Consequences to lying about weapons during traffic stop?

[TheKlawMan]

Are there consequences to lying about having a gun in my vehicle during a routine traffic stop, say for speeding? I am concerned about CVC 31 and what it says about orally giving false information during a LEO's performance of his duty?

For example, what if I am going to the range with my 870 in the trunk and I get stopped for doing 45 in a 35. When the officer approaches he asks if there are any weapons in the car. Because I have a barrel just over 18", the overall length is fine, I am worried that the officer may confiscate it so I lie and say I have no guns. I get cited for speeding and am driving off, when my trunk pops open due to a faulty latch. The officer sees the 870 and stops me a second time. This time though he reads me my rights, cuffs me, examines the gun, and takes me into custody along with it. At the scene it looked to him to be under 18". Although the barrel is later measured to be 18.001" and the DA doesn't file for a SBS, can I be prosecuted for a misdemeanor under CVC 31?

TIA for comments.

[Falconis]

doubt it'll happen. get your latch fixed.

The consequences part comes in after you've agreed to talk and you're in deep deep doo doo

Of course lying to anyone pisses em off in general.

[Kilenger]

The standard response to that question to avoid getting into a direct lie is "there is nothing illegal in my vehicle officer." That is a general question they ask to go fishing for contraband and get you to incriminate yourself. Unless you're sweating bullets and acting irrationally, most LEOs will take you at your word that there is nothing in the vehicle and continue to write your citation. If he presses the issue and starts with a "do you mind if I check the vehicle to make sure" for safety or any other reason, your response is "I do not consent to any searches of my property or person officer." Be polite and you should should be fine.

Also get that latch fixed ASAP. That could potentially lead to you transporting illegally since it's no longer a locked container if its open and cannot be locked. It's illegal to transport unloaded long guns outside of a locked container within 1000' of a K-12 school. Also, if the trunk is just open, nothing to stop a LEO from looking inside on his walk up to your vehicle and "noticing" something to start the inquisition.

[knucklehead]

When they ask about weapons. Just tell them. "I have nothing illegal in my car". Considering your guns are all legal. An leave it at that. There's no need to lie.
^^ beat me to it while I was typing.

Sent from your moms bed using tapatalk.

[socal-shooter]

"officer, there is nothing illegal in my car"

[E Pluribus Unum]

Lie your butt off; it's only illegal to lie to an officer when he is investigating a crime. If you lie to him about your speeding, that's illegal. Lying about having weapons in the car, when he is not investigating a weapon crime, is perfectly legal.

If he asks you "are there any firearms in the car" and you try to get clever and say "there is nothing illegal in the car" he's going to know.

IMO it's none of his business whether there's a gun in the car unless he believes he is in danger; I see nothing wrong with lying to protect your personal freedoms.

[IrishPirate]

"There is nothing illegal in my car officer".....

cops know the drill. If they aren't worried about weapons, they'll move on. If they are concerned, they'll probe further. Remember, you don't have to say ANYTHING to cops. If you feel like they are fishing, it's best to inform them that you are going to exercise your right to remain silent, and then do so. Most LEO's aren't out to turn every average joe into a criminal. If you don't want to tell them some trivial information, fine. But remember, courtesy goes a long way. It's a fine line to walk when interacting with an LEO over something illegal you may have done. Just remember that silence is your safety net, and don't be afraid to use it!!!

[TheKlawMan]

in the performance of his duties under the
provisions of this code

[TheKlawMan]

The standard response to that question to avoid getting into a direct lie is "there is nothing illegal in my vehicle officer." That is a general question they ask to go fishing for contraband and get you to incriminate yourself. Unless you're sweating bullets and acting irrationally, most LEOs will take you at your word that there is nothing in the vehicle and continue to write your citation. If he presses the issue and starts with a "do you mind if I check the vehicle to make sure" for safety or any other reason, your response is "I do not consent to any searches of my property or person officer." Be polite and you should should be fine.

Also get that latch fixed ASAP. That could potentially lead to you transporting illegally since it's no longer a locked container if its open and cannot be locked. It's illegal to transport unloaded long guns outside of a locked container within 1000' of a K-12 school. Also, if the trunk is just open, nothing to stop a LEO from looking inside on his walk up to your vehicle and "noticing" something to start the inquisition.

I thought that a shotgun didn't have to be in a locked compartment but simply had to be unloaded, assuming no GBSZ.

[Baconator]

I thought that a shotgun didn't have to be in a locked compartment but simply had to be unloaded, assuming no GBSZ.

That is right, but there is always the likelihood that you are near a school and not realize it.

[TheKlawMan]

That is right, but there is always the likelihood that you are near a school and not realize it.

True, which is what I meant by not being in a Goverment Building School Zone (GBSZ). Still, your suggestioin that we don't always know the area that well and may inadvertently drive into a school zone is worth paying hee.

[BigDogatPlay]

And there is no "inadvertent" defense for GFSZ.... search up Theseus in these forums and see how well it worked out for him.

Speaking solely for myself as a non-lawyer / former LEO, and from having tried to take a reasoned position in the latest thread in the 2A forum, which is where I presume this one originates from, trying to play word games with the police on a simple enforcement stop is 99 times out of 100 only going to make the stop last longer and make it more uncomfortable.

[winnre]

Tell him you have nukes.

[TheKlawMan]

And there is no "inadvertent" defense for GFSZ.... search up Theseus in these forums and see how well it worked out for him.

Speaking solely for myself as a non-lawyer / former LEO, and from having tried to take a reasoned position in the latest thread in the 2A forum, which is where I presume this one originates from, trying to play word games with the police on a simple enforcement stop is 99 times out of 100 only going to make the stop last longer and make it more uncomfortable.

I saw your post and it was very well said, and diplomatic at that. I know about the difference with lying to Feds. A twist was recently announced to the effect that, I believe the section my be 18USC1001 but perhaps not, a conviction was had for lying to the CADOJ that was investigating federal election violations in CA. I was shocked becasuse I have known of the judge for decades and he is well respected and I cannot not see how the law applies to lying to state officials. I looked into the matter and it was misreported. The conviction was lying to the FBI when it followed up on the investigation by the CADOJ.

[greasemonkey]

Tell him you have nukes.

Only tell him that if you're going to mention they're mounted to your SR71 that he can't see because it's "stealth".