Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Connecticut Carry: How to handle a traffic stop

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Connecticut Carry: How to handle a traffic stop

    A new frequently asked question and answer has been posted.

    I would like to remind everyone that if you have a question/answer that you answer on a regular basis that you would like to see on the internet with a link to use to cite to people, please send them to info@ctcarry.com. I know these FAQs have been useful to me many times to answer specific questions that have been continual issues in this state. Where necessary, Connecticut Carry will get legal opinions on matters in dispute.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://ctcarry.com/FAQ/Details/f84f0c49-25d5-421b-bff5-9b33aa28c913
    The answer legally is 'no'. There is no legal requirement to disclose the presence of a firearm either in your car or on your person during a traffic stop.

    This issue is a subjective one. People have their own opinions on how to handle this situation.

    One school of thought is to hand your pistol permit over to the police officer with your license and let him ask the questions from there if they choose to so.

    Another school of thought is to not offer information that is not needed unless being asked to step out of the car or directly asked about the presence of firearms.

    By all means, lying to a police officer about the presence of a firearm is likely to end up with you in legal trouble.



    Since there is no legal disclosure requirement, this is a matter that is entirely up to you. You should do what you are comfortable with.
    Last edited by Rich B; 05-18-2012 at 05:14 PM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Eastern CT
    Posts
    36
    I've been asked this question quite a few times in my classes. My opinion is that if you're being stopped for a routine traffic violation, there is no reason to complicate the matter. I have been taken out of my car before during a traffic stop because I wasn't driving my own car. The officer then asked me if I had any weapons on me... There's your opportunity to complicate the matter.

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by SickPythons View Post
    I've been asked this question quite a few times in my classes. My opinion is that if you're being stopped for a routine traffic violation, there is no reason to complicate the matter. I have been taken out of my car before during a traffic stop because I wasn't driving my own car. The officer then asked me if I had any weapons on me... There's your opportunity to complicate the matter.
    UNFORTUNATELY, for some LEO's (Opinion Enforcement Officer's) anyone versed in Constitutional Rights and willing to stand for them will be seen and being non-cooperative and demonstrating CONTEMPT OF COP! What they don't see is that Standing up for Constitutional Rights IS NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by SickPythons View Post
    My opinion is that if you're being stopped for a routine traffic violation, there is no reason to complicate the matter.
    This is my opinion as well.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    answer all questions "I'll be happy to answer any question you have, in court"...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    The only time I advise my PP students to notify the officer they are armed is if the officer asks him to get out of the car. If you are getting out of the car, you are going to be frisked. Better to tell him before than have him find it during the pat down.

    Again, you don't have any legal obligation to do so, but on a practical level, it makes sense.

    Because 99.9% of the time a law abiding citizen is stopped he is not asked to get out of the car, this means you should almost never volunteer that you are carrying. Especially since doing so immediately escalates the situation inthe eyes of the officer. At which point he will probably get you out of the car even if he didn't originally intend to do so.
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by dcmdon View Post
    The only time I advise my PP students to notify the officer they are armed is if the officer asks him to get out of the car. If you are getting out of the car, you are going to be frisked. Better to tell him before than have him find it during the pat down.

    Again, you don't have any legal obligation to do so, but on a practical level, it makes sense.

    Because 99.9% of the time a law abiding citizen is stopped he is not asked to get out of the car, this means you should almost never volunteer that you are carrying. Especially since doing so immediately escalates the situation inthe eyes of the officer. At which point he will probably get you out of the car even if he didn't originally intend to do so.
    This is obviously an opinion-based answer as to what you should do, so I am not disagreeing with what you are saying at all. Just as a piece of information to anyone who is curious though, before I stumbled onto this forum and found some good legal information, I always volunteered that I had a firearm on me and told the officer I was a permitted holder. The two times I was pulled over and gave this info, I was treated better I think then I would have been had I not disclosed the information (I think because I was establishing a professional-level of trust with the officer). Again, this was circumstantial, and what you are saying makes sense too, just figured I would share.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Norwalk, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    265
    Heres what attorney Ralph Sherman has to say,

    Atty. Ralph D. Sherman

    130 West Main Street • New Britain, Connecticut 06052

    tel. (860) 229-0213 • fax (860) 229-0235 • e-mail atty@ralphdsherman.com



    Legal Opinion

    August 1997

    Do you have a weapon in the vehicle?

