Notify LEO You're Armed?

[Liberty]

There has to be reasonable suspicion of a crime AND they believe you are armed and dangerous. Speeding by itself wouldn't justify a pat down but there is nothing stopping the officer from doing so. Your only recourse would be to complain later of a violation of your rights.

Of course, handing over your CHL let's the officer know your armed so a pat down would seem redundant since they could easily ask you where your firearm is located

If you are stopped for a traffic violation, you have indeed commited a crime. They don't have to articulate a reason that you are armed and dangerous. They could just be the nervous type or part of their SOP and pat you down. What a Terry stop isn't, is a search of your vehicle, cell phone or wallet.

I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but this is what they have both told me.

[casp625]

There has to be reasonable suspicion of a crime AND they believe you are armed and dangerous. Speeding by itself wouldn't justify a pat down but there is nothing stopping the officer from doing so. Your only recourse would be to complain later of a violation of your rights.

Of course, handing over your CHL let's the officer know your armed so a pat down would seem redundant since they could easily ask you where your firearm is located

If you are stopped for a traffic violation, you have indeed commited a crime. They don't have to articulate a reason that you are armed and dangerous. They could just be the nervous type or part of their SOP and pat you down. What a Terry stop isn't, is a search of your vehicle, cell phone or wallet.

I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but this is what they have both told me.

You missed the "AND" in my post. Police do indeed have to have reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime or about to commit a crime AND they can reasonably articulate why they think you are armed. They don't have to articulate to you what their suspicion is but it has to be justified nonetheless. The whole Terry case focused on a group of men the officer believed was about to commit a robbery. How exactly is speeding a reasonable belief one is armed and dangerous??

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

[bagman45]

I've only had one encounter since I've had my CHL. There's a police substation in my neighborhood right by one of the main exit streets. As I pulled up to the stop sign at the cross street, a black and white pulled out of the substation parking lot and stopped behind me, which is pretty normal (at least he didn't almost T-bone me like one of his fellow officers once did as he pulled out of the parking lot paying more attention to his phone or computer than his driving ;)). At any rate, after doing the textbook COMPLETE stop and right turn signal, I enter the cross street and promptly get lit up. Hmmm, know registration and inspection are up to date, haven't been pulled over in 15 years or so, but oh well, he's behind me with lights on, so I'm pulling it over into the next side street.

Oh, and of course, my Glock 23 is riding with me in the center console, as always (unless it's in it's holster on my hip, but as I was going to drop something to my son at school, didn't holster up). Anyways, I glide to a stop, roll down my window, shut off the engine and put my license and CHL on the dash (CHL on top), and my hands on the steering wheel. The officer approached and asked for my ID. Handed them to him, he looked at them and asked "is there a firearm in the vehicle?". I said, yes, it's in the center console. He said "ok,thanks", handed my CHL back to me, said "give me a minute", and went back to his SUV.

So I know I haven't violated any traffic laws, and have lived such a completely boring straight-arrow life that unless somebody has stolen my identity or they're looking for an overweight middle aged guy with a baseball cap and 3-day stubble for some major crime, I'm probably OK. Of course, one never knows in this day and age.....

He returns after a couple of minutes, hands my license back to me and says "your left brake light is out, but I'm not going to ticket you, just get it fixed as soon as you can". I thanked him, then he said "good job during the stop and on the notification, you were calm, which makes me calm. I'm also glad to see that you're actually carrying your weapon with you ;most licensed folks I stop around here aren't. What are you carrying?" While I thought that a bit of a strange question, I had noticed when he first approached that he had a Glock riding in his holster (as most of the LEO's in town do), and said "same thing you are". He smiled and said "good choice". He walked back to his SUV, I fired up, did a quick 3-point turn and headed on my way.

Good outcome, very low stress and always nice to know that your locals support and encourage your right to protect yourself!! But I did stop at Autozone on my way back home for a couple of new bulbs and swapped the bad one out later that day...

[K.Mooneyham]

Never volunteer more than required.
You guys/girls seem to be pulled over an awful lot.

I had very rarely been pulled over until I moved to my current location, and haven't had a speeding ticket since 1993. However, the stretch of Highway 287 in Wichita County (Wichita Falls area) is heavily patrolled by both the Sheriff's Department and DPS, and they pull over a LOT of people. I believe (IMHO) that since 287 goes to Colorado, they are looking for drug traffickers bringing "the stuff" down to the Metroplex. One time I was two/three miles over the speed limit after coming over a little hill, and that was enough. I handed over my DL and LTC (CHL), they asked where it was, I gave physical location, and was told something like "that's fine, just leave it there". I have NOT received a ticket during the couple of times I was pulled over, just a warning; being polite does help, I'm certain, but mostly I think that I didn't fit the type of person(s) they are looking for. Also, my driving habits have become even more conservative when on Highway 287 in Wichita County, and cruise control is my friend.

[rotor]

Never volunteer more than required.
You guys/girls seem to be pulled over an awful lot.

I had very rarely been pulled over until I moved to my current location, and haven't had a speeding ticket since 1993. However, the stretch of Highway 287 in Wichita County (Wichita Falls area) is heavily patrolled by both the Sheriff's Department and DPS, and they pull over a LOT of people. I believe (IMHO) that since 287 goes to Colorado, they are looking for drug traffickers bringing "the stuff" down to the Metroplex. One time I was two/three miles over the speed limit after coming over a little hill, and that was enough. I handed over my DL and LTC (CHL), they asked where it was, I gave physical location, and was told something like "that's fine, just leave it there". I have NOT received a ticket during the couple of times I was pulled over, just a warning; being polite does help, I'm certain, but mostly I think that I didn't fit the type of person(s) they are looking for. Also, my driving habits have become even more conservative when on Highway 287 in Wichita County, and cruise control is my friend.

I live in Wichita Falls so I know what you mean. Last speeding ticket was 58 years ago. Not that I haven't sometimes been speeding and lucked out I guess. Now I set cruise control right on the button and that really does work. When I had my own plane and wanted speed I took the plane. They seem to pick up a lot of drugs every day on 287.

[C-dub]

There has to be reasonable suspicion of a crime AND they believe you are armed and dangerous. Speeding by itself wouldn't justify a pat down but there is nothing stopping the officer from doing so. Your only recourse would be to complain later of a violation of your rights.

Of course, handing over your CHL let's the officer know your armed so a pat down would seem redundant since they could easily ask you where your firearm is located

If you are stopped for a traffic violation, you have indeed commited a crime. They don't have to articulate a reason that you are armed and dangerous. They could just be the nervous type or part of their SOP and pat you down. What a Terry stop isn't, is a search of your vehicle, cell phone or wallet.

I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but this is what they have both told me.

Legally speaking, is there a difference between patting me down versus searching my vehicle or cell phone and what would that be?

[nightmare69]

There has to be reasonable suspicion of a crime AND they believe you are armed and dangerous. Speeding by itself wouldn't justify a pat down but there is nothing stopping the officer from doing so. Your only recourse would be to complain later of a violation of your rights.

Of course, handing over your CHL let's the officer know your armed so a pat down would seem redundant since they could easily ask you where your firearm is located

If you are stopped for a traffic violation, you have indeed commited a crime. They don't have to articulate a reason that you are armed and dangerous. They could just be the nervous type or part of their SOP and pat you down. What a Terry stop isn't, is a search of your vehicle, cell phone or wallet.

I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but this is what they have both told me.

You missed the "AND" in my post. Police do indeed have to have reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime or about to commit a crime AND they can reasonably articulate why they think you are armed. They don't have to articulate to you what their suspicion is but it has to be justified nonetheless. The whole Terry case focused on a group of men the officer believed was about to commit a robbery. How exactly is speeding a reasonable belief one is armed and dangerous??

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

[Griffen]

I've had three LEO contacts within the last 8 months. The first was in the beautiful burb of Lorena, TX, along I35. That was obviously a speed trap and nothing I said or did would change the eventual outcome of my contact. Yes, I did contribute over $200 to Lorena's general fund.

However the other two contacts were for missing front license plate, and going too fast on a local parkway. In both situations, I showed by DL and CHL, both were courteous encounters, both LEO appreciated my offering my CHL, and both resulted in a free "have a nice day". I'd say my CHL has paid for itself already just by following the rules.

[casp625]

There has to be reasonable suspicion of a crime AND they believe you are armed and dangerous. Speeding by itself wouldn't justify a pat down but there is nothing stopping the officer from doing so. Your only recourse would be to complain later of a violation of your rights.

Of course, handing over your CHL let's the officer know your armed so a pat down would seem redundant since they could easily ask you where your firearm is located

If you are stopped for a traffic violation, you have indeed commited a crime. They don't have to articulate a reason that you are armed and dangerous. They could just be the nervous type or part of their SOP and pat you down. What a Terry stop isn't, is a search of your vehicle, cell phone or wallet.

I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but this is what they have both told me.

You missed the "AND" in my post. Police do indeed have to have reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime or about to commit a crime AND they can reasonably articulate why they think you are armed. They don't have to articulate to you what their suspicion is but it has to be justified nonetheless. The whole Terry case focused on a group of men the officer believed was about to commit a robbery. How exactly is speeding a reasonable belief one is armed and dangerous??

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

There it is, Mimms superseding Terry. Now the next question, does this only apply to vehicles or any detention in general? Can a person be patted down for weapons for merely jaywalking?

[nonleg]

Since we're talking about Terry stops and not necessarily plain traffic stops with no probable cause to expect a violent threat...

I'd love to avoid commenting on yet another Terry stop post, but... Whatever the motives of the OP are, Terry stops are repeatedly used in improper (IANAL) ways. Since TX didn't have OC until recently, my experience with this is from Georgia, but it entirely depended on the org that the LEO belonged to on how the encounter was going to go. Much of this had to do with which county you were in. (LTC granted OC and CC except in specific locations, up to the apparent interpretation of the mayor, soccer moms, community activists, etc.)

I got wildly tired of hearing "you might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride," as an excuse to be treated like a freaking criminal whenever Atlanta PD or various sheriffs felt like it. 911 calls in Dekalb county repeatedly went like this: "You're reporting a man with a gun?" "Yes!!" "What's he doing?" "Ordering chicken!" "We will have officers there immediately!" (proceeds to end up with O/C on the ground justified by a Terry Claim). In Cobb County (15 miles away) this same conversation goes, "He's just deciding between waffle fries and regular fries, what do you want us to do?"

At any rate, I don't like LEOs asking me to pull a gun out of a holster, especially when I put my hands on the wheel to begin with. They can also see that I have a LTC when running my DL anyway, right? Nevermind the NRA sticker on my truck, etc.

I forgot to inform an LEO two weeks ago because he said that having my hands at 10 and 2 on top of the steering wheel made him nervous (1300, broad daylight, speed trap in suburb-ville, etc). I'm sure he saw I had an LTC when he ticketed me and didn't feel any more threatened than when I committed the sin of putting my keys on the dash and hands on the wheel like I was taught 25 years ago.

Let's not complicate things. Hands the hell away from any concealment, move after you receive permission only, and be *slow*. Problem solved in a practical manner.

[patterson]

I have been stopped for speeding since I've had a CHL and showed the officer my license and my CHL and that particular time was not carrying him and I informed him so and he asked "Why not ? "