you have to do is watch an episode of COPS to have this one illustrated.

TS

....And, I realized that we were not going to be discussing the issue from the same reality. I believe we need police, we are on the same side, etc.

I will offer a real-life example of people who refuse to acknowledge how the law is commonly interpreted and insist on a literal interpretation. There are certain "constitutionalists" that believe the income tax is illegal. They don't pay taxes. The IRS almost always wins. Argue your interpretation until you are blue in the face or work within the most commonly accepted interpretations of the law. It's your choice. But, urination contests over minor issues tend to make us gun-owner folks (who want to garner support from the general public) just look downright unreasonable. Pick your battles.

 

[USMC1911]

You missed the first definition;

1 : to seize as forfeited to the public treasury.

The guns were never seized or forfeited;

1: to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime
2: to subject to confiscation as a forfeit

It didn't happen.

So am still asking, and waiting an answer of "What law did he make up?"

When it was taken out of his possession it has been seized, confiscated, taken possession of or however you would like to call it. Like I said, just because they were given back is irrelavent.

Definition of seize - to take possession of : confiscate b. b to take possession of by legal process

 

[Stomper]

The IRS almost always wins.

Almost always... really?

 

[USMC1911]

Death and taxes so they say.

 

[el gringo loco]

Almost always... really?
__________________

I knew if I said always, someone would cite some obscure case where the IRS lost.

 

[kj Plattner]

I got into quite a pickle one night because I did refuse to surrender my weapon to a Seattle officer. The dispatch told them I had a CWP (back then!). I was polite, he was not. He called for back up. In all seven officers and a canine unit responded. I still refused to surrender anything other than my driver's license and CWP. As things heated up I gave the whole lot of them a tongue lashing and the sargent told them he did agree with me, gave me back my papers and sent me back on my way.

I had a burned out license plate light..... Must have been a really slow night.

 

[BDA.45]

2 things......If they dont ask, dont tell. Second, I would NEVER disarm myself in the presence of a cop. If they want me disarmed, they can disarm me. The last thing I need is to be shot by some rookie who doesnt know the situation and pulls up as im unloading my weapon and handing it to the cop standing there. In my expierence, when I told them I DID have a weapon on me they were cool. If they ask me, I tell them I dont feel comfortable being disarmed, but if they must, THEY have to do it.