Lenior City traffic stop

[Oh Shoot]

To my reading, in post #73, possession of a handgun without a permit is a misdemeanor.

 

In "public" as it were, yes,  but not on your motorcycle.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Stopping someone is fine with probable cause, and in the case the positioning of the bikes plates would justify it, which could then lead to questioning about the guys actions in the store.  But if the officer was truly concerned for his safety, why wasn't his weapon drawn from the outset?  Why no commands to place the weapon on the ground while the officer used the cruiser as cover?  From getting out of the cruiser at the 1:50 mark, and disarming the biker at the 2:15 mark, all he did was talk to the guy, including the line at the 2:00 mark, where the officer tells the biker he saw him come out of the store "with a gun on your side and a helmet on.  That looked suspicious."  So the officer knew this guy had a weapon before he even got out of the cruiser, and for 25 seconds, the officer didn't give any commands regarding the weapon, but then decides he needs to disarm the biker once he is is distracted by taking off his gloves to retrieve his drivers license so the officer can check it.
 
Given that, I'm having trouble understanding when exactly the officer developed a (to paraphrase TCA 39-17-1351) reasonable belief that the bikers gun posed a threat to him, the biker, or anyone else.  Absent that I come to the conclusion that taking the bikers gun wasn't about safety, it was about either being afraid of an armed citizen, or he just feels like an LEO should be the only one armed regardless.

So the problem you have is that it’s either a normal stop (if there is such a thing) or a full blown felony stop, no middle of the road? You didn’t see anything in that edited video for the Officer to be concerned about, therefore it couldn’t have happened?

You are having trouble understanding why the Officer disarmed him because you didn’t see what the Officer saw. Do you think that is a possibility?

[monkeylizard]

To my reading, in post #73, possession of a handgun without a permit is a misdemeanor.

 

OS beat me to it, but as of last year, it's no longer a crime to carry a fireram in a private vehicle. In/on motorcycles are considered the same. No permit needed and it's not a crime.

[EssOne]

Can a motorcycle rider without an HCP have the gun on his person, or must it be stowed somewhere?

[chances R]

OS beat me to it, but as of last year, it's no longer a crime to carry a fireram in a private vehicle. In/on motorcycles are considered the same. No permit needed and it's not a crime.

 

That is correct, but he saw him walk out of the store.  Add to that, helmet on, possible underage?  Don't know.  Same ol' thing, open carry is going to get you attention you don't want or need IMO.   To EssOne, doesn't matter as long as you are on your MC, but out in public, and it is still on you when you dismount, I would think you are now carrying w/o a permit.  Sort of a tricky situation. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by chances R

[EssOne]

Yep. Crummy situation #14B. Thanks for the answer.

[monkeylizard]

Chances R is correct. One doesn't need a permit to carry in a vehicle/on a motorcycle.

 

In this particular case, the officer did see him walking with the handgun while away from the bike, so that's a violation of 39-17-1307, defensible with a permit. I'm not questioning the officer's stop in this case. It was 100% lawful, obstructed plates or not.

 

As for the helmet/underage, I disagree. Unless there's some other reason for the officer to have reasonable suspicion that the rider is under 18, that won't fly.

[btq96r]

So the problem you have is that it’s either a normal stop (if there is such a thing) or a full blown felony stop, no middle of the road? You didn’t see anything in that edited video for the Officer to be concerned about, therefore it couldn’t have happened?

You are having trouble understanding why the Officer disarmed him because you didn’t see what the Officer saw. Do you think that is a possibility?

 

My issue is that the gun was not something the officer discovered at the stop once he was close enough to see it, he knew about it before the guy left the store and even admitted it as such.  So, if it was a threat to his safety, why not address that threat from the beginning of the contact with the biker? 

 

Also, you keep calling it an edited video.  Do you see any reason to think there was editing from when the biker pulled over for the stop to when the officer grabbed the gun?  Did something happen in those 25 seconds to make the officer perceive a threat?

 

The officer told us what he saw in his conversation with the biker, a guy go into a store with a gun on his hip and his helmet on.  The gun was not a new variable found during the stop.

