I think we all know how that's going to work out lol! Really though the most important thing, in my opinion, during a police encounter is to be couterious and calm. It's not the time for a argument. The vast majority of the time there shouldn't be any problem.
Wow. I guess CLEET and my DA's office is completely clueless. You should tell them.
Last edited:
CLEET and your DA told you that officers aren't allowed to temporarily disarm citizens, for officer safety, during a temporary detention?
I'm not a cop...but I highly doubt the veracity of that claim. Can you elaborate more about that?
What specifically is CLEET teaching, and your DA saying, that contradicts Terry, Mimms etc...?
The Supreme Court has ruled and/or validated in more than one case that a traffic stop qualifies as a temporary detention to investigate a crime/infraction (which is the case in the OP)....and beyond that the court has additionally ruled that limited searches and temporary disarming of individuals is allowable during detention.
I'm curious about the statement that CLEET and a DA say otherwise.
Whut? Are you saying speeding isn't a crime in Enid? Please explain. The Isle Of Man TT is on my bucket list and I need a place to practice. I'd like to get started before the weather turns crappy.
Edit: In case you don't know what Isle of Man TT is, I submit this for your perusal. Click it, it's pretty badass.
I've been trained as a LEO by CLEET on how to deal with SDA's...twice. Once was sixteen years ago when we were all trying to figure out what we were supposed to be doing with this relatively new law. The other time was later in my career because I needed the training hours. The DA's office just ran a refresher course on the topic to include open carry. All of this is to make sure that we jack boots don't overstep our bounds when dealing with the lawfully armed public.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed. That's important. This is black letter law. It trumps case law when it specifically restricts LE actions against citizens. Forget about case law for a second. What do you think that means? NO, speeding is NOT a crime. Speeding goes on your traffic infraction record held by Dept. of Public Safety. Crimes goes on your criminal history held by OSBI. An officer can make a physical arrest for a crime committed in his presence. He must offer signed Personal Recognizance for routine traffic infractions like speeding.
Speeding is justification for a traffic stop and detention of the driver. It's not a free-for-all to search the persons in the vehicle who you know to be legally carrying a firearm. Of course, during a normal detention when an officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, he may stop and frisk. In this case, that does not exist. Once the SDA makes proper notification, the scope shrinks back to only the traffic stop. If speeding was enough cause to stop and frisk an individual with an SDA, it would be enough to stop and frisk an individual- period. Our officers handle this by keeping people in the vehicle just like we always would and asking where the firearm is. OHP has been handling it by asking the person to leave the gun in the violator vehicle and come back to the trooper's car. NOBODY I know of is pulling everybody from their vehicle and disarming and frisking them solely based on their traffic infraction.
Now, I keep hearing Terry. That case was later applied to motor vehicle stops by other cases but does not exactly apply here. The vehicle in this case was stopped for a traffic infraction, not suspicion of criminal activity afoot. Again, it comes down to scope. If you don't know what the legal term "scope" means, you should research it. It's imperative in understanding traffic stops and how they relate to search and seizure.
It's also important to know that detaining a person is a seizure under the 4th amendment. Detaining someone outside the scope of your PC/RS is a violation of the 4th amendment. Next time, you take a legal update class from CLEET, ask the instructor about the "Officer Safety" exemption to the fourth amendment.
So, guys. That's not just my opinion. That's the way I've been trained repeatedly in over 16 years of law enforcement by the agency responsible for doing so. Not that it was necessary since the statute makes it abundantly clear.
I won't participate in any more disagreements on this topic.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without probable cause that a crime has been committed. That's important. This is black letter law. It trumps case law when it specifically restricts LE actions against citizens. Forget about case law for a second. What do you think that means? NO, speeding is NOT a crime. Speeding goes on your traffic infraction record held by Dept. of Public Safety. Crimes goes on your criminal history held by OSBI. An officer can make a physical arrest for a crime committed in his presence. He must offer signed Personal Recognizance for routine traffic infractions like speeding.
Speeding is justification for a traffic stop and detention of the driver. It's not a free-for-all to search the persons in the vehicle who you know to be legally carrying a firearm. Of course, during a normal detention when an officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, he may stop and frisk. In this case, that does not exist. Once the SDA makes proper notification, the scope shrinks back to only the traffic stop. If speeding was enough cause to stop and frisk an individual with an SDA, it would be enough to stop and frisk an individual- period. Our officers handle this by keeping people in the vehicle just like we always would and asking where the firearm is. OHP has been handling it by asking the person to leave the gun in the violator vehicle and come back to the trooper's car. NOBODY I know of is pulling everybody from their vehicle and disarming and frisking them solely based on their traffic infraction.
Now, I keep hearing Terry. That case was later applied to motor vehicle stops by other cases but does not exactly apply here. The vehicle in this case was stopped for a traffic infraction, not suspicion of criminal activity afoot. Again, it comes down to scope. If you don't know what the legal term "scope" means, you should research it. It's imperative in understanding traffic stops and how they relate to search and seizure.
It's also important to know that detaining a person is a seizure under the 4th amendment. Detaining someone outside the scope of your PC/RS is a violation of the 4th amendment. Next time, you take a legal update class from CLEET, ask the instructor about the "Officer Safety" exemption to the fourth amendment.
So, guys. That's not just my opinion. That's the way I've been trained repeatedly in over 16 years of law enforcement by the agency responsible for doing so. Not that it was necessary since the statute makes it abundantly clear.
I won't participate in any more disagreements on this topic.
I kinda figured. The one especially. Thanks for the heads up.
This is the crux of the argument. Nobody is talking about all cops pulling everyone with a permit out of their vehicles. We are discussing a single case, in the original post, wherein an officer temporarily disarmed an individual during a traffic stop.
What were the rest of the factors during the stop? Driving erratically, reckless speeding? Were the officers "spidey senses" kicking in? Did he observe things that created reasonable suspicion (or gave him the excuse to claim RS)? Nothing is mentioned about that. The simple fact is, by your own admission that if an officer has reasonable suspicion, the law allows for a temporary removal of the weapon, SDA permit or not.
You are correct it is black letter law, but since the officer is not removing the weapon in order to conduct an inspection of the weapon, that paragraph is not operable. I'm am not alone in this opinion, but it's only worth a cup of coffee or a beer if we ever should meet.
(I appreciated your thoughtful response....arguing isn't a bad thing, as long as we are keeping it civil. Some folks are too thin skinned.)
Similar threads
