Clarity on Req't to provide your Permit? Thoughts on drivers license.

Hi all, I'm stopping in for my weekly read and saw a trend that maybe I'd missed before.

In many instances where you all have encounters with LEOs they ask for your drivers licenses in addition to your pistol permits.

I'm curious to know why you comply with that request? If you are not operating a motor vehicle you are not compelled to provide it?? I frankly find it alarming that it is being requested in the first place.

Re requests for your pistol permit. Has there been any more clarity as to whether you are required to prodice a permit if asked to do so? This was discussed a few months ago and

Gun Toting Lawyer said that it was vague, that it would probably remain vague until some case law is established.

RickB, Guntotinglawyer, Ed? Do you guys have any new ideas on this??

Thanks,

Don Mei

I am very certain we have no requirement to provide either upon request. I am also very certain that it is illegal to detain someone for "carrying a firearm".

I see nothing that would require me to provide any ID or anything else to an officer, and there is no statute they can cite that would give credibility to "carrying a firearm" being a crime.

Our legal system works on innocent until proven guilty.

In my case, I chose to comply because I immediately ascertained that I was being detained. The LEOs already upped the ante. Nothing more I could help with.

I made it very clear that I only provided my IDs under duress and questioned the drivers license request. Both protests were met with belligerence and aggression.

Anyone carrying a handgun in Connecticut must have a Connecticut gun permit. A LEO's RAS would be if you did not have a permit you would be in violation of Sec. 29-35. Carrying of pistol or revolver without permit prohibited. Although I don't agree with it, I believe you have to show your permit. The LEO should then check to see your permit and send you on your merry way, not demand any other identification.

A Drivers License has become synonymous with "identification". Not what it was intended for but in the mind of many what it has become.

danr71 said:

Anyone carrying a handgun in Connecticut must have a Connecticut gun permit.

Click to expand...

And anyone driving a car must have a license. Merely driving a car does not give police the authority to stop you and ask to see your license.

danr71 said:

A LEO's RAS would be if you did not have a permit you would be in violation of Sec. 29-35. Carrying of pistol or revolver without permit prohibited.

Click to expand...

I'm not really following your logic here. How would a LEO have RAS that you did not have a permit if he didn't ask to see it in the first place?.

And if you did not have a Connecticut permit then the officer would be asking you to implicate yourself in a crime, thus violating your Fifth Amendment rights.

Statkowski said:

And if you did not have a Connecticut permit then the officer would be asking you to implicate yourself in a crime, thus violating your Fifth Amendment rights.

Click to expand...

Police are well within their rights to ask questions, including self-incriminating questions to anyone unless you're under arrest. If you're under arrest they must read you your Miranda rights first. After being Mirandized it's up to you to keep talking/answering questions or ask for a lawyer.

The area most people don't understand is the difference between RAS/investigative detention (Terry Stop) and PC/arrest. If the cop has RAS he can investigatively detain you. You are not free to leave but you are not under arrest either. In an RAS/investigative detention situation it is the job the of the police officer to gather more info, including asking questions, to determine if PC exists for an arrest. If, through the investigative detention, the officer develops PC the questions must stop and Miranda rights must be read. Then questions can continue if the arrestee agrees to keep talking.

In the case of a person innocuously carrying an exposed, holstered, firearm I would argue there would be no RAS for an investigative detention, but, as the OC'er you have no idea what the complainant/caller told the dispatcher and what the dispatcher told the responding officer. The cop must proceed based on the totality of the circumstances known to him at the time and try to resolve conflicting stories/information. If I was stopped for merely carrying an exposed, holstered firearm I would first establish with the police if I was free to leave or if I was under arrest. If the answer is no to both you are obviously being investigatively detained. I would then ask what is their RAS and what crime/law they think you have violated or are about to violate. There is clearly no requirement to provide a driver's license. The requirement to provide a CT Carry Permit is debatable between Law Enforcement & pro OC groups and has not been tested as far as I know in the form of case law.

I think it would be a great idea for the CCDL to put out a pamphlet for it's members "What to Do/Say if Stopped When OC'ing"

JohnO said:

A Drivers License has become synonymous with "identification". Not what it was intended for but in the mind of many what it has become.

Click to expand...

Sadly, like a Social inSecurity number for credit....

Jonathan

larch said:

I think it would be a great idea for the CCDL to put out a pamphlet for it's members "What to Do/Say if Stopped When OC'ing"

Click to expand...

No more room!!!!

But it would make a good additional pamphlet or FAQ for permit holders (since the main brochure appeals to the public in general as well).

But, I'd add, not just open carry, but cop stops in general.

