Oakland County Transporting without CPL

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?

imported post

EDIT

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

This is where you have things in a locked trunk and you tell the probable cause fisher nothing in the future.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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(?)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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......"

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

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.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/25453.html

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DO NOT LIE TO THE POLICE.

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