The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 20, 2010, 01:07 PM   #26
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Unless, I am mistaken the issue is the fact that the CHL failed to inform and he did in fact have his CCW with him in a jurisdiction that requires notification. in which case I would think that depending on totality of circumstances would earn him a custodial search.
The problem is, we're talking about a custodial search *before* the officer knew that the driver did in fact have a weapon. In the example given, the cop's entire justification for the search is simply the fact that the driver possesses a CHL and didn't say anything one way or the other about having a weapon.

From Post #16, it sounds like some jurisdictions have already decided that the mere possession of a CHL isn't grounds to assume nefarious activity. I suspect that if the issue ever comes under close scrutiny by the courts, the fact that a person has a CHL will not be considered valid grounds for a Terry search, absent any other articulable reasons for the search.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 01:59 PM   #27
kodiakbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
Quote:
Because you have a carry permit, a reasonable man would assume you were carrying.
I'm over 21 and therefore legally able to drink. A reasonable man would assume I was drunk.

Like that?
kodiakbeer is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 02:21 PM   #28
Maromero
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
OK. For arguments sake, there are two different issues. The first is a Terry stop b/c of a failure to disclose and the second is the inference that a person is CC based solely on the fact that the subject has a permit.

Law says you have an obligation to disclose if you have a permit whether you carry or not at the moment. You must comply. Failure to do so will get you a pat-down. It is that simple. The pat-down in a Terry stop comes because of the lack of disclosure, not b/c the officer thinks your carrying concealed because you have a permit.

Like Scott said, it is irrelevant what the officer thinks, whether you have a gun or not based solely on the fact you have a permit. The intervention is initiated because of the failure to disclose you have the permit, period.
Maromero is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 02:25 PM   #29
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Law says you have an obligation to disclose if you have a permit whether you carry or not at the moment. You must comply.
This is not true in many places. In Virginia, notification is only required *if you're currently carrying*, and I think that's the norm, rather than the exception.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 02:26 PM   #30
kodiakbeer
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2010
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 791
Quote:
Law says you have an obligation to disclose if you have a permit whether you carry or not at the moment.
Perhaps in some states... In Alaska I have to disclose if I'm carrying, but I'm under no obligation to broach the subject when I'm not carrying.
kodiakbeer is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 02:34 PM   #31
Maromero
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
My bad. Op stated failure to inform he was carrying in a jurisdiction requiring disclosure of ccweapon, not permit. Like I previously stated in another post the search is unwarranted in law. Is it not reasonable for the cop to perform a search (terry stop) based solely on the fact that the subject did not disclose he had a gun. Again, the officer will perform the search and if he finds anything he most likely will be able to justify his intervention in a courtroom.

Is it reasonable to imply a person is CC a gun solely upon the fact he has a permit? Again, not reasonable in theory but realy easy to justify in reality.

Last edited by Maromero; May 20, 2010 at 02:47 PM.
Maromero is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 02:39 PM   #32
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Re-read the OP:

Quote:
You are in a jurisdiction where statute requires concealed handgun license holders to notify law enforcement if they are carrying a firearm.
(emphasis added)

If they're not carrying a firearm, no notification is required. We're not the ones moving the goalposts (intentionally or otherwise.)
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 02:48 PM   #33
Maromero
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
Scott. You beat me to it. Read edited post.
Maromero is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 02:53 PM   #34
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Is it reasonable to imply a person is CC a gun solely upon the fact he has a permit? Again, not reasonable in theory but realy easy to justify in reality.
I don't think it would be easy at all to justify the search, unless the cop starts making stuff up about the subject "acting furtively" or "adjusting something under his shirt."

I think the reason we don't hear about this situation in real life (Terry frisks based solely on the fact that the subject is a CHL licensee) is that the cops know better. They're not lawyers, but they probably received guidance on the subject once "shall issue" became popular.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 03:51 PM   #35
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
The point I am making is that if I stop you you had better be more forthcoming than your computer check not less. You don't have to be---see previous post but probably in your best interest.

I am not suggesting mentioning a gun out af the blue.

"Officer, in the interest of full disclosure I have a CCW but I am not presently armed"

What is the percentage of population that has a CCW on average?
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 03:53 PM   #36
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
I think I found a source that put the number of CCW holders at about five million, nationwide, but I'll check again. No data on how frequently holders actually carry, though.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 05:32 PM   #37
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,078
Quote:
What is the percentage of population that has a CCW on average?
In your world (Illinois) close to zero. Here in Clark County, NV, 1 in 100 are legally CCW. But anyone (not felons, MDV, etc) can have it loaded in their vehicle (not on their person) and no requirement to disclose.

But why all the worry about a person who has passed a background check, and completed a course? These folks are statistically the most law abiding, peaceful trustworthy folks on the planet. The chances of someone from that group going sideways is astronomical. I can't understand why the permit ought to raise the alarm level. If anything, the opposite should be true.

How do AZ, AK, and VT officers somehow avoid all this hand-wringing over armed, law-abiding folks? They barely blink when the guy in line in front of them at the grocery store is OC'ing. And now, unless prohibited from owning the gun in the first place, one doesn't even need the permit in AZ. The wide disparity in perception of what represents a threat to officer safety in various jurisdictions is interesting. There aren't any increased numbers of officer shootings in these states, quite the contrary.

If there's no evidence or suspicion beyond the existence of a permit, I can't see how a search is justified. Now if the person is the slightest bit belligerent, argumentative, intoxicated, whatever then by all means, get them out of the car and Terry pat 'em.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 20, 2010, 07:25 PM   #38
sixgun67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Location: New Philadelphia, Oh
Posts: 238
If an officer wants to search me or my vehicle, I have nothing to hide. I will never give consent, but I have enough inteligence to be calm and cool and not be beligerant. I want to keep my permit, which would be at stake. At that point, I would want to be in front of a judge later to hear the officer explain as to why he believed a search was necessary, when I'm only required by law to disclose if I am carrying, and not required to disclose if I'm not carrying. I live in North Carolina. Not a rant, just how I feel.
sixgun67 is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 08:50 AM   #39
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure. I agree that having a CHL would be like a good guy membership card. But, like I said the roadside is not the place for constitutional challenges. YMMV
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 09:35 AM   #40
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure.
But how can the non-disclosure be an issue when, for all the cop knows, there's nothing to disclose?

I couldn't understand exactly what you were saying in post #35, so perhaps you could clarify - as CHL holders, do you think we should make it a point to tell the officer when we're *not* carrying?
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 09:37 AM   #41
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wagonman
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure. I agree that having a CHL would be like a good guy membership card. But, like I said the roadside is not the place for constitutional challenges. YMMV
I simply can not understand that reasoning. I'm not carrying a knife either. Should I tell the officer about the knife that I'm not carrying? I mean, that's a deadly weapon that I DON'T NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY!

Should I tell the officer that I have a motorcycle license but I don't have my helmet with me?


"Non-disclosure" of something that IS NOT, is a ridiculous concept.


To think that some one will have it in their mind to tell a police officer about a weapon that they're NOT carrying is absurd. Do you really believe that the guy who got a carry permit in 1975 and has never carried a day in his life is going to remember that he should tell an officer about his permit when he gets pulled over in 2010?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 11:50 AM   #42
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,655
Quote:
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure.
For the record, in the same state (Texas), an unlicensed (non-CHL) person who can legally own a firearm can carry a firearm in the car and is not required by law to disclose it to police.

I think that statute would probably be relevant in this discussion.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 12:43 PM   #43
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
The point I am making is that as a Cop if I find something out via the computer that you didn't disclose that would raise my suspicion level. I am not saying that it is required I am just giving you my real world perspective. If you are not required and don't want to disclose God bless. But, there can be consequences. Which would probably be a minor delay while I search your vehicle and you to ascertain if there are any other things you failed to disclose unless you had a reasonable story as to why you failed to be forthright in answering my questions. Because if I were in a jurisdiction that had CHL that issue would be in my battery of inquiries.

I really don't get the screaming before you are injured with this topic.

As for the failure to disclose a weapon in the car on a T-stop. If I find out about it you can play roadside lawyer all you want, my guess you are about to have a bad hair day.

This isn't about RKBA this is about being reasonable. If you are legit why play games with the Copper.
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 12:55 PM   #44
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
You seem to think that not mentioning being a CHL holder *while not carrying* is "playing games with" the cop?

And you say that not mentioning my CHL (even when I'm not carrying) will earn me a delay while you search me, my car and ask me further questions. Where the hell do you get off justifying the searches? Because I didn't let you know that I'm *not* carrying?

Do you really think that every traffic stop involving a CHL holder needs to start off with the holder announcing that they possess a CHL and whether they are currently carrying or not?

After hearing you say this again and again, and disbelieving that you could *really* mean what I think you're saying, I'm flabbergasted to realize that you actually mean it.

Please don't take this as a personal insult - it's just how I'm perceiving you across the internet, but you're coming across like a petty, power-mad jackbooted thug.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 12:58 PM   #45
SVO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 667
In Texas, I believe that if you do not have a CHL and you have a weapon in the vehicle, the weapon has to be secured outside of one's arm reach. And while currently, Texas does not require you to notify a LEO that you have a CHL, I believe that it is in one's best interest to do so. I would prefer for the LEO to know up front about my CHL rather than to find out about it after the initial FTF meeting. I believe that the Texas LEO's would prefer to know up front also. I look at it as a simple courtesy that helps to move the FTF meeting along.
SVO is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 01:00 PM   #46
Maromero
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
Quote:
The point I am making is that as a Cop if I find something out via the computer that you didn't disclose that would raise my suspicion level. I am not saying that it is required I am just giving you my real world perspective. If you are not required and don't want to disclose God bless. But, there can be consequences. Which would probably be a minor delay while I search your vehicle and you to ascertain if there are any other things you failed to disclose unless you had a reasonable story as to why you failed to be forthright in answering my questions. Because if I were in a jurisdiction that had CHL that issue would be in my battery of inquiries.

I really don't get the screaming before you are injured with this topic.

As for the failure to disclose a weapon in the car on a T-stop. If I find out about it you can play roadside lawyer all you want, my guess you are about to have a bad hair day.

This isn't about RKBA this is about being reasonable. If you are legit why play games with the Copper.
And there you have it from the horse's mouth.

Quote:
I really don't get the screaming before you are injured with this topic.
Well it is an illegal search afterall so, yes. You will hear a lot of screaming and at the end of the day it constitutes an abuse of power. THe sad thing is I agree with you. Do a voluntary disclosure and everyone will be happier, if only to be practical about it.
Maromero is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 01:17 PM   #47
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Being evasive and outright lying to the Police is enough for reasonable suspicion. Because, if I ask you if there are weapons in the the car which is usually after i ask for your license and insurance and you are evasive or I happen to find said weapon in vehicle in the course of my investigation you will have a bad hair day. However, if you inform me "yes, I have a properly secure weapon in my vehicle" I would say fine just stay away from it. and continue on with the traffic stop. I would expect that if I were in a jurisdiction that has CHLs I would inquire as to that in my initial questioning so this takes the disclosure issue off the table so it all gets boiled down to "Do I lie to the Cops or don't I?"

No I don't think that every T-stop HAS to have the CHL announce his status I am just saying that evasion is something that makes me curious. As I paraphrase SVO courtesy begets courtesy.
Wagonman is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 01:26 PM   #48
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
We're not talking about "lying" or "being evasive". We're not even talking about a case where there are weapons in the car.

We're talking about you searching a motorist, searching his car, and peppering him with questions, all because he was unarmed and therefore didn't see the need to lead off the conversation by announcing his CHL.

As Maromero said, you're well into "illegal search" and "abuse of power" territory now.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 02:03 PM   #49
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,078
Wagonman, I commend you for your restraint on this thread. I thought the Jack-booted comment was over the top, in this case. Usually it's ME going into my righteous indignance about civil rights, etc.

Anyway, I truly am curious, as to how you would deal in an LE environment like AZ, or AK, where any (not-disqualified) person can carry openly or concealed.

You can certainly ask if there are weapons in the car or on their person, but if it's not illegal, and there is no reason to disbelieve the answer, what do you do, besides let it go, and stay on your toes per normal?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 21, 2010, 03:07 PM   #50
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
Good question. I have worked for 13 years in a jurisdiction where possession of a gun is Prima Facie evidence of a crime, so, I would adjust my interview script accordingly I would guess. I always assume everyone is armed anyway so SA wouldn't change.

He wouldn't be leading off the interview I would in the manner I have stated.

The old dictum "An armed society is a polite society" leaps to mind.

None of my bloviating should leave anyone with the impression that I am against CCW or RKBA, nothing could be further from the truth. I am just sharing my "expert" opinion on Police/citizen interaction. Frankly, I would probably bust your stones about not being armed when you can/should be.
Wagonman is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13106 seconds with 7 queries