great traffic stop encounter

[Mr.Turtles]

i think you guys are forgetting that the officer has a right to make the stop safe for himself.Asking if any firearms were in the vehicle was perfectly alright being that the OP was leaving a sporting club.Did he have to tell the officer where he was coming from? no he did not,but he choose to.

The officer has the right to search within arms reach of the driver for anything that would make the traffic stop unsafe.

[IronSight]

The officer has the right to search within arms reach of the driver for anything that would make the traffic stop unsafe.

IANAL but my understanding of case law is that the officer needs a reasonable belief that the occupant(s) is armed AND dangerous before conducting a warrantless search of the area of the vehicle within that range. I once believed your assertion but I do not after studying it further.

You're right that an officer can ask whatever he wishes, and people can waive their rights throughout a stop.

However I for one would argue that handling a loaded firearm, particularly in a situation where an officer has reason to believe he is dealing with an individual holding an LTCF (told as such, holding it in his hands) makes the scene less safe, not more.

Your are equating armed as the same as armed and dangerous, or at least that's how your post reads to me. I believe that to be a flawed assumption, just my opinion though.

Oh, welcome to PAFOA, hopefully you stick around.

[Mr.Turtles]

IANAL but my understanding of case law is that the officer needs a reasonable belief that the occupant(s) is armed AND dangerous before conducting a warrantless search of the area of the vehicle within that range. I once believed your assertion but I do not after studying it further.

You're right that an officer can ask whatever he wishes, and people can waive their rights throughout a stop.

However I for one would argue that handling a loaded firearm, particularly in a situation where an officer has reason to believe he is dealing with an individual holding an LTCF (told as such, holding it in his hands) makes the scene less safe, not more.

Your are equating armed as the same as armed and dangerous, or at least that's how your post reads to me. I believe that to be a flawed assumption, just my opinion though.

Oh, welcome to PAFOA, hopefully you stick around.

Once the occupant stated that he did have a weapon in the car,the officer had probable cause to either remove the occupant from the vehicle or secure the firearm.Being that the officer would have to reach across the body of the driver or enter from another door.Removing the driver and then securing the firearm makes sense.

How safe would you feel if the driver say "yes i have a loaded gun in my car,within arms reach" and then going and running the occupants information knowing that he has a live firearm.

The officer would make the firearm safe,find that the OP had a valid LTCF and no warrants and thus conducted the traffic stop accordingly.

[Justin///M]

Once the occupant stated that he did have a weapon in the car,the officer had probable cause to either remove the occupant from the vehicle or secure the firearm.

No he didn't.

[IronSight]

Once the occupant stated that he did have a weapon in the car,the officer had probable cause to either remove the occupant from the vehicle or secure the firearm.Being that the officer would have to reach across the body of the driver or enter from another door.Removing the driver and then securing the firearm makes sense.

How safe would you feel if the driver say "yes i have a loaded gun in my car,within arms reach" and then going and running the occupants information knowing that he has a live firearm.

The officer would make the firearm safe,find that the OP had a valid LTCF and no warrants and thus conducted the traffic stop accordingly.

I imagine I would feel as safe as the dozens of officers, deputies, and security officials I've witnessed handling courthouse security procedures related to firearms have felt. Perhaps I misjudged their looks of calm professionalism though, for all I know they may have been shaking in fear especially since I've never seen a single officer in that situation actually call and verify a license.

An officer can ask an occupant out of a car on basically any stop whether a weapon is involved or not, but the standard for searches and seizures ought to be higher than fanciful whims. The officer knew the OP had an LTCF, the OP was asked out of the car and did so willingly, and the officer likely put himself in a compromising position while reaching into the vehicle unless he cuffed and/or otherwise restrained the OP or had the OP step away a good distance (post is unclear as to the position of the OP and the officer at the time the officer reaches into the vehicle).

There isn't a blanket fourth amendment exception to any situation involving a firearm, but I will concede that the courts in some cases are quick to try and make one (Robinson comes to mind).

You're making a different statement in this post though than the one in your last, in the last you were talking about a blanket search of an area of the vehicle, now you're talking about a specific seizure and not mentioning a blanket search. Which are you justifying? Both? I'll concede that a court would likely rule in your opinion on the temporary seizure alone, I would not concede that on the extra warrantless search.

Of course what the courts might rule on is also far different from how they've currently held things. Government typically stretches beyond old rulings until a court slaps them back or cuts them loose on the issue.

Again, I'm no lawyer and I'm not an expert on case law. It's also 3am, so I'm going to go grab some sleep and I'll check in tomorrow to see if any of our resident officers or lawyers on this board chime in. I'm willing to admit to being wrong if necessary.

[mjfletcher]

Once the occupant stated that he did have a weapon in the car,the officer had probable cause to either remove the occupant from the vehicle or secure the firearm.Being that the officer would have to reach across the body of the driver or enter from another door.Removing the driver and then securing the firearm makes sense.

How safe would you feel if the driver say "yes i have a loaded gun in my car,within arms reach" and then going and running the occupants information knowing that he has a live firearm.

The officer would make the firearm safe,find that the OP had a valid LTCF and no warrants and thus conducted the traffic stop accordingly.

An officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to sieze property. Possession of a firearm is legal and therefor does not by itself provide RAS or PC for a seizure. Stating you have a firearm is no different than stating you have a prescription inhaler, unless there are factors independent of it that provide RAS there are no legal grounds for a seizure.

[twency]

i think you guys are forgetting that the officer has a right to make the stop safe for himself.Asking if any firearms were in the vehicle was perfectly alright being that the OP was leaving a sporting club.Did he have to tell the officer where he was coming from? no he did not,but he choose to.

The officer has the right to search within arms reach of the driver for anything that would make the traffic stop unsafe.

Regardless of whether or not the seizure of the firearm was legal (I'm not saying it was or wasn't, just setting that question aside for the moment), do you agree that running the firearm's serial number measurably extended the stop's duration? If so, that action was unlawful under the circumstances.

[jpg5080]

An officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to sieze property. Possession of a firearm is legal and therefor does not by itself provide RAS or PC for a seizure. Stating you have a firearm is no different than stating you have a prescription inhaler, unless there are factors independent of it that provide RAS there are no legal grounds for a seizure.

Bold ^^^ is my understanding of the law. IANAL.

Once the occupant stated that he did have a weapon in the car,the officer had probable cause to either remove the occupant from the vehicle or secure the firearm.Being that the officer would have to reach across the body of the driver or enter from another door.Removing the driver and then securing the firearm makes sense.

The officer has the right to search within arms reach of the driver for anything that would make the traffic stop unsafe.

Can you provide a citation to back up these two statements Mr. Turtles?????

[normanvin]

Once the occupant stated that he did have a weapon in the car,the officer had probable cause to either remove the occupant from the vehicle or secure the firearm.Being that the officer would have to reach across the body of the driver or enter from another door.Removing the driver and then securing the firearm makes sense.

How safe would you feel if the driver say "yes i have a loaded gun in my car,within arms reach" and then going and running the occupants information knowing that he has a live firearm.

The officer would make the firearm safe,find that the OP had a valid LTCF and no warrants and thus conducted the traffic stop accordingly.

So the officer removes my gun to make it a "safer stop". But leaves the keys in the ignition, and me behind the wheel.

I might shoot him because he caught me speeding but I would never start the car and run him over before he gets back to his car.

My gun is just as safe on my hip as his gun on his hip. I don't know him from Adam either.

[normanvin]

Once the occupant stated that he did have a weapon in the car,the officer had probable cause to either remove the occupant from the vehicle or secure the firearm.

You will find that on this site you need to do more to back up things then just saying them.

Like how about some citation of the law to back up what you just said.

A white guy robbing a store is not cause to stop ever white guy on the road to see if they just robbed a store.