serial number check when pulled over

[KyJim]

Terry still requires a reasonable suspicion of a crime before the officer is allowed to conduct even a cursory search, and that search is ONLY for the limited purpose of determining if the subject is armed. The officer is then entitled to take temporary custody of a sidearm "for officer safety." We agree to that point.

Here, the traffic violation supplies the reason for the stop under Terry. There does not have to be reasonable suspicion of a separate crime to conduct a limited search for weapons during a traffic stop. There does have to be reasonable suspicion a person is armed and dangerous.

First, a serial number is not "in plain sight" -- you have to look for it.

Simply having to turn your eyes toward an object or shine a flashlight on it does mean the object is not in plain view. Plain view just means it is not hidden from view; i.e., not in a closed bag or glove box.

[T]here is nothing about a serial number by itself, absent other contributing factors (which, under the rules set by Terry, must be "clearly articulable), to generate a reasonable suspicion that the gun is stolen. Accordingly, calling in the serial number to check it is an unconstitutional search.

But once the officer has the serial number, due to consent and plain view, there is no further search done by running the serial number. There does not have to be any suspicion the gun is stolen.

It is analogous to a police officer who decides to run a license plate of a car for no particular reason other than he or she is bored. The number is in plain view and running the plate number is not a search. Maybe it violates department procedure, but it's not unconstitutional.

Do they need reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous? Or just that a crime, any crime, has been committed? As I understood it, the fact that a person was pulled over for a traffic infraction was reasonable suspicion enough that a crime was committed that anyone- driver, passenger etc- were fair game for a terry stop pat down and disarming?

Terry requires reasonable suspicion of both a crime (satisfied by a traffic violation) and reasonable suspicion a person is armed and dangerous. In the Johnson case, the court said: "To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous." Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327 (2009) (emphasis added). This is not a direct holding of the court but I think it is pretty authoritative.

However, I think in many cases that if there is reasonable suspicion one of the persons is armed and dangerous, his or her traveling companions may also be armed and dangerous. It is a highly fact intensive inquiry and judges may come to different conclusions.

[skizzums]

So what of its not in plain sight, but the simply ask? I guess there is no crime in asking, but what if I got caught lying about it? And what about taking all the bullets out of the magazine? He is not simply just able to see ny serial number, he is taking control of the weapon and taking it to his car.

Either way, I know justified or not, there's no recourse for a citizen to fight the police on technicalities, especially when no arrest or citation was given, I was really just curious if the police had an ulterior motive for asking for/running numbers on my firearms. I have littke trust in any authority these days

[scpapa]

Once he siezes the gun, to take to his car, can you require he give you a receipt?
What if he drops it on the concrete while fiddling to get the magazine out?

Rick

[2ndsojourn]

"... I was really just curious if the police had an ulterior motive for asking for/running numbers on my firearms."

skizzums, it's a different world than one a lot of us old timers grew up in. Right or wrong, it's my perception, as well as others, that the police nowadays have a problem with ordinary people having the right to "keep and bear arms". So yeah, the 'quasi-legal' searches with the serial number checking is all part of their anti-gun agenda. Towing the line of their politically appointed boss.

[kilimanjaro]

The ulterior motive is to check for stolen weapons and get them returned to the owners. There's a lot of them out there.

[2ndsojourn]

I would kiss the local polices' feet if I ever got back a gun stolen from me. Ain't gonna happen here.

[KyJim]

So what of its not in plain sight, but the simply ask?

That's exactly the scenario I (actually you) painted. The initial inquiry and then voluntarily turning over the pistol makes it a consensual seizure. I will note, however, there may a gray area sometimes as to whether a surrender of an item is consensual or done in response to an order. Again, these sorts of issues are very fact-oriented. I am confident that search and seizure issues are the focus of more litigation and court opinions than any other constitutional issue just for that reason.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Kilimanjaro

The ulterior motive is to check for stolen weapons and get them returned to the owners. There's a lot of them out there.

Maybe, but very few are being carried by a the licensed concealed carriers. BY the stats: very few (less than 1.5%) ever get in enough trouble to have their license revoked. and only a fraction of those have anything to do with weapons violations. Seems to me it's a vast waste of resources to be running a licensees firearm.

[eastbank]

here if there is a call by the police to your house you can bet your boots they know if you have a ccw. i had a revolver taken from my car when it was broken into,i reported it and the police filled their report and entered it on the federal nics. three years later i got a call from the state police asking me if i found the revolver, i laughed out loud and he said i guess you didn,t. eastbank.

[zxcvbob]

Seems to me it's a vast waste of resources to be running a licensees firearm.

It's not a waste or resources, it's harassment. That's always worth the cost when you're spending other people's money. (especially money taken from the person being harassed)

I really think the police want to be hated by the general population. It's a feedback loop that (in their minds) proves how righteous they are and what scoundrels we are.

There probably are good cops out there. There are probably good and decent piano players at whorehouses too, just trying to earn an honest wage. I don't know exactly when being a peace officer stopped being an honorable profession, but I miss it.

[Pahoo]

I guess I would ask; When it happens to you, will you be ready with the appropriate reply and what might that be? Again, the LEO will present it in the form of a "request". Keep in mind that you have the backing of the Constitution which is sovereign. ......

Any man who says, he has nothing to hide, is a liar !!! ....

Be Safe !!!

[Tom Servo]

I really think the police want to be hated by the general population. It's a feedback loop that (in their minds) proves how righteous they are and what scoundrels we are.

That's a very broad and unfair generalization, and we frown on that sort of thing without very strong evidence.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

No way I hand a cop a firearm at a traffic stop, if they want it they'll have to remove it themselves. For all I know some other cop is rolling up right when I'm removing it, misinterprets what is going on, and opens fire. No way am I even touching it!

[A400 Fan]

Seems all the more reason for states to handle CWPs like Florida does - it is NOT tied to your DL - it is handled by the Ag Commissioner - and you have no duty to inform.

NV was a different story when I lived there - you were allowed two guns on your CWP - you could have a dozen of each one, but no other model. If you had a 642 and G26 on the CWP, you better not be caught with a 36 or G19, and in NV it WAS tied to your DL. At one traffic stop, the LEO asked me if I had my weapon on me - it was in a bag on the passenger seat. He said just leave there, gave me a warning and I was on my way........

[gyvel]

That said, wow! I've never heard of officers taking a firearm back to their car to run serial numbers to look for stolen guns. Never, ever, ever, and I deal with a lot of police.

That was SOP when I lived in Florida. I left in 89, so maybe things have changed since then, but, back then, if you got pulled over or were even just out in the glades somewhere plinking, your gun(s) went back to the cruiser to get the serial number(s) checked.

[KyJim]

I just want to make clear that there is a way to "stand up for your constitutional rights" without being "jerkus erectus." If asked to surrender your weapon, you could respond, "I would prefer not to do so but I will comply if you order me to do so."

For me, a traffic stop involving firearms is not the time nor place where I want to push my rights.

[Pahoo]

If asked to surrender your weapon, you could respond, "I would prefer not to do so but I will comply if you order me to do so."

I can live with that and I thank you !!! .....

For me, a traffic stop involving firearms is not the time nor place where I want to push my rights.

Sooner or later, the time will come when we will all have to push-back. ...

Be Safe !!!

[Tom Servo]

The topic at hand is whether or not the actions in the OP's post were constitutional or permissible. Broad criticisms of law enforcement are off topic and will be treated as such.

[JimDandy]

For me, a traffic stop involving firearms is not the time nor place where I want to push my rights.

I've always felt it was much better to collect the judgement from the civil suit myself before my estate does.