I got pulled over today... your gonna want to read this.
- Thread starter ACBMWM3
- Start date
- Status
indoorsoccerfrea
Member
yes, the LEO may have overreacted...at least from our standpoint knowing that the OP had a permit. consider it from the LEO's standpoint. he is pulling someone over for not having a front plate. as he approaches the window he sees the OP reaching for his wallet which is next to a... you guessed it. a gun. yes, he legally had it. but the cop perceived it as him reaching for the weapon. keep your hands on the wheel while the cop is approaching!
jhco
Member
Let me simplify this to make sure I understand the situation.
You broke the law and get pulled over for it. The officer then saw you had a gun had you get out of the vehicle and searched your wallet. When he found that you had a valid DL and CWP he let you go with no ticket and you are complaining because you are embarrassed that you had to be handcuffed. Is that everything or did I miss something? Maybe next time you should FOLLOW THE LAW.
You broke the law and get pulled over for it. The officer then saw you had a gun had you get out of the vehicle and searched your wallet. When he found that you had a valid DL and CWP he let you go with no ticket and you are complaining because you are embarrassed that you had to be handcuffed. Is that everything or did I miss something? Maybe next time you should FOLLOW THE LAW.
DHJenkins
Member
What right did he have violated? He was wearing a handgun in the open. Any police officer anywhere would have cuffed him at the very least and removed the weapon. His identity must then be confirmed with HQ, to make sure there are no wants and warrants and that his CPL is valid.
He had to sit in the back of a car for 15 minutes with his hands cuffed, and he's comparing it to being raped. Give me a break.
He had to sit in the back of a car for 15 minutes with his hands cuffed, and he's comparing it to being raped. Give me a break.
jbauch357
Member
The cop seemed to go a bit overboard, not suprising - it should be the expectation for any time you deal with them.
Keeping this in mind, when I get pulled over and I'm carrying I tell them I am carrying and have to reach past the weapon do get my identification out. While not legally required to do this, it will let the officer know you have no ill intentions. They'll probably still take the weapon during the stop, but won't likely put you in the squad car and try to perform an unwarranted search.
I run a front plate even though I hate it - purely to lessen the chance of an encounter like this happening.
Oh, and standard operating procedure for getting pulled over is as follows. Most of the time you'll have a non-eventful stop - but even doing as follows I've been harassed:
- see blueberries and cherries behind you
- turn on signal and pull over where it's safe to do so
- roll down drivers window
- turn car off and place keys on dash
- if you have sun glasses on take them off and place on dash
- place hands on the steering wheel and wait for the officer to approach
- only speak when spoken to
DO NOT
- fidget
- reach for anything
- take off your seat belt
- offer more information than is directly asked for
- get an attitude with the officer, you'll loose every time on the street so save the battle for the courtroom where you have legal council.
Keeping this in mind, when I get pulled over and I'm carrying I tell them I am carrying and have to reach past the weapon do get my identification out. While not legally required to do this, it will let the officer know you have no ill intentions. They'll probably still take the weapon during the stop, but won't likely put you in the squad car and try to perform an unwarranted search.
I run a front plate even though I hate it - purely to lessen the chance of an encounter like this happening.
Oh, and standard operating procedure for getting pulled over is as follows. Most of the time you'll have a non-eventful stop - but even doing as follows I've been harassed:
- see blueberries and cherries behind you
- turn on signal and pull over where it's safe to do so
- roll down drivers window
- turn car off and place keys on dash
- if you have sun glasses on take them off and place on dash
- place hands on the steering wheel and wait for the officer to approach
- only speak when spoken to
DO NOT
- fidget
- reach for anything
- take off your seat belt
- offer more information than is directly asked for
- get an attitude with the officer, you'll loose every time on the street so save the battle for the courtroom where you have legal council.
Last edited:
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Some people simply see anytime a police officer hurts someone else's feelings as a violation of their Rights.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I did not see anything in the OP to indicate his rights were violated.
He wasn't treated the way he was because of the license plate. The missing plate was simply the reason for the stop. I think you failed to follow the sequence of events and hence understand the cause and effect.
Mainsail
Member
Specifically, which of his rights were violated and how?ravonaf said:
There are 5 pages, so I didn't get through all, but I can't see how you can justify a complaint. The OP states the LEO saw the gun and drew. What is not clear is that the officer may have glimpsed a small movement and had to react quickly. After that the SOP that the officer followed makes sense. I also don't think any rights were violated. Maybe the officer overreacted, but he did respond in a reasonable manner assuming he saw/felt something to indicate the OP was threatening other than the sight of the open pistol.
There is nothing wrong with open carry. The officer should not remove a weapon and cuff someone just because they open carried. If it is not illegal there is no need to hide it. VA does not require even presenting an ID when open-carrying.
DHJenkins said:
There is nothing wrong with open carry. The officer should not remove a weapon and cuff someone just because they open carried. If it is not illegal there is no need to hide it. VA does not require even presenting an ID when open-carrying.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
I wonder whether the OP followed the thread, or whether he ran off to tell his Daddy those mean old gun people were making fun of him again?
Mainsail
Member
He was not carrying openly; he was carrying concealed.
The officer is justified in drawing his firearm if he is concerned for his safety. Like I said, for the officer it’s all about going home alive at the end of his shift. The courts will side with the officer in these situations every time.
Some of the responses in this thread are bizarre. Do we have some closet anarchists in here?
moi_self26
Member
The biggest problem here is the OP's attitude. Aside from seeing no problem cherry picking which laws he thinks he needs to follow, his attitude with the officer was clearly not kosher. He only tells us of two things that he said to the officer, and it shows combativeness. Yes, he was right to say the things that he did..... but the manner in which he said them is reflective of a punk with an entitlement complex.
Rather than saying "No, you're not, and you can go ahead and get a warrant if you want", it would have been much more appropriate (and conducive to a good outcome for you) to have said something to the effect of "With all due respect sir, I do not consent to a search, if you like it's necessary, I'm going to need to ask you to please obtain a warrant first".
Rather than saying "if you want to hold me here any longer or want to ask me anything else I would like my attorney present" it would have been more appropriate and conducive to a good result for you to have said something to the effect of "Excuse me sir, Am I under arrest? If so I would like to call an attorney, if not I would like to go now".
The few statements that the OP admits to were late in the discussion and they were mouthy/arrogant......which leads me to believe he was most likely mouthy/arrogant and running his mouth from the start.
The right to keep and bear arms, IS a right...... but with rights come responsibilities....... and the OP does not seem to understand or appreciate the responsibilities of being a gun owner.
Rather than saying "No, you're not, and you can go ahead and get a warrant if you want", it would have been much more appropriate (and conducive to a good outcome for you) to have said something to the effect of "With all due respect sir, I do not consent to a search, if you like it's necessary, I'm going to need to ask you to please obtain a warrant first".
Rather than saying "if you want to hold me here any longer or want to ask me anything else I would like my attorney present" it would have been more appropriate and conducive to a good result for you to have said something to the effect of "Excuse me sir, Am I under arrest? If so I would like to call an attorney, if not I would like to go now".
The few statements that the OP admits to were late in the discussion and they were mouthy/arrogant......which leads me to believe he was most likely mouthy/arrogant and running his mouth from the start.
The right to keep and bear arms, IS a right...... but with rights come responsibilities....... and the OP does not seem to understand or appreciate the responsibilities of being a gun owner.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
You don't seem to either know or agree with the fact that police are in fact given some degree of authority regarding weapon use that is above the authority the rest of us have.
expvideo
Member
This is true, but just to clarify for readers that aren't following your train of thought...
In WA state, a Concealed Pistol License is required to have a loaded pistol in a car. So in effect, since all CPL laws applied to the OP, he was technically concealed carrying, even though the gun was visible, as far as the way that this will be handled in WA state courts.
Deanimator
Member
"Anywhere" except Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and many other states.
In Ohio, open carry in a vehicle with an Ohio CHL or a recognized license or permit from another state is perfectly legal and NOT a basis for a felony stop in and of itself. In fact, until recently, open carry in a vehicle was REQUIRED in Ohio. Carrying concealed in a vehicle WITH A CHL was a CRIME.
Your assertion has no factual basis in broad swaths of the United States.
expvideo
Member
Can you cite something to support this? In WA state, that is simply not true. Unless you mean school property or bars, otherwise the officer has no level of authority over mine to walk down the street with an openly carried handgun.
That's false. He was clearly carrying openly otherwise the officer would not have seen the firearm. If carrying openly is a perfectly legal act then drawing on him and forcefully detaining him was a violation of rights.
An officer can not draw his firearm anytime he likes. They have specific rules in place. In most states that would be considered brandishing when done by anyone else. The officer had zero reason to believe he was under attack. Simple legally open carrying a firearm is not justification.
DHJenkins
Member
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/stop.htm
Texas DPS advice for permit holders on how to handle a traffic stop.
Texas DPS advice for permit holders on how to handle a traffic stop.
Here is an EXCELLENT reason to obey the laws, put a damn front plate on (because it's the law), keep your weapon CONCEALED, and don't make any quick movements or argue with the po-po.
http://thecalifornian.com/article/20090206/NEWS01/902060302/1002
http://thecalifornian.com/article/20090206/NEWS01/902060302/1002
Deanimator
Member
Don't bandy words about. Don't try to be clever:
"Am I free to leave?"
If the answer is "no", ask "Of what crime am I suspected?"
If you're told a crime or he refuses to answer, reply "I have nothing further to say without a lawyer present."
Refuse consent to ALL searches. Do not physically resist, but do NOT consent, EVER. Clearly state, "I do NOT consent to ANY searches."
Shut up and don't say ANYTHING else until you're either released or you see an attorney.
Then IMMEDIATELY see an attorney. Provide him as complete and accurate an account of what happened as possible. If your rights were violated, he will know FAR better than you. If they were, SUE.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
The cop's actions were illegal.
exp?
what law do you imagine the cop broke?
exp?
what law do you imagine the cop broke?
expvideo
Member
Legally speaking, he was concealed carrying, because he was in a car with a loaded gun. Mainsail understands that it was realistically open carrying, he was just making the point that as far as WA state law would see it, the concealed carry laws would have applied in this situation because the OP was inside of a vehicle. WA state makes special provisions for OCing in a vehicle, so that is why Mainsail made the comment that he did.
That was my original point, but someone made a really good counterpoint that the OP may have been reaching for his wallet and the officer thought he was reaching for his gun. In that case, the officer would have been justified. I think the OP was intentionally ambiguous about that detail.
I want to take a moment to point out that I am not anti-cop, and I have no problem with an officer wanting to go home alive. Please don't interpret any of my comments to be against the officer simply because he was a police officer. I don't like it when cops overstep the law and abuse innocent people, but on the same token, I also don't like it when "innocent people" put an officer in a position to feel that their life is in danger. They have a hard enough job without you reaching around the area of your gun.
Not quite, the Officer drew when he saw the OP apparently reaching for his gun. I might well have drawn too.
I make it a rule to be very concious of my hand movements during a traffic stop ( it's been years) I have my paperwork in hand before I even stop the car and I put my hands on the wheel with the dome light on be for the Officer even approaches my car.
If he can see my hands and he sees that I lit up the inside of the car I would think he knows I'm trying to make his life a little easier. Hopefully he reciprocates.
As for waiving my 4th amendment rights? I've never been asked for a search, I imagine I'd say no simply for my protection.
As far as informing the Officer that I'm armed? (again largely hypothetical) Having taken steps to ensure that I won't be putting my hands anywhere near my pistol during the stop I see no need. Doing so is more likely to cause me trouble than assist the Officer in any meaningful way.
Once again I am compelled to point out that had the OP obeyed the law in the first place we wouldn't be having this discussion
- Status
