I was disarmed by a police officer

[KeithPA]

You said "clocked" I assume this was the PSP that pulled you over?

I wouldn't be too upset. They didn't handcuff him or order him out of the car at gunpoint. I would consider that to be a more positive encounter.

[Roscoe]

I would go with onelung on this also. seems this officer was only protecting himself.

As long as he was respectful I don't see a problem with him disarming you.

I especially like this.

- Those of you who are about to flame me please feel free, but I expect your arguments to be logical and informed, not based upon your hatred of your own Mommy!
_________________

Now that's funny..

[Montell C. Williams]

There is a BIG differance between your home or even private property and a car on a public road. the cop did nothing even remotly illegal or improper.

[tourrider]

Where did he find the knife?

It's one thing to secure the weapons, but sounds like you got patted down. That was not right. Legal carry of a weapon is not cause for search. What if he had found that nickel bag of pot. (Not saying you would be carrying any such stuff)...but what if? It's now a completely different story.

[Cole]

I also see nothing unreasonable in the officer disarming someone momentarily for a stop and returning weapons when his business is through. Whether or not it's constitutional I won't argue, but it's common sense. The officer was respectful, which makes all the difference. If he had not returned the guns promplty, been polite, etc. We might all have very different reactions.

My non-gun friends always ask how I can claim to carry a gun for personal protection and safety, and then drive the way that I do. So, I enjoyed seeing a post where someone was very responsible with carrying . . . but demonstrated the same sort of automotive irresponsibility that I sometimes do.

[bloomautomatic]

If you quoted him accurately, he asked you to step out of the car and be disarmed. You agreed, so I don't see any problem there. If he had ordered you to do that, it would be a different story. Had you said no, I'm not getting out and I'm going to be disarmed, he couldn't have forced you, however it would have made an otherwise normal traffic stop into a tense situation. I'd say both of you handled the situation in a civil and professional manner.

Vince

[Rule10b5]

There is nothing illegal about what the officer/trooper did in this case. It's perfectly reasonable, legal, and I'd do the same damn thing in his position. He had every right to search and disarm you exactly the way that he did.

I'm getting real sick of folks getting outraged and pulling the "you don't have to get out of your car, or turn over your gun" crap when this sort of thing happens during a traffic stop. That is absolute bullshit. Stop saying it. Stop believing it.

When you're pulled over, you're pulled over because the officer has reason to believe you have violated the law. This constitutes a lawful detention/seizure within the auspices of the Fourth Amendment. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). An officer may require you to step out of your vehicle when you've been pulled over. And, yes, even if it's for something as stupid as an expired license plate. Id.. If he sees a bulge in your jacket that could be a gun, notices a gun, you admit you have a gun, or he, for any reasonable reason, thinks you have a gun or weapon, he can search and disarm you. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).

All of the above is from the U.S. Supreme Court -- it absolutely is the law in Pa.

As noted by the Supreme Court 30%+ of police shootings occur during traffic stops. There isn't the slightest chance in hell you're going to win an argument that he wasn't absolutely justified in disarming you. When you're pulled over, you're a suspect. Suspects, unless the officer doesn't think it is necessary, always get disarmed. He doesn't know who the hell you are, what you do for a living, whether you're a good guy, or whatever.

You don't have to do the following, but when you're pulled over, if you do, you're alot less likely to be messed with:

1) Turn on the interior light (if at night).
2) Roll down your window.
3) Keep both of your hands on the wheel.
4) Do not move unless you've been asked to do so. Request permission before making any movement. When he says "license and registration" I say "The license is in my front right pocket, may I retrieve it." When he says "Yes" I do. I do the same thing for every movement I make.
5) When producing your driver's license, produce your license to carry at the same time, and hand BOTH to the officer.
6) If he asks, before you have a chance to produce your license to carry "Do you have a gun or any weapons?" -- your answer is NOT "I have a gun." Your answer is "I have a license to carry firearms, and I am legally carrying a firearm."
7) Do exactly what he says. Don't make any unnecessary movements, be polite, be nice, be honest, and don't fuck around. "Yeah, I was probably going a little too fast" gets you a hell of a lot more mileage than "No, how fast was I going." I've never met a cop dumb enough that "I didn't know how fast I was going" worked. People get fucked with by the cops, 9 times out of 10, because they fucked with the cop first. Sure, some, even many, are complete assholes. But all you need to worry about when you're dealing with them is getting home with a minimum amount of hassle, bullshit, and trouble. You likely achieve that end by being polite, not stupid, and acting like an adult.

Every time I get pulled over, I do the above (and I drive fast; I get pulled, a lot). I'm always carrying, and I've never had a problem. Only once, in the past 10 stops have I been disarmed because I followed the above rules. And that wasn't an officer disarming me by making me get out of the car, he simply asked me to give him the gun. I told him exactly how I was doing it, got permission, and did it. I'm not going to get shot for my own ego.

Every other time, do you know how the cop reacted when I gave him the license to carry? "Oh, thanks, I don't care about that. I'll be back in a minute." When you hand him the license first, you've established yourself as someone who isn't a criminal -- that changes the entire interaction.

