Inform the officer or not when concealed carry?

[billwot]

As billwot posted, I guess states are becoming more "computerized"--it seems an easy stretch to think that they can come up with your CCWP when they look up your license and registration.

That point was emphasized during my CCW training class. (Instructor was a retired 35 year LEO). He wanted to be sure we realized that if we were stopped by a LEO, he would already know that we had a CC permit. He suggested it would probably make things go smoother if we showed the pemit and advised the officer whether we were carrrying, rather than the LEO asking.

But per the quote from teh back my permit, you are only required to show the permit if you are carrying.

bill

 

[utimmer43]

A criminal who doesn't disclose that he's got a gun if stopped for a simple traffic stop is merely exercising his Rights under the 5th Amendment...which is an option not available to us straight-arrow types.

Yeah, this has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Very similar to Haynes vs. U.S. where it was decided that a felon or any other prohibited person cannot be charged with failure to register a NFA weapon, because that would be an admission of guilt. True, they would still be convicted for possession, just not failure to register. It seems reasonable to believe the same would hold true for laws that require informing LE of possession.

Also, could the ability to peer into your situation (by an LEO) and see that you have a CCW Permit be construed as "unnecessary search" without probable cause?

Ehh, I think it could be argued that no search was performed beyond the routine license/registration checks. Plus, if it were somehow found to be an unnecessary search, Missouri would have to change their entire CCW system. Their drivers licenses ARE their carry permits.

 

[rayven]

I'm also not going to lie if I'm asked a direct question, such as "Do you have any drugs or weapons in the car?" Mas Ayoob related an incident where he and his daughter were driving near the Texas-Mexico border and happened upon a Customs Checkpoint. The officer was asking every vehicle stopped do you have any drugs or guns in the car. When the officer came up to Mas, he responded "Prescription drugs, personal firearms". I think this is without a doubt the best possible response one can offer to this question.

But why volunteer any information at all? When pulled over, you are required to hand over your driver's license, registration, and insurance card upon request. Gun permits too in some states. If you don't have to inform, why do so?

You don't even have to say a word to the cop, and you don't have to answer any of his questions. So my answer to "Do you have any drugs or weapons in the car?" or "Prescription drugs, personal firearms" would be something along the lines of "I have nothing to say to you officer. Am I being detained, or am I free to go?" Why give answers to possibly incriminate yourself unknowingly when you don't have to? Or subject yourself to a possible anti-personal-firearm cop with a bad attitude and a lack of knowledge regarding gun laws?

 

[kelcarry]

hey rayven: Your last post included statements like"why volunteer (any info)?"; "you don't have to say a word"; "you don't have to answer questions"; "am I being detained or am I free to go"--and you do not find these statements to be incriminating or turning a simple traffic stop by an LEO, who does not know you from a hole in the wall, into a suspicious and potentially dangerous situation? Are you kidding me? Hey--to each his own--if you think that is the way to deal with an LEO over privileges (not constitutional rights) you have been given (driving and CC) have at it; while you are being detained waiting for a backup LEO before further questions are asked of you, I will already be at grandma's house for dinner. You probably are right in everything you said but common sense tells me you are making a mountain out of a molehill and asking for problems.

 

[rayven]

hey rayven: Your last post included statements like"why volunteer (any info)?"; "you don't have to say a word"; "you don't have to answer questions"; "am I being detained or am I free to go"--and you do not find these statements to be incriminating or turning a simple traffic stop by an LEO, who does not know you from a hole in the wall, into a suspicious and potentially dangerous situation? Are you kidding me? Hey--to each his own--if you think that is the way to deal with an LEO over privileges (not constitutional rights) you have been given (driving and CC) have at it; while you are being detained waiting for a backup LEO before further questions are asked of you, I will already be at grandma's house for dinner. You probably are right in everything you said but common sense tells me you are making a mountain out of a molehill and asking for problems.

I do not find statements like that to be incriminating, because they aren't. If you refuse to speak to an officer, allow a search, etc., it is well within your rights. Numerous courts have stated that right in numerous ways.

An officer who detains you longer than what is required for the original stop is one who faces a lawsuit, and they generally lose qualified immunity. They simply cannot violate your rights.

Driving may be a privilege, but owning and carrying a weapon is my state constitutional right (PA, section 21).

As far as answering questions, every single lawyer will tell you that you should never volunteer information to any law enforcement officer. Their job is to find any criminal activity, regardless of whether or not you think you are doing anything wrong. With so many laws on the books, we all violate the law every single day without knowing it.

At the same time, the reason why cops have so much intimidation power is because we the people let them. I consider not talking to the police as a stand on principle. It may be easier to just answer questions, show ID and other things that aren't required of me, but why shouldn't I stand up for my rights? The reason we lose rights is because we don't use them.

Each and every one of us has to make that decision though. I choose to stand on principle and not allow others to trample on my rights. I consider it to be a very important thing. You may not, and that's fine.

 

[bbarton713]

hey rayven: Your last post included statements like"why volunteer (any info)?"; "you don't have to say a word"; "you don't have to answer questions"; "am I being detained or am I free to go"--and you do not find these statements to be incriminating or turning a simple traffic stop by an LEO, who does not know you from a hole in the wall, into a suspicious and potentially dangerous situation? Are you kidding me? Hey--to each his own--if you think that is the way to deal with an LEO over privileges (not constitutional rights) you have been given (driving and CC) have at it; while you are being detained waiting for a backup LEO before further questions are asked of you, I will already be at grandma's house for dinner. You probably are right in everything you said but common sense tells me you are making a mountain out of a molehill and asking for problems.

I don't think a right given to us is a privilege and we should be able to exercise it in whatever manner we see fit, CC in a car or while riding a unicycle.

Can you imagine it being a privilege to write a short story because you only have a license to write a novel?

I would probably decide what I was going to do based on the behavior and attitude by the LEO. They are people just like you and I and they have a difficult job. However, if they can't look at me and see a law-abiding citizen that isn't a threat than they need to get more training. If they pull me over because I'm speeding and DUI I get what I have coming to me. If I get pulled over because I have a burned out bulb and they try to be intimidating I don't owe them anything except the respect due their position.

 

[kengrubb]

I didn't say he was 'found' to be carrying...I said what if he's stopped for a minor traffic violation, for example. He can't eventually be found guilty of failing to inform the officer he was carrying because that would violate his 5th Amendment Rights.

Only someone with a license to carry can be compelled by law to share they have a license to carry. If the authorities tried to convict him on this point, his lawyer would take note of this and perhaps toss in the 5A for good measure. However, I doubt the authorities would try someone for failing to tell an officer they had a gun when the authorities could try someone for being a felon with a gun.

Some may pick at this, but the fact is that driving, and it's attendant requirements, isn't a Constitutionally protected Right, but a privilege controlled by the State . . . unlike Keep & Bear.

I would draw conspicuous attention to that silly little thing known as the Ninth Amendment.

 

[kengrubb]

But why volunteer any information at all? When pulled over, you are required to hand over your driver's license, registration, and insurance card upon request. Gun permits too in some states. If you don't have to inform, why do so?

As I stated, I'm very likely not going to volunteer that I'm carrying--unless I think the officer is about to find out that I'm carrying or if I'm asked a direct question.

You don't even have to say a word to the cop, and you don't have to answer any of his questions.

To some extent, you are correct. However, one's general attitude tends to have the largest effect on whether or not you get a ticket.

If you refuse to answer direct questions about drugs or weapons in the car, you're going to get asked to step from the vehicle and likely be subjected to a pat down search of your person. If they find a gun, and you're still refusing to talk, I'd say odds are good they'll have probably cause to search your vehicle.

