CharleyMarbles
Regular Member
more good advice !!!!!
-
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.
-
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.
Transporting through NY (Need an LEO Opinion)
- Thread starter vermonter
- Start date
more good advice !!!!!
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Another point: if asked "do you have any weapons in your car?" state you refuse to answer the question. Don't invoke the 5th, just refuse to answer. You are never, NEVER under obligation to answer ANY question from a cop except for identification--and that in only a minority of the states, to which you could simply hand him your DL. Refusal to answer questions is not RAS or PC in ANY state.
Two things, 1) Some states require notification; 2) Don't be belligerent, do one of two things, a) change the subject, "I'm sorry, but could we conclude our business here? I would appreciate it if you could just get me on my way back home;" b) "I understand that you are doing your job, but, with respect, I don't wish to answer any more questions; I hope you understand."
TheQ
Regular Member
I'm planning a possible trip through NY to NH. I'd just stay silent and not answer the question.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Which states require notification that you legally have a weapon in your car? I'm aware of states that require you to show a CCW if you have one and it's needed for carry in a car. Others, like NH, require one to have a concealed pistol in the car but don't require you show/mention having one. If required to notify, the statement should be "I have no illegal weapons." And I agree--be polite and business like. If the cop is doing his job properly and ethically, that is always the correct course of action.
Uhhhh...I believe Ohio is one...you would have to browse handgunlaw.us
transporting through NYS
I beg to differ. A couple of years ago I was working in Plattsburg and ran across a traffic stop where every 3rd car in either direction was being stopped and searched. I complied with FOPA, but I consider myself extremely lucky: I was a third vehicle, but when the State Police saw all the stuff packed into my SUV, they waived me on through. [Whew].
If you're on a time schedule, You may get off, but the damage is already done.
I beg to differ. A couple of years ago I was working in Plattsburg and ran across a traffic stop where every 3rd car in either direction was being stopped and searched. I complied with FOPA, but I consider myself extremely lucky: I was a third vehicle, but when the State Police saw all the stuff packed into my SUV, they waived me on through. [Whew].
If you're on a time schedule, You may get off, but the damage is already done.
Transporting
Yes, Ohio has the notification requirement.
You are required to notify the officer that you have a CHL and that you have a weapon (if you're carrying). If you are transporting, no notification is necessary.
They usually know before they approach your vehicle because your CHL attaches to your vehicle registration here.
Yes, Ohio has the notification requirement.
You are required to notify the officer that you have a CHL and that you have a weapon (if you're carrying). If you are transporting, no notification is necessary.
They usually know before they approach your vehicle because your CHL attaches to your vehicle registration here.
Last edited:
That would get tossed in court, no question.
stuckinchico
Regular Member
Terry stop only says they may pull a passenger out and pat them down. IF AND ONLY IF they are in fear of life. Just because they stop you does not mean that they can frisk you. Cops get this one wrong. they can not just feel you up for weapons they must have a damn good reason
Any lawful investigative detention permits a brief search for weapons. If they have RAS to stop you, they can make the search. Typically any open compartments are fair game, backpacks, wallets and external pouches are safe but pockets are not. The point is to discover and remove or neutralize and immediately available weapons. Where does the "fear of life" language come from?
Thanks. In practice though, the reasonability of a fear of the presence of weapons is not really challenged. If RAS is based on the reasonable fear of a violent crime or felony, it is a non-issue, if the person is in any way combative or agitated, the characterization of a fear of imminent violence is also obvious. If the suspicion is related to the presence of a weapon, it is axiomatic to say that there is a suspicion of the subject being armed and officers are generally allowed to associate a fear of the presence of weapons with a legitimate fear of imminent violence.
With that inference allowed to proliferate, an officer can justify almost any search in a situation they don't feel comfortable with. "I saw a bulge," "the subject was agitated," "the subject appeared nervous." The standard is so low that it is impossible to reliably refute if the search produces something...or even if it doesn't.
With that inference allowed to proliferate, an officer can justify almost any search in a situation they don't feel comfortable with. "I saw a bulge," "the subject was agitated," "the subject appeared nervous." The standard is so low that it is impossible to reliably refute if the search produces something...or even if it doesn't.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
Do this and if not in Illinois, have your MP3 recorder(s) on and running.
hermannr
Regular Member
I have been to, through the state of NY many times, and the best defence is. respect their laws and just do not get stopped. Drive carefully, at the speed limit (use your cruise control) and don't do anything to attract attention, or involve yourself in an accident.
I have never (in any state) be asked if I was armed when stopped by a LEO. One time I was asked if I was hunting. If you have your weapons in the trunk, as per federal law, you will be fine.
If you are stopped, have your license, registration and insurance card at the window when the LEO approaches, always have your hands where he can see them, and they will never even ask. Best thing is to do nothing that would attract attention. No "calif. stops" at stop signs, no illegal turns, no speeding...OK?
It goes without saying, do not smoke anything even remotely illegal...If the smell isn't there, there is no reason for suspician. If you have everything ready for them when they come to the window, it will go quicker. Like I said, I have never had any problem at all in NYS (I stay out of the city) and I have in-laws in that state.
May I state also. If you are in a state that requires notification, not to worry, you are not armed when you weapons are locked in the trunk. You have no obligation to any of them to tell them anything about what is locked in your trunk.
I have never (in any state) be asked if I was armed when stopped by a LEO. One time I was asked if I was hunting. If you have your weapons in the trunk, as per federal law, you will be fine.
If you are stopped, have your license, registration and insurance card at the window when the LEO approaches, always have your hands where he can see them, and they will never even ask. Best thing is to do nothing that would attract attention. No "calif. stops" at stop signs, no illegal turns, no speeding...OK?
It goes without saying, do not smoke anything even remotely illegal...If the smell isn't there, there is no reason for suspician. If you have everything ready for them when they come to the window, it will go quicker. Like I said, I have never had any problem at all in NYS (I stay out of the city) and I have in-laws in that state.
May I state also. If you are in a state that requires notification, not to worry, you are not armed when you weapons are locked in the trunk. You have no obligation to any of them to tell them anything about what is locked in your trunk.
Last edited:
stuckinchico
Regular Member
Maybe read a little further?
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. 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. See id.
Last year, the United States Supreme Court held:
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.
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. 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. See id.
Last year, the United States Supreme Court held:
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.
Last edited:
stuckinchico
Regular Member
Terry v Ohio
The Court also emphasized that the standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate. Moreover,
And simple " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." — quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)
The Court also emphasized that the standard courts should employ is an objective one. “Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Lesser evidence would mean that the Court would tolerate invasions on the privacy of citizens supported by mere hunches—a result the Court would not tolerate. Moreover,
And simple " 'good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' ... If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." — quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)
MKEgal
Regular Member
Amen! I've taught a friend of mine (who happens to be a cop in my city) a couple things about our gun laws. I'm pretty sure he went & re-read them. (I told him to, so he'd be sure I was telling the truth.)Hendu024 said:
Which I know from experience won't stop all cops, but as pointed out below, it's one more nail in their (legal) coffin when the case goes to court.NavyLCDR said:
Not too many weeks ago I had police perform an illegal search of my home, find a (combination) locked carrying case, and break the zipper pull off the zipper so they could get into the case. They ended up stealing the case & its contents, which included a pistol.Hendu024 said:
Yes, it's going to court.
And as others have pointed out, you don't have to answer.ronmanci said:
Or you could tell her/him "I have nothing illegal".
But when someone is OCing, or in those states where your gun registration is linked to your driving permit, they can't reasonably claim they're afraid of the person shooting anyone, since even the FBI says that criminals don't OC, and long experience has shown that people with priviledge permits don't commit crimes (esp. violent ones).emsjeep said:
Another good reason to remain calm, probably polite, and firm with the police.
No, you may not violate my rights.
Last edited:
This is pretty scary to think that this actually goes on in some states. I appreciate your candor.
FireStar M40
Regular Member
The Police Are NOT Your Friend..!!
First and foremost.. The Police are NOT your friend! They don't want to be your friend, they don't want you to be their friend.
Depending upon the circumstances, the Police can (and in a number of cases will), LIE to you and NOT be accountable for it.. whereas if you lie to them.. it can be used against you.
You get pulled over and the cop asks you.. "Do you mind if I look in your vehicle?" That is a very straightforward question. If you say "yes" you're saying "yes, I mind".. and if you say "no" you're saying "no, I do mind".
But watch out and listen for the "negative connotation" asked question. Same scenario as above but the Cop asks..
"You don't mind if I look in your vehicle do you?"
Think about the question that was just asked.
If you say "yes".. you are now saying "yes, I don't mind"! and if you say "no" you are also saying "no, I don't mind"!
Either way you've just given permission to do so to the Cop.
FireStar M40
First and foremost.. The Police are NOT your friend! They don't want to be your friend, they don't want you to be their friend.
Depending upon the circumstances, the Police can (and in a number of cases will), LIE to you and NOT be accountable for it.. whereas if you lie to them.. it can be used against you.
You get pulled over and the cop asks you.. "Do you mind if I look in your vehicle?" That is a very straightforward question. If you say "yes" you're saying "yes, I mind".. and if you say "no" you're saying "no, I do mind".
But watch out and listen for the "negative connotation" asked question. Same scenario as above but the Cop asks..
"You don't mind if I look in your vehicle do you?"
Think about the question that was just asked.
If you say "yes".. you are now saying "yes, I don't mind"! and if you say "no" you are also saying "no, I don't mind"!
Either way you've just given permission to do so to the Cop.
FireStar M40