Jonathan

Here's a few cases that are basically the law of the land and provide ALOT of interesting reading regarding Stop & ID. Interestingly, the complainant in Aloi is a Richard Peruta. Ed's Brother? Verbally providing your name and DOB during a Terry Stop satisfies the requirement to ID yourself. You need not produce a physical document.

Connecticut v. Aloi (CT Sumpreme Court)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of NV (SCOTUS)
Terry v. Ohio (SCOTUS)


Here's a great video of a guy, Dave Ridley, who KNOWS his rights. The first 1:30 is audio only and then the video starts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI

danr71 said:

Anyone carrying a handgun in Connecticut must have a Connecticut gun permit. A LEO's RAS would be if you did not have a permit you would be in violation of Sec. 29-35. Carrying of pistol or revolver without permit prohibited. Although I don't agree with it, I believe you have to show your permit. The LEO should then check to see your permit and send you on your merry way, not demand any other identification.

Click to expand...

If you believe this, you don't understand RAS or Terry stops.

Here is an easy one for you. Say you were out all day with a variety of different stops and in different locations in different towns and cities. Every place you went, you were stopped, detained and had your permit run.

Does this pass a 'free citizen' sniff test? Of course not.

larch said:

Here's a great video of a guy, Dave Ridley, who KNOWS his rights. The first 1:30 is audio only and then the video starts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI

Click to expand...

I've seen his videos from NH before, including that one. Everyone should watch this video. What do you think would happen if that stop took place in Mancherster CT, as opposed to Manchester NH?? 1st, he would have probably been hit with a BOP charge. The guy in the beard whould have been arrested for interfering, no doubt! I really like that system they have up there(Pork 411) where they call in when being stopped/detained and EVERYONE hears what is taking place. I wonder if something like that can be set up here? Hell, i'll be the 1st to send in a donation(or maybe Rich B. as he'll be using it a lot more . Just saying.......

KennyB said:

I've seen his videos from NH before, including that one. Everyone should watch this video. What do you think would happen if that stop took place in Mancherster CT, as opposed to Manchester NH?? 1st, he would have probably been hit with a BOP charge. The guy in the beard whould have been arrested for interfering, no doubt! I really like that system they have up there(Pork 411) where they call in when being stopped/detained and EVERYONE hears what is taking place. I wonder if something like that can be set up here? Hell, i'll be the 1st to send in a donation(or maybe Rich B. as he'll be using it a lot more . Just saying.......

Click to expand...

One reason he broadcasts on Porc 411 is that if he were arrested a personal voice recorder could be seized as evidence. Not sure about NH law, all party consent, and recording in-person conversations but this could be a way around that.

Rich B., I listened to your recording from the Starbucks incident. When asked for your driver's license you reluctantly complied and stated you were doing so under duress. You did not sound as confident in your knowledge of the law as Dave Ridley does. When asked for his ID he quickly informs the cop "I am not required by law to show you my ID". He was very assertive and confident. This made the cop think twice about trying to overpower him with verbal judo. Please don't take this observation the wrong way. It's not meant as a slam, more of a constructive observation.

larch said:

I think it would be a great idea for the CCDL to put out a pamphlet for it's members "What to Do/Say if Stopped When OC'ing"

Click to expand...

Write it and put it together as a pamphlet, then send it to us. We will review it and check it for accuracy. If it is approved by our Executive Members then we will add it to our website for people to download and print. CCDL is an all volunteer organization so if you think that you have a good idea, put it together and we will see about putting it up.

I can vouch for Lenny on that one.

I compiled all the CT statutes into a doc and it's up there.

Maybe a good idea to bring up at the next meeting, get a few people together and put one together. Peer review it and there ya go!

Jonathan

larch said:

Rich B., I listened to your recording from the Starbucks incident. When asked for your driver's license you reluctantly complied and stated you were doing so under duress. You did not sound as confident in your knowledge of the law as Dave Ridley does. When asked for his ID he quickly informs the cop "I am not required by law to show you my ID". He was very assertive and confident. This made the cop think twice about trying to overpower him with verbal judo. Please don't take this observation the wrong way. It's not meant as a slam, more of a constructive observation.

Click to expand...

Rich is a regular at it and he knows what's going on. There is a difference between Ridley and Rich B - a couple hundred miles.

Ridley is knowledgeable and the state has gotten better to an extent with all the free staters and all. CT, differen't story. If you make the statement about duress, he can bring it up at a later date if he needed so and prove that he didn't really have much of a choice.

NH (where I spend a lot of time and plan to buy some land) also has some shocking laws about recording. ESPECIALLY ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY! I recall a case a couple years ago where someone had a video surveillance system. The cops not only raided the guys house, but took the tapes too! I couldn't believe it was the "Live free or die" state.