[E4 No More]

I've stayed out of this until now, but an officer sees a guy come out of a store with his helmet on and a gun on his hip. The biker calmly takes his sweet time to put on his gloves, mount his bike, turn it on, wait for the truck next to him to pull out, and all while having made eye contact with the officer sitting in his car, but the officer thinks that's suspicious enough for a stop but waits until the biker gets on the road to pull him over citing a BS tag mounting? I don't think so. I call BS!

[monkeylizard]

I thought the same thing. Nothing we saw the rider do would have been suspicous (except wearing his helmet in the store). I'd say that the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the rider just robbed the store given what you just described. It's not like he came running out, jumped on the bike and barrelled out of the lot like it was the Isle of Man TT. Nevertheless, 39-17-1307 was violated, giving the officer cause to make the stop. Yeah it was likely a fishing expedition as evidenced by saying the plates are partially obscured when the real reason was clearly the handgun and the 39-17-1307 violation. But it was a lawful stop and I won't bash the officer for making it. He did his job professionally, had a polite demeanor, and everyone went home safe after a few minutes of inconvenience.

 

His method (and perhaps doing it at all) of disarming the rider leaves a lot to be desired and likely warrants some retraining and updating on the new law, but the stop itself is good.

[JayC]

Officer clearly violated 39-17-1351t.  Lack of reasonable belief the rider in question was a threat to him or the public.

 

Remember 39-17-1351t does not allow officers to disarm whenever they want to, they must have a reasonable belief the specific permit holder in front of them needs to be disarmed for their protection.

 

It's likely the stop was also  pretense, and therefore unlawful which means any disarming during the stop was likely unlawful.

 

Now, the rider should have been using some for of retention holster so that people couldn't walk up and disarm him so easily.

Edited August 10, 2015 by JayC

[E4 No More]

Officer clearly violated 39-17-1351t.  Lack of reasonable belief the rider questions was a threat to him or the public.

 

Remember 39-17-1351t does not allow officers to disarm whenever they want to, they must have a reasonable belief the specific permit holder in front of them needs to be disarmed for their protection.

 

It's likely the stop was also  pretense, and therefore unlawful which means any disarming during the stop was likely unlawful.

 

Now, the rider should have been using some for of retention holster so that people couldn't walk up and disarm him so easily.

Do you use a retention holster? I don't and never will absent of being a LEO on duty in uniform.

Edited August 10, 2015 by SWJewellTN

[macville]

 Nevertheless, 39-17-1307 was violated, giving the officer cause to make the stop. Yeah it was likely a fishing expedition as evidenced by saying the plates are partially obscured when the real reason was clearly the handgun and the 39-17-1307 violation. But it was a lawful stop and I won't bash the officer for making it.

 

Here is something I don't understand. Why can an officer stop someone if they see a firearm, but can not stop someone to see if their license is valid? It's illegal to both drive without a license and to carry without a permit (outside your car) and they are even both Class C misdemeanors. Yet, why is one protected by the 4th amendment and the other is not? Why can't a cop stop anyone that's driving just to see if they have a valid license? It's illegal to drive without a license, so everyone who is driving could be doing so illegally. It makes absolutely no sense.

[peejman]

Here is something I don't understand. Why can an officer stop someone if they see a firearm, but can not stop someone to see if their license is valid? It's illegal to both drive without a license and to carry without a permit (outside your car) and they are even both Class C misdemeanors. Yet, why is one protected by the 4th amendment and the other is not? Why can't a cop stop anyone that's driving just to see if they have a valid license? It's illegal to drive without a license, so everyone who is driving could be doing so illegally. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

Laws that make sense?  :rofl:

[monkeylizard]

Here is something I don't understand. Why can an officer stop someone if they see a firearm, but can not stop someone to see if their license is valid? It's illegal to both drive without a license and to carry without a permit (outside your car) and they are even both Class C misdemeanors. Yet, why is one protected by the 4th amendment and the other is not? Why can't a cop stop anyone that's driving just to see if they have a valid license? It's illegal to drive without a license, so everyone who is driving could be doing so illegally. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

Because carrying a firearm (outside your vehicle, home, business, etc.) is a crime. The HCP is a defense to the crime, not an exception to it.

 

Operating a motor vehicle is not a crime in and of itself. Operating without a license is, but as no crime can be reasonably suspected simply by operating the vehicle, no stop can be made just to check the license. there's no probable cause to stop. Some other reason for the stop must be found. The littany of traffic rules makes that pretty easy though. Exceeding the posted limit, impeding the flow of traffic, failed to signal a lane change, partially obscured plates. The list is a long one.

[monkeylizard]

Officer clearly violated 39-17-1351t.  Lack of reasonable belief the rider in question was a threat to him or the public.

 

Remember 39-17-1351t does not allow officers to disarm whenever they want to, they must have a reasonable belief the specific permit holder in front of them needs to be disarmed for their protection.

 

It's likely the stop was also  pretense, and therefore unlawful which means any disarming during the stop was likely unlawful.

 

Now, the rider should have been using some for of retention holster so that people couldn't walk up and disarm him so easily.

 

The officer said he saw him come out of the store with his gun. That's not pretense. That's on officer witnessing a violation of 39-17-1307, making it a misdemeanor and a possible felony depending on the carrier's record. No other justification for the stop is needed. Period. We're all in the same boat. If an officer sees our handguns outside our vehicles/homes/businesses, it's fully within their job to stop us and request to see our permit. We HCP holders are criminals under TN law by carrying. We just can't be prosecuted for that particular crime.

 

1351 (t ) says:

 

 Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

 

Reasonable belief is not defined. It's whatever a jury or judge agrees that it is. I'd say that 999 times out of 1,000 they'll side with the officer. In this case he can say that he witnessed the individual exit the store with his helmet on and he witnessed partially obscured plates, creating reasonable suspicion in his mind that the individual is purposefully concealing his identity. That's not a crime (the plates are though), but it's enough to make the officer pay attention. He also witnessed a firearm being carried in public in violation of TCA 39-17-1307. Add it all up and I'd bet a box of donuts that a judge or jury (likely made of non-gun people, remember) would agree that the officer was within his rights while executing his duties to disarm the rider.

 

Remember guys, we saw all of this from the rider's point of view, with the knowledge that this is a "good guy" friend of a TGOer and the inserted "pause" comments from the rider. The officer had none of that information. I suspect that if we saw all of this from the dash/body cam of the officer, we'd think his actions were at least somewhat more reasonable.

 

The officer saying partially obscured plates was the reason for the stop was 100% BS. The stop was about the gun, plain and simple. Since the offcier already had the unchecked gun in his back pocket, he could have just said as much.

Edited August 10, 2015 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

.... It's illegal to both drive without a license and to carry without a permit (outside your car) and they are even both Class C misdemeanors....

 

note: Illegal carry is gonna be a Class A 'meanor most of the time.

 

- OS

Edited August 10, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[E4 No More]

The officer said he saw him come out of the store with his gun. That's not pretense. That's on officer witnessing a violation of 39-17-1307, making it a misdemeanor and a possible felony depending on the carrier's record. No other justification for the stop is needed. Period. We're all in the same boat. If an officer sees our handguns outside our vehicles/homes/businesses, it's fully within their job to stop us and request to see our permit. We HCP holders are criminals under TN law by carrying. We just can't be prosecuted for that particular crime.

 

1351 (t ) says:

 

 

Reasonable belief is not defined. It's whatever a jury or judge agrees that it is. I'd say that 999 times out of 1,000 they'll side with the officer. In this case he can say that he witnessed the individual exit the store with his helmet on and he witnessed partially obscured plates, creating reasonable suspicion in his mind that the individual is purposefully concealing his identity. That's not a crime (the plates are though), but it's enough to make the officer pay attention. He also witnessed a firearm being carried in public in violation of TCA 39-17-1307. Add it all up and I'd bet a box of donuts that a judge or jury (likely made of non-gun people, remember) would agree that the officer was within his rights while executing his duties to disarm the rider.

 

Remember guys, we saw all of this from the rider's point of view, with the knowledge that this is a "good guy" friend of a TGOer and the inserted "pause" comments from the rider. The officer had none of that information. I suspect that if we saw all of this from the dash/body cam of the officer, we'd think his actions were at least somewhat more reasonable.

 

The officer saying partially obscured plates was the reason for the stop was 100% BS. The stop was about the gun, plain and simple. Since the offcier already had the unchecked gun in his back pocket, he could have just said as much.

Perhaps you are correct about the officer seeing a weapon, BUT, he stated that his reason for the stop was the helmet and the obscured tag: therefore, he clearly had no reason to believe that the person was carrying an illegal weapon otherwise he would have said so; not use a chicken :poop: excuse to stop him. Just like your statements can incriminate you, recorded statements by the police can be used against them as well provided that the judge gives a crap - which most smaller court judges don't give a crap. But I'm coming for a LEO background in a state where open carry was not illegal, so my perspective of the situation is skewed by that. :shrug:

 

What I'm curious about is whether the license was mounted in a factory mount or really obscured as claimed.

[EssOne]

I have no definition of "reasonable belief," but there is a standard definition of "reasonable cause" or "probable cause" used in police academies and law schools. It is: "that set of circumstances that would lead a man of ordinary reason and prudence to entertain a strong suspicion that a crime has been committed."

 

I suspect that "reasonable belief" is similarly defined.  Hope this helps.

Edited August 10, 2015 by EssOne

[E4 No More]

I have no definition of "reasonable belief," but there is a standard definition of "reasonable cause" or "probable cause" used in police academies and law schools. It is: "that set of circumstances that would lead a man of ordinary reason and prudence to entertain a strong suspicion that a crime has been committed."

 

I suspect that "reasonable belief" is similarly defined.  Hope this helps.

And those are very subjective and usually determined by the judge who, (contrary to popular belief), does have skin in the game, and considers his/her self being of ordinary reason and prudence.

[btq96r]

I have no definition of "reasonable belief," but there is a standard definition of "reasonable cause" or "probable cause" used in police academies and law schools. It is: "that set of circumstances that would lead a man of ordinary reason and prudence to entertain a strong suspicion that a crime has been committed."

 

I suspect that "reasonable belief" is similarly defined.  Hope this helps.

 

The term "has been committed" would seem to make it a high standard, at least to me if I were to interpret it.  I guess it depends on where the line between could have been, and has been is to the individual.  I see it as could have been absent any witness statement (even an informal one would be enough).  I don't see how an armed citizen with his weapon holstered, wearing a helmet on leaving a store on a motorcycle qualifies as leading to the conclusion that a crime has been committed, unless someone in the store reports it that way.  The officer himself only said the guy looked suspicious because of the helmet and the holstered weapon, not any other actions.  Is that in itself enough?

 

Regardless, the stop was 100% correct if the focus had been on simply ascertaining if the biker had a permit to carry the weapon while dismounted.  Even the position of the plates was justified as a reason for the stop, if the officer didn't think the weapon alone was worth investigating.  I'm on the officers side for stopping the guy under the two reasons above.  It's how he approached the situation and his actions during the stop that irks me.

Edited August 10, 2015 by btq96r

[monkeylizard]

If the officer saw the rider leave the store with the gun as he claimed, a crime was committed and the officer witnessed it. Period.

[btq96r]

If the officer saw the rider leave the store with the gun as he claimed, a crime was committed and the officer witnessed it. Period.

 

Fair point.  They why not a simple check for an HCP, with further actions dependent on if the biker can produce one?

[monkeylizard]

I don't disagree that with our 20/20 hindsight, that would have been a better choice. But given the facts from the officer's perspective, it was within his rights to stop and disarm exactly the way he did. I don't think it was the right way, but it was certainly his way and there was nothing unlawful about it. I think he would have been better off to have blocked the biker in the parking spot and turned on the blues as soon as he saw the gun if that was his interest. That would have prevented any high-speed chase if his suspicion was correct. Then again, there were people around the store so making an approach if his suspicions were correct about him being a robber could have made things more dangerous. It's a hard call.

 

I think there are several training opportunities shown in this stop, but nothing that's OMG! Can you believe he did that!

[DaveTN]

Fair point.  They why not a simple check for an HCP, with further actions dependent on if the biker can produce one?

Isn’t that what he was doing? Somewhere between the time he saw the guy and the time the guy was taking his gloves off the cop saw something that made him decide to disarm him. I don’t know what that was.
How is disarming him a violation of his rights? Do we have a right to carry under the 2nd amendment? If so why are we paying for an HCP?