• 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.

"Reasonable suspicion" to stop

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
This has been discussed ad nauseum. The argument could be made that driving a car is illegal without a DL, YET LEO's can't just stop you to see if you have one. A similar argument could be made here.

Remember the person could be the owner, have permission, be a LEO or have a CPL, all these people are allowed to have a firearm in this case. What is the RAS that the person in question doesn't fall under one of these exemption? Think driving a car....

The only argument we get to the contrary have been from CJ professors and LEOs.:D

But, as has been stated, a court case is needed to decide once and for all.



Venator, no court case is needed as this is pretty standard legal reasoning...

If the offense of "Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited" (MCL 750.234d) were worded as "a person shall not possess a firearm on these premises unless that person has a CPL," then lack of a permit is part of the offense and until there is reason for the officer to suspect that one lacks a CPL, there is no RAS and detention would be illegal.

But since it is worded as "a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following..." and later provides an exception for people having permits, then possessing the firearm on the listed premises is the offense and sufficient suspicion of that (ie seeing the firearm) justifies a detention. Having the CPL is a defense, and the officer doesn't have to rule that out, any more than he or she has to rule out insanity, that the suspect is a police officer, agent of the owner, etc.



You bring up driving: A person has to wear a seatbelt in Michigan, it is presumptively against the law not to wear one. There is an exception to the seatbelt law for people with a physician's statement that the person suffers from some sort of condition which precludes having to wear one. Since driving without a seatbelt on is presumptively prohibited, an officer can stop someone for not wearing it. Does the officer need to rule out the exception before effecting the stop? Ah..., no.

But, the law concerning driver's licenses in general is different, and on your point above about just stopping drivers to ascertain whether they have a DL, you are correct:

MCL 257.301 Valid operator's or chauffeur's license required...;
Sec. 301.
(1) Except as provided in this act, a person shall not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless that person has a valid operator's or chauffeur's license with the appropriate group designation and indorsements for the type or class of vehicle being driven or towed.

Notice that the law doesn't state that it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle in Michigan and then provide a list of exceptions, one being a driver's license. Rather, it says that one shall not drive a motor vehicle unless you have a license. This wording requires the officer to raise the probability that you do not have a valid license to a sufficient level in order to conduct a stop. As the officer develops a list of reasons for his belief, one could say that he is "articulating" his "reasonable suspicion".

The law clearly establishes that by possessing a firearm on certain premises a person is violating the law AND then goes on to list exceptions to that law. To not show your ID/CPL and prove you are carrying under an exception would most likely subject the OCer to arrest and confiscation of the firearm until such time as the OCers "affirmative defense" is proven.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
Moved: duty to disclose, provide papers, when oc'ing in pfz

moved from another thread:


[ the500kid]

OC encounter at Kroger Middlebelt and Ford

As I'm walking out of Kroger last night a gentlman starts to walk out with me and says can I ask you a question. To wich I say shure. He says are you carrying under the open carry laws. I said yes or lack there of. He said you have to be careful in places that sell alcohol. I said If you have a CPL you don't have to worry about that. He then said can I see your CPL to wich I responded who are you (in a some what indignante tone) He then identified himself as a Wayne county sherif and pulled out his badge. I gave him my CPL which he looked at for a couple of seconds and then handed back to me. I then got the short lecture of it worryies people and you should CC blah, blah, blah. To which I responed in the year and a half of OC the only people it seems to worry is off duty LEO's and there the only ones that seem to care.

I know I'm going to get betten up for produceing ID. Did I really have room to refuse once he knew I had a CPL. Or at the point in time he said can I see your CPL (still haveing not I dentified himself) should I just said have a good day and been gone?
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
[bikenut]

I can't, and won't, say whether or not producing ID was the right or wrong thing to do. I wasn't in your shoes. Kudos on not allowing yourself to be browbeaten by an off duty officer intent on forcing his opinions onto you under the intimidation of his badge.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
[kryptonian]

i'm always suspicious of departments that have reserves. not full time officers and not bound by off duty requirements intervene in crimes. also not exposed to all the in service training full time officers are. i would make that a must to ask if approached by off duty LEOs.
a couple of years ago while delivering packages in novi i found a wallet in an office parking lot. in it was a wayne county reserve deputy sheriff badge and ID. i tried several times during the day to contact WCSO to tell them and kept getting run around and transferred calls. finally a reserve lieutenant called me and i gave him info. he said he was in charge of all reserves for over 10 years and never heard of the guy. he asked me to drop it off at novi PD and they will take care of it. had to give all kinds of info. called the lieutenant back a week later to find out what happened. he returned the wallet and obviously kept the badge and ID. he said nothing was done to the guy for it. think of that next time you're approached by off duty LEO. i would also recommend that if you're in doubt ask the officer to contact a marked unit to verify his ID.
no issue here with showing ID. did he write it down? i always did when i was LEO.

Reply With Quote
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
lapeer20m

we should start a new thread about the topic....

but if you are oc'ing, even with cpl, you have no duty to disclose id, cpl, or the fact that you are carrying openly...assuming you are not also carrying concealed. Choosing to willfully provide such items/information is ok, but you are not required to do so.

the law only requires disclosure when you are carrying concealed. Just because you are oc'ing under authority of your cpl (liquor store) does not require disclosure.

An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol shall have his or her license to carry that pistol in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a [bold]concealed[/bold] pistol.

(2) An individual who is licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a [bold]concealed[/bold] pistol shall show both of the following to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer:
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
[dr todd]

"Disclosure is not "mandatory" but, choosing not to give ID = arrest for violating MCL 750.234d (Misdemeanor) and confiscation of the firearm until such time as they determine that you are an exception to the law. I think I would show my ID

My OC Day: OC'd this morning at "Steak-N-Shake" on 44th Street in Grandville where I met up for a coffee with Chrome Coytoe, a new OCer on here since July. The waitress asked a few questions about his Open Carrying, no problems, though. I then OC'd over to Target in Jenison to do some shopping, and then home. Later in the day, I went to Gander Mountain in Grandville and to Family Fare in Hudsonville (28th and Pt Sheldon)... manager asked if I was "a police officer" and I answered, "What gave you that crazy idea"? She was not really listening and just moved on to a customer having a problem at the self-checkout. While walking out of the store got a few stares and frowns, but nothing out of the ordinary.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
[danm]

It would be an illegal arrest. If you are OC'ing in a place off-limits to carrying a weapon without a CPL, an officer must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you do not have a CPL to legally detain or arrest you.

Sure, showing your CPL upon request probably will help the officer from making an illegal detention/arrest (and you can avoid the time and inconvenience of the illegal detention/arrest), but the bottom line fact is that if the officer detains or arrests you in the situation in question without PC or RAS that you do not have a CPL, he is breaking the law.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
[dr todd]

If 50%+ of Michigan's firearm owners had a CPL, I MIGHT agree. But since the percentage w/ a CPL is not even close to that, and since most CPL holders CONCEAL, I think most judges would believe an officer could reasonably suspect that a person OCing a firearm in a PFZ is doing so without benefit of exception and is therefore violating MCL750.234d. "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion" is a very minimal level of "proof" and most of the time will be decided in the officer's favor, especially when you had ample opportunity to prove your exemption and failed to do so.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
[lapeer20m]

this may be the first time i have ever disagreed with you Dr. Todd.

It seems No different than an officer stopping every motorcycle that drives down the street to make certain the driver has a motorcycle endorsement. I would venture to guess that less than 50% of adults have such an endorsement on their drivers license, yet an officer would be breaking the law if he were to stop a motorcycle just to check the riders papers please.
 

lapeer20m

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
928
Location
Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
[venator]

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The argument could be made that driving a car is illegal without a DL, YET LEO's can't just stop you to see if you have one. A similar argument could be made here.

