Should LEOs disarm you when they perform a "non-felony traffic stop"?

[Guardian]

This poll left off leaving it up to the LEO to make the decision depending on how he/she feels at the time (that gut feeling).

That intuition you get just before approaching someone or something.

I won't mark any of them. I say leave it up to the LEO to make the decision, they are on the scene, it's their call to make, it should not be regulated.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[yzcrasher]

I said yes to disarm. At the end of the day everyone wants to go home, and if the cop feels the need to disarm then so be it. I probably would if I was a cop.

[Agave]

This poll is super inconsiderate.

It depends on the situation, and everyone is different. I think they should be able too, but most of the time its not necessary.

Yep.

But if I have any reason to believe, in my mind or otherwise, you might try to interfere with my getting in my own truck at the end of shift, I'm disarming you. And please remember that I may disarm you for a very specific reason, but I'm still not going to tell you and I don't have to either.

[Tom G]

It depends on the situation, and everyone is different. I think they should be able too, but most of the time its not necessary.

Ditto. The LEO should not have to disarm you for minor traffic stops. If The stop is for drunk driving or drugs you should be disarmed.

[DaveH]

Per Oklahoma Law.

E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a law
enforcement officer to inspect any weapon properly concealed without
probable cause that a crime has been committed.

INAL & I don't have a clue about OK's laws.

But you might want to check to see if that applies to a "traffic stop" or just a non-traffic related "consensual conversation."

FWIIW -- Terry Stops w/ pat-downs for officer safety do not require "probable cause" -- only an "articulable reasonable suspicion."

Here in Virginia case law establishes that simple possession of a gun (much less a CHP) does not in-and-of-itself justify a "Terry Stop."

However, in some States it is clear (at the State level) that all "Traffic Stops" are at minimum "Terry Stops." So, pat-downs and securing the weapon is approved.

Sidebar; Does anyone know of a federal court decision that "Traffic Stops" are at minimum "Terry Stops"?

All the above does not address the question of "should" but rather "can" an officer disarm you when they perform a non-felony traffic stop.

IMHO, I think they should be able to. However, I think the "should they do it" is situational and it is best left up to the officers discretion.

[Spec]

Under No let me repeat myself NO reason should an LEO disarm a Law Abiding Citizen CC... or OC.... period

[SIXTO]

If they are doing the shaky jake while the car reeks of pot smell, I can see the disarming. But I'm more interested in a simple stop, like 5mph over, that sometimes has people disarmed in the back of a cruiser, while others just go on their way with a warning.

Ditto. The LEO should not have to disarm you for minor traffic stops. If The stop is for drunk driving or drugs you should be disarmed.

Here is the thing that most people will never understand;

An officer relies on instinct to keep him safe. The instinct develops with experience, and it often isn't really honed until about the 5-6 year mark. Street experience is the only thing that will give a truly good 'spidey sense'.

So, you might feel that your driving error shouldnt allow an LEO to disarm you. And you are right. BUT, if I get any sense of things going south, I will disarm the driver. It might be a very subtle thing you did, didn't do or say. That is what experience has taught me; pay attention to everything. And the instinct has kept me alive or at least kept me from getting hurt several times.

Now, have I been wrong in how I read a traffic violator? Sure. I will never know on a lot of them too. Maybe I stopped them before they could act.
I've also been right on a lot of them too. I posted about one not to long ago, and there have been others.

[downrange]

I said no, but I'm also the one who has no problem showing my CCW along with my Drivers License, then leaving my wrists on the steering wheel. I think it's safer for both of us. I know some here don't think they should have to tell the LEO they are armed in a situation like this. ...however, I wouldn't throw a hissy fit if he did want to disarm me. Just do what you gotta do so I can be on my way ...and make sure you give me my piece back!

[varob]

I chose No. Although I understand the officers position, handling a loaded gun in such close proximity seems pretty scary.

[ak56]

I voted 'should not' based upon the types of infractions mentioned in the OP, and the 'immediately upon knowing' phrasing of the poll answers, which implies that it is being done only because you are carrying, not based upon your actions.

However, if one is obviously under the influence, fidgety, or acting suspiciously, then yes, there are times when it would be appropriate to disarm the person.

[9mmPro]

i do not consent to LEO disarming me for a non-felony traffic stop if i have a carry permit and show it to the LEO- why does he have the right to disarm me ? but we have to comply to avoid serious court costs and fines for disorderly conduct.

If a LEO gave me BS i would take it all the way to the State circuit court for a lawsuit, that would teach them a lesson to respect armed citizens. I understand LEO fear for their life on the job everyday .

[gglockster]

I'm more ticked off when the LEO goes ahead and makes a big production out of the whole affair. Specifically when after I am commanded to step out of the vehicle, he sweeps the backseat with my gun and waves it around. My friend's wife in the backseat, then spent what seemed like forever yelling at me for the rest of the drive. No, I didn't get a ticket but I was given a verbal warning for having an obscured rear license plate (the license plate frame came too far over the plate).

[NosaMSirhC]

Just because someone is a cop doesn't mean that they are any safer handling my weapon than I am.

I have heard horror stories about LEO's disarming citizens during traffic stops and then flagging the citizen with their own weapon!

"Wanting to go home at the end of the night" doesn't give someone the right to put me face down on the hot hood of my truck just to take my gun.

My gun is the safest for everyone involved in the encounter when it is left on my person. Handling the weapon only increases the chances of an AD while the weapon is being removed from the holster or when it's reholstered.

The best way to avoid any encounter with at LEO is to obey the law and not do anything that makes you stand out in the crowd.

Be Safe,

NosaM

[OldVet]

No. I don't feel the LEO has a right or need to disarm me for a non-felony stop (we're talking traffic ticket here) anymore than he has a right or need to search my vehicle for the same traffic violation (backed up by the Supreme Ct.).

[sigmanluke]

This poll left off leaving it up to the LEO to make the decision depending on how he/she feels at the time (that gut feeling).

That intuition you get just before approaching someone or something.

I won't mark any of them. I say leave it up to the LEO to make the decision, they are on the scene, it's their call to make, it should not be regulated.

This poll is super inconsiderate.


Yep.

But if I have any reason to believe, in my mind or otherwise, you might try to interfere with my getting in my own truck at the end of shift, I'm disarming you. And please remember that I may disarm you for a very specific reason, but I'm still not going to tell you and I don't have to either.

Well said. It doesn't matter if you were pulled over for a license plate light out, if I "feel" there is a reason to disarm you, it's going to happen.

People say that the gun is safest left in their holster, sure, if they aren't going to try to use it. How do I know they aren't going to try? I agree that most of the time, there is no need to disarm someone. But when there is a need, (no matter what you were pulled over for), you better believe you will be disarmed.

As to the poll, I didn't vote based on the correct response not being included.........IT DEPENDS