re: officer taking pistol from vehicle

quote:

---

Both of you resorted to name calling. Pretty typical.

---

quote:

---

This is something that the courts of Louisiana will uphold as they have done time and time again

---

quote:

---

We have recognized that the first rationale—officer safety—is “ ‘both legitimate and weighty,’ ” Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 412, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (per curiam) ). The threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation, however, is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest. In Robinson, we stated that a custodial arrest involves “danger to an officer” **488 because of “the extended exposure which follows the taking of a suspect into custody and transporting him to the police station.” 414 U.S., at 234–235, 94 S.Ct. 467. We recognized that “[t]he danger to the police officer flows from the fact of the arrest, and its attendant proximity, stress, and uncertainty, and not from the grounds for arrest.” Id., at 234, n. 5, 94 S.Ct. 467. A routine traffic stop, on the other hand, is a relatively brief encounter and “is more analogous to a so-called ‘Terry stop’ ... than to a formal arrest.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). See also Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 296, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973) ( “Where there is no formal arrest ... a person might well be less hostile to the police and less likely to take conspicuous, immediate steps to destroy incriminating evidence”).
This is not to say that the concern for officer safety is absent in the case of a routine traffic stop. It plainly is not. See Mimms, supra, at 110, 98 S.Ct. 330; Wilson, supra, at 413–414, 117 S.Ct. 882. But while the concern for officer safety in this context may justify the “minimal” additional intrusion of ordering a driver and passengers out of the car, it does not by itself justify the often considerably greater intrusion attending a full field-type search. Even without the search authority Iowa urges, officers have other, independent bases to search for weapons and protect themselves from danger. For example, they *118 may order out of a vehicle both the driver, Mimms, supra, at 111, 98 S.Ct. 330, and any passengers, Wilson, supra, at 414, 117 S.Ct. 882; perform a “patdown” of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); conduct a “Terry patdown” of the passenger compartment of a vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that an occupant is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon, Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983); and even conduct a full search of the passenger compartment, including any containers therein, pursuant to a custodial arrest, New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981).

---

quote:

---

I have posted a SCOTUS case that says (even though it's dicta) that a cop cannot conduct a full search of the car under these situations.

---

quote:

---

But once the fact is added that the officer becomes aware not just suspects but is informed by the driver that a weapon is present then that officer is well within his rights to secure the weapon from the vehicle and conduct a pat down of the driver.

---

quote:

---

IT IS NOT A SEARCH OF THE DRIVER TELLS THE OFFICER WHERE THE WEAPON IS!!!

---

quote:

---

If the diver does not consent, just because you know it is in the glove box does not mean it is not a search.

---

quote:

---

In my case I let the officer go retrieve my gun and unload it because I thought I possible might get out of the ticket. I was wrong but that was why I didn't put up any resistance.

---

quote:

---

Don't resist the officer especially if a firearm is involved. If you believe your rights have been violated get an attorney and fight him in court and you could finally settle this issue for us .

---