Posted: 1/30/2010 8:51:55 AM EDT
|
Yesterday I was going through a small town on my way home from work. There is an officer sitting on the side of the road about 80% of the time so I make sure I watch my speed and such. I pass the officer doing 3-4MPH under the speed limit but as I do pass I get feeling that I'm going to get pulled over. Sure enough they pull in behind me with their lights on. I pull over to the side of the road, shut off my vehicle and turn on my hazards. I immediately get out my license and CCW permit and keep my hands in view. When the Office approached my window I asked him how he was doing, gave him my cards and told him that I have a legally concealed firearm in the bag sitting on my passenger seat. Immediately I could tell that he and the officer on the passenger side were a little uncomfortable so I asked if they would like to put the bag on the outside of the vehicle for the stop. He said that he appreciated that and me telling him I had a concealed firearm in the vehicle (In WY we are required to tell and I guess in CO you dont. I didn't know about the CO thing). He took the bag and put it on my roof saying I'll just set this hear. He then told me that the reason I was being pulled over was because my temp tag was on the wrong side of the rear window. I had it behind the passenger but apparently it's supposed to be behind the driver. I didn't know that and apparently neither did the dealer who put it there. They then went back to the car to run my license and came back shortly and handed me my bag. Well apparently they searched the bag because the velcro portion, where the gun was, was left open and that's not the way it left the car. The officers were very cool and professional about the entire thing. My question is this, did I somehow give consent to search by giving them the bag to put on the roof of my vehicle? ETA: I'm not planning to make a big stink about it. I just want to know what my rights are. |
|
Good call coming to BOTS for some actual advice.
My take on it, you were stopped on a pretext. Pretext stops have been ruled valid by the SCOTUS since sometime in the early 90's. A lot of people disagree and refer to them as "fishing expeditions". Regardless of the reason for the stop, once you informed the LEO that there is a firearm in the bag, it is within his power to separate the bag from you for officer safety reasons. A lot of this falls under something called the "Terry Doctrine" and "Stop & Frisk". Here is where it gets fun. Say for the sake of argument the LEOs found an ounce of cocaine in the bag. Lets also stipulate that their version of events was identical to yours (i.e. no consent). A lawyer would move to suppress based on no articulable probable cause to believe there is contraband in the bag. There is definitely reasonable suspicion to believe there is a gun in there (which gives them the power to separate it from you), but I believe they will have a tough time articulating why they needed to open the bag itself. Had you not clearly stated there was a gun int there, they would likely articulate that they opened the bag because they reasonably believed a gun was in there and needed to make sure so they could separate it from you for safety reasons. This is the way it would likely work in my district court of appeals. Your court system may feel differently. Other LEOs may have different experiences, but when we conduct highway interdiction operations, we would have gotten specific consent or a drug dog sniff to get into the bag. Ultimately, it is a grey area. The officers would have to testify at a suppression hearing as to why they felt they needed to open the bag, and if the judge agrees, the motion for suppression would be denied. |
|
You were lawfully stopped, your weapon was lawfully taken, but the bag was unlawfully opened and searched.
1. They were simply stopping you legally for a minor issue just to see who you are and see if it leads to something big. 2. They had the right to secure the weapon for the duration of the stop. 3. They had NO right to OPEN the bag and check the contents. Had there been something in there, it would have been lost in a suppression hearing. Now, I will just sit right back and watch the shit storm unfold... 
