NEW Traffic Stop scenario - really, I promise!

[NavyLCDR]

So, Officer Friendly stops you for going 40 in 25. Because you choose to for whatever your personal reasons are you show the officer your carry permit/license and tell him/her about the gun you are carrying.

Question #1: Do you think Officer Friendly should take your firearm from you until they can verify that your permit is real and valid or should Officer Friendly just trust you and let you keep your firearm?

Question #2: Officer Friendly goes back to their car and receives a response back that there is a problem with your license/permit. It either does not exist in their records, it is revoked, it is suspended, they show it as expired in the database. Mistakes happen all the time. Now what do you think Officer Friendly should do, especially if your answer to question #1 was that Officer Friendly should just trust you and let you keep your firearm?

Question #3: Does the possibility that question #2 might happen change your initial answer to question #1? Let's say Officer Friendly has let 100 people keep their guns and it has all worked out OK, but now number 101 comes up with a problem with their permit/license. Do you think Officer Friendly will change the way they handle it in the future?

This isn't a question of should you inform or not. I am asking the specific question of what should Officer Friendly do once someone does tell them about it.

 

[Mac357]

I think Officer Friendly might have the next people that tell him they are carrying a CCW to step out of the car so he can secure the gun until the stop is over, and assuming all is good return your firearm to you and send you your way. This is what I think I would do in that situation. But with LEO's there is no damn telling what you might get. I people who have their guns confiscated and it took months to get it returned and some that never got it back. Leo's are all different, some are old school and might handle it will less zeal than a younger officer who may not be sure what to do.

 

[wolf_fire]

I do not agree with taking a person's firearm for a routine traffic stop, especially if the citizen volunteered the information to the officer that he/she was carrying in the first place. This is the person that the officer should not be fearing. Are there cases where someone who was carrying legally informed a cop and then shot him... maybe, I haven't heard of it happening. Also, most encounters I've had with officers after I have informed, wondered why I told them in the first place. PA is not a "must inform" state.

Now on to scenario #2. If the permit is expired, etc., that citizen most likely (yes some states have differing laws) will need to secure the weapon in a locked area of the car, for example, the trunk. At this point, the officer informs the citizen of the problem with the permit, explains how to get the problem fixed, and let's the citizen know that they will have to stow the firearm at this juncture.

You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Now if the permit information came back that he was a felon and that is why it was revoked, the officer needs to step up the situation, put the drop on the felon, and have the felon remove his/her weapon.

 

[Self Defense CWP]

NavyLCDR,

I would encourage everyone to know the laws concerning this subject for your State. While I will not speak for all States, I will speak for South Carolina law on this subject. It was your Concealed Weapons Permit Instructor's responsibility to explain and provide you with this information during your class. This IS NOT to say that many Peace Officers may attempt to violate your rights if he/she does not understand the law. We spend some time in class explaining some of the CWP holders options should the Peace Officer attempt to violate the holders rights.
In the example you have posted, should the Peace Officer feel something is wrong, and desire to take the firearm, he can ONLY do that incident to arrest. South Carolina Law posted below:

SECTION 23-31-520. Power to regulate public use of firearms; confiscation of firearms or ammunition.

This article does not affect the authority of any county, municipality, or political subdivision to regulate the careless or negligent discharge or public brandishment of firearms, nor does it prevent the regulation of public brandishment of firearms during the times of or a demonstrated potential for insurrection, invasions, riots, or natural disasters. This article denies any county, municipality, or political subdivision the power to confiscate a firearm or ammunition unless incident to an arrest.

 

[spdracr39]

I think trying to imagine what the officer might do is irrelevant. Just do as he asks.

 

[NavyLCDR]

NavyLCDR,
In the example you have posted, should the Peace Officer feel something is wrong, and desire to take the firearm, he can ONLY do that incident to arrest. South Carolina Law posted below:

SECTION 23-31-520. Power to regulate public use of firearms; confiscation of firearms or ammunition.

This article does not affect the authority of any county, municipality, or political subdivision to regulate the careless or negligent discharge or public brandishment of firearms, nor does it prevent the regulation of public brandishment of firearms during the times of or a demonstrated potential for insurrection, invasions, riots, or natural disasters. This article denies any county, municipality, or political subdivision the power to confiscate a firearm or ammunition unless incident to an arrest.

Well.... unless South Carolina law specifies differently, a traffic stop is an arrest:

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/arrest-term.html

DEFINITION FROM NOLO’S PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY

Being detained by the police in a manner that, to any reasonable person, makes it clear he or she is not free to leave. A person can be "under arrest" even though the police have not announced it; nor are handcuffs or physical restraint necessary. Questioning an arrested person about involvement in or knowledge of a crime must be preceded by Mirandawarnings.

Revised Code of Washington (my state):
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.64.015

RCW 46.64.015
Citation and notice to appear in court — Issuance — Contents — Arrest — Detention.


Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of the traffic laws or regulations which is punishable as a misdemeanor or by imposition of a fine, the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. Such citation and notice shall conform to the requirements of RCW 46.64.010, and in addition, shall include spaces for the name and address of the person arrested, the license number of the vehicle involved, the driver's license number of such person, if any, the offense or violation charged, and the time and place where such person shall appear in court. Such spaces shall be filled with the appropriate information by the arresting officer. An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended. The detention arising from an arrest under this section may not be for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice, except that the time limitation does not apply under any of the following circumstances:


(1) Where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the arrested person has committed any of the offenses enumerated in RCW 10.31.100(3);


(2) When the arrested person is a nonresident and is being detained for a hearing under RCW 46.64.035.

 

[rstews]

Well.... unless South Carolina law specifies differently, a traffic stop is an arrest:

Arrest | Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

DEFINITION FROM NOLO’S PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY

Being detained by the police in a manner that, to any reasonable person, makes it clear he or she is not free to leave. A person can be "under arrest" even though the police have not announced it; nor are handcuffs or physical restraint necessary. Questioning an arrested person about involvement in or knowledge of a crime must be preceded by Mirandawarnings.

Revised Code of Washington (my state):
RCW 46.64.015: Citation and notice to appear in court ? Issuance ? Contents ? Arrest ? Detention.

RCW 46.64.015
Citation and notice to appear in court — Issuance — Contents — Arrest — Detention.


Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of the traffic laws or regulations which is punishable as a misdemeanor or by imposition of a fine, the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. Such citation and notice shall conform to the requirements of RCW 46.64.010, and in addition, shall include spaces for the name and address of the person arrested, the license number of the vehicle involved, the driver's license number of such person, if any, the offense or violation charged, and the time and place where such person shall appear in court. Such spaces shall be filled with the appropriate information by the arresting officer. An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended. The detention arising from an arrest under this section may not be for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice, except that the time limitation does not apply under any of the following circumstances:


(1) Where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the arrested person has committed any of the offenses enumerated in RCW 10.31.100(3);


(2) When the arrested person is a nonresident and is being detained for a hearing under RCW 46.64.035.

A couple things. I live in the "other" Washington also and am pretty new to concealed carry. I thought it was legal for an officer to disarm me on a traffic stop and this seems to be one of the reasons. I think that if I were to disclose I'm carrying the officer shouldn't feel the need to disarm me. It's the guys who show their gun accidentally that I think they would be wary of. Haven't been in a situation where I have to decide whether to disclose that I'm carrying or not and I keep going back and forth. Asked my brother in law, a Kent cop, and he said they like it when people disclose they're carrying and that he would just ask them to keep their hand away from their gun. The other wandering thought I had is that if a traffic stop is an arrest shouldn't the officer have to read you your rights before asking "Do you know why I stopped you?" or any other questions?

 

[Deserteagle]

So, Officer Friendly stops you for going 40 in 25. Because you choose to for whatever your personal reasons are you show the officer your carry permit/license and tell him/her about the gun you are carrying.

Question #1: Do you think Officer Friendly should take your firearm from you until they can verify that your permit is real and valid or should Officer Friendly just trust you and let you keep your firearm?

Question #2: Officer Friendly goes back to their car and receives a response back that there is a problem with your license/permit. It either does not exist in their records, it is revoked, it is suspended, they show it as expired in the database. Mistakes happen all the time. Now what do you think Officer Friendly should do, especially if your answer to question #1 was that Officer Friendly should just trust you and let you keep your firearm?

Question #3: Does the possibility that question #2 might happen change your initial answer to question #1? Let's say Officer Friendly has let 100 people keep their guns and it has all worked out OK, but now number 101 comes up with a problem with their permit/license. Do you think Officer Friendly will change the way they handle it in the future?

This isn't a question of should you inform or not. I am asking the specific question of what should Officer Friendly do once someone does tell them about it.

Question #2 is pointless in states like Colorado. Doesn't matter if your permit is expired. We dont need one to conceal a gun in our car, so he would have to give it back.

 

[S&W645]

Question #2 is pointless in states like Colorado. Doesn't matter if your permit is expired. We dont need one to conceal a gun in our car, so he would have to give it back.

But what if that gun is on you in the car? Florida allows the first with a permit but allows it to be stowed in the car under certain requirement without a permit. And we do not have to inform unless asked directly.

 

[Axeanda45]

So, Officer Friendly stops you for going 40 in 25. Because you choose to for whatever your personal reasons are you show the officer your carry permit/license and tell him/her about the gun you are carrying.

Question #1: Do you think Officer Friendly should take your firearm from you until they can verify that your permit is real and valid or should Officer Friendly just trust you and let you keep your firearm?

Question #2: Officer Friendly goes back to their car and receives a response back that there is a problem with your license/permit. It either does not exist in their records, it is revoked, it is suspended, they show it as expired in the database. Mistakes happen all the time. Now what do you think Officer Friendly should do, especially if your answer to question #1 was that Officer Friendly should just trust you and let you keep your firearm?

Question #3: Does the possibility that question #2 might happen change your initial answer to question #1? Let's say Officer Friendly has let 100 people keep their guns and it has all worked out OK, but now number 101 comes up with a problem with their permit/license. Do you think Officer Friendly will change the way they handle it in the future?

This isn't a question of should you inform or not. I am asking the specific question of what should Officer Friendly do once someone does tell them about it.

1. NO! Why would I have told him if I was planning to do him any harm??? He should let me keep it UNLESS he has an actual articulable reason that he fears for his safety because of my actions...

2. Follow the 2nd Amendment? I know, not a realistic answer.... But that is what he should do... no signs of threatening behavior, no disarming.... since this scenario is about a "permit" holder, then the officer should inform me/person stopped about problem... after that, I dont really know.... Again, no evidence of ill intent, there shouldnt be a confiscation....

3. No, but it does make me think..... It shouldnt effect the officers dealing with other permit holders on each initial contact, but maybe he would "run" the permits every time in the future...

Good questions Navy, TY

 

[Self Defense CWP]

NavyLCDR,

I choose not to play Attorney ,or make assumptions regarding these issues. Fortunately ,the law is clear in South Carolina and most States as I previously posted, without playing Attorney. If a CWP holder has any question about what the peace Officers intentions are, a simple question to the Peace Officer such as; "am I free to leave" or "am I being placed under arrest" will suffice.
I understand that you are stating the law as you read it from the State of Washington....Law Dictionary.....you may be better suited to search for the Concealed Carry laws for your State, as I have posted for South Carolina. The State Adjutant General's Office is a good resource. I encourage all to visit the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network...for information and advice from ACTUAL Criminal Defense Attorney's who specialize in this area.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The other wandering thought I had is that if a traffic stop is an arrest shouldn't the officer have to read you your rights before asking "Do you know why I stopped you?" or any other questions?

No. The reason being is that they are not seeking evidence of the infraction. They already have all the evidence they need to issue you the citation, otherwise they would not have stopped you. I think the biggest reason they ask, "Do you know why I stopped you?" is to guage your reaction as a feeler for how the rest of the stop is going to go.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Question #2 is pointless in states like Colorado. Doesn't matter if your permit is expired. We dont need one to conceal a gun in our car, so he would have to give it back.

Same here in Vermont. No permit to carry either openly or concealed. No way to check either who is "running around" with a gun..... So...


Sent from behind enemy lines.

 

[AndeyHall]

I don't agree with requiring to tell that you have a permit, tell that you have a gun, or the officer taking the gun. If someone is going to use the gun against the officer, there's nothing he can do about it. It'll get used against him before he has the opportunity to take it. What good does it do? Last time the officer asked me to get out and took my gun after showing him my permit, my comment was "So I jump through all the the unconstitutional hoops to do things the legal way and I get treated like a criminal?" After that, I don't carry the gun on me in the car anymore so that I don't have to notify.