CCW, "Duty to Inform," and refusing a search


PDA






Eightball
October 10, 2009, 03:32 PM
So, I started thinking (always a bad sign), and I came across a few different threads on various boards about how to properly and legally refuse to consent to a search if you get pulled over. I started thinking some more, and wondered about how well that would work in the case of a CCW holder, and also what would be the SOP in a "Duty to Inform" state (speaking of which, is there a list of all the states where that is a requirement vs. not? I always get it confused). Is it possible, while CCWing in a "Duty to Inform" state, to refuse assent to a search without getting arrested? And, regardless of "duty to inform", if an officer asks if there's any weapons in the car, is there a way to answer that question truthfully while still refusing to assent to a search (if still legal)?

Not trying to be a tinfoil hat lawyer, but I just started wondering about it, and realized that while to the best of my knowledge there would be nothing inside my car that could get me some kinda citation or arrest (nothing to hide), there's always the chance that there's some obscure thing with which they could nail you, so I'm just trying to avoid that entirely while still complying with the law.

Sorry if this is some kinda super-dupe, but searching for things like this can send you into the dark abyss of 18,000 threads, the same as searching for anything 1911 related, etc.

ETA: Also, how would one go about getting their registration if they've already got a firearm in their glovebox? Get it before the LEO gets out of his car, so that it's not even an issue? Tell him "Hey, Officer, I would give you my registration, but there's a firearm in the glove box"? Or....?

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW, "Duty to Inform," and refusing a search" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
scottaschultz
October 10, 2009, 03:49 PM
If you have nothing to hide, why are you refusing?

Scott

SFB
October 10, 2009, 03:57 PM
scott - if the police started coming to your house once a month to search it, if you had nothing to hide, would you just let them in every month?

we have rights for a reason. you have to draw the line somewhere. i personally will always refuse to a search, even if i have nothing to hide (which i don't have anything to hide). they better get a warrant or have some real good probable cause before they start tearing my vehicle apart for no reason.

Riss
October 10, 2009, 04:02 PM
Not sure about duty to inform as we do not have it here, and I have no idea what states do. As far as lying, and saying that yo do not have a gun when you really do, NEVER DO IT. Always tell the truth. I am sure you can always refuse a search. ONLY if there is probable cause could you possibly get held and searched later even if you refused consent. If you start lying about things that could only give the Law reason to hold you and build on their suspicion that would lead to a search.

conw
October 10, 2009, 04:04 PM
If you have nothing to hide, why are you refusing?

This is covered extensively elsewhere, but...

-people have had their cars literally ripped apart after consenting to a search
-people have had "evidence" confiscated and not returned for a long time, or ever
-people do sometimes have evidence planted, although this is rare, and if you didn't do anything wrong then you have nothing to fear from NOT consenting to a search either (this isn't a cop bashing point, just a fact, albeit rarely occurring)
-I have better things to do with my time than allow a police officer as much time as he wishes once I consent to a search
-people who bought used cars have been charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, etc, that was stuck in the seats


Catch my drift?

scottaschultz
October 10, 2009, 04:06 PM
SFB, don't put words in my mouth! The OP is not talking about the police coming to his house once a month to search his house.

If you want to refuse a search of your vehicle (which is what the OP is asking!!!), that is of course your right, but I would tend to think that the officer(s) are not going to apologize for wasting your time and sending you on your way.

Scott

SFB
October 10, 2009, 04:10 PM
scott - alright change house to car, whatever, you know what i am getting at. LE doesn't have the right to just search your vehicle because they WANT to.

scottaschultz
October 10, 2009, 04:18 PM
OK, these are all valid points, but I am 52 years old and have been driving for over 36 years. In all that time, I have been pulled over just a handful of times, probably less than 10, and in all that time, I have NEVER been asked to have my vehicle searched.

Maybe its because I don't have a criminal record of any kind. Maybe its because I always try my best to cooperate with the officer on those rare times when I get stopped. I don't know exactly how to do this, but maybe its because I try not to act "suspicious" when I get stopped. Maybe I'm just lucky!

Scott

Zach S
October 10, 2009, 04:44 PM
We have a duty to inform in NC.

For the most part, its no big deal. The LEO just glances as my papers and proceeds with the stop. Same at seat belt/DUI checkpoints. They dont even look at my tag, or even the inspection sticker (which was dead for four years).

The only time I was disarmed was before I had my CHP. The trooper didn't take possession of my pistol, he just had me step out of the car and wait at the back of it while he wrote my ticket.

The only time my CHP caused a problem with LE was in Yancey County.

conw
October 10, 2009, 05:16 PM
Maybe its because I don't have a criminal record of any kind. Maybe its because I always try my best to cooperate with the officer on those rare times when I get stopped. I don't know exactly how to do this, but maybe its because I try not to act "suspicious" when I get stopped. Maybe I'm just lucky!

In the present climate younger people are more likely to face suspicion from cops, perhaps with statistical reasons to back that up (I'm not opposed to "profiling" if it's based on reality rather than bias).

I'm 22, and I don't really have any reason to worry either, but I am prepared to know my rights and not get screwed over by one bad apple out there. I normally handle cops well and they are cool with me, even a bit of joking around takes place, etc. But seriously, I don't let that prevent me from being very, very cautious; it's not that every, or many, cops are "bad," it's a matter of the consequences from making a mistake IF I happen to run into one.

SFB
October 10, 2009, 05:18 PM
scott - i guess i am just speaking from past experiences. many times when i was younger i was profiled and asked to have my vehicle searched just because of the way i looked. i refused every time, even with nothing to hide, even being "detained" for over an hour while a police officer waited for a k-9 unit which discovered nothing. i am a straight shooter and in the military, but i will never submit to a search. it is a violation of my privacy that i don't appreciate.

to stick to the OP's topic, florida does not have a "duty to inform" law and i wouldn't inform unless i felt it absolutely necessary (i.e. i am concealing on my person and i am asked to step out of the vehicle, etc..). no need to bring attention to a non-issue during a routine traffic stop.

Edited to add: every time i have been pulled over and/or asked to consent to a search i am as polite as possible and have nothing but 100% respect for the LEO. even if they don't have 100% respect for my rights. as i am older now, and drive much more cautiously and lawfully, and my appearance has changed i don't have that problem anymore.

LubeckTech
October 10, 2009, 05:22 PM
Just how inportant are constutional rights?? Our Constution CLEARLY states that we have the right to be secure in our persons and property. If the government or it's agents wish to search they need a specific reason aka probable cause. If you take the "nothing to hide" attitude YOU are participitating in the erosion of our liberties!! According to Supreme Court judge Oliver Windell Holmes (no he was not a character on Green Acres) if you do not aggressivly assert a right it does not exist. This needs to be done in such a way as not to tick off the officer or you might find yourself under arrest for possession of whatever they happen to have at the station. None the less it is not unreasonable for you to POLITELY ask as to what probable cause he or she has to search. You may find there is a good reason like your vehicle may match the description of one driven by someone who just stole a case of beer from a local convience store. If the answer is it's just our policy of if you are told the search is constitutional because they search everybody politely refuse. In many cases they will simply say OK and let it go. In other circumstances they may detain you and call for a canine unit to sniff the vehicle and if he alerts they would use that for probable cause and obtain a warrant if necessary. Be aware that if you do assert your rights they CAN cause you problems like destroying your vehicle's interior in the name of a "search" or ticketing you for anything they could think of that they normally would let go. Bottom line is freedom is not free and anytime you stand up for yourself there are risks.

Ringer
October 10, 2009, 05:29 PM
Michigan is "must inform" and I have done it 3 times over the years. The first 2 times they all but ignored the fact I informed them I was carrying. The last one did ask "what kind of weapon are you carrying?". I responded and there was no more mention of it.

As far as I know, at least in MI, informing of carrying does not change anything about my rights to consent, or not, to a search. I'm in the "don't consent" camp but like scottaschultz I have had numerous encounters with LEO over the years and never been asked regardless of my age at the time.

LubeckTech
October 10, 2009, 05:33 PM
According to the fourth ammendment profiling is not probable cause. It's not OK to pull someone over or ask to search because they have an NRA sitcker on their vehicle. Nor is it OK to detain someone at an airport strip search them and feed them a laxative because they regularly fly a given route and pay for their ticket in cash.

scottaschultz
October 10, 2009, 05:34 PM
LubeckTech wrote: If the answer is it's just our policy of if you are told the search is constitutional because they search everybody politely refuse. In many cases they will simply say OK and let it go.
And if you believe that they will just say OK and let it go, here is something I would like to sell you!

http://amygdela.com/stock/photos/medium/561.jpg

EDIT:

And here is the back side of my vehicle:
http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv124/scottaschultz/DSC_0126.jpg
LubeckTech wrote:It's not OK to pull someone over or ask to search because they have an NRA sitcker on their vehicle.
That sticker above the wiper arm has been there for over 10 years!

Scott

conw
October 10, 2009, 05:35 PM
being "detained" for over an hour while a police officer waited for a k-9 unit which discovered nothing. i am a straight shooter and in the military, but i will never submit to a search. it is a violation of my privacy that i don't appreciate.

Your response to this, while waiting, could be "Am I free to go or am I under arrest?" If they said "You aren't under arrest, but you are being detained," ask to speak to the supervisor and raise a fuss. Should be allowed to go after that. I am not aware of any discretionary ability of police officers to detain people for prolonged periods based only on suspicion with nothing other than "He might have something in his car because he didn't consent to a search."

I am not really an advocate of raising a fuss, but doing so strategically IF things are already going badly could be an option.

Deanimator
October 10, 2009, 05:44 PM
Ohio is a "must inform" state, but ONLY if you're carrying. You have no obligation to notify if you're not carrying and I never would.

I will NEVER:

Consent to ANY search.

Talk to police about any matter in which I could conceivably be a suspect, except as required by law (notify when armed, show CHL if asked when armed, give VERBAL name and address when not armed). "Officer, am I free to leave?" If the answer is "No", then "Officer, I have nothing further to say without a lawyer present." And that's that. Leave the "banter" with police to the actors on "Law & Order".

Any conceivable good that might remotely come from waiving your rights is vastly overwhelmed by the dangers that arise therefrom.

For me to "trust" all cops who stop me is every bit as foolish as for a cop to "trust" every motorist he stops.

A cop may not like it if you make him obey the law. I couldn't care less. The law is the law. Nobody has to like it. They just have to obey it. And that includes cops. If either of us breaks the law, there are consequences.

mgregg85
October 10, 2009, 05:55 PM
If you have nothing to hide, why are you refusing?

Scott

I think I would give up my second amendment rights if I could just be allowed to slap anyone who utters those words. What kind of backwards thinking came up with that crap? It sounds like it came right out of the mouth of a gestapo agent in Nazi Germany.

People who espouse such nonsense are ruining America just as fast as the Brady center people and Dianne Feinstein. Its garbage reasoning like that that gave us the PATRIOT act.

SFB
October 10, 2009, 06:33 PM
conwict - i know this now, at the time (i was 17) i did not know i could just ask why i am being detained and if i wasn't under arrest i had the right to leave. i knew that they didn't have the right to search my vehicle for no reason though, and as stubborn as i am i held out until the K-9 got there and didn't alert on my vehicle.

Art Eatman
October 10, 2009, 06:45 PM
Two different things in one thread, which is a bummer.

If you have a CHL in a "must inform" jurisdiction, hey, you agreed to their deal when you got the CHL. I've read here at THR that some cops in northern states get goosey about a legal CHL guy maintaining possession during a routine traffic stop and wanting to hold the handgun during the ticket-writing. I don't know if that's legal, but on the side of the highway is no place to argue the meaning of the Constitution.

Otherwise, yeah, you have the right to refuse a search.

NoAlibi
October 10, 2009, 07:12 PM
You may not lie to a police officer - it's called "giving false information" and in many jurisdictions it is a crime. There are some exceptions to this and the Supreme Court has even created one of these ludicrous exceptions.

You might try saying, "I appreciate the job that you are doing for us, but I don't feel the need to answer that question or see how it can help you to do your job unless you can articulate any probable cause that you may have. Caution: The police are allowed to lie to you - with a few exceptions.

The only one that has some ability to make you answer a question is a judge and that would be under the threat of a contempt citation and in most cases only after you have been given immunity. You can still refuse, but you might wind up staying in the calaboose for a long, long time.


LubeckTech:

According to the fourth ammendment profiling is not probable cause.

If you buy a one-way ticket with cash at Palm Beach International Airport and you don't have any baggage, I promise you that you will be detained. I'm not saying that it's right, but it is going to happen!

Deanimator:

Any conceivable good that might remotely come from waiving your rights is vastly overwhelmed by the dangers that arise therefrom.

It might be a good thing to remember what one of our members once said in a post, "The police are employed to gather information against anyone they come in contact with."

OldMac
October 10, 2009, 07:19 PM
Twice in the eighties I was asked to consent to a search. Both times I politely said no. Once they asked me to exit the vehicle. As I complied, I hit the auto door lock and shut the door. At the back of the car, I watched them try every door handle with no luck. Both times had me back on the road in the time it takes to write a ticket. I had nothing to hide and didn't wish to spend my time hanging out with them either.

You can rest assured, that they have the tools necessary to find the true evidence needed if they really suspect that it is in your car. If they are just fishing, they will move on. If they are really looking for a BG in a car just like yours, then you will hang out with them until they get in your car regardless of how you answer the question. Always be polite and honest to reduce their stress and avoid emotions and errors.

gbran
October 10, 2009, 07:36 PM
Does "duty to inform" require presentation?

NavyLCDR
October 10, 2009, 08:10 PM
Does "duty to inform" require presentation?

Presentation of what? A CCW license? Yes.

To the OP...

Once you inform the police of the presence of a weapon either via informing them of CCW status or if they ask, the police then have the right to disarm you for safety. What that means is that they can frisk your person for weapons and temporarily confiscate any weapon that you have on your person.

First step is to store your weapon, if you are not going to have it on your person, in a separate location from your registration and proof of insurance. Put the registration and insurance above the visor, for example and the weapon in the glovebox.

Second step, if they ask you to step out of your vehicle, take your registration and insurance and all other documents such as license, CCW with you. Take the keys to the vehicle with you. Step out of the vehicle and lock it if it is easily locked. Keep the keys in your hand. At this point the police may now only remove weapons from on your person, they cannot claim officer safety as a reason to search your vehicle. At this point, you may refuse any and all requests to search your vehicle but must submit to a frisk. They can only remove items from your pockets, etc, if they have reason to believe it is a weapon. For instance, removing your wallet is off limits, legally, because there is no way a wallet can feel like a weapon during a frisk. They certainly have no legal basis to open your wallet if they do remove it.

In no circumstances can they remove something from your vehicle for officer safety once you are out of the vehicle. AND if they see a weapon in plain sight within the vehicle, say a handgun on the passenger seat, their correct action is to ask you to leave the vehicle, NOT remove the gun from the vehicle.

Where this would really get sticky is if they remove you from the vehicle AND they have reason to believe there are weapons in your vehicle AND there are documents in the vehicle needed. That's why you keep the documents separate from the gun storage location and bring the documents with you when you get out.

Also, watch "BUSTED: a citizen's guide to surviving a police encounter" on youtube.

Hope this helps,
NavyLT

danbrew
October 10, 2009, 08:28 PM
OK, these are all valid points, but I am 52 years old and have been driving for over 36 years. In all that time, I have been pulled over just a handful of times, probably less than 10, and in all that time, I have NEVER been asked to have my vehicle searched.

Maybe its because I don't have a criminal record of any kind. Maybe its because I always try my best to cooperate with the officer on those rare times when I get stopped. I don't know exactly how to do this, but maybe its because I try not to act "suspicious" when I get stopped. Maybe I'm just lucky!

Scott

Maybe you're a different color than I am? Maybe you listen to different music? Maybe you have different bumper stickers than I do? Maybe you have a "conservative" car? Or maybe you don't ride a motorcycle?

Consenting to a search is a fishing expedition. Period. If law enforcement has reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed a crime, they'll arrest you. If not, they have no right to search you or your vehicle. Go watch a few episodes of "COPS" and see some very common ploys to solicit a search.

I'm not a criminal and I don't choose to be treated like one. I'm pretty sensitive to the "if you've got nothing to hide, a search shouldn't bother you..." as that's not the way the constitution works.

I was pulled over on a motorcycle a number of years ago and I was carrying. Although not required to, I told the officer I was carrying. He requested that I not move and he would unholster my weapon for his safety. I told him the holster was comparable to a Level 3 holster and I would be happy to retrieve the firearm and unload it and hand it to him, but I didn't want him to attempt to retrieve it because I didn't want him to screw up and shoot me with it. He thought about it for a few minutes and told me that he wanted to remove it. I told him that I would not permit him to do so and that, if he felt it necessary, he could shoot me or call for backup. I said all of this in a very calm and friendly way but I also told him it would be unlikely that he would be able to remove the firearm from the holster without an accidental discharge and I didn't want to get shot. He thought about it for a few more minutes and then asked me to do my thing. I did, unloaded it, and handed it to him.

He then tells me that he wants to search my locked saddlebags. I told him no. He said "if you've got nothing to hide..." and I told him that if he had grounds to arrest me, he should, but that I would not consent to a search.

I did get a speeding ticket as a result of the encounter, but I figured I would from the start because of his demeanor. Guess I shouldn't speed.

The cop asked me not to load my gun until he left - I thought about telling him to go **** himself and ask him to unload his gun, but decided that I didn't need to push the issue.

I did ask him why he was so worried and made such an issue of it when I voluntarily disclosed that I was carrying. He went on about officer safety and I told him that, if I had wanted to, I could have shot him when he pulled me over - but I didn't because I don't go around shooting cops (or anyone). He didn't like that much.

As a result, I won't ever disclose that I am carrying unless required to do so by law.

Deanimator
October 10, 2009, 08:30 PM
Presentation of what? A CCW license? Yes.
In Ohio, it's presentation ON REQUEST.

You don't have to give the cop your CHL unless he asks for it, and merely giving it to him isn't actually notification.

Gamera
October 10, 2009, 08:51 PM
In SC it's presentation upon the officer identifying himself as an officer, and/or asking for any form of identification.
I'm not quite sure what happens after this (I've never been pulled over while carrying). I suppose the officer could say "please give me your weapon", but I'm not sure if we legally must give it to him.

luigi
October 11, 2009, 04:44 AM
If I give consent to a search I've given away any legal protection I have. I don't know the cop that's searching my car, I don't know if he's crooked, or trying to enhance his reputation by planting drugs in people's cars. So the smartest thing I can do is ask to speak to my lawyer and let her sort it out?

Shadow 7D
October 11, 2009, 05:13 AM
And remember that police searches are like rape its ok until you explicitly say NO, if the cop say can I do a search and you don't stop him, the the DA will argue that you allowed the search and gave away all constitutional protection, were if you say no, and make sure that it gets on camera, or the search for "safety" reason, your lawyer can argue that it was a bad search and get the case thrown out.

Me personally, I don't want to waste the time or have my stuff messed with.

luigi
October 11, 2009, 05:36 AM
I think telling the cop you're armed is asking for trouble. If I don't have to say anything I don't.

How did the fish get hooked? He opened his mouth.

divemedic
October 11, 2009, 07:11 AM
As a result, I won't ever disclose that I am carrying unless required to do so by law.

I agree. I live in the Orlando area. I used to tell cops that I carry. A Sergeant with the Orange County Sheriff's office changed all of that, back in 2000. I was sitting at a stop light for a pretty long period of time, and after about 10 minutes assumed it must be broken. There was no traffic, so I went.

The deputy came up behind me and pulled me over. I still do not know where he came from, I never saw him until he was on my bumper. He asked me to step out of the car, so I did. I handed him my DL, registration, CCW permit, and Insurance. When he saw the CCW, he asked if I had a weapon. I told him yes.

He stepped back, put his hand on his pistol, and told me, "Make one move and I will kill you where you stand." Then he said, "Go ahead, try me. I bet I am faster."

I asked him what his problem was, and he began cursing me out, calling me names, and was a real jerk. Bragging about his 20 years on the force, etc.

I do not tell anymore, and yes I do have things to hide. I don't want people to know what my medical history is, nor do I want people to know details of the sex life between my wife and me, nor do I want anyone to have access to my financial information, like credit card numbers, etc. It is personal and private. No searches for you, unless you have a warrant or are arresting me. Just because I have something to hide does not mean that the "something" that I am hiding is illegal.

SFB
October 11, 2009, 09:19 AM
divemedic - wow, i know exactly where you are coming from. i lived in orlando until i was 24 years old and i think that is why i have such distrust for most LEO. orlando police and orange county sheriff's take the cake when it comes to being unprofessional.

i once got pulled over after passing someone on 2 lane road in a no passing zone. they were reading a map and driving 20mph in a 50mph zone. there was no other cars around and i safely passed them. an orange county sheriff coming the other direction whipped a u-turn in the road, passed the same car i passed, and looked to be going 80mph to catch up to me. i immediately pulled over when i saw him do a u-turn and put his lights on. when he approached the car i had my 2 year old 75lb boxer in the truck with me. he approached the vehicle in such an unprofessional way. he started yelling at me as soon as he got to my truck and freaked my dog out. my dog started barking and growling at him, i told her to stop and lay down, which she did. the officer however placed his hand on his gun and said "you better get that dog under control or i'm going to shoot it, and you just better hope you aren't in the way when i do."

that is not the kind of officer i want to tell i have a weapon in my vehicle.

NavyLCDR
October 11, 2009, 12:18 PM
Since we've wandered a lit bit off topic, I'll wander too. I've had two speeding stops since I have been carrying. I live in a no requirement to inform state. First encounter, 11:30PM, coming back from a casino. My gun was in the glovebox because I had been to the casino. I pull over and immediately get the folder containing my registration and insurance out of the glovebox and close the glovebox. Stop (and ticket) goes completely normal after that. I did not disclose the gun in the glovebox because I had no need any more to open the glovebox after I retrieved the paperwork before the cop came up to the car.

Second stop, I was wearing my gun in my holster. Stop goes by normal, I never mentioned the gun. Never presented my CPL. Then the cop asks me to step out of the vehicle! (He wanted to give me a verbal warning in private, not in front of my kids for some reason). So I stepped out, open carrying like I always do. He glanced at the gun but said nothing at all about it. Maybe because he knew I was an officer in the Navy from my ID.

So far I am 2 for 2 for not informing and I will continue to not inform, just my personal opinion for me.

The Lone Haranguer
October 11, 2009, 12:29 PM
If you have a duty to inform, by all means do so. The officer may even take possession of your weapon. But in no way, shape or form is having a CHL or a lawfully carried weapon probable cause for a search.

delta53
October 11, 2009, 12:55 PM
I have been pulled over about 10 times in thirty years and my car was seached about 4 times with consent and about 5 without. They always say probaly cause, the police were I live are nazis and do what they want.

brboyer
October 11, 2009, 01:43 PM
You may not lie to a police officer - it's called "giving false information" and in many jurisdictions it is a crime. There are some exceptions to this and the Supreme Court has even created one of these ludicrous exceptions.

