Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:38:03 PM EDT
June 29, 2009


According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops "have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have":   His cops can take away your rights.


And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?


Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck –– and had his gun confiscated.


While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns:   Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA.  No requests for a driver's licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration –– and no discussion of a turn signal.


Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.


However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!


What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling –– going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on "Americans of a rightwing persuasion" as a how-to guidebook, no less?


Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.


In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.


Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this "suspension of rights" only to find that his city's morbidly obese "commander in chief" was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got "served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten."


Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call.  You can watch a video with the transcriptions here.  I've reproduced a chunk of the call below:


Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.


Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer –– it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.


[. . .]


Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon...then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.


Baillio: So what you're saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I'm stopped by the police: Is that correct?


Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. –– DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.




Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:


According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian's duty is to surrender his gun –– willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.


From Glover's perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.


NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he's in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.


So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.


"I felt sick," Baillio told NAGR. "My uncles didn't die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation –– including dying –– and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop."


What to do?


Read Luke's commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
Call Mayor Glover's office to complain: (318) 673-5050.


I'll leave you with one last consideration.  As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I'm often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.


While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic "No": Colorado law doesn't require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.

In liberty,


Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights



Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:42:21 PM EDT
[#1]
This story sounds familiar....


ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=887898
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:47:38 PM EDT
[#2]
That's pretty vague.

LEO's usually have the right to temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop, for their own safety.  That's not confiscation, because the weapon(s) get(s) returned at the end of the stop, barring an arrest or something.

The mayor may be trying to point that out, and simply using inaccurate terminology.

Given that the article offers no timeline of the events that actually transpired, nor their conclusion, my inclination is to place the "Nattional Association for Gun Rights" on the kook list.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:48:22 PM EDT
[#3]
That cop would have been served with a civil rights violation lawsuit if it were me in that position.  I'd own that arrogant bastard for that civil rights breach.  Then I'd go after that pig mayor in the next suit.

Mike
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:48:29 PM EDT
[#4]



Quoted:


This story sounds familiar....



Hmmm....



 
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:51:10 PM EDT
[#5]
There has GOT to be more to the story other than, "Got stopped, they took my gun".

If not, this is an incredible violation of his rights.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:51:27 PM EDT
[#6]
Did they give back his gun after the stop was over or keep it?
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:56:27 PM EDT
[#7]
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:57:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 2:58:54 PM EDT
[#9]

One of the reasons I won't put any stickers on my car. If when things get really bad I want to put on my "poor old person" costume and fly under the radar as best I can.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:00:51 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.


How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:08:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Since this is a dupe, How the hell did this end out
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:11:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.

How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:20:00 PM EDT
[#13]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:20:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.

How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.


Just because they want to, without anything at all being done by the person being stopped?  I can understand that, even though it seems a bit screwy, but the weapon wasn't returned to him either, was it?  Now, another question....what would have happened if the weapon was confiscated, like in this situation, the person who had the gun taken wasn't given any type of receipt or anything to "prove" the officer took the gun, and that same gun was used later on in a crime?

Seems like a lot of people on here say, "Tell the cops no!" but in reality, you do that, and you're fucked.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:29:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
That cop would have been served with a civil rights violation lawsuit if it were me in that position.  I'd own that arrogant bastard for that civil rights breach.  Then I'd go after that pig mayor in the next suit.

Mike


Just curious, what civil rights violation would you pursue?  Is there a precedent for this law suit you want to bring or is this the first time something like this has ever happened?
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:29:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
but the weapon wasn't returned to him either, was it?

Excellent question.  I believe it was, although I'm not certain.  I find it suspicious that the letter in the original post leaves out that little tidbit.

This isn't to say that the police should be stopping people based on bumper stickers, of course.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:30:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:32:22 PM EDT
[#18]
The balloon went up and he meekly turned over his weapon.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:37:15 PM EDT
[#19]
it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.




What happened was absolutely wrong (pretext stop, etc.) and a heavy dose of comeuppance should be metered out but it does no good adding shit like this (even in a blog)and bunching all LEO's into this pigeon hole.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:40:35 PM EDT
[#20]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:50:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.

How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.


You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:53:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
That cop would have been served with a civil rights violation lawsuit if it were me in that position.  I'd own that arrogant bastard for that civil rights breach.  Then I'd go after that pig mayor in the next suit.

Mike


Nothing is stopping you there sparky..go ahead and do it.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:56:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state's uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.




What happened was absolutely wrong (pretext stop, etc.) and a heavy dose of comeuppance should be metered out but it does no good adding shit like this (even in a blog)and bunching all LEO's into this pigeon hole.


This is GD  that happens here EVERY day and Five times as much on Fridays.  According to the Douche-nozzles around here EVERY cop is just itching for the confiscation order..Oh and we all drive drunk, smoke pot and beat our wives too.  Obviously i've been doing it wrong for the past 22 years, so i'll have to adjust my way of working now to meet the requirements of GD.  
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:56:51 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.

You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.

When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true.

In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2)

(2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:58:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:58:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
There has GOT to be more to the story other than, "Got stopped, they took my gun".

If not, this is an incredible violation of his rights.


You need to go back to the slightly more coherent discussion when it was first posted.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 3:59:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.

How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.


You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.


Cops are not afraid of the public having guns, just the criminals.  Until they contact you, they don't know who you are.  Caution is a good thing.  Imagine contacting a lot of people everyday, under circumstances where they are not happy to see you.  Criminals think the cops know they just committed that bank robbery when, in fact, they were just pulling them over for a broken tail light.  Regardless of what the GD thinks, cops are cautious for a reason.  Now, I'llbe right back with that Court decision, if I can find it...
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:03:10 PM EDT
[#28]
JBlitzen

That doesn't seem to apply from the details given in the report.  He had the gun concealed in the vehicle, not on his person, and he wasn't drinking.

Got anything that does give the officer a legal right to go fishing?
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:08:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
JBlitzen

That doesn't seem to apply from the details given in the report.  He had the gun concealed in the vehicle, not on his person, and he wasn't drinking.

Got anything that does give the officer a legal right to go fishing?

Wow.

Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:18:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.

You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.

When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true.

In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2)

(2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf


The only covers if they believe someone is drunk or under the influence, right?  In this case, not using a blinker hardly seems to indicate someone under the influence, nor "criminally negligent behavior".  :

I'm not against an officer taking someone's weapon if they honestly believe the person could be a threat, but it almost seems to be a carte blanche for them.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:20:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.

How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.


You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.


Cops are not afraid of the public having guns, just the criminals.  Until they contact you, they don't know who you are.  Caution is a good thing.  Imagine contacting a lot of people everyday, under circumstances where they are not happy to see you.  Criminals think the cops know they just committed that bank robbery when, in fact, they were just pulling them over for a broken tail light.  Regardless of what the GD thinks, cops are cautious for a reason.  Now, I'llbe right back with that Court decision, if I can find it...


The argument could be made that if someone has a weapon and is considering using it on the officer, it's very unlikely they'll either affirm they have a weapon, or peaceably hand it over if asked to.  Sorta like the "making guns illegal means criminals won't have them" debate.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:21:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:26:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.

You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.

When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true.

In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2)

(2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf


The only covers if they believe someone is drunk or under the influence, right?  In this case, not using a blinker hardly seems to indicate someone under the influence, nor "criminally negligent behavior".  :

I'm not against an officer taking someone's weapon if they honestly believe the person could be a threat, but it almost seems to be a carte blanche for them.


Reread it. The officer can take any ccw weapon. This also follows SCOTUS decisions.


I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon.  If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons?  Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:29:09 PM EDT
[#34]
I agree with DemonicLemming that some LEO's express that it is only for their safety they "Secure" a legal weapon.

The problem seems that they never seem to be able to articulate why they do not feel safe.  In most cases there does not seem to be a law or legal precedent to support this temporary confiscation.


Edited to add:

The law quoted is very specific in stating a weapon "On His Person".  That is not the same as in a vehicle, now is it?

Please post the SCOTUS decisiion that you think covers this issue.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:31:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:34:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:36:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.

How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.


You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.


Cops are not afraid of the public having guns, just the criminals.  Until they contact you, they don't know who you are.  Caution is a good thing.  Imagine contacting a lot of people everyday, under circumstances where they are not happy to see you.  Criminals think the cops know they just committed that bank robbery when, in fact, they were just pulling them over for a broken tail light.  Regardless of what the GD thinks, cops are cautious for a reason.  Now, I'llbe right back with that Court decision, if I can find it...


The argument could be made that if someone has a weapon and is considering using it on the officer, it's very unlikely they'll either affirm they have a weapon, or peaceably hand it over if asked to.  Sorta like the "making guns illegal means criminals won't have them" debate.


I'm not saying they will hand it over, I'm saying that cops are cautious for a reason.  I have found numerous parolees, probationers, and other criminals in possession of handguns they forgot they had or weren't inclined to use at the moment.  Again, until the officer contacts you he has no idea of who you are.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:37:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:

I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon.  If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons?  Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is.


No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk.


Gotcha.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:39:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:39:18 PM EDT
[#40]
So Bama, where in this situation did the officer articulate his reason to fear for his safety?  I must have missed that part.

Also, since you seem well versed on SCOTUS decisions regarding CCW vs LEO, please feel free to quote the most appropriate case that backs you claims.  I thought I'd read most of them, but I may have missed a few.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:41:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:47:16 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.

You keep saying that, but what is that based on?  Please don't cop out and say there are numerous court cases, give us one.  Also, in light of using the term "Officer Safety" doesn't there have to be some demonstrable safety issue for that to be a valid reason?  Like in Terry v. Ohio?  

I'm all for Officer Safety, but cringe when I hear some cowboy imply "We don't need no Stinkin' Probable Cause".

If all these cops are afraid of the public having guns, maybe they should see if the Fire Dept. is hiring.

When I keep saying things, it's usually because they're true.

In the case of Louisiana, the relevant statute is LRS 40:1379.3:I (2)

(2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun as provided for in R.S. 40:1382, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or arrested under the provisions of R.S. 40:1382. Failure by the permittee to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chRuleBook08.pdf


The only covers if they believe someone is drunk or under the influence, right?  In this case, not using a blinker hardly seems to indicate someone under the influence, nor "criminally negligent behavior".  :

I'm not against an officer taking someone's weapon if they honestly believe the person could be a threat, but it almost seems to be a carte blanche for them.


Here is the proper section:

LOUISIANA
CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT
LAWS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES


§1313. Code of Conduct of Permittees

A. General Provisions
1. All permittees shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations.
2. Any violation of R.S. 40:1379.3, 40:1381, or 40:1382 shall also constitute a violation of these rules.
3. Each permittee shall meet and maintain all qualifications necessary to possess a concealed handgun permit.
B. Duties and Responsibilities of the Permittee
1. A permittee shall retain and carry on his person his concealed handgun permit at all times he is actually carrying and concealing any handgun authorized by the permit and shall immediately produce his permit upon the request of any law enforcement officer. Anyone who violates this provision shall be fined not more than $100.
2. A permittee armed with a handgun shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a handgun on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Failure to comply with this provision shall result in a six-month automatic suspension of the permit.
3. A permittee is prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun on his person while
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:55:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:

I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon.  If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons?  Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is.


No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk.


Funny how differently LEOs interpret the law as opposed to civilians. We read laws in a way that safeguards our rights, while LEOs read it in way to take away our rights.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 4:57:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Bama, you seem to have some knowledge of LA law, what is the legality of carrying a firearm concealed in a vehicle NOT on your person as in the subject of this thread?  Did the driver even need to have a CCW permit, or is it not against the law with all the usual, intoxicated, ex felon, restraining order, etc. provisions?

Since it was not "On His Person" as required by the much quoted law, is there a legal requirement to disclose, or is my favorite, "There is nothing illegal in my car, I do not consent to a search" statement applicable and legal in LA under these circumstances?
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 5:28:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Here are some basics that are already established.  Take them to you lawyer if you want to verify them.

What the Police Can Do During a Stop

Once police officers have lawfully stopped a vehicle, either because of probable cause for a traffic infraction or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, they can:

1.  Order the occupants out of the vehicle
2.  Ask to see the driver's license, registration, and other relevant information, such as an insurance card ("proof of insurance")
3.  Conduct a limited search to gain access to the vehicle identification number (''VIN'')
4.  Conduct a dog sniff (''canine sniff''), so long as the sniff does not extend the length of the stop
5.  Take actions reasonably related to the original reason for stopping the vehicle or related to suspicions that develop during the stop
6.  Frisk for weapons if they have or develop a reasonable suspicion that the occupants may be armed or dangerous, and
7.  Search the vehicle if the stop provides probable cause for the officers to believe it contains illegal or stolen goods or evidence of a crime

Here is Knowles -vs- Iowa (SCOTUS) in a nutshell:

Car search based on traffic ticket
A police officer cannot search a driver or his car without consent based solely on a routine traffic infraction where the officer has no reason to believe his safety is in jeopardy, the U.S. Supreme Court said.
The court in 1973 said police can search motorists after arresting them in order to disarm suspects and preserve evidence, but the justices refused to extend that authority to include stops for speeding and other routine violations. The court ruled in favor of an Iowa man who was pulled over for speeding, but then sentenced to jail after a search of his vehicle found marijuana under the driver's seat. The State of Iowa was supported by a national police organization in defending the search.
Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice Rehnquist rejected prosecutors' arguments in favor of the search, saying, "Once (the driver) was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all the evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained. No further evidence of excessive speed was going to be found either on the person of the offender or in the passenger compartment of the car."
The court acknowledged the bright-line rule it established in 1973 for searches after an arrest, but said, "Here we are asked to extend that 'bright line rule' to a situation where the concern for officer safety is not present to the same extent and the concern for destruction or loss of property is not present at all. We decline to do so."

