serial number check when pulled over

Under the OP's scenario, the initial traffic stop was legitimate under Terry v. Ohio. He then apparently consented to handing his gun to the officer. That is an exception to the warrant requirement. Assuming the serial number of the gun was visible on the frame, then the serial number was in "plain view." This is another exemption from the warrant requirement. Thus, the officer was allowed to read the serial number off the voluntarily surrendered firearm and run the number to see if it was stolen.

Asking questions not related to the stop does not make the stop unlawful "so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop." Arizona v. Johnson. There is no bright line rule as to how much time constitutes measurably extending the duration of the stop. Certainly a couple of minutes would not be enough.

Now what happens if the driver or passenger does not admit to having a gun or does not voluntarily turn it over? If the officer has reasonable suspicion the driver (or passenger) is armed and dangerous, the officer can search the passenger compartment for weapons so long as passengers remain in the car or, more likely, order the occupants out of the car and pat them down.

The Supreme Court case that ties all this together is Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1122.ZO.html#2ref

Note: corrected typo on citation to Az v. Johnson.
 
Last edited:
If the officer has reasonable suspicion the driver (or passenger) is armed and dangerous
Click to expand...

Do they need reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous? Or just that a crime, any crime, has been committed? As I understood it, the fact that a person was pulled over for a traffic infraction was reasonable suspicion enough that a crime was committed that anyone- driver, passenger etc- were fair game for a terry stop pat down and disarming?
 
Just wanted to mention that while legally they cannot do a search if there is no suspicion, it is just possible that they are just telling you they are running the ser# as a pretext to control the weapon during the stop.

Police are people too, some good at knowing and following all the rules, all the time, others, not so much....
 
KyJim said:
Under the OP's scenario, the initial traffic stop was legitimate under Terry v. Ohio. He then apparently consented to handing his gun to the officer. That is an exception to the warrant requirement. Assuming the serial number of the gun was visible on the frame, then the serial number was in "plain view." This is another exemption from the warrant requirement. Thus, the officer was allowed to read the serial number off the voluntarily surrendered firearm and run the number to see if it was stolen.

Asking questions not related to the stop does not make the stop unlawful "so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop." Arizona v. Johnson. There is no bright line rule as to how much time constitutes measurably extending the duration of the stop. Certainly a couple of minutes would not be enough.

Now what happens if the driver or passenger does not admit to having a gun or does not voluntarily turn it over? If the officer has reasonable suspicion the driver (or passenger) is armed and dangerous, the officer can search the passenger compartment for weapons so long as passengers remain in the car or, more likely, order the occupants out of the car and pat them down.
Click to expand...
Terry still requires a reasonable suspicion of a crime before the officer is allowed to conduct even a cursory search, and that search is ONLY for the limited purpose of determining if the subject is armed. The officer is then entitled to take temporary custody of a sidearm "for officer safety." We agree to that point.

Beyond that point, I disagree. First, a serial number is not "in plain sight" -- you have to look for it. Second, even if you can read it without squinting and shining your tactical flashlight on it, there is nothing about a serial number by itself, absent other contributing factors (which, under the rules set by Terry, must be "clearly articulable), to generate a reasonable suspicion that the gun is stolen. Accordingly, calling in the serial number to check it is an unconstitutional search.
 
Beyond that point, I disagree. First, a serial number is not "in plain sight" -- you have to look for it.
Click to expand...

What is the standard for in plain sight? I just saw a few minutes of a COPS epispode while my football game was on a lightning delay, and he found marijuana in an open/unzipped backpack he had to shine a flashlight into through a car window. That seems even less "in plain sight" than something you have to hold up to your face. Is a window they have to stand on their car to see through in plain sight? (I'm not trying to be facetious, or anything I'm honestly curious what the standard is)
 
Terry still requires a reasonable suspicion of a crime before the officer is allowed to conduct even a cursory search, and that search is ONLY for the limited purpose of determining if the subject is armed. The officer is then entitled to take temporary custody of a sidearm "for officer safety." We agree to that point.
Click to expand...
Here, the traffic violation supplies the reason for the stop under Terry. There does not have to be reasonable suspicion of a separate crime to conduct a limited search for weapons during a traffic stop. There does have to be reasonable suspicion a person is armed and dangerous.

First, a serial number is not "in plain sight" -- you have to look for it.
Click to expand...
Simply having to turn your eyes toward an object or shine a flashlight on it does mean the object is not in plain view. Plain view just means it is not hidden from view; i.e., not in a closed bag or glove box.

[T]here is nothing about a serial number by itself, absent other contributing factors (which, under the rules set by Terry, must be "clearly articulable), to generate a reasonable suspicion that the gun is stolen. Accordingly, calling in the serial number to check it is an unconstitutional search.
Click to expand...
But once the officer has the serial number, due to consent and plain view, there is no further search done by running the serial number. There does not have to be any suspicion the gun is stolen.

It is analogous to a police officer who decides to run a license plate of a car for no particular reason other than he or she is bored. The number is in plain view and running the plate number is not a search. Maybe it violates department procedure, but it's not unconstitutional.

