A law enforcement notification law that I would like to see passed....

[NavyLCDR]

What would you think of the following law? Especially those of you of the opinion that a person should notify a LEO of a carry permit and any guns being carried:

1. Any person who is stopped by a law enforcement officer for an official purpose may, but is not required to, inform the officer of any lawfully carried weapons, including firearms; and may, but is not required to, provide any documentation that is legally required to carry such weapons.

2. Once the officer receives such notification by the person stopped, and there is no reasonable evidence to suggest the weapon and/or firearm is being carried or transported illegally, the officer is then prohibited from threatening the use of physical force (including, but not limited to drawing their own firearm), frisking the subject, searching any portion of any vehicle or structure the person is or was occupying at the time of notification without consent or a lawfully obtained search warrant and is prohibited from seizing any of the weapons/firearms disclosed by the subject, regardless of the temporary nature of the seizure. Such prohibitions of law enforcement actions will remain in effect for the during of the detainment of the subject.

3. The prohibitions of law enforcement actions in paragraph 2 will cease to apply only if the officer develops probable cause that would warrant the lawful custodial arrest of the subject.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Oh.... and add 4. Any officer violating the prohibitions contained in paragraph 2 shall be charged with and may be convicted of the crime of equal nature as if one non-law enforcement person took the same action against another non-law enforcement person without provocation (for example, but not limited to theft, robbery, assault, making deadly threats)

If such a law existed, would you voluntarily notify?

 

[wolf_fire]

Absolutely not. Paragraph 3 is way toooooooo vague. LEO's have done many egregious acts using "probable cause" as their defense.

How about this law. Any officer pulling someone over for a traffic violation should have learned what the 4th and 5th Amendments are prior to doing so. Failure to comply with the law of the land will be due cause to lose your badge.

I know this won't fly either because of the vagueness of the wording. But it would be nice if the LE were held to the standard of our Constitution.

 

[vernsimpson]

Now everyone knows that LE knows and ALWAYS obeys all laws! :sarcastic:

 

[GB-Boater]

When pulled over the officer should have to immediately give the reason for the stop.
That reason would be given before asking for id, etc.

 

[Johnny Dollar]

After reading all the blather about this topic I've come to the conclusion that I'm glad Oklahoma has this law. Now I don't have to spend endless hours on the internet fretting over whether or not to tell the cop, the law say I have to so I have to. Decision made, done deal.

 

[r1derbike]

Now everyone knows that LE knows and ALWAYS obeys all laws! :sarcastic:

Wish I could remember the user from another forum who said, "LEOs are not required to know the laws, only enforce them".:laugh:

 

[apvbguy]

we don't need any more steekin laws, the laws regarding notification are just fine as they are

 

[NavyLCDR]

When pulled over the officer should have to immediately give the reason for the stop.
That reason would be given before asking for id, etc.

Every time I have been stopped the first thing the officer has said was, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The only logical reason I can see for that question is to tempt me to provide a verbal confession of committing an infraction that they could then use in court against me. "Your honor, the defendant knew they were committing and infraction because when Officer Friendly asked him, 'Do you know why I stopped you?' the defendant replied, "Probably because I rolled through that stop sign back there?" Seems to me like it would be just as easy for Officer Friendly to state, right up front, "I stopped you because....".

 

[wolf_fire]

we don't need any more steekin laws, the laws regarding notification are just fine as they are

For which state?

 

[wolf_fire]

Every time I have been stopped the first thing the officer has said was, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The only logical reason I can see for that question is to tempt me to provide a verbal confession of committing an infraction that they could then use in court against me. "Your honor, the defendant knew they were committing and infraction because when Officer Friendly asked him, 'Do you know why I stopped you?' the defendant replied, "Probably because I rolled through that stop sign back there?" Seems to me like it would be just as easy for Officer Friendly to state, right up front, "I stopped you because....".

Which is why I respond to such a nefarious question with "I'm not sure why you would have detained me. Could you please provide your reason for my detainment, sir?" Always let the LEO tell YOU why THEY detained you. Anything else is an admission of guilt that can be used against you.

 

[BluesStringer]

Which is why I respond to such a nefarious question with "I'm not sure why you would have detained me. Could you please provide your reason for my detainment, sir?" Always let the LEO tell YOU why THEY detained you. Anything else is an admission of guilt that can be used against you.

Well, silence isn't an admission of anything. And vocally refusing to answer questions outside the presence of an attorney is not an admission of anything either. It's what I aspire to develop as a habit, but I found out a couple of months ago when that cop investigating something at a neighbor's house and came into my yard questioning me about what I was doing out there (I was walking my dog before going to bed), you actually have to practice something to make it a habit. In other words, I need practice being quiet! LOL And the only way to do that is to go out and goad cops into contacts, and that hardly seems like a good tactical decision. So I aspire to create a habit of following the advice that I give whenever these discussions come up. LOL

Blues

 

[JimTh]

Virginia does not require leo notification. If they ask you must answer and provide ID for a ccw

 

[Johnny Dollar]

Well, silence isn't an admission of anything. And vocally refusing to answer questions outside the presence of an attorney is not an admission of anything either. It's what I aspire to develop as a habit, but I found out a couple of months ago when that cop investigating something at a neighbor's house and came into my yard questioning me about what I was doing out there (I was walking my dog before going to bed), you actually have to practice something to make it a habit. In other words, I need practice being quiet! LOL And the only way to do that is to go out and goad cops into contacts, and that hardly seems like a good tactical decision. So I aspire to create a habit of following the advice that I give whenever these discussions come up. LOL

Blues

If you're walking the dog and you have a dog right there on a leash and you're in your front yard wouldn't it be easier to just say "I'm walking my dog"?

 

[r1derbike]

Every time I have been stopped the first thing the officer has said was, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" The only logical reason I can see for that question is to tempt me to provide a verbal confession of committing an infraction that they could then use in court against me. "Your honor, the defendant knew they were committing and infraction because when Officer Friendly asked him, 'Do you know why I stopped you?' the defendant replied, "Probably because I rolled through that stop sign back there?" Seems to me like it would be just as easy for Officer Friendly to state, right up front, "I stopped you because....".

The few times I've been pulled-over, after being asked, "do you know why I pulled you over"? I just say no. After he tells me why, I usually say, "man, I must have had my head up my butt". It has caused some chuckles and a warning in a few cases, and I don't get pulled-over much.

Where I live, I know some LEOs. They have heard every excuse in the book (and some that aren't) about why they were speeding or whatever. One of 'em I know said if they would just be cooperative and quit lying about everything, he said he'd give more warnings instead of citations. I told him my method and he laughed and said, "that's what I'm talkin' 'bout"!

Favorite traffic stop I've ever seen. Warning, strong language:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtcvmu3p6WM

 

[BluesStringer]

If you're walking the dog and you have a dog right there on a leash and you're in your front yard wouldn't it be easier to just say "I'm walking my dog"?

It wasn't my front yard, it was my un-fenced back yard, which is why I have to take the dog out instead of just letting him out on his own. I did say I was walking my dog. I said more too. You can read about it here if you'd like to have a freakin' clue what you're talking about before you actually try to talk about it. That was the point that I was making - I should have said nothing except "Am I being detained?" If the answer is yes, I should have said "What crime do you suspect me of committing?" I should have taken my own advice during the first LEO encounter in over a year that I was involved in. That's what I was saying. Screw what's "easier." It would have only been easier because I would have allowed a freakin' pirate to bully me on my own property. Even after my neighbor confirmed that I lived here, the guy still had a freakin' superiority 'tude with me. Do you ever stop to think that maybe you're completely clueless before poppin' off about stuff you know nothing about? Not that I've seen.

Blues

 

[Johnny Dollar]

It wasn't my front yard, it was my un-fenced back yard, which is why I have to take the dog out instead of just letting him out on his own. I did say I was walking my dog. I said more too. You can read about it here if you'd like to have a freakin' clue what you're talking about before you actually try to talk about it. That was the point that I was making - I should have said nothing except "Am I being detained?" If the answer is yes, I should have said "What crime do you suspect me of committing?" I should have taken my own advice during the first LEO encounter in over a year that I was involved in. That's what I was saying. Screw what's "easier." It would have only been easier because I would have allowed a freakin' pirate to bully me on my own property. Even after my neighbor confirmed that I lived here, the guy still had a freakin' superiority 'tude with me. Do you ever stop to think that maybe you're completely clueless before poppin' off about stuff you know nothing about? Not that I've seen.

Blues

Have you ever considered anger managment classes?

Come on man if you're walking your dog just say, you're walking your dog you start going off with this outhouse lawyer crap about am I being detained and chances are if your weren't you will be

 

[BC1]

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

Depends on how long you were behind me...
.
I usually go ahead and admit it. Yeah, I was on the phone or speeding. Catches them by surprise. Its only a ticket so I don't get excited about it. Last year the day before hurricane Sandy hit I was pulled over speeding, on the phone, brake light out and no inspection sticker. It was my old truck that I was getting ready to dump. He ticketed me for no inspection, giving me 72 hours to get it inspected. Had to fix the tail light to pass inspection. He let the phone and speeding ticket go because he said everyone is running around getting set for the storm.

 

[BC1]

It wasn't my front yard, it was my un-fenced back yard, which is why I have to take the dog out instead of just letting him out on his own. I did say I was walking my dog. I said more too. You can read about it here if you'd like to have a freakin' clue what you're talking about before you actually try to talk about it. That was the point that I was making - I should have said nothing except "Am I being detained?" If the answer is yes, I should have said "What crime do you suspect me of committing?" I should have taken my own advice during the first LEO encounter in over a year that I was involved in. That's what I was saying. Screw what's "easier." It would have only been easier because I would have allowed a freakin' pirate to bully me on my own property. Even after my neighbor confirmed that I lived here, the guy still had a freakin' superiority 'tude with me. Do you ever stop to think that maybe you're completely clueless before poppin' off about stuff you know nothing about? Not that I've seen.

Blues

My wife was detained at a shopping mall for parking crooked even though she was far out in the parking lot. LEO suspected she was DUI. She doesn't drink or do drugs. She asked "am I being detained or am I free to go?" He said he was detaining her. She told the LEO "here's my license, you don't have consent to search, you're being recorded on the mall security camera and I have nothing further to say." She called me to let me know what was happening and started the recorder on her smart phone. Caught him saying she must inform him of prescription meds.
.
Attorney later complained to the chief who was a bit concerned about his officer's conduct. But I'm sure nothing came of it. He's right back there still doing it... he pulled over my wife's physical therapist and did the same thing a few months later.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Have you ever considered anger managment classes?

Because Blues is angry at the socialist police state that America is becoming more quickly every day? Is anger management covered under Obamacare, with their version of "management" being told to "just submit?"