The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 8, 2014, 10:59 AM   #26
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,715
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
[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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

Last edited by KyJim; August 8, 2014 at 11:06 AM.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 11:41 AM   #27
skizzums
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 2,060
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
__________________
My head is bloody, but unbowed
skizzums is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 11:53 AM   #28
scpapa
Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 69
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
__________________
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor
NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor
NRA Benefactor Member
scpapa is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 01:02 PM   #29
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 716
"... 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.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 01:22 PM   #30
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,975
The ulterior motive is to check for stolen weapons and get them returned to the owners. There's a lot of them out there.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 01:28 PM   #31
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 716
I would kiss the local polices' feet if I ever got back a gun stolen from me. Ain't gonna happen here.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 02:37 PM   #32
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,715
Quote:
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 02:48 PM   #33
ChuckS
Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Albion, PA
Posts: 83
Quote:
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.
ChuckS is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 05:38 PM   #34
eastbank
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2008
Location: pa.
Posts: 1,119
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.
eastbank is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 07:33 PM   #35
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,211
Quote:
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.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 08:04 PM   #36
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,670
Will you be ready ???

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 !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is online now  
Old August 8, 2014, 08:27 PM   #37
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,510
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 08:47 PM   #38
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 306
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!
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 09:14 PM   #39
A400 Fan
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2014
Posts: 242
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........
A400 Fan is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:46 PM   #40
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
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.
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE
gyvel is offline  
Old August 9, 2014, 12:03 AM   #41
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,715
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 9, 2014, 10:38 AM   #42
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,670
It's a matter fo time and timing !!!

Quote:
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 !!! .....
Quote:
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 !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is online now  
Old August 9, 2014, 10:44 AM   #43
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,510
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 9, 2014, 12:17 PM   #44
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
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.
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11627 seconds with 7 queries