[dnar]

Originally Posted by djturnz

I looked up and saw red and blues. Pulled over, rolled my window down half way and placed my palms on the wheel. The first thing the officer asked me after "how are you doing today sir?", was "are there any weapons in the vehicle?"
I replied, "yes sir, I have a gun on my hip, on my ankle, and my permit is in my wallet.

When the police pull you over, do they usually ask about weapons in the vehicle?

rand

[tourrider]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

There is nothing illegal about what the officer/trooper did in this case. It's perfectly reasonable, legal, and I'd do the same damn thing in his position. He had every right to search and disarm you exactly the way that he did.

I'm getting real sick of folks getting outraged and pulling the "you don't have to get out of your car, or turn over your gun" crap when this sort of thing happens during a traffic stop. That is absolute bullshit. Stop saying it. Stop believing it.

When you're pulled over, you're pulled over because the officer has reason to believe you have violated the law. This constitutes a lawful detention/seizure within the auspices of the Fourth Amendment. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). An officer may require you to step out of your vehicle when you've been pulled over. And, yes, even if it's for something as stupid as an expired license plate. Id.. If he sees a bulge in your jacket that could be a gun, notices a gun, you admit you have a gun, or he, for any reasonable reason, thinks you have a gun or weapon, he can search and disarm you. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).

All of the above is from the U.S. Supreme Court -- it absolutely is the law in Pa.

As noted by the Supreme Court 30%+ of police shootings occur during traffic stops. There isn't the slightest chance in hell you're going to win an argument that he wasn't absolutely justified in disarming you. When you're pulled over, you're a suspect. Suspects, unless the officer doesn't think it is necessary, always get disarmed. He doesn't know who the hell you are, what you do for a living, whether you're a good guy, or whatever.

You don't have to do the following, but when you're pulled over, if you do, you're alot less likely to be messed with:

1) Turn on the interior light (if at night).
2) Roll down your window.
3) Keep both of your hands on the wheel.
4) Do not move unless you've been asked to do so. Request permission before making any movement. When he says "license and registration" I say "The license is in my front right pocket, may I retrieve it." When he says "Yes" I do. I do the same thing for every movement I make.
5) When producing your driver's license, produce your license to carry at the same time, and hand BOTH to the officer.
6) If he asks, before you have a chance to produce your license to carry "Do you have a gun or any weapons?" -- your answer is NOT "I have a gun." Your answer is "I have a license to carry firearms, and I am legally carrying a firearm."
7) Do exactly what he says. Don't make any unnecessary movements, be polite, be nice, be honest, and don't fuck around. "Yeah, I was probably going a little too fast" gets you a hell of a lot more mileage than "No, how fast was I going." I've never met a cop dumb enough that "I didn't know how fast I was going" worked. People get fucked with by the cops, 9 times out of 10, because they fucked with the cop first. Sure, some, even many, are complete assholes. But all you need to worry about when you're dealing with them is getting home with a minimum amount of hassle, bullshit, and trouble. You likely achieve that end by being polite, not stupid, and acting like an adult.

Every time I get pulled over, I do the above (and I drive fast; I get pulled, a lot). I'm always carrying, and I've never had a problem. Only once, in the past 10 stops have I been disarmed because I followed the above rules. And that wasn't an officer disarming me by making me get out of the car, he simply asked me to give him the gun. I told him exactly how I was doing it, got permission, and did it. I'm not going to get shot for my own ego.

Every other time, do you know how the cop reacted when I gave him the license to carry? "Oh, thanks, I don't care about that. I'll be back in a minute." When you hand him the license first, you've established yourself as someone who isn't a criminal -- that changes the entire interaction.

So you are telling us, that as a LTCF holder, and lawfully carring a weapon, we give up our right to privacy and against personal search?

Seeking my daily dose of free legal advice !

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by tourrider

So you are telling us, that as a LTCF holder, and lawfully carring a weapon, we give up our right to privacy and against personal search?

Seeking my daily dose of free legal advice !

No -- in the situation described by the original poster, the officer may give you a pat down. I'm saying that everyone, LTCF holder or not, must, when told by an officer, exit his vehicle. For any reason whatsoever. If wants you to get out because you're wearing a purple t-shirt and smell like roses, you MUST get out.

In accordance with Mimms II, this court subsequently has held that where an officer effectuates a valid traffic stop, he or she may order the driver to exit the vehicle despite the lack of an articulable basis to believe that criminal activity is afoot or that the driver is armed and dangerous. See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 415 Pa. Super. 252, 609 A.2d 177, 181, appeal denied, 533 Pa. 598, 617 A.2d 1273 (1992). See also Commonwealth v. Elliott, 376 Pa. Super. 536, 546 A.2d 654, 660 (1988), appeal denied, 521 Pa. 617, 557 A.2d 721 (1989) (Mimms II makes it clear that the officer need not articulate any reason for ordering the driver from the vehicle when the vehicle is lawfully detained for a traffic violation.).

Commonwealth v. Brown, 439 Pa. Super. 516, 524 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).

And if the officer has reasonable cause to believe you're carrying a weapon, he may pat you down.

Here is the relevant portion of Terry v. Ohio.:

n order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first to focus upon [*21] the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," for there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534-535, 536-537 [***906] [**1880] (1967). And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. n18 HN12Go to the description of this Headnote.The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. n19 And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [*22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96-97 (1964). n20 Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e. g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959). And simple "'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police. " Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97.