Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73

Thread: "Reasonable suspicion" to stop

  1. #1
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    "Reasonable suspicion" to stop

    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    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.


    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.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    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?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [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.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [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

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [glock9mmoldstyle]
    It sounds like "super cop" thought he had himself a "bad OCer"? You ruined his night when you produced your CPL.

    Ha Ha!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    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:

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [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.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    [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.

  12. #12
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273
    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by lapeer20m View Post
    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?
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Agent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Thumb MI
    Posts
    120
    Opps!
    Last edited by Agent1; 08-12-2010 at 10:38 AM.
    ‎"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

  16. #16
    Regular Member Agent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Thumb MI
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    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.......
    ‎"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    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/legislati...nalysis_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)
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent1 View Post
    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...)
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  19. #19
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailenforcer View Post
    Error number one a badge in itself is NOT identification, I ALWAYS ask for their ID card...

    Be careful of badges, anyone can get one for any police dept, it's quite easy today to obtain one.
    +1
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    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.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    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/legislati...nalysis_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)
    They (the DNR) also require you to have your identification with you (the one you used to purchase the hunting/fishing license).

  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
    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
    This brings up another instance when a CPL holder carrying OC in the woods could be stopped to see if they have a hunting license, but not have one, because he is carrying with a CPL and not attempting to take game.

    Gets ugly.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    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.
    And this is the reasons the LEOs have brought up. I'm still not convinced, but that's just me. If something is allowed with or without a license like firearms in a beer store, then my thinking is that the person is presumed lawful unless the LEO has some RAS that they are not. I guess I believe in being thought innocent unlit proved guilty. Silly me.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    I brought this over from the other thread the discussion had started in:

    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    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.
    Sure, judges (and juries) can make legal mistakes such as this. Happens all the time. But the mistake of thinking there is a "low probability the person is legal" exception to the need for officers to have RAS or PC to detain/arrest likely would not survive appeal or SCOTUS review. The essence of RAS or PC is that the officer has some specific information or knowledge about the individual he is detaining/arresting in order to justify the detention/arrest. General knowledge of a particular probability about the population IS NOT specific information or knowledge about an individual an officer is observing, therefore RAS or PC for a justified detention/arrest of the individual is not satisfied. Applying general knowledge (whatever it is) to making guesses about what is up with an individual is called "having a hunch", and hunches have been explicitly ruled out by courts as providing legal RAS or PC.

    Let's talk about this with another hypothetical closely matching yours which we CLEARLY know to be an illegal detention/arrest. An officer observes a black person walking in a particular neighborhood. This particular neighborhood is fenced-off except at entry points, and entry by non-residents or non-guests is explicitly posted as trespassing. The percentage of residents and guests that are black is low. With this information and knowledge, the officer has a hunch that the black person is probably not a resident or guest, therefore the person is probably not there legally, but the officer has no specific information or knowledge that that particular black person isn't a resident or guest. The officer stops the black person and asks him to prove he is in the neighborhood legally. The person refuses, and the officer detains or arrests him in order to investigate whether or not the person is in the neighborhood legally. That is an illegal detention/arrest.

    You cannot be legally detained/arrested for simply "walking/driving while black", even in a place that normally has a low percentage of black population. And you cannot be legally detained/arrested for "walking while OC", even in a place where OC with a CPL is legally required and the population having CPLs is a low percentage. In both cases, officers must presume you are legal unless they have specific information or knowledge that you, specifically, probably are not legal, before they may legally detain/arrest you. The officer excusing his detention/arrest with "Well, I believed there was a low probability the person was legal", while perhaps getting by a lazy judge or jury, would not survive appeal or SCOTUS, in my opinion.
    Last edited by DanM; 08-12-2010 at 11:47 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Outdoorsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Genesee County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Venator View Post
    And this is the reasons the LEOs have brought up. I'm still not convinced, but that's just me. If something is allowed with or without a license like firearms in a beer store, then my thinking is that the person is presumed lawful unless the LEO has some RAS that they are not. I guess I believe in being thought innocent unlit proved guilty. Silly me.
    Seems reasonable to me.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •