• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Traffic stop - Do you have to tell them you're armed?

possumbarnes

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
12
Location
TN
imported post

I can't seem to find the answer to this in the forums (or anywhere else for that matter). In AL, does the law state that you must inform a LEO that you are carrying a gun when they pull you over for a traffic stop? I would think that, obviously, if the LEO asks you to step out of the car that you should let them know before stepping out, just for everyone's safety. But, from what I'm reading, some states have a law stating that you must inform a police officer that you are armed immediately, no matter what. Does anyone know for sure about AL law on this matter?
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Varies state to state. VA yes; CO, NHno. I would because there is a substantial chance doing so may get you a warning rather than a ticket.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Tosta Dojen wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Varies state to state. VA yes;
Cite, please; I'm rather familiar with Virginia firearms law and I am unaware of any such requirement.
My mistake. What I should have said is that VA cops know you have a CCW if they run your plate/DL. You do not have to inform them, but if you have a weapon in the car, it makes sense to do so because they will ask.
 

dixieborn

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
130
Location
Mobile, AL, , USA
imported post

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the cop does ask you if you have a weapon in the vehicle... I don't believe you have to tell them. I would certainly not advise lying to the police, but the police do not have all-encompassing power, simply respectfully decline to answer if you don't want to!
 

dixieborn

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
130
Location
Mobile, AL, , USA
imported post

Incorrect there, LT... Code of Alabama section 15-5-31 states that when a police officer "has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this article and reasonably suspects that he is in danger of life or limb, he may search such person for a dangerous weapon. If such officer finds such a weapon or any other thing, the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person."

So first, the officer has to reasonably suspect danger of life or limb. And then, only if your possession of your gun may constitute a crime may he relieve you of it.

I personally, would not give up my weapon (if possible without causing a scene), as I don't know if the guy is trained or proficient in handling my gun. I think it would be much safer for it to stay tucked away in my holster.

Just my .02 though, to each his own.
 

mrjam2jab

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
769
Location
Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
Personally, my opinion is, if in a state not requiring notification, do not volunteer info regarding the presence of firearms. But, if asked and answered, and if carrying on the person, and the cop wants to disarm me at that point.... "Go right ahead, officer."

"I do not consent to this but i will not prevent you from taking it."


LEO: "Do you have any weapons in the vehicle?"
U: "I have nothing that you need to worry about."

Its not lying...
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
74
Location
, ,
imported post

I'm not a lawyer but I can tell you that if you say anything about having a firearm the stop will take on a different tone and will cause you more trouble than is lawfully allowed and that you care to deal with.

I can think of no reason to tell a cop you have a firearm unless you're about to be frisked for weapons (outside an automobile) pursuant to Terry vs. Ohio. In this case it might be appropriate to tell the cop about a firearm. If he asks don't lie.

When inside one's car for anything other than a DUI or accident, which might result in one's being outside an automobile and where a search might ensue, there is no good reason to mention one being armed. Once you do that you're at a disadvantage and will be regarded as a suspect.

As long as your seated quietly and lawfully in your car, you will not benefit at any time by telling a cop that you're armed. It will in most cases be used against you. Let him write his ticket so that you can get down the road and away from him.

Being a smart ass and saying things to tweak a cop won't work well for you either. Cops aren't your friends and collectively they possess an us against them mentality. Telling a cop, "I have nothing that you need to worry about" is certain to go bad for anyone dumb enough to repeat it.

Keeping a low profile is the operative phrase here. Don't prolong a police encounter by being ignorant, abrasive, and stupid.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

ColMustard wrote:
I'm not a lawyer but I can tell you that if you say anything about having a firearm the stop will take on a different tone and will cause you more trouble than is lawfully allowed and that you care to deal with.

I can think of no reason to tell a cop you have a firearm unless you're about to be frisked for weapons (outside an automobile) pursuant to Terry vs. Ohio. In this case it might be appropriate to tell the cop about a firearm. If he asks don't lie.

When inside one's car for anything other than a DUI or accident, which might result in one's being outside an automobile and where a search might ensue, there is no good reason to mention one being armed. Once you do that you're at a disadvantage and will be regarded as a suspect.

As long as your seated quietly and lawfully in your car, you will not benefit at any time by telling a cop that you're armed. It will in most cases be used against you. Let him write his ticket so that you can get down the road and away from him.

Being a smart ass and saying things to tweak a cop won't work well for you either. Cops aren't your friends and collectively they possess an us against them mentality. Telling a cop, "I have nothing that you need to worry about" is certain to go bad for anyone dumb enough to repeat it.

Keeping a low profile is the operative phrase here. Don't prolong a police encounter by being ignorant, abrasive, and stupid.


I generally agree with this (in no duty to inform states).

