Posted on 05/31/2011 6:29:14 AM PDT by marktwain
New Mexico Supreme CourtPolice officers in New Mexico can take guns away from drivers who pose no threat. The state supreme court ruled on May 20 that "officer safety" is more important than any constitutional rights a gun-owning motorist might have. The ruling was handed down in deciding the fate of Gregory Ketelson who was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over on November 13, 2008.
During the stop, Hobbs Police Officer Miroslava Bleau saw a 9mm handgun on the back seat floorboard. Ketelson and the driver of the car were ordered out and away from the car while Officer Shane Blevins grabbed the gun. The officers later learned that Ketelson, as a convicted felon, could not legally possess a firearm. The court, however, only considered whether the officers acted properly in taking the gun before they had any reason to suspect Ketelson, who was entirely cooperative during the encounter, of committing a crime.
Ketelson and the National Rifle Association argued that even a brief seizure of a firearm without cause violates fundamental, constitutionally protected rights. Ketelson also argued the gun could not have been taken without a search warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. A district court and the court of appeals agreed with this reasoning. State prosecutors countered that anyone with a gun ought to be considered "armed and dangerous" and thus the gun could be seized at any time. The high court agreed with this line of reasoning.
"Neither the defendant nor the driver was restrained, and thus the risk that one of them would access the firearm was especially potent," Justice Petra Jimenez Maes wrote for the court. "Under such circumstances, Officer Blevins could constitutionally remove the firearm from the vehicle because he possessed a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which warranted him in believing that defendant was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to his safety."
Because a gun would only taken for the duration of the traffic stop, the court decided such seizures were reasonable.
"The retrieval of the gun from the vehicle during the limited context of the traffic stop was at most a minimal interference with the suspect's possessory interest," Maes wrote. "Our decision in this case, which addresses a temporary separation of a firearm from the occupants of a car during the duration of a traffic stop, does not depend on any requirement of particularized suspicion that an occupant is inclined to use the firearm improperly."
The decision overturned statements made in a previous ruling, New Mexico v. Garcia.
"It would be anomalous to treat the mere presence of a firearm in an automobile as supporting a reasonable suspicion that the occupants are inclined to harm an officer in the course of a routine traffic stop," the court held in 2005.
A copy of the decision is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: PDF File New Mexico v. Ketelson (Supreme Court of New Mexico, 5/20/2011)
When do you get to secure the cops weapon. Why is ok for him to disarm you, while he is armed. He is not more special than you and these days certainly not more law abiding or honorable. Wher in the 2nd Amendment does it say they can do this. It says shall not be infringed, this sounds like infringement to me.
That is just stupid. I’ll hammer cops when they are bad, but a cop stopping someone for speeding shouldn’t be at risk of his life (any more than he is already) while giving a ticket. You don’t get to sit with a shotgun in his face while citing the 2nd amendment.
Why? Can you as his employer, as to take custody of his?
where 'legal' carry concealed requires a *permit* and OC does not, especially in a vehicle, it would be prudent to place the pistol in the open before it gets *found* concealed...
i would wonder why these cops got their panties in a bunch in the first place, after all, if they hadnt initiated a revenue enhancement interaction, they wouldnt have needed fear for their lives...
citizens have Rights...cops/gubmint has authority/power granted by the consent of the People...
maybe ifn cops would spend time catching criminals, ya know the rapists, murderers, robbers etc and less time injecting themselves into ordinary citizens lives, they wouldnt hafta fear the ordinary citizen more than the criminal...
and yeah, that means we need to re-define 'crime' and the use of a militarized force in our midst...
sorry for the nitpickin rant...
My CCW instructor told us that it is legal to carry a loaded gun in one’s vehicle for defensive purposes in Colorado. As long as it’s legally owned by the operator of the vehicle.
A cop has rights too.
Cops (as part of government) have POWERS. The question is what powers we the people invest in them.
I prefer they do not have the power to deny the right to self defense, unless there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
I agree. Would you agree that the police officer doesn't get to hold a shotgun on you while his partner writes the ticket?
There is a world of difference between a shotgun in your face and a pistol on the floor.
Simple presence of a weapon should not be enough. The police ought to be able to articulate some reason for them to be concerned for their safety.
They should not be able to disarm any citizen simply because they are talking to them.
Sooner or later, such confrontations and unconstitutional confiscations will result in a war between police and actual Americans.
“My CCW instructor told us that it is legal to carry a loaded gun in one’s vehicle for defensive purposes in Colorado”
And that is true. No permit required. However, leaving it on the seat for a cop to see is not a good idea. Most, not all, but most, honest gun carrying people do not carry it on the seat next to them or in their lap. So, cops might have cause for alarm when they see a gun in your lap or on the floor or on the passenger seat.
Considering anyone wanting to shoot a cop might have a gun in those locations and considering how quick such an event can take place, I see no problem with a cop taking precautions when presented with such a situation, such as asking you to exit the vehicle for the duration of the stop.
I did get pulled over once and asked if I had any weapons as he also saw my CWP when I pulled my license from my wallet. I said yes and he simply asked that I not point any weapons at him. A little humor but he was simply saying please don’t go pulling it out of a holster and try to hand it to him or anything. Just sit tight, he’ll run my license, and we’ll all be on our way. I only got a warning and all was just fine.
Why should I be put at risk to satify the cops desire to be safe. It is my god given right to self defense. The cop should not have more rights than me.
You don’t need to defend yourself against a cop writing you a ticket. The cop’s RIGHT to self defense includes the right to take steps to prevent being shot by the bad guys.
No, The mys RIGHT to self defense includes the right to take steps to prevent being shot by the bad guys and or cops.
New Mexico is lunatic country.
Space Cadets Inc.
No, my Right
Darn I should learn to type or preview.
>> “’better to be tried by 12, than carried by six’...when it comes to LEOs and people with weapons.” <<
.
Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that we should shoot all LEOs before they shoot us. I don’t think your theory works at all.
That’s some strange logic.
What county was this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.