    So you have a pistol permit, you’re carrying a concealed, loaded handgun, and you’re driving on a Connecticut road. A police officer pulls you over for a broken tail light. Should you tell him you’re carrying? What if he happens to ask—for no apparent reason—"Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?"

    The situation presents a difficult problem with no clear answer.

    Some attorneys would advise that you should tell the officer you have a permit and a handgun, especially if the officer asks the question. That’s good advice in theory, but I’ve seen it bring two bad results.

    The first bad result is that some officers will take your announcement as a threat, even if you keep your hands on the steering wheel. Their response will be to draw their own gun and point it at your head at close range. (Unfortunately I am able to make this prediction based on actual cases.)

    The second bad result is that you may cause the officer to believe he has the right to search you and your vehicle. Some attorneys may disagree as to whether the officer is correct, but what counts at the moment is that the officer is going to conduct a search. If he finds, say, an eight-inch butcher knife, he may charge you with carrying a dangerous weapon. (This prediction also is based on actual cases.)

    Some police officers and attorneys have suggested to me that when a permit-holder is pulled over, he should hand the officer the pistol permit with the driver’s license. That’s probably a better option than the bold announcement that you have a gun, but even this method may produce the same undesirable results.

    If you tell the officer you have a gun, or you hand him your permit, you're trying to be honest with him. It’s ironic that you figure you’re legal and have nothing to hide, but your honesty may put you in a bad predicament.

    To be complete in our analysis, let’s consider what criminals do when they carry: Don’t volunteer any information, and if the officer asks the big question, lie to him. If you’re a good poker player, nothing will happen. If you start to shake and sweat while the officer is studying your driver’s license, you may have a problem.

    I’m not advising that law-abiding people should lie to the police. Unfortunately, however, with no clear law or police policy in this area, some people have concluded that lying is the best option for themselves.

    The legal issues raised in this situation will only become more difficult when the police start using new electronic equipment that allows them to "see" a concealed handgun on a person at a distance of 10 feet or more. What the equipment doesn’t let police see is the permit in the person's wallet. The result will be that the permit-holder will be subjected to the same search as the criminal. When it happens, you can bet there will be a court challenge to the use of the new equipment.

    Copyright 1997 by Ralph D. Sherman

    Legal Opinion Index • Home

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Old Saybrook, CT
    Posts
    469
    Tacticalevo - Just to clarify, never lie to an officer. What I'm advocating is simply not volunteering anything.

    I do have personal experience with one traffic stop where I had been pulled over. To make a long story short, I had just returned from Russia, where my pocket had been picked. (front pocket!!!) The thief got my drivers license. When pulled over I told the officer what happened and offered him my PP instead. He thanked me for my honesty and then casually asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle.

    When I told him I had one on my person, he removed me from the vehicle, patted me down, disarmed me, and had me wait outside my vehicle on the side of the road while he ran my plates, and pistol permit.

    The stop was the result of my new car purchase not yet being in their computers and a registration sticker that had fallen off the plate. A perfect storm of F-ups.

    In the end, no ticket was issued, he reminded me to get a new license, the gun was handed back to me and I was on my way. Was it a horrible experience? No.

    But it would have been much simpler if I had a drivers license to give him.

    Don
    MCS Precision - Training, Sales, Transfers, Estate Purchases

    07 FFL
    NRA Pistol and Rifle Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical_Evo View Post
    This is obviously an opinion-based answer as to what you should do.
    Well, here's a fact: anything you say can and will be used against you in court....that's enough facts to support the opinion to shut up when confronted with the police in ANY situation.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, here's a fact: anything you say can and will be used against you in court....that's enough facts to support the opinion to shut up when confronted with the police in ANY situation.


    What part of being totally honest with the officer would piss off the officer or cause the judge or jury be concerned about? If its LEGAL to carry and you have a CC Permit and you didn't do anything wrong other than a simple INFRACTION to get pulled over,, why would you even be concerned about a JUDGE or JURY???????


    My CC permit is tapped to my Drivers license. I will always inform if carrying. Thats MY decision and what I believe is the correct way to do business.

    Bill

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Naugatuck CT
    Posts
    90
    Just don't have your Pistol permit under your license when you go to pull it out the LEO sees the permit and went off on me that I had to inform him bla bla bla, said and did a lot of wrong things but I wasn't confident enough to stand up for myself. A long story short I then told him I had a gun legal in my lunch bag. but he still search me and the car without my consent found my gun and holster in my lunch bag that I told him I had. Flipped out. 10 min later he drove away the other LEO brought my gun back and said have a nice day. I figure he found out he was in the wrong and took off.

    The next time I informed the police officer, he wanted to disarm me while still sitting in the car, that was fun. so he eventually had me pull the gun out and put it on the dash. he ran my numbers handed the gun back and let me go.

    I don't know what is better.
    I didn't want to reach wallet thinking I was reaching for a gun, the whole reason I moved my wallet to my weak side.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by SUBMARINER View Post
    What part of being totally honest with the officer would piss off the officer or cause the judge or jury be concerned about?
    This is the opinion of everyone I know who has not yet been abused by a LEO. People's opinions on this matter change after their first incident pretty dramatically.

    If its LEGAL to carry and you have a CC Permit and you didn't do anything wrong other than a simple INFRACTION to get pulled over,, why would you even be concerned about a JUDGE or JURY???????
    We don't have a 'CC Permit' in this state.

    My CC permit is tapped to my Drivers license.
    Care to cite evidence for this claim?

    I will always inform if carrying. Thats MY decision and what I believe is the correct way to do business.
    That is your choice, but it is not at all the 'only way'.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  14. #14
    Regular Member Maine Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ukraine & Bangor Maine
    Posts
    235
    I think Sub.. meant to say he TAPED (not tapped) his ccp to his dl. Something he did himself, not a legal requirement to cite.

    I also don't think Sub was saying this is the only way, its just his way.

    And finally,

    Being honest and up front with a LEO is the way I personally would go as well. If he overreacts then (if I survive) HE will have to answer for it in court and I'm very confident I could convince a jury.
    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.” ― Plato

    Plato knew this yet today's antis still don't get it!

    Join the fight for freedom
    Oathkeepers

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Maine Expat View Post
    Being honest and up front with a LEO is the way I personally would go as well. If he overreacts then (if I survive) HE will have to answer for it in court and I'm very confident I could convince a jury.
    Being up front with a cop? Very Bad advice IMO. For a traffic stop (like speeding) a cop will ask you two dozen questions - you should not answer any - you are not required to. Provide him with your license and registration; that is all the law requires. Answering questions will not to be your benefit -- you are not trying to be friends with the cop.

    Then after the encounter, write the prosecutor and ask for an information to replace the ticket per CT PB 36-11. They'll drop the case.

    You can tell the cop "I'll answer any question you have, in court"....because that's how they answer your questions on the side of the road.

    I have won several traffic cases in CT just due to the fact that I refused to answer questions put to me on the side of the road; and I did not need to testify, so the state gets zip from me. When a cop pulls you over you have no idea what ticket(s) you'll get, so how can you know what's relevant and can hurt your case? You don't so just refuse to answer his 20 questions of the week.

    And DON'T tell them you have a gun ... who knows what the town or state voted on last night, right? It can only hurt you, not help you. And don't roll your window down past 1/4" .... refuse him access to your car...if he asks you to get out, take your keys and lock the car up when you leave. Cops in CT have no idea what the laws are in respect to carrying -- the Doutel transcript of the cop highlights this fact. People think cops know the laws but they know very little about the law, any law. You want to go through what he did? Then keep on talking.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-08-2012 at 10:17 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    On duty LEOs are not your friends. You should never disclose more information than absolutely necessary. In a common traffic stop it is best to not say anything, just follow orders, if asked a direct question you can decline to answer. The only reasons I would tell a LEO I was carrying was if he directly asks (no reason to lie) or I thought they might see it before I announced I had a permit and a handgun located: XYZ....or if they asked me to step out of the car. The reason for the latter two is I do not want under any circumstances a LEO pointing a gun at me, they are not the best gun handlers as it is, add the pressure they might be feeling, not a good combination.

    I saw someone above followed a LEO order to produce the firearm, there is no way I would comply with that order. I would tell the requesting officer that under no circumstances am I going to put my hand on a gun in his or her presence, if they would like to remove it I will fully comply with whatever body positioning they ask me to get into (hands on head, lay on ground spread eagle, whatever..) but if you are holding a gun in your hand, even if you are handing it over if and when his coworker shows up or is watching from a distance you are going t wind up shot. Just do a Google search and you will see this has happened.

    Last word on this I will give to this Yale Law Professor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86XmQ...eature=related
    I am sure this has been seen by many but it may be a good watch for others....
    Member:, NRA Patron Life, NSSF, CCDL, CT Carry, MRPC and Bell City
    NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer - Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety, Metallic Cartridge/Shotgun Shell Reloading - www.ctpistolpermit.com

  17. #17
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    Not sure if this has been addressed before, but I think Connecticut is one of the States that shares pistol permit information with their department of motor vehicles. I'm not certain if the permit info is tied with an operator's license, vehicle registration or both.

    The significance of this is that during a traffic stop when the Officer runs your plate, they know the registered owner of the vehicle has a pistol permit. Same when running your license; they know you have a permit.

    If this information is inaccurate, lucky can chime in and confirm or deny it.

    Cheers.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    If this information is inaccurate, lucky can chime in and confirm or deny it.
    They can get this information from your DL info through dispatch, but it is not automatically displayed.

    If it was automatically displayed, this would be LESS reason to inform.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    August 1997?.....1997? Is there not anything more recent?

    If they don't ask I don't tell, I'm not required to in my state.

    If the cop does ask I will only reply with a yes and nothing more. My hands are on the steering wheel and stay there. The cop has no lawful authority to know where I keep my firearm nor does he have the authority to seize it. If he chooses to seize it for "officer safety" then he will be explaining/justifying that seizure to a judge in the context of a traffic stop.

    Cops need to learn that a lawfully armed citizen is not going to all of a sudden "whip out his gat and bust a cap" in them over a mere traffic violation. Cops are too eager to disarm a LAC because they can, courts have enabled this, and not because it is the correct thing to do. Disarming a citizen only makes the officer safe. Me being disarmed makes me less safe, significantly so.

    If a cop wants your firearm, if he knows you are armed, he has to seize you, search you or your vehicle, and then seize your property. I choose to force the cop to make those decisions and then be required to explain/justify his actions to a judge.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member KennyB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mountain Top
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by customcreationllc View Post
    Just don't have your Pistol permit under your license when you go to pull it out the LEO sees the permit and went off on me that I had to inform him bla bla bla, said and did a lot of wrong things but I wasn't confident enough to stand up for myself. A long story short I then told him I had a gun legal in my lunch bag. but he still search me and the car without my consent found my gun and holster in my lunch bag that I told him I had. Flipped out. 10 min later he drove away the other LEO brought my gun back and said have a nice day. I figure he found out he was in the wrong and took off.

    The next time I informed the police officer, he wanted to disarm me while still sitting in the car, that was fun. so he eventually had me pull the gun out and put it on the dash. he ran my numbers handed the gun back and let me go.

    I don't know what is better.
    I didn't want to reach wallet thinking I was reaching for a gun, the whole reason I moved my wallet to my weak side.

    Man, wish I saw a post like this a little over a year ago. Got stopped for a tail light being out. The officer was swerving through traffic to catch me and I was commenting to the wife about what I was seeing in my rearview mirror when he pulled behind me and hit the lights. I was like, whoa?? The officer was polite, ask for my DL, reg, and insurance and when I pulled out the wallet and opened it to get my license, he spotted my carry permit and asked, while taking a step back and putting his hand on his firearm if I was carrying! I was a little taken a back by this and said, NO. It's behind me in the back seat, and then he asked if I could reach it. I told him no, and then he says good, I don't want to have to pull you out of the vehicle and "secure" the weapon!? Seriously? Pull me out and "Secure" the weapon, when you can see i'm a legal permit holder?? Makes me wonder how it would have gone down if I WAS carrying, which BTW I usually am. The whole situation left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I've learned quite a bit since then and if that were to happen today, I would have questioned his "procedures" and followed up with his immediate supervisor. I have great respect for LEO'ers, always have, but being how we have to go through the training and background checks in order to carry "legally", I would think we could be treated better when we do have contact with LE, for whatever reason. NOT saying all LEO's would have reacted this way, but perhaps the training recieved in the academy is lacking in this regard?? Or perhaps not "standardized" and left open to the officer? I really would like to know, and perhaps lucky could respond. Thanks.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect yourself from the government. In a traffic stop, there it is - the government, right in your face !

    And they want to disarm you and take your gun away ... if you comply then you might as well just take all your guns to the police department and hand them over to 'em.

    If the government wants to start disarming people, then all they need to do is start pulling folks over for a tail-light out and start taking the easy pickings...they know you have a gun...they know you carry. They will just get a list together and start collecting them on the side of the road.


    If you know 20 people who carry and 19 had their guns taken away as "evidence" during a tail light stop and you are being pulled over and the cop asks you for your gun, what you gonna do?

    And if you are the first instead of the 20th?

    A way to avoid this is to carry 2 guns instead of one. Give the cop one and when he wants to keep it for a bogus reason then you can obtain it back from the thief.

    All laws regarding the taking of a citizens sidearm are unconstitutional, no matter what any government official has said.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wolcott, CT
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The cop has no lawful authority to know where I keep my firearm nor does he have the authority to seize it. If he chooses to seize it for "officer safety" then he will be explaining/justifying that seizure to a judge in the context of a traffic stop.

    If a cop wants your firearm, if he knows you are armed, he has to seize you, search you or your vehicle, and then seize your property. I choose to force the cop to make those decisions and then be required to explain/justify his actions to a judge.
    How well would that would go here in CT? I'm sure if you refused to tell a cop where your gun is on your person and refuse to let him disarm you for "officer's safety", you'll become acquainted with some cell bars.
    "Faster, Faster until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - Hunter S. Thompson

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by GrandZJ View Post
    How well would that would go here in CT? I'm sure if you refused to tell a cop where your gun is on your person and refuse to let him disarm you for "officer's safety", you'll become acquainted with some cell bars.
    Where did I state that I would refuse to be disarmed? Not that big of a deal, really, but we must defend our rights by forcing the cop to make affirmative actions that he will be held accountable for when he 'gets it wrong'. Cops typically don't resort to the seizure around here, they are fairly well educated on the law.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Where did I state that I would refuse to be disarmed?\
    Why disarm? You're licensed by the state to carry ... a cop does not overturn laws.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    While these aren't state specific they do apply in most cases. Maybe it will help clear up some confusion.

    RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

    Officers were educated on ID'ing, were polite and professional and admitted they were wrong on video

    Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

    Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

    3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

    4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html
    The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.
    The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.
    I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.
    At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).
    This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.

    This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr
    52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

    Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
    "Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."


    In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

    A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

    Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

    “Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.” St. John v. McColley

    The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
    United States v. King (1993)

    “The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances.” WI v. Kiekhefer (1997)

    An anonymous tip is not RAS

    ID'ing yourself discussion


    And some useful vid links


    How to Remain silent when questioned by Police

    UN Plans to destroy all non military firearms

    Respect and Check your Firearm Infamous DEA agent shoots his foot while giving speech about Gun Safety

    Don't Talk to Cops (PLEASE WATCH, Important for any and all Law Enforcement Encounters)

    Example how to exercise your Rights

    How to refuse a Police Search

    How to keep Police from Searching

    The RIGHT Way to handle a Police Stop

    The WRONG Way to handle a Police Stop

    Traffic Stops: Know your RIGHTS EP.4

    Surviving Police Encounters

    How to Act if You're Stopped by the Police
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 08-09-2012 at 07:05 PM.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •