• 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.

Is it necessary to reply to a LEO's request during a traffic stop?

MadMaxZ06

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
13
Location
, ,
Last Friday I was pulled over by an Arlington County Police Officer for making an illegal left-hand turn (I didn't see a posted sign forbidding such a turn). I do have a VA resident CHP which the officer realized when he ran my plates. As the officer approached he said, "I see you have a CHP, are you armed?" I replied, "No". But it got me thinking. I know I'm not legally obligated to inform the officer of my firearm during a traffic stop, but am I obligated to answer if I'm asked?
Thanks
- Max
P.S. Is it only the tags/registration of the vehicle that informs the LEO, or can it be gleaned from the drivers license as well?
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Last Friday I was pulled over by an Arlington County Police Officer for making an illegal left-hand turn (I didn't see a posted sign forbidding such a turn). I do have a VA resident CHP which the officer realized when he ran my plates. As the officer approached he said, "I see you have a CHP, are you armed?" I replied, "No". But it got me thinking. I know I'm not legally obligated to inform the officer of my firearm during a traffic stop, but am I obligated to answer if I'm asked?
Thanks
- Max
P.S. Is it only the tags/registration of the vehicle that informs the LEO, or can it be gleaned from the drivers license as well?
You've discovered the little "Catch-22" in the Virginia Code.

The CHP law (Paragraph H) requires you to display your CHP if you are carrying a concealed handgun, and if the LEO asks (code says "demands") you to display the CHP. There is no law that requires you to reveal that you are carrying a weapon, with the little caveat that you aren't allowed to lie to a LEO either.

So... technically speaking, if you are carrying a concealed handgun, and the LEO asks you for your permit, you are obligated to display it for him. But there is no requirement to respond to the generic question, "are you carrying a concealed weapon?"

Of course, as always, IANAL, so don't take this for legal advice. YMMV.

TFred
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
You've discovered the little "Catch-22" in the Virginia Code.

The CHP law (Paragraph H) requires you to display your CHP if you are carrying a concealed handgun, and if the LEO asks (code says "demands") you to display the CHP. There is no law that requires you to reveal that you are carrying a weapon, with the little caveat that you aren't allowed to lie to a LEO either.

So... technically speaking, if you are carrying a concealed handgun, and the LEO asks you for your permit, you are obligated to display it for him. But there is no requirement to respond to the generic question, "are you carrying a concealed weapon?"

Of course, as always, IANAL, so don't take this for legal advice. YMMV.

TFred
Were in that paragraph does it say that it is illegal to lie to a LEO? Please cite code. There is no VA law that i know of that makes it illegal.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Were in that paragraph does it say that it is illegal to lie to a LEO? Please cite code. There is no VA law that i know of that makes it illegal.
Well, now there's a good question. I did not mean to imply that such was contained in the CHP law, however it is widely discussed as a matter of fact that you can get in serious hot water for lying to a LEO who is asking you questions in the course of his official duties.

I would be interested in seeing the cite to that as well.

TFred

P.S. To be honest, I always considered that to be a seriously unethical double standard... but who am I?
 
Last edited:

CHILINVLN

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
95
Location
Fairfax, VA
Were in that paragraph does it say that it is illegal to lie to a LEO? Please cite code. There is no VA law that i know of that makes it illegal.

Lying to a LEO while "under arrest", which you are technically considered during a traffic stop - would be considering interfering with an investigation. By them asking you questions you choosing to lie, you would be "interfering". This is besides the moral and ethical decisions.
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
Well, now there's a good question. I did not mean to imply that such was contained in the CHP law, however it is widely discussed as a matter of fact that you can get in serious hot water for lying to a LEO who is asking you questions in the course of his official duties.

I would be interested in seeing the cite to that as well.

TFred

P.S. To be honest, I always considered that to be a seriously unethical double standard... but who am I?
18.2-460 Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. However carrying a concealed handgun is legal with a permission slip so there is no crime to investigate. What is the burden of proof needed to be found guilty of this charge? Prehaps USER could help on this one. LEOS can lie in the course of conducting an investigation. Were is the line drawn on what LEOS can lie about?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Lying to a LEO while "under arrest", which you are technically considered during a traffic stop - would be considering interfering with an investigation. By them asking you questions you choosing to lie, you would be "interfering". This is besides the moral and ethical decisions.

You are being "detained" when pulled over during a traffic stop. Providing your operator's license, registration and CHP if CCing is about all that you are required to do. You can technically decline to answer without your attorney being present or simply remain mute. Probably won't work towards your having a pleasant evening, but certainly not illegal - in some cases this is THE very best thing to do.
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
Lying to a LEO while "under arrest", which you are technically considered during a traffic stop - would be considering interfering with an investigation. By them asking you questions you choosing to lie, you would be "interfering". This is besides the moral and ethical decisions.
Ok I can see your point but...... If no crime has taken place what would the charge be?
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
§ 18.2-460 (d)

Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer or an animal control officer employed pursuant to § 3.2-6555 who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.​

Now, that says the "investigation of a crime committed by another". Arguably it is not illegal to lie about a hypothetical crime being investigated on your own person.

Queer.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
IANAL but obstruction of justice? I didn't look at the VA statute

I'm gonna pour water on the fact that you really haven't broken a law...and refusing to answer is not illegal as far as I know.

One of the several stories I'm sitting until some things are finished, is just such a case.
Unfortunately the fellow that reused the question was detained in handcuffs for a considerable amount of time.

He did sue and lost. It's under appeal now but no matter what happens, he's suffered a considerable amount of emotional distress and spent a fair amount of money.

He's posted his story here on OCDO.
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Were in that paragraph does it say that it is illegal to lie to a LEO? Please cite code. There is no VA law that i know of that makes it illegal.

§ 18.2-461 is as close as it comes - you can't lie to a law enforcement officer about the commission of any crime. That means that statements of fact which are false, stated for the purpose of informing the cop about crime or criminal activity. There is also a common law requirement that anyone about in the night time can be required to inform the cop as to his name and address, and it is a crime to lie about that. Of course, one must produce a CHP and specific gov't issued photo-id "upon demand" if one has a CHP. And if one is operating any kind of motorized conveyance, one must produce an operator's permit upon demand. Otherwise, no response is necessary, though I usually say, "no, thank you, officer.", or "Thank you, but I prefer not to.", followed by a generous smile and "Am I free to leave?".
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
IANAL but obstruction of justice? I didn't look at the VA statute

Negative. Obs./justice requires a positive act of interference with a law enforcement officer who is engaged in his duties as such. Not co-operating is not a positive act of interference. Making false statements for the purpose of misleading the cop in order to help someone commit a crime or get away is "aiding or abetting" and will get you the same punishment as the person they're trying to catch. ("Well, we couldn't get him, but You'll do.")
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
I'm gonna pour water on the fact that you really haven't broken a law...and refusing to answer is not illegal as far as I know.

I invoke my right to remain silent, officer.

  • The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. ............ prohibition against required self-incrimination................the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • substantive due process . ........substantive due process has developed during the 20th century as protecting those right(s) sic so fundamental as to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
.... LEOS can lie in the course of conducting an investigation. Were is the line drawn on what LEOS can lie about?

The U.S. Sup. Ct. has ruled that "the police are entitled to their arts, devices, and strategems" for the purpose of helping the state catch and punish those who have offended the dignity of the sovereign. This is generally taken to mean that they can lie, cheat, and steal, if they want to. But they are protecting the dignity of the sovereign, and mere citizens are not entitled to dignity, being essentially peasants and serfs. Anyone ever wonder why criminal procedure is an entirely separate section from the Code from civil procedure? A criminal case is an action at law brought in the name of the sovereign because of an offense against the dignity of the sovereign; the sovereign is the only "victim" in a criminal case, the complainant is merely a witness. But an action at law ought to be an action at law, there's really no good reason why the rules of evidence have to change just because the state is a party. But they do. In theory, what we're doing is protecting the rights of citizens who are compelled to stand trial; and the presumption of innocence, the right to avoid self-incrimination, and the higher burden of proof are supposed to be part of that. But I can issue subpoenas for witnesses and documents in a civil case, but not in a criminal case - I have to ask the court to do it for me. I can do discovery in a civil case, but not in a criminal case, unless the court allows it - and then whatever the Commonwealth produces will be made available to me about a half-hour before trial. And, as a practical matter, the higher burden of proof only means something if you've got a jury that cares and wants to think about what that means; the right to sit in your chair and be quiet and to demand that the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt means you're probably guilty, otherwise you'd get up and tell the court why you're not. And the presumption of innocence means diddly-squat when the people in charge of identifying the bad guys, i.e., the cops, have identified you as the bad guy and brought you in for trial, even if you don't have to wear handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit during your trial.

People being what they are, the system works the way it works. So you can't lie but the cops can. Best to keep your big mouth shut, except to say, "I want my lawyer". ("Why do you think you need a lawyer, are you guilty of something or hiding something that I should know about?"; "You're asking me questions and won't let me go, so I must need a lawyer. Or am I free to leave?")
 
Top