Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: LEO encounter today

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    I have been OCing for a few months now. I don't always OC, sometimes I CC, depends on my cloths for the day I guess, and where exactly I am going .

    Have had some interesting comments and discussions with people, mostly though good. Have had my share of second looks and stares too.

    Today I was approached by a TPD LEO.

    I was picking up my niece from my sisters place in downtown Tacoma. The area is what I consider to be dangerous. Have been harrassed, etc... down there. Anyway, When Iarrived out frontof her apartments I noticed a police car parked outside (not to surprising, I thinkthere is a cop assigned to the apartments, cause I see one there often). I got out, and walked to the door to walk with my sister and her baby from the door to my car. I of course have my24/7 .40 on my hip. I was putting my nieces car-seat base into the back seat when I seen the LEO come walking behind my truck and before I could turn around he was asking if I had a firearm. I told him yes. He asked if I had a permit to carry it and I told him yes I did have a CPL, but I wasOCing and was confusedwhy he would need to know if I had aconcealed license. He told mehe was asking because my shirt hadcovered it when I was bent over. He asked me to see my CPL, I showed him and he asked why I was not CCing, Itold him because I choose to OC for personal reasons, and today its because its not comfortable with my clothing to CC. He said okay thanks and have a nice day.And that was that. lol.

    Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one. He was respectful and polite, although I don't think the part aboutit hadpartially been covered with my clothing actually made the weapon concealed, but he was polite, soI decided to be the same. I could have been dis-armed, or drawn on bya different LEO that was maybe not as well educated on the laws as this LEO seamed to be.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Excellent! It's about time TPD started behaving in a civilized fashion.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sundance, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    If you had just gotten out of your vehicle, and had been partially inside, as you said, that would have been a much better reason for his asking. The partially concealed thing sounds like a lame excuse to me. At least he was polite and didn't stick around to cause trouble.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    I think it went well. He could have waited until you got into your vehicle and then asked for a CPL. At that point you would have to show it.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    599

    Post imported post

    Perfect... no harm no foul

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    amlevin wrote:
    I think it went well. He could have waited until you got into your vehicle and then asked for a CPL. At that point you would have to show it.
    He could have, but it would not necessarily have been justified (I say not necessarily because there could be other factors involved of which I am not aware, although it seems that in this case the probability of that is negligable).

    I think a lot of people confuse the requirement to show the CPL when requested by a LEO with some notion that they may request it for any reason. This is not true because there is case law supporting the fact that there is no"firearm exception" to Terry, i.e. detaining for crimes relating to firearms requires reasonable suspicion just like any other crime (http://tinyurl.com/6n776c).

    In other words, LEOs may not legally assume that just because someone gets into a car with a firearm that he or she does not have a CPL, and therefore the LEO cannot stop a vehicle or detain the person unless they do have RAS.

    Edit: This is, of course, my personal opinion based on research and is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    youngwboi wrote:
    Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.
    A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    youngwboi wrote:
    Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.
    A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.
    From what he wrote they don't ... The cop had no reason to ask... Just because his shirt "covered it while he was bent over" is no reason to ask someone if they have a CPL. for all intents and purposes this encounter should not have even happened.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    No it shouldn't have happened at all, but it is a HUGE improvement over TPD's SOP.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    shakul wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    youngwboi wrote:
    Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.
    A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.
    From what he wrote they don't ... The cop had no reason to ask... Just because his shirt "covered it while he was bent over" is no reason to ask someone if they have a CPL. for all intents and purposes this encounter should not have even happened.
    I beg to differ. If an officer witnesses an article of clothing conceal a firearm then he does have the legal right to ask. Once the clothing covers the firearm we are required by law to produce our CPL upon demand to LEO.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    Of course one could argue intent to conceal vs accidentally concealing, and if in the rather temporary nature of this encounter if it was a valid issue or not.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    shakul wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    youngwboi wrote:
    Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.
    A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.
    From what he wrote they don't ... The cop had no reason to ask... Just because his shirt "covered it while he was bent over" is no reason to ask someone if they have a CPL. for all intents and purposes this encounter should not have even happened.
    I beg to differ. If an officer witnesses an article of clothing conceal a firearm then he does have the legal right to ask. Once the clothing covers the firearm we are required by law to produce our CPL upon demand to LEO.
    Yes, we all know it's bull@#$%, but it's a HUGE improvement over their attitude only a year ago. I was told by a supervisory police sergeant that a firearm pretty much nulled all the requirements and restrictions of a Terry stop. I was told by a police sergeant that the TPD could stop anyone at any time for any reason.I was told that if I carried openly they would take my firearm and I could try to get it back from a judge.

    No, this wasn't perfect, but then the OP didn't ask if he was being detained either. If you don't ask they can talk to you as long as they want, ask you for anything under the sun, and it's all consensual.

    Reposting since there are some new folks around here that don’t seem to know their rights:

    SNIP

    First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established. Second, KNOW the laws in your state and KNOW your rights. Study Terry stops as well as what the limitations are on the police if you are stopped, detained, or arrested. Confidence is your best tool. Remember, if they could arrest you – they would. They wouldn’t waste time giving you a stern lecture, they would talk to you enough to get you to incriminate yourself and then just slap the cuffs on.

    We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

    The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question. The rules and limits are different for a simple conversation, a detainment, and an arrest. You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

    Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and WALK AWAY. If the officer says yes, that he or she is detaining you, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” There is, after all, the possibility that their actions are justified and there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If you are being justifiably detained and you can help the officer, do so. If a guy wearing the same color shirt as you just robbed the 7-11, your cooperation can help the officer get back to looking for the real culprit.

    If they cannot articulate a real crime for which they suspect your involvement, you need to begin objecting to their seizure. I say “real crime” because I once was told that I was being detained “because you’re carrying a gun”. Well, that’s not, all by itself, a crime. Feel free to point that out while you ask for a supervisor. If the law in your state does not require you to produce a concealed weapon permit or license when you are not carrying concealed; don’t. Are you worried he may arrest you or cite you for not doing so? Eh, so what. This is why it’s important to KNOW the law. It would be best if the supervisor arrives and defuses the situation before it comes to arrest, but don’t be so intimidated by the possibility that you waive your other rights. If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING. From the point they tell you you’re under arrest, say absolutely nothing other than the information they need for your booking sheet (name, address, etc.) until you receive competent legal advice. It’s unlikely it will come to that though. Think about it, the officer is so antagonized that he’s being verbally abusive to you, but he’s willing to “do you a favor” by not arresting you if you would just comply. Recognize it for what it is; a bluff.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.
    How can the cop be acting on good faith and be breaking the law at the same time? The cop stepped over the line and had no PC to even approch the op.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    Reposting since there are some new folks around here that don’t seem to know their rights:

    SNIP

    First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established. Second, KNOW the laws in your state and KNOW your rights. Study Terry stops as well as what the limitations are on the police if you are stopped, detained, or arrested. Confidence is your best tool. Remember, if they could arrest you – they would. They wouldn’t waste time giving you a stern lecture, they would talk to you enough to get you to incriminate yourself and then just slap the cuffs on.

    We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

    The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question. The rules and limits are different for a simple conversation, a detainment, and an arrest. You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

    Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and WALK AWAY. If the officer says yes, that he or she is detaining you, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” There is, after all, the possibility that their actions are justified and there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If you are being justifiably detained and you can help the officer, do so. If a guy wearing the same color shirt as you just robbed the 7-11, your cooperation can help the officer get back to looking for the real culprit.

    If they cannot articulate a real crime for which they suspect your involvement, you need to begin objecting to their seizure. I say “real crime” because I once was told that I was being detained “because you’re carrying a gun”. Well, that’s not, all by itself, a crime. Feel free to point that out while you ask for a supervisor. If the law in your state does not require you to produce a concealed weapon permit or license when you are not carrying concealed; don’t. Are you worried he may arrest you or cite you for not doing so? Eh, so what. This is why it’s important to KNOW the law. It would be best if the supervisor arrives and defuses the situation before it comes to arrest, but don’t be so intimidated by the possibility that you waive your other rights. If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING. From the point they tell you you’re under arrest, say absolutely nothing other than the information they need for your booking sheet (name, address, etc.) until you receive competent legal advice. It’s unlikely it will come to that though. Think about it, the officer is so antagonized that he’s being verbally abusive to you, but he’s willing to “do you a favor” by not arresting you if you would just comply. Recognize it for what it is; a bluff.
    Mainsail - as I asked in another thread a few minutes ago, and in accordance with the ideals of opencarry.org, can you please provide some cites to back this up/support it.

    -adamsesq

  16. #16
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.
    Slack? I disagree, it’s not an ‘us vs them’ situation. They MUST have, at minimum, a reasonable specifically articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. They cannot merely be suspicious because you are carrying a gun. If you are willing to yield some of your rights to keep others [the ones authorized by the police], you have no rights at all. We should all cooperate with the police whenever we can, but we can cooperate without sacrificing or rights.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    adamsesq wrote:
    Mainsail wrote:
    Reposting since there are some new folks around here that don’t seem to know their rights:

    SNIP

    First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established. Second, KNOW the laws in your state and KNOW your rights. Study Terry stops as well as what the limitations are on the police if you are stopped, detained, or arrested. Confidence is your best tool. Remember, if they could arrest you – they would. They wouldn’t waste time giving you a stern lecture, they would talk to you enough to get you to incriminate yourself and then just slap the cuffs on.

    We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

    The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question. The rules and limits are different for a simple conversation, a detainment, and an arrest. You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

    Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and WALK AWAY. If the officer says yes, that he or she is detaining you, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” There is, after all, the possibility that their actions are justified and there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If you are being justifiably detained and you can help the officer, do so. If a guy wearing the same color shirt as you just robbed the 7-11, your cooperation can help the officer get back to looking for the real culprit.

    If they cannot articulate a real crime for which they suspect your involvement, you need to begin objecting to their seizure. I say “real crime” because I once was told that I was being detained “because you’re carrying a gun”. Well, that’s not, all by itself, a crime. Feel free to point that out while you ask for a supervisor. If the law in your state does not require you to produce a concealed weapon permit or license when you are not carrying concealed; don’t. Are you worried he may arrest you or cite you for not doing so? Eh, so what. This is why it’s important to KNOW the law. It would be best if the supervisor arrives and defuses the situation before it comes to arrest, but don’t be so intimidated by the possibility that you waive your other rights. If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING. From the point they tell you you’re under arrest, say absolutely nothing other than the information they need for your booking sheet (name, address, etc.) until you receive competent legal advice. It’s unlikely it will come to that though. Think about it, the officer is so antagonized that he’s being verbally abusive to you, but he’s willing to “do you a favor” by not arresting you if you would just comply. Recognize it for what it is; a bluff.
    Mainsail - as I asked in another thread a few minutes ago, and in accordance with the ideals of opencarry.org, can you please provide some cites to back this up/support it.

    -adamsesq
    Cite of what? Google 'Terry Stop'

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.
    How can the cop be acting on good faith and be breaking the law at the same time? The cop stepped over the line and had no PC to even approch the op.
    Per law.com, the legal definition:

    good faith
    n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.


    So yes, I maintain that my impression is that the LEO was acting in good faith.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SW WA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    He told me he was asking because my shirt had covered it when I was bent over.
    If he only sees it for a short time--hard to tell if it is CC sometimes exposed or OC sometimes concealed.

    Bruce

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    367

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    adamsesq wrote:
    Mainsail - as I asked in another thread a few minutes ago, and in accordance with the ideals of opencarry.org, can you please provide some cites to back this up/support it.

    -adamsesq
    Cite of what? Google 'Terry Stop'
    What you wrote here goes WAY beyond Terry. It may all stem from there but it is not all included in Terry.

    In fact you just wrote "They cannot merely be suspicious because you are carrying a gun." That may actually be contradictory to what Terry says.

    I want you to be right and am not disagreeing with you,but it is a lot of legal assertions that I haven't seen any cites to back up. I could be wrong but I thought cites were required with an legal assertions here?

    -adamsesq

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.
    How can the cop be acting on good faith and be breaking the law at the same time? The cop stepped over the line and had no PC to even approch the op.
    Per law.com, the legal definition:

    good faith
    n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.


    So yes, I maintain that my impression is that the LEO was acting in good faith.
    So in your eyes breaking the law is OK as long as you think the cop is acting in good faith? This is a cop, with a badge and is suppose to enforce the law, not break it. Which he did. According to the Casad case, the presences of a gun is not reason for a stop of any kind.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.
    How can the cop be acting on good faith and be breaking the law at the same time? The cop stepped over the line and had no PC to even approch the op.
    Per law.com, the legal definition:

    good faith
    n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.


    So yes, I maintain that my impression is that the LEO was acting in good faith.
    So in your eyes breaking the law is OK as long as you think the cop is acting in good faith? This is a cop, with a badge and is suppose to enforce the law, not break it. Which he did. According to the Casad case, the presences of a gun is not reason for a stop of any kind.
    Bear, we're talking about this particular situation. And yes, I'm not bunged up about it and if it had been me I would not be bunged up about it. If the OP had stated that his shirt had been fully tucked in and there was no way that he could have concealed it I would feel differently. There are other scenarios that could be added in which I would feel different. But that isn't what happened, or at least not what was reported, so not the situation we are discussing.

    We have discussed on the forum that bouncing back and forth between OC and CC, unintentional or not, is likely to get you noticed by someone you may not want to talk with and therefore a bad idea. This situation emphasizes that point to me more than any other matter.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  23. #23
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    bcp wrote:
    He told me he was asking because my shirt had covered it when I was bent over.
    If he only sees it for a short time--hard to tell if it is CC sometimes exposed or OC sometimes concealed.

    Bruce
    I agree.

    Furthermore, the law is very specific inRCW 9.41.050. The OP was not in his place of abode or his fixed place of business. He was carrying a pistol openly and the officer observed that (for at least a brief period of time) the pistolwas concealed bythe OP'sshirt. Therefore, if the OP did not have a concealed pistol permit on his person, he was in violation of section (1) subsection (a) of RCW 9.41.050 and could be charged with a misdemeanor. Furthermore, if the firearm was loaded (and I assume it was) at the time and if the OP had the pistol in the vehicle while he was placing the baby seat and was not carrying his CCP on his person he would have been in violation of section (2) subsection (a) of the same RCW.

    Thus, the officer has witnessed one potential misdemeanor when the shirt covered the firearm (loaded or not) and he may have witnessed a second potential misdemeanor if the firearm was loaded and entered the vehicle. The officer had probable cause (and in facta duty) to askthe OP to produce his CCP.If the OP did not have his CCP on his person or did not have a CCP at all, the officer could charge the OP withone (or possibly two) misdemeanors. Probable cause was established. If the OP produced his CCP (which he did) then the officer had no further reason to question the OP.

    Although the officer continued to ask questions, at least he was relatively polite and friendly about it. Honestly, I'd have answered in the same manner as the OP did. There's no reason to treat the officer poorly, even if he is overstepping his overstepping his bounds a bit. I'dbe willing to give up a tiny bit of my personal freedom voluntarily to leave a good impression on the officer.


    Some folks brought up intentional and accidental concealment and others brought up that such concealment was very brief. Keep in mind that the RCW makes no mention of "intentional" vs. "unintentional" concealment, and such an argument would be rather weak in a court of law. The RCW makes no mention of how brief or fleeting the moment of concealment or carrying in a vehicle is. This would be another weak argument in a court of law. In either case, a judge isn't required to have any mercy on someone charged with unlawful concealment and I doubt many judges would.



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    shad0wfax wrote:
    ...Thus, the officer has witnessed one potential misdemeanor when the shirt covered the firearm (loaded or not) and he may have witnessed a second potential misdemeanor if the firearm was loaded and entered the vehicle. The officer had probable cause (and in facta duty) to askthe OP to produce his CCP.If the OP did not have his CCP on his person or did not have a CCP at all, the officer could charge the OP withone (or possibly two) misdemeanors. Probable cause was established. If the OP produced his CCP (which he did) then the officer had no further reason to question the OP...
    This is similar to saying that someone entering a store OCing can be stopped because they may rob it or that someone OCing a gun can be stopped and ID'd because he or she might be a felon in possession of a firearm. Just because someone gets into a car with a firearm or conceals a firearm does not give police probable cause--or even reasonable suspicion--that he or she is breaking the law because there is no reason to believe the person does not have a CPL (assuming the officer has no specific knowledge such as knowing the person does not have a CPL or is a felon, etc.). Therefore, there is no legal justification to detain the person. Of course, a consensual contact is legal and the officer may ask whatever he or she likes and you are free to answer or not.

    Remember, the law that requires presentation of the CPL says "...when and if required by law..." and although I would not want to be the test case, it seems to me that you would only be required by law to show your CPL if the demand to see it was lawful. (This argument is mostly theoretical, as there are way too many interpretations of that RCW for me to want to test it.)

  25. #25
    Regular Member shad0wfax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,067

    Post imported post

    sean-1286 wrote:
    This is similar to saying that someone entering a store OCing can be stopped because they may rob it or that someone OCing a gun can be stopped and ID'd because he or she might be a felon in possession of a firearm. Just because someone gets into a car with a firearm or conceals a firearm does not give police probable cause--or even reasonable suspicion--that he or she is breaking the law because there is no reason to believe the person does not have a CPL (assuming the officer has no specific knowledge such as knowing the person does not have a CPL or is a felon, etc.). Therefore, there is no legal justification to detain the person. Of course, a consensual contact is legal and the officer may ask whatever he or she likes and you are free to answer or not.

    Remember, the law that requires presentation of the CPL says "...when and if required by law..." and although I would not want to be the test case, it seems to me that you would only be required by law to show your CPL if the demand to see it was lawful. (This argument is mostly theoretical, as there are way too many interpretations of that RCW for me to want to test it.)
    You are correct that there are many interpretations of the RCW and you are wise not to put this specific one to the test.

    By the Washington State Constitution and of course the 2nd Amendment, I believe that we have the right to carry loaded and open or concealed anywhere we darned-well want to. I believe that the state's "shall issue" CCP policy is simple redundancy. It's like giving me a permit to breathe.

    However, that's not the case as far as the state is concerned.



    I disagree with your interpretation of probable cause. I can say that from personal experience thatthe WSPdisagree with you as well.Ifan officer sees a firearm in a vehicle, they're going to ask you to see your CCP. If you don't have it, they're going to cite you. (I asked if I was being detained and the trooper informed me that I was, unless I produced a CCP.) Whether or not his interpretation is correct and whether or not it would hold up in court is not an argument I felt like making. I produced my CCP and he let me go. That was the end of it.

    I'd like to see what Morris has to say about this.

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
  •