Transporting your firearm in your car

imported post

I was reading a post from another state tonight where they debated on wheather after a traffic stop when a Police officer asked the driver if he had any weapons in the car and the driver responded with Yes, I have a gun, could the Police officer order the driver out of the car, hand cuff himand search the vehicle to locate the gun? The posting listed this case and the answer was NO and the evidence that was found during the search was supressed.

We all transport out firearms in our vehicle, what is the law in Wisconsin in relation to searching the vehicle after a traffic stopwhenwe are questioned by the police officer who stopped us with "do you have any weapons in your vehicle" and then admitt to having a gun in the vehicle?

Do you deny having a weapon?
Do you refuse to leave the car?
Do you agree to leave the car, but then lock it and put the keys in your pocket
Do you then refuse to open the vehicle without a warrent?
If he or shesearches your vehicle without a warrent is he or She violating your civil rights?

What is the law in Wisconsin, can anyone provide case law like the one below. Quite honestly, I don't know for sure what I can and can't do in this situation.


[align=right]Police may not search a vehicle merely because its driver has been issued a valid concealed carry permit, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday. A three-judge appellate panel weighed the actions of Indianapolis Police Officer Danny Reynolds who pulled over Melvin Washington for driving with a burned-out headlight on September 17, 2008 at 12:30am.

On that morning, Reynolds first asked Washington whether he had a gun, and Washington said he had one under his seat. Washington also carried a valid concealed carry permit. At this point, Reynolds ordered Washington out of the car and handcuffed him so that he could conduct a search under the seat of Washington's vehicle. Reynolds spotted a small bag of marijuana and issued Washington a court summons and a ticket for the defective headlight. Washington was then released with his handgun placed in the trunk of his vehicle, unloaded.

Washington moved to have the evidence against him suppressed because the warrantless search, he argued, violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. A lower court disagreed, insisting that "officer safety" justified the search. The court of appeals did not buy the safety argument.

"In the present case, prior to the search for the handgun, Officer Reynolds did not express any concerns for officer safety," Judge James S. Kirsch wrote for the majority. "Although Washington admitted that a handgun was present inside of the car, he was at all times totally cooperative with Officer Reynolds The testimony at the suppression hearing indicated that, during the traffic stop, Washington made no furtive movements, answered the officer's questions, and showed no disrespect to the officer. At the time he searched for the handgun, Officer Reynolds had no information that any crime or violation of law had been or was about to be committed, except for the inoperable headlight infraction. Further, at the suppression hearing, Officer Reynolds did not testify that he had any specific concern for officer safety during his traffic stop of Washington."

Because no legitimate safety exception to the Fourth Amendment applied in this case, the court ruled the search was improper. Judge Melissa S. May added in a concurring opinion that the majority's ruling created a subjective element -- cooperation -- that could serve as a loophole allowing searches. To solve this problem, May cited the US Supreme Court case Arizona v. Gant where a warrantless vehicle search was overturned because the suspect had no access to his car (view decision).

"While we are dealing here with a traffic stop, rather than an arrest, the fact remains that Washington, like Gant, was removed from his car and handcuffed," May wrote. "Accordingly, Washington's statement there was a gun under his seat simply could not justify a search of his car based on concern for officer safety."

A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Washington v. Indiana (Court of Appeals, State of Indiana, 3/4/2010)
[/align]

imported post

The reason I bring this up is that I was stopped last week for speeding 71 in a 55, (I was not ticketed, though, whew must be my lucky year, since I could have been charged with possession of agun in a school zone, as you have read in my earlyer posting when I wandered unknowingly into a school zone) and had my firearm in my vehicle, however, I was not asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle. Had he asked me that question, what would my responce have been? and if I said yes then what. So, I'd rather know now, in case I am ever stopped again.

Don

imported post

You might find these videos helpful:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/30752.html

imported post

Thanks for the link, I'm at work now but I'll view them when I get home.

Don

imported post

HA! James... You beat me to it.. THOSE links/video's will answer your questions Don. Perhaps the best thread ever that James just linked you to.

Nice post James!

If I may... There are a lot of video's there.

I think these 2 video's (which are on that page) are the MOST important to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

imported post

Don, to give you a quick answer... When you are driving, you have to provide ID.

Aside from that, NEVER lie to the police. But you might choose to exercise your right to remain silent.

Silence is NEVER a crime.

If you chose to have a consensual conversation thats your choice but you have a right not to say anything.

Not a lawyer, not offering legal advice, just sharing my personal observations.

Nik Clark
Chairman - Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

imported post

i don't think wisconsin has a 'duty to inform' rule or law.

imported post

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just my way of answering.

cowboyridn wrote:

I was reading a post from another state tonight where they debated on wheather after a traffic stop when a Police officer asked the driver if he had any weapons in the car and the driver responded with Yes, I have a gun, could the Police officer order the driver out of the car, hand cuff himand search the vehicle to locate the gun? The posting listed this case and the answer was NO and the evidence that was found during the search was supressed.

We all transport out firearms in our vehicle, what is the law in Wisconsin in relation to searching the vehicle after a traffic stopwhenwe are questioned by the police officer who stopped us with "do you have any weapons in your vehicle" and then admitt to having a gun in the vehicle?

Do you deny having a weapon? [I have not contraband of any kind on my person or in my vehicle, why do you ask?]
Do you refuse to leave the car? [Alway inquire as to the REASON they want me out]
Do you agree to leave the car, but then lock it and put the keys in your pocket. [I always lock the door when I exit the vehicle, why should a traffic stop be any different?]
Do you then refuse to open the vehicle without a warrent? [I REFUSE period. If they have a warrant, then I'm already in jail and anything I say will be used against me]
If he or shesearches your vehicle without a warrent is he or She violating your civil rights? [With the keys in MY pocket, the only way they get them is by detainment/arrest. At that point, make it clear, "I do not consent and I want my lawyer."]

What is the law in Wisconsin, can anyone provide case law like the one below. Quite honestly, I don't know for sure what I can and can't do in this situation.


[align=right]Police may not search a vehicle merely because its driver has been issued a valid concealed carry permit, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday. A three-judge appellate panel weighed the actions of Indianapolis Police Officer Danny Reynolds who pulled over Melvin Washington for driving with a burned-out headlight on September 17, 2008 at 12:30am.

On that morning, Reynolds first asked Washington whether he had a gun, and Washington said he had one under his seat. Washington also carried a valid concealed carry permit. At this point, Reynolds ordered Washington out of the car and handcuffed him so that he could conduct a search under the seat of Washington's vehicle. Reynolds spotted a small bag of marijuana and issued Washington a court summons and a ticket for the defective headlight. Washington was then released with his handgun placed in the trunk of his vehicle, unloaded.

Washington moved to have the evidence against him suppressed because the warrantless search, he argued, violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. A lower court disagreed, insisting that "officer safety" justified the search. The court of appeals did not buy the safety argument.

"In the present case, prior to the search for the handgun, Officer Reynolds did not express any concerns for officer safety," Judge James S. Kirsch wrote for the majority. "Although Washington admitted that a handgun was present inside of the car, he was at all times totally cooperative with Officer Reynolds The testimony at the suppression hearing indicated that, during the traffic stop, Washington made no furtive movements, answered the officer's questions, and showed no disrespect to the officer. At the time he searched for the handgun, Officer Reynolds had no information that any crime or violation of law had been or was about to be committed, except for the inoperable headlight infraction. Further, at the suppression hearing, Officer Reynolds did not testify that he had any specific concern for officer safety during his traffic stop of Washington."

Because no legitimate safety exception to the Fourth Amendment applied in this case, the court ruled the search was improper. Judge Melissa S. May added in a concurring opinion that the majority's ruling created a subjective element -- cooperation -- that could serve as a loophole allowing searches. To solve this problem, May cited the US Supreme Court case Arizona v. Gant where a warrantless vehicle search was overturned because the suspect had no access to his car (view decision).

"While we are dealing here with a traffic stop, rather than an arrest, the fact remains that Washington, like Gant, was removed from his car and handcuffed," May wrote. "Accordingly, Washington's statement there was a gun under his seat simply could not justify a search of his car based on concern for officer safety."

A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Washington v. Indiana (Court of Appeals, State of Indiana, 3/4/2010)
[/align]

Click to expand...

imported post

over the span of my time in my life i have used, on more than one occassion, when the police ask questions: i don't have to answer that. if you want to talk to me- get a warrant.

imported post

The law in Wisconsin is that you must establish your privilege to drive.

I have not been stopped for a traffic infraction since 1977. I intend my response to be to greet the officer with documents in hand outside my secured and locked automobile. I will invoke my Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights at the first opportunity.

The details with permitted carry will depend on the hypothetical law. In SC, carrying on a CWP entails mandatory notification in particular circumstances. SC allows anyone not otherwise prohibited to have a gun in specific locations in an automobile.

Wisconsin has its own version of a S & ID law,

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After
having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer,
a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for
a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects
that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed
a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person
and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention
and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity
where the person was stopped.
History: 1993 a. 486.
Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances
test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434
N.W.2d 386 (1989).
Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting
to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson,
155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the
encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete,
the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d
532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).
When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative
stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.
App. 1991).
A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification,
often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not
impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916
(Ct. App. 1996), 96−0168.
Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene
of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable
part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570
N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically
mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required
depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered
himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582
N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96−2588.
This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected
of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification
in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613
N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform
a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the
officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal;
3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer
had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they
did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686
bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that
the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated
aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need
be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis.
2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96−1821.
An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell
phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when:
1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest
if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations
regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of
the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created
an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity
that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241
Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity
at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that
criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop.
Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately
could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information,
risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous.
State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00−2614.
It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door
of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp,
2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01−0549.
Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in
public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the
police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an
entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to
enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641
N.W.2d 474, 01−0904.
To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion
that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s
belief that his, her, or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion,
but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying
a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary
to police orders. The defendant’s hand movements must be considered under the
totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1,
675 N.W.2d 449, 02−1540.
The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name
in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do
so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177,
159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated
real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it
would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of
a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer
reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection
against self−incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt
County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).
Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion
necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of
a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State
v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative
stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned,
notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be
drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose
of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, ___ Wis. 2d___, ___ N.W.2d ___,
07−1578.
Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June
2005.
NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, to the Wisconsin Constitution.

NOTE ALSO 968.25 Search during temporary questioning.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

The law in Wisconsin is that you must establish your privilege to drive.

I have not been stopped for a traffic infraction since 1977. I intend my response to be to greet the officer with documents in hand outside my secured and locked automobile. I will invoke my Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights at the first opportunity.

Click to expand...

You WILL be told to stay in your car.

imported post

Flipper wrote:

You WILL be told to stay in your car.

Click to expand...

Then I WILL disobey the unlawful order. It may be his policy direction but it is not lawful.

imported post

Flipper wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

The law in Wisconsin is that you must establish your privilege to drive.

I have not been stopped for a traffic infraction since 1977. I intend my response to be to greet the officer with documents in hand outside my secured and locked automobile. I will invoke my Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights at the first opportunity.

Click to expand...

You WILL be told to stay in your car.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I've gotten out of my car at a traffic stop, approached the squad car, leaned into the window and asked "What do you want?" and I never was asked to return to my car. The LEO never got out of his car. I did not get a ticket either. So far my score is 4 speeding stops, 0 tickets. 1 improper hauling stop (Menards did not put a red flag on my lumber), 0 tickets. I got out of my car at some point during 4 of the 5 stops. Never was I told to get out.

I had weapons in the car during all of the speeding stops. During one I had to retrieve my DL from the trunk, had a shotgun encased in the trunk. LEO said nothing about it when I opened my trunk. He never knew I had handgun under my seat and he didn't ask if I had other weapons. Only once was I asked-- MN cop deputy asked if I was armed only after seeing my Florida gun permit as I was removing my DL. I told him I had some things in my trunk and he simply said "Ok." 83 in a 65 zone and he merely said "The speed limit slows down to 55 mph just ahead, slow down and have a nice day."

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Flipper wrote:

You WILL be told to stay in your car.

Click to expand...

Then I WILL disobey the unlawful order. It may be his policy direction but it is not lawful.

Click to expand...

Young driver, if you get out, don't be squirmy. See "Hello Officer"

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/listarticle.aspx?cp-documentid=1124769&page=2

imported post

Flipper wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Flipper wrote:

You WILL be told to stay in your car.

Click to expand...

Then I WILL disobey the unlawful order. It may be his policy direction but it is not lawful.

Click to expand...

Young driver, if you get out, don't be squirmy.

Click to expand...

Does your "squirmy" include

Shotgun wrote:

I've gotten out of my car at a traffic stop, approached the squad car, leaned into the window and asked "What do you want?"

Click to expand...

Does it include approaching the officer?

I'd use a nom-de-net while wandering so far from rationality too. But I don't. I-ANAL and a coward.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Flipper wrote:

You WILL be told to stay in your car.

Click to expand...

Then I WILL disobey the unlawful order. It may be his policy direction but it is not lawful.

Click to expand...

Might be leaving yourself open to a "resisting" charge.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Flipper wrote:

You WILL be told to stay in your car.

Click to expand...

Then I WILL disobey the unlawful order. It may be his policy direction but it is not lawful.

Click to expand...

Might be leaving yourself open to a "resisting" charge.

Click to expand...

From the Wis DoT Q&A:

Should I stay in my car after I am stopped or should I get out and meet the officer?

You should remain in your car. An officer might interpret someone suddenly exiting their car and approaching him/her as a threat. Stay put and refrain from a lot of movement--even if it is simply to tidy up your car. The officer will come to you.

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/statepatrol/enforcement/faqs-enforcement.htm

imported post

cowboyridn wrote:

The reason I bring this up is that I was stopped last week for speeding 71 in a 55, (I was not ticketed, though, whew must be my lucky year, since I could have been charged with possession of agun in a school zone, as you have read in my earlyer posting when I wandered unknowingly into a school zone) and had my firearm in my vehicle, however, I was not asked if I had any weapons in the vehicle. Had he asked me that question, what would my responce have been? and if I said yes then what. So, I'd rather know now, in case I am ever stopped again.

Don

Click to expand...

If your gun was unloaded/encased, you cannot be violating the school zone. The school zone exempts any gun which is unloaded/encased. Otherwise there is no way to legally travel in the city from the gun store to your house.

imported post

Hmmmm Doug very interesting. Please elaborate on "getting out of the car during a traffic stop." I would like to know more. I am guessing getting out of the car is not an illegal act itself during a traffic stop. I wonder if a police officer request/demand to get back into the vehicle is lawfull. Goddam so many laws...

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. I've gotten out of my car at a traffic stop, approached the squad car, leaned into the window and asked "What do you want?" and I never was asked to return to my car. The LEO never got out of his car. I did not get a ticket either. So far my score is 4 speeding stops, 0 tickets. 1 improper hauling stop (Menards did not put a red flag on my lumber), 0 tickets. I got out of my car at some point during 4 of the 5 stops. Never was I told to get out.

Click to expand...

You must have one hellva set of legs on you. :lol: