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

[moga]

Thank heavens I don't have to inform, and double thanks that having a GFL (not a concealed license) doesn't automatically involve giving up what little protection from the 4th that's left.

 

[Bhamrichard]

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 don't have any issue with informing an officer that may have pulled me over, walked up to me, or is approaching me in an official capacity, that I have a firearm. Heck here in Alabama it's pretty much assumed everyone has a weapon either on them, in their car, or in their home.

Alabama does not require that I inform an officer, and honestly the only question in my mind is how do I properly go about it without alarming the gentleman in blue. I can't exactly see myself going with "Evening Officer, I have a gun". I have generally just handed them my drivers license (in the case of a traffic stop anyway), along with my CC permit at the same time (hopefully they'll get a clue at this point, and inquire), though I do not volunteer to disarm myself. DMV and CC holder info is not shared when someone does a DMV check here.

I guess the thought on my mind is, if I don't inform them, and they somehow see my firearm, chances are very good that I'm going to see theirs a little more up close than I'd rather. So far, my strategy has worked just fine for me

 

[BlisteringSilence]

Alabama does not require that I inform an officer, and honestly the only question in my mind is how do I properly go about it without alarming the gentleman in blue. I can't exactly see myself going with "Evening Officer, I have a gun". I have generally just handed them my drivers license (in the case of a traffic stop anyway), along with my CC permit at the same time (hopefully they'll get a clue at this point, and inquire), though I do not volunteer to disarm myself. DMV and CC holder info is not shared when someone does a DMV check here.

I guess the thought on my mind is, if I don't inform them, and they somehow see my firearm, chances are very good that I'm going to see theirs a little more up close than I'd rather. So far, my strategy has worked just fine for me

Sounds like a good strategy.

A number of friends and acquaintances have asked me in the past the best way to notify an officer you are carrying. I have this suggestion, as it's what I prefer to hear:

"Good [morning, afternoon, evening] officer. I just want to let you know that I have a valid [CHL, CWL, CWP], and that my firearm is [on my belt, in the center console, under the seat, in my coat pocket]."

This lets me know that 1) you are very likely not a criminal, 2) you DO have a firearm, and 3) where it's located.

This puts me more at ease, to where I am now more worried about being hit by some moron driving by than I am about you being a threat. Also, it establishes our relationship as something other than adversarial, which is also a good thing.

 

[Bhamrichard]

So far, my strategy has worked just fine for me

I'm going to have to correct myself, I did have one issue with what appeared to be a fairly "new" officer, who apparently thought he was the original "billy bad***" (surely you've seen the type).

Stopped me in the parking lot of a local grocery store, apparently a manager had seen a "bulge" in my bluejeans and now I was a suspected shoplifter, Ok I can understand that. Afterhe officer approached me I informed him that was a firearm, and that I had a permit to carry it, he immediately goes 'hands on' to the .38 on his side. So I produced my ID and permit and it went down hill from there. I got a 30 minute question and answer session like "Why the hell do you need a gun" (personal protection) and "Why would you carry it into the grocery store for Gods sake" (BG's are everywhere sir).. etc etc. A week prior someone has opened fire in a Burger King across the parking lot from this same grocery store, I used that as an example.

Admittedly I was quite young, 21 or so, he wasn't much older, maybe 24.. But it did leave a bad taste in my mouth about dealing with police officers even though I'd done nothing wrong.

 

[Deanimator]

I got a 30 minute question and answer session like "Why the hell do you need a gun" (personal protection) and "Why would you carry it into the grocery store for Gods sake" (BG's are everywhere sir).. etc etc.

Memorize:

"Am I free to leave, Officer?"
"No? I have nothing further to say without my attorney present."

If he wants to "lecture" somebody, let him lecture your lawyer and see how that works for him.

Inflict your ill-informed opinions on me at gunpoint and pay a price for having done so.

 

[Guns and more]

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.

With all due respect, what do these rookies DO at the academy? I thought they learned the law and self defense.
I'd like to see a chart of the % of officer shootings that were committed by CC permit holders.
I would think a rookie would be more frightened by a traffic stop where he didn't know anything about the citizen.
I would think that having a CC permit would indicate that the person in the car had undergone a background check, been fingerprinted, passed a class, and was not a felon.
So why the big deal in pulling over a permit holder?

 

[BlisteringSilence]

With all due respect, what do these rookies DO at the academy? I thought they learned the law and self defense.
I'd like to see a chart of the % of officer shootings that were committed by CC permit holders.
I would think a rookie would be more frightened by a traffic stop where he didn't know anything about the citizen. I would think that Having a CC permit would indicate that the person in the car had undergone a background check, been fingerprinted, passed a class, and was not a felon. So why the big deal in pulling over a permit holder?

The point was pulling over an armed citizen without him notifying the officer that he was carrying. If you notify said officer, you avoid the hypothetical.

 

[mljdeckard]

Whether they take it from you is at the discretion of the officer.

No, having a permit does not surrender your rights in ANY way.

 

[Art Eatman]

Look, gang, the laws vary from state to state. You may not like the law as written in your state, but that's not necessarily the problem for somebody in a different state. The converse is also true.

What an LEO is or is not allowed or required to do when somebody has a CHL varies. No "One size fits all."

But looking at the first post's questions, it seems to me that the key point would be the reason for the LEO to stop somebody.

Minor traffic? Some states require you to show your CHL, which shouldn't cause any demand for a search. "Shouldn't".

Serious traffic? DUI and reckless? Good luck; you'll likely need it.

Out walking along the street? Why did the officer think there was a reason to stop you? Behavior?

At home? Whole different set of laws.

 

[sumpnz]

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.

By following that basic advice I'm 6 for 7 in getting verbal or written warnings when pulled over (fishing expedition, illegal U-turn, speeding (45 in a 35), lack of signaling, speeding (56 in a 50), and speeding (60+ in a 55)/passing in a no passing zone by <10'). The first and last of those were in OR (Eugene and near The Dalles), the next two were in Prescott AZ, one on I-17 near Flagstaff, then one in Tucson.

The one time that failed and I did get a ticket it was for speeding (70 in a 60) near Goldendale WA. Did the WA deferral deal, kept my self clean for the 1 year (now 2 since), so that should not be on my record anymore, and there were no points.

 

[luigi]

If you notify said officer, you avoid the hypothetical.

Unless the officer is going to pat you down or specifically asks you if you are armed there is no good reason to volunteer the information.

All it does is open you up to harassment from an anti cop. As a general rule the less information you give a cop during an official encounter the better off you are Deanimator hit the nail squarely opn the head.

Officer, am I free to Leave?

Officer, I have nothing further to say W/ out consulting my attorney.

Officer, I do not consent to any searches.

 

[divemedic]

I had a bad encounter with an Orange County Deputy Sergeant in 2000. I notified, and he really gave me a hard time. I have not notified since.

 

[bdickens]

Unless the officer is going to pat you down or specifically asks you if you are armed there is no good reason to volunteer the information.

All it does is open you up to harassment from an anti cop. As a general rule the less information you give a cop during an official encounter the better off you are Deanimator hit the nail squarely opn the head.

Officer, am I free to Leave?

Officer, I have nothing further to say W/ out consulting my attorney.

Officer, I do not consent to any searches.

What to you do when the law requires you to notify?

 

[mec]

Texas law required the licensee to show his license to police if asked for identification. The last legislative session removed all penalties for failure to do so so I suspect it's in the order of a suggestion now. Thepolice can disarm a licensed carrier but in practice, they seldom do so. They are usually very polite-or this may be a factor associated with being middle aged rather than a teen ager.

Ive always suggested to people who have drinking as an important part of their life style that they might want to stay away from handgun licenses. while the police are polite, they are likely to expect a higher standard of responsibility from licensees and be more alert to chemical impairment.

 

[Gouranga]

In NC we are required to notify the officer and it really is no big deal (not yet anyway). In most cases, even with rookies, if you are calm, and show him some respect (afforded to his/her position), you will not have an issue.

When i was in college in NY, i used to keep a CO2 handgun (looked VERY much like a real Colt 45) in my trunk. After a day at the beach (yeah it does get warm enought o swim up there), I got pulled over (and I deserved it -- 70 in a 55). My license was in the trunk with the gun. The officer had me get out of the car, and open the trunk, and before I put the key in I told him I had it in there and it looked VERY real. He had me open the trunk and point it out. He was VERY appreciative of me telling him about it.

Looking at it from their perspective (and I have a sister and brother in law who are cops), they are pulling someone over, they have no idea if they are normal, or raving lunatics (they tend to look the same until they open their mouths), if they are hiding something or not, if they are armed or not. I can fully understand being nervous about armed people. IF you are calm with them 95% of the time they will return the favor. The other 5%, keep your calm, make sure you stay in full view of their dash camera, and file a complaint with their supervisor.

To the original point though. An officer needs to have a warrant, consent, or just cause to search your home. Possession of a CCW does not give him/her any of those. IF they decide to stomp your rights, like I said keep calm, and file a suit later. That officer may be doing you a favor and his department will be putting your kids through college from the award for the civil rights case you file.

 

[Deanimator]

What to you do when the law requires you to notify?

You obey the letter of the law, nothing more, nothing less.

No "courtesies".
No games.
No making it up as you go along.

Obey the traffic laws and you are LESS likely to be stopped.
If you are stopped, obey the letter of the law and assert your rights if necessary.

Let somebody ELSE play fast and loose with the law.
If they do, make THEM pay the consequences.

 

[luigi]

What to you do when the law requires you to notify?

Where I'm at it doesn't.

Aside from that the point, again, goes to Deanimator. Obey the law end of sentence.

 

[mec]

fully understand being nervous about armed people

Some police officers supported the concealed handgun legislation in Texas because it actually provided them with some relief from liability. Although illegal, it was a common practice to keep handguns in automobiles before the chl law and more recent legal changes. A lot of officers "didn't see." the handguns that emerged on routine stops.
One dps trooper here stopped a bluehaired granny lady for some minor offense and let her go in spite of the illegal handgun in her console. Later he learned that she had stopped in and robbed a bank just down the street. If it had become known that he had let her walk, he might have had some 'splainin to do.

 

[razorback2003]

Arkansas Notify?

I took the class in Arkansas several years ago and at the time, the law did not require licensees to notify police when asked for a DL, only when ASKED for the CHL. I do not think the law has changed and, in fact, looked up the actual law on the ASP's website.

§5-73-315. Possession of license — Identification of licensee.
(a) Any licensee possessing a valid license issued pursuant to this subchapter
may carry a concealed handgun.
(b) The licensee shall:
Effective date of laws July 31, 2007 12
(1) Carry the license, together with valid identification, at any time when
the licensee is carrying a concealed handgun; and
(2) Display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a
law enforcement officer.

Nowhere does this say in the actual ACA law that you are REQUIRED to notify. If any cop decided to give me a dress down in Arkansas for failing to notify at a traffic stop and take my TN Handgun Carry Permit and handgun, I hope he has a law to back him up because I sure don't see one. It looks like the law hasn't changed since I left and moved to TN a few years ago.

I have never notified a police officer in TN when stopped and never had a problem. We are not required to and our DL's are cross referenced to our carry permits. I never had a problem in Arkansas when having a handgun in my car BEFORE getting a concealed handgun license and my handgun happened to be found (most folks keep one in the car/carry when on a 'journey' in AR b/c it is legal without a license). Being clean cut and respectful goes a long way....and i expect that in return. I honestly thought it was assumed that people had guns in cars...why would i notify unless required by law like in Texas or Michigan?

 

[ClayInTX]

What is gained by not informing an LEO that you have a license to carry, or if covered under the traveling law that you have a gun in the vehicle?

I have been stopped only once which was in a routine “stop everyone and check if sober” traffic stop in Indiana. I handed the officer my DL and CHL together. He asked to see my vehicle registration. It was in the glove box, which could have been where I had the gun, but wasn’t. He showed no apprehension nor ask to see the gun.

Was very polite, as was I. Being informed, upfront, that I had a CHL surely eased his mind that I was not likely a criminal.

These men and women are on the front lines, so to speak, and face potential danger at every stop. Why make it difficult for them?

If it’s a rookie do what you can to make it easy for him. You want to get sticky about it: you might beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride. And even if you prove the officer acted beyond his right you’ll not get his badge, nor his house, nor his car, nor his money.

 

[Deanimator]

What is gained by not informing an LEO that you have a license to carry, or if covered under the traveling law that you have a gun in the vehicle?

What is gained by doing things not required by the law, which then get taken as "required"?

I obey the letter of the law, no more no less. If the cop and I both do that, nobody has any room to complain.

These men and women are on the front lines, so to speak, and face potential danger at every stop. Why make it difficult for them?

If my obeying the law is too "difficult" for him, he needs to find another way to make a living, PERIOD.

If it’s a rookie do what you can to make it easy for him. You want to get sticky about it: you might beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride. And even if you prove the officer acted beyond his right you’ll not get his badge, nor his house, nor his car, nor his money.

If you have friends who are cops to whom you've told that "fable", they shouldn't consider you a friend. You could cost them their careers and a lot of money.

I have to obey the law. So does the cop. If he doesn't believe that, I can disabuse him of that notion VERY quickly.

 

[TexasRifleman]

These men and women are on the front lines, so to speak, and face potential danger at every stop. Why make it difficult for them?

Well, let me ask you this.

Why is following the law making things difficult for them?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If it’s a rookie do what you can to make it easy for him. You want to get sticky about it: you might beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride.

True enough; but deprivation of rights under color of law is a Federal crime - and one that can be pretty costly for the rookie on a personal level, as well as his department and the taxpayers that pay for it in the usually accompanying civil suit.

 

[Deanimator]

Why is following the law making things difficult for them?

Following the law is certainly difficult for ME.

I can't carry in a liquor serving establishment.
I can't carry in a post office or government building.
I can't carry in transit authority facilities (posted)
I can't carry in my pocket in a car without a pocket holster.

Yet, I manage to obey ALL of those legal restrictions.

Obeying the law is a CHOICE, both for me and the cop. If you choose NOT to obey the law, there are consequences.

 

[Bobarino]

And even if you prove the officer acted beyond his right you’ll not get his badge, nor his house, nor his car, nor his money.

don't be so sure Clay. my girlfriend's ex-husband is a Washington State Patrol officer. a person he stopped accused him of racism. and as his dash cam showed, rightly so. the plaintiff in the civil suit against him and his dept placed a lien on the officer's house. he's going to lose and the dept. will end up paying him and he'll have to pay the plaintiff if he ever wants to sell his house. it's not a myth. cops can't always hide behind a badge.

read up on St. John v Alamagordo NM here: (pdf) http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=7856

the pertinent part is below. summation: cops don't get to hide behind Qualified Immunity if they violate your Constitutional rights and can be held liable for the actions.

Qualified Immunity
Defendants next assert that qualified immunity shields them from Mr. St. John's Fourth
Amendment claims. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages
"insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
Courts generally follow a two-step procedure in considering qualified immunity defenses.
First, they determine whether the plaintiff's allegations, if accepted as true, adequately allege a
violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. See Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531,
1534-5 (10th Cir. 1995). If the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient, courts then consider whether,
at the time of occurrence, the right was clearly established. Id. For a constitutional right to be
clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
understand that what he is doing violates that right. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002).
This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action
in question has previously been held unlawful. Id.; Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
Rather, the unlawfulness of the official's conduct must only be apparent in light of pre-existing
law. Id. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff must generally show that there was a Supreme
Court or Tenth Circuit opinion on point or that the proposition is supported by the weight of
authority from other courts. Armijo v. Wagon Mound Pub. Schs., 159 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir.
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 11 of 16
12
1998). If the plaintiff fails to show that a defendant's actions violated a clearly established right,
he cannot recover. Id.
As discussed above, Mr. St. John was seized and searched in violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights. The question then becomes whether, at the time of the incident, Mr. St.
John's rights were clearly established. The Court finds that they were.
Relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts
have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
legitimate reason. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Fuerschbach,439 F.3d at 1204-6 (holding that a
seizure without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity "would violate the most minimal
Fourth Amendment standard"); Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d at 1228 ("Where no legitimate basis
exists for detaining [an individual], a seizure is plainly unreasonable."); Duran, 904 F.2d at 1378
("If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police
officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how
peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop
unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed or that there is
an imminent danger to persons or property."); see also Lawrence Rosenthal, Second Amendment
Plumbing after Heller: Standards of Scrutiny, Incorporation, Well-Regulated Militias, and
Criminal Street Gangs, 41 Urb. Law. 1, 37 (2009) (“When applicable law does not ban carrying a
firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk regardless of any
indication that a suspect is armed or potentially dangerous because there is no indication that the
suspect is violating the law.”). For example, in Sorrel v. McGuigan, 38 Fed.Appx. 970, 973 (4th
Cir. 2002) (unpublished) the Fourth Circuit denied qualified immunity to an officer who seized
an individual for lawfully carrying weapon. Noting that a state statute made the plaintiff's
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 12 of 16
13
concealed carrying of the weapon legal, the court found that, though "[q]ualified immunity
protects law enforcement officers from bad guesses in gray areas," the fact that the plaintiff's
actions were clearly permissible under the statute meant that the officer "was not in a gray area."
Id. at 974.
The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited
Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq.
Because both New Mexico law and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unjustified seizure
were clearly established, and a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law,
see, e.g., Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-9, qualified immunity does not protect Defendants.
Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity.

there are a lot of people that just don't know their rights and so won't press the issue. there are some people, however, that do know their rights and will stand up to a government run amok.

the cops know that there's a 98% chance that someone they contact won't know that they don't have to consent to a search or that they can say "no" to a cop. it's us 2% that need to make sure the cops don't get away with it.

Bobby