They are obligated to ANSWER every complaint per their availability, priority of calls and if they are in the area as in a traffic complaint. If not, the call is often deferred to a different agency to follow up on. As far as the OP is concerned, I don't know that particular agency's policies so I can't answer for that cop. But The cop was able to stop the suspect vehicle and I would assume that there was detainment due to the operator having a weapon and with investigating a possible erratic vehicle/road rage complaint, it would be a pretty good thing for that person to be disarmed before being questioned per the LEOs safety. That seems like common sense...and also no infringement on anyone's rights. It's a LE investigation....you're making into a rights issue here and I'm not quite sure why you chronically do that.
Because it has NOTHING to do with the firearm or the disarming of the subject. It has to do with the legitimacy of the stop in the first place. I can call 911 and report anything that I want to about anybody that I want to. "Hello, 911? A purple Camero with yellow stripes just tried to run me off the road. He didn't like that I was doing exactly the speed limit, tried to pass me on a double yellow line, almost had a head on collision with oncoming traffic and missed my front bumper by inches and I had to pull onto to the shoulder to avoid him. Then he flipped me off as he sped away. His license number was xyz123."
See how easy that is? Now, 5 miles down the road a purple Camero with yellow stripes, traveling perfectly centered and straight in his lane at 5 mph under the speed limit passes by a state patrol. I must ask you, upon what reasonable suspicion can the officer LEGALLY base stopping (detaining) the driver of the purple Camero? One phone call made by one person? THAT is reasonable suspicion?!? I can tell you, in Washington State it is not. I am not arguing whether or not the officer should have/could have disarmed the subject. If the officer WITNESSED the event, and actually had REAL reasonable suspicion to make the stop, I think the officer was very wise and within his rights to disarm the subject. The problem is, one 911 call does NOT equal reasonable suspicion as a lawful basis to detain the subject, unless the officer develops that reasonable suspicion himself from what he sees or what more than one unrelated person reports.
Now, if the officer follows the purple Camero to Wal Mart, and the driver exits the vehicle and the officer approaches the driver and asks, "Can I speak to you for a moment?" Then it is up to the subject to ask, "Are you detaining me officer?" If the reply is no, and the driver is free to leave....THEN it is a legal encounter. Or if the officer follows the Camero and it crosses the center line, exceeds the speed limit, crosses the fog line, makes an illegal turn..... THEN the officer can legally stop and detain the driver for the traffic infraction and, in the process, ask questions about the 911 call.
A single 911 call, by itself, will almost NEVER provide reasonable suspicion on which to lawfully detain a person.
Here's an article you might want to read:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005#5
And the US Supreme Court case:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/325/
Held:
The anonymous tip, as corroborated by independent police work, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investigatory stop. Pp. 496 U. S. 328-332.
(b) Standing alone, the tip here is completely lacking in the necessary indicia of reliability, since it provides virtually nothing from which one might conclude that the caller is honest or his information reliable, and gives no indication of the basis for his predictions regarding White's criminal activities.
Notice there must be corroboration by independent police work, the 911 call BY ITSELF is NOT sufficient! In our question, 911 caller reports one thing, police establish a visual on the subject and see NO CORROBORATING evidence.....therefore, UNLAWFUL detention based on the 911 call itself. The detention is unlawful because the only piece of information I needed to make the 911 call would be an accurate visual description of the vehicle, which I could obtain by observing the car parked somewhere, not doing anything at all, and make up the rest of the story. Now, if I said the Camero has a scratch on it from my car, and police could verify the damage to my car and matching damage to the other vehicle, it would be completely different set of circumstances.
This is very fundamental 4th Amendment protection and has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Unless the police officer read the OP's original confession to the road rage, the stop and detention itself was illegal based on a 911 call with no corroborating evidence.