Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Police encounter

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    4

    Police encounter

    I know that if I get pulled over I have to let the police know I have my cpl and my gun and what not but if I am just a passenger in a car that gets pulled over do I still have to let them know that I have it?

    Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by emoo_321 View Post
    I know that if I get pulled over I have to let the police know I have my cpl and my gun and what not but if I am just a passenger in a car that gets pulled over do I still have to let them know that I have it?

    Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
    This is just an initial answer.

    The Michigan State Police website has a section about "proper conduct during encounters with police". Since they don't actually cite the statute, I'm naturally suspicious about the information being skewed. However, they do expressly mention being "stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise)."

    I'm betting this is a gray area--undecided by case law/court opinion.

    I vaguely recall that federal case law considers the passengers "stopped"/seized for the purposes of the 4th Amendment. I'll bet a jerk cop or prosecutor would argue that since you were a passenger, you were "stopped", and thus compelled by law to disclose the gun. All it would take is an anti-gun or pro-cop trial judge to agree with their argument.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Generally speaking (and since Citizen didn't post a link to his info *cough* cough*) in the states for which there is a notify requirement that I have specifically reviewed I am of the opinion that when the cop pulls over the car he is pulling over and stopping the driver. I'm going to sit still and shut up as the last thing I want to do is interrupt and agitate anyone. HOWEVER, the minute the cops addresses me "Good evening" "how are you today" or just leaning down looking in the window and making eye contact, now I am part of the interaction and I would notify at that point.

    OMG I HAVE A GUN! Is probably not the best way to notify IMO but IANAL, etc.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    No blame for Citizen, it's not the easiest thing to find, I had to refine the search five times which is about three times more than usual.

    28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to peace officer; violation; penalty; notice to department and issuing board; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.

    As to the OP's question, were I in that position I'd inquire of the officer if I was being detained. If the answer is a simple "Yes, sir, you are" then it's simple. If it's theatrical waving about of arms and threats to '... make you regret your whole day, boy. Do you wanna test me, boy?" then I'd begin to wonder.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 06-09-2015 at 01:24 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    (3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or [concealed] in his or her vehicle.
    OC?

    Seems that the notification pertains to concealed weapons.
    "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

  6. #6
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I thought that case law (limited jurisdiction? IDK) was that passengers were only detained during a vehicle stop if there was RAS which applied to them individually. In other words, if the only RAS/PC for any stop was that the officer observed the car turn without using a blinker, only the driver could be lawfully detained. In such a case, the passenger would be free to decline to identify and even leave if they so chose. Obviously the passenger isn't responsible for blinker usage. If the officer got to the window of the vehicle and observed a bag of what appeared to be an illegal narcotic on the floor, then he might seize all occupants, since that RAS/PC might apply to everyone within the vehicle.

    I remember reading about this but I have no recollection of the case. Perhaps someone with better memory knows what I'm talking about?

    Been researching, I'm probably wrong. Looks like the police get their way far too often in court rulings for the generic "officer safety" falsehood. Then again, I was reading on policeone, where they are unabashedly pro-police-state, and proudly twist court rulings to their favor (don't worry, this case doesn't really expand the people's rights, just read between the lines they say).
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 06-09-2015 at 08:18 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    OC?

    Seems that the notification pertains to concealed weapons.
    Michigan requires a permit/license to carry a concealed pistol, on foot or in a vehicle (concealed or otherwise).

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1ct...me=mcl-750-227

    (2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
    When "stopped" by a peace officer, disclosure is required if carrying a concealed pistol, on foot or in a vehicle (concealed or otherwise). When "stopped" while in a vehicle, the driver and all occupants are "stopped" and must disclose if carrying (concealed or otherwise). The latter, I believe, came about in the SCOTUS, Brendlin v California decision.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5ie...me=mcl-28-425f

    (3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Generally speaking (and since Citizen didn't post a link to his info *cough* cough*) in the states for which there is a notify requirement that I have specifically reviewed I am of the opinion that when the cop pulls over the car he is pulling over and stopping the driver. I'm going to sit still and shut up as the last thing I want to do is interrupt and agitate anyone. HOWEVER, the minute the cops addresses me "Good evening" "how are you today" or just leaning down looking in the window and making eye contact, now I am part of the interaction and I would notify at that point.

    OMG I HAVE A GUN! Is probably not the best way to notify IMO but IANAL, etc.
    I thunked about it, but realized that since the cops didn't cite the statute or provide a link to the statute, there was no point in me linking back to the cops.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I thought that case law (limited jurisdiction? IDK) was that passengers were only detained during a vehicle stop if there was RAS which applied to them individually. In other words, if the only RAS/PC for any stop was that the officer observed the car turn without using a blinker, only the driver could be lawfully detained. In such a case, the passenger would be free to decline to identify and even leave if they so chose. Obviously the passenger isn't responsible for blinker usage. If the officer got to the window of the vehicle and observed a bag of what appeared to be an illegal narcotic on the floor, then he might seize all occupants, since that RAS/PC might apply to everyone within the vehicle.

    I remember reading about this but I have no recollection of the case. Perhaps someone with better memory knows what I'm talking about?

    Been researching, I'm probably wrong. Looks like the police get their way far too often in court rulings for the generic "officer safety" falsehood. Then again, I was reading on policeone, where they are unabashedly pro-police-state, and proudly twist court rulings to their favor (don't worry, this case doesn't really expand the people's rights, just read between the lines they say).
    First, I'm going from memory, and foggy memory at that, so take this as a suggestion that things might be this way, and keep hunting for cases if interested.

    I think what we're looking at first of all is a difference in types of cases. Not all that many CCW permit holders have been cited under this statute, convicted, and then appealed to have binding case law handed down by an appellate court. Most of the stopped vs detained cases I've read were for some criminal conduct where the court was sorting out whether the evidence discovered on the passenger was the fruit of a poisonous tree/suppressible. For example, the cop stops the car for window tint as a pretext, but he suspects he saw a hand-to-hand drug sale while the car was stopped at a traffic light a couple blocks back. The passenger gets out and starts walking away as soon as the car is stopped. Did the cop have RAS to hold the passenger? To search him for officer safety and find the drugs? You get the idea. Totally different types of cases.

    Thus, I suspect, there are distinctions. Whether a passenger is initially seized by the flashing lights of the cop car is pretty clear from my reading of cases (he is; but, that may only be recognition by the courts that he just happens to be in that vehicle and can't avoid being stopped or exercising refused consent.) But, I think it then comes down to whether the cop has reason to compel the passenger to remain. I've read the summary of at least one (state?) case where the cop had to let a passenger walk away when the cop didn't have RAS against the passenger. But, I've read another case summary where the cop was ruled in-bounds by handcuffing a passenger for officer safety while an inventory search was performed on the car.

    Now, the Michigan statute does not distinguish whether the CCW passenger has enough RAS against him to seize him personally. The statute merely says "stopped". Not stopped and held.

    Overall, I think its a gray area, betting there is very little, if any, case law directly on point.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-09-2015 at 06:52 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Overall, I think its a gray area, betting there is very little, if any, case law directly on point.
    I think it's a gray area as well. I also think existing rulings on this or similar/parallel issues probably vary, maybe wildly, by jurisdiction. It admittedly isn't something that I'm well versed in, so I probably spoke too soon by posting what I did. My bad guys.
    Advocate freedom please

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    A quick search turned up some case law that is probably applicable, though not directly on point.

    In this 2007 article on what looks to be a pro-police website, the author discusses the question of whether a passenger in a car is "seized" during a routine traffic stop. He cites Brendlin v. California, --- U.S. ---, 2007 with the unanimous decision that a passenger is "seized" during a routine traffic stop. This invokes certain protections for the passengers (4th amendment) it seems.

    It doesn't seem to directly answer whether a passenger would be subject to laws requiring disclosure of the presence a gun.

    In an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision in this area, California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621 (1991), the Court noted that a person is not seized until actually submitting to a show of police authority.

    Obviously, this article predates this years SCOTUS decision limiting what cops can do during a routine stop.

    Maybe someone else can run with this and reach an informed opinion on whether notification is required of passengers.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Police encounter

    Guys it's Michigan where I have known of OCers being cited for not disclosing their openly carried side arm (in plain view) while walking???? So short answer = disclose to be safe. Wish I was kidding, but I'm not

    If you really want to get heart burn here's a example from days past when the MI sub forum of OCDO had 750 active members (those days long gone).

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=68690
    Last edited by FreeInAZ; 06-11-2015 at 01:04 AM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  13. #13
    Regular Member MikeTheGreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northville, Michigan
    Posts
    591
    It's always the best thing to do, even if it's a gray area.

    I've been in the passenger seat twice while my friends were pulled over, and I disclosed. Both times the cops just laughed and said "I don't care, you're not the driver!" And didn't ask to see my ID or CPL, but I'm still going to do it, just in case!
    Molon Labe

    [+=] Eleftheria i thanatos [+=]

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    Guys it's Michigan where I have known of OCers being cited for not disclosing their openly carried side arm (in plain view) while walking???? So short answer = disclose to be safe. Wish I was kidding, but I'm not

    If you really want to get heart burn here's a example from days past when the MI sub forum of OCDO had 750 active members (those days long gone).

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=68690
    But, was he convicted?
    There's a saying down south that may be aprapos "You can be arrested for eating a ham sandwich on Sunday" if the cop 'believes' that's the way the law reads. It doesn't mean you will be convicted and it certainly doesn't mean the cop faces any disciplinary action because he doesn't know the law.
    The trick to that is well known.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 07-17-2015 at 07:53 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    ^^^ short answer no - however in MI, it is not uncommon for some officers (here after known as Opinion Enforcement Officers or OEO's) to simply throw BS non disclose or other rubbish charges against OCers. The point? They know the charges will probably be tossed out, BUT in the mean time the OCers CPL is suspended (if they have one), they lose time & $$$ off work for court & possibly their jobs & $$$$ for a lawyer. It is fiscal re-education on their part, in an attempt to dissuade people from OCing, and it has worked in the past. Hell, the NRA's lawyer in MI, Mr. Steve Dulan says he won't OC because he doesn't need the hassle of BS charges (paraphrasing). Sad state of affairs there in MI. Good people, with lots of shady politicians and OEO's
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  16. #16
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    This is just an initial answer.

    The Michigan State Police website has a section about "proper conduct during encounters with police". Since they don't actually cite the statute, I'm naturally suspicious about the information being skewed. However, they do expressly mention being "stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise)."

    I'm betting this is a gray area--undecided by case law/court opinion.

    I vaguely recall that federal case law considers the passengers "stopped"/seized for the purposes of the 4th Amendment. I'll bet a jerk cop or prosecutor would argue that since you were a passenger, you were "stopped", and thus compelled by law to disclose the gun. All it would take is an anti-gun or pro-cop trial judge to agree with their argument.
    Well stated...
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Posting Permissions

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