Countrywide: Mere Possession of Concealed Firearm Does Not Justify Terry Stop?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is long standing case law in Pennsylvania. It does not carry any official precedent for other states, though judges in other states certainly can cite Commonwealth v. Hicks for guidance on establishing new precedent in their own jurisdictions, absent other case law on the matter.
 
So, cops in Minnesota could stop a person for carrying a concealed weapon (in a pocket, waistband, holster) if someone calls and says these see this person doing this despite no appearance of a criminal act and ask them if they have a permit to carry and not violate their Constitutional rights?
 
Aim1 said:
So, cops in Minnesota could stop a person for carrying a concealed weapon (in a pocket, waistband, holster) if someone calls and says these see this person doing this despite no appearance of a criminal act and ask them if they have a permit to carry and not violate their Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...
Violation of Constitutional rights, as legal matter, is established by courts after the fact.

Cops still stop and detain private citizens in Pennsylvania just based on suspicion of carrying a concealed firearm, despite Commonwealth v. Hicks. Of course cops in other states will do so as well.
 
Aim1 said:
So, cops in Minnesota could stop a person for carrying a concealed weapon (in a pocket, waistband, holster) if someone calls and says these see this person doing this despite no appearance of a criminal act and ask them if they have a permit to carry and not violate their Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...
Maybe. All I'm saying is that the case you linked is controlling precedent in PA, but not in any other state. It is possible that MN has a similar case out there. Arkansas, for example, has Taff v. State, which holds that possession of a weapon is not a crime in AR. I just don't have that information for MN.
 
I was about to mention Taff v. State as well for Arkansas, but Spats beat me to it.
Different states have similar case law and some states likely have not addressed the matter.
As far as whether they could still stop you, theoretically yes. The defense would then be tasked with contesting the stop and trying to get any evidence gained thereafter excluded based on the illegal stop, which would still be a long and expensive process for the person. It would depend on the judge you drew in the trial phase, obviously some are more concerned with 2A rights than others. We have an appellate court right now that would likely rule favorably on such a matter, but hearings cost money and appeals cost even more.
 
Aim1 said:
So, cops in Minnesota could stop a person for carrying a concealed weapon (in a pocket, waistband, holster) if someone calls and says these see this person doing this despite no appearance of a criminal act and ask them if they have a permit to carry and not violate their Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

Duty to inform varies from state to state. Not only do some states have a duty to inform, the form the laws take can be different.

For example, there are at least 12 states which have a duty to inform merely by some form of contact with law enforcement. And what contact qualifies may be different between these states. South Carolina, for example, is a must inform state requiring a permit holder to inform and present the permit upon identification as a LEO AND requests ID or a driver's license from the permit holder. North Carolina, however, while also being a must inform state, says the permit holder must inform any LEO that he has a valid permit and is carrying when approached or addressed by the officer and shall present the permit and ID upon request. Both are "must inform" states, but the requirements differ.

Minnesota is not a "must inform" state in that informing is not required simply by some form of contact with LEO. The individual must present his permit and ID "upon lawful demand by a peace officer".

So the question is, "what constitutes a lawful demand" in Minnesota.

I'll leave that to @Spats McGee and @Frank Ettin to tackle, as I'm not an attorney and my google-fu didn't readily turn up anything on that question. Seems to me that it's so vaguely worded that it could pretty much mean anything and a costly court battle would potentially be required to resolve this.
 
Last edited:
The language used in many of the "permitless carry" (aka "constitutional") States often (but not always) spells out that mere carry of an arm is no cause to stop.

In those States, "I saw a gun" is not PC (Probable Cause) per se. So, an arresting/investigating officer will need a different PC premise.

But, this is not "national" in scope--even if it ought to be. What "ought be" remains different from "what is." C'est la vie. C'est la loi.
 
Aim1 said:
So, cops in Minnesota could stop a person for carrying a concealed weapon (in a pocket, waistband, holster) if someone calls and says these see this person doing this despite no appearance of a criminal act and ask them if they have a permit to carry and not violate their Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

Well, in Minnesota you are legally required to notify a police officer upon lawful request.
 
Aim1 said:
Someone said that.


Do you have a link to that?
Click to expand...
Gary Slider's Handgunlaw.us site has an excellent summary of all of the concealed carry laws for every state, including whether the state is a 'must inform' state.

Handgunlaw.us is an excellent resource for travellers who are considering bringing their firearm on a trip, and finding out if their concealed carry license is recognized by the destination state and all of the states to be traveled through.

https://handgunlaw.us/

And specifically for Minnesota, they are not a must inform state: https://handgunlaw.us/states/minnesota.pdf

Must Inform Officer Immediately on Contact By Law?
“NO”
624.714 Subd. 1b. Display of permit; penalty.

(a) The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer, as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1. A violation of this paragraph is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture. 2017 c 95 art 3 s 25​
 
Last edited:
Aim1 said:
Someone said that.


Do you have a link to that?
Click to expand...

Minnesota 624.714 Subd. 1(b) (a): The holder of a permit to carry must have the permit card and a driver's license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document upon lawful demand by a peace officer"

F-111 John said:
And specifically for Minnesota, they are not a must inform state:
Click to expand...

That is not entirely true, as noted in the statute you quoted and in the HandgunLaw.us map. Minnesota is not a must notify on contact state. That means that permit holders are not required to notify law enforcement of their permit on simple contact. They are, however, required to present their permit and identification upon lawful request of a law enforcement officer.

The difference:

1. A permit holder is stopped for a traffic violation. The detaining officer does not ask whether the permit holder has a concealed-carry permit. The permit holder is not required to proactively tell the officer that he or she has a permit.

2. A permit holder is stopped for a traffic violation. The detaining officer asks the permit holder if they have a concealed-carry permit. The permit holder must now present his or her permit and acceptable ID.
 
CapnMac said:
The language used in many of the "permitless carry" (aka "constitutional") States often (but not always) spells out that mere carry of an arm is no cause to stop.

In those States, "I saw a gun" is not PC (Probable Cause) per se. So, an arresting/investigating officer will need a different PC premise.....
Click to expand...
Yes, but . . . . If one is out in public with a weapon, and the aforementioned weapon is seen and reported, the police are (quite likely) still allowed to make contact and ask what you're up to. You may be free to leave (i.e., not detained), but that doesn't mean the police can't talk to you.
 
Spats McGee said:
Yes, but . . . . If one is out in public with a weapon, and the aforementioned weapon is seen and reported, the police are (quite likely) still allowed to make contact and ask what you're up to. You may be free to leave (i.e., not detained), but that doesn't mean the police can't talk to you.
Click to expand...

Yes...there is a fine line to be walked here, one in which both sides (citizen and police) may hover closely about, criss-crossing somewhat.

Ideally, both sides are "reasonable" in their approach. However...
 
Spats McGee said:
If one is out in public with a weapon, and the aforementioned weapon is seen and reported, the police are (quite likely) still allowed to make contact and ask what you're up to.
Click to expand...
Several years ago in Arlington Country VA (DC suburb) a fella was open carry in a 7-11. An observer called 911 and said he was waving the gun around threatening the clerk. It happens the gun owner rides a motorcycle. As he drove into the big shopping mall parking lot a quarter mile from the 7-11 he was surrounded by cops, and put under duressive questioning. He came out OK once they talked to him, but hit was a major hassle.
Some months later he was the guest speaker at our monthly VCDL meeting. He does not have a carry permit, but carries open all the time. Further, it turned out the one who called 911 is a known repeat offender of making false 911 calls.
 
Craig_VA said:
Several years ago in Arlington Country VA (DC suburb) a fella was open carry in a 7-11. An observer called 911 and said he was waving the gun around threatening the clerk. It happens the gun owner rides a motorcycle. As he drove into the big shopping mall parking lot a quarter mile from the 7-11 he was surrounded by cops, and put under duressive questioning. He came out OK once they talked to him, but hit was a major hassle.
Some months later he was the guest speaker at our monthly VCDL meeting. He does not have a carry permit, but carries open all the time. Further, it turned out the one who called 911 is a known repeat offender of making false 911 calls.
Click to expand...
And that's one of the dangers of open carry: ya might scare the townsfolk.
 
Madcap_Magician said:
That is not entirely true, as noted in the statute you quoted and in the HandgunLaw.us map. Minnesota is not a must notify on contact state.
Click to expand...
What I said was entirely true. The very definition of "must inform" means you "must inform" the officer that you are carrying upon first contact, and before you are asked by the officer. Minnesota is not a must inform state.

The question Aim1 asked was to see the Minnesota statute requiring one to produce a concealed carry license to an officer when asked, which I provided through Gary Slider's Handgunlaw.us site.
 
F-111 John said:
What I said was entirely true. The very definition of "must inform" means you "must inform" the officer that you are carrying upon first contact, and before you are asked by the officer.
Click to expand...

I missed where that term was defined and clearly agreed upon by everyone, but I see where you're getting it from now.
 
Yes, in some states it is also called "duty to inform." Same thing as "must inform"

My own Michigan's "must inform" law:

28.425f (3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
​
Apparently there is also Michigan case law determining that just handing your driver's license and Concealed Carry Permit to the officer (during a traffic stop) does NOT constitute immediate disclosure. From Handgunlaw.us:

Q: If I get pulled over by the police while I am lawfully carrying a concealed pistol, is it considered sufficient notice to hand over my Concealed Pistol License (CPL) with my Driver's License?

A: Maybe not.

MCL 28.425f(3) states: "An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle." The penalty for a first offense includes a $100 fine, and a CPL suspension of up to six months.

In one recent case, the driver handed his CPL over to the officer who stopped him. He did this because he had been told by a reliable source (an experienced police officer from another jurisdiction) that it is considered dangerous to use the word "gun" when talking to an officer on the road side since officers yell, "Gun!" to one another when a dangerous person displays a firearm. The driver was ticketed for the nondisclosure. In subsequent trial, the dashboard video camera record showed that it was approximately 40 seconds after the officer arrived at the driver's window that the driver verbally disclosed his concealed pistol.

The court found that the simple act of handing over the CPL was not adequate disclosure and that the 40 second delay before verbally disclosing was not "immediate disclosure."
​
A misdemeanor violation over 40 seconds.
​
 
How one discloses to an officer that one is carrying a loaded firearm can be of critical importance. There's a world of difference between:
  • Good evening, officer. I don't want to surprise you, so you should know that I'm carrying a concealed pistol.
and
  • Hey, dude. I have a GUN!
 
unclenunzie said:
I've never been in that position, but I have these words in my head: "Officer, I am licensed to carry a firearm and I have mine with me now." Hands visible of course.
Click to expand...
That's pretty close to what I have in mind, as well. I have been in that position a few times, and the contact went very smoothly every time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
PA Supreme Court: Unconstitutional to ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ For Firearms
Replies
2
Views
852
BSA1
BSA1
D
  • Locked
Can You Be Stopped for Carrying?
Replies
6
Views
823
Rockstar
R
X
  • Locked
CCW Reciprocity and Possession Question
Replies
8
Views
433
bushmaster1313
B
Gary Slider
  • Locked
Arkansas Now Permitless Carry
Replies
6
Views
1K
Olon
Olon
yeongjo
  • Locked
H. R. 127 To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of
Replies
3
Views
697
GEM
G
Back
Top