|
|
I appreciate the information guys. I appreciate the job that police officers do. I just want to make sure it is done properly under the laws that we have. I considered calling the officer (He gave me his card) to discuss the issue (that's as far as I would be willing to go with this) but I don't want to make problems for myself as I go through there twice a day. |
|
Quoted:
You were lawfully stopped, your weapon was lawfully taken, but the bag was unlawfully opened and searched. 1. They were simply stopping you legally for a minor issue just to see who you are and see if it leads to something big. 2. They had the right to secure the weapon for the duration of the stop. 3. They had NO right to OPEN the bag and check the contents. Had there been something in there, it would have been lost in a suppression hearing. Now, I will just sit right back and watch the shit storm unfold... This is correct. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You were lawfully stopped, your weapon was lawfully taken, but the bag was unlawfully opened and searched. 1. They were simply stopping you legally for a minor issue just to see who you are and see if it leads to something big. 2. They had the right to secure the weapon for the duration of the stop. 3. They had NO right to OPEN the bag and check the contents. Had there been something in there, it would have been lost in a suppression hearing. Now, I will just sit right back and watch the shit storm unfold... This is correct. Yep, I agree with this 100%......that said, to the OP was there anyway the velcro could have come undone by simple handling? Or did it appear it was deffinently opened? Maybe they were gun guys too and wanted to see yer gun and fondle it 
|
| Bowhunter is correct. Some may try and argue the search of the bag was lawful under Terry, although I doubt they'd be able to articulate the 'dangerous' part of 'armed and dangerous'. Also, once the weapon is separated from you, it's no longer a threat, and Terry frisks are specifically for weapons, not contraband. Especially since they didn't pat you down or do a frisk of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, I'd agree that a suppression hearing would toss any evidence of criminal activity found inside the bag. But I guess that's how stupid case law like Arizona v. Gant gets made - by people not knowing their search and seizure law, and fucking it up for the rest of us. |
|
Quoted: LOL, a request to fondle firearm would have been granted :) The bag was without a doubt opened. The velcro portion would not open even with very ruff handling. The bag was taken back to the car and opened. Quoted: Quoted: You were lawfully stopped, your weapon was lawfully taken, but the bag was unlawfully opened and searched. 1. They were simply stopping you legally for a minor issue just to see who you are and see if it leads to something big. 2. They had the right to secure the weapon for the duration of the stop. 3. They had NO right to OPEN the bag and check the contents. Had there been something in there, it would have been lost in a suppression hearing. Now, I will just sit right back and watch the shit storm unfold... This is correct. Yep, I agree with this 100%......that said, to the OP was there anyway the velcro could have come undone by simple handling? Or did it appear it was deffinently opened? Maybe they were gun guys too and wanted to see yer gun and fondle it |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL, a request to fondle firearm would have been granted :) The bag was without a doubt opened. The velcro portion would not open even with very ruff handling. The bag was taken back to the car and opened.
Quoted:
Quoted:
You were lawfully stopped, your weapon was lawfully taken, but the bag was unlawfully opened and searched. 1. They were simply stopping you legally for a minor issue just to see who you are and see if it leads to something big. 2. They had the right to secure the weapon for the duration of the stop. 3. They had NO right to OPEN the bag and check the contents. Had there been something in there, it would have been lost in a suppression hearing. Now, I will just sit right back and watch the shit storm unfold... This is correct. Yep, I agree with this 100%......that said, to the OP was there anyway the velcro could have come undone by simple handling? Or did it appear it was deffinently opened? Maybe they were gun guys too and wanted to see yer gun and fondle it The officers most likely just did not think their actions through. More than likely, and without thought, they opened the case, ran the serial number, and that was all. A mistake like this gets made by those not paying FULL attention to their actions. As pointed out above, it's actions like that which lead to more restrictive rulings by courts. I doubt they gave each other a "high-five" after the stop so I would not be too concerned about it at this point. However, it IS a mistake that under the right circumstances could spell disaster for a case. |
|
From another perspective...
You're telling them you have a concealed handgun. Now they have an alleged handgun in a bag. I assume (ahem) they are allowed by law in your state to remove/safe a weapon during detention. If so, I don't believe this is a violation of rights. On the other hand, if I'm not able to open that closed container for my safety, I dooooon't think I want to bring it into my patrol vehicle. Maybe leave it on the trunk lid and tell you to stay in the vehicle. |
|
Quoted:
From another perspective... You're telling them you have a concealed handgun. Now they have an alleged handgun in a bag. I assume (ahem) they are allowed by law in your state to remove/safe a weapon during detention. If so, I don't believe this is a violation of rights. On the other hand, if I'm not able to open that closed container for my safety, I dooooon't think I want to bring it into my patrol vehicle. Maybe leave it on the trunk lid and tell you to stay in the vehicle. To make the argument "I only opened the case so I could clear the weapon and make it safe so there would be no chance of an AD" would be a good and fair argument, and perhaps salvage the incident via GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION... GOOD FAITH EXCEPTIONS will carry you a long way in regards to forgiving judgement errors if argued properly. BUT... the opening of the case IN AND OF ITSELF was not a proper act, to have done so under a SAFETY issue may provide just enough latitude to wiggle out a "save" if something big was found resulting in a discovery which was later challenged via suppression. But if I were a defense lawyer, I would counter with "why didn't you just ask my client for consent?" and I would really pound away at "guns won't simply go off unless improperly handled...yada, yada, yada", and then ask you are you UNSAFE and RECKLESS to the point you feel it necessary to violate my clients 4th Amendment rights...? So it could go back and forth and ultimately a judge would make the call. Remember... bad moves on the side of LEO's can get saved by various exceptions that are established in case law. It's certainly a "legal game of Chess" when these things play out in court. |
|
I do not believe there is an issue with the officer opening the bag. In this state there is a specific legal authority/circumstance to secure the handgun from the CHLer until the detention is over. A traffic stop would fall under that authority.
I don't see a legal issue with the OP's situation if it happened in my state. I'm sure it would be hotly contested if contraband was found, but I do not believe it is unreasonable or illegal. The law is very clear on this issue. YMMV in other jurisdictions. |
|
Quoted:
I do not believe there is an issue with the officer opening the bag. In this state there is a specific legal authority/circumstance to secure the handgun from the CHLer until the detention is over. A traffic stop would fall under that authority. I don't see a legal issue with the OP's situation if it happened in my state. I'm sure it would be hotly contested if contraband was found, but I do not believe it is unreasonable or illegal. The law is very clear on this issue. YMMV in other jurisdictions. This is getting good...  Lets look more into this shall we...
I see your point and understand where you are coming from but RESPECTFULLY disagree. I am not a lawyer, just like to bat this stuff back and forth as a way to debate and learn. I may very well be WRONG...
OPENING THE BAG constitutes a search period. "Opening" things has almost always been ruled a search. The weapon had been secured once it left the possession of the driver. To search there has to be Probable Cause to believe: (You already know this) 1) A crime IS being committed 2) A crime HAS been committed 3) A crime is ABOUT to be committed and that evidence/contraband exists, and is reasonably expected to be found, to support 1-3. In this case NOT APPLICABLE. To execute a search there has to be: (you already know this) 1A) Consent 2A) Warrant 3A) Emergency Can't argue Carroll Doctrine as an exception because the bag was SECURE and NOT able to move. The driver was/could be FREE to go based on various factors, but not the bag, if it was suspect in 1-3 above. Again, NOT APPLICABLE. Remember, there is STRONG case law that does not allow exceptions under CARROLL when the item in question had been SECURED and REMOVED from the individual or the area of his/her control. Perhaps some states have IMPLIED CONSENT TO SEARCH in connection with the issuance of a CCW, I don't know of any, but I guess it is possible as a condition. Of course that consent could be revoked roadside at any time. So I submit to you that a) opening the bag would be ruled a search and b) there was no legal or justifiable reason to have done so. No crime was being committed or investigated and the OP still maintained an expectation of privacy in the CLOSED CASE he surrendered to LEO. Of course this is America and courts just about ALWAYS throw a curve ball from time to time. |
|
Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn.
There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. |
|
Quoted: Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident.  That said, it's legit in CO as well.  18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident.
That said, it's legit in CO as well.
18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene Ha, ha.... Let's stay focused.... the issue here IS NOT the right to disarming/secure the weapon, the issue is OPENING a closed case AFTER said weapon has been surrendered and secured. Come on... certainly a lawyer has read this... chime in...
|
|
How about the argument that the officer opened the case to verify the serial numbers on the firearm or that the model number match the one on his CCW. In NEVADA your CCW is specific to firearms that you have qualified with. So carrying any other firearms, concealed would be a violation. In other words if your CCW is for a glock 22 and your carrying a SIg 229 concealed your in violation of your CCW. (NOT SURE IF THIS IS TRUE IN CO).
This is an interesting topic. I agree that they should have just asked to open it, while they were in front of him. This would have made it a moot arguement. |
|
Quoted:
How about the argument that the officer opened the case to verify the serial numbers on the firearm or that the model number match the one on his CCW. In NEVADA your CCW is specific to firearms that you have qualified with. So carrying any other firearms, concealed would be a violation. In other words if your CCW is for a glock 22 and your carrying a SIg 229 concealed your in violation of your CCW. (NOT SURE IF THIS IS TRUE IN CO). This is an interesting topic. I agree that they should have just asked to open it, while they were in front of him. This would have made it a moot arguement. Always the best course of action... |
|
Quoted:
You were lawfully stopped, your weapon was lawfully taken, but the bag was unlawfully opened and searched. 1. They were simply stopping you legally for a minor issue just to see who you are and see if it leads to something big. 2. They had the right to secure the weapon for the duration of the stop. 3. They had NO right to OPEN the bag and check the contents. Had there been something in there, it would have been lost in a suppression hearing. Now, I will just sit right back and watch the shit storm unfold... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident.
That said, it's legit in CO as well.
18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene Ha, ha.... Let's stay focused.... the issue here IS NOT the right to disarming/secure the weapon, the issue is OPENING a closed case AFTER said weapon has been surrendered and secured. Come on... certainly a lawyer has read this... chime in... I think you could get buy with opening the bag. After all, the subject offered the officer a bag which he stated contained a loaded firearm. For the officer's safety, he could make sure the gun was not pointed in a unsafe direction. The only way to verify the gun is pointed in a safe direction is to open it. Ooooops! I found dope! 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident. That said, it's legit in CO as well. 18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene Ha, ha.... Let's stay focused.... the issue here IS NOT the right to disarming/secure the weapon, the issue is OPENING a closed case AFTER said weapon has been surrendered and secured. Come on... certainly a lawyer has read this... chime in... I think you could get buy with opening the bag. After all, the subject offered the officer a bag which he stated contained a loaded firearm. For the officer's safety, he could make sure the gun was not pointed in a unsafe direction. The only way to verify the gun is pointed in a safe direction is to open it. Ooooops! I found dope! I don't like the idea of making excuses to violate someones rights. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident.
That said, it's legit in CO as well.
18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene Ha, ha.... Let's stay focused.... the issue here IS NOT the right to disarming/secure the weapon, the issue is OPENING a closed case AFTER said weapon has been surrendered and secured. Come on... certainly a lawyer has read this... chime in... I think you could get buy with opening the bag. After all, the subject offered the officer a bag which he stated contained a loaded firearm. For the officer's safety, he could make sure the gun was not pointed in a unsafe direction. The only way to verify the gun is pointed in a safe direction is to open it. Ooooops! I found dope! I don't like the idea of making excuses to violate someones rights. Hog wash and you know it. I dont like the idea of a grown man asking me to hold his gun for him then getting offended because I dont want it pointed at my head while its sitting in a bag on the roof of his car. Food for thought, just because you cant see the gun doesnt mean its not pointing at someone.
Remember these rules? 1. Most important of all safety rules: Keep The Gun Pointed in a Safe Direction 2. Every Gun is Loaded until you check it out yourself! 3. Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until you're ready to shoot! 4. Be Sure of Your Target and what lies beyond it! But heck what do I know?
|
|
Quoted:
Sounds like those LEOS have forgotten their 4th Amendment. I'm sure their motive was harmless. They probably just peaked inside to verify there was a handgun in there. I go with this. I'd hate to be the officer that went back in for the end of shift to find a complaint waiting for him that a handgun was missing from a traffic stop. |
|
Quoted:
How about the argument that the officer opened the case to verify the serial numbers on the firearm or that the model number match the one on his CCW. In NEVADA your CCW is specific to firearms that you have qualified with. So carrying any other firearms, concealed would be a violation. In other words if your CCW is for a glock 22 and your carrying a SIg 229 concealed your in violation of your CCW. (NOT SURE IF THIS IS TRUE IN CO). This is an interesting topic. I agree that they should have just asked to open it, while they were in front of him. This would have made it a moot arguement. People (and lawyers) can argue all they want, however OPENING the bag is by every definition a SEARCH, I think we all can agree on that. The question is whether or not it was an unreasonable search, and therefore protected against by the 4th amendment and requiring a warrant. There may already be case law covering officer safety exceptions for this specific type of instance, but I'm not aware of any. The above example of Nevada is a good statutory situation. This situation certainly doesn't fall into the 'standard' exceptions, nor does Carroll apply because there's no probable cause of a crime or evidence thereof. I think the search very well may fly in court, but it certainly would be fought and probably have an equal shot at getting tossed, probably depending on the judge and jurisdiction more than anything. |
|
So I guess we can wrap this thread up by saying this:
There may not be a CLEAR and UNDISPUTED right or wrong in this SPECIFIC INCIDENT... an argument can be made for both camps. In fact, what you see going on here is the dynamics of law in action... arguing one point -vs- another, the weighing of individual rights against the "protection" of the public and/or police... always intriguing to say the least. This is why the SCOTUS renders split decisions, and they (Justices) have an entourage of legal experts to help them formulate their arguments. No ill will guys and gals... does not sound like there are rouge cops out there stomping on the OP's rights. Stay safe out there... this has been a good debate. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident. That said, it's legit in CO as well. 18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene Ha, ha.... Let's stay focused.... the issue here IS NOT the right to disarming/secure the weapon, the issue is OPENING a closed case AFTER said weapon has been surrendered and secured. Come on... certainly a lawyer has read this... chime in... I think you could get buy with opening the bag. After all, the subject offered the officer a bag which he stated contained a loaded firearm. For the officer's safety, he could make sure the gun was not pointed in a unsafe direction. The only way to verify the gun is pointed in a safe direction is to open it. Ooooops! I found dope! I don't like the idea of making excuses to violate someones rights. Hog wash and you know it. I dont like the idea of a grown man asking me to hold his gun for him then getting offended because I dont want it pointed at my head while its sitting in a bag on the roof of his car. Food for thought, just because you cant see the gun doesnt mean its not pointing at someone. Remember these rules? 1. Most important of all safety rules: Keep The Gun Pointed in a Safe Direction 2. Every Gun is Loaded until you check it out yourself! 3. Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until you're ready to shoot! 4. Be Sure of Your Target and what lies beyond it! But heck what do I know? If he was so worried about it he could have left it in my vehicle and his partner could have stayed where he was on the passenger side of the car and watched me while they ran my info. In my opinion that's an excuse. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like those LEOS have forgotten their 4th Amendment. I'm sure their motive was harmless. They probably just peaked inside to verify there was a handgun in there. I go with this. I'd hate to be the officer that went back in for the end of shift to find a complaint waiting for him that a handgun was missing from a traffic stop. If that was a concern the officer could have asked if it was OK to verify the gun was in there. |
|
Quoted: So I guess we can wrap this thread up by saying this: There may not be a CLEAR and UNDISPUTED right or wrong in this SPECIFIC INCIDENT... an argument can be made for both camps. In fact, what you see going on here is the dynamics of law in action... arguing one point -vs- another, the weighing of individual rights against the "protection" of the public and/or police... always intriguing to say the least. This is why the SCOTUS renders split decisions, and they (Justices) have an entourage of legal experts to help them formulate their arguments. No ill will guys and gals... does not sound like there are rouge cops out there stomping on the OP's rights. Stay safe out there... this has been a good debate. I'd also like to thank you guys for the job you do. It's a big sacrifice for you and your families. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident.
That said, it's legit in CO as well.
18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene Each of the statutes provide for the disarming of the permit holder during the interaction and the return of the weapon at the conclusion, but not for a search of the bag. Since he surrenderd the weapon he is disarmed. If you want to do a pat down to make sure he is disarmed that would be permitted but I can see no reason to open the bag unless you are making an arrest. If you remove the weapon from the incident and simply saw a bag on the seat next to the operator how could you justify searching it? I agree with the majority opinion is that it was a bad move to open the bag. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bowhuntr, I welcome the discussion. That's why I offered another perspective. I sure as hell don't know everything, and I would like to learn. There is legal provision to "disarm" the CHL holder as listed in the statute (scroll to 411.207). It is a legal, temporary seizure of that specific item. No slam intended Bro, but you're quoting Tejas law for a Colorado incident.
That said, it's legit in CO as well.
18-12-214. Authority granted by permit - carrying restrictions. (b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene Ha, ha.... Let's stay focused.... the issue here IS NOT the right to disarming/secure the weapon, the issue is OPENING a closed case AFTER said weapon has been surrendered and secured. Come on... certainly a lawyer has read this... chime in... I think you could get buy with opening the bag. After all, the subject offered the officer a bag which he stated contained a loaded firearm. For the officer's safety, he could make sure the gun was not pointed in a unsafe direction. The only way to verify the gun is pointed in a safe direction is to open it. Ooooops! I found dope! I don't like the idea of making excuses to violate someones rights. Hog wash and you know it. I dont like the idea of a grown man asking me to hold his gun for him then getting offended because I dont want it pointed at my head while its sitting in a bag on the roof of his car. Food for thought, just because you cant see the gun doesnt mean its not pointing at someone.
Remember these rules? 1. Most important of all safety rules: Keep The Gun Pointed in a Safe Direction 2. Every Gun is Loaded until you check it out yourself! 3. Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until you're ready to shoot! 4. Be Sure of Your Target and what lies beyond it! But heck what do I know? If he was so worried about it he could have left it in my vehicle and his partner could have stayed where he was on the passenger side of the car and watched me while they ran my info. In my opinion that's an excuse. Like I said..... I dont like the idea of a grown man asking me to hold his gun for him then getting offended because I dont want it pointed at my head while its sitting in a bag on the roof of his car. Food for thought, just because you cant see the gun doesnt mean its not pointing at someone.
Remember these rules? 1. Most important of all safety rules: Keep The Gun Pointed in a Safe Direction 2. Every Gun is Loaded until you check it out yourself! 3. Keep Your Finger Off the Trigger until you're ready to shoot! 4. Be Sure of Your Target and what lies beyond it! ETA: Youre the one who handed the bag containing a loaded gun to the officer. He didnt force you to give that bag to him. Sounds like youre the one making excuses. |