Question----- about giving ID/CPL to Police.

imported post

In the state of Michigan, when are you REQUIRED to disclose that you have a CPL, give ID, etc. And if you have sites to the legislature or whatever that would be great.....maybe its already on here somewhere...IDK.

I would appreciate some help!

imported post

Here's what posted on the MSP site





[font="Arial, Helvetica"][size=+0]Responsibilities of Individuals With a CCW License:[/font]

1. [font="Arial, Helvetica"]An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol who is stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise) while in possession of a pistol shall immediately discloseto the police officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol either on their person or in their motor vehicle.[/font]

1. [font="Arial, Helvetica"]An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall have the license in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.[/font]

1. [font="Arial, Helvetica"]Upon request, an individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall show bothof the following to a police officer:[/font]

1. [font="Arial, Helvetica"]A pistol carried in violation of numbers 1, 2, or 3 is subject to immediate seizure by a police officer.[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica"][font="Arial, Helvetica"]To Ensure Safety During Police Encounters[/font] [/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]If you are stopped by a law enforcement officer you should:[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica"]In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized.[/font]

imported post

Basically, as JBlack said:

When you're stopped, you must disclose immediately. If you're not stopped, you don't have to disclose. The law doesn't clearly define what constitutes a stop.

And that's all we really have to go on.

imported post

okay...but "stopped" by an officer one must be in violation of a law correct? or the officer should have reasonable suspicion that the person has violated a law...correct?

imported post

WE weren't stopped though... Rob was stopped and detained, and we were told to "back off" because we were protesting Rob's detainment the officers then started interacting with us, therefore were we required to disclose at that point? we were not stopped, nor were we in violation of any law...

imported post

stephgrinage23 wrote:

In the state of Michigan, when are you REQUIRED to disclose that you have a CPL, give ID, etc. And if you have sites to the legislature or whatever that would be great.....maybe its already on here somewhere...IDK.

I would appreciate some help!

Click to expand...

Stephgrinage,the key word in Section 5f is "carrying", remember this while reading through this section.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(u22gxl455zs4esq2sneaugj3))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=mcl-28-425f

28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to police officer; violation; penalty; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.

Sec. 5f.

(1) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.

(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:

(a) His or her license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) His or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card.

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

(4) An individual who violates subsection (1) or (2) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $100.00.

(5) An individual who violates subsection (3) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined as follows:

(a) For a first offense, by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended for 6 months, or both.

(b) For a subsequent offense within 3 years of a prior offense, by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being revoked.

(6) If an individual is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this section, the court shall notify the department of state police and the concealed weapon licensing board that issued the license of that determination.

(7) A pistol carried in violation of this section is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a pistol under this subsection, the individual has 45 days in which to display his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the individual displays his or her license or documentation to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the pistol to the individual unless the individual is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. If the individual does not display his or her license or documentation within the 45-day period, the pistol is subject to forfeiture as provided in section 5g. A pistol is not subject to immediate seizure under this subsection if both of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual has his or her driver license or Michigan personal identification card in his or her possession when the violation occurs.

(b) The peace officer verifies through the law enforcement information network that the individual is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol.

(8) As used in this section, "peace officer" includes a motor carrier officer appointed under section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d, and security personnel employed by the state under section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.




History: Add. 2000, Act 381, Eff. July 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 719, Eff. July 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 194, Eff. Jan. 7, 2009
Popular Name: CCW
Popular Name: Concealed Weapons
Popular Name: Right to Carry
Popular Name: Shall Issue

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

imported post

stephgrinage23 wrote:

okay...but "stopped" by an officer one must be in violation of a law correct? or the officer should have reasonable suspicion that the person has violated a law...correct?

Click to expand...

No. You can be stopped by an officer at his whim. And if you're stopped, you must disclose. And if s/he asks, you must provide ID and CPL.

imported post

isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?

imported post

stephgrinage23 wrote:

isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?

Click to expand...

For a legal stop, yes. But the law doesn't specify that the stop must be legal.

However, if the stop was illegal to begin with, you could most likely get the infraction dismissed.

In addition, for your particular case, I feel as if you weren't stopped to begin with. Otherwise, you'd have been asked for ID and assigned an officer at the beginning of the altercation.

imported post

Jblack44 wrote:

Here's what posted on the MSP site





[font="Arial, Helvetica"][size=+0]Responsibilities of Individuals With a CCW License:[/font]

Click to expand...

The problem with that page is that it is only referring to "concealed" carrying, yet doesn't state so.

SpringerXDacp posted the relevant law. It says that you must disclose when carrying "concealed". That is why some people who OC do so sterile.

As far as the question about "when", you are required to do so. It doesn't matter if you are breaking a law, because you may well be breaking a law unawares.

If an officer stops you, and your carrying concealed, it would bode well to immediately inform. I look at it as in, "I don't want to give the officer any chance to say that I didn't disclose".

imported post

stephgrinage23 wrote:

isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?

Click to expand...

Not for a voluntary stop. There's a difference between voluntary stop, detention, and arrest. A LEO doesn't need anyRAS or PC to initiate a voluntary stop with you. Of course, you may immediately dismiss yourself by askingif you are free to go. RAS or PC is required for detention or arrest.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

If an officer stops you, and your carrying concealed, it would bode well to immediately inform. I look at it as in, "I don't want to give the officer any chance to say that I didn't disclose".

Click to expand...

ghostrider,

I too would suggest erring on the side of informing them right away if stopped. The issue in an automobile (and therefore concealed) is a given as I am hard pressed to think of a situation when an officer would be talking to you without having stopped you. Technically, on foot, I would think that it would have to be more than the officer trying to ask a few questions. I usually just keep walking; in general, I refuse to talk to the police in anything other than an official capacity. No "good day, officer" from me. If I'm told to stop, then I would inform him.

While hunting last November, I had a DNR officer walk slowly up to me and ask how it was going. He then sat with me and, as he was in the process of taking a seat, I informed him I was carrying concealed. He thanked me and said it was nice of me but not mandatory, as he was not doing an investigatory stop. He just wanted to take a rest and I didn't seem to mind him being there. After I informed him, he did not ask for my deer license, my cpl, nor did he ask to see my pistol. He left on very friendly terms, even offering to send me some new maps of the area I was hunting (it's on state land). I know that I didn't adhere to my general rule of "no talking", but I felt it was ok to do in the situation because he could have asked to see my license per MI hunting rules and checked my firearm per Michigan hunting rules.

So, I think that me telling him was a positive and I will probably continue to do so in similar situations. Your situation is regrettably a little different. I would have probably informed if I felt I was being "stopped" but I think the events that transpired before the interaction would have answered the question of whether informing the officer was required. Were YOU told to stop and were YOU detained? Those are the important questions.

imported post

DanM wrote:

stephgrinage23 wrote:

isn't there certain criteria that has to be in place in order for an officer to stop someone, like reasonable suspicion/violation of a law/complaint called in...etc?

Click to expand...

Not for a voluntary stop. There's a difference between voluntary stop, detention, and arrest. A LEO doesn't need anyRAS or PC to initiate a voluntary stop with you. Of course, you may immediately dismiss yourself by askingif you are free to go. RAS or PC is required for detention or arrest.

Click to expand...

Also, that isn't something you contend with the officer on the street. That is for your lawyer to sort out later. Some officers won't even tell you their RS, and that doesn't mean you are not required to disclose.

Trust me when I say that I understand your distrust of police, but don't let that distrust cloud your judgment to the point that it gets you in some violation of a law that could jeopardize your permit privileges.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

If an officer stops you, and your carrying concealed, it would bode well to immediately inform. I look at it as in, "I don't want to give the officer any chance to say that I didn't disclose".

Click to expand...

ghostrider,

I too would suggest erring on the side of informing them right away if stopped. The issue in an automobile (and therefore concealed) is a given as I am hard pressed to think of a situation when an officer would be talking to you without having stopped you. Technically, on foot, I would think that it would have to be more than the officer trying to ask a few questions. I usually just keep walking; in general, I refuse to talk to the police in anything other than an official capacity. No "good day, officer" from me. If I'm told to stop, then I would inform him.

While hunting last November, I had a DNR officer walk slowly up to me and ask how it was going. He then sat with me and, as he was in the process of taking a seat, I informed him I was carrying concealed. He thanked me and said it was nice of me but not mandatory, as he was not doing an investigatory stop. He just wanted to take a rest and I didn't seem to mind him being there. After I informed him, he did not ask for my deer license, my cpl, nor did he ask to see my pistol. He left on very friendly terms, even offering to send me some new maps of the area I was hunting (it's on state land). I know that I didn't adhere to my general rule of "no talking", but I felt it was ok to do in the situation because he could have asked to see my license per MI hunting rules and checked my firearm per Michigan hunting rules.

So, I think that me telling him was a positive and I will probably continue to do so in similar situations. Your situation is regrettably a little different. I would have probably informed if I felt I was being "stopped" but I think the events that transpired before the interaction would have answered the question of whether informing the officer was required. Were YOU told to stop and were YOU detained? Those are the important questions.

