Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Terry Stop Questions

  1. #1
    Regular Member Munkey Butt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chehalis
    Posts
    145

    Terry Stop Questions

    So i decided to ride my dual sport to work today. As I'm riding i can tell my coat is over my pistol, then as i adjust it exposes my firearm. So per Terry Vs. Ohio, they cannot stop me unless i am committing/ going to commit a crime. So theoretically if i am stopped for a moving violation, my pistol cannot come into question correct?

    Do i need to provide my CPL if asked because i am carrying (if stopped for a moving violating)?

    Is there a difference between OC and CC (ON/IN) a motor vehicle since its still loaded?

    Anyone have any insight into this?
    -PJ

    "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -Amendment Two, The Constitution of the United States

    "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." -Amendment Two, The Constitution of the United States

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    IIRC you must produce your CPL if asked during a traffic stop.

    As to whether or not the rules for carry differ between a car and a bike, I don't think so. I would think that all rules pertaining to vehicle carry would apply.
    Last edited by Bookman; 09-25-2012 at 04:16 AM.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  3. #3
    Regular Member Sorcice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    382

    Terry Stop Questions

    It varies state to state. Be certain in the state your in. Some like Ohio require you tell the Leo ASAP. Others don't.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Schlepnier's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Yelm, Washington USA
    Posts
    419

    Thumbs up

    The officer is limited to the nature of the traffic violation. he may ask if you have a CPL if he notices you have a weapon, after you say yes he has no further RAS of a crime and it should go no further. unlike ohio you are not required to declare anything about your firearm to the police officer in WA state.

    If he asked to see your CPL the course of action you take is up to you. you can voluntarily give him the infromation however given that the purpose of the stop was a traffic infraction, not to verify legal vehicle carry you are not required by law to provide it. police are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions under pretense. The RCW in question says that you are to provide it upon demand "WHEN YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO"

    it would be no different than if you had it concealed and he never knew it was there since you never mentioned you had it.

    Now if he stops you specifically for vehicle carry then you would be required to do so since it is the reason for the stop.
    +thought for the day+
    ++victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none++

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    So, at a traffic stop then, if a cop asks if you are armed you don't have to inform them as to whether you are or are not?

    I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, at a traffic stop then, if a cop asks if you are armed you don't have to inform them as to whether you are or are not?

    I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.
    In some places it is required by law. North Carolina, yes....New Mexico, no.....Ohio, yes............Washington State, no

    Monkey, you are asking a lot of basic questions that have been covered extensively. Have you considered the "search" program, it will save you a bunch of time.
    Last edited by MSG Laigaie; 09-25-2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason: fast fingers
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, at a traffic stop then, if a cop asks if you are armed you don't have to inform them as to whether you are or are not?

    I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.
    OK you are wrong in Washington State.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    In some places it is required by law. North Carolina, yes....New Mexico, no.....Ohio, yes............Washington State, no
    Thank you,

    I should have mentioned that I was only talking about Washington.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I don't think that any of these laws requiring a person who has a gun that needs or is required to tell a cop that he has one is constitutional.

    if cops can just walk up to you and ask you if you have a gun, then your 2nd amendment right means nothing.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
    IIRC you must produce your CPL if asked during a traffic stop.

    As to whether or not the rules for carry differ between a car and a bike, I don't think so. I would think that all rules pertaining to vehicle carry would apply.
    The difference is that the vehicle carry law says "In a vehicle" and not "in or on". I've met some small people, but none that were small enough to ride in a motorcycle
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.
    Given that a CPL is required by law in order to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, yes you do have to disclose during a traffic stop in Washington if you are asked. I.e. there's no duty to inform (like some state, e.g. Ohio?) but if asked you must produce your CPL.
    Last edited by kparker; 09-25-2012 at 11:42 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    Given that a CPL is required by law in order to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, yes you do have to disclose during a traffic stop in Washington if you are asked. I.e. there's no duty to inform (like some state, e.g. Ohio?) but if asked you must produce your CPL.
    Cite please.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SpyderTattoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't think that any of these laws requiring a person who has a gun that needs or is required to tell a cop that he has one is constitutional.

    if cops can just walk up to you and ask you if you have a gun, then your 2nd amendment right means nothing.
    That's not a 2nd amendment issue. Wouldn't that be a 5th amendment issue?
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

    A 1911 that works properly is as rare as a Glock that doesn't.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Pretty bad advice, given what the RCW in question really says:



    It could very easily be interpreted that there are two seperate and distinct phrases separated by the second "or" in the first sentence. The two separate and distinct phrases are "upon demand to any police officer" or "to any other person when and if required by law to do so." I believe this would be the more common interpretation and "when and if required by law to do so" would ONLY apply "to any other person".

