| Author | Post |
|---|
BIG DADDY OF 5
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 12:41 am |
|
I LIVE IN FLORIDA AND AM CURIOUS THAT IF YOU WERE PULLED OVER FOR WHATEVER REASON AND YOU DISCLOSE THAT YOU HAVE A CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE DO YOU HAVE TO SURRENDER IT. I SAY NO!! COPS APPROACH THE SITUATION AS EXPECTING THE WORST FROM YOU. WELL I EXPECT THE WORST AS WELL DUE TO @#$%TY COPS OUT THERE. BY LAW DOES ANY ONE KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP YOUR WEAPON
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 12:49 am |
|
BIG DADDY OF 5 wrote: I LIVE IN FLORIDA AND AM CURIOUS THAT IF YOU WERE PULLED OVER FOR WHATEVER REASON AND YOU DISCLOSE THAT YOU HAVE A CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE DO YOU HAVE TO SURRENDER IT. I SAY NO!! COPS APPROACH THE SITUATION AS EXPECTING THE WORST FROM YOU. WELL I EXPECT THE WORST AS WELL DUE TO @#$%TY COPS OUT THERE. BY LAW DOES ANY ONE KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP YOUR WEAPON
If the LEO asks you for it, you have to give it up.
As you probably know, in Florida, you do not have an obligation to disclose you are carrying a concealed weapon.
|
smn
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 12:50 am |
|
If the weapon is not exigent to the traffic stop, then no, unless there's FL case law saying otherwise. Seizure of a weapon must usually require you be armed AND dangerous.
Many traffic stops are recorded, and should you be pulled over a voice recorder will be of great help to you. You may politely decline to surrender your weapon but if the officer pursues further, then let him have it. After that go file a complaint and seek competent, paid legal advice.
For example, please see Georgia's State v. Jones, http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm
|
BIG DADDY OF 5
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 01:26 am |
|
THANK YOU I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY AND HAVE TAKEN THE STATE EXAM BUT HAVE YET TO BE PICKED UP. NOT SURE THAT I WOULD SURRENDER..... WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO IT IS MY RIGHT JUST AS IT IS HIS TO CARRY HIS. I DON'T KNOW HIM AND HE DOESN'T KNOW ME. AS A FATHER OF FIVE I DO WHAT I CAN TO PROTECT THEM AT ALL TIMES. THERE JUST ARE TO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE IMPERSONATING LEO.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 02:21 am |
|
BIG DADDY OF 5 wrote: SNIP NOT SURE THAT I WOULD SURRENDER..... WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO IT IS MY RIGHT JUST AS IT IS HIS TO CARRY HIS. I DON'T KNOW HIM AND HE DOESN'T KNOW ME.
You will want to dig deeper on this question and be very sure before you refuse to allow a police officer to temporarily seize your gun during a traffic stop.
Act on the wrong answer, and you might get an obstruction charge. Also, if the cop wants the gun, he is going to get it. And you may get guns pointed at you. Without regard to the legality. Its not whether it is legal for him to seize it; its whether he thinks its legal.
My suggestion would be to comply while politely, verbally refusing consent. After the encounter, if you find out the seizure was illegal, then you can hammer the cop in a formal complaint or lawsuit.
The legal theory is that your consent automatically makes any warrantless search or seizure reasonable.
Video: Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving a Police Encounter by FlexYourRights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
Separately, on the internet, using all caps is considered shouting.
|
BIG DADDY OF 5
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 02:36 am |
|
Thank you sorry he caps is a bad habit. Further more I guess since I have many friends in law enforcement I should turn to them as well. I just wanted a honest opinion without a person knowing you. It just doesn't seem right.....
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 02:44 am |
|
BIG DADDY OF 5 wrote: Thank you sorry he caps is a bad habit. Further more I guess since I have many friends in law enforcement I should turn to them as well. I just wanted a honest opinion without a person knowing you. It just doesn't seem right.....
It is aggravating, I agree.
The last place I would turn is the LE community. We've seen more wrong information out of them than we can count.
You will find the answer to your legal question in a court opinion.
Regardless of what the court opinion(s) say, I would not interfere with a cop seizing my gun. I would use the opinion to establish the legality of the seizure afterwards when making my formal complaint or lawsuit.
Edited to delete reference to a court case. I found a different court case more applicable. Or, rather, another poster helped me find it. See below.
Last edited on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 06:00 am by Citizen
|
Glock23-4-Me
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | Tampa, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 04:58 am |
|
BIG DADDY OF 5 wrote:
THANK YOU I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACADEMY AND HAVE TAKEN THE STATE EXAM BUT HAVE YET TO BE PICKED UP. NOT SURE THAT I WOULD SURRENDER..... WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO IT IS MY RIGHT JUST AS IT IS HIS TO CARRY HIS. I DON'T KNOW HIM AND HE DOESN'T KNOW ME. AS A FATHER OF FIVE I DO WHAT I CAN TO PROTECT THEM AT ALL TIMES. THERE JUST ARE TO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE IMPERSONATING LEO.
With all due respect, having that kind of attitude may be the reason you have not been picked up by any agency yet. Having gone through the academy as you state you have, you should know what LEO deal with out there and be understanding or at least comply with there requests. As others have stated, if you ever feel that a LEO has wronged you, there is a time and a place to resolve it and on a traffic stop is not one of them. As you stated, the LEO does not know you and he does not know your intentions. It is unlikely that a person who pulls you over in a marked vehicle is impersonating a leo unless he stole the car. If the car is not clearly marked and you concerned for your safety, call 911 and let them know that you have been pulled over by a vehicle that is not marked and you want to know if it is indeed a LEO. The LEO should always call in the traffic stop before he exits the vehicle. Having been through the academy, you should know that. The 911 operator will be able to confirm that it is a real LEO that pulled you over and will be able to radio that LEO, so he/she is aware of your concern.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 27th, 2009 05:58 am |
|
smn wrote: SNIP For example, please see Georgia's State v. Jones, http://www.georgiapacking.org/caselaw/statevjones.htm
Thanks for the post, SMN. When reading the case, I came across a quote and cite to a federal case. I had read that cited case before, but did not recognize the quote. There it was, all along, a piece of law I had missed before.
Here is the quote:
These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. Michigan vs Long (emphasis added)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_1032_ZO.html
Notice that a weapon does not automatically equate to being dangerous. Two separate elements must combine. Dangerous and weapon.
Since this is a US Supreme Ct. case, it covers a lot of territory.
Last edited on Sun Sep 27th, 2009 06:02 am by Citizen
|
GIdeon_70
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 35 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 12th, 2009 02:11 am |
|
Hello everyone.
First, if a LEO asks for my sidearm, then I will comply after I remove the clip and eject anything in the chamber. If he refuses to allow me to do so, then I will request he get his supervisor in on the stop. My resoning is that it is MY weapon, and no one knows it like I do. I will not be harmed becuase some rookie cop has no idea how to clear my gun. Asking for a supervisor is perfectly legal, and is totally non-comfrontational.
On the other hand, if he still insists, I will not resist, and will allow him to secure my weapon himself if he so desires - then I will file charges against him for endangering me and false arrest.
I'm not so arrogant to think that everything is all perfect in our world. We have to train the police, and that is done by example. I also don't know of this cop is a hair trigger himself, arrogant, stupid or responding to me because I fit the general description of a man that just gunned down a cop on 2nd street. I could die, and that is NOT the way to go. Can't say , "I showed HIM," when you aren't breathing anymore.
But the big statement I wanted to make is that we have to train the police. Until they encounter it, they have no idea how they will react, and neither do I.
Last thing, NEVER talk to the police or answer questions. You could be in deep doo-doo if you do.
|
bufordtpisser
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15th, 2009 03:10 am |
|
GIdeon_70 wrote: Hello everyone.
First, if a LEO asks for my sidearm, then I will comply after I remove the clip and eject anything in the chamber. If he refuses to allow me to do so, then I will request he get his supervisor in on the stop. My resoning is that it is MY weapon, and no one knows it like I do. I will not be harmed becuase some rookie cop has no idea how to clear my gun. Asking for a supervisor is perfectly legal, and is totally non-comfrontational.
On the other hand, if he still insists, I will not resist, and will allow him to secure my weapon himself if he so desires - then I will file charges against him for endangering me and false arrest.
I'm not so arrogant to think that everything is all perfect in our world. We have to train the police, and that is done by example. I also don't know of this cop is a hair trigger himself, arrogant, stupid or responding to me because I fit the general description of a man that just gunned down a cop on 2nd street. I could die, and that is NOT the way to go. Can't say , "I showed HIM," when you aren't breathing anymore.
But the big statement I wanted to make is that we have to train the police. Until they encounter it, they have no idea how they will react, and neither do I.
Last thing, NEVER talk to the police or answer questions. You could be in deep doo-doo if you do.
I have done this exact thing, difference being that I asked to officer if he minded me unloading the weapon for the safety of both of us. I then also effected my right to remain silent and answered no questions pertaining to anything but the reason for being stopped. When questioned why I was carrying, I refused to answer without my attorney being present. I guess that this all took him off guard and my weapon was handed back and I was sent on my way with a warning to slow down. Being informed, and not being cocky about it will go a long way towards diffusing these types of scenarios.
|
mbpe912
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27th, 2009 04:25 am |
|
Yes Florida law does allow an officer to disarm you, however you are not required to tell them you are armed in Florida. When in doubt buy the Gutmacher book...
From PG 81 from "FLORIDA FIREARMS LAW, Use & Ownership
Question:: If I tell the officer I have a firearm, what can he do?
Answer: Usally, he'll ask for its location, ask you to move to an area away from it, take temporary custody of the firearm, empty the cartridges, and when he's done giving you a ticket (unless he's arresting you for something), he should give you back the firearm and the cartridges separately. Such a procedure is totally legal, and completely proper.
There you have it from the gun law expert in Florida Gun law's attorney John H. Gutmacher, Esq.
|
fridaddy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 11:27 pm |
|
I wish I could see the basis for Gutmacher's conclusion that it is legal and proper. I disagree.
THIS POST IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY AND NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS INTENDED OR IMPLIED.
|
mbpe912
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 4th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 29th, 2009 11:31 pm |
|
Are you an attorney? Just asking a question. The Floida law does allow for the officer to take the weapon. Don't like the law? Write your Legislator.
I am not an attorney either.
|
fridaddy
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:58 pm |
|
mbpe912 wrote: Are you an attorney? Just asking a question. The Floida law does allow for the officer to take the weapon. Don't like the law? Write your Legislator.
I am not an attorney either.
I am an attorney, but my posts are for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.
With thanks to Gideon, I copied this from his post on another thread. I think this statute covers the issue from a statutory law standpoint in FL. I think it may be unconstitutional as an illegal seizure of property, or as an unlawful deprivation of rights under color of state law, especially if the SC rules well on the Chicago case. I would gladly challenge the statute if presented the opportunity in one of my cases.
For now however this is the law in FL. I have not done any casee law research on this statute so please consider it appropriately.
901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.--
(1) This section may be known and cited as the "Florida Stop and Frisk Law."
(2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person's presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
(3) No person shall be temporarily detained under the provisions of subsection (2) longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that subsection. Such temporary detention shall not extend beyond the place where it was first effected or the immediate vicinity thereof.
(4) If at any time after the onset of the temporary detention authorized by subsection (2), probable cause for arrest of person shall appear, the person shall be arrested. If, after an inquiry into the circumstances which prompted the temporary detention, no probable cause for the arrest of the person shall appear, the person shall be released.
(5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) has probable cause to believe that any person whom the officer has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, the officer may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized.
(6) No evidence seized by a law enforcement officer in any search under this section shall be admissible against any person in any court of this state or political subdivision thereof unless the search which disclosed its existence was authorized by and conducted in compliance with the provisions of subsections (2)-(5).
Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 05:24 pm by fridaddy
|
Current time is 02:07 am | |
|
|
|