You might try saying, "I appreciate the job that you are doing for us, but I don't feel the need to answer that question or see how it can help you to do your job unless you can articulate any probable cause that you may have. Caution: The police are allowed to lie to you - with a few exceptions.

The only one that has some ability to make you answer a question is a judge and that would be under the threat of a contempt citation and in most cases only after you have been given immunity. You can still refuse, but you might wind up staying in the calaboose for a long, long time.




If you buy a one-way ticket with cash at Palm Beach International Airport and you don't have any baggage, I promise you that you will be detained. I'm not saying that it's right, but it is going to happen!



It might be a good thing to remember what one of our members once said in a post, "The police are employed to gather information against anyone they come in contact with."

In Florida? Not true. Please provide a cite to the statute that someone could be charged under for saying "Nope" to the question "Do you have any guns in the car?" during a stop for a traffic violation.

It is perfectly legal to lie about a lawfully carried weapon.

Shadow 7D
October 11, 2009, 09:56 PM
In Alaska you have to inform:

(a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person

(1) is 21 years of age or older and knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon,

(A) that is concealed on the person, and, when contacted by a peace officer, the person fails to

(i) immediately inform the peace officer of that possession; or

(ii) allow the peace officer to secure the deadly weapon, or fails to secure the weapon at the direction of the peace officer, during the duration of the contact;

(B) that is concealed on the person within the residence of another person unless the person has first obtained the express permission of an adult residing there to bring a concealed deadly weapon within the residence;

So, not informing is not an option, however on the other hand, you don't have to get licensed to carry concealed.

cassandrasdaddy
October 11, 2009, 10:17 PM
It is perfectly legal to lie about a lawfully carried weapon.

at least put ianal if you are gonna help set folk up for an obstruction charge

HorseSoldier
October 11, 2009, 10:23 PM
+1 -- in Alaska you have a duty to inform, and it just doesn't really seem to land us in the middle of a police state where all personal liberties are eradicated.

Of course up here even in what passes for the big city, I'd tend to be skeptical of anyone who said they weren't armed, since we've got higher rates of gun ownership than anywhere else in the country if I'm not mistaken.

Shadow 7D
October 11, 2009, 11:03 PM
Horse soldier, naw, we own more guns per a person ;), and probably more people own guns too..

sig220mw
October 11, 2009, 11:42 PM
When I first got my permit, it was in Ft Worth, Texas where I then lived. Granted Texas is a much more gun friendly state than many others The instructor was a Ft Worth police officer and in Texas you must tell an officer if you are carrying. The instructor told us "that in his opinion" he felt far more at ease with a holder of a concealed carry permit because when he saw that permit he knew that in all likelyhood the permit holder would not be a threat or a criminal since he had been through a thorough back ground check.
He in fact told us to present the permit even when not carrying for this very reason and also because when they run your license the fact that you have a permit is also part of the info that comes up on your license info and when that happens he will then want to know why you didn't inform him. I have been stopped a few times sometimes carrying sometimes not and in each case was never even asked to show the weapon. In the last two cases I got out of the vehicle and apologized for having my head up my rear and not paying attention to the speed limit. In both of these stops the officer talked to me a few minutes in a friendly manner and told me to carry on and have a good day without writing me a ticket.

chuckusaret
October 12, 2009, 12:01 AM
If they ask if I am armed I tell them, if not I don't disclose that I am armed. I have only been asked to step out of the car one time at a DUI checkpoint and as I exited the car I hit the door lock button. The officers did not ask if I was armed but did ask if they could "just look" in the trunk, my reply was, am I being charged. The officer handed me my DL and said have a nice evening. I was carrying and I also had a weapon in the car safe under the drivers seat.

nyresq
October 12, 2009, 12:04 AM
Just a little common sense for those with the "Nazi cops and renegade florida officers" in their areas. I would say if they are that bad, do you think they would shoot you five minutes into a car stop for having a gun if they are made aware of it from the start? Or are they more likely to shoot you after you didn't tell them and you happen to lean foward to get your license you accidently dropped on the floor when he sees your gun and thinks your reaching for it?

I believe in my own privacy and dont have anything to hide, nor do I think everyone should consent to searches, but as a law enforcement officer who has made car stops, I have always felt better knowing upfront that the person I pulled over has a gun. I ask where it is, and tell them not to reach for it, or unholster it if its on their person. If I had someone pulled over for five minutes and then see a gun in close proximity to them, it is always going to turn it up three notches, when if they had simply said so when stopped, it is not an issue.
I have never asked to see or handle anyones gun when stopped, and I think it increases the chances of an AD for someone to mess with it while in a car anyway.
But from a LEO perspective, I would rather know upfront then find out 5 minutes into a stop.

And dont lie, because anything said during any police interaction whether you are under arrest or not is admissable in court. Making false statements will come back to haunt you and in many jurisdictions is enough for an arrest, which then opens up the field for a search if you are still in your car which is what you were trying to avoid in the first place.

brboyer
October 12, 2009, 12:17 AM
It is perfectly legal to lie about a lawfully carried weapon.

at least put ianal if you are gonna help set folk up for an obstruction charge

Not too familiar with Florida statutes are you?

luigi
October 12, 2009, 12:29 AM
Not too familiar with Florida statutes are you?

Could you cite the relevant statute please? Most states do require that you surrender your permit upon request of an Officer.

brboyer
October 12, 2009, 12:41 AM
Could you cite the relevant statute please? Most states do require that you surrender your permit upon request of an Officer.
My responses were in reference to lying to a LEO about the lawful possession of a firearm during a stop for a traffic offense.

I was not making a statements regarding display of a CWFL to a LEO when requested, which is required by 790.06(1).

But the officer would need to know you were carrying under the provision of the license before he could ask about the license.

What I was saying was, someone can lawfully (and I have a few times) say "Nope" to the "Do you have any weapons in the car?" question.

luigi
October 12, 2009, 01:17 AM
My responses were in reference to lying to a LEO about the lawful possession of a firearm during a stop for a traffic offense.


And my response was to very clearly ask you to cite a relevant statute. I would appreciate it if you could do so

cassandrasdaddy
October 12, 2009, 09:57 AM
"crickets"

brboyer
October 12, 2009, 10:28 AM
And my response was to very clearly ask you to cite a relevant statute. I would appreciate it if you could do so
Actually,
You asked:
Could you cite the relevant statute please? Most states do require that you surrender your permit upon request of an Officer.

Which had nothing to do with my posts, but I obliged you anyway:
I was not making a statements regarding display of a CWFL to a LEO when requested, which is required by 790.06(1).


Now, if you're asking for a cite to prove it's OK to lie to a LEO about a lawfully possessed firearm during a stop for a traffic violation, it does not exist. Law's tell us we cannot do something, not that we can do something.

Some people like to point to one of the following statutes to support their position, but it's obvious to anyone that none of these apply:

837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities.--

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of any crime, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) Whoever knowingly gives false information to a law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of a capital felony, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

837.055 False information to law enforcement during investigation.--

Whoever knowingly and willfully gives false information to a law enforcement officer who is conducting a missing person investigation or a felony criminal investigation with the intent to mislead the officer or impede the investigation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

cassandrasdaddy
October 12, 2009, 10:31 AM
bolding is mine ianal

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

brboyer
October 12, 2009, 10:44 AM
bolding is mine ianal

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.—

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
That does not fly.

A legally carried firearm in a vehicle in Florida does not have to be disclosed at any time to a LEO during a stop for a traffic violation any more than does the existence of any other legal item, like a cell phone, MP3 player, bible, porn, a lunch box, tire iron, CD's, etc.

The presence of any of these, or the non-disclosure, or being untruthful about thier existence; in no way obstructs a LEO in the performance of his/her lawful duties.

divemedic
October 12, 2009, 11:03 AM
The presence of any of these, or the non-disclosure, or being untruthful about thier existense; in no way obstructs a LEO in the performance of his/her lawful duties.

The Florida court system would agree with you, from W.W. v. State:

To convict a defendant of obstructing or resisting an officer without violence, the state must prove two elements: (1) the officer was engaged in the lawful execution of a legal duty and (2) the defendant’s action constituted obstruction or resistance of that lawful duty. J.P. v. State, 855 So. 2d 1262, 1265-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Jay v. State, 731 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

If a police officer is not engaged in executing process on a person, is not legally detaining that person, or has not asked the person for assistance with an ongoing emergency that presents a serious threat of imminent harm to person or property, the person’s words alone can rarely, if ever, rise to the level of an obstruction.

In Jay, we adopted the Second District’s list of legal duties, which when hindered and coupled with words alone, can result in an obstruction of justice. 731 So. 2d at 775. There, we concluded that the attempted arrest of the defendant for obstruction was unlawful where the defendant’s mere words to suspected prostitutes, “don’t get in the car, he’s a cop,” during a police sting operation did not constitute obstruction. The officer conducting the sting operation was “merely on the job and not engaged in the lawful execution of any legal duty.” Id. at 776.

Here, the deputy’s investigation, though performed during the course of his general duties, does not fall within the above category of legal duties. The state does not contend that Deputy Beatty was serving process or asking for emergency assistance. And although Deputy Beatty initially testified that his purpose in coming to appellant’s residence was to apprehend A.C., he later clarified that he was not there to arrest A.C. or to place him in custody, but merely to question him about the shoplifting incident at the Texaco station. Moreover, the trial judge determined that Deputy Beatty was merely investigating a crime.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the investigation qualified as the execution of a legal duty, the state failed to prove that appellant, by his words alone, committed an action that “constituted obstruction or resistance of that lawful duty.” “With limited exceptions, physical conduct must accompany offensive words to support a conviction under [section 843.02].” Francis v. State, 736 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that falsely informing an officer that everything was fine when someone was in need of medical attention only became obstruction or resistance when the defendant also physically blocked the police officer’s path); Wilkerson v. State, 556 So. 2d 453, 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that defendant obstructed officers not by simply yelling and cursing at them, but by refusing to leave an area where the police were attempting to make arrests). As the First District explained, We have no doubt that the use of “oppose” in conjunction with “obstruct” manifests a clear and unambiguous legislative intent to proscribe only acts or conduct that operate to physically oppose an officer in the performance of lawful duties. Wilkerson, 556 So. 2d at 455-56. See also H.A.P. v. State, 834 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (upholding defendant’s obstruction conviction not just for cursing and shouting profanities while SWAT team officers were executing a narcotics search warrant, but for refusing to leave the area and interfering with execution of the warrant).

This could be an interesting thread for Florida law. Anyone want to open another thread on that, so we don't take this one too far off topic?

mcole
October 12, 2009, 10:49 PM
they won't ask to search if they think they have probable cause. a traffic stop absent something more doesn't create probable cause. if they ask to search they know they don't have probable cause; therefore, the answer is no. it isn't that easy for them to turn a traffic vioation stop into something more (as long as you don't leave your kilo of cocaine setting on your dash).
my answer is, "you wouldn't ask to search if you believed you had any probable cause, no." they are unlikely to spend hourssss getting a search warrant, having to call their supervisor out, etc., (unless you left your kilo of cocaine laying in the back seat, uncovered).
when you get stopped, they are not you friend and they are not there to help you. think, don't do or say anyhing stupid. mcole

NavyLCDR
October 12, 2009, 11:26 PM
But is I put my Kilo of coke under the seat, then where am I going to put my gun?!? I am so confused.... :(

gideon_70
October 13, 2009, 12:00 AM
I knew of a man who consented to a search of his car.

They searched his car.

They took his seats out, ripped the door covers off, took his spare apart, tore his dash apart, and all because he agreed to let them do it. Once you give consent, then you have given permission to look anywhere they choose, even if it means taking the motor out. It cost him hundreds to get his car back together. But, hey, he gave them permission.

But look at it this way. You give a ride to a guy one afternoon when he has an accident, or your wife has a friend in the car for lunch. What about leaving the window down while you run into a store and someone drops a crack rock in the car because they see a cop. Or, what about getting a police officer that is determined that YOU will go away, so he drops something in your car during a search.

So, please, go ahead and let them search your stuff. But then watch the episode of COPS where the cops planted the weed to make the bust look better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbFsZNcBeug

gideon_70
October 13, 2009, 12:06 AM
I agree. I live in the Orlando area. I used to tell cops that I carry. A Sergeant with the Orange County Sheriff's office changed all of that, back in 2000. I was sitting at a stop light for a pretty long period of time, and after about 10 minutes assumed it must be broken. There was no traffic, so I went.

The deputy came up behind me and pulled me over. I still do not know where he came from, I never saw him until he was on my bumper. He asked me to step out of the car, so I did. I handed him my DL, registration, CCW permit, and Insurance. When he saw the CCW, he asked if I had a weapon. I told him yes.

He stepped back, put his hand on his pistol, and told me, "Make one move and I will kill you where you stand." Then he said, "Go ahead, try me. I bet I am faster."

I asked him what his problem was, and he began cursing me out, calling me names, and was a real jerk. Bragging about his 20 years on the force, etc.

I do not tell anymore, and yes I do have things to hide. I don't want people to know what my medical history is, nor do I want people to know details of the sex life between my wife and me, nor do I want anyone to have access to my financial information, like credit card numbers, etc. It is personal and private. No searches for you, unless you have a warrant or are arresting me. Just because I have something to hide does not mean that the "something" that I am hiding is illegal.
I really hope you filed a complaint agaisnt the officer.

brboyer
October 13, 2009, 12:26 AM
they won't ask to search if they think they have probable cause. a traffic stop absent something more doesn't create probable cause. if they ask to search they know they don't have probable cause; therefore, the answer is no. it isn't that easy for them to turn a traffic vioation stop into something more (as long as you don't leave your kilo of cocaine setting on your dash).
my answer is, "you wouldn't ask to search if you believed you had any probable cause, no." they are unlikely to spend hourssss getting a search warrant, having to call their supervisor out, etc., (unless you left your kilo of cocaine laying in the back seat, uncovered).
when you get stopped, they are not you friend and they are not there to help you. think, don't do or say anyhing stupid. mcole
Even if they think they have PC, a 'good' LEO will still ask for permission. If you give permission it will be very, very difficult to exclude any 'evidence' they may uncover in their search, if it turns out their PC is not valid.

Flyboy
October 13, 2009, 08:14 AM
If you have nothing to hide, why are you refusing?

Scott

Because it's my right, damnit!

Biker
October 13, 2009, 10:59 AM
I like to walk early in the morning and it's not unusual for me to get stopped. About a month ago, a cop stopped me and, after checking out my CWP, asked if I'd mind if he frisked me . I said "Yup, I mind". He gave me the ol' "what do you have to hide" bit to which I replied "Nothing, but there's something I'd like to keep". He asked "What's that?"

I said "My dignity. Call me a homophobe if you like, but something just bugs me when a man has his hand up between my legs around Mr. Happy and the Giggleberries".

He declined the pat down.

Biker

Fifteen+1
October 13, 2009, 11:22 AM
A few months back my father in law had a run in with the local police. He was working at a hotel as a maintenance engineer, and the company van was involved in a fender bender. The General Manager sent my father in law out to get all the paper work and pics to file with the insurance and the company. From what I got from him this is how it happened. He had gone over to talk to the guy that was driving the van, asked him some questions, then walked back to his jeep. He sat around for about 20 minutes waiting on the cops to finish, and decided he was no longer needed at the scene. As he pulled out of the parking lot, one of the officers run up and smacked the back glass of his jeep with his hand. He stopped, the cop walked up and asked where the hell he thought he was going, at which my point my father in law said to him "just to let you know I have a CCW license and I am carrying," as he is handing him his ID. According to my father in law the cop flipped out, pulled out his gun, and acted like my father in law had just shot someone. They took his gun, then asked to search the vehicle. My father in law didn't comply. The reason they wanted to search it was because they searched the guy driving the van and found weed on him. When asked where he got it, he said my manager just gave it to me today. My father in law was wearing his name badge which read's "Maintenance Manager." The search didn't happen on the vehicle that my father in law was in because they couldn't get a dog out in time. The cops clear my father in law, and left his gun, unloaded on the hood of the jeep and told him not to touch till they were gone out of the area.

