Pulled over while CC,State PoliceX2

[jack76590]

I think this is a good example of why a person should not have any guns or gun related gear visible, including ear muff, targets, spotting scope etc. I include NRA bumper stickers and "cute" bumper sticker about cold dead hands, etc as things to avoid.

My approach is to have nothing that says gun visible and to not tell officer I am carrying a gun unless I am asked to step out of the car. If asked to step out of the car I am concerned this is more than a basic traffic stop and that I am being mistaken for someone else. In this instance I would tell them I have a permit and am wearing "it". Yes I would say "it" as gun can be a word that police react to by drawing their guns. I would say this with hands in full view and wait for instructions.

Otherwise don't tell and just pay the ticket.

[Flash]

I don't neccessarily want to get into a p***ing contest here, but I don't think it wise toresist the cops at every turn, or to encourage all others to follow suit. But each of us will do exactly what seems best in the situation we are in. What's best for me may not be best for mall-ninjas.

I think the OP was reasonable and prudent in his actions, and to criticize him for that reasonable and prudent behavior is simply over the top. To offer your opionion is quite acceptable, to quote line and verse of the law is within limits, and this forum has prided itself on civility, dignity, and courtesy. Why depart?


In my single experience of being stopped while carrying here in PA, I told the officer, as he came up to the window, that I was carrying lawfully and had the LCTF. He said. "I know..." Of course, he had it all from the Motorola before he even got within arm's length of the Ford. And of course, I thought that prudent of him too.

He couldn't help noticing the butt of the Star sticking up between the seats, but he asked where I was carrying, I told him, "On the belt, right side, as well as the one on the seat, which is unloaded". He simply said, "OK. Just leave them there". And went on about the traffic stop and ticket business.

Not all cops are created equal. This actually was a fun traffic stop.

Flash

[LittleRedToyota]

as far as i know, traffic stops don't satisfy Terry, and since being armed is legal behavior, simply having a gun doesn't provide RAS. if you're in a vehicle, and don't have a LTCF, then that might be RAS for a search. if i'm wrong, someone will be along to correct me, with proof.

the courts consider traffic stops to be a subset of a terry stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop (not the best source, i know, but quick...and, in this case at least, accurate)

further, the courts have ruled in numerous cases that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for the officer.

they can disarm you during a traffic stop if they want.

i did a bunch of research on this awhile back. i could not find a case where SCOTUS specifically says "the police can disarm you during traffic stops". however, i found many court cases where terry searches during traffic stops were upheld (usually with some language about officer safety and traffic stops being inherently dangerous). i don't feel like doing all the research again, but here are two quick references i found.

http://www.fdap.org/downloads/semina...ndsearches.pdf

1)The officer can order the driver and any passengers out of the car during a traffic stop. (Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 98 S.Ct. 330 [driver]; Maryland v. Wilson (1997) 117 S.Ct. 882 [passengers])

2)If the officer reasonably believes the driver is armed, he can conduct a pat-search. (<i>Terry v. Ohio </i>(1968) 88 S.Ct. 1868)

3)If the officer reasonably believes that there is a weapon in the car, he can search the passenger compartment. (Michigan v. Long (1983) 103 S.Ct. 3469)

also:

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/cr...ch-seizure.htm

Traffic Stop Searches of Drivers and Passengers

In order to search a vehicle following a traffic stop, officers must have probable cause to commence a search. Again, “probable cause” is a relative term determined by a litany of legal court rulings at the appellate level usually. Also, officers can perform at “stop and frisk”, which essentially allows them to pat down your person as a means of protecting the officer’s safety, according to Terry v. Ohio, 1968.

from what i can tell, it basically seems to come down to this:

1. there is RAS of a crime (the motor vehicle code infraction that got you pulled over in the first place.

2. the courts say there is RAS of danger because traffic stops are "inherently dangerous" for police

3. if you tell him you have a gun...or he sees it...he has RAS that you are armed.

in a nutshell, he can tell you to exit the vehicle. he can pat you down. he can seize your firearm for the duration of the stop.

[LittleRedToyota]

I don't neccessarily want to get into a p***ing contest here,

then you probably should not start off your argument by labeling those who disagree with you "mall ninjas".

[scotty2hotty89]

from what i can tell, it basically seems to come down to this:

1. there is RAS of a crime (the motor vehicle code infraction that got you pulled over in the first place.

2. the courts say there is RAS of danger because traffic stops are "inherently dangerous" for police

3. if you tell him you have a gun...or he sees it...he has RAS that you are armed.

in a nutshell, he can tell you to exit the vehicle. he can pat you down. he can seize your firearm for the duration of the stop.

Thanks LRT, this was the way I understood it, I just wasn't confident enough in my knowledge to be assertive. Rep sent for the research.

[unloved]

...he was staring at my holstered EMP.

If you were carrying concealed, as stated in the thread title, how did he know it was there?

[Flash]

then you probably should not start off your argument by labeling those who disagree with you "mall ninjas".

I'd like to rep ya for the catch. Gotta spread some around, first.

Seriously, you are right. Poor choice on my part. Apologies to real mall ninjas, everywhere. And to others who may be offended.

It just seemed to me that OP was within good reason.




Flash

[87th PVI]

snip

Third, $109.50 is the minimum amount of a moving violation to my knowledge. I'm not sure why, but I had a bunch in my younger days and none were ever less than $109.50. Even inspection tickets are that high.

You are still in your younger days When I was your age my traffic fines were $52.50



Enjoy those younger days... they are gone before you know it so don't rush em!

[fingers80002]

I don't neccessarily want to get into a p***ing contest here, but I don't think it wise toresist the cops at every turn, or to encourage all others to follow suit. But each of us will do exactly what seems best in the situation we are in. What's best for me may not be best for mall-ninjas.

I think the OP was reasonable and prudent in his actions, and to criticize him for that reasonable and prudent behavior is simply over the top. To offer your opionion is quite acceptable, to quote line and verse of the law is within limits, and this forum has prided itself on civility, dignity, and courtesy. Why depart?


In my single experience of being stopped while carrying here in PA, I told the officer, as he came up to the window, that I was carrying lawfully and had the LCTF. He said. "I know..." Of course, he had it all from the Motorola before he even got within arm's length of the Ford. And of course, I thought that prudent of him too.

He couldn't help noticing the butt of the Star sticking up between the seats, but he asked where I was carrying, I told him, "On the belt, right side, as well as the one on the seat, which is unloaded". He simply said, "OK. Just leave them there". And went on about the traffic stop and ticket business.

Not all cops are created equal. This actually was a fun traffic stop.

Flash

How did he know to make the seperate inquiry????

[wa3ra]

Inspection is a total of $100 for the violation, $10 to the fund, and $42.50 in costs: $152.50.