Do they need reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous? Or just that a crime, any crime, has been committed? As I understood it, the fact that a person was pulled over for a traffic infraction was reasonable suspicion enough that a crime was committed that anyone- driver, passenger etc- were fair game for a terry stop pat down and disarming?
Click to expand...
Terry requires reasonable suspicion of both a crime (satisfied by a traffic violation) and reasonable suspicion a person is armed and dangerous. In the Johnson case, the court said: "To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous." Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327 (2009) (emphasis added). This is not a direct holding of the court but I think it is pretty authoritative.

However, I think in many cases that if there is reasonable suspicion one of the persons is armed and dangerous, his or her traveling companions may also be armed and dangerous. It is a highly fact intensive inquiry and judges may come to different conclusions.
 
Last edited:
So what of its not in plain sight, but the simply ask? I guess there is no crime in asking, but what if I got caught lying about it? And what about taking all the bullets out of the magazine? He is not simply just able to see ny serial number, he is taking control of the weapon and taking it to his car.

Either way, I know justified or not, there's no recourse for a citizen to fight the police on technicalities, especially when no arrest or citation was given, I was really just curious if the police had an ulterior motive for asking for/running numbers on my firearms. I have littke trust in any authority these days
 
Once he siezes the gun, to take to his car, can you require he give you a receipt?
What if he drops it on the concrete while fiddling to get the magazine out?

Rick
 
"... I was really just curious if the police had an ulterior motive for asking for/running numbers on my firearms."

skizzums, it's a different world than one a lot of us old timers grew up in. Right or wrong, it's my perception, as well as others, that the police nowadays have a problem with ordinary people having the right to "keep and bear arms". So yeah, the 'quasi-legal' searches with the serial number checking is all part of their anti-gun agenda. Towing the line of their politically appointed boss.
 
So what of its not in plain sight, but the simply ask?
Click to expand...
That's exactly the scenario I (actually you) painted. The initial inquiry and then voluntarily turning over the pistol makes it a consensual seizure. I will note, however, there may a gray area sometimes as to whether a surrender of an item is consensual or done in response to an order. Again, these sorts of issues are very fact-oriented. I am confident that search and seizure issues are the focus of more litigation and court opinions than any other constitutional issue just for that reason.
 
Kilimanjaro said:
The ulterior motive is to check for stolen weapons and get them returned to the owners. There's a lot of them out there.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but very few are being carried by a the licensed concealed carriers. BY the stats: very few (less than 1.5%) ever get in enough trouble to have their license revoked. and only a fraction of those have anything to do with weapons violations. Seems to me it's a vast waste of resources to be running a licensees firearm.
 
here if there is a call by the police to your house you can bet your boots they know if you have a ccw. i had a revolver taken from my car when it was broken into,i reported it and the police filled their report and entered it on the federal nics. three years later i got a call from the state police asking me if i found the revolver, i laughed out loud and he said i guess you didn,t. eastbank.
 
Seems to me it's a vast waste of resources to be running a licensees firearm.
Click to expand...

It's not a waste or resources, it's harassment. That's always worth the cost when you're spending other people's money. (especially money taken from the person being harassed)

I really think the police want to be hated by the general population. It's a feedback loop that (in their minds) proves how righteous they are and what scoundrels we are.

There probably are good cops out there. There are probably good and decent piano players at whorehouses too, just trying to earn an honest wage. I don't know exactly when being a peace officer stopped being an honorable profession, but I miss it.
 
Will you be ready ???

I guess I would ask; When it happens to you, will you be ready with the appropriate reply and what might that be? Again, the LEO will present it in the form of a "request". Keep in mind that you have the backing of the Constitution which is sovereign. ...... :)

Any man who says, he has nothing to hide, is a liar !!! .... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
I really think the police want to be hated by the general population. It's a feedback loop that (in their minds) proves how righteous they are and what scoundrels we are.
Click to expand...
That's a very broad and unfair generalization, and we frown on that sort of thing without very strong evidence.
 
No way I hand a cop a firearm at a traffic stop, if they want it they'll have to remove it themselves. For all I know some other cop is rolling up right when I'm removing it, misinterprets what is going on, and opens fire. No way am I even touching it!
 
Seems all the more reason for states to handle CWPs like Florida does - it is NOT tied to your DL - it is handled by the Ag Commissioner - and you have no duty to inform.

NV was a different story when I lived there - you were allowed two guns on your CWP - you could have a dozen of each one, but no other model. If you had a 642 and G26 on the CWP, you better not be caught with a 36 or G19, and in NV it WAS tied to your DL. At one traffic stop, the LEO asked me if I had my weapon on me - it was in a bag on the passenger seat. He said just leave there, gave me a warning and I was on my way........
 
That said, wow! I've never heard of officers taking a firearm back to their car to run serial numbers to look for stolen guns. Never, ever, ever, and I deal with a lot of police.
Click to expand...

That was SOP when I lived in Florida. I left in 89, so maybe things have changed since then, but, back then, if you got pulled over or were even just out in the glades somewhere plinking, your gun(s) went back to the cruiser to get the serial number(s) checked.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top