Remember the person could be the owner, have permission, be a LEO or have a CPL, all these people are allowed to have a firearm in this case. What is the RAS that the person in question doesn't fall under one of these exemption? Think driving a car....

The only argument we get to the contrary have been from CJ professors and LEOs.

But, as has been stated, a court case is needed to decide once and for all.
 

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
I know this is going a little off-topic, but if an officer is not allowed to stop someone who is driving and ask for their Driver's License, why is it ok for a DNR officer to ask for someone's hunting or fishing license while they are hunting or fishing? Wouldn't this basically be the same situation?

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324-43516

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994

324.43516 Hunting, fur harvester, or fishing license; carrying license; exhibiting license on demand; firearm deer license with unused kill tag; exhibiting tag on request.
Sec. 43516.

(1) A person who has been issued a hunting, fur harvester's, or fishing license shall carry the license and shall exhibit the license upon the demand of a conservation officer, a law enforcement officer, or the owner or occupant of the land if either or both of the following apply:

(a) The person is hunting, trapping, or fishing.

(b) Subject to section 43510(2) and except as provided in section 43513, the person is in possession of a firearm or other hunting or trapping apparatus or fishing apparatus in an area frequented by wild animals or fish, respectively.

(2) Subject to section 43510(2) and except as provided in section 43513, a person shall not carry or possess afield a shotgun with buckshot, slug loads, or ball loads; a bow and arrow; a muzzle-loading rifle or black powder handgun; or a centerfire handgun or centerfire rifle during firearm deer season unless that person has a valid firearm deer license, with an unused kill tag, if issued, issued in his or her name. The person shall exhibit an unused kill tag, if issued, upon the request of a conservation officer, a law enforcement officer, or the owner or occupant of the land.

History: Add. 1995, Act 57, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 129, Imd. Eff. June 3, 2004 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 433, Imd. Eff. Oct. 5, 2006
Popular Name: Act 451
Popular Name: NREPA

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
Error number one a badge in itself is NOT identification, I ALWAYS ask for their ID card, and I mean always short of them having a full blown police cruiser with them, with all the lights and whistles and bells and I might still demand ID if the give me a ration of Sh*t like he did you. They are required to show the ID and if they don't I will say goodbye and let them know they have not properly identified themselves as Michigan Peace officers. Once I see the ID card I have a real name attached to that face.

Be careful of badges, anyone can get one for any police dept, it's quite easy today to obtain one. Many you can get online from badge collectors and there are many of the black market. Detroit has a huge problem with home invasions with guys dressed as cops, with badges and even swat uniforms.


moved from another thread:


[ the500kid]

OC encounter at Kroger Middlebelt and Ford

As I'm walking out of Kroger last night a gentlman starts to walk out with me and says can I ask you a question. To wich I say shure. He says are you carrying under the open carry laws. I said yes or lack there of. He said you have to be careful in places that sell alcohol. I said If you have a CPL you don't have to worry about that. He then said can I see your CPL to wich I responded who are you (in a some what indignante tone) He then identified himself as a Wayne county sherif and pulled out his badge. I gave him my CPL which he looked at for a couple of seconds and then handed back to me. I then got the short lecture of it worryies people and you should CC blah, blah, blah. To which I responed in the year and a half of OC the only people it seems to worry is off duty LEO's and there the only ones that seem to care.

I know I'm going to get betten up for produceing ID. Did I really have room to refuse once he knew I had a CPL. Or at the point in time he said can I see your CPL (still haveing not I dentified himself) should I just said have a good day and been gone?
 

Agent1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
119
Location
The Thumb MI
A person has to wear a seatbelt in Michigan, it is presumptively against the law not to wear one. There is an exception to the seatbelt law for people with a physician's statement that the person suffers from some sort of condition which precludes having to wear one. Since driving without a seatbelt on is presumptively prohibited, an officer can stop someone for not wearing it. Does the officer need to rule out the exception before effecting the stop? Ah..., no.

Didn't the seatbelt law originally only allow the violation to be enforced if there was another cause for the stop in the first place? The officers Stop for a seatbelt violation was added to the law later I believe. I will look it up.......
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I know this is going a little off-topic, but if an officer is not allowed to stop someone who is driving and ask for their Driver's License, why is it ok for a DNR officer to ask for someone's hunting or fishing license while they are hunting or fishing? Wouldn't this basically be the same situation?

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324-43516

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994

324.43516 Hunting, fur harvester, or fishing license; carrying license; exhibiting license on demand; firearm deer license with unused kill tag; exhibiting tag on request.
Sec. 43516.

(1) A person who has been issued a hunting, fur harvester's, or fishing license shall carry the license and shall exhibit the license upon the demand of a conservation officer, a law enforcement officer, or the owner or occupant of the land if either or both of the following apply:

(a) The person is hunting, trapping, or fishing.

(b) Subject to section 43510(2) and except as provided in section 43513, the person is in possession of a firearm or other hunting or trapping apparatus or fishing apparatus in an area frequented by wild animals or fish, respectively.

(2) Subject to section 43510(2) and except as provided in section 43513, a person shall not carry or possess afield a shotgun with buckshot, slug loads, or ball loads; a bow and arrow; a muzzle-loading rifle or black powder handgun; or a centerfire handgun or centerfire rifle during firearm deer season unless that person has a valid firearm deer license, with an unused kill tag, if issued, issued in his or her name. The person shall exhibit an unused kill tag, if issued, upon the request of a conservation officer, a law enforcement officer, or the owner or occupant of the land.

History: Add. 1995, Act 57, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 129, Imd. Eff. June 3, 2004 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 433, Imd. Eff. Oct. 5, 2006
Popular Name: Act 451
Popular Name: NREPA

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

What you are seeing is a "third way". Basically, the legislature has made it a "crime" not to show your license to the DNR when asked. The elements of the crime are: 1, You are hunting, 2) DNR asks for license, 3) You do not exhibit the license.

The DNR has been given HUGE power here in Michigan; there is movement from time to time to change that however: http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/legislationdocs/position/HB 5590 Analysis_10.htm

(I do think it "speaks volumes" that the DNR analyst could find no "pro" arguments to this bill which sought to limit their power...perhaps the analyst needs to go back and read the 4th Amendment)
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Didn't the seatbelt law originally only allow the violation to be enforced if there was another cause for the stop in the first place? The officers Stop for a seatbelt violation was added to the law later I believe. I will look it up.......

That is correct. It went from "Secondary" enforcement to "Primary" enforcement. This, however, has no effect on the argument. The elements of the crime: in a moving vehicle; not wearing a seatbelt. The defense is that you have a physician's statement. Lack of the physician's statement is not an element of the crime... the physician's statement is an exception (defense) to the crime. (OK, I know "not wearing a seatbelt is not a "crime" but rather, a Civil Infraction but for discussion's sake...)
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Interesting viewpoint, I don't quite think I agree, but it's thought provoking.

If I sterile carry a friends registered pistol or an antique BP muzzle loading pistol into a bar, church, or other criminal empowerment zone, a cop can attempt to find out who I am, but it won't happen unless they arrest me and take my finger prints, which would of course be followed up with a hell of a law suit since I would have been arrested while obeying all laws.

There is absolutely no law that even suggests that OCers on foot without concealed backups should disclose a thing. But you're inferring that this law gives police a right to arbitrarily investigate someone, even though they'd have no reason whatsoever to comply, and the police would have no reasonable suspicion to believe a crime had been committed, other than a law that can be used to try to make an excuse.

If your analysis is correct, it still wouldn't stand up to the 4th amendment, and thus I find it likely that a higher court would rule against the stop and ID policy you're suggesting to be legally permissible.
 
Top