Arizona -vs- Gant (SCOTUS):

After Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car, police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat. Because Gant could not have accessed his car to retrieve weapons or evidence at the time of the search, the Arizona Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment ’s warrant requirement, as defined in Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 (1969) , and applied to vehicle searches in New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981) , did not justify the search in this case.

  Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.



OHIO v. ROBINETTE
certiorari to the supreme court of ohio

No. 95-891. Argued October 8, 1996 –– Decided November 18, 1996

After an Ohio deputy sheriff stopped respondent Robinette for speeding, gave him a verbal warning, and returned his driver's license, the deputy asked whether he was carrying illegal contraband, weapons, or drugs in his car. Robinette answered "no" and consented to a search of the car, which revealed a small amount of marijuana and a pill. He was arrested and later charged with knowing possession of a controlled substance when the pill turned out to be methylenedioxy methamphetamine. Following denial of his pretrial suppression motion, he was found guilty, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the search resulted from an unlawful detention. The State Supreme Court affirmed, establishing as a bright line prerequisite for consensual interrogation under these circumstances the requirement that an officer clearly state when a citizen validly detained for a traffic offense is "legally free to go."

REVERSED BY SCOTUS:


The Fourth Amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant be advised that he is "free to go" before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary. The Amendment's touchstone is reasonableness, which is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. In applying this test, the Court has consistently eschewed bright line rules, instead emphasizing the fact specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry. Indeed, in rejecting a per se rule very similar to one adopted below, this Court has held that the voluntariness of a consent to search is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances. Schneckloth  v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-249. The Ohio Supreme Court erred in holding otherwise. It would be unrealistic to require the police to always inform detainees that they are free to go before a consent to search may be deemed voluntary. Cf. id., at 231. Pp. 5-6.

73 Ohio St. 3d 65, 653 N.E. 2d 695, reversed.
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 5:30:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 5:35:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 5:40:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:

The argument could be made that if someone has a weapon and is considering using it on the officer, it's very unlikely they'll either affirm they have a weapon, or peaceably hand it over if asked to.  Sorta like the "making guns illegal means criminals won't have them" debate.


You would lose that argument the same as those who say a person would not charge a person openly displaying a weapon.


So a criminal with a gun and the intent to shoot an officer won't shoot said officer if he's asked to hand the gun over?
Link Posted: 7/1/2009 5:45:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I did, and the bolded part seems to be the overall heading, with the following text outlining when an officer can take a pistol, where it only states that can be done during suspicion of being under the influence, engaging in criminally negligent behavior, or illegally carrying a concealed weapon.  If an officer can take a concealed weapon for whatever reason whatsoever during a stop, why outline the under the influence and other reasons?  Like I said, not against it, just curious as to how overarching it is.


No. One deals straight up with a stop. The other deals a stop and being under the influence. Ie. being on foot while armed and drunk.


Funny how differently LEOs interpret the law as opposed to civilians. We read laws in a way that safeguards our rights, while LEOs read it in way to take away our rights.


I read it as the law of that particular state.

Personally I think CCW permits are against the 2nd Amendment are therefore unconstitutional.

YMMV


So what your saying is that you uphold a law that you believe to be in direct violation of our rights. This is why I'll never understand LEOs. You enforce something you feel is wrong, just seems a little weird to me is all. The run-ins I've had with being pulled over at telling the officer that I have a CW have been 50% good. Half of the time they believe me having a weapon on my person gives them PC to search my vehicle. I even ask them when they are doing the search if they have PC and they say yes...and I know they are lying. Unless having a weapon within my rights is some sort of violation and that's their PC.

Link Posted: 7/1/2009 5:46:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I'm a legal noob, what would have happened if the guy had refused to give the officer his weapon, since it doesn't really seem like the officer had any right whatsoever to demand nor confiscate it?  Taser + jailtime for resisting arrest and other assorted charges?

Probably failure to obey a lawful (yes, lawful) order.

How would it have been lawful without any actual reason behind it, though?  Doesn't that essentially mean a cop can tell you to do whatever he wants, and if you refuse, he'll bust you for that failure to obey?  Is there any legal reason a cop could demand and confiscate a weapon from a person under the circumstances presented in the original post?  I'm honestly curious.

This has already been answered in this thread.

Yes, LEO's can temporarily disarm someone during a traffic stop.


And why is it that the civilian being stopped can't disarm the cop in order to ensure his own safety?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top