Does having a CCW automatically waive your right to consent for a search

In Colorado especially, does merely having a CCW and carrying automatically waive your rights to searches (car or home) if you are stopped by the police?

Click to expand...

No.

In Colorado, it is my understanding that you have to tell the PO when approached. I just cannot remember if you carrying (legally) gives them probable cause to a search without your consent?

Click to expand...

No.

In realty, would you have to disarm if stopped?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Just because you have a CCW you do not waive your Constitutional rights. You might have to prove your identity (which you can be required to do anyway - see Hiibel), and temporarily surrender your firearm to the responding officer, but I am not aware of any circumstance where a cop can show up at your door, sans warrant, and legally search your car or home.

IANAL, only my opinion, and all that.

This is Texas now, remember that, but LEO don't have an automatic reason to search your vehicle. We like you to show us the CHL, but its going to show in a DL return anyway... It just makes us WARM and FUZZY!!!!

I personally don't like to write CHL holders for traffic unless they are unreasonable with the stop.. I personally know how much HECK the guys here went thru to get the DARN thing....

In retrospect being polite during the traffic stop goes a long way with me either CHL holder or not!!! I'm just doing a job like anyone else really...

The thread about home searches without your consent got me to thinking. In Colorado especially, does merely having a CCW and carrying automatically waive your rights to searches (car or home) if you are stopped by the police?

Click to expand...

No. In a post similar to this one, someone once referenced a SCOTUS case, but I cant remember which one.

In realty, would you have to disarm if stopped?

Click to expand...

If requested, yes. This varies wildly by location, and in some cities, from one officer to the next.

In the time I lived in Asheville NC, I never actually got disarmed. I got stopped for speeding, and had a pistol in the car before I had my CHP. The trooper simply had me step out of the car and wait at the trunk while he wrote my ticket. He never took possession of my pistol. After I got my CHP, they never seemed too concerned. They asked where I was carrying about half the time. Other members here have had different experiences in the same city, I believe one was ordered out of his car while the officer waited at low-ready...

Judging by the tone of Mad4Pistols' post, I would imagine he's one of the officers that usually doesn't disarm a CHL holder. And as someone who is normally on the other side of the equation, I'll agree that being polite goes a long way.

If:
(1) an officer stops you for traffic or any other reason and has a legal right to detain you while doing some part of his job (i.e., he didn't just walk up and strike up a friendly conversation); and
(2) he learns that you are armed either by you telling him or him detecting it somehow (such as a pat-frisk, either voluntary or involuntary);

--it is going to be totally at the officer's discretion whether to disarm you or not. I generally do not, but am facing a citizen complaint right now because I did disarm someone in a circumstance where I felt it was necessary. He will go away disappointed, and I would do it again.

Just to clarify the OP's question, you know there is a difference between a search (which is for any contraband or evidence) and a 'pat-frisk' (which is for weapons only), right? The legal threshold for a pat-frisk is MUCH lower than for a search, because it is an element of officer safety. It may fall into the gray area between state laws, but I'm confident that in Washington, knowledge that a person has a CCW would qualify as a 'stand-alone frisk factor'--i.e. a justification in itself to compel a pat-frisk for weapons (again assuming the officer has legal business to conduct).

In Connecticut, No to the searches AND you do not have to inform that you are carrying (although most would strongly advise that you do).

Even with a CCW, you still have the right to consent to a search.

Just to clarify the OP's question, you know there is a difference between a search (which is for any contraband or evidence) and a 'pat-frisk' (which is for weapons only), right? The legal threshold for a pat-frisk is MUCH lower than for a search, because it is an element of officer safety.

Click to expand...

Good point.

If you do get disarmed, you're gonna have to step out. Anytime you're asked to step out, expect a pat down as well. Dont forget to mention your pocket knife. They don't always ask about knives, but if you don't mention it and they find it, you might get a hard time about it.

The LEO may or may not not have the right to search your car, depending on the State and circumstances, but apart from possibly violating your rights, the real import is whether items found in the search can be used against you in court.

ChristopherG said

(2) he learns that you are armed either by you telling him or him detecting it somehow (such as a pat-frisk, either voluntary or involuntary);

It may fall into the gray area between state laws, but I'm confident that in Washington, knowledge that a person has a CCW would qualify as a 'stand-alone frisk factor'--i.e. a justification in itself to compel a pat-frisk for weapons (again assuming the officer has legal business to conduct).

Click to expand...

Let's see. You stop me, and I show you my CCW License, and tell you I am carrying, so, you pat me down to see if I am REALLY carrying? LOL!

In Colorado, it is my understanding that you have to tell the PO when approached.

Click to expand...

I am wondering where you got this idea. It is my understanding that this is not the case.

I'll cite some statutes too

CRS 18-12-204

(2) (a) A permittee, in compliance with the terms of a permit, may carry a concealed handgun as allowed by state law. The permittee shall carry the permit, together with valid photo identification, at all times during which the permittee is in actual possession of a concealed handgun and shall produce both documents upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Failure to produce a permit upon demand by a law enforcement officer raises a rebuttable presumption that the person does not have a permit.

Click to expand...

Some more clarification would be great so I do not do something stupid. Am i right in thinking that the only time i HAVE to inform an officer i am armed is when he/she asks?

In Colorado, it is my understanding that you have to tell the PO when approached. I just cannot remember if you carrying (legally) gives them probable cause to a search without your consent?

Click to expand...

dbltb beat me to it but 18-12-204 doesn't say anything about informing and, if you read the whole statute you don't even need a permit to conceal in your vehicle

My decision to inform the officer at a traffic stop depends on a few variables. One being officer attitude at the begining of the stop.

gleek48 said:

This then adds another interesting question. If it was you, would you inform the officer at a routine stop?

Click to expand...

I do not unless it's obvious, such as open carry. And it's not required to in GA.

talon7351 said:

My decision to inform the officer at a traffic stop depends on a few variables. One being officer attitude at the begining of the stop.

Click to expand...

Another better be the local laws and regulations.

If I pull you over, and you don't identify yourself as a CHL holder, and you are carrying, we're going to have a long, long chat when your DL comes back with that permit. If you tell me that you refused to follow the law because you didn't like my attitude, you're likely going to get your firearm confiscated, along with your license, and have to fight it out with the state police. You get really surly, you're going to jail instead of the citation I might have written otherwise.

On the other hand, if I pull you over and you identify yourself as a CHL holder, you are now in the possession of what we refer to as the "not-a-criminal-card," and the odds are fairly high that I'm going to let you go with a verbal warning.

The more polite to me you are, the more leeway you will get from me.

If:
(1) an officer stops you for traffic or any other reason and has a legal right to detain you while doing some part of his job (i.e., he didn't just walk up and strike up a friendly conversation); and
(2) he learns that you are armed either by you telling him or him detecting it somehow (such as a pat-frisk, either voluntary or involuntary);

--it is going to be totally at the officer's discretion whether to disarm you or not. I generally do not, but am facing a citizen complaint right now because I did disarm someone in a circumstance where I felt it was necessary. He will go away disappointed, and I would do it again.

Just to clarify the OP's question, you know there is a difference between a search (which is for any contraband or evidence) and a 'pat-frisk' (which is for weapons only), right? The legal threshold for a pat-frisk is MUCH lower than for a search, because it is an element of officer safety. It may fall into the gray area between state laws, but I'm confident that in Washington, knowledge that a person has a CCW would qualify as a 'stand-alone frisk factor'--i.e. a justification in itself to compel a pat-frisk for weapons (again assuming the officer has legal business to conduct).

Click to expand...

oh brother. here we go again. i don't even know where to start. let's just start with the low hanging fruit.

1)

It may fall into the gray area between state laws, but I'm confident that in Washington, knowledge that a person has a CCW would qualify as a 'stand-alone frisk factor'--i.e. a justification in itself to compel a pat-frisk for weapons (again assuming the officer has legal business to conduct).

WRONG! there is no gray area. your confidence is misplaced. simply knowing that a person is in possession of a concealed weapon with a valid license is ABSOLUTELY NOT any sort of defensible grounds to pat them down UNLESS the officer has "reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed."

2)

The legal threshold for a pat-frisk is MUCH lower than for a search, because it is an element of officer safety.

Click to expand...

there is absolutely NOTHING in any federal law or Revised Code of Washington that gives any police officer the right to violate a person's 2nd or 4th Amendment rights in the name of "officer safety". ain't no such thing. period.

3)

--it is going to be totally at the officer's discretion whether to disarm you or not.

Click to expand...

wrong again. the officer does NOT have any discretion over whether or not to disarm someone unless, again, there is "reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed." Terry v. Ohio 1968 and WA State v. Cassad.

in order for you to pat me down or disarm me, you must first detain me. in order for you to detain me, you must have "reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed."

I don't know if the person's complaint against you is valid since i don't know the surrounding circumstances but if it is, i hope he pursues it to the fullest extent.

i do know that myself, and many others in the state, especially the folks from OCDO, WILL pursue and wrongful disarmament or violations of 2nd or 4th Amendment rights all the way up to the top and will likely pursue civil action against you. keep that in mind next time you disarm someone in the name of "officer safety".

Bobby

Click to expand...

Another better be the local laws and regulations.

If I pull you over, and you don't identify yourself as a CHL holder, and you are carrying, we're going to have a long, long chat when your DL comes back with that permit. If you tell me that you refused to follow the law because you didn't like my attitude, you're likely going to get your firearm confiscated, along with your license, and have to fight it out with the state police. You get really surly, you're going to jail instead of the citation I might have written otherwise.

On the other hand, if I pull you over and you identify yourself as a CHL holder, you are now in the possession of what we refer to as the "not-a-criminal-card," and the odds are fairly high that I'm going to let you go with a verbal warning.

The more polite to me you are, the more leeway you will get from me.

Click to expand...

wow. i hope your state doesn't have preemption and there are local ordinances to back you up, because of you did that to me, i'd have your badge, then your house.

if no preemption exists and there is a local law saying one must inform, then fine. understandable. i hope for your sake that's the case.

Bobby

If you're carrying and you get pulled over for a ticket, just sign the ticket and go on your way. If for some reason the officer asks you to step out of the car, that's probably the time to mention the CHL. You don't do this because it's the law, you do it because of courtesy.

Any LEOs out there are probably nodding. Look, if you're getting out of your car and the officer sees you have a gun, he's going to go to DEFCON 1 in a heartbeat. That's going to put him or her in a really bad mood.

Ohio requires "prompt" notification, IF carrying. "Prompt" is of course nowhere defined. A guy in Beachwood was recently arrested and tried for failure to "promptly" notify... after being the subject of a felony stop in which he was ordered NOT to talk. He still managed to inform after ***51 seconds*** and was charged anyway. He was acquitted at trial. I expect the city and the officers to be sued in civil court. The notification requirement needs to be abolished.

If there were no notification requirement, I wouldn't notify. I believe in letter of the law. No imaginary "courtesies".

wow. i hope your state doesn't have preemption and there are local ordinances to back you up, because of you did that to me, i'd have your badge, then your house.

Click to expand...

For now he's covered in his attitude. AR law requires concealed carriers to present both drivers license and permit any time they are asked for identification by LE.

Still a sleazy attitude in my opinion, but in his state it's the law.

Thankfully we did away with this ridiculous requirement in Texas and hopefully other states will also.

Thanks guys! I think I remember that the "tell the officer rule" came from my CCW instructor as a recommended action. He indicated that when the officer ran my ID, it would come up and one shouldn't try to surprise them. I need to go find my binder and re-visit my notes.

Click to expand...

Gleek, again in Colorado this is specific to your area. In my county in Colorado the CCW list is not published to any outside agencies so an officer from any agency other than the local sheriffs office would have no idea I have a CCW unless I told them. Again this is COUNTY specific in Colorado and up to the Sheriff's prerogative.

Also Steve might want to think about editing that post again... this is The High Road and that post is about as low as I have seen in my short time here.

Steve, you'll accomplish nothing this way except to shut down a thread that could prove to be beneficial to both LEO and regular folk.

If you tone it down, we'll all have a chance to learn from one another - maybe.

Biker

<Deletion by Art caused editing by Art>

For those who have issue with duty to notify laws, more power to you. That being said, as someone on the other side of the car window (which is really pretty rare, to be honest. The only time I pull people over is if I'm working a task force, or we're really, REALLY slow. I have real crimes to deal with), I would put forth the argument that notifying the officer that pulls you over is a good thing, regardless of the requirement.

Why? you may ask. Well, honestly, rookies. Guys that are fresh out of the academy, just on their own, doing their first couple of weeks of night stops. They're already as twitchy as you can be, and if they see a holstered firearm without knowing why, they're going to assume criminal, not CHL holder.

Or, perhaps, a guy that got shot at out of a car window 3 weeks ago is back on the street. He's going to approach every stop with the attitude that the person behind the wheel is trying to kill him. The sooner you exhibit behaviors that disarm (for lack of a better word) this attitude, the better.

Along with every right comes the responsibility of sound exercise of that right.

Now, in Arkansas, the CHL database is linked to the DMV database, so when I run your license, it will come back with CHL status, and I am informed as such over the radio. When the system's fully functional, it comes back with your plates, but that part almost never works.

And, moreover, the state requires it. I don't know about other states requiring it, but you bet your ass I am going to tell any officer that pulls me over that I have a valid CHL, and then I'm going to go the extra step and offer to surrender my sidearm to him for the duration of our visit. I've had this happen four (4) times in the last couple of years, and in every case, the officer politely thanked me for offering, and declined.

Y'all, I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. The more polite and contrite you are in a traffic stop, the more likely you are to get off scot-free. Believe it or not, most LEO's HATE writing traffic offenses. HATE them. We have, as I have also mentioned before, real crimes with which to be dealing.

Now, if you want to really crow about potential violations of probable cause, you should check out the information surrounding federally-funded DWI and seatbelt task forces. There, the LEO is looking for ANY PC to pull you over and see if you're drunk/wearing a seatbelt. Burned out license plate light? Tires touching the center line more than 4 times in a mile? Rear bumper too high (pretty common down here)?

I choose to forgo participation in seatbelt task force, despite the potential for overtime. I'm just not comfortable with it.