Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Disarmed and handcuffed on a traffic stop.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2105114" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Not necessarily!</p><p></p><p><strong>Disclaimer: I'm going to proceed on the assumption that since she allegedly made the required notification and presented her SDA permit at the initial point of contact, that she fully complied with the officers subsequent instructions.</strong></p><p></p><p>Now that that's done, here's my issue with it. If she's a regular citizen who's complying with the notification requirement in the SDA, and you've elected to disarm her with no outward indications of deception, aggression or disobedience of a lawful order, why then would you need to cuff her? You have her gun, so under what description of "officer safety" are you physically detaining her? </p><p></p><p>All LEO's in the US, regardless of jurisdiction are subject to the "objectively reasonable" use of force standard as detailed in <em>Graham vs. Connor</em> and <em>Tennessee vs. Garner</em>. From the Public Agency Training Council (and other sources not listed): <a href="http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/handcuffing-excessive-force.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/handcuffing-excessive-force.shtml</a></p><p></p><p>The three-part test on use of force looks at (1) the severity of the offense suspect; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others; and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. So in this case, can the officer reasonably articulate the use of handcuffs on an allegedly compliant and disarmed subject, in an average traffic stop (nothing is "routine")? I'm highly suspect on this point. </p><p></p><p>Further, the SDA law is explicit that no inspection of the firearm is warranted without without probable cause that a crime has been committed. The officer has no legal standing to demand "proof of ownership" or any other information about the status of the firearm prior to returning it at the conclusion of the stop. If he violated that legal requirement, how solid is he on using the cuffs per <em>Graham vs. Connor</em>? </p><p></p><p>My spidey sense inclines me to believe that the officer <u>may</u> have been exercising his personal beliefs on the subject of citizen carry. Only the officer can answer that question. It bears further scrutiny and absent a reasonably articulated justification by his agency, she may have an actionable complaint for the violation of her 4th Amendment rights. I know I certainly wouldn't accept the situation at face value if I were in her shoes and had acted in a reasonable manner. </p><p></p><p>This is a case study in the fact that you can't safeguard your rights, if you don't know what your rights are under the law. <img src="/images/smilies/lookaround.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lookaroun" title="Lookaround :lookaroun" data-shortname=":lookaroun" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2105114, member: 1132"] Not necessarily! [B]Disclaimer: I'm going to proceed on the assumption that since she allegedly made the required notification and presented her SDA permit at the initial point of contact, that she fully complied with the officers subsequent instructions.[/B] Now that that's done, here's my issue with it. If she's a regular citizen who's complying with the notification requirement in the SDA, and you've elected to disarm her with no outward indications of deception, aggression or disobedience of a lawful order, why then would you need to cuff her? You have her gun, so under what description of "officer safety" are you physically detaining her? All LEO's in the US, regardless of jurisdiction are subject to the "objectively reasonable" use of force standard as detailed in [I]Graham vs. Connor[/I] and [I]Tennessee vs. Garner[/I]. From the Public Agency Training Council (and other sources not listed): [url]http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/handcuffing-excessive-force.shtml[/url] The three-part test on use of force looks at (1) the severity of the offense suspect; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others; and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. So in this case, can the officer reasonably articulate the use of handcuffs on an allegedly compliant and disarmed subject, in an average traffic stop (nothing is "routine")? I'm highly suspect on this point. Further, the SDA law is explicit that no inspection of the firearm is warranted without without probable cause that a crime has been committed. The officer has no legal standing to demand "proof of ownership" or any other information about the status of the firearm prior to returning it at the conclusion of the stop. If he violated that legal requirement, how solid is he on using the cuffs per [I]Graham vs. Connor[/I]? My spidey sense inclines me to believe that the officer [U]may[/U] have been exercising his personal beliefs on the subject of citizen carry. Only the officer can answer that question. It bears further scrutiny and absent a reasonably articulated justification by his agency, she may have an actionable complaint for the violation of her 4th Amendment rights. I know I certainly wouldn't accept the situation at face value if I were in her shoes and had acted in a reasonable manner. This is a case study in the fact that you can't safeguard your rights, if you don't know what your rights are under the law. :lookaroun [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Disarmed and handcuffed on a traffic stop.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom