• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Here is a great question I have not seen asked here.

kyleplusitunes

kyleplusitunes

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Lennon Michigan, ,
If you have a cpl and you are unarmed in your car, and you get pulled over, since you do not disclose, when the officer runs your Id and sees you have a cpl, is that reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle, since you did not disclose and could be armed?
 
S

sevenplusone

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
397
Location
Kent Co, Michigan, USA
kyleplusitunes said:
If you have a cpl and you are unarmed in your car, and you get pulled over, since you do not disclose, when the officer runs your Id and sees you have a cpl, is that reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle, since you did not disclose and could be armed?
Click to expand...

I'm sure one of the more educated members will come along shortly, but I can't see how a license for something is probable cause to be searched.

Does the presence of a fishing license allow them to search your vehicle and make sure you haven't taken more than your limit when you haven't even been fishing? Now granted you are not required to disclose to an officer that you have fish taken under the authority of your license, but still I feel the principle is the same.
 
Bronson

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
28.425

(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
Click to expand...

If you are following the law how can they, reasonably, use that as justification that you're breaking the law.

Bronson
 
P

Pouget

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
27
Location
Northville, Michigan, USA
I always thought that you had to disclose you have a cpl and let them know whether you are or are not carrying in the car. My thoughts were because if you don't say anything, and do not have a gun, he will go run your license, see you have a cpl and come back on high alert wondering why you did not tell you you are legal to carry a gun.
 
A

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
Pouget said:
I always thought that you had to disclose you have a cpl and let them know whether you are or are not carrying in the car. My thoughts were because if you don't say anything, and do not have a gun, he will go run your license, see you have a cpl and come back on high alert wondering why you did not tell you you are legal to carry a gun.
Click to expand...

Nope you are only required to disclose IF you are carrying!

(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zp...eg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-28-425f
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Bronson said:
28.425



If you are following the law how can they, reasonably, use that as justification that you're breaking the law.

Bronson
Click to expand...

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are judged by a totality of the circumstances. That means the officer needs to take ALL of the facts into consideration and weigh them. IMHO,as Bronson said, by following the law you would probably mitigate any suspicion.
 
Hyperion

Hyperion

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
45
Location
Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Mere licensure, alone, is insufficient to establish either "reasonable articulable suspicion" or "probable cause".

Example: I have an explosives/marijuana/exotic dancing permit and an MSP officer who knows that I am so licensed sees me enter a school/post office/mall/hospital. Does he have the abiility to question me? Yes. He can always ask me questions, but I don't have to answer. Does he have the legal authority to stop me? No. Not if that is the only information that he possesses that a crime may be afoot. Does he have the legal authority to search me? No.
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
You have an exotic dancing permit? Or were you joking.

Since it came up, do you know if someone can posses a medical marijuana permit and a CPL? Or would one cause problems for the other? I don't smoke, but its been discussed here before, without successful resolution.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top