I agree with a lot of you. If you have nothing to hide, let them do the search. If they bring a dog out and sniff for drugs, and your clean write a letter to the mayor, and police chief. Call the police chief and ask to sit down and talk to him about it. I told my father in law to do that, maybe the local police have never had to do anything like that. With CCW on the rise and more people carrying its all about education on the police's behalf. They may not understand it, they may be that new kid right out of training that when they hear the word gun they freak out.

chuckusaret
October 13, 2009, 11:26 AM
If you have nothing to hide, why are you refusing?


Why would you ever allow a police officer to search your vehicle without cause. Would you allow them to search you home without cause.?????????

Because it's my right, damnit!

Exactly! Even if I don't have anything to hide it is our right to refuse. The officer then has the right to charge me if he so desires.

SeekHer
October 14, 2009, 03:25 PM
I just posted this at the following thread carrying firearms across state lines (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479467)

If you don't do anything wrong the police won't pull you over!

My brother and I went from Quebec to Maine then via the Eastern Seaboard to Dixie and Florida, around the Gulf of Mexico to Colorado via Texas and New Mexico, then Montana via Kansas and cross back into Canada from North Dakota...

We picked up guns from the semi custom makers along the way to replace those that were destroyed in a house fire and by the time we got back to Canada we had 42 longguns in the cab of the truck...We were stopped two times in "checks" asked for license and proof of insurance/ownership and that's it...The last stop the gun cases could be seen through the window of the crew cab with decals on it from NMLRA and NRA Life and JPFO and RKBA and a bunch of other orgs. and the officer smiles and asks "hunting or targets" which my brother, who was driving, replies target and he sent us off...

We were in a quandary as not for the fact we were Canadians--as the laws apply to us, but what to say to the police if stopped...According to the fifth amendment if asked if you have drugs or weapons in the car you do not have to respond etc.--but that will piss off the officer who will make life miserable for you...The officers do not have the right to search your vehicle without a warrant and that can be obtained only in the commission of a crime (and not answering if you have contraband is not a crime regardless what the policeman says) or with probable/justifiable cause or where the "items" are visible or can be readily smelt in the interior of the vehicle...

I have to relate a story to you that happened to my then 70 yr old uncle and aunt who were driving from Ontario to Florida to winter, as they have done every year since he retired as a "Federal" judge...It seems that all along the "corridor" as it's called (the main pipeline for drugs from FL to the NE states) has a policy by the LEOs called Harass the Snowbirds! or some such name...While going through TN he was pulled over for no reason other then the officer was a gigantic prick…The officer comes to the side of the car and screams “give me your lic/reg”— no hello, no why they got pulled over, no please--which my uncle complies to…the LEO goes back to the Cruiser and “does” the checks making them wait nearly 20 minutes, returns to the side of the Cadillac and yells “You gots any guns or them there drugs in your vee-hic-kle”. Now both of them were carrying concealed for which they have permits and never got a chance to indicate to the cop but my Uncle says nothing, officer demands again and uncle says “fifth amendment prevents me from incriminating myself and if you’re not going to ticket us, give me back my papers, please, and we’ll be on our way, thank you very much”…The officer starts a three minute and twenty two second tirade (recoded on his in-vehicle system and clandestinely by my aunt), which at the end he draws his gun and demands they exit the vehicle…before my uncle exits he then states that they were both legally carrying concealed and will exit slowly leaving the purse on the seat…the PIG demands backup via his radio, roughly disarms him, handcuffs both of them behind their backs and proceeds to search the interior and trunk and even opening their suitcases and boxes when a Sgt arrives in one patrol car and the “drug” dog in another…My uncle and aunt were taken and charged with speeding, unsafe (reckless) driving, failure to signal a lane change and resisting arrest and the car was towed to the compound…I am very pleased to say that the PIG in question is no longer an officer of the law (at least not at that location) and my nephews and nieces are sharing the multi million dollars awarded to their parents…

Before the flames get high, let me say that most LEOs are not PIGs, have some semblance of decorum and aren't out to harass the populous because they can because they’re wearing a uniform, badge and gun...Psychological testing prior to admission and whilst in officer school has brought a better class of officer forward but obviously some slip through…

So the choice is yours as to whether you answer or not the question of “You gots any guns or them there drugs in your vee-hic-kle”.

ArmedBear
October 14, 2009, 04:14 PM
I would tend to think that the officer(s) are not going to apologize for wasting your time and sending you on your way.


Refusal is not PC for a search, and they have to do exactly that unless they can articulate a reasonable PC for a search.

Learn your rights, or you might as well not have any.

WRT "duty to inform" I will inform whether or not I have a duty to do so. I have a license to carry concealed, and he can find me on his laptop, so it's not like it's a secret.

A cop DOES have the right to protect himself in the case of a traffic stop, so I'm not going to give him any reason for a Terry search, or to shoot me.

wrs840
October 14, 2009, 04:19 PM
Ever since it became "cool" to be a lowlife (James Dean?), the beatnics, the hippies, the yippies, the punks, the goths, and now the tattooed/pierced people with their pants around their knees have belly-ached about being "mistreated" by the law. Boo foogin' hoo. If you wear a UNIFORM that screams: "I'm un-cooperative", expect the washed world to take you at face value. Is it your "right" to don the uniform of the shady persona du-jour? Sure. But if you don't want to be treated like a criminal, don't accessorize yourself as one. Especially if you carry a gun. This is all pretty simple. Sorry.

Les

HorseSoldier
October 14, 2009, 04:52 PM
[QUOTE][They took his seats out, ripped the door covers off, took his spare apart, tore his dash apart, and all because he agreed to let them do it. Once you give consent, then you have given permission to look anywhere they choose, even if it means taking the motor out. It cost him hundreds to get his car back together. But, hey, he gave them permission.
/QUOTE]

I've got to ask what that guy did to so epically fail the Hello Test. Given how much heat your average patrol officer gets from his chain of command to get out there and get to calls and such, I can't fathom how much he must have irritated multiple officers to be on the receiving end of that (unless he happened to seem a lot like someone who'd likely have that kilo of cocaine under his seat or whatever).

NavyLCDR
October 14, 2009, 04:54 PM
WRT "duty to inform" I will inform whether or not I have a duty to do so. I have a license to carry concealed, and he can find me on his laptop, so it's not like it's a secret.

A cop DOES have the right to protect himself in the case of a traffic stop, so I'm not going to give him any reason for a Terry search, or to shoot me.

And you informing him of your license to carry and of the presence of your gun changes the Terry search situation exactly how?

Flyboy
October 14, 2009, 05:25 PM
If you don't do anything wrong the police won't pull you over!
Clearly you've not heard about the various internal checkpoints many departments have instituted.

tx_atty
October 14, 2009, 05:32 PM
It may have already been pointed out but bears repeating if so - a duty to inform is NOT the same thing as giving consent to a search. Two totally different issues. In TX, we must hand our CHL to the officer IF we are carrying. If not, the law does not require display. You can still refuse a warrantless search of your vehicle under the 14th Amendment (not the 4th - that is made applicable to the states via the 14th).

gotime242
October 14, 2009, 05:41 PM
Ok so im a little unclear...

In FLORIDA, there is no Duty to inform, correct? Where is this stated?

If they ask you if you have a weapon and you say NO (when you do), what can come of it, what can they charge you with if they find it somehow if anything?

tx_atty
October 14, 2009, 05:46 PM
I don't know Florida law to tell you all of the consequences. However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point. Don't overlook the obvious too; if the officer figures out you lied, he will likely immediately feel threatened and will have you eating dirt at gun point in 2 seconds flat. Is it worth lying? Why exactly would you even consider lying to a cop?

gotime242
October 14, 2009, 06:02 PM
Just due to the reason's they were mentioning before, as far as the gun being no different than anything else that is legally in your car. Im not thinking about lying really...seems like it would almost be best to not answer at all.

"Is there anything i can do to help?"

lol

But how would you get around the DIRECT question of "do you have a gun?" With the only purpose being trying to maintain your rights as much as possible.

ArmedBear
October 14, 2009, 07:31 PM
And you informing him of your license to carry and of the presence of your gun changes the Terry search situation exactly how?

Legally, it does not.

However, he will know about my license anyway. His actions will probably depend on my demeanor.

In this state, cops usually have nothing against CWL holders, and figure that it means we're squeaky-clean and passed a background check. That plus politeness means far less likelihood that the cop would want to search anywhere he legally can per Terry.

brboyer
October 14, 2009, 09:20 PM
I don't know Florida law to tell you all of the consequences. Then you should be careful speaking to the details of those laws.

However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point.
Please cite the Florida statutes that support this statement.
Don't overlook the obvious too; if the officer figures out you lied, he will likely immediately feel threatened and will have you eating dirt at gun point in 2 seconds flat. Is it worth lying? Why exactly would you even consider lying to a cop?

.....

tx_atty
October 14, 2009, 10:07 PM
Very clearly, I did NOT speak of Florida laws. Im not going to educate you or anyone else on the various laws concerning probable cause. If you doubt what Im telling you, do your own research. Not one place in my post did I mention Florida law. However, I can tell you that probable cause has been defined by the US Supreme Court and what Florida thinks of it is now absolutely irrelevant.

BTW - you want a cite - try this - "If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 820–821 (1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found." SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARIZONA v. GANT
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
No. 07–542. Argued October 7, 2008—Decided April 21, 2009

Probable cause is not defined by statute. It is defined by common law. There is NO statute in Florida or anywhere else that defines it.

Read and learn - http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-04/07-probable-cause.html

HexHead
October 14, 2009, 10:17 PM
If you have nothing to hide, why are you refusing?

Scott
Just to screw with them. Why should they have all the fun? :D

brboyer
October 14, 2009, 10:31 PM
Very clearly, I did NOT speak of Florida laws.
Im not going to educate you or anyone else on the various laws concerning probable cause. If you doubt what Im telling you, do your own research. Not one place in my post did I mention Florida law.
However, I can tell you that probable cause has been defined by the US Supreme Court and what Florida thinks of it is now absolutely irrelevant. Try more not to be a jackass.


BTW - you want a cite smart guy - try this - "If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 820–821 (1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found." SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARIZONA v. GANT
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
No. 07–542. Argued October 7, 2008—Decided April 21, 2009

Probable cause is not defined by statute. It is defined by common law. There is NO statute in Florida or anywhere else that defines it.

Read and learn - http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-04/07-probable-cause.html

Forgetful as well as mistaken?I don't know Florida law to tell you all of the consequences. However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point.


Wow, a little defensive aren't we?

You said:
I don't know Florida law to tell you all of the consequences. However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point.

I was simply asking you to site the statute that supports this statement.



ETA: You're new here so we'll cut you some slack,. but you should try to be more precise in what you type.

r_p_bayly
October 14, 2009, 10:32 PM
And if you believe that they will just say OK and let it go, here is something I would like to sell yo


I dont just believe it - I know it
happened to me
i stated

NO - you dont have my permission to search
but I will not interfere with you
If you have the right and justification - without my permission
go ahead
if not - am I free to go?

answer from his supervisor was
GO

brboyer
October 14, 2009, 11:10 PM
tx and boyer.Please desist.

It may be a cliche' ,but this is The High Road.

You're right. I won't be wasting my time with this 'Gentleman' any further. Just trying to dispel incorrect information that is being posted.

Flintknapper
October 14, 2009, 11:15 PM
tx_atty wrote:

It may have already been pointed out but bears repeating if so - a duty to inform is NOT the same thing as giving consent to a search.
Exactly. Further, there is NEVER any advantage to giving consent to a search of your person, property or vehicle. DO NOT do it.

In TX, we must hand our CHL to the officer IF we are carrying. If not, the law does not require display.
I would add to this...that a CHL (when armed) is required to inform the officer by means of producing the CHL when the officer/official asks for identification. As noted...if you are not armed there is no duty to inform.

Additionally, a recent change in (Texas) law removes any "penalty" for not disclosing your CHL status....although the duty to notify remains.


You can still refuse a warrantless search of your vehicle
And I highly recommend you do so. If LEO had the authority to search...they would do so with or without your permission. They are on a "fishing expedition" when they ask permission. NEVER consent to a search.

Flintknapper
October 14, 2009, 11:29 PM
tx_atty wrote:

However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point.
Well.....I would contest this notion. We both know there are very specific reasons/conditions under which LEO may Search, Contact, Detain or Arrest. I suggest that everyone become familiar with these terms and how they apply in your State.

It is an infraction to give LEO false information (lie) about your identity (when asked to produce it). Otherwise, unless you have been arrested, are being detained.... or the officer is asking direct and specific questions in regards to an investigation, lying is of no legal consequence if the subject matter is not gemane to the investigation or reason for the stop. Naturally, it can get more involved than what I have stated above "out on the street". ;)

Bottom line: Know your rights, exercise those rights!



Don't overlook the obvious too; if the officer figures out you lied, he will likely immediately feel threatened and will have you eating dirt at gun point in 2 seconds flat.
If so, do not resist. I suspect the officer will have a hard time reasonably articulating his actions....once in court.

nyresq
October 14, 2009, 11:56 PM
Quote:
Don't overlook the obvious too; if the officer figures out you lied, he will likely immediately feel threatened and will have you eating dirt at gun point in 2 seconds flat.

If so, do not resist. I suspect the officer will have a hard time reasonably articulating his actions....once in court.

Assuming you make it to a court room and not the morgue...
You tell the officer "No, I dont have a gun..." then as you are reaching for your wallet, your pistol pokes out from beneath your shirt and he sees it. He thinks you are going for it since you just told him "no I dont have a gun". Two or three shots to your head at close range and its all over...
Oh, and since its on his dash cam with you reaching your arm around behind you and you are recorded as saying "No, I dont have a gun"... do you think any jury in the world is going to think that cop was wrong when your corpse is in all the crime scene photos with a gun straped on your hip??

Dont ever say your not armed if you are carrying and are questioned about having any weapons in the car... you are just asking for trouble, rights or no rights, its what was known to the officer at the time that he will be judged on... Your CCW permit and your wife and three kids will not be admitted into evidence, the only thing that will be admitted is you saying on tape "No I dont have any guns."

lobo9er
October 15, 2009, 12:45 AM
wasr840
Ever since it became "cool" to be a lowlife (James Dean?), the beatnics, the hippies, the yippies, the punks, the goths, and now the tattooed/pierced people with their pants around their knees have belly-ached about being "mistreated" by the law. Boo foogin' hoo. If you wear a UNIFORM that screams: "I'm un-cooperative", expect the washed world to take you at face value. Is it your "right" to don the uniform of the shady persona du-jour? Sure. But if you don't want to be treated like a criminal, don't accessorize yourself as one. Especially if you carry a gun. This is all pretty simple. Sorry.

Les
sounds like your sorta uppity? your right kinda but for the most ones attitude is what determines wether or not you may or may not be hassled by police, or anyone reasonable.

Flintknapper
October 15, 2009, 02:05 AM
nyresq wrote:

Assuming you make it to a court room and not the morgue...
All things are possible I suppose.


You tell the officer "No, I dont have a gun..." then as you are reaching for your wallet, your pistol pokes out from beneath your shirt and he sees it. He thinks you are going for it since you just told him "no I dont have a gun".
So you are saying that LEO now possess the right to use deadly force anytime the presence of a weapon (other than theirs) is evident, regardless of intent?

What is the “Standard” by which LEO in N.Y. may use deadly force, I am curious to know. Let’s say for instance the scenario is a little different.. Let’s say my wife (or daughter) jumps into my vehicle to run down to the store. Suppose… I forgot to remove my pistol from the glove box and She is stopped for speeding. The officer asks if there is a gun in the car. The answer is no (Wife/Daughter didn’t know).

When Wife/Daughter opens the glove-box to retrieve the insurance card and registration the officer sees the pistol, surmises he was lied to, assumes my wife intends to kill him, then promptly puts “Two or three shots to her head at close range and its all over...” to quote you.


Oh, and since its on his dash cam with you reaching your arm around behind you and you are recorded as saying "No, I dont have a gun"... do you think any jury in the world is going to think that cop was wrong when your corpse is in all the crime scene photos with a gun straped on your hip??
I concede the potential for error is greater here, but lets run with it anyway. Yes…I think there are plenty of juries and competent lawyers that would pick this apart.

What do the academies teach these days with respect to escalation of force, the “Force Continuum” and the use of Deadly Force? Is the standard now: Use deadly force as soon as possible?

And do you think some small points of interest (also caught on that dash-cam) might play some role in a jury’s decision.

Little things like: No aggressive behavior displayed by victim. No quick movements made by victim. No posturing or verbal threats, no blading away from officer, no ocular fixation on officer, no attempt to seek cover or flank officer, no distractions of any kind.

In fact…nothing but a normal reach to retrieve his wallet. No contact with the weapon. Weapon not removed from holster.

Absolutely NO empirical evidence that this person had any “intent” to access his weapon. ONLY the presence of the weapon seems to be the criteria here in which the officer chose to use deadly force.

Could/Should the officer draw their own weapon (while creating distance and seeking cover). YES!

Could/Should the officer (time permitting) command the person to “Show me your hands, DO NOT touch your weapon”! Is this not the “correct” response both legally and tactically?


Dont ever say your not armed if you are carrying and are questioned about having any weapons in the car... you are just asking for trouble, rights or no rights,

I see from your perspective you put little value on “rights”. They should not be taken lightly, should always be exercised (when appropriate) and fought for with zeal. Sometimes exercising your rights attracts “trouble”. Each person must decide how important your individual rights are to you.


its what was known to the officer at the time that he will be judged on...

Perhaps back at the station…and it might even fly with the “thin blue line”, but in the courts….the officer will be judged by a jury.

The jury will be instructed to consider what the “law” has to say about it, and the law will say that the officer must be judged on what he/she “REASONABLY” knew at the time; else the officer’s thoughts/actions would be completely subjective. Maybe that puts a new complexion on it for you.


Your CCW permit and your wife and three kids will not be admitted into evidence, the only thing that will be admitted is you saying on tape "No I dont have any guns."
I don’t know the extent to which you have experience in the courts, but you would be surprised what gets admitted as evidence/testimony.


In closing, permit to me to submit that I am NOT advocating lying to LEO when there is no reason.

There is an oft used phrase among LEO that carries some truth: “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”.

As each person decides to exercise his/her rights…..keep that in mind.

Try to be courteous and co-operative with LEO (they deserve it). But, if they begin to cross the line….or make you uncomfortable with requests that you know are not legally binding/required, simply refuse to answer and ask for a lawyer.

nyresq
October 15, 2009, 04:02 AM
Let’s say my wife (or daughter) jumps into my vehicle to run down to the store. Suppose… I forgot to remove my pistol from the glove box and She is stopped for speeding. The officer asks if there is a gun in the car. The answer is no (Wife/Daughter didn’t know).

This was about lying to a cop when you knew full well you had a gun in the car. I can think of a hundred tragic scenarios that have actually occured with unknown weapons and found guns that have resulted in injury and death of innocents due to misunderstandings and mistaken actions, that is not what my answer was in response to.


Little things like: No aggressive behavior displayed by victim. No quick movements made by victim. No posturing or verbal threats, no blading away from officer, no ocular fixation on officer, no attempt to seek cover or flank officer, no distractions of any kind.

Watch a few car stop videos online (there are hundreds) of officers getting shot at (or shot) by a perp still inside the car and tell me how many of those videos you can see anything you mentioned above? how many videos where it started perfectly normal and the perp is talking in a calm voice and answering all the officers questions, then without warning or eye contact or build up of rage, they just snap and start shooting.

In fact…nothing but a normal reach to retrieve his wallet. No contact with the weapon. Weapon not removed from holster.

And thats not the exact same movement as drawing from a holster on your hip as viewed from behind a car or to the side looking in the window?

Sometimes exercising your rights attracts “trouble”. Each person must decide how important your individual rights are to you.

if you wind up with a barrel pressed in your ear after lying about having a gun, don't complain about the "********* pig with an attitude" who decided not to "just hope you are only excercising your rights".

The jury will be instructed to consider what the “law” has to say about it, and the law will say that the officer must be judged on what he/she “REASONABLY” knew at the time; else the officer’s thoughts/actions would be completely subjective. Maybe that puts a new complexion on it for you.

And what the officer knew at the time was he just asked a stopped motorist if they had a weapon and was responded to with a "no". Then he sees the person does in fact have a weapon on their person and a hand is going for it. Does this legaly give them permission to fire, not at all, and I am not saying thats what I would do, but I have also played this game for 12 years and have seen stupid people do stupid things more then once and have learned from that experience.
I have also drawn my weapon in fear for my own life several times only to find out what looked like a gun was a toy, a cell phone, a steering wheel locking device and several other things that at 1pm on a sunny day would seem laughable, but at 3am on the wrong side of the tracks looks like any number of weapons that will prevent me from going home at the end of my shift.


The jury will be instructed to consider what the “law” has to say about it, and the law will say that the officer must be judged on what he/she “REASONABLY” knew at the time

And he knew he just pulled over someone for speeding at 3 am in a not so nice part of town and when he walked up to the car the motorist seemed like a regular guy, and when asked he responded, "no, I dont have a gun..." but he did... in a split second the officer is going to ask himself, why would he lie about that?? why is he reaching for it??? ... uh oh. And thats all that was known at the time to that officer who made a snap decision. And the jury will ask themselves that same question, why would he lie about having a gun if he knew he did?

I don’t know the extent to which you have experience in the courts, but you would be surprised what gets admitted as evidence/testimony.

I have testified for myself, for other officers, civilians, and against criminals and have been the lead on several large scale investigations. I have done my time in court and I have a pretty good idea of what gets in and what gets tossed out, and things that could not be known to an individual at the time of a shooting are going to get thrown out 99 times out of 100...

I'm not saying its legal, its propper, its right or its what I would do.
But untill you have done car stops in the ghetto at 3am, and untill you have had had that adrenalin dump 15 minutes before the end of your 12 hour shift because some idiot does something stupid, you cant assume your "excercising your right" is not going to get you into something you may not get out of. (handcuffs, a cell or a bodybag )

And I dont think telling a cop you dont have a gun when in fact, you do, is "excercising your rights". I see it as more of a "fight the power" or "down with big brother" attitude that is more harmful then helpful....

I have a much more relaxed feeling when someone tells me they have a pistol permit whether they are armed or not for the simple fact they have had a clean background check done and I am 99.9% sure they are not a wanted felon unless it happened in the last few hours and their license hasnt been suspended yet...
I believe in an individuals right to privacy and to be secure in their home and in their cars, but again I have to think nothing good will come from lying about being armed when questioned by police...

Art Eatman
October 15, 2009, 09:35 AM
This has gone too far from the original post...

If you enjoyed reading about "CCW, "Duty to Inform," and refusing a search" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!