Woman cited for not disclosing..

choover · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

I took my cpl class yesterday and the instructor was telling us to inform police if you have a cpl when pulled over regardless of if your carrying or not. This contradicted what the previous instructor told us earlier in the session which started a discussion. The 2nd instructor agreed that you are only required to inform if carrying but was trying to save us a hassle..

He said he recieved a call a month ago from a woman who took his class a year ago and she had been pulled over for speeding, the cop let her leave then pulled her over a 2nd time and ripped her about not disclosing to which she told him she was not carrying..he cited her for not disclosing.. as of right now the magistrate upheld the citation so she is looking into fighing it further. The cop that did the law section said that the cpl is tied to your car's registration so it pops up if your in your car.

I pointed out that she should win it to which he agreed but said he was recommending his classes to disclose at all times now just to cover them...because regardless of anything it is going to cost her time and money and he wanted to save us that :banghead:

T Vance · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

Well, this also begs another question I've been pondering. Let's say you are riding in a car that is "stopped", but you are not driving and are just a passenger. Are you required to disclose immediatlely then too even though it is the driver who is technically being stopped?

lapeer20m · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

the woman in question in the op post should absolutely be found not guilty, as the statute clearly states that you have to disclose if you are 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.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28pq1urp55kqvwgte5ajuwua45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425f

As a passenger, i think you should also disclose. Not sure if Brendlin v California applies to michigan, but in that case, a passenger was searched and they found drugs on his person. He claimed as a passenger, he was not free to go during the traffic stop, but the state felt that the passenger was not being detained and was free to go.

the courts decision:

"We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendlin_v._California

*edited to include links

Guest · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

As a courtesy to the officer, and to put him at ease, and because I think that it's a good idea, I always disclose that I have a fishing license, but am not fishing at the time. Nor am I in possession of a baited fishing pole.

This is simple common sense.

Mike · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

Unless state law requires you to dicslose you possess a concealed handgun, I receommend people NEVER disclose, nor show the concealed carry license spontaneously - doing so presents a "problem" the officer must deal with under local SOP, policy, or prejudices, old wives tales, etc.

next thing you know, you are out of the car, being patted down, serial numbers being run, etc.

That goes for open carry too - dont ask don't tell is the best policy in my opinion, whether open or concealed carrying.

choover · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

As a courtesy to the officer, and to put him at ease, and because I think that it's a good idea, I always disclose that I have a fishing license, but am not fishing at the time. Nor am I in possession of a baited fishing pole.

This is simple common sense.

I dont think it is a bad idea, I am not against police at all. I am just alarmed that so far the citation is standing since there was no actual violation of the law.

Guest · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

As a courtesy to the officer, and to put him at ease, and because I think that it's a good idea, I always disclose that I have a fishing license, but am not fishing at the time. Nor am I in possession of a baited fishing pole.

This is simple common sense.

My facetious post applies only to fishing licenses.

If I were ever not in possession of a concealed pistol, which is never, I won't be in possession of a CPL either.

There's no law that requires it.

On its face this is a bogus citation.

choover · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

It is very bogus, but she has already lost her case when she went to fight it... just wondering how they can read the law which says concealed weapon and still uphold the citation. Kinda makes me wonder how many handshakes happen before these court dates..

HankT · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

choover wrote:

It is very bogus, but she has already lost her case when she went to fight it... just wondering how they can read the law which says concealed weapon and still uphold the citation. Kinda makes me wonder how many handshakes happen before these court dates..

I wonder if the instructor's story is verifiable...did it really happen?

T Vance · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

HankT wrote:

choover wrote:

It is very bogus, but she has already lost her case when she went to fight it... just wondering how they can read the law which says concealed weapon and still uphold the citation. Kinda makes me wonder how many handshakes happen before these court dates..

Click to expand...

I wonder if the instructor's story is verifiable...did it really happen?

Good point Hank.

Citizen · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

choover wrote:

SNIP...he...said he was recommending his classes to disclose at all times now just to cover them...because regardless of anything it is going to cost her time and money and he wanted to save us that

Hmmm. So, he is going along with the police legislating from the front seat of the patrol car?

Too bad he didn't look up the law and read it aloud verbatim for the students and recommend the students be ready to defend the constitutional form of government and themselves against police.

He is teaching a class in support of an enumerated right, for heaven's sake.

Maybe you can convince him to start recommending students be ready for this little police ultra vires (beyond authority) tactic.

choover · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

I doubt he would give out her name and number to verify it

Having said that when OC was brought up he didnt seem over all against it so I dont think he was looking for reasons to scare people as much as trying to make their carry experiences as painless as possible.

But with what we have seen so far from some law enforcement I wouldnt doubt it. He said 99% of the time you are gonna be fine but like anywhere you have the 1% that are a$$holes.

Well I will say I was understanding of his position, the majority of a class of 33 had never fired a gun even.. His job was to make their carry experience painless not have them get into a court fight. He did agree that the law said concealed but then thats when the 1% issue came up with LE

choover · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

I will also say that the majority of citizens would like to avoid polive encounters. I have told a lot of people about OC and the vast majority take the position that they dont want to be hassled :cuss: SHEEP :banghead::banghead:

taxwhat · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

lapeer20m wrote:

the woman in question in the op post should absolutely be found not guilty, as the statute clearly states that you have to disclose if you are 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.

Click to expand...

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28pq1urp55kqvwgte5ajuwua45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-425f

As a passenger, i think you should also disclose. Not sure if Brendlin v California applies to michigan, but in that case, a passenger was searched and they found drugs on his person. He claimed as a passenger, he was not free to go during the traffic stop, but the state felt that the passenger was not being detained and was free to go.

the courts decision:

"We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission."

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendlin_v._California

*edited to include links

Show or display just so you where not speeding or fail to stop at traffic control device .

Citizen · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

choover wrote:

SNIP Well I will say I was understanding of his position, the majority of a class of 33 had never fired a gun even.. His job was to make their carry experience painless not have them get into a court fight. He did agree that the law said concealed but then thats when the 1% issue came up with LE

At first glance, this makes sense. But consider that he is teaching people how to defend themselves against an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of grave bodily injury or death. Being ready for a little aggravation from a cop is a good bit further down the scale.

warrior1978 · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

The law is clear, CPL and carrying, one must disclose when stopped by a police officer. No pistol, no disclosure required.

With that said, either the citation was issued improperly OR there is more to the story. The law is very clear and If a magistrate upheld the citation, I'm betting there is either more to the story or the story is BS from the start.

Springfield Smitty · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

Mike wrote:

Unless state law requires you to dicslose you possess a concealed handgun, I receommend people NEVER disclose, nor show the concealed carry license spontaneously - doing so presents a "problem" the officer must deal with under local SOP, policy, or prejudices, old wives tales, etc.

next thing you know, you are out of the car, being patted down, serial numbers being run, etc.

That goes for open carry too - dont ask don't tell is the best policy in my opinion, whether open or concealed carrying.

Michigan state law does require disclosure as cited in other posts. As for open carry, no disclosure is required as the visible firearm is your disclosure. I am looking for the document in which I read that at some point. I am not sure if it is an AG opinion or a supreme court ruling, but I did read it somewhere...

SlowDog · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

This does bring to mind the question....did she go in front of a magistrate? Did it really happen? I have talked to several people who have stories like this one from instructors. Seems like it is a teaching tool ....maybe....oh the questions we'll never know the answers to....

dougwg · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

BTW it's section 3 not 2

(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.

Ok, so the way the law is written, we are required to tell the officer that we are carrying a concealed pistol.

Ok, thats what I'm going to start doing from now on.:?

"I'm carrying a concealed pistol"

Who the hell wrote this $hit? And we're paying THEM?

bigdaddyj · Sep 20, 2009

imported post

choover wrote:

I took my cpl class yesterday and the instructor was telling us to inform police if you have a cpl when pulled over regardless of if your carrying or not. This contradicted what the previous instructor told us earlier in the session which started a discussion. The 2nd instructor agreed that you are only required to inform if carrying but was trying to save us a hassle..

He said he recieved a call a month ago from a woman who took his class a year ago and she had been pulled over for speeding, the cop let her leave then pulled her over a 2nd time and ripped her about not disclosing to which she told him she was not carrying..he cited her for not disclosing.. as of right now the magistrate upheld the citation so she is looking into fighing it further. The cop that did the law section said that the cpl is tied to your car's registration so it pops up if your in your car.

I pointed out that she should win it to which he agreed but said he was recommending his classes to disclose at all times now just to cover them...because regardless of anything it is going to cost her time and money and he wanted to save us that :banghead:

If you don't mind me asking, where did you take you CPL class???

Woman cited for not disclosing..

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Guest

Guest

Site Co-Founder

Regular Member

Guest

Guest

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member