Stopped by CHP-Had my 9mm Handgun inspected

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

It is not a crime to lie to a police officer. Going through the ringer like that (even if you were without a license) is just retarded.

Click to expand...

I disagree in the OP's individual circumstances. He would be in jail with an impounded car if he took your route. I think any reasonable person (even with hate for LEO) would see the same.

Click to expand...

How is a cop going to know if there is a gun in the car or not unless they search, which they have no PC to conduct unless you admit you have a gun or act like a moron? Just saying "NO" solves a lot of issues.

imported post

Yes it IS a crime to lie to a police officer. It is NOT a crime to refuse to answer questions (with some limited exceptions).

"I do not surrender my rights and I will council anyone who asks to do the same. Standing up for yourself against authority and intimidation may not always be easy but it is always right."

I think this kind of absolutist pov is counterproductive and idiotic.

First off, I will bet that you do surrender your "rights" every single day in some sense or other.

If the police go door to door through your neighborhood because an escaped rapist is on the loose and ask you if you have seen a strange man wandering around, I suppose it is your right to refuse to answer. According to your absolutist statement you wouldn't "surrender your rights" and help the police out there.

Second, from the OP's statement there was no intimidation involved. The officer asked to see it and he complied. The officer didn't threaten etc.

You have the right to call police assholes and to give them the finger every single time you see them. Is a failure to exercise that right an act of surrendering them? In the OP's case is his decision not to exercise his right an act of surrendering them?

imported post

sjalterego wrote:

Yes it IS a crime to lie to a police officer. It is NOT a crime to refuse to answer questions (with some limited exceptions).

"I do not surrender my rights and I will council anyone who asks to do the same. Standing up for yourself against authority and intimidation may not always be easy but it is always right."

I think this kind of absolutist pov is counterproductive and idiotic.

First off, I will bet that you do surrender your "rights" every single day in some sense or other.

If the police go door to door through your neighborhood because an escaped rapist is on the loose and ask you if you have seen a strange man wandering around, I suppose it is your right to refuse to answer. According to your absolutist statement you wouldn't "surrender your rights" and help the police out there.

Second, from the OP's statement there was no intimidation involved. The officer asked to see it and he complied. The officer didn't threaten etc.

You have the right to call police @#$%s and to give them the finger every single time you see them. Is a failure to exercise that right an act of surrendering them? In the OP's case is his decision not to exercise his right an act of surrendering them?

Click to expand...

Quote the law. You cannot lie to a FEDERAL officer but local cops are fair game. The only restriction is that you cannot MISLEAD or OBSTRUCT an officer while actually INVESTIGATING a crime.

Lying in this instance is not resisting.
Lying in this instance is not delaying
Lying in this instance is not obstructing the officer.

Just say NO.

148.(a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

imported post

sjalterego wrote:

Yes it IS a crime to lie to a police officer. It is NOT a crime to refuse to answer questions (with some limited exceptions).

Click to expand...

No, it is only a crime to lie to a FEDERAL Law Enforcement Officer (ask Martha Stewart)

It is NOT GENERALLY a crime to lie to an ordinary LEO in CA. However,if you willfully misdirect an investigation you might get stuck with a misdemeanor obstruction charge via PC 148(a)(1) i.e. "Where is Billy-Bob, I just saw him walk right past you into your house" and you reply with "He left 5 minutes ago" okay, maybe a bad example...

It is also important to note that not answering is not a grounds for Reasonable Articulable Suspicion nor Probable Cause.

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

wewd wrote:

He is free to do whatever he wishes, but I do not surrender my rights and I will council anyone who asks to do the same. Standing up for yourself against authority and intimidation may not always be easy but it is always right.

Click to expand...

Well of course that stands when you are doing NOTHING illegal. Though if you have just ran a stop sign and have no drivers license (an offense which yes, they can arrest you for), I think respectful compliance to searches when you know you have nothing to hide would be in your best interest instead of 'respectfully' telling the cop to F off lol. If they arrest you they will be searching your car anyways.

Click to expand...

I don't think there was intimidation. If there would have been "threats", That is when I would have shut up and said no more...

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

pullnshoot25 wrote:

It is not a crime to lie to a police officer. Going through the ringer like that (even if you were without a license) is just retarded.

Click to expand...

I disagree in the OP's individual circumstances. He would be in jail with an impounded car if he took your route. I think any reasonable person (even with hate for LEO) would see the same.

Click to expand...

How is a cop going to know if there is a gun in the car or not unless they search, which they have no PC to conduct unless you admit you have a gun or act like a moron? Just saying "NO" solves a lot of issues.

Click to expand...

My argument is that the more you comply the better. If the Op said "No", the officer would know "I will have the ability to search the car either way since he has no license", so she would have then moved to a search ANYWAYS. So, since he said "Sure, I have a gun, search my car" she moved directly to the search WITHOUT putting him under arrest. She then found no illegal material and made the decision to NOT arrest the individual.

So lets point out.. the cop could only search his car by means..
1. With compliance with the OP
2. If a "NO" answer, she would have arrested him and took inventory.

only 1 of the choices above gave the OP a POSSIBLE way out.

So to reiterate. In the OP's SPECIFIC CASE.. it was best to be compliant, I think any logical person can see this.

imported post

Badge (authority) + gun (force) = intimidation.

imported post

wewd wrote:

Badge (authority) + gun (force) = intimidation.

Click to expand...

NOT for ME man.... Badge = nothing to me, but a GUN DRAWN, well, that's when I start saying YES SIR ! LOL

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

My argument is that the more you comply the better. If the Op said "No", the officer would know "I will have the ability to search the car either way since he has no license", so she would have then moved to a search ANYWAYS. So, since he said "Sure, I have a gun, search my car" she moved directly to the search WITHOUT putting him under arrest. She then found no illegal material and made the decision to NOT arrest the individual.

So lets point out.. the cop could only search his car by means..
1. With compliance with the OP
2. If a "NO" answer, she would have arrested him and took inventory.

only 1 of the choices above gave the OP a POSSIBLE way out.

So to reiterate. In the OP's SPECIFIC CASE.. it was best to be compliant, I think any logical person can see this.

Click to expand...

I'm rather gobsmacked by your response streetbikerr6. Lets assume for a second that the officer does have the ability to search the car. When they find the locked case, then what? They can't open it since it's locked, the OP isn't in any trouble since lying to the (non-federal) police isn't a crime, and the officer can't even know if the OP is lying.

Is it possible that the officer could arrest the OP for driving without a license and impound the car? Sure. Is it likely? No. Is it likely that the officer can search the car without impounding it? No. So what is the most likely outcome of this situation had the OP just said "no" as pullnshoot25 wisely suggests? The OP gets a fix-it ticket to prove that he has a license.

You may want to argue that the officer would be more likely to have given a ticket for running a stop sign. I find that hard to believe since the officer isn't expecting there to be a weapon in the car. The officer understood the situation that the OP was in and was most likely not going to give a ticket for running the stop sign anyway.

imported post

You could tell them...."There is nothing illegal in my car, and I do not consent to a search of myself or my car."

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

My argument is that the more you comply the better. If the Op said "No", the officer would know "I will have the ability to search the car either way since he has no license", so she would have then moved to a search ANYWAYS. So, since he said "Sure, I have a gun, search my car" she moved directly to the search WITHOUT putting him under arrest. She then found no illegal material and made the decision to NOT arrest the individual.

So lets point out.. the cop could only search his car by means..
1. With compliance with the OP
2. If a "NO" answer, she would have arrested him and took inventory.

only 1 of the choices above gave the OP a POSSIBLE way out.

So to reiterate. In the OP's SPECIFIC CASE.. it was best to be compliant, I think any logical person can see this.

Click to expand...

I'm rather gobsmacked by your response streetbikerr6. Lets assume for a second that the officer does have the ability to search the car. When they find the locked case, then what? They can't open it since it's locked, the OP isn't in any trouble since lying to the (non-federal) police isn't a crime, and the officer can't even know if the OP is lying.

Is it possible that the officer could arrest the OP for driving without a license and impound the car? Sure. Is it likely? No. Is it likely that the officer can search the car without impounding it? No. So what is the most likely outcome of this situation had the OP just said "no" as pullnshoot25 wisely suggests? The OP gets a fix-it ticket to prove that he has a license.

You may want to argue that the officer would be more likely to have given a ticket for running a stop sign. I find that hard to believe since the officer isn't expecting there to be a weapon in the car. The officer understood the situation that the OP was in and was most likely not going to give a ticket for running the stop sign anyway.

Click to expand...

Assuming the OP said "No there is no weapons in the car" then she would have said "Then do you mind if I search the vehicle". What would he say then??? "NO".. ok bam, police thinks "disrespect me?" your under arrest, Im searching your car anyways. They ask these questions knowing full well they can search your car anyways. The OP granting the search only gave the officer a reason to let him go without an arrest.

That is why a search would have happened either way. No license = no idea who this guy is = search. ASK ANY COP THIS THEY WILL TELL YOU THE SAME.

There has been times when I have had my license, the officer asked if I had any illegal items, I said no, they then said, "then would you mind if I search your vehicle" I say "NO", because I have no reason where he would search my car or arrest me anyways. How hard is this to understand?

So I hope that answers your question and once again, any reasonable person could agree, in the OP's situation, consent to a search helped him, if he denied she would have went her other route to search the vehicle.. by means of arresting him and taking inventory. The gun still would have been legal and no gun charges but guess what, OP is in jail for no license because he denied a search that would have happened anyways. Clear now?

Edit: let me be double clear, any other situation where you are fully abiding the law and have all documents such as Drivers license, tell them NO!!!

imported post

Poblacht32 wrote:

They took it out of the case and did a inspection to make sure it was in fact unloaded. They gave it back to me 10 min. later and put it back underneath my passenger seat for me. She said it's really suppose to be in the very back of my truck in the camper shell which I know isn't true! As long as your gun is locked up and unloaded you can put it anywhere in your vehicle correct???
 
When I took off to get this guys license number I didn't have my wallet or drivers license with me. So she let me get away with running the stop sign which really surprised me. She was really cool about it! I only got a fix-it ticket for my license. Just have to show it to any officer and have it signed off.
 
So in cases like this, are we required to tell them if we have any weapons in our vehicle even if they are legally locked up and unloaded? Usually I have loaded mags seperate from my gun sitting in my truck. I'm kind of glad I didn't this time. Both of the mags were unloaded. I wonder how different things would have turned out if I had loaded mags laying around in my truck even though the gun was locked up and unloaded. You know how nervous law enforcement gets in situations like that.
 
 

Click to expand...

As I understand it, as long as the firearm is in a locked case, and unloaded, it can be sitting on your lap if you wanted. it can be anywhere.

Also - someone please correct me if I'm wrong, you can also have loaded magazines anywhere in the car, including the locked case the gun is in, as long as the magazines are NOT loaded into the firearm.

As far as whether or not to tell the LEO if you have a gun in the car... I think the way you handled it worked out just fine. If you had your license on you, or the circumstances were different, i could see not giving up that info... but kudos on your "get out of jail free card".

imported post

Rich Keagy wrote:

I read somewhere here that it's okay to place an unloaded pistol (and magazine if it has one) in plain view on, say, the passenger seat. It's just like Open Carry, but you're in your car.
Am I wrong on this?

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. However, you run the risk of violating PC 626.9 if you happen to be driving anywhere within 1,000 feet ofK-12 School property.

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

Rich Keagy wrote:

I read somewhere here that it's okay to place an unloaded pistol (and magazine if it has one) in plain view on, say, the passenger seat. It's just like Open Carry, but you're in your car.
Am I wrong on this?

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct.  However, you run the risk of violating PC 626.9 if you happen to be driving anywhere within 1,000 feet of K-12 School property.

Click to expand...

http://sfpublicdefender.org/media/2010/03/jury-acquits-honor-student-gun-charge/

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Ninja_Commando wrote:

Needless to say, I still have 4 pending speeding tickets and a lawyer working on them right now. I need to stop speeding, and I think Im doing a good job so far. It just feels so natural to be going 5-10 mph over the speed limit. Perfectly safe.. etc. At least thats how I feel.[/quote

I could see from your avatar that you are obviously a rider. Me too,well I don't much lately because I am married and have a 6 1/2 month old daughter. My responsibilities changed once I took on greater responsibility obviously...

I too am/was like you. Man,I averaged being stopped/ticketed on average 3-5 times a year,not much,considering that there are plenty of more fools out there more reckless than I. I kept riding even after being in a motorcycle accident almost 5 years ago. Be careful out there man,it's no joke. When you take on more responsibility and mature a bit more you'll see what I'm talking about.

BTW I'm 26. I ride a 2006 ZX-10R Ninja. Fastest I've gone is 170mph. Really stupid considering my wife was pregnant at the time. My wife is selling her 2007 ZX-6R if anyone is interested.

I don't mean to go off topic,just trying to relate to my fellow riders and firearm enthusiast.

Click to expand...

Yah I have owned 3 bikes in my life, I have already wrecked one. I have been riding since I was 17. I do get crazy. I've gone about 170-180 at least 10 times now. I know I should take my antics to a track but I really don't want to wreck my beautiful 2005 1000RR. I used to zig zag between traffic on the freeway going 80-90 but now I don't do that. I am not sure if it is my fear or wrecking or my fear of speeding tickets that holds me back now. You are right, some day I will mature on the road. For now I don't have much family ties or a girlfriend so it does not seem selfish of me. None of my rider friends have died but they have all gone down.

Oh and have you ever wondered what it may look like going 170-180 by a car from the other drivers point of view? I just found this video the other day. Note the drivers speedo is in KPH, so hes going about 100 mph, the vette prolly 200.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQ7HF67I8s&feature=related

Click to expand...

Imagine crashing or going down at that speed... I went down at 130mph... I am BLESSED to be alive!

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Assuming the OP said "No there is no weapons in the car" then she would have said "Then do you mind if I search the vehicle". What would he say then??? "NO".. ok bam, police thinks "disrespect me?" your under arrest, Im searching your car anyways. They ask these questions knowing full well they can search your car anyways. The OP granting the search only gave the officer a reason to let him go without an arrest.

Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating the desire of a police officer to arrest an individual simply because they don't consent to a search. Maybe the officer was at the end of her shift and needed the money from the overtime and had a sergeant that wouldn't mind booking a person for running a stop sign. But I'm willing to bet that that wasn't the case.

Had I been in the OP's situation I would have said that I didn't have a weapon in my car. If I was asked if I consented to a search of my vehicle I would have said, "I understand that you're just trying to do you're job, and I respect that. I don't have anything illegal in my car, and I do not consent to any searches." What's the worst thing that can happen? I get a ticket for running a stop sign and I get my time wasted for asserting my rights. I'd rather be in the latter group personally. I guess that's where we differ.

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

Assuming the OP said "No there is no weapons in the car" then she would have said "Then do you mind if I search the vehicle". What would he say then??? "NO".. ok bam, police thinks "disrespect me?" your under arrest, Im searching your car anyways. They ask these questions knowing full well they can search your car anyways. The OP granting the search only gave the officer a reason to let him go without an arrest.

Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating the desire of a police officer to arrest an individual simply because they don't consent to a search. Maybe the officer was at the end of her shift and needed the money from the overtime and had a sergeant that wouldn't mind booking a person for running a stop sign. But I'm willing to bet that that wasn't the case.

Had I been in the OP's situation I would have said that I didn't have a weapon in my car. If I was asked if I consented to a search of my vehicle I would have said, "I understand that you're just trying to do you're job, and I respect that. I don't have anything illegal in my car, and I do not consent to any searches." What's the worst thing that can happen? I get a ticket for running a stop sign and I get my time wasted for asserting my rights. I'd rather be in the latter group personally. I guess that's where we differ.

Click to expand...

You asked whats the worst that could happen. In the OP's scenario which I have been trying to clearly point out to you, is that HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Once again, he did not have his drivers license. You can be arrested for this. Please read my past posts carefully. You fail to see the argument because you were not reading my posts completely. In the OP's case, he would have been in jail.

I'll say it again.

In the OP's case, he would have been in jail in addition to being ticketed for the stop sign.

Once again, any reasonable person can see that in the OP's distinct scenario, it would be in his best interest to comply to a search since it would have been done anyways when he was arrested for driving with out a license. The officer let him go on that because he was nice and let her search his vehicle. So she did not have to go the route of arresting him.

Pullnshoot25, care to comment on my argument please? I hope you both now understand that in the OP's distinct case, he would have been searched regardless. It was in his best interest to be respectful and comply with the officer because he had a lot to lose. He could have said no to the search and the officer would have arrested him because she had no idea who he was, no idea if he was a felon.. etc. And if he is saying no to a consent to search, why would they believe his identity if he told her. Instant arrest, instant search.

Edit: To the OP, good job at recognizing you were in a nasty situation of a possible night in jail, you had nothing to hide. Your respect and compliance to a search saved your ass and you recognized that. I know every other reasonable person here can see that saying no to the search would have led her to being forced to arrest you in order to search your vehicle in your particular case. Please do not listen to anyone saying you made the wrong move by not telling her no. You essentially waived a right that you did not have. Shes a police officer, she is not stupid, she knew she could search you already though asked to see if you would be polite and compliant, which you were.. so she did not have to arrest you in order to search your vehicle. A lot of peoples bitter disposition while interacting with LEO can really hurt a person at times, this is one of those times.

imported post

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

You asked whats the worst that could happen. In the OP's scenario which I have been trying to clearly point out to you, is that HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Once again, he did not have his drivers license. You can be arrested for this. Please read my past posts carefully. You fail to see the argument because you were not reading my posts completely. In the OP's case, he would have been in jail.

Click to expand...

So, just because I could be arrested, I should roll over and hand them some additional, albeit bogus, potential charges?

Someone on here recently posted that they bought a used car like 10 years prior. The whole timethere was a ziplock sandwich bag of pot that had been under the carpet from the previous owner. Noone knows with 100% certainty what is in their car.

Is it likely that there is something illegal in my car? heck no, I'm still not going to consent to a search...

imported post

mjones wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

You asked whats the worst that could happen. In the OP's scenario which I have been trying to clearly point out to you, is that HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Once again, he did not have his drivers license. You can be arrested for this. Please read my past posts carefully. You fail to see the argument because you were not reading my posts completely. In the OP's case, he would have been in jail.

Click to expand...

So, just because I could be arrested, I should roll over and hand them some additional, albeit bogus, potential charges?

Someone on here recently posted that they bought a used car like 10 years prior. The whole time there was a ziplock sandwich bag of pot that had been under the carpet from the previous owner. Noone knows with 100% certainty what is in their car.

Is it likely that there is something illegal in my car? heck no, I'm still not going to consent to a search...

Click to expand...

I guess you fail to see the point as well. Either way he would have been searched. How hard is this to grasp. If a cop gets a no answer to weapons, gets a no answer to search, no drivers license.. guess what.. your going to be arrested for no drivers license and searched anyways. How hard is this to understand??

Don't assume the cop will think.. "Well, no drivers license, I have no idea who this person is, they wont let me search their vehicle.. I am going to let this person go.. instead of arresting them and searching their vehicle" If you think this.. you are taking crazy pills. You tell them this they automatically will think you have something to hide, whether thats right or wrong, that is beyond this debate. You will be arrested since it is a reason to search your vehicle. Get it now?

imported post

mjones wrote:

Streetbikerr6 wrote:

You asked whats the worst that could happen. In the OP's scenario which I have been trying to clearly point out to you, is that HE COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Once again, he did not have his drivers license. You can be arrested for this. Please read my past posts carefully. You fail to see the argument because you were not reading my posts completely. In the OP's case, he would have been in jail.

Click to expand...

So, just because I could be arrested, I should roll over and hand them some additional, albeit bogus, potential charges?

Someone on here recently posted that they bought a used car like 10 years prior. The whole timethere was a ziplock sandwich bag of pot that had been under the carpet from the previous owner. Noone knows with 100% certainty what is in their car.

Is it likely that there is something illegal in my car? heck no, I'm still not going to consent to a search...

Click to expand...

mjones,I see what you are saying, but you are completely missing mine and streetbikers point. The guy had a decision to make; consent to search and hope for the best (he had nothing to hide / lose) or say no and risk arrest, search and impound of his vehicle.

He had areal life choices to make and he made the one that served him best. Try to remember that his choice had real andimmediate consequences. He was not sitting back with friends talking about hisrights and imagining, "what he would do in that circumstance'.

When the choice is real and the consequences are clear,that choice gets a little more real world.