PDA

View Full Version : If pulled over with guns in car.....


Pages : [1] 2

Diablito
09-01-2013, 7:20 PM
If i get pulled over while transporting my firearms and the police ask if there are any weapons and I say yes, do i have to show them my guns and prove that they are legal and properly stowed? Do my 4th amendment rights apply?I choose to maintain as much privacy as the constitution grants me at all times. Thanks

RudyCakes
09-01-2013, 7:22 PM
Never talk to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

ke6guj
09-01-2013, 7:28 PM
the moment you state that you have firearms in the car, current CA law allows for the officer to inspect the firearms to make sure that they are not loaded.

kygen
09-01-2013, 7:44 PM
If i get pulled over while transporting my firearms and the police ask if there are any weapons and I say yes, do i have to show them my guns and prove that they are legal and properly stowed? Do my 4th amendment rights apply?I choose to maintain as much privacy as the constitution grants me at all times. Thanks

"I do not have anything illegal in my car"

Rickrock1
09-01-2013, 7:59 PM
"I do not have anything illegal in my car"

And repeat if needed

durandal
09-01-2013, 8:14 PM
"I do not have anything illegal in my car"

Id say this..

CSACANNONEER
09-01-2013, 8:31 PM
"I do not have anything illegal in my car"

Common code for "Of course I have guns in the car." depending on the officer, you might get a friendly nod or end up being detained until "the computer is back up".

kel-tec-innovations
09-01-2013, 8:41 PM
I do not have any weapons.

Weapons: An instrument of attack or defense in combat

My tools do not fall under any of those at the moment or intend/plan to use it during the drive so NO its not a weapon, but a complex tool. No different than a hammer, nail gun, paintball gun, kitchen knife, scissors etc.

The answer "I do not have anything illegal is the proper answer"

If they ask you to step out, lock the doors behind you. If they insist on search "I do not consent to any searches" and keep repeating it. Do not physically resist or they will kick your arse, tase you, pepper spray or beat you into a pulp or shoot you and charge you with assaulting an officer.

Try to find a witness, if possible, or a camera, but the officer might smash your phone and kick your arse so watch out.

If the officer is an arsehole he will do it anyway. A calgunner here experience where the officer said "I can't hear you" and searches while the calgunner continue to say "I do not consent to any searches. "

Get the officers badge and name and call a LAWYER and file a complaint with the police department.

sargenv
09-01-2013, 9:27 PM
Don't do anything to get pulled over and there is no reason to have to tell them anything..

bill_k_lopez
09-01-2013, 9:52 PM
When stopped by the police, immediately roll up your window and leave a one inch gap. Demand to speak to a supervisor and keep repeating you don't consent to any searches of your vehicle, and that whatever he is accusing you of doing is legal under the constitution.

Here is some real advice:

1) Make sure you are compliant with the laws regarding the proper storage and transportation of firearms - that means know what the laws are and follow them

2) Don't drive around in your illegal "look at me" lowered/raised, loud stereo bumping, tinted windows, broken tail light vehicle speeding or making illegal lane changes when transporting firearms.

I've been shooting for close to 40 years, I shoot every other Friday (for the last 4 years) and I have never been pulled over going to or from the range and Angeles is a 50 mile trip from my house.

SVT-40
09-01-2013, 10:02 PM
Someone should make a sticky of this question..... It seems it's asked at least once a week........

Librarian
09-02-2013, 12:32 AM
Someone should make a sticky of this question..... It seems it's asked at least once a week........

Agreed. Stuck and cleaned up a bit.

As one may notice, there are several schools of thought here - but no 'one size fits all' answer.

Paladin
09-02-2013, 7:51 AM
Don't do anything to get pulled over and there is no reason to have to tell them anything..I can't wait until ALL lights on a car (turn signals, rear license plate, etc), as well as brake lights are LEDs -- those suckers NEVER burn out....

GillaFunk
09-02-2013, 8:01 AM
I've been looking for some kind of camera I can mount in my car that records visual as well as audio via a microphone attached near my window to address situations just like this

Still looking

RickD427
09-02-2013, 10:01 AM
I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.

If an officer asks if there are weapons in the car, IMHO, the best thing to do is simply say "yes" or "no" as the facts of the circumstance dictate.

Many folks on this board seem to believe that officers are looking for an excuse to take anyone to jail, and will mistakenly take innocent folks to jail. When I read this in postings, I also note the absence of first hand experience. Officers are not perfect there will always be anecdotes of bad experience, but lets keep them in perspective.

A lot of folks recommend some version of denial when asked the question. That may prevent a search, and any issue from coming up. California has no broadly written statute (unlike the feds) that makes illegal to lie to an officer. There are many narrow instances where it is illegal to lie to a California LEO. The problem with this one is that if you're caught in the lie, stand by for the officer to take the maximum measures against you that are permitted by law.

Other folks recommend some version of "I have nothing illegal in the car." IMHO, this is the worst one of all. Here's why - The answer is evasive, and intentionally so. There is a large body of law concerning "adoptive admissions." Where a person refuses to answer a reasonable question (prior to Miranda being triggered), or is evasive in response to a question, the LEO is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions as a result. If the question was 'Do you have any guns in the car?" and the answer is "I have nothing illegal in the car", the officer has probable cause to believe there is a lawful gun in the car. That conclusion reconciles the evaded part of the question, and is consistent with the statement of the driver. If the stop occurs in an incorporated city, or in an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is nearly all of the state), the officer has the right to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. The law allows LEOs to search vehicles (without a warrant, and without consent) where there is probable cause to believe contraband is in the vehicle. A lawfully possessed weapon is not contraband, but California courts have allowed officers to search for firearms, for the purpose of inspection, under the same conditions. The net effect of "I have nothing illegal in the car" is that you just gave the LEO a "fishing license" to conduct a lawful search. Isn't that what you were attempting to avoid in the first place?

If you do answer "yes", then the officer has the same right to conduct an inspection to determine if they are loaded. Don't expect that to automatically happen. Officers generally do traffic stops for one of two reasons: 1) They're performing traffic duties, in which case they want to maximize the number of citations written, or 2) They're looking for criminals to place into jail. If your weapon is lawfully possessed, and there is not indication of deceit in your statement, and no other suggestion of criminality, it's pretty much a waste of my time to search. Additionally, there's kinda an unwritten code that we want to promote candor of the folks we interact with.

If for some reason, you just can't muster an honest reply, then the best thing to say is "Officer, no disrespect intended, but I'm declining to answer. Is there any law that compels me to?" This will avoid the whole "adoptive admissions" issue and will keep you on the best possible terms with the LEO. At the same time, it will prompt the officer to respond that there is no law compelling a reply. There are a few things we can compel a driver to do, but discussing guns with us isn't one of them.

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.

ewarmour
09-02-2013, 1:11 PM
State or local popo just say "no" or a variation thereof: nope, nada, negative, etc...

If it's a Federal officer just say "I do not talk to the feds, I don't consent to any search, am I being detained?"

Maestro Pistolero
09-02-2013, 10:31 PM
Don't do anything to get pulled over and there is no reason to have to tell them anything..

Some things cannot be controlled. If it taillight or brake light suddenly burns out while you are going down the road, that's probable cause. Your and/or your vehicle might match the description of a suspect's car, and you could be pulled over. It does happen.

Maestro Pistolero
09-02-2013, 10:34 PM
My answer to the question of weapons in the car is no. I interpret that question to mean,"Do you have any illegal weapons in the car"? I will explain my interpretation if the need arises.

Tincon
09-02-2013, 10:43 PM
Many folks on this board seem to believe that officers are looking for an excuse to take anyone to jail, and will mistakenly take innocent folks to jail.

Yeah, where would we ever get that idea?

Oh right: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65673

And even if you don't get a "bad" cop, you aren't safe. The problem is, you simply cannot be sure if you are innocent. The laws are far too numerous and unclear.

For example: you have to carry handguns in a secure container, but how secure does it need to be? Is the trunk secure if it has a pass through (which most cars do)? Is a container which is secured to the car a secure container (legal) or a utility compartment (illegal?) Wait, are you in a school zone? YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!

You can't receive or import a large capacity magazine (capable of feeding more than 10 rounds), but what does that mean? If your new 10 round .40 Glock magazine holds 12 9mm rounds, and fits in your 9mm Glock, does that mean you illegally acquired a large capacity magazine? What about a 10 round Beowulf magazine that accepts 30 5.56 rounds? What if all you have is a spring? Is that a "conversion kit?

What if you have a brace that attaches to your gun, or a drop in trigger that has a shorter reset? Are these illegal SBR and machine-gun components?

I could go on and on. The wood in that fancy grip you bought might be from some endangered tree somewhere and evidence of a felony (Lacey Act).

Point is, you can't possibly know all the laws and their potential applications. NO ONE CAN. Go to your local law library and look at the stacks. Most of that could apply to you.

This is why every attorney in America will tell you to SHUT UP and ask for your lawyer, and refuse any searches. Just like I think you would Mr. Retired Cop.

I don't have a problem without your alternative answer, but I think "there is nothing illegal in the car" is still best. If you think that gives you license for a "fishing expedition", you are fishing for a 42 U.S.C § 1983 federal lawsuit.

Tincon
09-02-2013, 11:05 PM
ALSO: maybe this thread would make a more useful sticky: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=80571

;)

Nessal
09-02-2013, 11:23 PM
I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.

If an officer asks if there are weapons in the car, IMHO, the best thing to do is simply say "yes" or "no" as the facts of the circumstance dictate.

Many folks on this board seem to believe that officers are looking for an excuse to take anyone to jail, and will mistakenly take innocent folks to jail. When I read this in postings, I also note the absence of first hand experience. Officers are not perfect there will always be anecdotes of bad experience, but lets keep them in perspective.

A lot of folks recommend some version of denial when asked the question. That may prevent a search, and any issue from coming up. California has no broadly written statute (unlike the feds) that makes illegal to lie to an officer. There are many narrow instances where it is illegal to lie to a California LEO. The problem with this one is that if you're caught in the lie, stand by for the officer to take the maximum measures against you that are permitted by law.

Other folks recommend some version of "I have nothing illegal in the car." IMHO, this is the worst one of all. Here's why - The answer is evasive, and intentionally so. There is a large body of law concerning "adoptive admissions." Where a person refuses to answer a reasonable question (prior to Miranda being triggered), or is evasive in response to a question, the LEO is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions as a result. If the question was 'Do you have any guns in the car?" and the answer is "I have nothing illegal in the car", the officer has probable cause to believe there is a lawful gun in the car. That conclusion reconciles the evaded part of the question, and is consistent with the statement of the driver. If the stop occurs in an incorporated city, or in an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is nearly all of the state), the officer has the right to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. The law allows LEOs to search vehicles (without a warrant, and without consent) where there is probable cause to believe contraband is in the vehicle. A lawfully possessed weapon is not contraband, but California courts have allowed officers to search for firearms, for the purpose of inspection, under the same conditions. The net effect of "I have nothing illegal in the car" is that you just gave the LEO a "fishing license" to conduct a lawful search. Isn't that what you were attempting to avoid in the first place?

If you do answer "yes", then the officer has the same right to conduct an inspection to determine if they are loaded. Don't expect that to automatically happen. Officers generally do traffic stops for one of two reasons: 1) They're performing traffic duties, in which case they want to maximize the number of citations written, or 2) They're looking for criminals to place into jail. If your weapon is lawfully possessed, and there is not indication of deceit in your statement, and no other suggestion of criminality, it's pretty much a waste of my time to search. Additionally, there's kinda an unwritten code that we want to promote candor of the folks we interact with.

If for some reason, you just can't muster an honest reply, then the best thing to say is "Officer, no disrespect intended, but I'm declining to answer. Is there any law that compels me to?" This will avoid the whole "adoptive admissions" issue and will keep you on the best possible terms with the LEO. At the same time, it will prompt the officer to respond that there is no law compelling a reply. There are a few things we can compel a driver to do, but discussing guns with us isn't one of them.

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.


IMO, isn't what you said as the "better approach" is also defeated by your assertion of "adoptive assertions"?

gobler
09-03-2013, 2:22 AM
Follow Nancy Regen's advice... "Just say NO!"

A-J
09-03-2013, 7:33 AM
the moment you state that you have firearms in the car, current CA law allows for the officer to inspect the firearms to make sure that they are not loaded.

This one here should have been /thread/ as it fully answers to OP's question. The threads similar to this about "what should I say" ALWAYS spin out of control between the "Don't say ****" crowd and the "If you're legal you have nothing to worry about" crowd and everyone in between.

RickD427
09-03-2013, 8:26 AM
IMO, isn't what you said as the "better approach" is also defeated by your assertion of "adoptive assertions"?

Nessal,

I don't believe that it is. To have an "adoptive admission" you really need to have silence in response to a question, or some form of evasion to a question. In the case of silence, you also have to have that before Miranda is triggered. The idea being that silence after Miranda is triggered can be attributed to the exercise of that right.

In my alternative, the driver is providing no evasion, and he's claiming the right to silence in response to the officer's inquiry, thereby triggering Miranda. I'm sure the officer's suspicions will be raised by the driver's statement, but it will be difficult for the officer to use the statement in support of PC due to driver's claim of the right.

The U.S. Supreme Court just gave a good treatment of silence and its contribution to PC in Texas v Salinas.

RickD427
09-03-2013, 8:43 AM
Yeah, where would we ever get that idea?

Oh right: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=65673

I don't have a problem without your alternative answer, but "there is nothing illegal in the car" is still best. If you think that gives you license for a "fishing expedition", you are fishing for a 42 U.S.C § 1983 federal lawsuit.

Tincon,

Anybody has the right to file a lawsuit. Winning the suit is a different matter. To win the suit, you have to show that the officer clearly violated a right. Realistically, you have to do that by a margin. In my example, the officer is following the guidance of court cases already published and is led to a lawful search of the vehicle for weapons. For a plaintiff to win a 1983 suit, they would have to unravel the earlier cases and defeat the officer's reliance on their guidance. Where officers, in good faith, follow law subsequently found to be bad, they're entitled to "Qualified Immunity." Winning a 1983 suit would be just about impossible.

In more than 30 years in this business, I've successfully defended every lawsuit that's come my way.

Baja Jones
09-04-2013, 8:07 PM
So, Roll down the window, say good afternoon officer, hand over your papers for inspection and shut up? This makes the most sense? God I hate being subservient to people I am paying. Just a foolish pride thing!

Gryff
09-04-2013, 9:12 PM
the moment you state that you have firearms in the car, current CA law allows for the officer to inspect the firearms to make sure that they are not loaded.

To stay on topic, this. LEOs have a right to verify that firearms are being transported legally if they can articulate that firearms are present (or you tell them).

pastureofmuppets
09-04-2013, 10:04 PM
This makes the most sense? God I hate being subservient to people I am paying.

If you want a little context to make you feel better, you are paying the trash guys. You have to leave the trash cans on the street one specific morning each week. Does that make you subservient to them?

Nope, you are enabling them to do their job by cooperating with them or more specifically, fulfilling your part of the contract with them.

Another way to look at it is... you are fulfilling the contract you have with LE by co-operating. Dude is DOING the job "you" are paying him to do.

If you really want to think of it this way to protect your pride, when he/she pulls you over, the officer is doing the job "I" am paying them to do... :D

Tincon
09-04-2013, 11:44 PM
To stay on topic, this. LEOs have a right to verify that firearms are being transported legally if they can articulate that firearms are present (or you tell them).

The hell they do! That there is such a law, as yet unchallenged Constitutionally, does not create a "right". It simply means they probably are going to check if they know (or reasonably suspect) you have firearms.

MontClaire
09-04-2013, 11:47 PM
Repeat as many times as you can " There is nothing illegal in the car ". The officer will understand what this means and that you know what you're doing. You should be ok if there is nothing else.

Nepa
09-07-2013, 7:22 AM
In states where CCW permits shall-issue, at least in Pennsylvania, the standard advice was to hand over your LTCF with your license when stopped. This did disclose your weapons ownership, but it also established you as a law-abiding citizen who had passed a background check. It was also a polite way of disclosing that a firearm was in the vehicle, which may or may not have been required by law, depending on the state. I will say that the percentage of "warnings" I received increased, and the actual moving violation citations decreased after I began this. On the other hand, PA is way more gun-friendly and does not have a hysteria about guns, the way California seems to. Really wish obtaining a LTCF was as easy here as it was there. It took me 20 minutes in the rural county courthouse while I gazed at all the mounted animals on the Sheriff's walls and read his many framed pro-second amendment quotes on display. It was probably a great re-election strategy there.

RickD427
09-07-2013, 9:20 AM
The hell they do! That there is such a law, as yet unchallenged Constitutionally, does not create a "right". It simply means they probably are going to check if they know (or reasonably suspect) you have firearms.

Tincon,

I think you might be going off a little "half-cocked" with your assertion the loaded firearm check statute (Penal Code section 25850(b), formerly 12031(e)) has never been challenged on Constitutional grounds.

Please refer to People v. DeLong (11 Cal. App. 3d 786)

MigNoche
09-07-2013, 10:13 AM
Never talk to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Rudy, that is a FANTASTIC video that should be required viewing for any U.S. Citizen. I have sent that link to everybody that I care about. :patriot:

Tincon
09-07-2013, 12:34 PM
Tincon,

I think you might be going off a little "half-cocked" with your assertion the loaded firearm check statute (Penal Code section 25850(b), formerly 12031(e)) has never been challenged on Constitutional grounds.

Please refer to People v. DeLong (11 Cal. App. 3d 786)

From People v DeLong:

This does not mean that officers are entitled to open trunks of vehicles on the grounds of state institutions simply because there may be guns therein.

In any case, it does not create a "right"! It is a codification of what is a reasonable search, and IMO current application goes beyond what the Constitution allows and is subject to further challenge.

RickD427
09-07-2013, 1:48 PM
From People v DeLong:



In any case, it does not create a "right"! It is a codification of what is a reasonable search, and IMO current application goes beyond what the Constitution allows and is subject to further challenge.

Tincon,

You've made a good observation from DeLong. The standard for a search is "Probable Cause." That's what it has been all along. Conjecture that something "may" be present falls short of that standard. That's not news.

My point, was to respond to your assertion that the search authority had never been tested on Constitutional grounds when in fact is has been.

You're certainly entitled to hold your opinion on the matter, that's what makes for lively discussion in these threads, but until any further challenge produces a change in the law, what we now have stands.

gobler
09-07-2013, 2:29 PM
I sill don't understand why some here don't get it. A simple "No Sir/Mam" and then shut up is all you need. You can lie to the police as long as it's not an investigation or they are Federal. Remember, they lie to you all the time. Not bashing here but I have seen first hand over the years of even good cops telling lies to get a confession of some one to self incriminate. They can play the "Cool Cop" kind of being friendly and say things like "Look, if you tell me where **** is I could just let you off with a warning. Then arrest after info is gained.... So yes, Just say NO Sir/Mam. Politely mind you.