 

[kengrubb]

I guess states are becoming more "computerized"--it seems an easy stretch to think that they can come up with your CCWP when they look up your license and registration.

Yes and no. Depends on the state in question. Here in Washington, Driver's Licenses and Concealed Pistol Licenses are two separate databases. Both are at the Department of Licensing, but the officer has to run two checks--one for the DL and one for a CPL. Not to say an officer cannot run both a DL and a CPL check, but without a CPL number in hand the CPL check could possibly be more time consuming doing a name and address query.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey y'all: Nothing like "stirring the pot" for additional forceful comments. To each his own as long as you don't make me do it. I respect y'all's responses and posts and enjoy the free for all. God bless us all, God bless America and let us all be safe and only have to "talk the talk" on this forum and never have to "walk the walk" that we so fervently discuss and post. Happy Holidays to y'all and I am sorry if my somewhat strident and pointed comments uset some of you--it is not meant to be that way--its just what grumpy old men do. I really do appreciate this forum and find retorts to my posts to be refreshing, and, in many instances, correct and humbling to my rants and raves.

 

[rayven]

If you refuse to answer direct questions about drugs or weapons in the car, you're going to get asked to step from the vehicle and likely be subjected to a pat down search of your person. If they find a gun, and you're still refusing to talk, I'd say odds are good they'll have probably cause to search your vehicle.

If I refuse to answer direct questions about drugs or weapons in the car, I very well might be asked to step out of the car. Which I will do because I'm required to do. I will also lock my car behind me and inform the police that I do not consent to any search. They can do a brief pat-down, which I will not obstruct. If they find my weapon at that point, I will tell them where my license to carry is. Nothing more.

At this point, the STILL don't have probable cause to search my vehicle. I have violated no laws and only exercised my rights. Exercising your rights does not equal probable cause. If they search me or my vehicle after I have told them that I do not consent, I will not obstruct. I will, however, immediately hire a lawyer and sue them for violating my 4th amendment rights, as well as my 1st amendment rights (freedom of speech is also Constitutionally equal to the freedom NOT to speak).

So I don't really care how far the cop wants to take it. If he wants to risk having a lawsuit against his department, the city, and him personally (violating rights like this generally makes the cop lose qualified immunity), be my guest.

 

[maybejim]

I am from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
I was taught that you must inform the officer as soon as you are approached.
I don't know of any reason why I would want to break the law and risk losing it.
They probably know you carry before they approach your car.
Chuck

I've read most of the posts and as far as I know, no one has suggested breaking any law. That would be stupid. Many states don't require notification. Many cities have poorly trained and anti-gun cops. I'm in Kalifornia. They don't require notification. L.A. City cops are largely inexperienced and L.A. is an anti-gun area. I generally would choose not to notify (unless they told me to get out of the vehicle and I was carrying on me). If I were in a gun friendly area, or in a state that required notification, I would always notify.

 

[kengrubb]

If I refuse to answer direct questions about drugs or weapons in the car, I very well might be asked to step out of the car. Which I will do because I'm required to do. I will also lock my car behind me and inform the police that I do not consent to any search.

I suspect when you go to shut and lock the vehicle you're gonna get physically restrained and prevented from doing so, but good luck with that windmill.

 

[utimmer43]

I suspect when you go to shut and lock the vehicle you're gonna get physically restrained and prevented from doing so, but good luck with that windmill.

Unless the officer is looking for a civil rights lawsuit, you suspect incorrectly.

This video was posted earlier in this thread. Regardless of your opinion of the ACLU, it is a great video. It's a bit lengthy at 45 minutes, but well worth it.YouTube - BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

 

[PIG USMC]

Wow. 24 pages on this subject. My 2 cents. I've been teaching the Concealed Carry Course for about 15 years, former LEO and I have had the opportunity to instruct new officers. As concealed carry has become more and more popular, Academies and Departments have adjusted both their training and tactics. In most states the officer already knows as soon as he makes the traffic stop that there is a CCW on board. But lets say for arguments sake that the computer is down, or your driving or riding a vehicle that isn't yours. I teach my students to make the officer as comfortable as possible. Well off the road, 4 ways flashing, dome light on at night and hands on the wheel. I would (and have) had my drivers license, CCW and registration in my left hand before the officer approaches. I want the officer to feel safe. I don't want a ticket. Making him or her comfortable goes a long way toward me being able to talk my way out of the the ticket. Just like every thing else there will be that 10% of bad actors. Officers who want to show their ass. I would (and have) just smiled and take it. I then call the PD TRAINING OFFICER or Supervisor, and explain the issue I had. Ever since an officer took a pistol from a CCW holder at a traffic stop and while trying to unload it, shot himself, officers have been taught not to do this. In all things I try not to "Poke the bull". I also carry my lawyers card and she is only a phone call away no matter where I might be. The bottom line(s). LEO's have a tough job. There are rare dipsticks that do that job. If your legal, you have nothing to worry about and most of all ATTITUDE COUNTS.
Just my thoughts. Max

 

[billwot]

I suspect when you go to shut and lock the vehicle you're gonna get physically restrained and prevented from doing so, but good luck with that windmill.

You absolutely have every right to lock the vehicle, and refuse permission for a search.

 

[rayven]

I suspect when you go to shut and lock the vehicle you're gonna get physically restrained and prevented from doing so, but good luck with that windmill.

When I step out, the door would get closed behind me. And I have a lock button on my key, which would be in my hand. Easily done with no way to say I was being aggressive or whatever.

If the restrain me because I'm exercising my rights, whether that is to not allow a search, not to speak if I so choose, or to carry a weapon legally, then I have a mighty good lawsuit coming up. If they don't break the rules, everything is fine.

You really should look into what your rights are regarding police encounters. They have certain things they absolutely must do, and those things generally are protecting your rights if you decide to enforce them. If you know what your rights are, you are less likely to ever have any major legal issues stemming from any encounter.

 

[rayven]

I teach my students to make the officer as comfortable as possible.

Why? They are the ones making the stop. You don't want to be there. If the cop feels uncomfortable about stopping you, they have the option of not stopping you. I certainly didn't initiate the stop, so in my opinion, it isn't my problem. I just don't see why I should go out of my way to make someone else comfortable when that person is detaining me against my will.

I would (and have) had my drivers license, CCW and registration in my left hand before the officer approaches.

I agree with the exception of my license to carry. It isn't mandatory in my state, so I don't do it. Again, I'm being detained against my will, so I'll do whatever is legally required, nothing more.

Just like every thing else there will be that 10% of bad actors. Officers who want to show their ass. I would (and have) just smiled and take it. I then call the PD TRAINING OFFICER or Supervisor, and explain the issue I had.

And this is why those 10% keep it up. People take it with a smile. Why should we? What if we enforce our rights without a smile and just do only everything minimally required? Those 10% wouldn't be able to get away with the stuff they get away with now. My rights are more important to me than the possibility of a ticket. I can fight a ticket in court; once my rights are waived/gone, they're done. Plus, making a complaint against a police officer is just about as useful as me trying to claim ownership of Canada. The police protect their own, almost regardless of law.

In all things I try not to "Poke the bull". I also carry my lawyers card and she is only a phone call away no matter where I might be. The bottom line(s). LEO's have a tough job. There are rare dipsticks that do that job. If your legal, you have nothing to worry about and most of all ATTITUDE COUNTS. Just my thoughts. Max

Nobody should "poke the bull". But they shouldn't roll over either. If I were to treat you like crap, I would expect you to resist. Why allow the cop just because of a possible ticket? And I can all but guarantee that your lawyer would want you to provide the least amount of information to any police officer as possible. The less you say or do, the less it can come back and haunt you. Even if you think you are helping / telling the truth. There are no defense lawyers who would advocate you talking to the police, ever.

Yes, LEOs have a tough job, but they chose it. They also chose to stop me, and the didn't have to do that either. I feel no reason to help them at all when they are detaining me against my will. If you are legal, in theory you have nothing to worry about, but that's only in theory. There are multiple stories on this site, on the news, and other places regarding people legally carrying, and police overstepping their bounds and violating their rights.

In the end, every single one of us has to decide the level of cooperation we will afford to the police if stopped. Mine is minimal. Yours is as much as possible to avoid a ticket, and that's fine so long as you go into it with your eyes open and know your rights beforehand.

(sorry for the long post!)

 

[Daugherty16]

Max vs. Rayven

Both of your posts are intelligently written, describing your points of view that have clearly been thought out ahead of time and with deliberation as to what is most important to you. But even though they couldn't be much more opposed, there is actually a lot of common ground. Rayven doesn't advise "poking the bull" at all, just that he prefers the minimalist approach; not at all like that yahoo some while back who suggested being a smartass. In fact, he states he will follow the law exactly, just not go beyond what he is required to do. I can't find a single thing wrong with that. Nor should a cop. Max also advises following the law exactly, but suggests a few things to make the stop easier, possibly avoiding a ticket. I think it just depends on your priorities. Of course, in a state that requires you to advise, the decision is made for you.

But my priorities in a traffic stop are, in order:
1. Not getting shot
2. Not getting arrested
3. Not getting hassled
4. Not getting a ticket (i have 2 teenagers and already pay ENOUGH for my car insurance, thank you)

Therefore, for me, the right approach is to put the LEO at ease right away. Providing the CCW seems (to me) an excellent start. Why? It answers two basic questions in a LEO's mind every single time he pulls over a driver. Does this guy have a gun, and is he going to shoot me? The answers are yes, and no. Hoodlums and cop killers are not likely to provide a CCW (doubt they have one) or advise they are carrying, especially at the beginning of the LEO encounter. Law abiding citizens, on the other hand, might do so. I will.

I have certainly talked my way out of tickets before i had any of my CCWs, but then the answers would have been no, and no. When the first answer is yes, I simply don't want the LEO to find out accidentally or through the computer - it won't have the same effect as my advising up front. If the cop is a bad apple, it's going to go poorly anyway, even if the subject of firearms never comes up. The way i got to this decision was simple - how would i feel in their shoes? After all, while it's true that they chose their jobs, i'm glad they are doing them. And when you get pulled over, that's all it is - they are just doing their job.

Anyway, this is a personal decision we have to make individually. As long as you follow the law, either way, then your choice is valid.

 

[JJFlash]

I agree that Max and Rayven both have valid points. My level of cooperation and attitude depends a lot on WHY I was stopped. If I'm speeding, it's usually intentional (around here the vast open spaces invite it) and I have resigned myself to whatever ticket I could potentially get. If I'm pulled over, I'm polite and respectful and MIGHT allow the LEO a little lattitude. For example, I might tell 'em where I've been (bowhunting) and where I'm going (home) even tho I know they are not entitled to the information.

Recently, it was late in the evening, out in the country, I was speeding, got pulled over and I went out of my way to make the cop comfortable. He had reason to stop me, he was polite, I was polite, and I told him I had a CWP and weapon (we're not required to do so). But I thought if I was a cop in the middle of nowhere pulling over a couple guys dressed in camo (my son and I were bowhunting), I'd want to be made comfortable as quickly as possible. FWIW, he knocked my mph down to a $10 fine and no points.

OTOH, if I'm pulled over for a fishing expedition, then LEO gets the minimal amount of info from me (I used to ride in a MC, so I know what it's like to be pulled over for BS reasons). They didn't have to pull me over so the onus is on them. I don't care about their comfort level at that point.

Either way you handle it, the most important point is KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.

My .02 cents. Others may disagree (imagine that!).