Odd LEO encounter in BC

smellslikemichigan said:

the law requires a license to operate a vehicle, but i don't see police stopping everyone getting into a vehicle to ask to see a driver's license

Click to expand...

I cant even begin to explain how completely tired of seeing this rebuttle to the discussion about being asked for a CPL by LEO. I'm sure, beyond a doubt, youve been here long enough to know this already:

DrTodd said:

In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the US Supreme Court ruled that the police stopping vehicles for no reason other than to check the drivers' licenses and registrations was unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

But if not there it is for you.

I would also go as far as to argue that one doesnt carry with a license to carry, but they carry under the authority of MCL 28.422 (without a CPL) because the 28.422 itself permits anyone who qualifies under that section to purchase a pistol to carry it as well. After 30 days you do not have to keep anything on your person unlike with a CPL..(or drivers license for those of you that continue to make that argument). It is a license to purchase, yes...but to carry its probably safe to say after those 30 days you carry under the authority of it, even the Purchase Permit states "Authority: MCL 28.422" and I know because I just looked at the one in my wallet.

the rules of RAS still apply, so until police develop ESP abilities, they cannot "reasonably" assume you are breaking the law

Right, our legal system is supposed to operate on the presumption of innocence.

stainless1911 said:

Right, our legal system is supposed to operate on the presumption of innocence.

Click to expand...

You only have the right of "presumption of innocence" if your LE.

cite: Culpepper thread....

smellslikemichigan said:

the rules of RAS still apply, so until police develop ESP abilities, they cannot "reasonably" assume you are breaking the law

Click to expand...

However, driving a car without a license is not a felony unlike carrying a concealed weapon.

The fact is, RAS is being applied as SCOTUS is allowing it to be applied. LEO cannot stop a car merely to ask for a DL. However theres nothing, no MCL, case law, or SCOTUS decision to stop them from asking someone they see go from OC to CC or from OC to sitting in a vehicle for a CPL.

The RAS of seeing someone get into a car while OC or cover it up with a jacket, at this current point in time, stands as RAS to stop and ask for a CPL until something comes out saying they cannot.

in Terry V Ohio it was found that the the reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely an officer's hunch. so argue all you want, but when it comes down to it. the best an officer can argue, is hunch.

smellslikemichigan said:

in Terry V Ohio it was found that the the reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely an officer's hunch. so argue all you want, but when it comes down to it. the best an officer can argue, is hunch.

Click to expand...

So, then if you are CC and an officer happens to bump into you walking through a crowd and feels a firearm on your hip thats not RAS enough to stop and ask you for a CPL?

Cause he would only have a hunch then that you may be carrying illegally.

Bronson said:

Thanks for the cite. My point being that until the Delaware v. Prouse SC ruling the police were doing this and it was considered constitutional because a higher authority hadn't yet told the police that it WASN'T constitutional. The way I see it the same thing will have to happen for concealed carriers before the police are forced to stop detaining them simply for noticing that they are concealing a pistol.

Bronson

Click to expand...

I understood your point... which, I believe, is very accurate (unfortunately)

Yance said:

So, then if you are CC and an officer happens to bump into you walking through a crowd and feels a firearm on your hip thats not RAS enough to stop and ask you for a CPL?

Cause he would only have a hunch then that you may be carrying illegally.

Click to expand...

exactly right. a hunch only.

defense lawyer:
"officer smith, what made you think that my client did not have a CPL?"
officer smith:
"i felt a gun through his clothes:
defense lawyer:
"interesting information, but please answer the question"
officer smith:
*crickets*

Thanks for posting OP. +1

In my humble opinion from what you posted, you did what you were comfortable with, and that can never be faulted. You knew the law and followed it to the best of your ability.

This event leaves us all with an opportunity to think and learn. Most if not all of us carry a back up pistol. The majority of those carry the back up concealed. While I understand this, we should consider carrying, if at all possible, in my opinion, as we would train: (for muscle memory, where things become automatic). This said I will follow cmdr_iceman71 style with two OC pistols. Why? Because if we make OC our defensive carry go to style, then we should remember to carry as to make coming up with any reason to detain or ID us as difficult as possible for LEO's.

Once you are flagged in a computer system it only increases the potential for an individual to be abused by a corrupt agent of the law. Why carry in a manner that makes it 100% legal for them to stop, ID, etc... when you don't have too?

One other benefit is: if you do have a CPL, there are certain area's {PFZ's} that you may only carry in openly under current MI law. If you are already in the habit of doing so the chances of an accidental
"concealed prohibited" carry become zero

http://grnorth.wzzm13.com/news/news/67129-msp-law-allows-some-carry-guns-schools

SNIP

Sgt. Aimee Maikee with the Michigan State Police says someone with a valid concealed weapons license can carry a visible, holstered gun into schools, daycare centers, banks, churches, bars and sports arenas.


http://web.me.com/joshtish/Offlimits_Front.pdf
http://web.me.com/joshtish/Offlimits_Back.pdf


Carry on friends, openly and therefore safely

Yance said:

So, then if you are CC and an officer happens to bump into you walking through a crowd and feels a firearm on your hip thats not RAS enough to stop and ask you for a CPL?

Cause he would only have a hunch then that you may be carrying illegally.

Click to expand...

An officer is "BUMPING" into folks in a crowd to try to gather evidence?.... Sounds like Battery to me... Battery is a crime!

Entrapment?

If I were a MSP in that situation I would (hope that I would) look at the totality of the situation and if I did not see the person who inadvertently covered as someone who was planning to now do a criminal activity, I would NOT be asking for the CPL. Or the converse, ONLY if I saw something to cause me to conclude he was now going to go rob a 7-11, would I even thing about it.

HOWEVER, does having a CPL make you 'honest' or just 'tricky'? What if asking for the CPL made the person really MAD and he got into a road rage incident on the way home, having been hassled. HOW does _that_ help Michigan State a more lawful and safe place.

Asking a person for the CPL, no matter how 'nice', (here condescending - finger wagging) in this instance is a BAD move. Just say 'did you realize you just concealed?' if I said anything. He's not there to be a Sunday School teacher (the cop) he's there to stop crimes, stop crimes in process and NOT be missing the guy on the other side of the restaurant picking some lady's purse of her wallet. OR, dammit, to eat dinner and quit being a hall monitor.

If it were me on a good day, I'd do the encounter, but ask 'officer, are you detaining me?' and then if so, show the license, but then ask for a name and badge number and contact his superior and say 'just what the heck is this LEO doing? Why isn't he summoning REAL criminals? Cowardice? Laziness?

If I were his commander I'd give him a stern lecture about being condescending and about minding his own business except if there is a 'spidey sense' thing, or run his plate and find him on parole or something. I mean really, what if that LEO spent all day sitting in the restaurant looking for guys to jaywalk and park in handicap spaces and other nit-picky things - that's a waste of state money.

But because he only did it once (that we know of) that day, it's ok to be a 'mommy'.

Before 2001, Michigan was a "May Issue" State for Concealed Carry Permits and they were difficult to obtain. When we moved to "Shall Issue" in 2001, there were a great many concerns voiced at many levels so there were extra "safeguards" added to appease specific groups. The "Shall Disclose" "safeguard" was one requested by the Michigan State Police IIRC.

Due to incidents like this, the Canton Ohio Incident, and Prosecutions we have heard for "Shall Disclose" not being "immediate", I believe it would be worth looking into getting rid of Shall Disclose here in Michigan.

Thoughts?

Not disclosing was my favorite part about not having a CPL. I felt a lot safer, police are far more dangerous to law abiding gun owners than criminals ever were. At least you can soot a criminal, they dont bother you unless they have something really important to do, and they kill you quickly. The just-us system prefers to drag it out, thy toy with the prey like a cat, enjoying every second of the kill.

PDinDetroit said:

Before 2001, Michigan was a "May Issue" State for Concealed Carry Permits and they were difficult to obtain. When we moved to "Shall Issue" in 2001, there were a great many concerns voiced at many levels so there were extra "safeguards" added to appease specific groups. The "Shall Disclose" "safeguard" was one requested by the Michigan State Police IIRC.

Due to incidents like this, the Canton Ohio Incident, and Prosecutions we have heard for "Shall Disclose" not being "immediate", I believe it would be worth looking into getting rid of Shall Disclose here in Michigan.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Question... Any other "RIGHTS" that we must inform the officers about on contact to avoid a criminal charge?

How about this "Officer, I ate breakfast this morning!" or "Officer, I paid my bills!" or "Officer, I took out a loan at the bank!"

Yep, I am fully for getting rid of this requirement to notify any officer that I am engaged in ANY LEGAL ACTIVITY AT ANY TIME!!!!!

JoeSparky said:

Question... Any other "RIGHTS" that we must inform the officers about on contact to avoid a criminal charge?

How about this "Officer, I ate breakfast this morning!" or "Officer, I paid my bills!" or "Officer, I took out a loan at the bank!"

Yep, I am fully for getting rid of this requirement to notify any officer that I am engaged in ANY LEGAL ACTIVITY AT ANY TIME!!!!!

Click to expand...

You don't understand Joe. If an officer screws with a person whom he knows is engaged in a legal activity, they do it to screw with them, just like HALL MONITOR and Mall Cops looking for a chance to flaunt their ah-thoratay.

What is the point of training LEOs to use their senses and experience to know what things to look at more closely if they're going to throw all of that to the wind and stop obviously law abiding guys, while MISSING the actual criminal robbing the store across the street?

Not all LEOs are like this, but the ones who do that, are, imo, lazy, stupid, and cowards. Too cowardly to go after real criminals, making up EXCUSES, too lazy to go 'detect' crime and too stupid to know that it can cost the city money if rights are abridged for the person who will not allow themselves to be unfairly victimized under color of law.

AND the real problem is we have TOO many cops, too many stupid laws, too many recidivists let out of jail to make space for jaywalkers and smokers.

sawah said:

You don't understand Joe. If an officer screws with a person whom he knows is engaged in a legal activity, they do it to screw with them, just like HALL MONITOR and Mall Cops looking for a chance to flaunt their ah-thoratay.

What is the point of training LEOs to use their senses and experience to know what things to look at more closely if they're going to throw all of that to the wind and stop obviously law abiding guys, while MISSING the actual criminal robbing the store across the street?

Not all LEOs are like this, but the ones who do that, are, imo, lazy, stupid, and cowards. Too cowardly to go after real criminals, making up EXCUSES, too lazy to go 'detect' crime and too stupid to know that it can cost the city money if rights are abridged for the person who will not allow themselves to be unfairly victimized under color of law.

AND the real problem is we have TOO many cops, too many stupid laws, too many recidivists let out of jail to make space for jaywalkers and smokers.

Click to expand...

That made me think of this movie clip
[video=youtube;CIFRsGSSKYw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIFRsGSSKYw[/video]

smellslikemichigan said:

exactly right. a hunch only.

defense lawyer:
"officer smith, what made you think that my client did not have a CPL?"
officer smith:
"i felt a gun through his clothes:
defense lawyer:
"interesting information, but please answer the question"
officer smith:
*crickets*

Click to expand...

However the officer is still going to err on the side of safety and stop you and see if you have a CPL, they will stop you, hunch or not. Unless you have something saying that the police CANNOT do it...then your point is moot.

Article 1 section 6.

It does say everyone.

eve·ry·one

   [ev-ree-wuhn, -wuhn] Show IPA
pronoun

every person; everybody.