Although, I've seen several forum reports of LEOs who don't think it's a big deal to to a traffic stop with a (legally) armed ciitizen.

I am interested in this idea Gunslinger mentioned that, somehow, telling the LEO you're armed (in a no duty to inform state) will increase the chance that you will getoff with a warning. Sounds like an urban myth.
 

terminal.logic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

On my traffic stops I typically ask if there are any guns in the vehicle. So, if an officer asks you can either lie or tell the truth. If you get caught in a lie this this will provide the officer with a large amount of suspicion of criminal activity. If you tell the truth be prepared for the officer to check your permit and possibly run the serial number on the weapon.

When someone tells me they have a gun in the car I check the permit and simply ask where its located. After I know where it is I just remind them not to reach towards the area where the gun is without letting me know first.
There's plenty of thugs hiding guns from me. I don't have time to mess with people who appear to be squared away. But that's just the way I handle things. To each officer his own.
 

terminal.logic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Depends on the situation and circumstances. Each encounter is different. It all comes down to what an officer can articulate. Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or personal danger is really very easy to achieve. Once an officer has it, he can frisk and temporarily seize any weapon found to ensure it is lawfully possessed. For further refer to 15-5-31 of AL code.

I just said be prepared for an officer to take the weapon and run the s/n. Might happen, might not. As far as lying, if you tell and officer there's no gun in the car and he later finds out there is you've generated a lot of suspicion, regardless of whether its warranted or not. If you want to lie, by all means lie. People lie to the cops all the time. We expect it.
 

terminal.logic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

15-5-31:
"If such officer finds such a weapon or any other thing, the possession of which may constitute a crime, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person."

The key phrase is "possession of which may constitute a crime."

Possession of a stolen gun is a crime.
Possession of a handgun in a vehicle without a valid permit is a crime.
Possession of a gun by a convicted felon is a crime.

While an officer attempts to confirm that the weapon is legally possessed it may be seized.
Absent any articulable suspicion any seizure is unjustified.
It falls back on each officer and what he can articulate.

I'm not sure where your trying to go with the search for evidence thing. Perhaps you can clarify.
 

terminal.logic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

Once an officer has legal reason to seize the firearm I find it reasonable to ensure it is lawfully possessed by its owner, as long as doing so doesn't cause the owner of said firearm to be unreasonably detained. Once the firearm is lawfully seized the S/N is in plain view, so there's no search.

The same thing with any property. If I see an XBOX in your car and I get a lawful reason (via P.C. or consent) to put my hands on it, I think its reasonable to run its' s/n to ensure it isn't stolen.

I'm not aware of any US Supreme Court ruling indicating otherwise, if you have knowledge of one please share.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
SNIP It will take me some time to find the Supreme Court Case that clearly spells it out.
I'll say. It will take you a while. Terry don't say nuthin' 'bout traffic stops. Its about a foot encounter and requires two elements: 1) reasonably believesthedetainee is armed, and 2) presently dangerous, in addition tojustification for the stop in the first place.

We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Terry v Ohio[suP]1[/suP]



Pennsylvania v Mimms[suP]2[/suP] is more on point for traffic stops.Mimms converts the two prongs of Terry--1) armed and 2) presently dangerous--into a single concept: armed = dangerous:

The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to conclude that Mimms was armed, and thus posed a serious and present danger to the safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of "reasonable caution" would likely have conducted the "pat down."

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

2. http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Also, notice that Terry says nothing about automatically seizing the firearm at the outset of the encounter. It says after the cop makes his inquiries and nothing inthe initial stages serves to dispel his reasonable fear, then he is entitled to search and seize the weapon.

How many times have we read about cops seizing OCers guns at the outset of the encounter for officer safety--without even bothering to see if it was just a citizen exercising the basic human right to self-defense?
 

terminal.logic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

All actions by a police officer must be governed by reason. Absent any suspicion it is unlawful to detain anyone, whether they are armed or not. The lawful carry of a firearm alone is not enough to justify a detention.
 

terminal.logic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
26
Location
, Alabama, USA
imported post

I love this quote:

"The frisk, it held, was essential to the proper performance of the officer's investigatory duties, for, without it, "the answer to the police officer may be a bullet, and a loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is admissible."

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

The courts have given and by all indications will continue to give considerable leeway to officers concerning safety issues so long as the officers' actions are reasonable.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

t.l:

Terry says that even if the search for weapons is warranted, the search may not "violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of their intolerable intensity and scope."

By running the s/n, I would argue that you increased the scope of the search in an intolerable way, changing the purpose of the search from protecting yourself to investigating a crime you had no reason to suspect. I don't know of any ruling that would agree or disagree with that argument.
 
Top