How do you tell a LEO that you are armed at a traffic stop

[NavyLCDR]

From reading some of your earlier posts I would guess that you have had some unpleasant experiences with law enforcement. If this is true, you will probably carry that experience over to your next meeting with them. Trust me, if you do your experiences won't get any better.

I have had 1 bad experience with a police officer. He kicked me out of a restaurant because I was lawfully carrying a firearm AGAINST the wishes of the owners of the restaurant (his presence was against the wishes of the owners of the restaurant. My firearm was welcome there), not only interfering with my peaceful dinner, but also affecting the business of the owner of the restaurant who had no desire to have me removed from the property. The officer's action was due to a MWG call made by another patron. The Chief of Police received a warning that such action would not be tolerated and this was his one chance to correct his officer's behavior, and such actions disrupting the operations of a private business against the desires of the business owner would be dealt with via the filing of a lawsuit.

I have had many, many other completely 100% positive and professional encounters with police officers, a few of which have even resulted me in receiving a ticket for whatever traffic infraction I committed. And none of the officers showed one tiny bit of concern about my firearm or my CPL - whether or not they even knew they existed or were present. I feel no need to prove to a police officer my good standing as a citizen. I don't know what the history of the officer is in front of me, they may be a good cop, or they might be the cop who has been reprimanded 10 times in the past and the cops sure aren't going to offer me any of their history.

99% of police officers are hardworking people, doing their jobs in a professional manner. But I am not going to hand over to them any right I have just because it might make them feel better....I will interact with them within the bounds of law, nothing more, and I fully expect that as a paid servant of the citizens that they will do the same. We are not the servants of the police. They are the servants of the citizens from whom they receive their salaries.

 

[Deanimator]

From reading some of your earlier posts I would guess that you have had some unpleasant experiences with law enforcement. If this is true, you will probably carry that experience over to your next meeting with them. Trust me, if you do your experiences won't get any better.

So the public should act like abused spouses and just forget the last beating... until the next beating?

But I guess we had it coming. We "provoked" them...

 

[NavyLCDR]

So the public should act like abused spouses and just forget the last beating... until the next beating?

But I guess we had it coming. We "provoked" them...

That seems to be a nice summation!

We provoked them by knowing our rights, knowing the law, and not laying our papers and guns at their feet hoping to be granted favor in their eyes.

 

[rugerman]

No duty to warn here, but I asked the local chief of police what he thought I should do if stopped and he said to hand them my permit along with my drivers lic. to let them know. He said that since the permit is tied to my drivers lic. that they would know if they ran it so a heads up would help keep the situation calm.

 

[Deanimator]

I don't know what the history of the officer is in front of me, they may be a good cop, or they might be the cop who has been reprimanded 10 times in the past and the cops sure aren't going to offer me any of their history.

I treat cops like hitchhikers.

Most hitchhikers aren't serial killers.
Some are.
I don't pick up hitchhikers.

Most cops aren't violent, racist pyschopaths.
Some are.
I deal with police ONLY in ways MANDATED by LAW.

I don't want ANYTHING to do with the police. That's why I work VERY hard to have NOTHING to do with them. To this end, I don't speed, drive drunk, get intoxicated in public places or start fights.

I've found that staying out of trouble eliminates the need to bow and scrape in a servile fashion before the police. That leaves only a need to be "liked" by cops. I have no such need. Clearly some people do.

 

[NavyLCDR]

No duty to warn here, but I asked the local chief of police what he thought I should do if stopped and he said to hand them my permit along with my drivers lic. to let them know. He said that since the permit is tied to my drivers lic. that they would know if they ran it so a heads up would help keep the situation calm.

So, you don't hand them the permit. They go back and run your driver's license and find out you have a permit to legally carry a firearm, that you have passed all the background checks required for the permit, and that you have remained enough of a law abiding citizen to keep the permit. I have to ask....why would that affect the calmness of the situation at all? Why would gaining that information when they run your driver's cause any added concern at all? Why would an officer have any reason to question why you did not offer them the permit? If I don't tell the officer about a pilot's license and they find out I am a licensed pilot, would they ask me about that?

 

[Doc3402]

99% of police officers are hardworking people, doing their jobs in a professional manner. But I am not going to hand over to them any right I have just because it might make them feel better....I will interact with them within the bounds of law, nothing more, and I fully expect that as a paid servant of the citizens that they will do the same. We are not the servants of the police. They are the servants of the citizens from whom they receive their salaries.

Let me ask you a question. You say you are going"interact with them within the bounds of law". What do you think would happen if you acted within the law and decided not to disclose the fact that you are armed. You with me so far? Suddenly, and still within the law, the officer decided for reasons of officer safety that you needed to get out of the car to be frisked? What do you think the immediate reaction to your concealed weapon would be?

There is a difference between being right, and being smart.

 

[Deanimator]

There is a difference between being right, and being smart.

That cop can do whatever he's willing to try to justify in an administrative hearing, in civil court or in front of city council.

There's a difference between being "smart" and being a serf.

I don't knuckle under to bullies.

I especially don't knuckle under to bullies merely because they get a government paycheck.

You appear to be saying that my actions should be governed more by fear of the police and their reaction to anything but a fawningly servile demeanor, than by a desire to uphold the law.

I care about the LAW, not the police, who are merely a problematic tool of that law.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Let me ask you a question. You say you are going"interact with them within the bounds of law". What do you think would happen if you acted within the law and decided not to disclose the fact that you are armed. You with me so far? Suddenly, and still within the law, the officer decided for reasons of officer safety that you needed to get out of the car to be frisked? What do you think the immediate reaction to your concealed weapon would be?

There is a difference between being right, and being smart.

1. If the officer decided I needed to get out of the car to be frisked, it would have to be, legally, because he had reasonable suspicion that I had a weapon within reach which posed a threat to him. Otherwise the frisk, without consent, would be illegal. The mere existence of a license to carry a firearm is not reasonable suspicion that I am armed, just like the mere existence of a driver's license in my pocket is not reasonable suspicion that I own or drive a car, until actual evidence of the vehicle becomes evident.

2. Since the officer is going to perform a search without my consent anyway, I will inform of the presence of the firearm, and that I am legally licensed to conceal it and have it loaded inside the vehicle.

3. What we are talking about is not offering the police officer the reasonable suspicion required for the search without consent right up front, with no requirement in law to do so. The officer comes to my window, I tell them about my license AND my gun, I have now given them the reasonable suspicion that is legally required for them to perform a frisk search of my person, and the area of my car from which a weapon may be obtained, without my consent. I simply will not voluntarily offer that reasonable suspicion to them when not required to, by law. If they develop that reasonable suspicion on their own - good for them. If they articulate that reasonable suspicion to me in the form of a question, "Do you have any firearms or weapons in the car?" I will answer the questions truthfully.

 

[Doc3402]

You are welcome to interpret what I am saying in any way you want. I'm merely trying to offer some advice having been on both sides of the badge. What you do is totally up to you. Only you will have to live with the rewards or consequences of your actions.

 

[Doc3402]

1. If the officer decided I needed to get out of the car to be frisked, it would have to be, legally, because he had reasonable suspicion that I had a weapon within reach which posed a threat to him.

Wrong answer. There is nothing in the decision by Sandra Day and the Supremes that states there must be a reasonable belief that a weapon is present. There must be a reasonable suspicion that there has been involvement in criminal activity. The search is to determine whether there is a weapon present for officer safety. Any contraband found during the frisk is obtained legally and can be used against you providing the reasonable suspicion holds up.

2. Since the officer is going to perform a search without my consent anyway, I will inform of the presence of the firearm, and that I am legally licensed to conceal it and have it loaded inside the vehicle.

That's a 180 degree turnaround from that 'I know my rights' stuff you were spewing earlier. Wow. Who would have imagined? Now that the risk of discovery is higher you decide to CYA? Pitiful.

 

[Deanimator]

Only you will have to live with the rewards or consequences of your actions.

What are the "consequences" of obeying the letter of the law?

What are the "rewards" for catering to the extra-legal whims of a cop?

 

[Deanimator]

There must be a reasonable suspicion that there has been involvement in criminal activity.

And in the example you cited, what is the EVIDENCE "that there has been involvement in criminal activity".

I will tell you upfront that in Ohio, absent other factors, mere possession of a firearm is NOT RAS that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.

Cops need to get it into their heads that their merely wanting something doesn't give it the force of law. When they have that mistaken impression, corrective actions, sometimes painful ones, must be taken.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Wrong answer. There is nothing in the decision by Sandra Day and the Supremes that states there must be a reasonable belief that a weapon is present. There must be a reasonable suspicion that there has been involvement in criminal activity. The search is to determine whether there is a weapon present for officer safety. Any contraband found during the frisk is obtained legally and can be used against you providing the reasonable suspicion holds up

Doc3402, you are greatly confusing the legal ability of a police officer to detain an individual and the legal ability of the police officer to conduct a search of the individual.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

The legal ability of a police officer to detain an individual is a reasonable suspicion that the individual has/is/is about to commit a crime (or a traffic infraction, which rarely are considered crimes in state law).

However, the US Supreme Court, in Terry V. Ohio ruled that a frisk goes beyond the scope of mere detainment. I would suggest you read the actual opinion of the court, in it's entirety, linked above.

In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is, in fact, carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.

We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [p31]

The act of detaining a person can be justified solely upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (or traffic infraction). The ADDITIONAL action of the frisk search requires ADDITIONAL reasonable suspicion that the individual detained is also "armed and presently dangerous".

What say you now, Doc3402?

 

[mhuxtable]

I think the Dude said it best?

Some people here seriously have a chip on their shoulder.

And from watching that video on blazer, that cop should absolutely lose his job....he threatened to kill one guy, threatened to assault the woman and was beyond unprofessional...he lost it. He's a loose cannon and is going to get someone killed.

 

[brboyer]

[snip]

The act of detaining a person can be justified solely upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (or traffic infraction). The ADDITIONAL action of the frisk search requires ADDITIONAL reasonable suspicion that the individual detained is also "armed and presently dangerous".

What say you now, Doc3402?

And in Florida it actually requires Probable Cause, not just R.S.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Now here is a great Constitutional question...

Let's say I live in a state that does have the duty to inform. As soon as I admit to possessing a firearm, during a legal detainment, that gives the right the legal justification to perform a search without requiring my consent. So...

1. How does that not violate the 5th Amendment? I am being required, by law. to "confess" to possessing an object that will end up providing justification for a warrantless search and seizure!

2. How does that not violate the 4th Amendment in that basically I am being required by law to be subjected to a warrantless search only by my required admission that I am obeying all applicable laws?

I would think that in order to pass Constitutional muster, the police should be prohibited from performing a search and seizure for/of my firearm, if I obey a law that requires me to inform them of a lawfully possessed firearm.

 

[mhuxtable]

I believe there have already been court rulings stating that the sole act of legally possessing a firearm is not just cause to perform any search, nor is it grounds to assume any crime has been committed.

There's a famous video on YouTube of a law student open carrying a Glock and when police approach him, he cites 3 or 4 court cases that basically say the police cannot search him, seize his weapon, and he doesn't have to give them his name at all.

 

[brboyer]

I believe there have already been court rulings stating that the sole act of legally possessing a firearm is not just cause to perform any search, nor is it grounds to assume any crime has been committed.

There's a famous video on YouTube of a law student open carrying a Glock and when police approach him, he cites 3 or 4 court cases that basically say the police cannot search him, seize his weapon, and he doesn't have to give them his name at all.

Correct, but the argument you'll get from many is that situation was clearly a consensual encounter, but the traffic stop we are discussing is a lawful detainment and therefore a terry frisk is permissible for 'officer safety'.

The problem that most of the "no harm, no foul", "the officer just wants to go home at the end of his shift", "I told him I have a permit/license and/or a gun in the car so he thinks I'm a good guy and might not give me a ticket" crowd is that each and every case has and continues to further erodes our Constitutional protections.

If every person that was subjected to such extra legal treatment filed a complaint and/or law suit, we would not be having this discussion.

ETA: In Florida we have a conflict between two District Courts of Appeal, one says simply carrying a firearm is PC that a crime is being committed (No OC is Florida except in limited situations and concealed carry requires a license - except in most of those those same situations where OC is permitted) and therefore grounds for a Terry Stop, and one that says it's not, so the Florida Supreme court will have to make the final (almost) decision.

Think about driving a car. It's illegal unless you have a license, but the police cannot stop you to just to check (not talking about roadblocks here), so why should they be able to stop you to check to see if that firearm you are carrying is carried pursuant to a CWFL (or other lawful non-licensed situation), or demand to take possession of it while they are dealing with you?

Answer: Guns are icky and scary, that's why!

 

[hermannr]

OK fixed this question in their new law that allows OC...IF LE requests to see your license to carry, and you produce one, it is a criminal offence by the LEO (Class a Misdemeanor if I remember correctly) to disarm you if your openly carried pistol is the ONLY reason they stopped you and they do not have RS of criminal activity.

Sorry, I don't have a link the reference at the moment, it is in Oklahoma SB 1743.

 

[oneounceload]

Sorry - haven't read all of the previous posts - here in FL, I do NOT have to inform; it is NOT tied to my DL, and, IMO, that is the way it should be - it is none of the LEO's business as part of a routine traffic stop

 

[NavyLCDR]

Think about driving a car. It's illegal unless you have a license, but the police cannot stop you to just to check (not talking about roadblocks here),

Unfortunately, in Washington they can - during daylight hours, using marked patrol cars only, and only the WA State Patrol is allowed to make the stop. Specifically allowed by state law . I've never heard of them doing it, though.

 

[henschman]

If you live in a state with one of those BS notification laws, if you choose to comply with it, you could always turn it into an opportunity to register your displeasure with the law. You could say something like "there is a ridiculous law in this state that requires me to tell you that I have a gun."

RS of being armed during detention does not give them the right to seize the gun. RS of you being armed AND dangerous does. You can't forget the "dangerous" element. It is a separate and distinct element, and being armed does not automatically lead to a determination of being dangerous, especially when they have absolutely no reason to believe that anything about your gun or method of carry is illegal.

Be careful out there, fellas.

 

[dirtengineer]

Not impossible. Before I started working in corrections I was pulled over by a county sheriff who asked if I was armed that day. Before seeing my carry license. Just because it is impossible in your state doesn't make the matter true nationwide.

I like that map of which states have duty to inform. Interesting results as I thought it would be closer to 50/50.

Even though it isn't 50% of the states, it is about 50% of the area.

 

[Doc3402]

What are the "consequences" of obeying the letter of the law?

What are the "rewards" for catering to the extra-legal whims of a cop?

Beats me.