First LEO contact - disarmed and unloaded

[dwsUSA]

Given the way he disarmed me, I wonder what he would have done if I would have been using something like a smartcarry holster??? That could have made things very interesting.

[SCone]

I may be new to this game, but I fully expect to be disarmed anytime I have broken the law. Even for a simple traffic stop, i would expect the officer to err on maximizing his safety.

This was a big topic in my CHL class and it makes no sense to me. The intructor seemed to be of the opinion that there is no reason to EVER be disarmed short of drawing your weapon. But I have LEO friends and they've said that it all depends on the situation at the time. My friend John told me, "Even the most law abiding person can give you an uneasy feeling at times and if that feeling comes around wth a CHL, disarm them first, then proceed."

That "uneasy feeling" may be wrong 99% of the time, but even 1% being right is worth the protection of our LEO.

[KBCraig]

If I read this correctly, the trooper knew the driver was armed, broke contact, then came back to the car to disarm him.

This was not an officer safety issue, or he would have disarmed the driver at the initial contact. He just wanted the gun so he could run the serial number.

[drw]

He just wanted the gun so he could run the serial number.

Is that to check to see if the firearm had been stolen? What CHL holder would carry a stolen gun? That's absurd.

[dwsUSA]

If I read this correctly, the trooper knew the driver was armed, broke contact, then came back to the car to disarm him.

This was not an officer safety issue, or he would have disarmed the driver at the initial contact. He just wanted the gun so he could run the serial number.

You read correctly. The officer left me in the car for a few minutes after I told him I was armed while he went back to his car. He then returned and disarmed me.

[HankB]

IMHO the LEO was out of line.

He did what he was explicitly empowered to do by law, and in the same circumstance I would NOT have argued or mouthed off . . . but just because he can do something doesn't mean he should.

I certainly would have asked him - politely - at the end of the stop what I did that made him feel a need to disarm me.

[bryang]

I am very new to all of this, but why is it that police officers are so afraid of a CHL holder that is armed...? I know this sounds stupid and really I guess there is no answer, but are they afraid of other officers around them with guns? Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I was just wondering. It looks to me that there should be more trust if some has gone through all the pit falls, not to mention the wait, of acquiring a CHL?? It looks to me like the already know everything that could possibly know about us and I doubt very seriously a CHL holder will be carrying a "hot" gun.

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying, I have the utmost respect for each and every officer out there doing his job. I'm just having a hard time understanding all this.

Thanks,
Geo

[CHL/LEO]

...where a simple traffic stop should result in a LEO disarming a CHL holder.

Maybe like a previous member posted - it wasn't a simple traffic stop. We'll never know unless dwsUSA were to contact the Trooper (name and badge number should be on the warning ticket he received) and just ask him why he was disarmed? Unless that happens it's all supposition. Like I mentioned, I've never disarmed anyone unless they were getting arrested.

I personally know of two fellow officers I work with who have been disarmed by DPS Troopers during traffic stops. The troopers knew they were LEOs and still asked them to hand over their guns. When asked why the comment from one trooper was, "because I can" and the other one stated that he disarms everyone he stops including LEOs. He said that the doesn't ever want anyone saying he's a racist or treats certain people different than others. I can at least understand his point of view even though I don't agree with it. The other trooper and his comments are what gives all LEOs a bad name. Just like someone previously posted - just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

[para45]

always carry at least 2 guns, that way the trooper really has fun disarming ya, "where is it", well sir it they are, .45 on my right at 3:30, .38 cross draw holster, .40 in my shoulder holster, oh and yea dont let me forget my .32 on the ankle, and then my .22 derringer mag in my pocket." Sir why so many guns, "BECAUSE I CAN", hmmm the leo might just say forget it, or call in the SWAT team on ya. JUST KIDDIN , never be out gunned

[kw5kw]

The trooper simply ran the serial number on the gun to make sure it wasn't stolen, just as KBCraig said. (It's actually quite common.) And, if you did not purchase the gun new in the box from a licensed dealer, did you have someone run the serial number to make sure that it wasn't stolen years ago?

Always have a used gun's serial number ran before you purchase it. Troop's just doin' his job.

Russ

[srothstein]

Russ,

If the trooper did run the serial number to check it for stolen, he was not just doing his job. He was implying that the driver was a thief. I personally have a problem with officers that think all citizens are criminals. Why would an officer think a gun needed to be checked for stolen, just because a CHL had it? In my opinion, the fact that the driver has a CHL would certainly imply to me that the gun was not stolen. After all, if I had a stolen gun, why would I go to the trouble of getting a CHL isntead of just carrying it illegally?

Would the officer check all the stereo's he finds? They are stolen at least as much as firearms are.

And, if the officer is taking the gun just to see if it is stolen, he is violating several laws. The law to disarm a CHL only allows it for officer safety (a very vague area). The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to conduct a search. Asking for the weapon to get the serial number to run it constitutes a search. This is long decided court law (based on an officer turning a stereo around to get the serial number on it being a search).

I have never yet disarmed a CHL and do not see it happening (barring an arrest of some type or taking the weapon after a shooting). I will not second guess an officer who disarms for safety reasons, but if I were his supervisor he better be able to explain why this specific stop justified disarming. I will do my best to ensure that officer's obey the law on searching, as it is one of the bedrocks of our freedoms.

EDIT: Russ, when I reread this, it sounded like an attack on you. I did not mean it that way. I appreciate your support of law enforcement and your opinion. I meant it more as fighting the attitude of police that they can do almost anything and not pay attention to citizen's rights.

[CHL/LEO]

Why would an officer think a gun needed to be checked for stolen,

Maybe it's the same reason that we randomly run plates on cars to see if they're stolen or have warrants out.

the fact that the driver has a CHL would certainly imply to me that the gun was not stolen

Perhaps like another member posted, he purchased it at a gun show and didn't know it was stolen. Heck, you and I could do the same thing (I know I have purchased many a firearm at a gun show that I didn't run) and be in possession of a stolen gun. It doesn't mean we're criminals just because we would be in possession of stolen property any more than every driver of a stolen vehicle is arrested for UMV.

In reading your post about this particular issue you and I pretty much agree on the particulars about it so don't take this reply as disagreement with, or an attack on your position. Like I previously posted, only the DPS Trooper knows why he took the actions that he did. As I've posted plenty of times on this forum I wouldn't disarm a CHL holder unless they were being arrested.

[flb_78]

After reading this thread, I may have to go buy a Thunderwear holster!!!

[KRM45]

I personally know of two fellow officers I work with who have been disarmed by DPS Troopers during traffic stops. The troopers knew they were LEOs and still asked them to hand over their guns. When asked why the comment from one trooper was, "because I can" and the other one stated that he disarms everyone he stops including LEOs.

Two questions here, if you don't mind...

Under what authority do these troopers disarm other officers? I can see if they are under arrest, or if the trooper is investigating them for an arrestable offense, but my assumption was a traffic stop.

Second, why did these officers feel the need to inform the troopers that they were armed?

Thanks.

[CHL/LEO]

I have no idea as to what authority the DPS disarmed our officers (in reality there probably is no such authority unless they were being arrested) and I personally would not have given him my gun. I would have told him to call a supervisor to the location and let's talk about why he needed to disarm me. If he wanted to arrest me for a traffic violation then that's his right and then he could have disarmed me at that time. Knowing that every DPS stop is video recorded I would have made sure my conduct was professional and courteous.

The reason that the DPS knew to ask if they were armed is because they identified themselves as LEOs. After that trooper would have known to ask if they were armed. Plus, both LEOs have CHLs and the trooper would have probably known already to ask that question since when he ran their plates it would have come back that they were CHL holders.