Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Permit to Carry vs (lack of) Stop-And-ID

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Connecticut is not a stop-and-ID state. You are not required to hand over your identification unless you are operating a motor vehicle. State v. Aloi says that you don't have to produce identification, but you do have to identify yourself if asked.

    While state law explicitly mandates that operators of motor vehicles produce identification and gives a penalty for failing to do so, the carry laws only mandate that you keep it on your person. The statutes do not require that you produce it upon request. Furthermore, if the legislature had intended for a permit to carry be produced upon request, they would have mandated it in statute.

    It would seem to me telling an officer your name and that you have a permit to carry satisfies your obligation to the State. Should a lawful search of your person take place, your permit would certainly turn up.

    Given that state law requires anyone carrying a handgun must have a valid permit to carry on their person, but does not explicitly require that it be produced upon request of a police officer, what duty does a permit holder have to produce identification?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Although not in CT. This is a video you may have seen of a similar situation. He produces no id. Not required to.Mr. Ridleyis required to correctly identify himself. He is not required to "prove" his identity. Now in CT you would have to prove you have a CT permit to carry pistols and revolvers if asked- due to open carry in this instance, (I believe.) Now the guy being "Detained" (Mr. Ridly)is acting fine. The other clown is possibly walking a fine line of interfering. This video would be of a greater educational value without the second "non-involved" party.

    I truly believe this situation was valuable in instantly educating the entire police force of this town. I would bet a memo was circulated informing all officers how to handle these situations.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI

    FWIW, The officer getting all pissy about people blocking the sidewalk and trying to look to see if the signs on the pole belonged to these guys, (They belonged to a girl scout troop) show a lack of respect for the common citizens. That part annoyed me. They simply could have shaken the man's hand and said "carry on"


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Plymouth, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    241

    Post imported post

    There is one difference with Ridley in New Hampshire between we in CT.In NH he didn't needa permit to carry in the open like he was doing.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    Now in CT you would have to prove you have a CT permit to carry pistols and revolvers if asked- due to open carry in this instance

    I tried to point that out.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Gluegun,

    How funny this is, it was my brother Richard Peruta, while working for Winding Brook that caught Pau Aloi tampering with and disabling the equipment.

    Brings back many memories of the wacko with mud on his shirt.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    ESCH wrote:
    Now in CT you would have to prove you have a CT permit to carry pistols and revolvers if asked- due to open carry in this instance, (I believe.)
    Says who? Aloi found that “because a refusal to provide identification in connection with a Terry stop may hamper or impede a police investigation into apparent criminal activity, we see no reason why such conduct would be categorically excluded under the expansive language of § 53a-167a.” (Interfering with an officer)

    The Hiibel court found that “[a]sking questions is an essential part of police investigations…beginning with Terry the [c]ourt has recognized that a law enforcement officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further…Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests."

    Since there is no law prohibiting open carry, the mere act of open carrying is not enough for reasonable suspicion of a crime. A man-with-a-gun being called in MAY be enough for reasonable suspicion of breach of peace, but by identifying yourself verbally, the officer can easily call in for information on your drivers license or permit. This should satisfy Hiibel.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Central, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    359

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    How funny this is, it was my brother Richard Peruta, while working for Winding Brook that caught Pau Aloi tampering with and disabling the equipment.
    I wondered about that when I read the opinion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •