Originally Posted by Denver
I really do see both sides of this. On the one hand lets say you get pulled over by a guy who is a real hole (you don't know this yet) and he asks you about firearms. In the effort to just be low key you could just say "I do, and they are all legal" you still do not have to consent to search if he asks.
This to me seems much more mellow and likely to make someone predisposed to hair trigger upset to let it pass. On the other hand if you evade the question it is likely to piss him off. Now a pissed off cop with a touch of corruption could be likely to search your vehicle w/o probable cause or consent. Remeber it is just you and him on the side of the road, he could tell the judge whatever he wants to say that he had PC.
You do not know who is pulling you over and it is much better to play the game than to be what appears to him/her as being in contempt of an officer. Notice the italics, I said appears.
The police can do anything they want, it's your word against them and the judge and DA usually side with the police.
Now you could just give them the silent treatment, they could cuff and stuff you, take your OLL and then you could get let go later on and get your OLL back in a couple of months (think beurocracy), but why the hasle when you could just play Mary Poppins for a few minutes.
Just my 0.02
BTW I know some pretty liberal CHP around here so this issue is much more complex than just staying silent.
good point on them saying what they want to a judge. i have personally seen a case and testified where the cop pulled the cop for "inoperable tail light" when asked that that meant he said "did not illuminate." the light was broken but covered by the red tape (completely.)
my testimony and investigators testimony and video tape proved the cop to be full of crap.....the prosecutions jaws hit the floor..but in the end the judge still took the cops word for it. talk about justice.