Then again, I often can't believe we're the "Constitution State"!


Jonathan

larch said:

Rich B., I listened to your recording from the Starbucks incident. When asked for your driver's license you reluctantly complied and stated you were doing so under duress. You did not sound as confident in your knowledge of the law as Dave Ridley does. When asked for his ID he quickly informs the cop "I am not required by law to show you my ID". He was very assertive and confident. This made the cop think twice about trying to overpower him with verbal judo. Please don't take this observation the wrong way. It's not meant as a slam, more of a constructive observation.

Click to expand...

You have to understand the goal of the encounter at Starbucks once it was clear that I was being illegally detained. I was not given any choices. I am very confident in my knowledge of the relevant laws, however, I am also not looking to be arrested just to prove a point. I have days where I might be more willing than others, but that day my strategy was to get released, get it recorded and go back into the store.

You have to understand public perceptions and other factors. If people see OCers acting nicely in a coffee shop, they learn a little bit and likely get a little more comfortable with them. If people see an OCer detained by police, they may get curious, and maybe even a little worried that they might have witnessed a crime.

If they see an OCer disarmed, handcuffed and stuffed in a police car, they are just going to assume that what the OCer was doing was wrong or illegal.

If they see an OCer detained, then released in the same state, still OCing, and comes right back to what he is doing, that to me goes far for people understanding that the police are wrong.

Remember, people being arrested means that they are criminals to a lot of people. They don't understand the concept of having your day in court, etc.

I made an educated decision that day to try and keep public perception on a positive in a crowded Starbucks. Just because I gave my ID under duress and just because I didn't get arrested for principle does not mean the police made serious mistakes that day and it certainly does not mean that progress was not made.

Record your next encounter and I will be happy to learn from it.

Remember, we are not in NH. Our laws are not the same and we do not have the support network they have. When this stuff goes down, I know better than most here that you are pretty much on your own. I have been lucky to have Ed Peruta give me a helping hand along the way when I didn't know how to proceed.

Rich,

You make some very valid points that I had not considered. Not knowing your goals, methods and mindset perhaps it was unfair of me to compare you to Ridley. My Appologies.

Part of my point was that a cop is trained in interview and interrogation, verbal commands, command presence etc.....they hone those skills everyday at work. People who OC may find themselves on the tip of the spear and should work to hone their skills, methods and delivery too. Personally, I have never OC'd as a civilian but I am a strong 2A proponent and fully support those that do.

Rich B said:

In my experience in LEO encounters, I have found a common point in them is that law enforcement very rarely knows how to just admit they made a mistake or that they have no legal rights and to just back down or reverse direction. Once they are in motion, they feel they must maintain that control or they will lose something.

Click to expand...

This is a very accurate statement/observation. I would add, in general, the less experienced officers (around 5 years and less) are more likely to fall into this trap. Your above quote from the other thread was in my mind when I compared you to Ridley. In the Ridley video clip I posted, Ridley did not allow the cop to get into a position that he needed to back peddle from because he quickly and confidently asserted his rights. I'm sure the fact that there were multiple witnesses and it was being video taped made the cop proceed with a little extra caution as well.

I fully support 2A and OC. Through discussion and debate we can all learn. Thanks for sharing your stories. I have learned a lot from them.

Carry On.

Rich B said:

If they see an OCer disarmed, handcuffed and stuffed in a police car, they are just going to assume that what the OCer was doing was wrong or illegal.

If they see an OCer detained, then released in the same state, still OCing, and comes right back to what he is doing, that to me goes far for people understanding that the police are wrong.

Remember, people being arrested means that they are criminals to a lot of people. They don't understand the concept of having your day in court, etc.

Click to expand...

+1 on that, all the way!!!

That, and given that you were in a climate where both the public and law enforcement didn't know the law.

Remember, the law is "vage"...... OK, that was sarcasm!

Jonathan

Rich B said:

If they see an OCer disarmed, handcuffed and stuffed in a police car, they are just going to assume that what the OCer was doing was wrong or illegal.

If they see an OCer detained, then released in the same state, still OCing, and comes right back to what he is doing, that to me goes far for people understanding that the police are wrong.

Remember, people being arrested means that they are criminals to a lot of people. They don't understand the concept of having your day in court, etc.

Click to expand...

Rich,

I now understand your thinking/rationale and fully respect it. I'll also add that when the headlines read "Town Pays Out $$$$ For False Arrest of Man OC'ing" you reach a large and broad audience too but as you know that could come with great personal sacrifice. Thanks again for sharing your experiences.

Carry On