WVCPD traffic stop

imported post

Loaded one in the chamber and yes I do have a valid CWP I just don't always have it with me when I open carry.

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

Loaded one in the chamber and yes I do have a valid CWP I just don't always have it with me when I open carry.

Click to expand...

I guess the question is, when asked if you "have" a permit, do you simply say "no" leaving the officer to assume you have not been issued a valid permit to carry? Or, do you tell him you do have a permit, but do not have the printed copy of it on your person?

I was once told that any communication intended to leave a false impression was, in fact, a lie. I don't know that that definition would hold up in court. But from a moral perspective ("Thou shalt not lie") I think it is a good starting point.

Your desire to "sterile" OC leads me to believe that you are deliberately attempting to mislead. My suggestion is this:

If you want to "sterile OC" then do so in a manner and a location where no permit is needed. IE, "Utah unloaded" AND outside a school zone; OR within your own vehicle or real property.

If you want to carry fully loaded, or in a school zone, then either hand the cop your permit or at least tell him you have been issued a permit, it is still valid, but you do not have a copy of it on your person at this time.

We are starting to lay the groundwork for fixing our overly-broad definition of school zones. We've got permit-free carry in the works. Combined, those would allow you to "sterile carry" to your heart's content. How much time do you figure we should detract from those efforts to fight off efforts to require us to carry our permits on our person at all times because cops and prosecutors can come tell stories about people who claim not to have permits when they are carrying in such a way or location as to either need a permit or to be in violation of the law?

Charles

imported post

I told the officer indeed I had a valid permit just did not have the permit with me. They were never misled as to if I had a permit or not.

imported post

Again, my apologies as I misunderstood your conversation regarding the permit.

I'd encourage you to carry the permit more often rather than attempting some form of quasi-sterile OC. Real, sterile OC is not possible in most of urban Utah due to school zones. It is not possible fully loaded due to our current laws about carry loaded guns on public streets. It is not possible in cars (where a permit is not required) due to the requirement to produce a drive license. The notion of sterile carry originated in places like Virginia and Arizona that are gold-star, permit-free OC States. It really is not applicable to Utah (yet).

My permit lives right next to my DL, a couple of credit cards, and a little cash; and I rarely leave home without all of the above as I don't care to ever be one of those "John Does" lining a hospital bed or morgue as the authorities try to figure out who I am so as to contact my next of kin, nor needing to buy gas or a big gulp and being without some means of doing so.

Your carrying and presenting a permit would allow everyone involved and those who may wish to get involved in helping correct the situation after the fact to focus on the important aspects rather than the peripheral aspects.

Not being required to carry a permit is a nice part of our law. If you forget your permit, if you lose it or have it stolen, or it is damaged, you are still technically legal to carry. But pushing that issue right now seems less important to me than making sure our police officers, prosecutors, and other government officials are abiding the material aspects of our law including car carry, permit-free OC (Utah unloaded and outside a school zone), and fully loaded and/or school-zone OC pursuant to a permit.

I just don't see what "sterile" or semi-sterile OC does for us at this point, especially if you are carrying in such a manner or location as to have be legal only pursuant to a permit or to be legally required to produce a DL anyway.

Or maybe I just misunderstand because my primary goal is to advance RKBA. If your primary goal is to advance privacy rights and you are OCing mostly as a means of creating situations in which police are more likely to ask for ID you are not legally required to produce, then just let me know. That perspective, however, might have certain effects on many in the RKBA community and their willingness to support your actions.

I'm here to advance RKBA. Privacy laws regarding producing ID is way down my list of concerns to be honest. The veritable proctological exams to board airplanes (aka the TSA striptease) is far more offensive to me than handing a cop ID if he wants to know who I am on the street. In fact, I'd rather hand him ID of some kind than have him radioing my name, DOB, and SS number back and forth over the radio where anyone with a scanner can pick it up. I'm not a huge fan of absolute privacy or anonymity anyway. I think it breeds a lot of problems and from the earliest days of our nation, stop and ID (formally or informally) was common and accepted even though official ID documents were unheard of. But we all have our priorities.

If your priority is RKBA, I'd encourage you to carry your permit and provide it even when not required to (at least until we get permit-free constitutional carry and fix school zones). Doing so leaves only the more important RKBA questions at hand and avoids clouding any case with peripheral issues like ID or whether you were sufficiently cooperative.

If your priority is something other than RKBA, you should be good enough to let us all know that right up front.

All the best.

Charles

imported post

Just to throw my .02 cents in here Charles. In cases like mine where an officer threatens to take you into custody in front of your kids for calling him out on title 77-7-15, this is absolutely relevant to our cause, especially when an officer "targets" you and comes up with some BS excuse to detain you based soley on the presence of your sidearm in a public place. I don't know about you, but when I am illegally detained for questioning, I don't take kindly to being cooperative. If they are going to ruin my day, I'm not going to bend over and take it in the rear and make it easy for them either. The law is the law, and if it says I don't have to produce physical documents, then dammit, I shouldn't have to, and neither should Zach in his case. If the officer didn't have his head in the clouds, then he would have known better than to get all over his case and just kindly ask him for his name and DOB, which is all dispatch needs to verify his valid CWP. The negative and aggressive and threatening tone that these officers use when dealing with us is absolutely uncalled for as well. We do not deserve to be talked down to when we try to educate an OEO. It's a damn shame that the relationship between civilians and their LEO counterparts has deteriorated to where it is now. What ever happened to civility and respect between the two? Why do we have to go through the hassle of retaining a lawyer and suing the crap out of them just to make them sit up, listen and follow the law? Why is it that we have to become lay-lawyers just to protect ourselves from their ignorance? Personally, I'm sick and tired of memorizing codes and statutes. This isn't my profession. The police should be doing this type of thing in their spare time because it is their job to know the law as well and know it better than us, but they obviously don't. That's for sure.

Kevin

imported post

I too would tend to agree with Kevin here. What I see is TOO MANY of our OEO's are expecting and used to Citizens just acquiesing to their EXTRA LEGAL demands. A drivers lisence is ONLY required to be presented when driving a vehilcle. There is no requirement in UTAH law for one to carry their Concealed Permit with them when exercising the priviledges allowed by the permit. If the law only requires when we are legally stopped by an officer that we verbally identify ourselves by name and DOB then WHY are the OEO's so upset when we attempt to identify ourselves by name and DOB when we are not driving a vehicle? I content they are used to EVERYONE presenting a DL for ID upon ANY demand of the OEO for EVERY situation. The may expect it but that doesn't mean it is legally required and I contend that they need to be called to task so that they will learn that the OEO's are NOT supposed to be OEO's but rather the LEO's the public has hired them to be.

Personally, I would not relish the amount of attention SOME on this board have recieved they have been LEGAL in their actions and the LEO's have been attempting to exercise EXTRA-legal requirements not found in law and are therefore OPINION ENFORCEMENT OFFICER's--- a positiion NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW.

If the municipalities that employ these OEO's will not limit the actions of these persons then the only option a CITIZEN will have to support their Constituitioally protected rights is to rely on the courts.

It seems that at least one OEO in West Valley is VERY resistant to gentle pursuasion of education based upon legal statutes and may need to have these limits explained to him by a JUDGE in a Court of law.

Understand, I am not suggesting that anyone make any actions that are not supported by law. I am a firm believer in honoring, sustaining, and obeying the law but these standards must be applied to a level playing field. If the OEO's continue to insist we as carriers of implements of self defense comply with EXTRA LEGAL requirements then failing attempts of education (gentle persuasion) then we must get their attention (speaking sharply at times) by bringing them too court.

imported post

LovesHisXD45 wrote:

Just to throw my .02 cents in here Charles. In cases like mine where an officer threatens to take you into custody in front of your kids for calling him out on title 77-7-15, this is absolutely relevant to our cause, especially when an officer "targets" you and comes up with some BS excuse to detain you based soley on the presence of your sidearm in a public place. I don't know about you, but when I am illegally detained for questioning, I don't take kindly to being cooperative. ...

Kevin

Click to expand...

Kevin,

I understand and appreciate your concerns. What I am suggesting is that we have two different issues here:

1-RKBA;
2-Privacy or production of ID or whatever else you want to call it.

I understand that both are important. Some people hold one or the other to be more important than the other. Some might suggest they are equally important.

My current, personal priority is RKBA. I believe the best way to protect and advance RKBA at this time is to do our best to carry our permits and quickly produce it anytime we are carrying pursuant to that permit (fully loaded and/or within a GFSZ).

Doing so tends to eliminate a lot of other questions and problems that would not arise in a perfect world, but we are not in a perfect world. Producing the permit also acts as a nice check on saying too much too soon. Hand a cop a permit as he walks up and you get a few extra seconds to think about what to say or not to say.

If a cop wants to ruin your day after you hand him your permit right up front, that is one more level of evidence that he is in the wrong as you were cooperating from the get-go.

If privacy is a higher priority than RKBA, I understand. But I'm currently working on RKBA.

Charles

imported post

Update I spoke with the IA Sgt & LT today I played him the tape and we Had a very good heart to heart discussion.

Their will be more mandatory trainings for all officers. I feel West Valley City is aware their is a problem and is correcting the situation.

Their will be changes coming it does not rule out the legal aspect where I get a lawyer but I will wait to see where this goes.

I stood up for my rights and did not back down and have no regrets.

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

Update I spoke with the IA Sgt & LT today I played him the tape and we Had a very good heart to heart discussion.

Their will be more mandatory trainings for all officers. I feel West Valley City is aware their is a problem and is correcting the situation.

Their will be changes coming it does not rule out the legal aspect where I get a lawyer but I will wait to see where this goes.

I stood up for my rights and did not back down and have no regrets.

Click to expand...

I'm glad this has worked out well for you. I hope the education takes place and that Granite officers are more respecting of our legal rights. Sounds like a great reason to keep an audio and/or video recording on your person while carrying.

I would still encourage you in the future to consider what aspects of the law you think are most important in which to educated police first: privacy/ID, or RKBA. The presentation of a permit removes most all other questions from the table very quickly.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

LovesHisXD45 wrote:

Just to throw my .02 cents in here Charles. In cases like mine where an officer threatens to take you into custody in front of your kids for calling him out on title 77-7-15, this is absolutely relevant to our cause, especially when an officer "targets" you and comes up with some BS excuse to detain you based soley on the presence of your sidearm in a public place. I don't know about you, but when I am illegally detained for questioning, I don't take kindly to being cooperative. ...

Kevin

Click to expand...

Kevin,

I understand and appreciate your concerns. What I am suggesting is that we have two different issues here:

1-RKBA;
2-Privacy or production of ID or whatever else you want to call it.

I understand that both are important. Some people hold one or the other to be more important than the other. Some might suggest they are equally important.

My current, personal priority is RKBA. I believe the best way to protect and advance RKBA at this time is to do our best to carry our permits and quickly produce it anytime we are carrying pursuant to that permit (fully loaded and/or within a GFSZ).

Doing so tends to eliminate a lot of other questions and problems that would not arise in a perfect world, but we are not in a perfect world. Producing the permit also acts as a nice check on saying too much too soon. Hand a cop a permit as he walks up and you get a few extra seconds to think about what to say or not to say.

If a cop wants to ruin your day after you hand him your permit right up front, that is one more level of evidence that he is in the wrong as you were cooperating from the get-go.

If privacy is a higher priority than RKBA, I understand. But I'm currently working on RKBA.

Charles

Click to expand...

I get mixed reactions all the time when I carry (good and bad). It doesn't stop me from doing it. You suggest the best way to advance the RKBA is provide ID during a stop. Along those same lines let us all conceal so that we will never get stopped thus creating perfect harmony with all civilians and officers. No one speaks out, no ones feelings are hurt and the legislation will go forward. I don't think its that simple. Good idea though. There may be many officers who get their pride challenged with that type of encounter (my good friend being one of them. He's already freaked out by open carriers). I don't think it is as damaging to the cause as you may think. I don't like the idea of not invoking current laws for fear they may be changed. I believe it is essential for us to be aware of the laws and to be in conformance with them. Thanks for the suggestion and I will take it into consideration next time I'm stopped.
-banki-

imported post

ichigo wrote:

You suggest the best way to advance the RKBA is provide ID during a stop. Along those same lines let us all conceal so that we will never get stopped thus creating perfect harmony with all civilians and officers.

Click to expand...

It is clear you've entirely missed my point. Rather than argue I will simply say that advancing RKBA is my primary political objective, with not having to provide ID being far less important to me.

But I do look forward to seeing you at the capital this next January helping us advance some really good RKBA laws.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

ichigo wrote:

You suggest the best way to advance the RKBA is provide ID during a stop. Along those same lines let us all conceal so that we will never get stopped thus creating perfect harmony with all civilians and officers.

Click to expand...

It is clear you've entirely missed my point. Rather than argue I will simply say that advancing RKBA is my primary political objective, with not having to provide ID being far less important to me.

But I do look forward to seeing you at the capital this next January helping us advance some really good RKBA laws.

Charles

Click to expand...

I didn't miss it. You explained yourself very well and my comment being a little tongue in cheek. I have been following and reading long before I became a member of this forum. I am very aware of how much you have done for this community. I also figure you may know things which are not yet made public too. With that said, thank you and my votes with support will be rendered come January.
Kyle
-banki-

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

LovesHisXD45 wrote:

Just to throw my .02 cents in here Charles. In cases like mine where an officer threatens to take you into custody in front of your kids for calling him out on title 77-7-15, this is absolutely relevant to our cause, especially when an officer "targets" you and comes up with some BS excuse to detain you based soley on the presence of your sidearm in a public place. I don't know about you, but when I am illegally detained for questioning, I don't take kindly to being cooperative. ...

Kevin

Click to expand...

Kevin,

I understand and appreciate your concerns. What I am suggesting is that we have two different issues here:

1-RKBA;
2-Privacy or production of ID or whatever else you want to call it.

I understand that both are important. Some people hold one or the other to be more important than the other. Some might suggest they are equally important.

My current, personal priority is RKBA. I believe the best way to protect and advance RKBA at this time is to do our best to carry our permits and quickly produce it anytime we are carrying pursuant to that permit (fully loaded and/or within a GFSZ).

Doing so tends to eliminate a lot of other questions and problems that would not arise in a perfect world, but we are not in a perfect world. Producing the permit also acts as a nice check on saying too much too soon. Hand a cop a permit as he walks up and you get a few extra seconds to think about what to say or not to say.

If a cop wants to ruin your day after you hand him your permit right up front, that is one more level of evidence that he is in the wrong as you were cooperating from the get-go.

If privacy is a higher priority than RKBA, I understand. But I'm currently working on RKBA.

Charles

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying there Charles. My point on the matter right now is the harassment we are getting for exercising a right we already have right now and not being approached and hassled every single time an officer sees us carrying. It's like Russian Roulette. You never know which encounter is going to leave you in cuffs with your sidearm confiscated because of a false arrest or having to fight BS charges like Zach just had to. Knowing what grounds they need to detain somebody, and the identification requirements that go along with that, are essential training that needs to be taught to officers right now. I can't stress that enough. It's the principal of the matter. They should know better. Right now, too many of them are just a bunch of ignorant cronies with a badge and uniform. I agree with you though that society has developed a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality that needs to be changed as well. I also agree, however, that the police have gotten soft and enjoyed public cooperation while violating basic rights for far too long. It's time to let them know that those days are coming to and end. We aren't going to take it anymore.

Kevin

imported post

LovesHisXD45 wrote:

I see what you are saying there Charles. My point on the matter right now is the harassment we are getting for exercising a right we already have right now and not being approached and hassled every single time an officer sees us carrying. It's like Russian Roulette. You never know which encounter is going to leave you in cuffs with your sidearm confiscated because of a false arrest or having to fight BS charges like Zach just had to. Knowing what grounds they need to detain somebody, and the identification requirements that go along with that, are essential training that needs to be taught to officers right now. I can't stress that enough. It's the principal of the matter. They should know better. Right now, too many of them are just a bunch of ignorant cronies with a badge and uniform. I agree with you though that society has developed a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality that needs to be changed as well. I also agree, however, that the police have gotten soft and enjoyed public cooperation while violating basic rights for far too long. It's time to let them know that those days are coming to and end. We aren't going to take it anymore.

Kevin

Click to expand...

Kevin,

Again,l I see two different rights at play here:

1-The right to OC;

2-The right not to provide documentation/papers to authorities.

Without diminishing the importance of either right, for me personally, I am much more interested in RKBA than in not providing ID when asked. Once I produce a permit to carry (so long as such a permit is legally required to carry in the manner and locations I often carry) the situation focuses entirely on legalities concerning my chosen carry method. And that is my current priority.

Charles

imported post

I have a court date for my moving violations I hope to bring up the reason why I was truly stopped and not just the reason the LEO gave.

I also will be in contact with West Valley City police for reports pertaining to my stop. I hope the courts will see through this officer and his intentions.

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

I have a court date for my moving violations I hope to bring up the reason why I was truly stopped and not just the reason the LEO gave.

I also will be in contact with West Valley City police for reports pertaining to my stop. I hope the courts will see through this officer and his intentions.

Click to expand...

Justice (IE city) court? Or district court?

If justice court, listen carefully to the prosecutor's arguments and then be prepared to politely inform the judge (should he find you guilty) that you intent to exercise your right to a "trial de nova" (new trial) in District Court. This is not an appeal, but a whole new first trial in a court of record as if your first trial never happened...except you have the benefit of having heard the prosecutor's case (and he yours).

And don't forget this great little snippet from the Utah State Constitution, Art 1, Sec 12 <http://le.utah.gov/~code/CONST/htm/00I01_001200.htm>

Article I, Section 12. [Rights of accused persons.]
In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to be confronted by the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, and the right to appeal in all cases. In no instance shall any accused person, before final judgment, be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed. The accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself; a wife shall not be compelled to testify against her husband, nor a husband against his wife, nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.