Now if you have a LTC?CCW then that's a whole different game.

Some issuing agencies require you to notify the officers some don't. If I'm ever stopped I would hand over my DL, Insurance and CCW keeping hands at 10 & 2.

teg33
09-07-2013, 4:04 PM
I have been stop by police on DUI check point. Officer ask me any weapon, I stated yes, secured unloaded inside locked container. Quick check by officer and less than 2 minutes later I was on my way. If you don't break law you don't have to worry.

Tincon
09-07-2013, 4:48 PM
If you don't break law you don't have to worry.

I guess the founding fathers were a bunch of paranoid nuts then, no need for civil rights after all. :rolleyes:

Doheny
09-09-2013, 12:11 AM
Now if you have a LTC?CCW then that's a whole different game.


For only the guns listed on your CCW.

Doheny
09-09-2013, 12:30 AM
Agreed. Stuck and cleaned up a bit.

As one may notice, there are several schools of thought here - but no 'one size fits all' answer.

Isn't this going to turn in to a mile-long sticky? How about a few posts from folks who we know post credible infomation (Rick and a few others), delete the "one time at band camp" stories and then lock it down? Otherwise, it's going to become a p*ssing contest disguised as a sticky.

johnny1290
09-11-2013, 1:05 AM
I got pulled over, answered "the question", and passed the search. I talked to other guys that tried the you can't search my car thing, etc and got arrested and car searched. Case was dropped before trial, but not after spending time in the jail and $1500 on a lawyer + tow fees.

SonofWWIIDI
09-11-2013, 1:19 AM
the moment you state that you have firearms in the car, current CA law allows for the officer to inspect the firearms to make sure that they are not loaded.

Does anyone know the exact wording for this. Is they do a "safety" check, are they also allowed to record and run the serial numbers through the system, or just the quick check?

RickD427
09-11-2013, 10:48 AM
Does anyone know the exact wording for this. Is they do a "safety" check, are they also allowed to record and run the serial numbers through the system, or just the quick check?

Here is the exact wording of the statute (Penal Code section 25850 (b)):

(b) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on the person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.
The law on recording and/or running serial numbers is not entirely clear.

I believe that an officer is permitted to record and/or check a serial number on a weapon provided it is readily visible and the length of the detention is not unreasonably prolonged by doing so. There is a large body of case law that provides officers are not required to close their eyes to things they see (like a serial number) while in the performance of their duties. At the same time, the subject is detained while the weapon inspection is in progress and there is also a large body of case law that provides a detention cannot last longer than is necessary.

Others have cited the case of Arizona v Hicks as standing for the proposition that it is unlawful to record and/or run serial numbers during the inspection. In Hicks, officers were searching an apartment, under exigent circumstances, for weapons and ammunition. They observed some expensive stereo equipment. They moved the equipment in order to record the serial numbers and learned the equipment had been stolen. The court suppressed the evidence of serial numbers since the officers had no reason to move the equipment. But the problem in applying the Hicks rationale to weapon serial number is that there is no movement issue. There are a few weapons where S/N's are covered by grips or otherwise are not readily visible. Hicks would preclude the removal of grips to view a S/N.

Some folks have advocated placing electrical tape or something similar to cover a S/N, without damaging or removing it, in an attempt to frustrate an officers ability to run the number. That action may very well trigger the application of Hicks, but it also triggers the application of Penal Code section 537(e) which is a misdemeanor. The subject can then go to jail. The weapon is evidence of the violation, and then become subject to destruction as an instrumentality of the offense.

GillaFunk
09-11-2013, 11:13 AM
But....if its in a locked box? They need a search warrant.

Lock yer chit!

RickD427
09-11-2013, 11:29 AM
But....if its in a locked box? They need a search warrant.

Lock yer chit!

Under the circumstances of the OP's post, no search warrant is needed.

There's no magical properties about a locked box that generates a need for a search warrant.

U.S. v Ross is the primary Supreme Court case governing vehicle searches. Here are two useful excerpts from that decision.

"Where police officers have probable cause to search an entire vehicle, they may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including all containers and packages, that may conceal the object of the search. The scope of the search is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. Rather, it is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. For example, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase"

"We hold that they may conduct a search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize in a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched.""

Search and Seizure law is really complex. There are many instances where a search warrant would be required, but this isn't one of them.

stilly
09-11-2013, 11:40 AM
I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.
...

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.

Good info.

Now just one more question. My trunk is a locked trunk. BUT I also have a button that can be pressed to open it up from inside the vehicle. Is my trunk still considered a locked container for transporting firearms?

It only took about 4 minutes in OT/you tube to see that all cops were out to get you despite the 2-3 positive contacts that I have had with them outside of this forum group. It is sad how mass media can do that...

GillaFunk
09-11-2013, 11:45 AM
Well, I don't have to tell him whats in the case. I could lie. Its not illegal to lie. I don't remember the combination anyways. (rolls eyes).

Go through the hassle of searching my entire vehicle, under the guise of 'probable cause', only to find a locked case. Should the case be somehow opened, there would be about 5 officers on site by that time. Once I do remember the combination, they could find an unloaded weapon registered to me. Or my girlfriends bikini top.

So, they find nothing, really, after detaining me for.....hours.

Grounds for a great lawsuit.

the86d
09-11-2013, 11:48 AM
The problem is that most people are too distracted by absolutely nothing, and can't pay attention to ANYTHING is going on around them. Check your rear-view mirror every 10 seconds whenever possible... Drive in ONE lane... use your signal... adjust your speed according to what is going on in front of you... don't bobble-head left and right if you are going straight you have the right of way so don't stop if nothing is in front of you... know the right-of-way (which should be logical, but many still can't), and pay attention... I haven't been pulled over in MANY years, and I do tend to speed, but I TRY not to be an azz unless someone is holding up traffic like a pot-head... ;)

RickD427
09-11-2013, 1:38 PM
Well, I don't have to tell him whats in the case. I could lie. Its not illegal to lie. I don't remember the combination anyways. (rolls eyes).

Go through the hassle of searching my entire vehicle, under the guise of 'probable cause', only to find a locked case. Should the case be somehow opened, there would be about 5 officers on site by that time. Once I do remember the combination, they could find an unloaded weapon registered to me. Or my girlfriends bikini top.

So, they find nothing, really, after detaining me for.....hours.

Grounds for a great lawsuit.

Sir,

Check out Post #25. You could certainly file a lawsuit under your circumstances, but you're not going to win anything, and that's after incurring a lot of legal fees. To win a suit, you have to show that a right was violated and that you suffered damages. Where the officers act in accordance with published case law, you're not going to be able to show the violation of a right. In short, you win a lawsuit when the officers break the rules, the officers win when they follow the rules.

The fact that you disagree with "the rules" doesn't give you grounds for winning a lawsuit.

GillaFunk
09-11-2013, 2:53 PM
^ Damn.

either way, that was probably the most respectful and polite 'actually, you are wrong' I have ever received.

Respect. And thanks.

RickD427
09-11-2013, 3:00 PM
^ Damn.

either way, that was probably the most respectful and polite 'actually, you are wrong' I have ever received.

Respect. And thanks.

Sir,

You're most welcome.

All in the spirit of lively debate. I had to eat a little "humble pie" in a different thread on this forum just yesterday...................

RickD427
09-11-2013, 3:07 PM
Good info.

Now just one more question. My trunk is a locked trunk. BUT I also have a button that can be pressed to open it up from inside the vehicle. Is my trunk still considered a locked container for transporting firearms?

It only took about 4 minutes in OT/you tube to see that all cops were out to get you despite the 2-3 positive contacts that I have had with them outside of this forum group. It is sad how mass media can do that...

Stilly,

IANAL, please keep that in mind, but speaking as a LEO, I think that you're OK. Here's the definition of a "Locked Container":

16850. As used in Sections 17740, 23925, 25105, 25205, and 25610,
in Article 3 (commencing with Section 25505) of Chapter 2 of Division
5 of Title 4, in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) of
Division 5 of Title 4, and in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section
26400) of Division 5 of Title 4, "locked container" means a secure
container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock,
combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked
container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a
motor vehicle.
The key theme seems to be the requirement for a "locking device." I would think that your electrical lock would meet that test, but others could view it differently. A mechanical lock would come closer to meeting the definition terms.

Darryl Licht
09-17-2013, 8:55 AM
OK...

Same Question, but assume you are in a truck, coming home from a day of outdoor plinking and have been a responsible calgunner cleaning up after yourself.

Guns are unloaded, in locked containers, under a blanket in rear seat. Trash can full of spent shells and targets in pu bed...

Now how would you answer?

rman
09-17-2013, 9:55 AM
remain silent and floor it


-Armand

Sent from my Apple Galaxy

billofrights
09-17-2013, 10:11 AM
remain silent and floor it


-Armand

Sent from my Apple Galaxy

You forgot to add "while screaming 'you'll never take me alive!'"

krwada
09-17-2013, 10:27 AM
I have gotten pulled over for a moving violation while coming back from the range. Basically, it was those !###!!!@@@! bikers. You know, those arrogant types trying to race you down the hill on their ultra-expensive bicycles.

Anyway; the officer looked at me, and looked at the back of my SUV. Clearly, I had everything that looked like I just came back from the range. He was friendly enough. The conversation went like this:

Officer: Hello Sir; do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: Yes officer, I think I was speeding.
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Me: I think so, I think I was a little bit over the speed limit. I did not use good judgement and attempted to pass a cyclist on the way down ... he saw this and started cranking those pedals!!!
Officer: Smiling, yes, unfortunately the cyclists do have the right of way, and the speed limit is 30MPH. I clocked you going at 50MPH. However, I will write it down as 45MPH. You were going way to fast, and the higher speed will get a more severe penalty.
Me; Gee? Really? Thank you very much! You know what? I really appreciate you doing this for me!
Officer: No problem sir; Just please be more careful next time. With this moving violation ticket, you should be able to deal with this on-line. Again, please be more careful and do not do this again.
Officer: ... after writing the ticket and handing it, then looking in the back where all my firearms are stored ... "Have a nice day sir!"

This is what happened, As usual, for some reason, I got off easy ... again.

I have a bunch of LEO's as close personal friends. The following is what they tell me.

1. We all break the law during our daily lives. Just do not break the bad ones. For example, do not drink and drive, or hurt anybody.
2. Use common sense and judgement in what you do. The law enforcement officers are there to do their job. They also are allowed to use their judgement too.
3. Accept whatever fate may come upon you. Do this, in a courteous and professional fashion. Do not push any buttons. Again, common sense rules here.
4. NEVER, EVER ... I MEAN NEVER EVER! ... offer up more information than what is asked!

Yep ... on #4, ALL of my law enforcement friends say this! They say this falls under using the common sense.

To a TEE... most, (not all), law enforcement officers are very strong 2A advocates. From my own personal experience; I have seen them give the Occupy and other Liberal types a very hard time with things such as carrying pen, pocket knives, bottles, rocks, bricks, tire irons and clubs. As I recounted here, they cut me a lot of slack with my firearms in the back seat of my SUV. I was clearly carrying some long guns and pistols. They appeared to be properly stored in their cases in the back.

kelvin232
09-17-2013, 10:34 AM
Supposed to jump from the car, do a tactical roll / lock the car / swallow the keys combo move, and immediately demand to know whether you "are being detained or are free to leave".

^^^ This.

Meplat
09-21-2013, 1:14 PM
This is the absolute best post I have ever seen on this subject. Thanks!:)


I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.

If an officer asks if there are weapons in the car, IMHO, the best thing to do is simply say "yes" or "no" as the facts of the circumstance dictate.

Many folks on this board seem to believe that officers are looking for an excuse to take anyone to jail, and will mistakenly take innocent folks to jail. When I read this in postings, I also note the absence of first hand experience. Officers are not perfect there will always be anecdotes of bad experience, but lets keep them in perspective.

A lot of folks recommend some version of denial when asked the question. That may prevent a search, and any issue from coming up. California has no broadly written statute (unlike the feds) that makes illegal to lie to an officer. There are many narrow instances where it is illegal to lie to a California LEO. The problem with this one is that if you're caught in the lie, stand by for the officer to take the maximum measures against you that are permitted by law.

Other folks recommend some version of "I have nothing illegal in the car." IMHO, this is the worst one of all. Here's why - The answer is evasive, and intentionally so. There is a large body of law concerning "adoptive admissions." Where a person refuses to answer a reasonable question (prior to Miranda being triggered), or is evasive in response to a question, the LEO is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions as a result. If the question was 'Do you have any guns in the car?" and the answer is "I have nothing illegal in the car", the officer has probable cause to believe there is a lawful gun in the car. That conclusion reconciles the evaded part of the question, and is consistent with the statement of the driver. If the stop occurs in an incorporated city, or in an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is nearly all of the state), the officer has the right to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. The law allows LEOs to search vehicles (without a warrant, and without consent) where there is probable cause to believe contraband is in the vehicle. A lawfully possessed weapon is not contraband, but California courts have allowed officers to search for firearms, for the purpose of inspection, under the same conditions. The net effect of "I have nothing illegal in the car" is that you just gave the LEO a "fishing license" to conduct a lawful search. Isn't that what you were attempting to avoid in the first place?

If you do answer "yes", then the officer has the same right to conduct an inspection to determine if they are loaded. Don't expect that to automatically happen. Officers generally do traffic stops for one of two reasons: 1) They're performing traffic duties, in which case they want to maximize the number of citations written, or 2) They're looking for criminals to place into jail. If your weapon is lawfully possessed, and there is not indication of deceit in your statement, and no other suggestion of criminality, it's pretty much a waste of my time to search. Additionally, there's kinda an unwritten code that we want to promote candor of the folks we interact with.

If for some reason, you just can't muster an honest reply, then the best thing to say is "Officer, no disrespect intended, but I'm declining to answer. Is there any law that compels me to?" This will avoid the whole "adoptive admissions" issue and will keep you on the best possible terms with the LEO. At the same time, it will prompt the officer to respond that there is no law compelling a reply. There are a few things we can compel a driver to do, but discussing guns with us isn't one of them.

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.

Darryl Licht
09-21-2013, 1:32 PM
The CalGuns Online store has a tag to put on your gun carrying cases:
http://calguns-advertising.net/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=39

266793

266794

In case you cant read the small print in the images,
It reads:

In case of Encounter, Detainment, or Arrest:

STATE that you DO NOT wish to answer questions, then REMAIN SILENT.
DO NOT CONSENT to a Search
DEMAND AN ATTORNEY
CALL CGF at (800) 556-2109

YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO VOLUNTEER INFORMATION!
On rear it reads:

NOTICE TO POLICE
The Contents of this Container are Private.
Voluntary Consent to Search is NOT Granted!
A Search Warrant is Required for Access.
Owner/Suspect Invokes His/Her Right to Remain Silent.
I've never had an issue with being pulled over or detained while carrying a firearm in my auto, but this seems like a surefire way to piss off a LEO.

Can any LEO's or Attorneys please chime in on this for a legitimate answer???

Meplat
09-21-2013, 1:40 PM
Personally it depends where I am. In the LA basin, Bay Area, Sacto, Stockton, San Diego, ect. I would just say no. In the more rural parts of the state I'll tell it straight.

SVT-40
09-21-2013, 1:41 PM
The CalGuns Online store has a tag to put on your gun carrying cases:
http://calguns-advertising.net/store/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=39

266793

266794

In case you cant read the small print in the images,
It reads:


On rear it reads:


I've never had an issue with being pulled over or detained while carrying a firearm in my auto, but this seems like a surefire way to piss off a LEO.

Can any LEO's or Attorneys please chime in on this for a legitimate answer???


I don't believe these cards, stickers or magnets would automatically "piss off" any LEO... Most LEO's would just think they (and you) were silly, and a bit TFH.

The real issue is, a card or sticker cannot invoke or give up a right...Only people can.

So regardless of any card, sticker or magnet on any container an officer can still ask you questions when you are simply detained and not in a custodial interrogation, because Miranda does not apply.

In addition a card, sticker or magnet would not prevent a LEO from asking for permission to search, nor would it override any probable cause a LEO may have which would allow him to search...

The stickers, cards and magnets are basically a fancy way for Lawyers to advertise their services. Nothing more.

RickD427
09-21-2013, 2:05 PM
I don't believe these cards, stickers or magnets would automatically "piss off" any LEO... Most LEO's would just think they (and you) were silly, and a bit TFH.

The real issue is, a card or sticker cannot invoke or give up a right...Only people can.

So regardless of any card, sticker or magnet on any container an officer can still ask you questions when you are simply detained and not in a custodial interrogation, because Miranda does not apply.

In addition a card, sticker or magnet would not prevent a LEO from asking for permission to search, nor would it override any probable cause a LEO may have which would allow him to search...

The stickers, cards and magnets are basically a fancy way for Lawyers to advertise their services. Nothing more.


^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Additionally, the sticker maintains that "a warrant is required for access." This is rarely the case where a motor vehicle is involved and there is probable cause for a search (refer to U.S. v Ross). Search and Seizure law is really complicated. There going to be cases where a search warrant is needed, but in more than 30 years of searching vehicles, I've very rarely needed a warrant.

The Supreme Court has already considered the question of whether a person can invoke their right to remain silent, in a written form, in advance of questioning. The Court held that such attempts were not a valid exercise of that right (refer to McNeil v Wisconsin).

The sticker may be nice "feel good" gesture for someone to put on their car, but the sticker contains some significant legal errors and it's simply not going to change to outcome of a traffic stop.

jeffxbr
09-21-2013, 2:35 PM
I was detained in the back of the cop car because I said yes. I was told they can do that for officer safety. What's happens if I just refuse to answer next time ? I don't think that's a crime

Sakiri
09-21-2013, 2:44 PM
Typically the question I'm asked around here involves "You have anything in the car I need to be worried about? Bombs, bazookas, etc".

The answer is "no". He doesn't need to be worried about my gun, and it's not a bomb or bazooka....

Darryl Licht
09-21-2013, 2:47 PM
I don't believe these cards, stickers or magnets would automatically "piss off" any LEO... Most LEO's would just think they (and you) were silly, and a bit TFH.

The real issue is, a card or sticker cannot invoke or give up a right...Only people can.

So regardless of any card, sticker or magnet on any container an officer can still ask you questions when you are simply detained and not in a custodial interrogation, because Miranda does not apply.

In addition a card, sticker or magnet would not prevent a LEO from asking for permission to search, nor would it override any probable cause a LEO may have which would allow him to search...

The stickers, cards and magnets are basically a fancy way for Lawyers to advertise their services. Nothing more.

I wouldn't just point to the gun case tag and be silent!

What I'm asking is... if I follow the advice on that tag it may rile an officer and in the long run cause me more grief?

However, I am also pretty sure that CGF wouldn't create and sell such an item if what's printed on it wasn't reviewed by their attorneys.

ANY ATTORNEYS/LEO's CARE TO ADD TO THIS???

SVT-40
09-22-2013, 3:36 PM
I wouldn't just point to the gun case tag and be silent!

What I'm asking is... if I follow the advice on that tag it may rile an officer and in the long run cause me more grief?

However, I am also pretty sure that CGF wouldn't create and sell such an item if what's printed on it wasn't reviewed by their attorneys.

ANY ATTORNEYS/LEO's CARE TO ADD TO THIS???

Just don't be a Ahole .... It's pretty much as simple as that... If you answer questions in a evasive or angry way you will get the officers attention, and possibly lead him to inquire further, because most people are not evasive or angry...

Evasion and anger are often used to cover up undetected criminal behavior....

As I said the "tags" are just a advertising gimmick, and carry no weight of law...Yes the "tags are "reviewed" by attorneys.... However no attorney will tell you that a "tag" overrides a persons direct answers, or an officers PC to search...

On a side note I have similar magnet warnings on my safes....As a joke!!;)

Gemini Effect
09-25-2013, 11:15 AM
I do not have any weapons.

Weapons: An instrument of attack or defense in combat

My tools do not fall under any of those at the moment or intend/plan to use it during the drive so NO its not a weapon, but a complex tool. No different than a hammer, nail gun, paintball gun, kitchen knife, scissors etc.

The answer "I do not have anything illegal is the proper answer"

If they ask you to step out, lock the doors behind you. If they insist on search "I do not consent to any searches" and keep repeating it. Do not physically resist or they will kick your arse, tase you, pepper spray or beat you into a pulp or shoot you and charge you with assaulting an officer.

Try to find a witness, if possible, or a camera, but the officer might smash your phone and kick your arse so watch out.

If the officer is an arsehole he will do it anyway. A calgunner here experience where the officer said "I can't hear you" and searches while the calgunner continue to say "I do not consent to any searches. "

Get the officers badge and name and call a LAWYER and file a complaint with the police department.

While most of what you said sounds pretty good, your definition of a weapon and its uses is pretty horrible. A gun is a weapon, plain and simple.

Armando de la Guerra
09-25-2013, 11:22 AM
In 50 years of driving, I've never had a cop ask me if there are weapons in the car. They almost always ask 'do you know why I stopped you?' My answer is always 'no'.

Not a Cook
10-08-2013, 4:07 PM
Simple questions that are somewhat related:

1) If a LEO pulls me over for a routine traffic stop, why does that LEO invariably ask whether I have firearms or anything illegal in the vehicle?
2) Are LEOs instructed to ask this question routinely, or is there a "trigger" of some sort that leads to the question being asked?
3) If LEOs are being instructed to ask these questions, is it due to a "from the top down" anti-firearms bias, in order to "go on a fishing expedition" while I'm stopped, or something else?

Note: as far as I am aware, nothing about my appearance or my vehicles' appearances would suggest that I might be carrying a firearm or anything illegal. I also have a clean driving record and no criminal record. I'd be very interested in hearing the feedback of the LEOs who are contributing to this thread. Thanks!

Reelemup
10-08-2013, 4:49 PM
When I had that question asked a very few times I said yes when I did and I said no when I did not have guns in my car. Nobody searched anything or asked about guns again.

tackdriver
10-09-2013, 12:13 PM
Do you know why I stopped you?
Is it because you like tall, blond guys??

Seriously though, the question I've always had on this matter is: Since your handguns will be in a locked case, if you refuse to give over the key or combo would that be considered "interfering" with a LEO?

billofrights
10-09-2013, 12:59 PM
It never ceases to amaze me that people assume that placing a firearm inside their car AUTOMATICALLY makes it immediately evident to LEO that you have one. How often have you EVER been asked about guns in the car prior to buying your first firearm? I have never been asked.

That said, thanks for making this a sticky, it's still a useful point to address.

Not a Cook
10-09-2013, 1:14 PM
How often have you EVER been asked about guns in the car prior to buying your first firearm? I have never been asked.


Thankfully I get pulled over very rarely, but I seem to always get asked whether I "have a gun or anything illegal in the vehicle" (see my previous post several posts up).

Spyguy
10-09-2013, 1:16 PM
2) Don't drive around in your illegal "look at me" lowered/raised, loud stereo bumping, tinted windows, broken tail light vehicle speeding or making illegal lane changes when transporting firearms period.
FIFY ;)

c-wick
10-09-2013, 2:37 PM
FIFY ;)

or just stop driving period...

KABA556
10-11-2013, 7:24 PM
If i get pulled over while transporting my firearms and the police ask if there are any weapons and I say yes, do i have to show them my guns and prove that they are legal and properly stowed? Do my 4th amendment rights apply?I choose to maintain as much privacy as the constitution grants me at all times. Thanks



Unless you are required by law to notify [such as notifying for concealed carry- which some states, such as mine, require] the standard procedure should be to declare, "there is no contraband in this vehicle."


That is technically correct and it avoids issues that might arise from lying to the police.


If the officer then directly replies along the lines of, "I directly asked you if you have weapons, I didn't ask about contraband, do you have any weapons in this vehicle?"

I would then inquire, "am I being detained or am I free to go because I wish to be allowed to go free on my way, are you detaining me?"

If he says that he is detaining you, then you simply state, "I have nothing further to say and I wish to speak with my lawyer."

If he states that he is not detaining you then you are free to go and you should confirm this by stating, "since you are not detaining me, I am free to go on my way and I am now going to proceed to leave."

If he tells you that you cannot go, then he is actually detaining you and you're not free to pull away.



Telling an officer that you are not going to answer any of his questions and that you are going to call your attorney requires some nerve, you have to be able to hold up under pressure. The natural human urge is to answer a question when a question is asked and try to explain your way out of trouble.

About a year ago I had an encounter and I asked them, "am I being detained or am I free to go?" and I was told, "you can walk home if you want, you're free to go, but we're detaining your vehicle" at which time I said, "I am not answering any more of your questions, I have nothing further to say to you, and I want to call my attorney."

They were somewhat surprised when I promptly contacted my attorney who I have on speed dial.

In the end I was able to drive away from the encounter.



The less you say to the police the better.

Keep encounters as short as possible, do your best to avoid them if at all possible.


The easiest way to avoid an encounter with police is to simply obey all traffic laws. I have never received a traffic ticket for the simple reason that I obey all traffic laws. Although in regards to the speed limit I generally keep my speed within a range of 5-8 miles of the posted limit, depending on road conditions. Driving too fast or too slow is a recipe for being pulled over and scrutinized [especially those people who drive 20-30 miles UNDER the limit on a highway- because they're being too careful].

Even still, you cannot always avoid encounters with police. At some point in your life you will hit a deer or you will be struck by a careless motorist and the police will respond.

The less you say, the better, don't make small-talk, only discuss the issue at hand, and tactfully answer [or just avoid/decline to answer] any iffy questions.


"Do you have anything I need to know about in this vehicle? Do you have any weapons?"

"There is no contraband in this vehicle."

"Then you don't mind if I take a look around do you?"

"I do not consent to any searches."

"Well you're not hiding anything, are you?"

"I do not consent to any searches, am I being detained?"

Once an officer challenges your polite assertion of your right not to be searched without a warrant [or your consent] it is time to establish if the encounter is voluntary [you're free to leave] or involuntary [you're being detained]. If he responds that you are not being detained, then you are free to leave and you should immediately terminate the encounter by leaving.

KABA556
10-11-2013, 7:32 PM
I was detained in the back of the cop car because I said yes. I was told they can do that for officer safety. What's happens if I just refuse to answer next time ? I don't think that's a crime



Let them assault you under color of law 18 USC 242] and then use the law, 42 USC 1983 which allows for civil penalties for deprivation of rights under color of law.

If they say, "sir would you mind stepping out of the vehicle" that is technically a request and you are within your rights to say, "yes I would mind stepping out, I'd much prefer to stay where I am."

It only becomes an order if they DEMAND that you get, along the lines of, "Sir get out of the vehicle now!" and even then it would have to be a lawful order.

Ordering you out of a vehicle at gunpoint because of a traffic accident/incident, would probably be an unlawful order.


Here you go- In Aurora Colorado police shut down an intersection, dragged about 40 motorists from their cars [at gunpoint], handcuffed all of them, and detained them for 2-3 hours while trying to figure out which of the 40 MIGHT have been a bankrobber. The city's attorney doesn't see anything wrong with what happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/aurora-police-stop-handcu_n_1575009.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

In the end they arrested the guy in the last car, because he had a pistol in the vehicle. But there was no mask, no bag, no money, and no bicycle that the robber was seen riding away from the bank on.

I think they got to the last car and decided that they had better have something to show for shutting down an intersection and using a SWAT team to pull 40 motorists out of their cars at gunpoint.

I hope every officer involved is personally sued for deprivation of rights under color of law and that they are criminally indicted for assault.

In one picture you can see they pointed a shotgun right in the face of a man and ordered him out of his truck. They later said, "we didn't force him out, he came willingly." Well they had a shotgun 18 inches from his face, it wasn't a request, it was an order backed up by the threat of instant death.

conradca
10-12-2013, 10:32 AM
Keep a blanket covering your guns and don't tell them you have any guns.

SVT-40
10-13-2013, 10:09 AM
Unless you are required by law to notify [such as notifying for concealed carry- which some states, such as mine, require] the standard procedure should be to declare, "there is no contraband in this vehicle."


That is technically correct and it avoids issues that might arise from lying to the police.


If the officer then directly replies along the lines of, "I directly asked you if you have weapons, I didn't ask about contraband, do you have any weapons in this vehicle?"

I would then inquire, "am I being detained or am I free to go because I wish to be allowed to go free on my way, are you detaining me?"

If he says that he is detaining you, then you simply state, "I have nothing further to say and I wish to speak with my lawyer."

If he states that he is not detaining you then you are free to go and you should confirm this by stating, "since you are not detaining me, I am free to go on my way and I am now going to proceed to leave."

A traffic stop by definition IS a detention.....

Just because you are detained DOES NOT entitle you to an attorney or trigger your Miranda rights.....

Miranda only applies during a custodial interrogation....

Depending on the situation you may call your attorney... Sometimes the officer may not allow you to use your phone....And yes he can prohibit you from using your phone while you are detained...

If he tells you that you cannot go, then he is actually detaining you and you're not free to pull away.

As I said any traffic stop where the officer used his red light to stop you IS a detention....No need to ask...You are not free to leave until AFTER the officer tells you you are free to leave....


Telling an officer that you are not going to answer any of his questions and that you are going to call your attorney requires some nerve, you have to be able to hold up under pressure. The natural human urge is to answer a question when a question is asked and try to explain your way out of trouble.

About a year ago I had an encounter and I asked them, "am I being detained or am I free to go?" and I was told, "you can walk home if you want, you're free to go, but we're detaining your vehicle" at which time I said, "I am not answering any more of your questions, I have nothing further to say to you, and I want to call my attorney."

They were somewhat surprised when I promptly contacted my attorney who I have on speed dial.

In the end I was able to drive away from the encounter.

Kind of strange, as only people can be "detained".... As the driver of the vehicle is the one who committed the violation which caused the detention.....

I always got a chuckle out of the drivers who "called" their attorney during a traffic stop... Because it did not and would not change what I did, or was doing.... It was amusing when the driver tried to hand me the phone so I could talk to their "attorney".. Which I always refused....

LEO's are under no obligation to play phone games or talk with anyone while in the process of doing their jobs...


The less you say to the police the better.

Keep encounters as short as possible, do your best to avoid them if at all possible.

The easiest way to avoid an encounter with police is to simply obey all traffic laws. I have never received a traffic ticket for the simple reason that I obey all traffic laws. Although in regards to the speed limit I generally keep my speed within a range of 5-8 miles of the posted limit, depending on road conditions. Driving too fast or too slow is a recipe for being pulled over and scrutinized [especially those people who drive 20-30 miles UNDER the limit on a highway- because they're being too careful].

Even still, you cannot always avoid encounters with police. At some point in your life you will hit a deer or you will be struck by a careless motorist and the police will respond.

The less you say, the better, don't make small-talk, only discuss the issue at hand, and tactfully answer [or just avoid/decline to answer] any iffy questions.


"Do you have anything I need to know about in this vehicle? Do you have any weapons?"

"There is no contraband in this vehicle."

"Then you don't mind if I take a look around do you?"

"I do not consent to any searches."

"Well you're not hiding anything, are you?"

"I do not consent to any searches, am I being detained?"

Once an officer challenges your polite assertion of your right not to be searched without a warrant [or your consent] it is time to establish if the encounter is voluntary [you're free to leave] or involuntary [you're being detained]. If he responds that you are not being detained, then you are free to leave and you should immediately terminate the encounter by leaving.

As above, a traffic stop is by definition a detention...

If a officer encounters you and tells you to "stop" you are detained.

At the scene of an accident where you are an involved driver you are not free to leave until the officer completes his investigation....

Tincon
10-13-2013, 1:03 PM
As above, a traffic stop is by definition a detention...

If a officer encounters you and tells you to "stop" you are detained.


I agree completely, but that does not mean there is no question as to the continuity of the detention. For example, say I am stopped at a "DUI checkpoint". I stop and the officer greets me, and asks for my DL. I decline politely, and ask him for his. He is confused. I ask if I'm free to go. At that point I'm asking, because while he is allowed to briefly detain me without PC, to determine if I'm drunk, he cannot detain me any longer than is necessary to make that determination. I also don't have to show ID. So while it is clear I was detained, I'm asking if I'm free to go, because now he knows (or should know) I'm not drunk, and he is wasting my time. Get it?

ETA: I prefer "am I free to go" over "am I being detained", just because it seems slightly less douchey.

P5Ret
10-13-2013, 2:12 PM
I agree completely, but that does not mean there is no question as to the continuity of the detention. For example, say I am stopped at a "DUI checkpoint". I stop and the officer greets me, and asks for my DL. I decline politely, and ask him for his. He is confused. I ask if I'm free to go. At that point I'm asking, because while he is allowed to briefly detain me without PC, to determine if I'm drunk, he cannot detain me any longer than is necessary to make that determination. I also don't have to show ID. So while it is clear I was detained, I'm asking if I'm free to go, because now he knows (or should know) I'm not drunk, and he is wasting my time. Get it?

ETA: I prefer "am I free to go" over "am I being detained", just because it seems slightly less douchey.

You may want to read CVC section 12951B. And yes a DUI checkpoint is considered enforcement.

Tincon
10-13-2013, 5:38 PM
You may want to read CVC section 12951B. And yes a DUI checkpoint is considered enforcement.

If it is, then it's probably unconstitutional. You can't just randomly stop drivers to check for ID. You can randomly stop people to check sobriety.

The rule allowing sobriety checkpoints does not extend to roadblocks to detect ordinary criminal activity. (Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333.) In Edmond, Indianapolis adopted a law authorizing vehicle checkpoints as a means to combat drug use and trafficking. The law was drafted to minimize police discretion. At each checkpoint officers stop a predetermined number of vehicles based on an established sequence; stops are not based on particularized suspicion. Once a stop is made, an officer informs the driver of its purpose and asks to see the driver's license and registration, looks for signs of impairment, and conducts an open view examination from outside the vehicle. In addition, a narcotics detection dog circles the vehicle. The stops generally last 5 minutes or less. Held, the stops are seizures that contravene the Fourth Amendment.

Also:

“Minimizing the average time each motorist is detained is critical both to reducing the intrusiveness of the stop on the individual driver and to maintaining safety by avoiding traffic tie-ups. … [E]ach motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe symptoms of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test. At that point, further investigation would of course be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.” Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 C.3d 1321, 1346.

Adog5
10-13-2013, 11:21 PM
If you have a handgun that is unloaded and in a locked container and a police officer pulls your over and asks if you have a gun in the car (or something to that effect), if you say 'No', is that a crime?

If you don't consent to a search, but officer does it anyway and finds the gun (which is legally stored for transport), is that a crime?

9M62
10-13-2013, 11:26 PM
As you describe the scenario, no it's not a crime.

If you delay or obstruct an investigation by lying, yes. In your scenario, where you were pulled over for say - a traffic infraction - no you would not be committing a crime.

A driveby occurred in the area in a vehicle matching yours? He searches and finds it? Yeah, you're probably getting charged with obstruction, but I doubt it'd hold up in court.

If you lie about your identity when pulled over, yes it's a crime.

pastureofmuppets
10-13-2013, 11:29 PM
... or just follows you to the range, then you have probably just given him or her good cause.



Strap in...



:popcorn:

SmallShark
10-13-2013, 11:33 PM
dont answer any question, then

pastureofmuppets
10-13-2013, 11:36 PM
this:

pastureofmuppets
10-13-2013, 11:37 PM
dont answer any question, then

Like this:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=272468&d=1381736175

64physhy
10-13-2013, 11:52 PM
Answer with "I have nothing illegal in the car." That way, you're not lying.

Carnivore
10-14-2013, 12:15 AM
Answer with "I have nothing illegal in the car." That way, you're not lying.Precisely. I always answer with "I have nothing illegal in the car" followed by "I never consent to a search of my person or property" if asked if they can search. Repeat to nausium if the officer continues to ask the same question no matter how he/she my rephrase it or try to intimidate you. Longest I have ever sat on the road was 20 minutes with the officer yelling at me " that isn't what I asked you". He finally gave up.

As has been said here many times. Never volunteer any info, never trust they are your "friend", never consent to a search EVER and if they don't need your consent they won't be asking if they can search.

CharlesV
10-14-2013, 2:14 AM
I agree with everyone, its not the scenario itself but how you answer because if they pull you over with probable cause, like your car matches the description of a hit and run, while you are spread eagle on the ground they wont be asking you anything.

The fact they are ASKING is the clue that they are fishing for probable cause and to that id answer the same, "if you mean am i carrying anything illegal the answer is no." If they ask to search just to verify your claim, that answer is plain "no, i dont consent to any search of myself or car."

But its not that simple. If you know the stop was because you were speeding, ok fine. But were you weaving wildly? Having furtive movements? In the cops mind its not just the the speeding and he will stretch out his demands as far as possible if only in the name of his own safety and you may be on your way to court or jail or what.

I dont want any situation to be tested, frankly. When im carrying guns in the car im especially careful how I drive. No drinking, no speeding, no illegal turns, nothing. No special reason to notice me at all.

But I dont assume they will follow the law, i assume they will test me and even force a search if they have a mind to.

KABA556
10-14-2013, 4:09 AM
If it is, then it's probably unconstitutional. You can't just randomly stop drivers to check for ID. You can randomly stop people to check sobriety.

The rule allowing sobriety checkpoints does not extend to roadblocks to detect ordinary criminal activity. (Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333.) In Edmond, Indianapolis adopted a law authorizing vehicle checkpoints as a means to combat drug use and trafficking. The law was drafted to minimize police discretion. At each checkpoint officers stop a predetermined number of vehicles based on an established sequence; stops are not based on particularized suspicion. Once a stop is made, an officer informs the driver of its purpose and asks to see the driver's license and registration, looks for signs of impairment, and conducts an open view examination from outside the vehicle. In addition, a narcotics detection dog circles the vehicle. The stops generally last 5 minutes or less. Held, the stops are seizures that contravene the Fourth Amendment.

Also:

“Minimizing the average time each motorist is detained is critical both to reducing the intrusiveness of the stop on the individual driver and to maintaining safety by avoiding traffic tie-ups. … [E]ach motorist stopped should be detained only long enough for the officer to question the driver briefly and to look for signs of intoxication, such as alcohol on the breath, slurred speech, and glassy or bloodshot eyes. If the driver does not display signs of impairment, he or she should be permitted to drive on without further delay. If the officer does observe symptoms of impairment, the driver may be directed to a separate area for a roadside sobriety test. At that point, further investigation would of course be based on probable cause, and general principles of detention and arrest would apply.” Ingersoll v. Palmer (1987) 43 C.3d 1321, 1346.


DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court ruled that they are constitutional. The court erred when they made that ruling... Just as they erred when they made their ruling in Schenck v. United States [which was later overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio].


Hopefully 10-20 years from now, DUI checkpoints will be a thing of the past [due to a new court ruling] and departments still engaged in them will be drowned in litigation and bankrupted.

KABA556
10-14-2013, 4:13 AM
I always got a chuckle out of the drivers who "called" their attorney during a traffic stop... Because it did not and would not change what I did, or was doing.... It was amusing when the driver tried to hand me the phone so I could talk to their "attorney".. Which I always refused....





This wasn't a traffic stop, it was a confrontation/encounter in a parking lot and they told me they were not going to let me go until they searched the vehicle.


I'll consider discussing this is greater detail once the issue is resolved as long as the settlement agreement does not contain a confidentiality provision.

KABA556
10-14-2013, 4:15 AM
A traffic stop by definition IS a detention.....

Just because you are detained DOES NOT entitle you to an attorney or trigger your Miranda rights.....

Miranda only applies during a custodial interrogation....





So you think that I have an obligation to speak and answer questions as long as it is outside of a custodial interrogation?

I am not obligated to say anything... If I were to be pulled over because I was going 18 miles over the post limited, I am not required to "fess up" and admit it when asked "do you know why I pulled you over?" I can exercise my fifth amendment rights ANYTIME in this nation, ANYWHERE in this nation. Just


If an officer inquires- "Do you know why I pulled you over?" there is no obligation to say anything, you could just shrug and remain quiet.


Incidentally, I have never had an encounter with police resulting from a traffic issue as I obey traffic regulations.


If an officer walks up to John Q Citizen in the street and states, "nice weather today, isn't it?" the citizen can just shrug and continue walking, he isn't obligated to have any conversation of any sort with the officer. In fact I have a friend who has that policy, he won't speak to police at all. He was pulled over for speeding, the officer asked him "do you know why I pulled you over?" and he said, "I have nothing to say" and he just sat there quietly until he was handed a ticket. He was going about 18-20 miles per hour over the posted limit so talking wasn't going to help anything anyway.

I suspect that in an officer randomly approached him and said, "it's nice out tonight isn't it?" he'd probably say, "am I being detained?" and then leave as soon as he confirmed he was not being detained, or just say, "I don't want to talk with you."

KABA556
10-14-2013, 4:19 AM
I agree completely, but that does not mean there is no question as to the continuity of the detention. For example, say I am stopped at a "DUI checkpoint". I stop and the officer greets me, and asks for my DL. I decline politely, and ask him for his. He is confused. I ask if I'm free to go. At that point I'm asking, because while he is allowed to briefly detain me without PC, to determine if I'm drunk, he cannot detain me any longer than is necessary to make that determination. I also don't have to show ID. So while it is clear I was detained, I'm asking if I'm free to go, because now he knows (or should know) I'm not drunk, and he is wasting my time. Get it?

ETA: I prefer "am I free to go" over "am I being detained", just because it seems slightly less douchey.




In the future this will either snowball into something more or it will be removed from our laws and viewed as a source of great historic shame.


It is possible that police will be given the power to "briefly detain" citizens to make them submit to mouth swab drug tests, to blood test them for STDs, to observe if they appear to be texting while driving, to check to make sure they are not eating fatty foods.... All very laudable goals with the objective of "helping the children" and protecting society, but all very intrusive and destructive towards the rights enumerated in the Constitution.


On the other hand it is possible that common sense will prevail and DUI checkpoints will be recognized as the unconstitutional abomination that they are.

pastureofmuppets
10-14-2013, 4:25 AM
Cops have a radar for evasive responses.

WyattandDoc
10-14-2013, 4:45 AM
Here's the trick. Have your ducks all lined up. Current registration, insurance and driver's license all ready upon request. If they ask for "consent to search", simply say "no, I don't consent". If they search you/your car anyways, ask for a supervisor to respond to the scene. Then ask for a justification to the search. Get names and badge numbers. "Consent to Search" requests are the lazy cops way to get into cars. It usually means they don't have squat, but "suspect" you may be dirty.

You have the right to resist illegal searches and seizures, but reality tells us that gets really messy. Remember, they may have information you're no privy to that justifies them searching you and your car. They DON'T have to fill you in on that information until AFTER the search, so be VERY careful with resisting what you THINK may be a violation of your rights.

Take it as far as your willing to go. I for one, take my Constitutional Rights VERY seriously and will NEVER let any government entitiy violate them.

rm1911
10-14-2013, 5:35 AM
"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

Any questions???

Capybara
10-14-2013, 5:54 AM
When im carrying guns in the car im especially careful how I drive. No drinking, no speeding, no illegal turns, nothing. No special reason to notice me at all.

So does that mean you drink and drive, speed and make illegal turns when you don't have guns in the car? ;-)

TeddyBallgame
10-14-2013, 6:05 AM
I've always had the opposite attitude on this one

If I'm not breaking any laws, I don't give a sh** if they know I have a firearm...last time I checked, it's not illegal, and, other than giving them the opportunity to check for its legal and safe transportation, I'm not duty bound for anything else

Like I said, just my attitude...not gonna act like a little squirrel, can't understand why more people can't stand up for their rights...maybe it's one reason they keep getting taken away...when did it become something to worry about?

KarLorian
10-14-2013, 6:47 AM
Make sure that you are not lying to Federal officers as that is a crime. There is no law against lying to CA police.

SemperFi1775
10-14-2013, 7:27 AM
Make sure that you are not lying to Federal officers as that is a crime. There is now law against lying to CA police.

interesting... the government can lie to people, but people can't lie to the government... :(

CWDraco
10-14-2013, 7:33 AM
"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

"I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights. "

Any questions???

LOL... you have no 5th A rights at a traffic stop... :facepalm:

I know my rights...
95qZtwJNjxk

sakosf
10-14-2013, 7:34 AM
This topic seems to come up regularly on this forum. There really is no one perfect answer. The only thing you can do is lower your odds of getting into a bad situation by the way you drive your car and also make sure you have no burned out lights, bald tires or any other mechanical condition that might get you pulled over. Don't have anything visible in the passenger area of the car that would suggest you might have firearm/s in the car and/or an interest in firearms. Finally, make sure you are transporting the firearms in a legal matter....(I prefer to error on the side of caution).
Another way to look at this is....what are your odds while transporting firearms of having your car plowed into by a drunk driver or someone texting vs having be pulled over and getting jammed up by a LEO, if you are doing what I suggest above

glockman19
10-14-2013, 7:44 AM
No it's NOT illegal to lie to a Police Officer. It is Unlawful to lie to a Federal Agent.

I'd answer the question with a quick, "NO, is that why you pulled me over?" The logical response is to answer with the reason you were pulled over.

BigPimping
10-14-2013, 10:17 AM
I would not lie to them, or antagonize them.

omgwtfbbq
10-14-2013, 10:28 AM
Best way to answer is: "I have nothing illegal in my vehicle"

That is, unless in addition to your legally transported firearms, who also have a bunch of other illegal items, say a kilo or two of methamphetamine, or maybe a honey-oil lab in the trunk.... But if that's the case, I think you have more pressing issues to worry about.

SVT-40
10-14-2013, 1:27 PM
No it's NOT illegal to lie to a Police Officer. It is Unlawful to lie to a Federal Agent.

I'd answer the question with a quick, "NO, is that why you pulled me over?" The logical response is to answer with the reason you were pulled over.

The correct answer is it's sometimes not illegal to lie to a police officer....

A "general lie" about possessing or not possessing a item would not trigger either of the below violations....

31 CVC
Code Text
Vehicle Code - VEH
General Provisions
( General Provisions enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )

No person shall give, either orally or in writing, information to a peace officer while in the performance of his duties under the provisions of this code when such person knows that the information is false.
(Added by Stats. 1965, Ch. 1264.)

and

148.9 CPC
(a) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any other peace officer defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, upon lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the court, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the arresting officer is guilty of a misdemeanor if (1) the false information is given while the peace officer is engaged in the performance of his or her duties as a peace officer and (2) the person providing the false information knows or should have known that the person receiving the information is a peace officer.
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 760, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1999.)

SVT-40
10-14-2013, 1:36 PM
So you think that I have an obligation to speak and answer questions as long as it is outside of a custodial interrogation?

Never said that... I did say that Miranda does not apply, as you are not the subject of a custodial interrogation, and that since you are not under arrest your right to a attorney also does not apply.....

You don't have to say anything... You do, however have to supply the officer with your license, registration and insurance information.. In addition you must exit your vehicle if the officer orders you to exit....

In fact in many situation officers would prefer you do remain silent... Instead of whining and complaining and asking them, "Don't you have anything better to do?" ;)

I am not obligated to say anything... If I were to be pulled over because I was going 18 miles over the post limited, I am not required to "fess up" and admit it when asked "do you know why I pulled you over?" I can exercise my fifth amendment rights ANYTIME in this nation, ANYWHERE in this nation. Just


If an officer inquires- "Do you know why I pulled you over?" there is no obligation to say anything, you could just shrug and remain quiet.


Incidentally, I have never had an encounter with police resulting from a traffic issue as I obey traffic regulations.


If an officer walks up to John Q Citizen in the street and states, "nice weather today, isn't it?" the citizen can just shrug and continue walking, he isn't obligated to have any conversation of any sort with the officer. In fact I have a friend who has that policy, he won't speak to police at all. He was pulled over for speeding, the officer asked him "do you know why I pulled you over?" and he said, "I have nothing to say" and he just sat there quietly until he was handed a ticket. He was going about 18-20 miles per hour over the posted limit so talking wasn't going to help anything anyway.

I suspect that in an officer randomly approached him and said, "it's nice out tonight isn't it?" he'd probably say, "am I being detained?" and then leave as soon as he confirmed he was not being detained, or just say, "I don't want to talk with you."

A officer is entitled to talk with anyone he may meet during the scope and course of his duties.... It's called a consensual contact. Nothing in the law requires anyone to answer him....

SVT-40
10-14-2013, 1:45 PM
DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court ruled that they are constitutional. The court erred when they made that ruling... Just as they erred when they made their ruling in Schenck v. United States [which was later overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio].

Hopefully 10-20 years from now, DUI checkpoints will be a thing of the past [due to a new court ruling] and departments still engaged in them will be drowned in litigation and bankrupted.

So according to you the Supreme courts decision is not binding :rolleyes: That's just silly... Your opinion is yours, however it carries no force of law as the courts decision does..

You can also say up is down and down is up.... However you would also be wrong....

In addition even if at sometime in the future another court were to change their opinion, there would be no civil liability on previous cases.....Because at the time of those cases the officers were acting reasonably under the law.


I really doubt If the law were to change, that any department would still be conducting check points, as those decisions usually take many years, and most agencies are well updated on pending and new court decisions.....

Tincon
10-14-2013, 1:54 PM
SVT: Wondering if you think DL checks are ok as well?

KABA556
10-14-2013, 5:50 PM
So according to you the Supreme courts decision is not binding :rolleyes: That's just silly... Your opinion is yours, however it carries no force of law as the courts decision does..

You can also say up is down and down is up.... However you would also be wrong....

In addition even if at sometime in the future another court were to change their opinion, there would be no civil liability on previous cases.....Because at the time of those cases the officers were acting reasonably under the law.


I really doubt If the law were to change, that any department would still be conducting check points, as those decisions usually take many years, and most agencies are well updated on pending and new court decisions.....


If Supreme Court decisions were permanently binding then we would still be living with the restrictions imposed by Schenck v. United States and Plessy v Ferguson, but we all know that they were overturned, respectively by Brandenburg v Ohio and Brown v Board of Education.

One court can overturn a decision made by a court 20-30 years earlier.


What the Supreme Court decides in 1990 may not be what they decide in 2015.


Some day DUI checkpoints will be ruled unconstitutional and the previous precedent allowing them will be explicitly overturned. Departments that fail to adapt after the new ruling will find themselves being sued into ruin.

KABA556
10-14-2013, 5:56 PM
So according to you the Supreme courts decision is not binding :rolleyes: That's just silly... Your opinion is yours, however it carries no force of law as the courts decision does..

You can also say up is down and down is up.... However you would also be wrong....

In addition even if at sometime in the future another court were to change their opinion, there would be no civil liability on previous cases.....Because at the time of those cases the officers were acting reasonably under the law.


I really doubt If the law were to change, that any department would still be conducting check points, as those decisions usually take many years, and most agencies are well updated on pending and new court decisions.....



The Ohio Supreme Court ruled almost a decade ago that the Ohio State Constitution, by not prohibiting the open carry of firearms, allows it, and that it is allowed without license/permit and that the open carrying of a firearm trumps all local ordinances to the contrary.

This did not stop police across the state from arresting hundreds of individuals over the last decade solely for open carrying firearms.

Some cities even tried to pass explicit laws stating that open carrying is a form of "disorderly conduct" even after the State Attorney General published guidelines that explicitly stated that open carry is not disorderly conduct, nor is it inducing panic, and that absent some other issue, police do not even have cause to make contact with an open carrying citizen and initiate a detention.

There have been lawsuits, but the lawsuits are paid by the insurance companies that issue policies to the various cities. Police behavior will change when the city officials, police officials, and the individual officers engaged in the criminal conduct are held to civil liability AS INDIVIDUALS.


Instead of Officer Jones shrugging and saying, "well if you think this was a false arrest sue the department, what do I care, no money out of my bank..." He should be held liable and open to personal litigation in addition to the department/city being sued.


When individual officers are bankrupted and ruined because they enforce directives from their superiors to summarily arrest anybody openly carrying a firearm in compliance with state law and Ohio Supreme Court rulings and charge them with disorderly conduct, contrary to what the State Attorney General declared, then the behavior will substantially decrease.


The Supreme Court could rule against DUI checkpoints tomorrow and the practice would still be going on in 2025 even after several dozen lawsuits.

anthem
10-14-2013, 6:31 PM
I don't have much interaction with the police, besides some personal friends, but I certainly had a healthy and fearful respect for them as a kid, most likely because I was a douche-bag teenager.

As an adult, all my dealings with the police have been up front and reasonable. I haven't had a ticket in over a decade, and it would seem to me that a lot of the responses here would escalate an encounter beyond necessary.

Call me naive.

Tincon
10-14-2013, 7:09 PM
Call me naive.

You are naive.

The cops decided the gun was illegal and Haynie was hauled off to Santa Rita jail in Dublin. “I felt threatened,” said Haynie. “I have a family to provide for. Something as simple as this can ruin my career as a provider for my family.”

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/california-law-enforcement-unclear-on-legality-of-bullet-button/

anthem
10-14-2013, 7:24 PM
You are naive.


http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/california-law-enforcement-unclear-on-legality-of-bullet-button/

Maybe so...but no amount of experience can fix stupid. We all decide how we react when pulled over. I'll manage my stop, you can manage yours.

As for Yee, he has his own agenda. He conflates protecting the public and abrogating the peoples rights. I am certainly not a fan.

SVT-40
10-14-2013, 7:54 PM
Reading fail on your part.....

I previously posted this, acknowledging that future courts could make a different decision....

In addition even if at sometime in the future another court were to change their opinion, there would be no civil liability on previous cases.....Because at the time of those cases the officers were acting reasonably under the law.

If Supreme Court decisions were permanently binding then we would still be living with the restrictions imposed by Schenck v. United States and Plessy v Ferguson, but we all know that they were overturned, respectively by Brandenburg v Ohio and Brown v Board of Education.

One court can overturn a decision made by a court 20-30 years earlier.


What the Supreme Court decides in 1990 may not be what they decide in 2015.


Some day DUI checkpoints will be ruled unconstitutional and the previous precedent allowing them will be explicitly overturned. Departments that fail to adapt after the new ruling will find themselves being sued into ruin.

RickD427
10-14-2013, 7:57 PM
I don't have much interaction with the police, besides some personal friends, but I certainly had a healthy and fearful respect for them as a kid, most likely because I was a douche-bag teenager.

As an adult, all my dealings with the police have been up front and reasonable. I haven't had a ticket in over a decade, and it would seem to me that a lot of the responses here would escalate an encounter beyond necessary.

Call me naive.

Anthem,

You're not naive. You're showing the wisdom of age.

Good cops have developed a lot of "street sense." When folks strike us as being honest and straightforward, we want to respond in kind. We're just not looking to make trouble for good folks.

On the other hand, when we find examples of evasion, obfuscation, quibbling, and just plain old petty "game playing", we tend to react as strongly as the law allows us to.

I hate to steal a saying from the USMC, but there is a lot of truth to "No better friend, no worse enemy." And the key thing is the person being stopped gets to decide which one its going to be.

SVT-40
10-14-2013, 7:59 PM
Common guys you are taking this thread down the wrong road... It's simply about what happens if you are stopped by the police with guns in your car...

NOT about DUI check points..

Not about DL check points..

This thread is a sticky, made to assist people.

Not, a place for some to voice their beliefs about the police or any other subject....

Not about what is happening in other states regarding open carry...

Why, why can't some here just stay on topic???

Tincon
10-14-2013, 10:01 PM
Good cops have developed a lot of "street sense."

Yeah, I bet it was that kind of "street sense" that led both federal(ATF) and county LE to conclude that a legal firearm I owned was a ".30 bmg machine gun". A legal firearm that had an ATF approval letter. A letter that was IN the case with said firearm (under the foam). Which they never found. Brilliant police work that was, probably using their "street senses" rather than their eyeballs.

And no, I'm not anti-cop, I was a cop for several years. And I knew some cops that would usually let petty stuff slide, and some that never would. I'd never suggest that someone take that gamble. Even if you think you have done nothing wrong, you don't know every law on the books. No one does, there are thousands of them. And you certainly don't know what every cop and DA's interpretation of those laws is going to be. So if you get pulled over, shut up as best you can. Don't like this advice? More work for lawyers, you better get one on retainer.

midlife
10-14-2013, 10:45 PM
Every time I drive back from range I stop at border checkpoint. They never ask about guns. But if they did I'd tell truth. And I always thank them for their service to this great country.

KABA556
10-15-2013, 7:51 AM
Yeah, I bet it was that kind of "street sense" that led both federal(ATF) and county LE to conclude that a legal firearm I owned was a ".30 bmg machine gun". A legal firearm that had an ATF approval letter. A letter that was IN the case with said firearm (under the foam). Which they never found. Brilliant police work that was, probably using their "street senses" rather than their eyeballs.

And no, I'm not anti-cop, I was a cop for several years. And I knew some cops that would usually let petty stuff slide, and some that never would. I'd never suggest that someone take that gamble. Even if you think you have done nothing wrong, you don't know every law on the books. No one does, there are thousands of them. And you certainly don't know what every cop and DA's interpretation of those laws is going to be. So if you get pulled over, shut up as best you can. Don't like this advice? More work for lawyers, you better get one on retainer.



A cop who considers asserting ones rights to be "game playing" is a danger to a free society. He's not street smart or savvy, he's just a junior tyrant and a menace to society.



I had a cop outright tell me, in a very confrontational tone, "if you're not hiding anything then you don't have anything to worry about, do you?" when I asserted my 4th amendment rights and told him that I don't consent to searches. Then he said he would go get a warrant and hold me even if it took 4-5 hours to get the warrant and we did a dance back and forth. He got really upset when I said to him, "say I tell you what, you could be a pedophile with loads of child porn on your computer, but maybe you're not, surely you don't have anything to hide, do you? What time this evening can I come over to inspect your computer, you don't have anything to hide do you?"

He had already told me he was concerned that I had weapons, explosives, and/or narcotics in my vehicle, even though their dog failed to indicate on anything.

Wherryj
10-15-2013, 11:41 AM
Yeah, I bet it was that kind of "street sense" that led both federal(ATF) and county LE to conclude that a legal firearm I owned was a ".30 bmg machine gun". A legal firearm that had an ATF approval letter. A letter that was IN the case with said firearm (under the foam). Which they never found. Brilliant police work that was, probably using their "street senses" rather than their eyeballs.

And no, I'm not anti-cop, I was a cop for several years. And I knew some cops that would usually let petty stuff slide, and some that never would. I'd never suggest that someone take that gamble. Even if you think you have done nothing wrong, you don't know every law on the books. No one does, there are thousands of them. And you certainly don't know what every cop and DA's interpretation of those laws is going to be. So if you get pulled over, shut up as best you can. Don't like this advice? More work for lawyers, you better get one on retainer.

Unfortunately no one could possibly know every law, yet only the citizen is held to the standard of knowing every law and ALL of its interpretations. Even a DA can file false charges with weeks to consider them-and the only punishment is that they may have to "drop" those charges and "lose face". You will have to spend thousands of dollars and hours of your freedom in an attempt to fight the charges-and the best that you can hope for is the charges getting dropped and your time and money pissed down a rat hole.

If there's nothing that you are doing that gives probable cause, don't talk to officer outside of the scope of the stop. IF there is, DON'T talk to the officer at all-lawyer up.

CZ man in LA
10-15-2013, 11:48 AM
Then he said he would go get a warrant and hold me even if it took 4-5 hours to get the warrant

At this point you should've said "Officer, am I being detained or am I free to go?"

Cops cannot illegally detain you. And if they still do read below.

You will have to spend thousands of dollars and hours of your freedom in an attempt to fight the charges-and the best that you can hope for is the charges getting dropped and your time and money pissed down a rat hole.

If you have good reason to know that the search was unconstitutional and have illegally detained you, you can also contact the ACLU to see if they can fight for your behalf. Many illegal searches and arrests were overturned by the ACLU.

If the NRA is to gun rights, the ACLU is to civil rights. Having the number to your local ACLU in your wallet as well as a good 2A lawyer is a good idea if you are detained illegally and when you need to make that one phone call. I have both of them in my wallet at all times.

If anything, joining the ACLU is good insurance. Furthermore, cops and DAs stray away from prosecuting anyone carrying an ACLU membership card because they'd rather be going after those who are ignorant, not someone who has the entire ACLU behind them. If anything, $35 a year isn't bad for having access to the best civil defense lawyers and the largest civil rights lobby in the nation to represent you, right?

KABA556
10-15-2013, 12:11 PM
At this point you should've said "Officer, am I being detained or am I free to go?"

Cops cannot illegally detain you. And if they still do read below.







One cop told me I was not being detained but my vehicle was being detained and that I could walk home, another cop [higher ranking] told me that I was not free to leave. I was hesitant to do anything that might be seen as leaving the scene because one had told me I was not to leave and I didn't want to get shot in the back walking away, tazed, or have a dog set loose on me.


The ranking officer on the scene insisted on being able to speak with my lawyer after I called my lawyer and my lawyer wanted to speak with him, so that worked out well. [On speakerphone] my lawyer asked the man what his probable cause to hold me, hold my vehicle, and insist on searching my vehicle was... The officer's response, "your client has an active concealed carry permit and has written articles reviewing firearms."

When asked if he had any specific reason to suspect that I had explosives, narcotics, or illegal firearms, the only reply the cop could give was, "he has an active concealed carry permit."


The situation took about 2-3 hours to resolve and by resolve I mean ending the encounter and going home. The situation is not resolved in the sense that everything is over/done and all claims are waived pursuant to a settlement agreement. No agreement has been signed as of yet.

CZ man in LA
10-15-2013, 1:00 PM
One cop told me I was not being detained but my vehicle was being detained and that I could walk home, another cop [higher ranking] told me that I was not free to leave. I was hesitant to do anything that might be seen as leaving the scene because one had told me I was not to leave and I didn't want to get shot in the back walking away, tazed, or have a dog set loose on me.

And this is why I have this in my car.
http://www.amazon.com/HZZ-2-7-inch-Security-Recorder-Camcorder/dp/B00A1YB1VM/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1381870819&sr=8-11&keywords=dashboard+camera

KABA556
10-15-2013, 1:55 PM
And this is why I have this in my car.
http://www.amazon.com/HZZ-2-7-inch-Security-Recorder-Camcorder/dp/B00A1YB1VM/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1381870819&sr=8-11&keywords=dashboard+camera



I started running a digital audio pocket recorder a few years ago after some police spoke to me in a manner that if I had a record of, I would have been able to end their careers.

Think along the lines of how that officer in Canton dealt with that concealed carry citizen...

If there wasn't a recording, few people would believe a cop would act like that...



I recently began running a dash-cam in my vehicle, although it is tied to the power of the vehicle, it has limited battery ability. It comes on when the vehicle is on and it shuts off shortly after the vehicle is off unless you switch it to remain on battery mode [manually]. I am going to get a model that has a longer battery life and will remain on regardless of whether the vehicle is on or off.

CZ man in LA
10-15-2013, 3:37 PM
If there wasn't a recording, few people would believe a cop would act like that...

Everyone has some video/sound recording device that is constantly hooked up to the internet these days from smartphones, tablets, to soon, Google Glass. Instantaneous uploads of corrupt LE conduct is all over Youtube, it's nothing new. If anything, thanks to smartphones and Youtube, growing discontent with LE who step above their authority is being scrutinized all over the the world (corrupt officers isn't just an US thing, it's happens in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, etc.).

I recently began running a dash-cam in my vehicle, although it is tied to the power of the vehicle, it has limited battery ability. It comes on when the vehicle is on and it shuts off shortly after the vehicle is off unless you switch it to remain on battery mode [manually]. I am going to get a model that has a longer battery life and will remain on regardless of whether the vehicle is on or off.

Outside the US, Garmin (who we know as car-navigation makers) sell these add on dash cam extensions or sell them as a GPS+dash cam package:
http://www.garmin.com.sg/m/buzz/sg/minisite/nuvi25xx/2565/drivingRecord.html
http://www.garmin.co.jp/products/ontheroad/nuvi2582r/
http://www.garmin.com.tw/products/GDR/gdr35/
https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/shop-by-accesories/other/gdr-20-driving-recorder/prod112280.html

It allows you to add a Garmin dash cam extension onto to your car's GPS through the USB socket, run special software to note your GPS location, speed, superimposed over the video, all running on the same DC power as your GPS.

Strange why this is not sold here in the US when Garmin is an US company. This would do so well when it comes to not just recording corrupt officers for use in court, but also would help a lot in car accident insurance claims, rental cars, taxis, EMTs, fire fighting vehicles, etc.

I wrote a letter to Garmin a year ago about this, but so far they've yet to respond to me. I think the more American consumers write to Garmin they want this add on extension or GPS+dash cam package deal for their in-car Garmin GPS devices, they might consider selling it here.

pastureofmuppets
10-15-2013, 11:20 PM
The officer's response, "your client has an active concealed carry permit and has written articles reviewing firearms."



Mind if I ask how he reached the conclusion of the second part of his statement?

KABA556
10-16-2013, 4:55 AM
Mind if I ask how he reached the conclusion of the second part of his statement?



He had read articles I had written. It really is a small world.

MudCamper
03-05-2014, 9:25 AM
Tincon,

I think you might be going off a little "half-cocked" with your assertion the loaded firearm check statute (Penal Code section 25850(b), formerly 12031(e)) has never been challenged on Constitutional grounds.

Please refer to People v. DeLong (11 Cal. App. 3d 786)

Actually, 12031(e)/25850(b) is being challenged in Richards v. Harris (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Harris) on 4th Amendment grounds.

microstencil
03-23-2014, 7:35 PM
Years ago I was pulled over by CHP. The first question asked was "do you have any guns in the car". I said yes. I spent the next 2 hours on the side of the road will the LEO ran every single gun in the car. After he found that all my weapons where A OK he gave me a speeding ticket.

duster1974
03-23-2014, 7:42 PM
Most DIY Home security systems kick the voltage down to 12v as do many home / 120v electronics. You can mount 4-8 cameras with audio and hours of recording hard drive space for under $500 if i'm right about the voltage.

I havent done this myself, but often considered the same thing, especially for accident type investigations in addition to search/seizure type stuff like this.

Maybe someone with electronics knowledge can chime in - 12v DC should work?

I've been looking for some kind of camera I can mount in my car that records visual as well as audio via a microphone attached near my window to address situations just like this

Still looking

9M62
03-24-2014, 8:45 AM
Do what ya'll want, but it's been my experience that I get the treatment I give.

Difficult responses gets difficult responses in return.
Cooperative responses gets cooperative responses in return.

There is a time and a place to disobey, or buck authority. Everywhere, All the time is not the time and place. In my opinion, of course.

wilburloo
03-24-2014, 11:27 AM
I think everybody needs to remember that driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
If you want to be a tough guy & play word games with a cop, that's your call. Just be sure you've sized the cop up via his demeanor before you proceed. How would you handle the situation if you were in his shoes? Cops are just people too.

SimonBirch
03-24-2014, 11:43 AM
If you have nothing to hide why lie??? Some of u guys on here give terrible advice like "crack the window one inch" wow!

Tincon
03-24-2014, 12:07 PM
Some of you sheep might develop a different attitude if you are ever taken out for slaughter. I'm sure the police will be real nice if you are cooperative, as they enjoy having your help in building a case against you.

9M62
03-24-2014, 1:20 PM
Some of you sheep might develop a different attitude if you are ever taken out for slaughter. I'm sure the police will be real nice if you are cooperative, as they enjoy having your help in building a case against you.

None of us are saying you should hop out of the vehicle, open the trunk, and tell every cop to search your vehicle every single time you're stopped because "you have nothing to hide."

What we're saying is that you shouldn't necessarily be doing the opposite of that either, which is being completely uncooperative and intentionally difficult -- for no reason other than you have the legal right to -- especially if you have nothing to hide.

Freedom of speech is an example: I am well within my rights to say just about whatever the hell I want to just about whatever person I want on the street. That does not make it the correct thing to do all the time, every time.

Extremes, on both sides (either 100% complacency and trust of authority, or 100% distrust and being uncooperative) are both bad ideas. The best course of action in life, in many situations, is the reasonable approach - not extreme on either end of the spectrum. This goes for all types of things, not just police contacts or civil rights, but just life in general.

And enough of you for calling me a sheep because I'm capable of knowing when to say "no," when to say "yes," and when to say "I want my lawyer." You, sir, are the sheep - not me. Use your brain, one size does not fit all.

**edit**

None of this really matters to me. Do whatever ya'll want to do, and then come back to CalGuns and write about your story and tell us all how it went for you. It doesn't really affect me in anyway shape or form. For me, I'll use common sense and decide when its time to buck authority, and when it's not.

Modimo
03-24-2014, 1:36 PM
I would love to hear resident expert opinions on the implication of CCW holders in these traffic stop situations.

Yes, once you have contact with an LEO, you have to follow a specific protocol notifying them of such.

However, how do you retain your right to not have your "Range Toys" in the trunk become a point of scrutiny after identifying your permit and carry sidearm?

And yes, I understand the importance of preventing the scenario. I have never been asked if I have any weapons during a traffic stop, but would like to still get opinions on this...

Thanks!

RickD427
03-24-2014, 1:59 PM
I would love to hear resident expert opinions on the implication of CCW holders in these traffic stop situations.

Yes, once you have contact with an LEO, you have to follow a specific protocol notifying them of such.

However, how do you retain your right to not have your "Range Toys" in the trunk become a point of scrutiny after identifying your permit and carry sidearm?

And yes, I understand the importance of preventing the scenario. I have never been asked if I have any weapons during a traffic stop, but would like to still get opinions on this...

Thanks!

Modimo,

Please keep in mind, that at the present time, you don't have the "right to not have your "Range Toys" in the trunk become a point of scrutiny", at least if you're in an incorporated city, or portion of an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is just about all of the urban county areas). The issue is with Penal Code section 25850(b) and the associated case law. In a nutshell, that allows a peace officer to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. There's associated case law that allows officers to search for such weapons under pretty much the same conditions as they would for contraband. It's kinda ridiculous for officers to inspect your licensed CCW to determine if it is loaded, but the law does allow for it. If they have PC to believe there are other weapons in your vehicle, the same authority to inspect exists.

The best way to prevent such action on the part of the LEO is to provide the LEO with some confidence that you're a law-abiding person. We're not looking to arrest good citizens on technical charges, were looking for real life crooks to place in jail.

I never had much contact with private person CCW holders during my active service. There just were not many of them in L.A. County. But of the three of four that I did have contact with over thirty+ years, they were all quite pleasant and brief. They were all traffic stops. I didn't feel the need to disarm anyone, and since I assessed that they were all law abiding folks (knowing the considerable effort they had to go through to get the permit), none were cited.

Please don't make a problem where there isn't one. Challenge an officer and they'll respond in kind. You'll probably lose. Help him do his job and he'll likely help you.

9M62
03-24-2014, 2:10 PM
Please don't make a problem where there isn't one. Challenge an officer and they'll respond in kind. You'll probably lose. Help him do his job and he'll likely help you.

You can't be trusted! No one talk to this guy! Everyone be as uncooperative as possible and refuse to speak to the police about anything! Do so because CalGun's paranoia types said so!














In all seriousness, good advice Rick.

cruising7388
03-24-2014, 4:04 PM
Please don't make a problem where there isn't one.

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times. Don't interfere with what we do best!;)

cruising7388
03-24-2014, 4:11 PM
the moment you state that you have firearms in the car, current CA law allows for the officer to inspect the firearms to make sure that they are not loaded.

And what's really bizarre, as Rick points out, even if you have a current CCW that permits the firearm to be loaded, the LEO can still insist on inspecting the firearm to determine whether it is loaded.

Tincon
03-24-2014, 4:20 PM
Please don't make a problem where there isn't one. Challenge an officer and they'll respond in kind. You'll probably lose. Help him do his job and he'll likely help you.

His job is to find criminals and arrest them. If he is talking to me, guess what he is trying to do? Helping him would be a pretty stupid idea. As ANY defense attorney will tell you.

RickD427
03-24-2014, 4:47 PM
You can't be trusted! No one talk to this guy! Everyone be as uncooperative as possible and refuse to speak to the police about anything! Do so because CalGun's paranoia types said so!














In all seriousness, good advice Rick.


9M62,

Thanks. Until I scrolled down, I was starting to think that I couldn't talk to myself anymore.......:jump:

wilburloo
03-24-2014, 9:55 PM
His job is to find criminals and arrest them. If he is talking to me, guess what he is trying to do? Helping him would be a pretty stupid idea. As ANY defense attorney will tell you.

So every time a cop talks to somebody there's going to be an arrest involved? C'mon. The main point is that if you are obeying the law, you have nothing to worry about. You're a gun owner. I assume your guns are owned legally. That makes you a law abiding citizen. I'm in my early 50's & I haven't been stopped in 15 years & when I was stopped (previously) for rolling thru a stop sign or passing a cop on the freeway, a little sugar went a long way & I got off with warnings.
There are a lot of people here who are paranoid & worried about things that haven't happened, might eventually happen, possibly could happen & so on. Live your life. Go to the range. Obey traffic laws. Transport your guns as prescribed by law. If you get stopped, deal with it.

Tincon
03-24-2014, 10:32 PM
So every time a cop talks to somebody there's going to be an arrest involved? C'mon. The main point is that if you are obeying the law, you have nothing to worry about. You're a gun owner. I assume your guns are owned legally. That makes you a law abiding citizen. I'm in my early 50's & I haven't been stopped in 15 years & when I was stopped (previously) for rolling thru a stop sign or passing a cop on the freeway, a little sugar went a long way & I got off with warnings.
There are a lot of people here who are paranoid & worried about things that haven't happened, might eventually happen, possibly could happen & so on. Live your life. Go to the range. Obey traffic laws. Transport your guns as prescribed by law. If you get stopped, deal with it.

Guess you missed this post: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=12541763&postcount=120

Your attitude is not uncommon, and countless people are in prison because of it.

451040
03-24-2014, 10:54 PM
Help him do his job and he'll likely help you.

:icon_bs: Don't help him do his job. He cannot help you. He can only hurt you.

Modimo
03-26-2014, 10:57 AM
Modimo,

Please keep in mind, that at the present time, you don't have the "right to not have your "Range Toys" in the trunk become a point of scrutiny", at least if you're in an incorporated city, or portion of an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is just about all of the urban county areas). The issue is with Penal Code section 25850(b) and the associated case law. In a nutshell, that allows a peace officer to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. There's associated case law that allows officers to search for such weapons under pretty much the same conditions as they would for contraband. It's kinda ridiculous for officers to inspect your licensed CCW to determine if it is loaded, but the law does allow for it. If they have PC to believe there are other weapons in your vehicle, the same authority to inspect exists.

The best way to prevent such action on the part of the LEO is to provide the LEO with some confidence that you're a law-abiding person. We're not looking to arrest good citizens on technical charges, were looking for real life crooks to place in jail.

I never had much contact with private person CCW holders during my active service. There just were not many of them in L.A. County. But of the three of four that I did have contact with over thirty+ years, they were all quite pleasant and brief. They were all traffic stops. I didn't feel the need to disarm anyone, and since I assessed that they were all law abiding folks (knowing the considerable effort they had to go through to get the permit), none were cited.

Please don't make a problem where there isn't one. Challenge an officer and they'll respond in kind. You'll probably lose. Help him do his job and he'll likely help you.

Thanks for your response. I don't think this addressed my question. I am a law-abiding citizen who enjoys shooting his legal firearms. I have many LEO friends (all Pro 2A) and have no interest in "challenging" an LEO or creating an issue out of nothing (that is a quick way of losing a CCW). I certainly do have an interest to follow the CCW guidelines set by my local SD, but doing so in a way that I don't have to "educate" the officer on any legal/unloaded/tax stamped firearms in the trunk. Again, this is a hypothetical since in my many years of VERY FEW traffic stops, I have never been questioned regarding firearms in the vehicle, however, this will change when having a CCW and I proactively let the officer know otherwise.

RickD427
03-26-2014, 11:40 AM
Thanks for your response. I don't think this addressed my question. I am a law-abiding citizen who enjoys shooting his legal firearms. I have many LEO friends (all Pro 2A) and have no interest in "challenging" an LEO or creating an issue out of nothing (that is a quick way of losing a CCW). I certainly do have an interest to follow the CCW guidelines set by my local SD, but doing so in a way that I don't have to "educate" the officer on any legal/unloaded/tax stamped firearms in the trunk. Again, this is a hypothetical since in my many years of VERY FEW traffic stops, I have never been questioned regarding firearms in the vehicle, however, this will change when having a CCW and I proactively let the officer know otherwise.

Modimo,

Sorry if I didn't address your question squarely. I saw your question as seeking a method to avoid a LEO's scrutiny when lawfully carrying weapons, and in all candor, my response was that you really can't stop the scrutiny, but you can reduce your degree of exposure to it. And I tried to explain the reason for all of that lying in Penal Code section 25850(b).

It's a fair question if section 25850(b) can be fully reconciled with the Fourth Amendment. I'll simply observe that it is currently a valid statute.

My attention was also drawn to Microstencil's posting (Post #132) in which he reports being detained for two hours while CHP officers completed a check of his weapons. The sum of case law allows LEO's to detain persons for a reasonable period of time while conducting a field investigation where they have legal standing to investigate. Section 25850(b) provides that legal standing to inspect the firearms to determine if they are loaded. Once that determination is made, the legal standing for the detention evaporates. The LEO must then either obtain a different source of standing, or end the detention. Section 25850(b) does not provide standing to detain a person while running records checks of firearms. I believe that an officer is free to run a serial number that he can freely see during a 25850(b) check, but there is no authority to extend the period of detention to do so. Some folks have argued that Arizona v Hicks prohibits the running of serial numbers during field checks. I don't believe the holding of that case so provides. In Hicks, officers had to move equipment in order to obtain serial numbers, and that's what the court faulted. Hick's doesn't apply where the numbers are readily viewed.

My

The Tiger
04-04-2014, 9:43 PM
Modimo,

Sorry if I didn't address your question squarely. I saw your question as seeking a method to avoid a LEO's scrutiny when lawfully carrying weapons, and in all candor, my response was that you really can't stop the scrutiny, but you can reduce your degree of exposure to it. And I tried to explain the reason for all of that lying in Penal Code section 25850(b).

It's a fair question if section 25850(b) can be fully reconciled with the Fourth Amendment. I'll simply observe that it is currently a valid statute.

My attention was also drawn to Microstencil's posting (Post #132) in which he reports being detained for two hours while CHP officers completed a check of his weapons. The sum of case law allows LEO's to detain persons for a reasonable period of time while conducting a field investigation where they have legal standing to investigate. Section 25850(b) provides that legal standing to inspect the firearms to determine if they are loaded. Once that determination is made, the legal standing for the detention evaporates. The LEO must then either obtain a different source of standing, or end the detention. Section 25850(b) does not provide standing to detain a person while running records checks of firearms. I believe that an officer is free to run a serial number that he can freely see during a 25850(b) check, but there is no authority to extend the period of detention to do so. Some folks have argued that Arizona v Hicks prohibits the running of serial numbers during field checks. I don't believe the holding of that case so provides. In Hicks, officers had to move equipment in order to obtain serial numbers, and that's what the court faulted. Hick's doesn't apply where the numbers are readily viewed.

My

On, "Readily viewed"

Hypo, the firearm is stored in the locked container with action open, mag out, and with the serial number side down (out of view). When the case is opened it is easy to confirm visually it is unloaded without manipulating the firearm or removing it from the case. Say a chamber flag is also used.

Would it be improper for the officer to pick up the firearm and run the serial numbers?

I would bet this would not stop them from picking it up if they wanted. And I would imagine throwing out case law and telling him he can't pick it up would not be helpful. But if the detention went on for 2 hours like described above I would likely file a complaint afterwards. That seems excessive.

I have been on the receiving end of a Deputy running serial numbers for my entire shooting party while out on a public range. At the time I didn't care much, everything was legal. I think I was kinda curious how the process worked. It took less than 30 minutes or so. So if a Deputy can radio in serial numbers one by one for ~10+ guns in ~30 minutes, 2 hours is probably excessive (but we don't know how many guns he had in the previously mentioned story). I watched him radio the serial # and gun description and heard a voice on the other end say "John Doe, Address" for each gun.

IRiSH_SpRinG
04-24-2014, 7:06 PM
What a lot of you apparently don't realize, is that you can protect and invoke your rights without being an ***hole..to the guy who said roll down your window an inch, all that's going to do its get you ordered out of the vehicle..You will be placed on the curb and surely be given a hefty citation..most cops are active gun owners too, but they are people too, so try to find a balance ;)

Doheny
04-24-2014, 7:31 PM
:icon_bs: Don't help him do his job. He cannot help you. He can only hurt you.


Cooperation begets cooperation.




Sent from my iPhone; please pardon typos, edits & stupid comments.

Onlyincali
04-24-2014, 9:10 PM
I have been on the receiving end of a Deputy running serial numbers for my entire shooting party while out on a public range. At the time I didn't care much, everything was legal. .

Are law officials allowed to stop you at the range to run your serial numbers?

mada714
04-26-2014, 9:14 AM
I will agree to some extent. Just to bad they don't wear "good cop" "bad cop" labels so we know which ones to be polite too.

Dannytheman
04-27-2014, 12:52 PM
I am of the group of folks who prefer to hand over my license, insurance and registration as asked. Then remain quite.

I have been asked, where I am going? I answer a question with a question POLITELY. "Officer, is there a reason you need to know that?"
I have been asked if I knew why I was pulled over. "I assumed you knew officer, as I have no idea why?

The video is on this thread, don't talk to the police. Listen to it, watch it and learn it. ANYTHING you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you. (Notice no mention of for you.)

The back of my truck window and tailgate screams gun owner, NRA member and Veteran. So I always assume the officer will ask the question.

Oceanbob
04-27-2014, 1:20 PM
On, "Readily viewed"

Hypo, the firearm is stored in the locked container with action open, mag out, and with the serial number side down (out of view). When the case is opened it is easy to confirm visually it is unloaded without manipulating the firearm or removing it from the case. Say a chamber flag is also used.

Would it be improper for the officer to pick up the firearm and run the serial numbers?

I would bet this would not stop them from picking it up if they wanted. And I would imagine throwing out case law and telling him he can't pick it up would not be helpful. But if the detention went on for 2 hours like described above I would likely file a complaint afterwards. That seems excessive.

I have been on the receiving end of a Deputy running serial numbers for my entire shooting party while out on a public range. At the time I didn't care much, everything was legal. I think I was kinda curious how the process worked. It took less than 30 minutes or so. So if a Deputy can radio in serial numbers one by one for ~10+ guns in ~30 minutes, 2 hours is probably excessive (but we don't know how many guns he had in the previously mentioned story). I watched him radio the serial # and gun description and heard a voice on the other end say "John Doe, Address" for each gun.

That would be for handguns only, considering the CDOJ doesn't keep names, model and serial numbers of long guns in the computer. (Until new long guns purchased or transferred beginning 1-1-14)

I don't understand why it would take 30 minutes to check on some handguns or even if such a check is justified...:eek:

Possibly any rifles would be checked against a stolen list, but again, no owners name would be announced over a radio. ..:TFH:

funthea
05-02-2014, 6:12 AM
I just assume, if asked if I have any weapons in the car, the question is referring to illegal weapons. I would make this same assumption if asked about drugs in the car as well. Seams silly to answer the question of, 'do you have any drugs in the car', that, well, I have these here aspirin and some cough drops, and oh I think there is some antihistamine here as well. Surely the cops response would be, 'I'm talking about illegal drugs'. Since all lines of questioning are coming from the point of seeking out illegal activity, and I am quite cognizant of this fact, my assumptions are founded. I have no illegal weapons in the car.

JBoutfishn
05-09-2014, 8:18 PM
I have been pulled over 3 times in my 55 years of driving. I have never been asked if I had a weapon in the car. If I am pulled over and asked about weapons I will be polite and answer all questions truthfully. I feel this is the best way to avoid any "imperial entanglements".

Your attitude in dealing with any law enforcement (assuming you are not breaking the law) has everything to do with the outcome. Upon returning from Africa I entered Customs with a 6" knife on my belt inside my back pocket. Two TSA agents approached me and asked how I was armed with a knife? I believe my reaction was "oh crap". :shock: I explained my trip had started 30 hrs earlier in the bush and I plain forgot I did not pack it and in Africa nobody really cared. They checked my ticket to validate my story and called a Delta agent who checked it. When I got to my destination my knife was not in the baggage office. I filed a form and it was delivered via UPS 2 days later. A display of any "attitude" most likely would have resulted in a different outcome.

robertkjjj
05-17-2014, 12:11 PM
Man, reading this thread gave me a huge headache. I feel like I just went onto a used car lot, 3 different sales guys approached me, and they're trying to sell me 3 different cars--SUV, Corvette, and Prius, all at the same time.

How is that all you "experts" out there have such a wide variety of opinions of how to deal with LE? We've got everything here from "Keep your windows rolled up all the way and don't say a word" to "Be super nice and disclose everything".

Modimo
05-17-2014, 1:51 PM
Well you know what they say opinions are like...

I took it like this, stay away from the extremes, be polite, and do not disclose anything that isn't required to disclose (not lying either). Most importantly don't put yourself in a position to be pulled over and questioned for your legal firearms. Again, just my opinion from everything I have collected.

1GunLover
05-24-2014, 12:06 PM
Can you legally film a officer while he has you pulled over? I thought you need to inform them or ask for consent in order to?

sorensen440
05-30-2014, 9:09 AM
Can you legally film a officer while he has you pulled over? I thought you need to inform them or ask for consent in order to?

You dont need consent to film in public

dantodd
05-30-2014, 11:08 AM
Yes, it is legal. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/court-upholds-first-amendment-right-to-film-police/

RickD427
05-30-2014, 11:32 AM
Yes, it is legal. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/court-upholds-first-amendment-right-to-film-police/

Please note that the decision of the First Circuit described in the above link is meaningless in California.

LEO's in many other states have used state statutes governing wiretapping and/or making of unauthorized recordings to make arrests of folks who videotape them.

California law is actually quite supportive of folks who wish to videotape the actions of LEO's. So long as the officer is in public, and there is no confidential aspect of the communication being recorded (refer to Penal Code section 632), and your actions do not interfere with the officer (refer to Penal Code section 148), you're free to record all that you want.

sharpshooter21
06-28-2014, 10:06 AM
The best answer is No Answer. You do not have to answer questions. politely tell the officer I do not wish to answer any questions. hand him your license, reg and insurance and wait for your fix - it ticket.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

rlc2
09-01-2014, 11:02 AM
I am pleased to see this a sticky. The question does get asked all too often and never does seem to go away.

If an officer asks if there are weapons in the car, IMHO, the best thing to do is simply say "yes" or "no" as the facts of the circumstance dictate.

Many folks on this board seem to believe that officers are looking for an excuse to take anyone to jail, and will mistakenly take innocent folks to jail. When I read this in postings, I also note the absence of first hand experience. Officers are not perfect there will always be anecdotes of bad experience, but lets keep them in perspective.

A lot of folks recommend some version of denial when asked the question. That may prevent a search, and any issue from coming up. California has no broadly written statute (unlike the feds) that makes illegal to lie to an officer. There are many narrow instances where it is illegal to lie to a California LEO. The problem with this one is that if you're caught in the lie, stand by for the officer to take the maximum measures against you that are permitted by law.

Other folks recommend some version of "I have nothing illegal in the car." IMHO, this is the worst one of all. Here's why - The answer is evasive, and intentionally so. There is a large body of law concerning "adoptive admissions." Where a person refuses to answer a reasonable question (prior to Miranda being triggered), or is evasive in response to a question, the LEO is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions as a result. If the question was 'Do you have any guns in the car?" and the answer is "I have nothing illegal in the car", the officer has probable cause to believe there is a lawful gun in the car. That conclusion reconciles the evaded part of the question, and is consistent with the statement of the driver. If the stop occurs in an incorporated city, or in an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited (which is nearly all of the state), the officer has the right to inspect firearms to determine if they are loaded. The law allows LEOs to search vehicles (without a warrant, and without consent) where there is probable cause to believe contraband is in the vehicle. A lawfully possessed weapon is not contraband, but California courts have allowed officers to search for firearms, for the purpose of inspection, under the same conditions. The net effect of "I have nothing illegal in the car" is that you just gave the LEO a "fishing license" to conduct a lawful search. Isn't that what you were attempting to avoid in the first place?

If you do answer "yes", then the officer has the same right to conduct an inspection to determine if they are loaded. Don't expect that to automatically happen. Officers generally do traffic stops for one of two reasons: 1) They're performing traffic duties, in which case they want to maximize the number of citations written, or 2) They're looking for criminals to place into jail. If your weapon is lawfully possessed, and there is not indication of deceit in your statement, and no other suggestion of criminality, it's pretty much a waste of my time to search. Additionally, there's kinda an unwritten code that we want to promote candor of the folks we interact with.

If for some reason, you just can't muster an honest reply, then the best thing to say is "Officer, no disrespect intended, but I'm declining to answer. Is there any law that compels me to?" This will avoid the whole "adoptive admissions" issue and will keep you on the best possible terms with the LEO. At the same time, it will prompt the officer to respond that there is no law compelling a reply. There are a few things we can compel a driver to do, but discussing guns with us isn't one of them.

Of course, always make sure your weapons are lawfully possessed and lawfully carried. If you do wind up being improperly arrested by a "one percenter" LEO, you'll want to create the most accurate record for your attorney to deal with. It happens, but happens very rarely.

Thanks Rick. This has worked for me well twice. Carry guns IAW CA law and obey the traffic laws and you have nothing to worry about, IMHO.

Tincon
09-01-2014, 11:29 AM
Thanks Rick. This has worked for me well twice. Carry guns IAW CA law and obey the traffic laws and you have nothing to worry about, IMHO.

Because CA law is so totally clear right?

You have to carry handguns in a secure container, but how secure does it need to be? Is the trunk secure if it has a pass through (which most cars do)? Is a container which is secured to the car a secure container (legal) or a utility compartment (illegal?) Wait, are you in a school zone? YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!

You can't receive or import a large capacity magazine (capable of feeding more than 10 rounds), but what does that mean? If your new 10 round .40 Glock magazine holds 12 9mm rounds, and fits in your 9mm Glock, does that mean you illegally acquired a large capacity magazine? What about a 10 round Beowulf magazine that accepts 30 5.56 rounds? What if all you have is a spring? Is that a "conversion kit?

What if you have a brace that attaches to your gun, or a drop in trigger that has a shorter reset? Are these illegal SBR and machine-gun components?

I could go on and on. The wood in that fancy grip you bought might be from some endangered tree somewhere and evidence of a felony (Lacey Act).

Point is, you can't possibly know all the laws and their potential applications. NO ONE CAN. Go to your local law library and look at the stacks. Most of that could apply to you.

This is why every attorney in America will tell you to SHUT UP and ask for your lawyer, and refuse any searches.

Maestro Pistolero
09-01-2014, 11:56 AM
I tend to agree to the idea of answering no questions. I also think it is critical to the outcome of the interaction with the LEO that the citizen remain calm, as pleasant as possible but asserts his rights in a direct, but non-confrontational manner as possible.

After or during lic/reg/ins, reason for the stop, etc:

"Do you have any guns in the car?"

"With much respect, sir, I'm going to decline to answer that".

"How come?"

"I know you are doing a tough job, and I am not going to be difficult, but I am bit of a civil rights advocate, and I'm going to assert my right decline answering any questions unrelated to the reason you pulled me over in the first place."

"Where are you headed?"

"And that's a perfect example of the kind of question I am declining to answer."

And yes, I fully anticipate being cited for whatever infraction caused the stop in the first place.

Doheny
09-01-2014, 1:03 PM
It was so nice that this thread had been dead for over two months before someone had to revive it.

.

Coldmonster
09-03-2014, 12:17 PM
For the 7 years I've been driving I've been pulled over twice. Once for my stereo being way to loud and the other time just for looking suspicious. Both times I was polite to the officer, first time he asked if I new why he pulled my over and I said was it my stereo? He simply stated that was one thing he noticed. Gave me a warning and sent me on my way. Second time my truck was parked at a small town high school while I went with my cousin to colusa. When I got back at 1 am the cop saw me leave so pulled me over to inspect for stolen property. I was polite he asked me a few questions talked about my truck a little bit and sent me on my way. Neither time I was asked for weapons or treated like a criminal. So I personally think if they are asking you that question and you have to come up with a quick answer to get around it you are doing somthing wrong.

Even when my wife got pulled over and opened up the wrong compartment in the overhead consol showing my knife tucked away the officer simply made a quick comment on it she just said I put it there in case we ever need it for somthing. And he went on with the traffic stop and gave her a warning.

feshar
09-07-2014, 9:55 PM
For the 7 years I've been driving I've been pulled over twice. Once for my stereo being way to loud and the other time just for looking suspicious. Both times I was polite to the officer, first time he asked if I new why he pulled my over and I said was it my stereo? He simply stated that was one thing he noticed. Gave me a warning and sent me on my way. Second time my truck was parked at a small town high school while I went with my cousin to colusa. When I got back at 1 am the cop saw me leave so pulled me over to inspect for stolen property. I was polite he asked me a few questions talked about my truck a little bit and sent me on my way. Neither time I was asked for weapons or treated like a criminal. So I personally think if they are asking you that question and you have to come up with a quick answer to get around it you are doing somthing wrong.

Even when my wife got pulled over and opened up the wrong compartment in the overhead consol showing my knife tucked away the officer simply made a quick comment on it she just said I put it there in case we ever need it for somthing. And he went on with the traffic stop and gave her a warning.
attitude is key, Ive had more than my share of interactions with LEO from East to West and I think if your polite then you normally are on your way, personally if I was asked if I have any weapons and I did, I would explain what it is and where it is.

hedemark20
09-10-2014, 8:12 PM
In over 25 years of driving I have been pulled over at least 50 times (I had some serious lead foot tendencies when I was younger, lol.) During the course of these numerous traffic stops, not one single solitary time did any officer (CHP, local PD, or Sheriff Deputy) EVER ask me if there were any firearms in my vehicle. Unless your vehicle is plastered with 2A decals, Sig/Glock/S&W stickers, or something similar it is EXTREMELY unlikely you will be asked that. The only reason I can conceive of that you would be asked that is if you are a CCW holder, in which case you're G2G having a weapon loaded & ready to rock anyway. I wholeheartedly believe this question & all of the legalese answers is much ado about nothing.

Ninety
09-29-2014, 11:05 AM
In over 25 years of driving I have been pulled over at least 50 times (I had some serious lead foot tendencies when I was younger, lol.) During the course of these numerous traffic stops, not one single solitary time did any officer (CHP, local PD, or Sheriff Deputy) EVER ask me if there were any firearms in my vehicle. Unless your vehicle is plastered with 2A decals, Sig/Glock/S&W stickers, or something similar it is EXTREMELY unlikely you will be asked that. The only reason I can conceive of that you would be asked that is if you are a CCW holder, in which case you're G2G having a weapon loaded & ready to rock anyway. I wholeheartedly believe this question & all of the legalese answers is much ado about nothing.
When was the last time you were pulled over?

Unfortunately there have been numerous threads created and posts made about officers returning to the vehicle and inquiring whether or not the person had their such and such gun on them or in their vehicle b/c the officer ran an apps check on the person and it came back as an owner of firearms.

I have been asked 4 or 5 times if I've had firearms in the vehicle , sometimes its a serious question sometimes its a "do you have any weapons rocket launchers grenades or any other sort of weapons I need to be worried about? " I've been asked by a game warden while out 4 wheeling with a spot light if we had firearms.. I think to make sure we weren't spotlight hunting..

so the question does in deed get asked.. the fact that officers are checking if the person they pulled over owns firearms is concerning to me as well.

I think the best answer is "Sorry officer but I don't discuss the contents of my vehicle " or a "Sorry officer but I'd prefer not to answer any questions that don't pertain to the reason you stopped me."

Go watch the video . Police are law enforcers. Not your friends. If you aren't in control of your vehicle 100% of the time 365 days a year from the moment you bought the thing... then you can never be sure of what is inside of it. Unless of course you have a very very clean car and perform a thorough search of it every time you re enter it after taking your eyes off of it.

I do like Rick's turn around onto the officer asking him if there is any law that compels one to participate in the fishing excursion .. Respectful assertion of ones rights should never make an officer who swore to protect those rights upset. If it does.. maybe he is one of the "1 Percent" Which in CA is probably more like %20

msgt46270
09-29-2014, 1:36 PM
Agree or disagree, I'm just passing on what he said, so don't beat up on me.

I just asked this question to my friend who is a retired sheriff (Calif). His reply was if you do have weapons in your car to answer “Yes”, if you don’t then “No”. If you do, then he’ll want to make sure you’re following the laws on transporting, run the SN, and just make sure everything is okay and that if it is you’ll be on your way. By letting him know you have it and you did something wrong, like having it loaded, it’s a misdemeanor, but if you told him “No” and he found it, then it becomes a felony, plus lying to a cop.
He said if you answer with anything other than yes or no, you’re just making things worst for yourself and you just gave the cop a reason to look and ask more questions.

geeknow
09-29-2014, 1:42 PM
^^ hogwash ^^

Decoligny
09-29-2014, 2:01 PM
Agree or disagree, I'm just passing on what he said, so don't beat up on me.

I just asked this question to my friend who is a retired sheriff (Calif). His reply was if you do have weapons in your car to answer “Yes”, if you don’t then “No”. If you do, then he’ll want to make sure you’re following the laws on transporting, run the SN, and just make sure everything is okay and that if it is you’ll be on your way. By letting him know you have it and you did something wrong, like having it loaded, it’s a misdemeanor, but if you told him “No” and he found it, then it becomes a felony, plus lying to a cop.
He said if you answer with anything other than yes or no, you’re just making things worst for yourself and you just gave the cop a reason to look and ask more questions.

Your friend is full of Bovine Excement.

Simply stating that you will not answer any questions may spark your friends interest, and might make him want to look more closely, but it doesn't give him the authority to do anything but look from outside the vehicle. It definitely does not give him authority to do an actual search of the vehicle. As far as asking more questions, what good will that do him.

Q "Do you have any guns in the car?"
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

Q "Are you hiding something?'
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

Q "Why won't you answer any of my questions?"
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

Q "Are you mocking me?"
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

meno377
09-30-2014, 3:41 AM
Your friend is full of Bovine Excement.

Simply stating that you will not answer any questions may spark your friends interest, and might make him want to look more closely, but it doesn't give him the authority to do anything but look from outside the vehicle. It definitely does not give him authority to do an actual search of the vehicle. As far as asking more questions, what good will that do him.

Q "Do you have any guns in the car?"
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

Q "Are you hiding something?'
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

Q "Why won't you answer any of my questions?"
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

Q "Are you mocking me?"
A "I decline to answer any question not related to the reason you stopped me."

And then they will come up with probable cause and search anyways. So with that in mind, what's the point of declining to answer?

datary
10-01-2014, 10:01 PM
And then they will come up with probable cause and search anyways. So with that in mind, what's the point of declining to answer?

Being a relatively new gun owner, I'm asking myself the same sorts of questions... what do I stand to gain by declining to answer... what do I stand to lose by answering?

....

I would suppose that declining to answer would be in an effort to avoid a warrantless search/inspection... which could ultimately result in an arrest.

I'm trying very hard to know and follow the law... especially as it relates to firearms. Is it possible that I could be unaware of some new or obscure case law that could get me into trouble? Sure. Could I make a mistake and accidentally have done something illegal? Sure. Is it possible that an uninformed officer could arrest me, even though I'm following the law? Based on stories I've read so far, yes.

So, why would I answer a question, that I'm not required to answer... just to invite a search... a search whose only purpose is to figure out if I am arrestable?

Considering that much of my firearm transport is likely to be while I am on foot, on a bike, or on public transit... will volunteering information about the presence of a firearm invite other questions? Such as... where I'm coming from, where I'm going to, whether I stopped along the way... all of which could be obligatory to answer in order to avoid an arrest.

If an officer develops probable cause to search me, fine. But at least the officer will have the added burden of articulating their probable cause in their report, and defending it in court.

....

On the other hand... what do I stand to gain by answering? Assuming I am following all laws, and the officer agrees... it might make the interaction with the officer shorter in duration. It might make it more friendly or comfortable. But if I get arrested, I will waste a lot of time... I will be very uncomfortable... and I will risk other associated problems (job problems, financial burden, hit to reputation, removal of gun rights, etc.).

....

I'm still trying to figure this question out for myself, and admittedly, I may be wrong on some of the stuff above. Still unanswered for me is whether "declining to answer" can constitute a violation of 25850(b)... refusing to allow inspection of a firearm.

The best advice I've found so far is to do everything I can to avoid these sorts of encounters/questions from coming up in the first place.

meno377
10-03-2014, 1:52 PM
Being a relatively new gun owner, I'm asking myself the same sorts of questions... what do I stand to gain by declining to answer... what do I stand to lose by answering?

....

I would suppose that declining to answer would be in an effort to avoid a warrantless search/inspection... which could ultimately result in an arrest.

I'm trying very hard to know and follow the law... especially as it relates to firearms. Is it possible that I could be unaware of some new or obscure case law that could get me into trouble? Sure. Could I make a mistake and accidentally have done something illegal? Sure. Is it possible that an uninformed officer could arrest me, even though I'm following the law? Based on stories I've read so far, yes.

So, why would I answer a question, that I'm not required to answer... just to invite a search... a search whose only purpose is to figure out if I am arrestable?

Considering that much of my firearm transport is likely to be while I am on foot, on a bike, or on public transit... will volunteering information about the presence of a firearm invite other questions? Such as... where I'm coming from, where I'm going to, whether I stopped along the way... all of which could be obligatory to answer in order to avoid an arrest.

If an officer develops probable cause to search me, fine. But at least the officer will have the added burden of articulating their probable cause in their report, and defending it in court.

....

On the other hand... what do I stand to gain by answering? Assuming I am following all laws, and the officer agrees... it might make the interaction with the officer shorter in duration. It might make it more friendly or comfortable. But if I get arrested, I will waste a lot of time... I will be very uncomfortable... and I will risk other associated problems (job problems, financial burden, hit to reputation, removal of gun rights, etc.).

....

I'm still trying to figure this question out for myself, and admittedly, I may be wrong on some of the stuff above. Still unanswered for me is whether "declining to answer" can constitute a violation of 25850(b)... refusing to allow inspection of a firearm.

The best advice I've found so far is to do everything I can to avoid these sorts of encounters/questions from coming up in the first place.

I agree with the immediate statement above in bold. Obviously any of us would probably want to avoid any type of confrontation whether it's a traffic stop or other. My experience comes from the opinion of a good friend who is a LEO and has been for more than 25 years. He basically said to answer the questions truthfully and don't evade or become resistant during that stop. All of us have different opinions just like all of have *%*holes. ;)

Librarian
10-05-2014, 11:22 AM
Another viewpoint from a self-defense specialist lawyer:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/debunking-dont-talk-to-police/
Some of you may be familiar with a popular Youtube video entitled “Don’t talk to police.” And by popular, I mean POPULAR; it’s had over 4 million views.

In that video a lawyer makes an energetic argument that you should never talk to the police under any circumstances, ever.

It’s long been my position that this is excellent advice for actual criminals who have caught the attention of the police, but is less suited to those engaging in lawful self-defense.His video lecture, embedded at the link, is an hour long ...

Cliffyg123
10-11-2014, 11:12 PM
I live in Fontana CA, I've lived in San Bernardino, riverside, rancho cucamonga etc. Been stopped several times as I drive for a living, been through several checkpoints. Never once have I felt violated or taken advantage of. I shot a dog with the same 30.06 I have for sale on this forum, I called 911 to report shots fired, a depute showed up, told me I had a nice gun and did the right thing then cited my neighbor and had animal control retrieve the surviving dog from the attack that ran when I killed its buddy. Cops are not your enemy. At least in every instance I've had with them in CA. A law abiding legal gun owner doesn't have jack **** to worry about with the cops.

Tincon
10-11-2014, 11:52 PM
I live in Fontana CA, I've lived in San Bernardino, riverside, rancho cucamonga etc. Been stopped several times as I drive for a living, been through several checkpoints. Never once have I felt violated or taken advantage of. I shot a dog with the same 30.06 I have for sale on this forum, I called 911 to report shots fired, a depute showed up, told me I had a nice gun and did the right thing then cited my neighbor and had animal control retrieve the surviving dog from the attack that ran when I killed its buddy. Cops are not your enemy. At least in every instance I've had with them in CA. A law abiding legal gun owner doesn't have jack **** to worry about with the cops.

I see your anecdote and raise you this video:
08fU4_hY-pc

Not every cop is an "enemy" but some certainly are. Don't take chances, don't waive your rights.

meno377
10-12-2014, 12:05 AM
I live in Fontana CA, I've lived in San Bernardino, riverside, rancho cucamonga etc. Been stopped several times as I drive for a living, been through several checkpoints. Never once have I felt violated or taken advantage of. I shot a dog with the same 30.06 I have for sale on this forum, I called 911 to report shots fired, a depute showed up, told me I had a nice gun and did the right thing then cited my neighbor and had animal control retrieve the surviving dog from the attack that ran when I killed its buddy. Cops are not your enemy. At least in every instance I've had with them in CA. A law abiding legal gun owner doesn't have jack **** to worry about with the cops.

+1000

Tincon
10-12-2014, 11:48 PM
A great story about a guy who was doing "nothing wrong" and decided to be honest: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/10/nyc-gravity-knife-law-arrests.php

meno377
10-13-2014, 1:14 AM
A great story about a guy who was doing "nothing wrong" and decided to be honest: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/10/nyc-gravity-knife-law-arrests.php

There will always be exceptions to the norm. That's why something like this makes it to the media. It's an exception. :facepalm:

Sniper3142
10-13-2014, 7:32 AM
I'm still AMAZED that folks just don't get this. :(

If a Cop asks to see what's in your vehicle, bag, pack, or case; they are LOOKING for something to charge or arrest you for! They are not checking out the clean carpet & interior of your vehicle. They are not looking to see how great a job you did organizing your bag or pack. They are not looking to see how awesomely clean you keep your vehicles trunk.

If your firearm is being transported Legally (has it should be) then you should have nothing to fear from telling a cop about it. But in reality, there are cops that DO NOT actually Know the Law (seems that for Cops, ignorance IS an excuse). So what is actually Legal (like having a loaded magazine in the same locked case as a firearm) might get you arrested.

SO WHY RISK THIS BY VOLUNTEERING INFORMATION?!?

Every time an officer asks to look into a container or object, they are looking for a violation of the law or an illegal object (other then a persons clothing or what they are wearing... those searches actually usually are for officer safety).

So unless you want to help the officer go fishing for something illegal with which to charge you with... JUST SAY NO. Do not volunteer information or allow any searches you don't have to.

Tincon
10-13-2014, 9:51 AM
There will always be exceptions to the norm. That's why something like this makes it to the media. It's an exception. :facepalm:

It's funny, all those "exceptions" sure do keep a lot of lawyers in business. I've seen hundreds of people go to jail and get convicted because they decided to "be helpful," both working the defense side and during my time as a cop. Your point of view is hopelessly naive.

meno377
10-13-2014, 9:56 AM
It's funny, all those "exceptions" sure do keep a lot of lawyers in business. I've seen hundreds of people go to jail and get convicted because they decided to "be helpful," both working the defense side and during my time as a cop. Your point of view is hopelessly naive.

It's funny that I never said "be helpful" those are your words, not mine. And the fact stands that the article is an exception.

Tincon
10-13-2014, 10:27 AM
It's funny that I never said "be helpful" those are your words, not mine.

Again, as a former cop and as someone who has worked the defense side, being helpful the prosecution is exactly what you are doing when you waive all your rights.

And the fact stands that the article is an exception.

Is that based on research, your personal experience, or is it just your general happy feelings about the universe?

meno377
10-13-2014, 10:34 AM
Again, as a former cop and as someone who has worked the defense side, being helpful the prosecution is exactly what you are doing when you waive all your rights.



Is that based on research, your personal experience, or is it just your general happy feelings about the universe?

Where did I say in my replies on this thread to "waive all your rights?

And to your question, neither.

SVT-40
10-13-2014, 10:36 AM
Not every cop is an "enemy" but some certainly are. Don't take chances, don't waive your rights.

Turn that around... and how does it sound???



"Not every gun owner is an "enemy" but some certainly are. Don't take chances. ;)

Tincon
10-13-2014, 10:41 AM
Turn that around... and how does it sound???

"Not every gun owner is an "enemy" but some certainly are. Don't take chances. ;)

Sounds fine. The difference is, the detainee has the option of waiving his rights or not, you don't have the option of violating them. If you can't do your job without violating the rights of citizens, find another job.

Tincon
10-13-2014, 10:41 AM
It's funny that I never said "be helpful" those are your words, not mine. And the fact stands that the article is an exception.

Another "exception": http://benswann.com/exclusive-air-force-veteran-and-firearms-expert-convicted-of-manufacturing-weapons-speaks-out/

Tincon
10-13-2014, 10:44 AM
Yet another "exception": http://www.republicmagazine.com/videos/zachary-king-beating-in-minneapolis-innocent-man-assaulted-arrested-by-police-mob-for-legally-carrying-a-firearm.html

I could post these all day, but I guess you will just say they are all "exceptions." Since I don't know if I'm dealing with an "exceptional" officer or not when I get pulled over, I think I'll continue to reserve all my rights.

taperxz
10-13-2014, 10:58 AM
For all those out there that WANT to be helpful with LE, the next time an LEO pulls you over with your wife or girlfriend and asks you if her breasts are real or implants, go ahead and be helpful and let him check em out. You really want that officer to know don't you?

meno377
10-13-2014, 11:01 AM
Another "exception": http://benswann.com/exclusive-air-force-veteran-and-firearms-expert-convicted-of-manufacturing-weapons-speaks-out/

You're comparing a decorated Air Force veteran with at least a $120,000 budget per year for purchasing firearms and other related equipment to the general public? LOL I will bet he was under the radar the whole time considering what his profession was and purchasing all the civilian equipment used for his teachings. LOL Yea your average person has a budget of $120,000 and is able to access parts to "modify an AR-15 platform rifle to replace the outdated MP-5 sub-machine guns that protective service officers currently use in the field." LOL :rofl2:

Definitely an exception. LOL

meno377
10-13-2014, 11:11 AM
Yet another "exception": http://www.republicmagazine.com/videos/zachary-king-beating-in-minneapolis-innocent-man-assaulted-arrested-by-police-mob-for-legally-carrying-a-firearm.html

I could post these all day, but I guess you will just say they are all "exceptions." Since I don't know if I'm dealing with an "exceptional" officer or not when I get pulled over, I think I'll continue to reserve all my rights.

Yes and this one probably has "baited" officers in the past and he is probably well known throughout the local LE agencies.

Sniper3142
10-13-2014, 11:25 AM
Yes and this one probably has "baited" officers in the past and he is probably well known.

And you come to that conclusion HOW?!?

Oh... that's right. He's a person who isn't a cop. He's also seen and recorded what he believed was past LEO misconduct. So he must have somehow "baited" or brought on this attack by LEOs by doing something wrong.

:rolleyes:

Keep on holding that "Thin Blue Line".

thomashoward
10-13-2014, 11:34 AM
Don't be cute. Answer questions honestly. Don't volunteer anything. If they want to see them they will ask

meno377
10-13-2014, 11:38 AM
And you come to that conclusion HOW?!?

Oh... that's right. He's a person who isn't a cop. He's also seen and recorded what he believed was past LEO misconduct. So he must have somehow "baited" or brought on this attack by LEOs by doing something wrong.

:rolleyes:

Keep on holding that "Thin Blue Line".

He has videotaped events in the past dealing with officers according to the article. And I said "probably" not "absolutely" :facepalm:

meno377
10-13-2014, 11:44 AM
Don't be cute. Answer questions honestly. Don't volunteer anything. If they want to see them they will ask

^^^ This is much more balanced.

meno377
10-13-2014, 11:54 AM
And you come to that conclusion HOW?!?

Oh... that's right. He's a person who isn't a cop. He's also seen and recorded what he believed was past LEO misconduct. So he must have somehow "baited" or brought on this attack by LEOs by doing something wrong.

:rolleyes:

Keep on holding that "Thin Blue Line".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfLwdyMbSHE

You provided this video in another thread asking/or claiming the cops are being out of line. This video is fake and this "innocent" person taping this incident isn't baiting the detective in the car with the mirror she hit?

I compare this because there are more people doing this and posting their videos on Youtube.

Tincon
10-13-2014, 11:55 AM
You're comparing a decorated Air Force veteran with at least a $120,000 budget per year for purchasing firearms and other rated equipment to the general public? LOL I will bet he was under the radar the whole time considering what his profession was and purchasing all the civilian equipment used for his teachings. LOL Yea your average person has a budget of $120,000 and is able to access parts to "modify an AR-15 platform rifle to replace the outdated MP-5 sub-machine guns that protective service officers currently use in the field." LOL :rofl2:

Definitely an exception. LOL

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, or what his office budget has to do with how he was railroaded by LE trying to make their bones on him.

Don't be cute. Answer questions honestly. Don't volunteer anything. If they want to see them they will ask

The problem is, if you tell them you have guns in the car, the current law says they have the authority to "inspect" them. Essentially that means they are going to search your car. That can lead to all sorts of problems, even if you are sure you are following the law.

meno377
10-13-2014, 11:57 AM
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, or what his office budget has to do with how he was railroaded by LE trying to make their bones on him.



The problem is, if you tell them you have guns in the car, the current law says they have the authority to "inspect" them. Essentially that means they are going to search your car. That can lead to all sorts of problems, even if you are sure you are following the law.

You know what my point is.

Tincon
10-13-2014, 11:58 AM
Yes and this one probably has "baited" officers in the past and he is probably well known throughout the local LE agencies.

Well hell, if he baited them (whatever that means) then I guess they were perfectly justified in beating the hell out of him for exercising his lawful rights. :rolleyes:

I'm starting to think people this statist are going to get exactly what they deserve when the attention of these nice officers turns on them.

Tincon
10-13-2014, 11:59 AM
You know what my point is.

No I don't, that's why I said as much. Do your delusions now extend to you thinking you know my mind better than I do?

This guy was more than just a decorated vet, he was a retired federal investigator with 20 years of meritorious service. And they convicted him of felonies for helping friends and families complete builds. And they used his own statements to investigators (of his own former agency) against him. If they are willing to do that to him, what on earth makes you think they are going to give YOU a pass?

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:00 PM
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, or what his office budget has to do with how he was railroaded by LE trying to make their bones on him.



The problem is, if you tell them you have guns in the car, the current law says they have the authority to "inspect" them. Essentially that means they are going to search your car. That can lead to all sorts of problems, even if you are sure you are following the law.

Referring to what is in bold text. That is your opinion. This doesn't happen every time.

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:01 PM
No I don't, that's why I said as much. Do your delusions now extend to you thinking you know my mind better than I do?

I haven't gone off my original debate here with the recent posts. Get over yourself.

Hoshnasi
10-13-2014, 12:06 PM
Referring to what is in bold text. That is your opinion. This doesn't happen every time.

How do you provide the firearm to the officer without allowing them to collect it? Assuming its in the trunk, they're not going to let you hand it to them.. You probably will be asked to remain a good distance away as well.

This then leads to other issues, like the whole logged magazine in the same locked container. Is it legal, yes. Do all the cops know this and treat it that way? Hardly.

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:09 PM
Well hell, if he baited them (whatever that means) then I guess they were perfectly justified in beating the hell out of him for exercising his lawful rights. :rolleyes:

I'm starting to think people this statist are going to get exactly what they deserve when the attention of these nice officers turns on them.

Regarding what is in bold text. Those are your words and not mine. I would never think like that. That being said there are responsibilities to accept when you provoke potential situations.

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:12 PM
How do you provide the firearm to the officer without allowing them to collect it? Assuming its in the trunk, they're not going to let you hand it to them.. You probably will be asked to remain a good distance away as well.

This then leads to other issues, like the whole logged magazine in the same locked container. Is it legal, yes. Do all the cops know this and treat it that way? Hardly.

If that's how you carry yours then yes it can happen. But I don't carry that way and again it doesn't happen every time. Mine is in a pelican case on the passenger seat. How they access the case is up to them. I have been through this situation and all they did was take my handgun to their unit, probably to verify it wasn't stolen by the serial number and placed it in my bed of my truck. I had to wait until they left and that was it.

Hoshnasi
10-13-2014, 12:13 PM
If that's how you carry yours then yes it can happen. But I don't carry that way and again it doesn't happen every time.

How do you carry the gun?

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:17 PM
How do you carry the gun?

Sorry I just added to my last post. It will explain.

Hoshnasi
10-13-2014, 12:21 PM
If that's how you carry yours then yes it can happen. But I don't carry that way and again it doesn't happen every time. Mine is in a pelican case on the passenger seat. How they access the case is up to them. I have been through this situation and all they did was take my handgun to their unit, probably to verify it wasn't stolen by the serial number and placed it in my bed of my truck. I had to wait until they left and that was it.

Sorry I just added to my last post. It will explain.

Initially that sounds completely reasonable. Is it a locked case? Do you have loaded magazines in the case before and after the trip to the range?

With that said, you've elected to place the case in view of the officers. Anything within eye-shot of an officer can be used as probable cause to the search the vehicle. I wouldn't ever transport firearms that way.

How do you transport long guns?

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:27 PM
Initially that sounds completely reasonable. Is it a locked case? Do you have loaded magazines in the case before and after the trip to the range?

With that said, you've elected to place the case in view of the officers. Anything within eye-shot of an officer can be used as probable cause to the search the vehicle. I wouldn't ever transport firearms that way.

How do you transport long guns?

I am okay with because I believe that when they see it, they will want to verify that everything is good to go legal wise and after confirming that, will let me go. I do not carry magazines loaded and they aren't in the same case except for one that is inserted which is empty. I have a pad lock on it.

Long guns are in the 1750 cases. I have several of them. They are angled on the floor pointing up on the passenger side and/or in the bed of the truck.

taperxz
10-13-2014, 12:35 PM
I am okay with because I believe that when they see it, they will want to verify that everything is good to go legal wise and after confirming that, will let me go. I do not carry magazines loaded and they aren't in the same case except for one that is inserted which is empty. I have a pad lock on it.

Long guns are in the 1750 cases. I have several of them. They are angled on the floor pointing up on the passenger side and/or in the bed of the truck.

I love it when people rely on the honesty and integrity of government and its employees to dictate how I carry on with my constitutional right.

Didn't they just release an older lady from prison after 17 years today for something she never did wrong?

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:42 PM
I love it when people rely on the honesty and integrity of government and its employees to dictate how I carry on with my constitutional right.

Didn't they just release an older lady from prison after 17 years today for something she never did wrong?

LOL I am just following the laws of how to legally carry in a vehicle and sharing an opinion. :rolleyes:

Hoshnasi
10-13-2014, 12:46 PM
I am okay with because I believe that when they see it, they will want to verify that everything is good to go legal wise and after confirming that, will let me go. I do not carry magazines loaded and they aren't in the same case except for one that is inserted which is empty. I have a pad lock on it.

Long guns are in the 1750 cases. I have several of them. They are angled on the floor pointing up on the passenger side and/or in the bed of the truck.

Very Blanche DuBois of you. I don't in any way agree with your mindset, but your point is clear. Myself, locked pistol case under my seat and range bag locked in the trunk with loaded mags. I always say "no". When asked about weapons.

I don't say "Nothing illegal". I just say "no". I am not under oath and have no reason to waste my time as someone checks my guns for me. I'm a free man and don't need an adult to prove my guns are safe. I'll take the responsibility myself.

Hoshnasi
10-13-2014, 12:49 PM
LOL I am just following the laws of how to legally carry in a vehicle and sharing an opinion. :rolleyes:

I'd say you're putting your transport of firearms WAY OUT on front street. Would you go have some lunch in a restaurant with your guns left like that?

The point is that most people use the trunk, the guns are out of view for numerous reasons.

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:55 PM
Very Blanche DuBois of you. I don't in any way agree with your mindset, but your point is clear. Myself, locked pistol case under my seat and range bag locked in the trunk with loaded mags. I always say "no". When asked about weapons.

I don't say "Nothing illegal". I just say "no". I am not under oath and have no reason to waste my time as someone checks my guns for me. I'm a free man and don't need an adult to prove my guns are safe. I'll take the responsibility myself.

Well I appreciate it and also appreciate someone like you who we can clearly agree to disagree and not get bent out of shape because we have different opinions. I honestly laugh at some users here who think their opinions are right and because I don't agree, tell me that I have delusions and that I think I can read their mind better than they can. Give me a break. I have always just expressed my opinions. Nothing more.

taperxz
10-13-2014, 12:56 PM
LOL I am just following the laws of how to legally carry in a vehicle and sharing an opinion. :rolleyes:

Your method may be legal or even to legal.

Your display of the cases is assinine (for theft reasons) and your willingness to share your personal property with LE does LE no good or you any good. Nothing good comes from sharing information with LE in this situation. NOTHING.

meno377
10-13-2014, 12:58 PM
I'd say you're putting your transport of firearms WAY OUT on front street. Would you go have some lunch in a restaurant with your guns left like that?

The point is that most people use the trunk, the guns are out of view for numerous reasons.

Since I use a truck, obviously no trunk. I am going to get a new car soon and will certainly entertain that. I have left the cases in the truck while shopping for a minute or so but I never leave the truck for a long period of time. Being in San Diego, I feel it's a little more relaxed than LA. Just saying.

taperxz
10-13-2014, 1:00 PM
Well I appreciate it and also appreciate someone like you who we can clearly agree to disagree and not get bent out of shape because we have different opinions. I honestly laugh at some users here who think their opinions are right and because I don't agree, tell me that I have delusions and that I think I can read their mind better than they can. Give me a break. I have always just expressed my opinions. Nothing more.

I carry concealed with a permit. My issuing sheriff told us that there was no reason to share with LE that i am locked and loaded during a traffic stop or any casual encounter with LE.

There is no need to bring up my carry status unless there is cause for concern in certain situations where it might be important.

Hoshnasi
10-13-2014, 1:01 PM
Since I use a truck, obviously no trunk. I am going to get a new car soon and will certainly entertain that. I have left the cases in the truck while shopping for a minute or so but I never leave the truck for a long period of time. Being in San Diego, I feel it's a little more relaxed than LA. Just saying.

Having a single cab truck, your options are limited.

I'm in Cerritos, Ca. which is on the southern boundary of LA/OC county. Much like SD County, LA county is full of very diverse areas. Very little crime in my area.

meno377
10-13-2014, 1:03 PM
Your method may be legal or even to legal.

Your display of the cases is assinine (for theft reasons) and your willingness to share your personal property with LE does LE no good or you any good. Nothing good comes from sharing information with LE in this situation. NOTHING.

Why are you putting words into the debate that I never said. I am not motivated to share my personal property but if asked while I was pulled over, I'm not going to lie, evade, or take a stand exercising my rights on the side of the road. I will deal with that in court. If you don't like or disagree, fine. That's the way I roll. :oji:

meno377
10-13-2014, 1:07 PM
I carry concealed with a permit. My issuing sheriff told us that there was no reason to share with LE that i am locked and loaded during a traffic stop or any casual encounter with LE.

There is no need to bring up my carry status unless there is cause for concern in certain situations where it might be important.

Yea and according to your info, you live in the lake county area which is not as populated as LA or SD. And apparently your agency doesn't require you to disclose CCW. Carrying concealed carry and having firearms in the vehicle with locked cases are not equal. Population of San Diego County as of 2013 was 3,211,252. Population of Lake County as of 2013 was 63,860, so do you think they compare on a fair basis? :facepalm:

CAguy
10-13-2014, 1:48 PM
I'd say you're putting your transport of firearms WAY OUT on front street. Would you go have some lunch in a restaurant with your guns left like that?

The point is that most people use the trunk, the guns are out of view for numerous reasons.

I wouldn't waste anymore time with this guy. Give it some time. He'll come to see the error in his way one day. You play with fire long enough and you will get burned. He'll come to realize that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is BS.

CAguy
10-13-2014, 1:58 PM
Meno might want to read this thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=992788

meno377
10-13-2014, 2:10 PM
Meno might want to read this thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=992788

I already read it and wouldn't put myself in the same situation.

taperxz
10-13-2014, 3:01 PM
Yea and according to your info, you live in the lake county area which is not as populated as LA or SD. And apparently your agency doesn't require you to disclose CCW. Carrying concealed carry and having firearms in the vehicle with locked cases are not equal. Population of San Diego County as of 2013 was 3,211,252. Population of Lake County as of 2013 was 63,860, so do you think they compare on a fair basis? :facepalm:

Your ignorance and life experience run real short here don't they?

CCW laws and transport laws run state wide. My concealed carry weapon has accompanied me all over this state including but not limited to San Francisco, LA and San Diego. Where you live and where you carry has nothing to do with this topic. Not sure why you would think any differently. :facepalm:

Tincon
10-13-2014, 3:10 PM
I already read it and wouldn't put myself in the same situation.

How, exactly? Not drive? Not have legal items in your vehicle?

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:20 PM
Your ignorance and life experience run real short here don't they?

CCW laws and transport laws run state wide. My concealed carry weapon has accompanied me all over this state including but not limited to San Francisco, LA and San Diego. Where you live and where you carry has nothing to do with this topic. Not sure why you would think any differently. :facepalm:

Living in San Diego, CCW's are hard to get at the moment. According to this forum, local agencies may put a condition on your CCW card stating that you must disclose that you are carrying during a stop. Get off your high horse. :oji:

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:23 PM
How, exactly? Not drive? Not have legal items in your vehicle?

I wouldn't carry hi cap mags with me even though they are pre-ban/legal because they can be construed as a nuisance.

Mitch
10-13-2014, 3:26 PM
I wouldn't carry hi cap mags with me even though they are pre-ban/legal because they can be construed as a nuisance.

High caps? I guess you didn't really read that thread.

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:32 PM
That's what Ray taught us in CCW class at UGC

Did they say that SOME agencies can put a condition on your card that you need to disclose that you are carrying?

taperxz
10-13-2014, 3:35 PM
Living in San Diego, CCW's are hard to get at the moment. According to this forum, local agencies may put a condition on your CCW card stating that you must disclose that you are carrying during a stop. Get off your high horse. :oji:

Again, what exactly does state law have to do with the area of the state you live in? What part of, No matter where i hang my hat state law is state law. I have carried in SD i have transported firearms in SD. Due to the nature of that dept. i would especially not disclose anything to them for the very reason you seem to fear.

You should listen to people who know and come out from the rock you hide under.

taperxz
10-13-2014, 3:36 PM
Did they say that SOME agencies can put a condition on your card that you need to disclose that you are carrying?

The sheriff sets the conditions of carry on the back of the license. My says not valid if under the control of drugs or alcohol.

Tincon
10-13-2014, 3:40 PM
I wouldn't carry hi cap mags with me even though they are pre-ban/legal because they can be construed as a nuisance.

That was not really the issue in that case, but note that the officer thought Saiga 12s were illegal as well. The point is ANYTHING could be "construed as a nuisance" by a cop who is ignorant of the law he is trying to enforce. You don't know what is going to be "construed" as illegal.

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:43 PM
Again, what exactly does state law have to do with the area of the state you live in? What part of, No matter where i hang my hat state law is state law. I have carried in SD i have transported firearms in SD. Due to the nature of that dept. i would especially not disclose anything to them for the very reason you seem to fear.

You should listen to people who know and come out from the rock you hide under.

I will ask you this. On your ccw card, is there a "condition" that says you need to disclose that you are carrying to an LEO in the area of (fill in the blank)?

taperxz
10-13-2014, 3:45 PM
I will ask you this. On your ccw card, is there a "condition" that says you need to disclose that you are carrying to an LEO in the area of (fill in the blank)?

No.

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:45 PM
Some counties May put a condition. Mine (SCSO) has alcohol restrictions only

Sorry for the bad grammer. LOL But to the point some agencies MAY put a condition on the card which doesn't reflect the whole state?

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:46 PM
No.

Others on this forum have said otherwise to their card.

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:50 PM
That was not really the issue in that case, but note that the officer thought Saiga 12s were illegal as well. The point is ANYTHING could be "construed as a nuisance" by a cop who is ignorant of the law he is trying to enforce. You don't know what is going to be "construed" as illegal.

That's a fair statement. I know it was a traffic offense (crossing over a median) and the officer stopped his truck instead of the other one.

In general, my point was not to push the envelope and regardless of what kind of stop, I wouldn't carry Hi-Cap magazines or kits under any condition.

taperxz
10-13-2014, 3:51 PM
Others on this forum have said otherwise to their card.

So?

I just told you my sheriff is not an advocate of informing LE about your carry status.

They also mentioned that city cops that are not familiar with gun laws tend make bad arrests when they are informed about your carry status. They have gotten calls from San Francisco on occasion in the past.

Hey its OK though, you just tell the whole world that you're carrying. Have you ever heard of the saying "loose lips sinks ships" ?

LE is the last sector of public safety you should ever volunteer legal information to when i concerns you and your family.

Look what happens to parents of teenagers or young adults that have mental illness and are asked to come to the home. Notice how they got shot instead of help?

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:53 PM
So?

I just told you my sheriff is not an advocate of informing LE about your carry status.

They also mentioned that city cops that are not familiar with gun laws tend make bad arrests when they are informed about your carry status. They have gotten calls from San Francisco on occasion in the past.

Hey its OK though, you just tell the whole world that you're carrying. Have you ever heard of the saying "loose lips sinks ships" ?

LE is the last sector of public safety you should ever volunteer legal information to when i concerns you and your family.

Look what happens to parents of teenagers or young adults that have mental illness and are asked to come to the home. Notice how they got shot instead of help?

Until I get my CCW, the jury is out.

meno377
10-13-2014, 3:54 PM
So?

I just told you my sheriff is not an advocate of informing LE about your carry status.

They also mentioned that city cops that are not familiar with gun laws tend make bad arrests when they are informed about your carry status. They have gotten calls from San Francisco on occasion in the past.

Hey its OK though, you just tell the whole world that you're carrying. Have you ever heard of the saying "loose lips sinks ships" ?

LE is the last sector of public safety you should ever volunteer legal information to when i concerns you and your family.

Look what happens to parents of teenagers or young adults that have mental illness and are asked to come to the home. Notice how they got shot instead of help?

What if the card states that you are required to disclose that you are carrying to your local agency?

Why don't you stop putting words into the debate that YOU claim I would say. Seriously you are making more to this than it needs to be. LOL

taperxz
10-13-2014, 3:55 PM
Until I get my CCW, the jury is out.

Oh, so youre a wanne see for myself guy? Instead listening to those who already know?

Then why even bring your topic here? :facepalm:

taperxz
10-13-2014, 3:59 PM
What if the card states that you are required to disclose that you are carrying to your local agency?

MY local agency will already know i am carrying. They issued the permit. If they don't run my name than there is no reason to be concerned with my status

meno377
10-13-2014, 4:03 PM
Oh, so youre a wanne see for myself guy? Instead listening to those who already know?

Then why even bring your topic here? :facepalm:

Are you serious? YOU are the one that started talking about CCW. I started talking about guns in locked cases.