Click to expand...

When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.

“A seizure occurs when there is either (a) ‘a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful,’ or (b) submission to ‘a show of authority.’” Brown, 448 F.3d at 245 (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 1550 (1991)....

...(holding that the defendant was seized after he initially yielded to the police officer’s authority by turning to face the police car and placing his hands on the vehicle, even though he attempted to flee a short time later).

Click to expand...

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0161P.pdf



This link has been posted several times, and is a great resource not only because of how it clarifies things, but also because it provides starting points to further research the topic of search and seizure.

imported post

Here's a question....

I heard from someone that they were stopped by a sheriff for OCing. This individual was OCing 1 firearm, and CCing 2 firearms. Obviously since this person was CCing at least 1 firearm they would have to provide a CPL, but from what I was told the sheriff told this person that they must either CC or OC; they can't do both. I have yet to read this anywhere. Has anyone else heard ifthis is true or not?

imported post

T Vance wrote:

Here's a question....

I heard from someone that they were stopped by a sheriff for OCing. This individual was OCing 1 firearm, and CCing 2 firearms. Obviously since this person was CCing at least 1 firearm they would have to provide a CPL, but from what I was told the sheriff told this person that they must either CC or OC; they can't do both. I have yet to read this anywhere. Has anyone else heard if this is true or not?

Click to expand...

Simply not true.

There is nothing in MCL or federal law that states this. Ask this officer to cite law when spewing crap from his mouth.

imported post

I figured that it was possibly crap!

imported post

I am not a lawyer.

I am going to opine that the law is unconstitutionally vague.

The word stop is often used interchangeablywithTerry-stop and detention. I've seen cops on this forum do it. But, I've also seen it used in the context of a consensual encounter by police on this forum, though less often.

I'm betting that 4th Amendment case law which sets out the standardsfor an involuntary encounter/detention/Terry-stop overridethevagueness in the law. The US Supreme Court, even the state courts, have longheld the requirements fora detention aka Terry-stop.The point upon which things hinge, I should think, is the voluntary nature of an encounter that is not a detention orarrest. It makes little sense thatstatutes could/would override the 4A during a consensual encounterwhere there is no safety issue for the officer as discussed in numerous4A court opinions ondetentions and traffic stops. Those opinions always reference officer safetyand only authorize weapon seizureafter the point the officer has RAS. Atleast the ones I've read.

Also, it would be unconstitutional to require a prohibited possessor to notify (5th Amendment). Next, it would tend to absurdity. For example, cop asks for a donation to a charity. "I am armed officer." Or, cop says hello at the coffee counter at 7-Eleven. "I am armed officer."

However, until it shows up in a court case, I imagine some cop or prosecutor somewherecould try to charge it for even a consensual encounter.

Also, certain cops like to play their cards close to their chest. May even change the story. "Oh, yes, your honor.I told him I was detaining him to investigate the stolen ice-cream. No, he did not notify me even then." We all know how some cops can be weasels about revealing whether a detention is occurring. "Am I being detained officer?" "I just need you to answer a few questions that it would be in your best interest to answer."

Don't overlook, as mentioned above, that the OCer will likely have no way to know for sure whether the cop has genuine RAS. Recall that the courts reserve to themselves the power to determine RAS whenever it is in question in a given case. Imagine thinking the cop had no RAS,but ajudge decides he did. Suddenly thechargefor failure to notify sticks? My personal rule of thumb is to never do anything I can be charged for based on my estimation of the LEOs RAS. Get it wrong and you could have an arrest for obstruction.

I might like to suggest a little legislative initiative for next year to get the law clarified by changing the word stop to something that has fewer possible meanings, for example, investigative detention or Terry-stop.

In the meantime, I wonder how it would work to very quickly ask whether you are free to go and notify if you are not. Or notify if you feel you are not free to leave regardless of whether the officer answers the question.

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.

Click to expand...

The way it was written, I wasn't sure if the officer said it to her husband or her, or all of them. Since you seem to be saying she was the person to whom the officer referred, you are right, she was stopped.

Thanks for the correction.

imported post

DrTodd wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

When the officer ordered the "hands over head", it was a detention.

Click to expand...

The way it was written, I wasn't sure if the officer said it to her husband or her, or all of them. Since you seem to be saying she was the person to whom the officer referred, you are right, she was stopped.

Thanks for the correction.

Click to expand...

It was only directed at him. The other two were just ordered to stay back. They weren't even assigned an officer to watch/question them, even though multiple were present.