    This is further evidenced by the fact that the word "to" is included before each separate and distinct phrase. "to any police officer" or "to any other person when and if required by law to do so."

    If the legislature intended for "when and if required by law to do so" was meant to apply to both, they could have indicated their intention by either writing, "upon demand to any police officer or to any other person, when and if required by law to do so" or "upon demant to any police officer or any other person when and if required by law to do so." In the first case, the added comma separates the limitation from the list, making it applicable to all the items in the list. In the second case the absence of the word "to" ties only "any police officer" and "any other person" together by themselves just like "his or her" before that.

    I won't bet my defense on the grammatical interpretation of the law and I will assume "when and if required to do so by law" only applies to "any other person". So, if I am in a situation that requires a CPL, and a police officer demands to see my CPL, I will display it to them. If I am not in a situation that requires a CPL - then there can be no punishment for failure to provide a document for which there is no legal requirement for me to have in my possession.

    You,, and others, have forgot my series of threads that prove our protection of our 4th amendment right
    against fishing expaditions by our jack booted thuggers...

    Your interpetation of 9,41.050 allows ANY cop, ANY time, ANY where to DEMAND to see your CPL at a whim...
    That aint right!!!

    Not only that. But as I have said before.
    I am any other person... If you are required to have a CPL,,, I DEMAND to see it...
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 09-25-2012 at 02:50 PM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Munkey Butt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chehalis
    Posts
    145
    Some great advice guys, though I'm starting to think the question hinges on many factors. Guess that this will be a "play by ear" scenario.
    -PJ

    "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -Amendment Two, The Constitution of the United States

    "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." -Amendment Two, The Constitution of the United States

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    There is a huge difference between informing a Cop that you are armed and a Cop asking for your CPL.

    No one in Washington State has a duty to inform a Cop that they are armed. I would not bring it up unless I was asked to step out of the car during a traffic stop or I was concealed and they were about to pat me down then I most likely would let them know.

    Remember if a Cop asks you if you are armed you never have to answer him you can remain silent.

    Never lie to a Cop if they ask remain silent or tell the truth.

    Now if a Cop asks to see your CPL you must show it on demand.

  19. #19
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't think that any of these laws requiring a person who has a gun that needs or is required to tell a cop that he has one is constitutional.
    if cops can just walk up to you and ask you if you have a gun, then your 2nd amendment right means nothing.
    4th and 5th Amendments, not 2nd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
    IIRC you must produce your CPL if asked during a traffic stop.
    As to whether or not the rules for carry differ between a car and a bike, I don't think so. I would think that all rules pertaining to vehicle carry would apply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    The difference is that the vehicle carry law says "In a vehicle" and not "in or on". I've met some small people, but none that were small enough to ride in a motorcycle
    I submit that a judge would interpret the law to mean "in or on."

    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    Given that a CPL is required by law in order to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, yes you do have to disclose during a traffic stop in Washington if you are asked. I.e. there's no duty to inform (like some state, e.g. Ohio?) but if asked you must produce your CPL.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpyderTattoo View Post
    That's not a 2nd amendment issue. Wouldn't that be a 5th amendment issue?
    Yes. 4th and 5th.

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    However, I am only required in certain circumstances to have the CPL in my possession. I can't show him what I don't possess, and I can't be prosecuted for not possessing it when there is no requirement to posses it. In addition, a law enforcement officer cannot DEMAND ANYTHING of me unless the detainment is legal to begin with. The RCW says I have to display it upon DEMAND, not request.
    For example: officer stops me for running a stop sign. Walks up to my car and sees a gun sitting on the passenger. Officer asks me to exit the vehicle. Officer retrieves the gun from the passenger seat and finds that it is loaded. So far, Officer Friendly has acted completely within his rights according to the US Supreme Court. Now, you say I am under no obligation to display my CPL to the officer if he demands it because he has no RAS to believe that I don't have a CPL or because he stopped for a stop sign violation and not a firearms violation. I wonder how the court would view that?
    If the gun came into view of the LEO, it gives him RAS to pursue questioning about a CPL since a CPL is required to permit possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle in Washington. Curiously, this begs the question of whether you are required by the statute to actually show the gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    WHEN AND IF REQUIRED TO DO SO BY LAW! You can demand to see it all you want to and I will tell you to go away, you are bothering me.
    Something I encourage you not to do unless you're ready to pay me a retainer (assuming that this is an extension of your hypo about LEO seeing and then inspecting the gun to see if it's loaded). If the LEO is asking me "out of the blue" without seeing a gun in my possession, custody or control or having a reasonable suspicion that I have a gun in my possession, custody or control, I'll politely suggest that he go elsewhere and amuse himself with his thumbs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    There is a huge difference between informing a Cop that you are armed and a Cop asking for your CPL.
    No one in Washington State has a duty to inform a Cop that they are armed. I would not bring it up unless I was asked to step out of the car during a traffic stop or I was concealed and they were about to pat me down then I most likely would let them know.
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Remember if a Cop asks you if you are armed you never have to answer him. You can remain silent.
    Never lie to a Cop. If they ask, remain silent or tell the truth.
    Now if a Cop asks to see your CPL you must show it on demand.
    I agree. The most important thing to remember is tell the LEO that you are exercising your right to remain silent, or simply say nothing at all (and continue to say nothing at all, except for maybe "Am I free to go?") Lying to LEO is obstruction of a public servant and is a gross misdemeanor in Washington.
    Last edited by rapgood; 09-25-2012 at 06:05 PM. Reason: The devil's in the punctuation...
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post

    I submit that a judge would interpret the law to mean "in or on."
    Why would judges insert words that aren't in the clear statutory language, when other laws specify "in or on" language? E.g. RCW 46.61.255 and 69.50.435, or WAC 480-30-216 (which specifically deals with transportation "in or on" motor vehicles).

    This is especially relevant because it's clear the language deals with being inside a vehicle, e.g. the use of "within the vehicle." It presumably requires a concealed pistol license because a person inside a vehicle has concealed the pistol from outside view or observation, even if open carrying. The same is not true when one is "on" a vehicle, and a judge who interprets the law that way would be torturing the law as well as interpreting it in a way that is not reasonable based on the plain statutory language.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  21. #21
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Why would judges insert words that aren't in the clear statutory language, when other laws specify "in or on" language? E.g. RCW 46.61.255 and 69.50.435, or WAC 480-30-216 (which specifically deals with transportation "in or on" motor vehicles).

    This is especially relevant because it's clear the language deals with being inside a vehicle, e.g. the use of "within the vehicle." It presumably requires a concealed pistol license because a person inside a vehicle has concealed the pistol from outside view or observation, even if open carrying. The same is not true when one is "on" a vehicle, and a judge who interprets the law that way would be torturing the law as well as interpreting it in a way that is not reasonable based on the plain statutory language.
    The issue is one of statutory interpretation, and our review is de novo.  State v. Argueta, 107 Wash.App. 532, 536, 27 P.3d 242 (2001).   Courts, when interpreting a statute, should assume the legislature means exactly what it says.   Plain words do not require construction.   The courts do not engage in statutory interpretation of a statute that is not ambiguous.   If a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must derive its meaning from the wording of the statute itself.  State v. Keller, 143 Wash.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001).
    LINK

    I think this pretty much states it all.
    Last edited by Grim_Night; 09-25-2012 at 10:19 PM.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I do not believe there is a requirement to answer a police officer who asks if you are armed.
    And THAT was the original question. THAT is what I was asking him to cite. Where is the law saying that I have to answer the question (are you armed/do you have any weapons?) even if I am?

    I knew the display upon lawful demand part.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    LINK

    I think this pretty much states it all.
    Thank you for saving me the effort of looking that up
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Thank you for saving me the effort of looking that up
    Be very careful about this. You are operating or riding a motor vehicle on public roads. You're fighting an uphill battle if you think "in a vehicle" doesn't apply to motorcycles.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Simply carrying a gun openly or concealed is not RS enough for the cops to be able to demand to see your CPL.

    Laws still have to be in line with the constitution of Washington and U.S.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •