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

Thread: Oakland County Transporting without CPL

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post


    Opinions wanted on a traffic stop occuring in late-March of this year.

    I filed a foia request with the department and just reviewed the video.


    I was pulled over for speeding along a major highway in Oakland County, by the OCSD. The Deputy approached on my passenger side.
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms.
    He asked me to place my hands on the steering wheel.
    He asked whatweapons I had in the car.
    I told him I had a rifle, a shotgun, a bow, 2 pistols in the FAR back of my Suburban, and a small Leatherman in my pocket.

    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle.
    I responded.....yes, in the orange bucket seperate from the firearms, the firearms are all cased and unloaded.
    I told him I had an FFL, and my store name is printed all over my vehicle.

    He walked to the drivers side and ordered me out of the vehicle.
    He had me spread 'em on the side of my vehicle and conducted a Terry search of my person.
    He asked me to remove my Leatherman from my pocket and place it on my dash.
    He then asked if i had ever been in the back of a police car and I responded that I hadn't.
    He then walked me to the cruiser and placed me in the back seat.
    At that point, I was NOT free to go....I was detained and in effect, under arrest(?)
    He TOLD me, not asked me, that he was going to make sure the firearms were unloaded.
    He then searched my entire vehicle, front to back, and took the 2 pistols out of the vehicle.
    A minivan pulled up behind us and the officer had a conversation with the passerby about my pistols.
    He was waving them around as he walked to the minivan saying "look what I found, he's just carrying these around with him in the vehicle" (paraphrased)

    The driver of the van made a comment to the Deputy along the lines of...."he can't do that.....he doesn't own the store either, a girl does......"

    (I do own the store, and the vehicle I was driving is titled and registered to the store. A girl has never owned the store, I bought it from a man who had owned it for 35 years)

    He then came back to the cruiser and asked me if I had ever been arrested, if the guns belonged to me, and told me I was in violation of the CCW laws, which is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.

    He then called for another deputy to come to the scene.
    When the deputy arrived, with a K9, the first deputy got out of his car to confer with him, and shut off his microphone.
    He conferred with the other deputy, both were outside of the vehicle and out of camera range.
    After approximately 5 minutes, he got back in the car and continued to chastise me and tell me I was in violation, and that I could only transport the pistols directly to and from the range or if I were moving from one residence to the other.

    He stated that he "thinks" my intent was to follow the law, but it could end up with me being in prison for 5 years. He ran the serial numbers from my pistols and they came back as legally registered to me.
    He wrote mea ticket for speeding, and told me ifI contacted the court and paid a fine, it would be charged as "impeding" with no points on my record, and then sent me on my way, after suggesting that i immediately return the firearms to my store or home.
    I was detained, and not free to leave for approx. 34 minutes.


    4A violation......???
    Legal search and seizure(of myself, as I was detained)???

    What do you think?


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    EDIT

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    He wrote me a ticket for speeding, and told me if I contacted the court and paid a fine, it would be charged as "impeding" with no points on my record, and then sent me on my way, after suggesting that i immediately return the firearms to my store or home.
    Translation, "you're not actually breaking the law, so I'm going to just be a paternal jerk to you."

    This is how you know the deputy didn't actually have anything on you even before the illegal search. He wanted you to think he busted you for a 5-year felony or somesuch. Yeah, right, he's just going let you go if that's the case. He was just lying to you.


    He asked what weapons I had in the car.
    This is where you have things in a locked trunk and you tell the probable cause fisher nothing in the future.

  4. #4
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Why do you keep posting this crap.

    Have you talked to a lawyer yet?

    Why can't you answer questions that are put to you.

    Go away!

    Everyone, please stop responding to this thread.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    This is the long of it.

    I was going to write a second post to address it with a short answer, but dougwg summed it up enough.

    Ken Kd wrote:
    Opinions wanted on a traffic stop occuring in late-March of this year.

    I filed a foia request with the department and just reviewed the video.


    I was pulled over for speeding along a major highway in Oakland County, by the OCSD. The Deputy approached on my passenger side.
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms.
    He asked me to place my hands on the steering wheel.
    He asked whatweapons I had in the car.
    I told him I had a rifle, a shotgun, a bow, 2 pistols in the FAR back of my Suburban, and a small Leatherman in my pocket.


    IANAL but, do you consider the Leatherman a weapon? The carrying of a knife for CCW is tied to intent. IOW: "are you carrying it as a weapon?" While I doubt that you intend to carry it as a weapon, and I'm sure you didn't mean to indicate that it's a weapon when you answered the question, the fact is, you did indicate it when asked about weapons.

    This is one of those areas where I think it's just best to keep my mouth shut. "Did you give the officer RS?" Maybe/maybe not. A lot of people think that, "If we cooperate and comply (with any intrusive question or demand), then the officer will know that we are not a criminal and let us go.". Sadly, this just isn't the case any more. More and more officers being turned out are of the, "us vs. them" mentality. Many of them view us as adversaries, and see their job as finding something to get us on. As an example, they run the serial numbers of your property. They aren't doing this for "officer safety", nor are they doing it for your benefit. They are doing it to see if you are in possession of stolen property. Same thing for searching your vehicle. Once you were in the back of the cruiser, you were effectively under the officers control (the latest Arizona v. Gant ruling should come into play here), and whatever was in your vehicle was no longer an officer safety issue (of course you'll have to go to court to prove it).

    Answering this question about weapons is a trick question. He has already seen the gun cases. By asking you if you have weapons, he can get RS to do a Terry Search. the Terry Search includes an outer pat down of your clothing, and a brief search of the driver/passenger compartment (what's in you immediate area of control). Your trunk area is not part of the Terry Search, but if he has implied consent (maybe you gave him the keys), then it's legal. Cancel that, He already has RS, he's looking for PC, and hoping you'll give it to him. Of course, your silence won't do that. Consent is even better than PC, because he doesn't have to articulate it. You did it for him.

    The officer already had PC to stop you (traffic infraction). IMO, with the above statement about "weapons", you may have given him the RS necessary to do a search for officer safety. Next time, cover those things up with a tarp or something, and try to make it look tidy. Then, don't answer that question. His reason to even go onto that line of conversation was to get into your vehicle, and it worked.


    Ken Kd wrote:
    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. I responded.....yes, in the orange bucket seperate from the firearms, the firearms are all cased and unloaded. I told him I had an FFL, and my store name is printed all over my vehicle.
    While this may not be anything he can use to justify a search, your still giving him information that he doesn't need to write you a speeding ticket. He's trying to get you on a bigger crime. He cast the hook, and you bit. Now, he's trying to reel you in.



    Ken Kd wrote:
    He asked me to remove my Leatherman from my pocket and place it on my dash.
    This is why I had a thread in the Legal Beagle section at MGO. While the Leatherman is pretty much harmless, I wonder if your taking it out and surrendering it is implied consent. Is it meaningful? Probably not, but it's still taking you down a road you shouldn't have even been on.




    He then asked if i had ever been in the back of a police car and I responded that I hadn't.
    He then walked me to the cruiser and placed me in the back seat. At that point, I was NOT free to go....I was detained and in effect, under arrest(?)
    The more he can keep you talking, the better his case will be, and the worse for you.

    You were not detained at that point. You were detained the moment that he used a show of authority (probably his flashing lights).

    "Under arrest(?)" would depend on the judge.


    Ken Kd wrote:
    He TOLD me, not asked me, that he was going to make sure the firearms were unloaded.
    At which point you should have stated that you don't consent to any search or seizure.


    Ken Kd wrote:
    A minivan pulled up behind us and the officer had a conversation with the passerby about my pistols. He was waving them around as he walked to the minivan saying "look what I found, he's just carrying these around with him in the vehicle" (paraphrased)

    The driver of the van made a comment to the Deputy along the lines of...."he can't do that.....he doesn't own the store either, a girl does......"
    This whole part just sounds weird. You need to know who that minivan driver is.



    Ken Kd wrote:
    He then came back to the cruiser and asked me if I had ever been arrested, if the guns belonged to me, and told me I was in violation of the CCW laws, which is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.
    Your response should have been, "I'm willing to cooperate, but I'm not willing to comment without first consulting my lawyer."


    Ken Kd wrote:
    He then called for another deputy to come to the scene. When the deputy arrived, with a K9, the first deputy got out of his car to confer with him, and shut off his microphone.
    Many people would have seen this as a big, giant, red flag of some sort of impropriety. Of course that's probably because they ignored the previous ones.



    Ken Kd wrote:
    He stated that he "thinks" my intent was to follow the law, but it could end up with me being in prison for 5 years.
    Or, he after conferring with the other deputy, he discovered that he didn't have anything to arrest you on (contrary to what he had thought after watching the latest episode of "Cops"), and realizing that he might possibly have overstepped his bounds, is trying to intimidate you into not taking further action against him for his reprehensible actions and misconduct.



    Ken Kd wrote:
    He wrote me a ticket for speeding, and told me if I contacted the court and paid a fine, it would be charged as "impeding" with no points on my record, and then sent me on my way, after suggesting that i immediately return the firearms to my store or home. I was detained, and not free to leave for approx. 34 minutes.
    Do what he says about contacting the court and paying the fine, but not until you consult the lawyer first. I doubt paying it would hurt your case, but IANAL.



    Ken Kd wrote:
    4A violation......???

    Legal search and seizure(of myself, as I was detained)???

    What do you think?
    You were advised on MGO (as well as Defensive Carry) to consult a lawyer. Have you done that yet? Have you talked to Steve Dulan, or any of the others listed in the "...INFO..." thread? I'm guessing you haven't since your still posting this story on the forums (a lawyer would probably tell you to remove it and not comment further).

    "4A violation.......???


    Maybe, maybe not. When asked if you had any weapons, you recited a list of items. When he first turned on his flashers (or whatever it was he did to indicate that he was pulling you over), you were at that point detained. He didn't need RS at that point, because he had PC of a crime (speeding). In effect, the stop was lawful. When asked if you had any weapons, you affirmed, so that gave him what he needed to do a Terry Frisk for officer safety. Also for officer safety, he placed you in the back of the car. Now is where it gets interesting. The recent Arizona v. Gant ruling has restricted such searches of a vehicle if it does not represent a threat to officer safety. Many officers have taken the opinion that it only applies when the suspect is not taken out of the car (Gant had already parked his car, and was in the process of walking away when the stopped him), rather than from inside the car. However, it did more than that. If an officer fears for safety from something inside the car, he/she can cuff and stuff the suspect, thereby rendering the contents of the vehicle inaccessible to the suspect. This takes away the "officer safety" exception to search and seizure (of the vehicle). OTOH, it appears that many officers are just deciding that as a result of this ruling, there are going to be many more towed vehicles ("inventory" searches of the vehicle are quite common for towed vehicles in the interest of deterring theft after the vehicle is released by the officer to the tow company).

    Back to your case. The officer probably had legal right to search your vehicle for officer safety, but Terry only allows it to be in the passenger area. He asked if you had weapons in the car, and you affirmed. Therefore he could do so for officer safety. However, I don't think it means he can search the back., but IANAL. Another thing that you don't mention is how, exactly, he was able to access the back area of your vehicle. Did you give him the keys, and did you make clear (by stating) that you didn't consent. Based on your recounting of the events, you make it sound as if you were trying to be compliant in order to placate him into letting you go, or off.

    With an open SUV, I don't personally know about the back, but it since it's in "plain view", if anything he sees gives him PC, then he can search. However, if he can't articulate probable cause of a crime with just the plain view, then he doesn't get to search. Probable cause can mean the preservation of evidence.


    Another thing to remember. Just because you don't think you are a threat to officer safety, doesn't mean that he can't articulate that you are armed and dangerous. Officers use "totality of circumstances" to determine such things, and they won't necessarily tell you.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Doug,
    Thank you for the warm welcome.
    Why is this crap?
    I have posted this in 3 forums that I ran across while researching this issue. I am merely seeking opinions/suggestions from knowledgable people who may have insight or have had similar questions.

    I figured the 3 forums I posted on would provide more info tha www.pleasegoaway.com.

    I have spoken with an atty and he expressed interest in viewing the video but he never responded back to my request for an appt.

    What questions have I not answered?

    I have read a lot of your posts here and on other boards, and respected your thoughts, knowledge and opinions....

    Again, thanx for the warm welcome.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Ken Kd wrote:
    Doug,
    Thank you for the warm welcome.
    Why is this crap?
    I have posted this in 3 forums that I ran across while researching this issue. I am merely seeking opinions/suggestions from knowledgable people who may have insight or have had similar questions.

    I figured the 3 forums I posted on would provide more info tha http://www.pleasegoaway.com.

    I have spoken with an atty and he expressed interest in viewing the video but he never responded back to my request for an appt.

    What questions have I not answered?

    I have read a lot of your posts here and on other boards, and respected your thoughts, knowledge and opinions....

    Again, thanx for the warm welcome.
    Sounds like you might need to talk to another lawyer (or several) and get their take on it if the first one isn't doing what you need.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    Ghost,
    Thanx for the response. I am posting from a cell, but will respond to your post in more detail when I have a proper keyboard in front of me.

    As far as an atty, would Steve be your reccpomendation?

    My goal is to have the deputies at OCSD properly trained so I can feel secure when transporting firearms legally. My truck is like a rolling billboard and I would hate to think there may be future harrassment if I were to pursue this further.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Post imported post

    Ken Kd, welcome to the forum. Sorry to hear about your troubles. Wish I could help with the legalese and I do understand your desire for other people's opinion.

    If you are able, could you post a link to the dash cam video? That would probably be most informative.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    OC4me wrote:
    Ken Kd, welcome to the forum. Sorry to hear about your troubles. Wish I could help with the legalese and I do understand your desire for other people's opinion.

    If you are able, could you post a link to the dash cam video? That would probably be most informative.


    I have no link....it is in VHS format.

  11. #11
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post


    "4A violation.......???


    Maybe, maybe not. When asked if you had any weapons, you recited a list of items. When he first turned on his flashers (or whatever it was he did to indicate that he was pulling you over), you were at that point detained. He didn't need RS at that point, because he had PC of a crime (speeding). In effect, the stop was lawful. When asked if you had any weapons, you affirmed, so that gave him what he needed to do a Terry Frisk for officer safety. Also for officer safety, he placed you in the back of the car. Now is where it gets interesting. The recent Arizona v. Gant ruling has restricted such searches of a vehicle if it does not represent a threat to officer safety. Many officers have taken the opinion that it only applies when the suspect is not taken out of the car (Gant had already parked his car, and was in the process of walking away when the stopped him), rather than from inside the car. However, it did more than that. If an officer fears for safety from something inside the car, he/she can cuff and stuff the suspect, thereby rendering the contents of the vehicle inaccessible to the suspect. This takes away the "officer safety" exception to search and seizure (of the vehicle). OTOH, it appears that many officers are just deciding that as a result of this ruling, there are going to be many more towed vehicles ("inventory" searches of the vehicle are quite common for towed vehicles in the interest of deterring theft after the vehicle is released by the officer to the tow company).

    Back to your case. The officer probably had legal right to search your vehicle for officer safety, but Terry only allows it to be in the passenger area. He asked if you had weapons in the car, and you affirmed. Therefore he could do so for officer safety. However, I don't think it means he can search the back., but IANAL. Another thing that you don't mention is how, exactly, he was able to access the back area of your vehicle. Did you give him the keys, and did you make clear (by stating) that you didn't consent. Based on your recounting of the events, you make it sound as if you were trying to be compliant in order to placate him into letting you go, or off.

    With an open SUV, I don't personally know about the back, but it since it's in "plain view", if anything he sees gives him PC, then he can search. However, if he can't articulate probable cause of a crime with just the plain view, then he doesn't get to search. Probable cause can mean the preservation of evidence.


    Another thing to remember. Just because you don't think you are a threat to officer safety, doesn't mean that he can't articulate that you are armed and dangerous. Officers use "totality of circumstances" to determine such things, and they won't necessarily tell you.

    ghostrider,

    I was going to post a response, but you have said it better than I ever could. The information here is priceless, especially the reference to the Gant case. This should be required reading for everyone here.

    It can't be stressed enough that by not protesting the officers actions at various steps, an inference of permission by the driver can be made. If the officer can or can't search is really decided in court. By stating clearly that the search is being done w/out consent, it just makes it harder for the officer to claim permission was given or implied.
    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.

  12. #12
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Oh... BTW, for what lawful purpose did you have the pistols in the car?
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    I was heading to my barber.....private property where OC is permitted, then I was heading to Pinckney for a meeting at a private business that also has a private range on the property where shooting is legal.

  14. #14
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Other threads

    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=43961

    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=47710

    Do you want to sue the cops for violating your right?

    Are you pissed that they gave you a ticket for impeding traffic?

    Do you want help with the traffic ticket?

    Why do you even mention Open Carry as you have already stated that you do not have a CPL and were driving in your vehicle.

    WHAT DO YOU WANT?


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    Other threads

    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=43961

    http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=47710

    Do you want to sue the cops for violating your right?

    Are you pissed that they gave you a ticket for impeding traffic?

    Do you want help with the traffic ticket?

    Why do you even mention Open Carry as you have already stated that you do not have a CPL and were driving in your vehicle.

    WHAT DO YOU WANT?



    I believe I answered the questions posed directlyto me in the other threads, didn't I?

    I am notupset about the ticket, I paid the fine and am actually grateful that it was reduced to Impeding and therefore no points on my record.



    I mentioned Open Carry because I feel that i was transporting thehandguns for a"lawful purpose", OC at my barber shop and a meeting/shooting after that in Pinckney.



    Sue the cops.....I don't know.....I'm gathering information as I stated above.



    What do I want???

    Information and thoughts from knowledgable folks that may have had this happen to them, as stated several times, and education for the department so I and others will not be harrassed or illegally searched in the future.

    I also want a modicum of respect that a normal person should expect to receive when joining a new forum.

    I also would like to educate myself better and learn from others who have more experience than me regarding transporting, carrying, and using firearms.



    I also would like a trillion dollars in small, unmarked bills....thanx for asking!!! LOL



    Oh, one more thing....I would also like a response to the PM I sent you.



    Respectfully,

    Ken




  16. #16
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Ken Kd wrote:
    My goal is to have the deputies at OCSD properly trained so I can feel secure when transporting firearms legally. My truck is like a rolling billboard and I would hate to think there may be future harrassment if I were to pursue this further.
    Because of the fairly recent incident at Boston Market involving myself and several others here, and nearly a dozen OCSD officers, I firmly believe they HAVE been educated.

    If you are pissed off enough that you want to sue them, I can't say that I blame you, but honestly, I doubt that you'll have any more problems. Sheriff Bouchard told me on the phone that every officer in every station under his control has been educated about gun rights and probable cause to demand ID, and there has been evidence to suggest that they even sent information out to other jurisdictions.

    As I just said in the other thread, if you do have future problems with the department (not this one, but future problems), I'd be eager as hell to help organize a case against them with you, if what happened at Boston market could be related to your case in court. But I believe the odds of that being necessary are astronomically small.

    What I do suggest you do for sure, is send a complaint letter to the Sheriff, much the same as we did for Boston Market, and ask what steps will or have been taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. The Sheriff told me several times on the phone that he should be contacted with any questions or concerns, and this is by all means something that you should inquire about with him.

    The speeding ticket is a separate issue. I'd be happy to help you try to think of ways to challenge it, but it has nothing to do with the harassment for the carrying of firearms.

    And lastly, welcome to the forum. Any chance of a FFL transfer discount for MOC members?


    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757

    Post imported post

    Ken, welcome again to the forum! I do hope that you stay and contribute. Your shared experience benefits all of us, even if we are not able to all help in a constructive way.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Ken Kd wrote:
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

    He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.

    He walked to the drivers side and ordered me out of the vehicle. I would comply, but then I would also lock the door behind me and place the keys in my pocket. Before the officer approached my vehicle, I'd have rolled up all of my windows except for the window he approached. I would roll that window back up before exiting the vehicle.

    He had me spread 'em on the side of my vehicle and conducted a Terry search of my person. "Officer, I understand you care about your safety, but do you pat down everyone you pull over? If not, then why me?"

    He asked me to remove my Leatherman from my pocket and place it on my dash. I wouldn't remove anything from my pocket. If he could tell, during the pat down, that it was a knife... and if he really feared for his safety, then he should remove it from your pocket himself. During a pat down, an officer is only authorized to remove items that feel like weapons. I would strongly discourage removing anything from your own pockets because A) If it's not a weapon, whatever you take out may be used against you, and B) If it IS a weapon, you don't want the officer to think you're trying to use it.

    He then asked if i had ever been in the back of a police car and I responded that I hadn't. "Why... am I under arrest, officer?"

    He TOLD me, not asked me, that he was going to make sure the firearms were unloaded. "I AM NOT CONSENTING TO ANY SEARCHES, OFFICER" Loud enough for the dash cam to pickup.

    He then came back to the cruiser and asked me if I had ever been arrested, if the guns belonged to me, and told me I was in violation of the CCW laws, which is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. "Am I under arrest for CCW? If so, then I think you should call a supervisor... or allow me to call an attorney."

