Question regarding legality of traffic stop

[jlw]

Which SCOTUS case would that be?

In numerous cases going all the way back to Terry, SCOTUS draws a distinction between being armed from that of being armed and presently dangerous. SCOTUS has never adopted, and has in fact specifically rejected, a Fourth Amendment exception for firearms. Florida v. J.L., U.S. v. Ubilies, U.S. v. Black (circuit case), would all be good places to start reading. Follow the cite trail from there. The GA case I cited above would also be a good place to start as it cites SCOTUS rulings in other cases.

I presume that someone will bring up Pennsylvania v Mimms Pay very close attention to the language. The appellant didn't challenge the pat down. He challenged his being ordered out of the car. As a matter of law, the court addressed that and said from that point on Terry applied as the pat down was not brought before the court.

[RevolverRob]

JLW - I too would like to know the SCOTUS case if you happen to remember it. I'm always very interested in things like that.
__

Let me start by saying, I have nothing but the utmost respect for LEOs in all walks of life. Now the but part - But I never make it a point to carry on an extended conversation with a police officer, who is on duty. I think about interactions with people who have authority to remove your freedom as those times when you have a maximum number of words to use and that number is about 10-20 words. Not because I think that cops are jerks who will abuse their authority, but because...why run your mouth?

My point being? Just inform your officer and then keep your answers to, "Yes, No, I decline to answer that question, Please, Thank You."

-Rob

[jlw]

JLW - I too would like to know the SCOTUS case if you happen to remember it. I'm always very interested in things like that.
__


-Rob

There is a list in post #21 as a good place to start reading. Note the distinctions made between that of being armed and that of being armed and presently dangerous in each one. Also note the rejection of a firearms exception to the 4th Amendment. Follow the citation trail in the cases.

[RevolverRob]

Thank you sir! I hadn't seen your post before mine, I imagine it was posted while I was writing my earlier one!

-Rob

[John Hearne]

Statute? Court Case? Please provide a reference.

From Louisiana State Police Web Site: (http://www.lsp.org/handguns.html)

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:
Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;
Submit to a pat down;
Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

Texas as well: (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatut.../411/H/411.207)

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatut....h1fCggqc.dpuf

[jlw]

From Louisiana State Police Web Site: (http://www.lsp.org/handguns.html)

Duties of Permittees
The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who fails to do so shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. Additionally, when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall:
Notify the officer that he has a weapon on his person;
Submit to a pat down;
Allow the officer to temporarily disarm him.

Texas as well: (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatut.../411/H/411.207)

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatut....h1fCggqc.dpuf

Wow. I wonder if either of these have been challenged in court as they fly in the face of what the federal courts have ruled.

[PPGMD]

Texas as well: (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatut.../411/H/411.207)

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatut....h1fCggqc.dpuf

I don't see how it would be legal under Texas law. It specifically says for safety reasons. Once he said that he wanted to run it to see if it was stolen, I would think that having PC would be required since it is no longer about officer safety.

[jmcrawf1]

In numerous cases going all the way back to Terry, SCOTUS draws a distinction between being armed from that of being armed and presently dangerous. SCOTUS has never adopted, and has in fact specifically rejected, a Fourth Amendment exception for firearms. Florida v. J.L., U.S. v. Ubilies, U.S. v. Black (circuit case), would all be good places to start reading. Follow the cite trail from there. The GA case I cited above would also be a good place to start as it cites SCOTUS rulings in other cases.

I presume that someone will bring up Pennsylvania v Mimms Pay very close attention to the language. The appellant didn't challenge the pat down. He challenged his being ordered out of the car. As a matter of law, the court addressed that and said from that point on Terry applied as the pat down was not brought before the court.

Chief, When being legally detained is it not proper for an officer to disarm someone for officer safety? If the cause of the stop was for some other articulable, non-firearm related offense.

[jlw]

Chief, When being legally detained is it not proper for an officer to disarm someone for officer safety? If the cause of the stop was for some other articulable, non-firearm related offense.

No. The officer must articulate that the person is armed and presently dangerous not just merely armed.


Officer safety is a goal. It is not legal authority.

Should a deer hunter that has been stopped for running a red light be disarmed?

Should a legally armed citizen pulled over simply for speeding be disarmed?

What in either of the above scenarios indicates "and presently dangerous"?

[JAD]

I wonder if Riehl has cloning worked out yet.