Under the rules of a Terry Stop and established in US Supreme Court cases after Terry, when a cop has reasonable suspicion to detain you (speeding, rolling through a stop sign, whatever they stopped you for) and the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous, they now have the authority to frisk you for weapons and to search the area of the vehicle from which you can readily obtain a weapon without your consent. There has been only one court that I am aware of (I think it was the Indiana State Supreme Court) that has ever seperated armed from dangerous. No other court has yet to separate the two. So, by you informing the cop of your gun right from the start, you have almost automatically granted them the authority to frisk you and search a portion of your vehicle without your consent.
Now let's play out two scenarios. 1. You get stopped for speeding, you immediately tell the officer about your gun, he asks you to step out of the vehicle, frisks your person, removes your gun and unloads it (for officer safety, of course), and searches the front part of your vehicle. He finds the knife pictured below in your pocket. Guess what, you are in violation of Seattle Ordinance SMC 12A.14.080 Unlawful Use of Weapons. Now your knife gets confiscated, probably your gun too, and now in addition to speeding you have a citation for use of weapons. Also, take note: when you give your driver's license and CPL to the officer up front - at that point in time they have no way of knowing if either of those documents is valid, suspended or revoked.
When you go to court, the judge asks the cop, "What suspicion did you have that the suspect was armed and dangerous?" Cop says, "Because he told me he was and I had no way of knowing if the license he handed me was valid or not." You say, "No sir, I told the cop that I was in legal possession of a firearm and showed him my CPL, that doesn't make me dangerous." Judge says, "Son, let me explain something to you. ALL guns present a danger to police officers. That is exactly the reason why he has the authority to take the gun from you during the stop, to ensure his safety." Verdict: guilty.
2. Now let's say you don't tell the cop about your gun. He takes your driver's license and it is returned that you have a Concealed Pistol License. He comes back and asks you if you have a gun. You answer yes, he frisks you, finds your knife, you go to court. Judge asks the same question. This time the cop says, "I found out when I ran his driver's license, the dispatcher said there were no warrants, but also informed me that he had a CPL. Then I asked and he answered that he did possess a gun." Now what is your defense? "Officer Jones, may I ask when you first had reasonable suspicion the subject was armed and dangerous?" Cop, "When I called in his driver's license and they said he had a CPL." "Really, Officer Jones? Isn't it interesting that after your initial contact with the suspect, you felt no reason to ask them about a gun. You felt no danger to yourself from the suspect, otherwise why would you NOT ask about a gun, and the leave the suspect alone, turning your back on him to return to your patrol car. Officer Jones, does a person with a CPL carry a firearm with them 100% of the time? No. So you had no reason to suspect the subject was armed and dangerous until AFTER you found out that the state had already performed a background check and authorized the suspect to carry a firearm because they had no criminal history." Well, now things are a bit more in your favor, wouldn't you say?
This knife is illegal to posses in Seattle.
Link Removed
This knife is also illegal to posses in Seattle:
BUCK
Remember, just because you don't have anything to hide does not mean that the officer won't find something.
I learned something new while reading this, I've never heard of a Terry Stop. Thanks for educating me. It must be an Indiana thing, but since I've been passing around some of the great debate on this board to friends and family (and pretty much all of us are Carry Permit holders who've never really given much deep thought to not telling a cop we carry), NOBODY had an experience of being ordered out of the vehicle and frisked for a traffic stop, except for one who was pulled over for suspicion of DUI. State Trooper ordered him out of the vehicle after taking license and stating what he pulled him over for, before friend even opened the door he told both troopers that he had a firearm AND a permit, and that both were on his person, and asked them how they wanted him to proceed. They replied that's fine, step out slowly and we'll make that call. Asked for permit first, location of the firearm next, and one trooper went to run information first while other covered. Neither asked to see nor confiscated the pistol. Other came back nodding and he said that both Troopers VISIBLY relaxed and said ok, here's your permit back, thanks for letting us know, now let's move on with what we pulled you over for. Granted, one example is statistically insignificant, but he cooperated and informed, and nothing happened. Incidentally he wasn't drunk, and he was weaving because he dropped his phone on the floor and was stupidly trying to get it back off the floor when he was pulled over. No warning, troopers very polite, blah blah blah.
Sent Terry Stop info over a friend of my pop who is a retired sheriff and asked him "what if" scenario, you pull over guy for a traffic stop that volunteers he has a gun and permit, do you use a Terry Stop protocol to search for and remove weapons? Here's the reply I got back quoted:
"Unless the suspect is acting nervous, threatening or appears to be high or drunk, I don't feel threatened by possession of a weapon in and of itself. Now that doesn't mean I'm stupid or careless. For my own safety, I'm going to keep a REAL close eye on you and ask for backup if I'm by myself. Once backup gets there I'll keep you covered (not at gunpoint, just Mark 1 eyeball) while backup validates permit, if it checks out, I'm a happy camper. I know what it takes to get a Permit, and if you got one I know you're de facto a bastion of righteousness and no threat to me or the public.
As far as taking a weapon off someone's person, ain't no way in hell I'm handling your weapon in the first place unless I think you're a threat, and in that case I'm handing your weapon off to my partner, I don't want anything to do with it. There's plenty of dumbasses and "legal carriers" that think carrying a gun is cool, but don't have a damn clue or care about how to maintain their firearm properly. I'm not about to blow my hand up clearing your weapon because I think I might be safer with your weapon in my hands. Again, that's assuming you're calm and cooperative and I don't think I need to take your stuff from you. Other thing is at least back in my day (it's been 20 years since i made a traffic stop) we had to file a contact report if we confiscated a weapon, even if just temporarily, and I strongly prefer doing less paperwork rather than more. Either way, if you're a legal permit holder and you've eliminated any chance for any surprises, I may or may not write you a ticket and tell you to slow down so I can get back to important stuff. "
Again, maybe just an Indiana thing, but a couple of examples. And I think you're right about Indiana being the state that separates armed from dangerous.
The scenarios I gave a lot of thought to, and scenario 1 is very troubling. Couple things I looked up while thinking about contraband and searches:
For the Court in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), Justice White wrote:
"If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context."
For the Court in Michigan v. Long, Justice O'Connor wrote:
If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of the interior of the automobile, the officer should, as here, discover contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. (463 U.S. at 1050, citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465 (1971))
Wikipedia:
The word contraband, reported in English since 1529, from Medieval French contrebande "a smuggling," denotes any item which, relating to its nature, is illegal to be possessed or sold.
A legally owned and possessed firearm is not contraband. I have no choice but to agree with you on the scenarios at least that a voluntary admission of legal gun possession while carrying an illegal knife is a pretty stupid thing to do and would have to agree with you that you shouldn't volunteer anything in that case since you're either knowingly or ignorantly breaking the law. But I'll also add I have a hard time believing that a smart gun carrier wouldn't be aware of a law against a particular knife and not have it on their person in the first place. I sure wouldn't want to risk a possession conviction that would probably require me to relinquish my permit.
The only other thing I'll put forth on the scenarios is that it's a HELL of a long way to go from being arrested on the side of the road to being in front of a judge. Not sure what interest a prosecutor would have moving forward a case of a legal gun owner carrying an illegal knife to a trial when there's a whole lot of bigger to fry, unless they perceive political gain and want to puff themselves up by "taking weapons off the street." Charges could be dropped, pled out, modified, reduced to a misdemeanor, blah blah blah long before going to trial.
By the way, I ordered one of those Buck Knives. Like the way it looks a lot.
Have fun ignoring. Bye.