    After approximately 5 minutes, he got back in the car and continued to chastise me and tell me I was in violation, and that I could only transport the pistols directly to and from the range or if I were moving from one residence to the other. "Thanks for the legal advice, officer. Am I free to go now?"

    What do you think? I think your situation sounds similar to mine in Detroit (Arrested in Detroit for OC... see the link below this quote box). Do I think what happened is wrong? Absolutely. Do I think you're going to get anything in a law suit? Probably not. What I would do, however, is file a formal, written, complaint with the OCSD at their office on 1200 North Telegraph Road in Pontiac.
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/25453.html

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Ken Kd wrote:
    What do I want???

    Information and thoughts from knowledgable folks that may have had this happen to them, as stated several times, and education for the department so I and others will not be harrassed or illegally searched in the future. I sought the same result from my situation in Detroit... I was pleased with how simple it was to make a formal complaint and then discuss the issue with the Office of Chief Investigator. Their methods of stopping someone with a gun has changed, as a result. It took less than a week.

    I also want a modicum of respect that a normal person should expect to receive when joining a new forum. Sounds fair... although there are no guarantees in life when it comes to being respected by others. :-P

    I also would like to educate myself better and learn from others who have more experience than me regarding transporting, carrying, and using firearms. I think you'll find that here.
    As for whether or not you want to make your story public, that's up to you. I did it too. I didn't intend to sue... my intention was to create awareness and inspire change.

    Others are going to have opinions about what they think you should do... but remember that whatever happened, it happened to YOU. How you decide to proceed is your business.

    My two cents... you can keep the change. :-P

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    Ken Kd wrote:
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

    He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
    ...
    DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

    You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Ken Kd wrote:
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

    He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
    ...
    DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

    You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

    Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

    The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

    The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Ken Kd wrote:
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

    He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
    ...
    DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

    You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

    Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

    The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

    The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.
    You do have a point, but what's important is what a jury would think. I just believe in giving as little wiggle room as possible.


    BTW:
    I just looked up "carry" in my Websters, and this is what the 2nd definition said:
    To take from one place to another; transport, as in a vehicle [to carry the mail].
    Under that definition, he would have been carrying weapons.




  23. #23
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Ken Kd wrote:
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

    He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
    ...
    DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

    You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

    Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

    The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

    The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.
    You do have a point, but what's important is what a jury would think. I just believe in giving as little wiggle room as possible.


    BTW:
    I just looked up "carry" in my Websters, and this is what the 2nd definition said:
    To take from one place to another; transport, as in a vehicle [to carry the mail].
    Under that definition, he would have been carrying weapons.


    Therein lies the problem... I think ghostrider is right. Yes, perhaps "technically" I could find a dictionary that does not give "transport" as an alternative definition of "carry". However, instead of playing roadside semantics with the officer, why not just keep quiet? Why add to your grief? Legally, if you look at the law, it generally states that deference will be given to the prosecution in these sorts of cases. This means that when in doubt, the decision is going to go the officer's way. The safest way to handle the situation: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Your eloquence will get you nowhere but in trouble.
    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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    Ken Kd wrote:
    After the usual questions of drivers license, registration, where are you going, etc. he spotted two long gun cases and a small pistol case in the FAR rear of my Suburban.
    He asked why I did not disclose the firearms and I responded thatI did not have a CPL, and did not beleive I was required to disclose legally transported firearms. "I'm not carrying weapons, therefore no disclosure is necessary, officer." If he presses the issue, then I would say, "Officer, you can see that I'm transporting weapon cases in my vehicle... I am not carrying any weapons on my person though. No disclosure is necessary."

    He asked whatweapons I had in the car. "I'm not carrying any weapons, officer." If he pushes the issue, then I would say, "Did you pull me over to discuss the contents of my vehicle? I'm not going to consent to any searches, nor answer questions that the law does not require me to, officer. Am I free to go?"

    He then asked if I had ammunition in the vehicle. Same answer as above.
    ...
    DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

    You do not have to answer their questions, but lying can do more harm than good.

    Show me where he would be lying using my response examples. I said "I'm not CARRYING any weapons, officer." I said nothing about TRANSPORTING, other than to make mention that the officer could see that he was transporting weapon cases already.

    The officer could already see cases, but no weapons were visible. So it's safe to respond that you are transporting weapon cases and disclose that you are not carrying any weapons on your person. CARRYING (on your person) is not the same as TRANSPORTING (in your vehicle). The officer may assume they are the same, but his assumption would be wrong... and it doesn't make anyone a liar.

    The words you use make a big difference. You know this. What happens when someone asks you if you have a CCW? My guess is that you say something like, "Nope... a CCW is a felony. I do have a CPL, though." Assumptions and word differences can change the paradigm of any situation... doesn't make you a liar.
    You do have a point, but what's important is what a jury would think. I just believe in giving as little wiggle room as possible.


    BTW:
    I just looked up "carry" in my Websters, and this is what the 2nd definition said:
    To take from one place to another; transport, as in a vehicle [to carry the mail].
    Under that definition, he would have been carrying weapons.


    Codification can override traditional dictionary definitions. In the absence of case or codified law that establishes a definition, then the dictionary is used (such as with "brandishing", in Michigan). In that you need a CPL to CARRY, but not to TRANSPORT, the law has established a concise difference between the two. You do not need to disclose weapons being transported in the vehicle... only weapons that you are carrying concealed. If weapons being transported in a vehicle were considered to be "carried", then you would be guilty of CCW if you did not have a CPL.

    So my contention is that, under the definition of law, he was not carrying a weapon. As for what the jury might think, I think the point is moot. I can't see any prosecutor with half a brain seeking a conviction. And even if some bonehead did, a good defense attorney would need only explain how the defendant did NOT commit CCW under the definition of law. The jury can think the defendant is an idiot, a moron, a sassy wordsmith, and/or disrespectful... none of that matters because that's not what he'd be on trial for.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Therein lies the problem... I think ghostrider is right. Yes, perhaps "technically" I could find a dictionary that does not give "transport" as an alternative definition of "carry". However, instead of playing roadside semantics with the officer, why not just keep quiet? Why add to your grief? Legally, if you look at the law, it generally states that deference will be given to the prosecution in these sorts of cases. This means that when in doubt, the decision is going to go the officer's way. The safest way to handle the situation: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. Your eloquence will get you nowhere but in trouble.
    In my example, my response would not offer the officer anymore information than he already had through his casual observation. Under the law, you are required to disclose if you are carrying concealed. By telling the officer "You can see that I'm transporting weapon cases but I am not carrying on my person" would not give the officer anymore information than he already had (other than the fact that you're not carrying concealed).

    He could've simply played dumb and not answered at all, sure. But sometimes keeping absolutely quiet adds to your grief, especially when the LEO may not understand the law. In my experience, dropping subtle hints that you're well informed can tip the scales of an encounter in your favor... it can cause them to take a step back and reevaluate the situation from a more rational perspective. I'd assume that officers are like most other people in the world in that they prefer to operate on softer targets.

    If this gentleman's story is accurate, then it would seem that regardless of his response (whether he admitted he was transporting or he sat in silence) that he probably would have been dealt the same response by the LEO. Sitting in silence would likely give the officer the assumption that the driver is guilty of something... an indication of softness. One of the principles of police interrogation is that silence is usually a sign of guilt. When you've got an officer who is ignorant of the law looking at weapon cases in plain sight and attempting interaction with a silent driver... it's a recipe for disaster.

    By formulating a careful response, the officer might've assumed the cases were empty and the whole process might've been avoided. Or the officer might've identified him as someone who knows the law and may have sought guidance from a more experienced LEO before violating his rights. Then again, maybe not. Either way, his situation probably wouldn't get any worse by choosing a carefully formulated response that limited details to information the officer already had.

    I generally choose words carefully. People don't always listen carefully. This can become an advantage for me. It is my eloquence that has kept me out of trouble so far. I appreciate everyone's advice on many matters... insight is a valuable tool. But understandings someone's level of experience in a matter is important when digesting their opinions. I've heard from a few people here how "foolish" (and that's putting it nicely) I am, and others are, for operating certain ways... but I'd be keenly interested in knowing how many of them have actually been in situations that require them to think on their feet in the face of LEO demands. I'd be keenly interested in knowing how often they've faced detention, arrest, and/or felony or misdemeanor charges for asserting their rights. I'm not a virgin in any of the above... and I've still got a sparkling clean criminal history. Whatever it is I do, or however it is that I handle myself, obviously works for me... my experiences have served me well, I think. Other experiences may differ, but I merely offer advice based on how I would've handled things based on my real experience.

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
  •