Checked to see if my guns were stolen...?

[4t5]

...I will do whatever the officer asks of me w/out question because I don't like jail and I don't like getting shot at.

Apparently you think those are your only choices; do whatever he asks or get shot/go to jail. In fact, you have other options which were granted to you by God, are enumerated in the Constitution, and have been defended to the death by hundreds of thousands of Americans.

[rp_photo]

Why do you need two revolvers?

Any officer should understand the value of a BUG, and I'm sure most of them have them.

[speedsix]

...seems to me that our having a CHL makes us more liable to have to endure this kind of nonsense...under the MPA, one doesn't have to announce that he has a weapon, and, even if he does, the officer needs to have the right to search the vehicle qualified before he takes control of the weapon so that he could run the serial numbers...I don't know of a law authorizing an LEO to remove guns from the car for his or my or others' safety while he interviews me...unless he could legally search...never thought of that before...same would go for long guns in my car, since the law giving the authority to disarm covers handguns only...

[Beiruty]

...seems to me that our having a CHL makes us more liable to have to endure this kind of nonsense...under the MPA, one doesn't have to announce that he has a weapon, and, even if he does, the officer needs to have the right to search the vehicle qualified before he takes control of the weapon so that he could run the serial numbers...I don't know of a law authorizing an LEO to remove guns from the car for his or my or others' safety while he interviews me...unless he could legally search...never thought of that before...same would go for long guns in my car, since the law giving the authority to disarm covers handguns only...

Most likely LEO can disarm armed drivers, whether carrying under MPA, or have couple AK in the trunk or even an AK lying in the foot well
Mostly likely, the firearms would returned when the traffic stop is completed.

[speedsix]

...nope...the officer can't see a properly concealed weapon (let's say handgun, since long guns aren't required to be concealed within a vehicle)...so I believe he'd have to be legally able to search before he could demand to take possession of the handgun during the interview...betcha Gigag04 has some updated training on this...maybe he'll respond for us...

[Bob in Big D]

If the driver is personally carrying I can see where the officer can disarm them for everyone's saftey. Even though I think it is hogwash! If the gun is in the console or otherwise out of sight then I would think you have every right to ask the officer why he wants your gun. If he tells you to check the numbers for which I would think this amounts to illegal search & sizeure, then you can refuse or take it up later with his chief....your choice. I do not think telling the LEO that you do not have gun even though you do is a good idea.

[OldCurlyWolf]

(SNIP) Then he came back and told me he wanted to check my weapons to see if they were stolen. So he had me get out and I cooperated in helping him locate and draw both my revolvers, which he carried off to his car, while I got back in. Well, this seemed different from any LEO encounter that I had read about (I confess to not having read about many). After a while, he came back, opened the rear door and told me he was laying both revolvers on the rear car seat, and that I could get them after he left. He had unloaded them. He then told me he was giving me a warning about the stop sign. He thanked me for being cooperative. And that was it. Big relief about the warning. The rest of it was kind of curious.

Since I normally do not carry on my immediate person while driving, the moment I step outside my vehicle, if asked/ordered to by a LEO, my firearm(s) and everything else in the interior of my vehicle is off limits to everyone who does not have a warrant. I don't step out without locking my vehicle.


OP wasn't in that position. Shame.

[E.Marquez]

As I recall, the stop was initiated because of an alleged traffic offense. The car is not the perpetrator of the offense, but among the first things the officer will do is run a check on the license plate to see if the car is stolen or the owner wanted for any offense. How is one okay but not the other?

In my mind, a person was pulled over in his car for a traffic offense. Car and reason for stop are related,, I understand the running the plate.

But the OP or who ever, the gun is not the reason for the stop, it has nothing to do with PC, or RS, and by your training or logic, the LEO would then be able to search, confiscate, and detain you while he has any other item in your possession at the time against crimes on the books.. You paper money against know robberies? Your DNA, it's in plain sight after all... your watch description, anything,, I’m betting these last few items will not be agreed as acceptable, well if not them, then why a gun that had nothing to do with why the personal is being contacted and detained for in the first place.

If pulled over for a traffic violation, possessions other then obviously illegal items in plain view are of no concern to the officer. My watch, cell phone, GUN, money, CC, DVD player on the back seat, none of those items are related to why the contact was being initiated, nor PRIMA FACIE evidence to a crime, and NOT the reason for the traffic stop.
They law specifically states he can disarm me for his safety, it does not say he can affect a search of that same piece of property without cause... And cause in my opinion is not just because I have a gun.
To me, this one is not worthy of discussion on the side of the road,, but you can bet I will pursue action against the department, state, and if possible the LEO himself.

[VMI77]

I understand SCOTUS' logic and the prior cases that lead to this, but I still have major problems with the decision and its ramifications. In the case of a search, there might be an argument that the consent was invalid since it was obtained under duress (no request, but an order from an officer to produce in a situation where the OP was clearly not free to leave). The OP could have clearly stated that he did not consent to any searches and not handed the weapons over to the officer. I do not recommend this for a similar situation since I am sure the officer would have reacted badly, possibly by drawing his own weapon and arresting the OP (not a legal arrest, but that is for a different debate). At the very least, a lack of cooperation would almost have guaranteed a ticket for the original stop sign violation.

And finally, the best way to avoid problems like this for the future is to write a letter of complaint to the Chief of Police. If it comes from an attorney and mentions the illegal search and 42 USC 1983 (civil rights violations under the color of law for the non-lawyers and non-cops amongst us), it will have even more effect. The officer will be reprimanded and given further training and the Chief will probably write a letter of apology. But the end result might also be that the next time the officer stops a CHL, there is no longer a presumption that it is a good guy. The officer will know to say he wants the weapons for safety (making the disarming legal) and probably write the CHL a ticket instead of giving him a warning. Some cops, being human, tend to generalize behaviors among groups. If it is a racial group, they get in trouble for profiling but it is not illegal to profile CHLs.

This incident highlights a couple problems with the decision --it requires the general population to be as knowledgeable about the law as the people enforcing it (an unreasonable expectation) and it risks elevating an encounter to a confrontation when the citizen asserts a right that by default an officer may now consider a challenge to his authority. Board members here have an understanding of the law above that of the general public yet how many of us would known when the disarming process became a search and that we had to verbally decline consent? And your final paragraph gives a number of good reasons why declining consent and filing a complaint may not be a good idea. By placing the default for consent in favor of the authorities the court assured the denial of Constitutional rights to a large part of the public.

I agree with your assessment about the possible consequences of declining the search in a case like this and even if I'd known the onus was on me to decline the weapons check I don't think I would have --not wanting to elevate the encounter into a confrontation and fearing exactly those consequences.