PA state trooper disassenbled my gun during traffic stop

[Carson]

The game being played is often called fishing, such as even asking about firearms or where I'm coming from or where I'm headed, none of which is relevant or any of your business. You pulled the driver over for a moving violation, not a suspected felony. Ask for the necessary documents, write the ticket, then piss off. Anything other than this, for me personally, is going to result in non-compliance.

Sometimes there is some fishing going on. There may be another reason why you blew through that stop sign than you have to get to a bathroom. I may stop you for the sign, but the store that was just held up across town or in the adjoining district, is in the back of my mind. Your answer (or refusal) to where you are going/coming from, helps determine my course of action. It’s nothing personal.

[staylo]

Don't say "nothing ever happens to them". There are no absolutes. Many of these "rules" come about through bad (for the police) case law. The case in question dealt with questions asked to a driver that were unrelated to the stop itself. The questions and the answers to them were then used as reasoning to search the vehicle and drugs were found. The courts later suppressed the evidence in this case because the answering of the questions was not voluntary... it was coerced because the driver was not free to leave and felt compelled to answer because the officer still had his license and registration. The court further reasoned that questioning on a traffic stop WHILE STILL DETAINED had to be limited to the nature of the detention... in this case I believe it was speeding.

So here is the thing... when rules are not followed and something bad happens, an illegal seizure for instance.. of the person. That person has to take the stand and decide to do something about it like filing a 1983 suit in federal court. This is the stuff that changes things. And before anyone says anything... if $1 of punitive damages is awarded in a 1983 suit, the officer has to pay every penny out of his own pocket.

I concede my hyperbole of stating "nothing" is done, but the fact that you have to acknowledge that it is routinely violated is evidence that it is done with a relative impunity. If officers were reprimanded as routinely for violating the rule as they are engaged in violating the rule, they would stop. So, here's my question to you. Let's say that I'm driving while legally armed(with a valid LTCF), and I'm stopped for a routine traffic stop, and am "routinely" asked if I'm armed. What response would recommend I could give to the officer? I don't want to answer "yes" because the officer should have never asked me about it in the first place so it's none of his business, and my civil rights are actually precious to me. You're telling me I should not answer "no", or I'll only "make it worse for myself". So....if I don't want to 'submit' to having my rights violated by answering "yes", and I don't want to make the rights violation worse by lying, how do I answer? Some of the responses I have considered over the years are listed below, along with the attendant 'problems' with each one if I have an officer who is more Cartman than civil servant:

-silence. Refuse to answer the question at all. (the officer could take my non-response as being 'evasive', creating, in his mind, RAS that I'm up to something. After all, only people with "something to hide" refuse to answer)

-point out that the officer has no right to ask the question at all. (the officer could take my response as being 'evasive' AND now I'm copping an attitude, which is fuel on the fire to a Cartman-like officer)

-try to dodge the question by saying something like "there is nothing illegal in the car". (back to 'evasive')

There are others, but each one I've thought of all could give certain types of officers the opportunity to use any answer other than "yes" as further 'evidence' that I'm shady(like you're saying they can with a false "no" answer)

Then, just for sake of argument, let's say I decide to voluntarily submit to having my rights violated and simply answer "yes, I do have a legal gun in the car", and the officer then decides he needs to disarm me for 'his safety'(further violating my civil rights), and then feels he needs to run my gun's serial number against the not-really-a-registry registry to make sure it's 'registered' to me(yet further violating my civil rights), and then decides to confiscate it pending 'proof' of ownership if it doesn't show up in the not-really-a-registry registry because I bought it out-of-state, or it was a lawful gift, or it was an inheritance(yet FURTHER violating my civil rights). Then what? Go hire a lawyer, spend all my savings to sue the officer and his department for numerous civil rights violations, and possibly still lose because judges and juries are not infallible and might get it wrong and rule against me? That's no real 'just' solution. Oh, I might achieve 'justice' but the whole thing will still have been 'unjust'. It's injustice, on top of injustice, on top of injustice. All caused by an officer determined to ask a question he is not allowed to ask in the first place, upon which he can then build a whole mountain of horse crap if he so chooses. And CLEARLY I could not simply refuse to surrender my firearm if the officer decides to disarm me, after using his unconstitutional question to determine I'm armed, without fear of REALLY 'making things worse for myself'. This entire situation is an abuse of power, either intentional or unintentional, that starts with an unconstitutional question that places upon the citizen the burden of having to try to figure out how to get himself out it of without 'making it worse for himself'.

What answer would you suggest we give that both keeps our full civil rights intact, AND doesn't "make things worse for us"?

[Berncly]

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. Clearly we can see from this post what happens when you DO inform. And we’ve seen numerous similar posts of the problems that come with informing an officer who isn’t necessarily knowledgeable on the law regarding firearms, seizures, and “registration”. But there also can be issues with NOT informing when you’re asked. If for some reason the stop should come to the point where you actually do need to inform the officer, like he asks you to exit the vehicle for some reason, now you’re in a situation where the officer is likely to blow his stack because you “lied” to him. At which point, you are probably in for a rectal examination of your life and vehicle while he tries to find some way to teach you a lesson. So I’m still wondering if there is a “magic bullet” response that allows someone not to lie, doesn’t arouse suspicion, doesn’t give the officer the impression you are being “confrontational”, and has hopefully minimal blowback if it comes to a point where someone actually does need to tell the officer they’re armed. Perhaps it’s a unicorn and just doesn’t exist, but with all the LEOs on the forum I would certainly be interested to hear what kind of responses they think might fit the bill. Obviously, the real problem is that some LEOs take a citizen’s asserting their constitutional rights as either evasiveness, some sort of evidence of wrongdoing, or that they’re a troublemaker, and that if you don’t “have anything to hide” then you should simply do whatever it is the officer wants you to do. Fixing that mindset should be the solution, but until that happens(soon right?) we still need to figure out a way to successfully navigate traffic stops. I think the closest I have heard to that kind of response is, before answering any questions, if the officer doesn’t expressly tell you the nature of the stop, ask what it is in order to set the scope of the investigation, and then politely tell the officer you will not be answering any questions outside of the scope of the investigation. At least then they cannot pinpoint a particular question that they feel someone doesn’t want to answer. Hopefully one of these days we will come up with that “magic bullet” response, or that officers will stop viewing citizens exercising their rights as impertinence, but until then I’m glad we keep having these conversations because it helps to work towards at least one of those goals. Reasonable suspicion of what? Doesn’t Terry require reasonable suspicion of a SPECIFIC crime having been, or being committed, and not just some unknown SOMETHING? If you have no reasonable suspicion of an actual and specific crime having been, or being committed before you find out the driver was not forthcoming regarding a concealed firearm(Assuming they have a valid LTCF), and if not being forthcoming about the firearm is not itself a crime, how does finding out about the firearm give you any new knowledge about an actual and specific crime? That sounds more like “RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!” That sounds more like, “I’ve taken it personally that you had the temerity to be untruthful when I asked you a question, so now I’m going to (to use your words) bend you over in anally rape you(metaphorically speaking), while I take your car and life apart until I can find something.” I would inform all day long if I KNEW that it wouldn't turn into a soup sandwich once I did, with me standing on the side of the road with the officer disarming me, running my firearm for 'registration', and/or disassembling it, all with a possible side-dish of confiscation should the non-existant 'registry' not return a result because the firearm was purchased out-of-state, or was a gift, or was an inheritance, etc., etc. In other words, if every officer knew the laws/constitional rights, and played by the laws/constitional rights, and didn't violate the laws/constitional rights because of fear, or ignorance, then I would bet more law-abiding citizens would be forthcoming about being armed. But when citizens do their part and inform for 'officer safety' and get jacked up by having their gun confiscated, disassembled, or are treated like a possible criminal, it shouldn't be a surprise when citizens start protecting themselves by keeping that information confidential. I guess what I'm saying is, if officers would like to be told every time someone is legally armed, then they should stop engaging in behavior that makes citizens regret doing it, or think "well, I'll never inform if that's what happens when you do!". And it doesn't matter if only a tiny minority of officers do it. It poisons many more encounters because, just like some officers who don't know who is a criminal and who is a law abiding citizen so they treat every citizen like a possible criminal, the citizen doesn't know who is a well-informed officer who will not violate their rights, and who is a power-tripping ignoramus who thinks that his badge gives him the AUTORITAH to demand the citizen do whatever he says, so they assume that every officers is a possible JBT and withhold that they are armed. I feel bad for you guys, and by you guys I mean officers who are civil servants who follow the laws/constitional rights, as opposed to JBTs, because they JBTs definitely make your jobs harder to do, but it's not coming out of a vacuum. Social Media has allowed citizens to reveal to the world what bad cops do, and more people are becoming suspicious of officers. It's an in-house problem that needs to be solved in-house, and then it's going to take some PR work to overcome. This is confusing me, and I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that an officer should not ask a driver if they are armed if they only pulled them over for a routine traffic stop? If so, that's what we've been arguing about: that during routine traffic stops officers are asking motorists if they are armed, and then taking the gun, or worse, if they answer "yes". So some have been arguing that motorists should save themselves the trouble and say "no". To which you say that you then have a right to jack the motorist up if they lie. Well, if you asked a question you shouldn't have asked in the first place you shouldn't then use the answer to jack someone up. It sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. The question shouldn't be asked in the first place(if I'm understanding the above quote correctly-even though it seems to be asked quite regularly), but if it is, and you lie, then we'll jack you up. If it is and you tell the truth, well maybe you'll get jacked up then too. It's a lose-lose for law abiding citizens. If I've misunderstood your comment please correct me. OK, this right here is what p****s me off. And if you don’t do it my problem is not with you directly, but the problem spills over onto the police in general because I have no idea who’s coming to my window. You admit that it is routinely violated, yet you advise people that if they’re asked a question which they never should’ve been asked in the first place they need to answer yes, and if they don’t, now they’re in trouble with the law. I’m sick of this kind of bull crap. Police do things they shouldn’t do all the time, but nothing ever happens to them, but then they bring the hammer down on the citizen who does something which they don’t like, which you’ve admitted is perfectly legal (telling the officer you are not armed). That’s some serious bull crap right there. The way it seems you’re trying to have it both ways is that on the one hand you say police officers should never ask you if you’re armed during a routine traffic stop, but then on the other hand you say when they do ask you the question which they never should’ve asked you need to say yes or you’re in trouble. I’d rip my hair out if I wasn’t bald. I didn’t spend four years in the military before they kicked me out for a bad knees to come home and have to deal with police officers asking questions they shouldn’t be asking, and then punishing citizens based on the answer to the question.

My God, man!
Paragraphs por favor?

[cdi]

Absent other circumstances, sure, some cops will over reach. But there is a huge difference in pucker factor between sitting in the car knowing you have a firearm and not saying and standing at that same window not knowing the occupants intentions or motives. I have first hand experience of both positions, do you ?

I have experienced both situations, multiple times.
I learned over the years it is better to stick to the rules than it is to fish outside the rules.

Fishing expeditions seldom result in a good pinch. If the result is anything significant, there is a strong possibility of it getting tossed in a suppression hearing.
Not to mention the ill will it creates in the community. That's how we get all the "don't talk to cops" videos on youtube.

Lots of cops are too lazy or too dull to conduct competetent ivestigations within the rules.
It doesn't help that the "us and them" mentality is ingrained in police from the academy on.

[staylo]

My God, man!
Paragraphs por favor?

Paragraphs, schmaragraphs! I’m on a rant!

[theduke]

Paragraphs, schmaragraphs! I’m on a rant!

Rant and Roll!

[staylo]

It doesn't help that the "us and them" mentality is ingrained in police from the academy on.

Which in turn fosters the same mentality among citizens.

Honest to God, I want to be on the side of the police in an unequivocal way. They perform a job that we not only need, but that greatly benefits society when it’s done properly and within the constitutional framework, and a job which could potentially cost them their life. I completely understand what that’s like, having served in the military. It just makes it really hard for me to back police unequivocally when there are some that aren’t respectable and they continue on for so long without being dealt with.

In my line of work(woodworking) I’ve always said there are two kinds of people that do the job: Craftsman, who do it because they love it; and stoners who screwed off during high school and took woodshop because it was ‘easy’, but then graduated and realized they needed a job to pay for their pot, and since they can’t do anything else they go work in a woodshop. Unfortunately, it seems with police departments, there are two kinds of people that do the job: civil servants who want to “serve and protect”; and bullies who maybe miss the good all days and view the job as the ultimate way to show people who’s boss. Many of the guys who show up on YouTube fall into the second category, and when the public doesn’t see them swiftly dealt with it breeds suspicion because we don’t know which kind of officer is walking up to our window during a traffic stop.

[The Lieutenant]

Staylo...

I get around.. and I work in an area where I get to see many departments and how they do things. I can only speak for how we do things at mine. After 20 some years of this, I'm proud of my guys and how they conduct themselves. I couldn't tell u the last time an open carrier was stopped or disarmed. Our guys don't disarm permit holders..they dont even ask them to step out of the car. It's just a nonissue anymore. Times have changed... education and experience.

As for what to say or what to do... I am giving worse case experiences. What the worse thing is that's going to happen if you lie or are evasive and you run into the wrong person. You might have luck with "I'm not going to answer that without my attorney" or "I dont have anything to say". I cant really give you a best case because I have never really seen this. We dont deal with it in this context. Either you did something that makes us legitimately think you are a bad guy who's armed or we could care less. But most of you are not going to run into my guys. If you were... you wouldn't be worried about it. I wish I could give you better advice.

As far as your woodworker thing goes... I'm sure you hate seeing hacks with a lathe call themselves professionals. That's how most of us look at it as well. We try to hire the best for our shop... people with skills.. tallent... ability. But there are lots of shops out there and you dont have control over the crap product that those other shops turn out. But yours does quality work.. people know it.. they seek you out. Every once and a while you might send out a piece with a nick or a run in the stain.. but when a complaint comes in you deal with it because your shops reputation is at stake and you dont want to loose the confidence your customers have in you. We all have a lot more in common than you might think.

[cdi]

Ahh.. but if he catches you in said lie, you're done. You've just handed him the lube, pulled down your pants, and given him every excuse to jam it home. Only difference is you will feel violated as all hell afterward and won't even have arrest papers to show for it.

If you lie about having a gun..and or somehow comes out that you do, you have satisfied both prongs of Terry that he needs to cuff and search you and your vehicle. You are 1) Armed and 2) you are now dangerous.

That's a bit of a different tune than your post a few pages ago (see above).

[The Lieutenant]

That's a bit of a different tune than your post a few pages ago (see above).

Ok, I see how it is... cant have any fun with you guys at all. One group can say whatever but the other has to be all serious all the time. Oh how the double standard is so alive and well at pooo-fa!

I stand by that statement (minus the humor since your all so sensitive) because that's the reality of the situation. If you get caught lying about possessing a firearm you are setting yourself up for a bad time with little if any recourse.