Agree.
City-san was just testing me on that which should be common knowledge and accepted here.
http://www.criminalattorney.com/blog/police-can-lie-to-you/
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
Just got pulled over in Charlotte/University Area
- Thread starter Jerry1981
- Start date
Agree.
City-san was just testing me on that which should be common knowledge and accepted here.
http://www.criminalattorney.com/blog/police-can-lie-to-you/
PT111
Regular Member
Agree.
City-san was just testing me on that which should be common knowledge and accepted here.
http://www.criminalattorney.com/blog/police-can-lie-to-you/
Where is the part about you cannot lie to the police. If stopped by the police should I ask am I under oath as well as am I being detained. I have no problems with believing that police can lie until they are under oath but why are citizens automatically under oath? Can you be charged with purgery or is it a different charge?
Coniferous
Regular Member
Same here. And, I'll continue to avoid that area...
Opinions this time
Perjury it is not, without having been placed under oath first as in court or when giving dispositions.
One opens them self to a multitude of other possibilities from just irritating the officer to obstruction of justice or impeding an investigation.
Frequently a better tactic is to answer questions with a question or in the worst case SFU and say nothing.
Don't volunteer information... Only answer questions asked.. with a question.. While your recorder is on.
Q."Do you have a permit?"...
A. For what?
Q. For the handgun..
A. Do I need one?.. or What permit would that be?
Leo. A CHP....
A. Its no concealed
Leo. open your trunk so I can put your gun in it
A. NO!!! I don't consent to a search... You can put my gun on my front seat...
I can just see a Leo putting your gun in your truck then calling a buddy to pull you over and charge you with CCW
Q."Do you have a permit?"...
A. For what?
Q. For the handgun..
A. Do I need one?.. or What permit would that be?
Leo. A CHP....
A. Its no concealed
Leo. open your trunk so I can put your gun in it
A. NO!!! I don't consent to a search... You can put my gun on my front seat...
I can just see a Leo putting your gun in your truck then calling a buddy to pull you over and charge you with CCW
sultan62
Regular Member
Sadly, so can I.
chiefjason
Regular Member
Not possible, well not possible to be convicted IMO. I don't think it would be hard to argue that "about his person" does not include the locked trunk. My pickup is a different story.
14‑269. Carrying concealed weapons.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed ABOUT HIS PERSON any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shurikin, stun gun, or other deadly weapon of like kind, except when the person is on the person's own premises.
And from the AG firearm's law document
By using the phrase "concealed about his or her person," this law makes it illegal to have a weapon concealed not only on a person, but also within a person's convenient control and easy reach.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Uh, not quite. I was requiring you to cite. Given your status as a veteran, and our relationship, I figured you wouldn't take it as anything personal.
Just in case--there is nothing in Rule #5 about "common and accepted knowledge here". It would be a bad policy anyway because new readers (guests) and new members may not know the information.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Grapeshot didn't say you cannot lie to a cop, he said don't lie to a cop. The "legally" part applied to cops lying to you.
Its not a good idea to lie to a cop because some states have statutes criminalizing it. Plus, cops are good a detecting lies, and asking more questions that trap you in your lie. Once you start giving them answers that don't make sense or lead to conflicting logical conclusions, you open the door to creating more RAS, I'm betting. I seem to recall reading case summaries on 4th Amendment dot com where answers that didn't add up were cited as RAS.
jp49911
Regular Member
I wouldn't have even consented to have him "secure" my weapon in the first place. Makes placing it in the trunk a non-issue, he would have never had my weapon in his possession.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I urge you to review some federal and state case law about whether cops can temporarily seize a weapon for officer safety, and whether and how much of the car they can search if they reasonably believe there might be one.
Start with PA vs Mimms and Michigan vs Long, linked in the first post on this thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Amendment-Resources-Here!!&highlight=inchoate
PT111
Regular Member
I wasn't questioning Grapeshot as much as I have read many times on this and other forums that you cannot lie to a cop but they can lie to you and trying to find what the legal background of that saying is. I did not mean for it to be anything personal or argumentive but just trying to learn. There is another saying about "Get your lie straight before you start telling it and stick to it" that would apply as yes, if you start telling lies and changing your story things will probably go downhill fast. I was once accused by a friend as being the only person he knew that could lie and back it up with the facts.
No personal affront taken at all.
You are right of course, readers deserve dependable answers.
Jerry1981
Regular Member
Lots of good info here . Im glad I posted my experience and thanks for all the comments and info. This will give me more tools for future experiences with LE.
edrolee
Regular Member
i've never been the brightest bulb in the world so please don't throw derogatory slings and arrows here but my question is if you are pulled over and the LE ask you to get out of your car while he secures your firearm can you get out of your car and lock the doors and respond that that you do not submit to a search of your car?
the act of carrying a firearm is NOT in it's self illegal and is not grounds for search, or is it?
if you consent to allowing the LE access to your vehicle to secure your firearm are you not consenting to a search?
if a LE came to your door and wanted to talk to you you could leave your firearm in your house and step out side and he wouldn't ask to go inside your house and secure all your weapons so he could talk to you in your front yard (and even if he did you'd DAMN sure say no)
your lawfully owned/rented car/truck is your property just the same as your house do you not have the same rights to protect your property as you do at home?
this brings up another point if your car does not have the same property rights to require LE get a warrant to access your car what if you are homeless and living out of your car then do the same property right come into play or what if you are in an RV at the time?
i know that the OP was stopped b/c expired tags so maybe that gives the LE marginal leeway to enter your car but LE has before used made up excuses to stop a car, ie malfunctioning tail light (no way to really prove if it was or wasn't if there was a short)
long story short can you tell the LE that you are willing to exit your car but you do NOT consent to him entering your car without a warrant (if you are the sole occupant of the car and you exit the car and lock the doors then the firearm cannot be a threat to the LE anymore than a gun in your gunsafe at home is)
the act of carrying a firearm is NOT in it's self illegal and is not grounds for search, or is it?
if you consent to allowing the LE access to your vehicle to secure your firearm are you not consenting to a search?
if a LE came to your door and wanted to talk to you you could leave your firearm in your house and step out side and he wouldn't ask to go inside your house and secure all your weapons so he could talk to you in your front yard (and even if he did you'd DAMN sure say no)
your lawfully owned/rented car/truck is your property just the same as your house do you not have the same rights to protect your property as you do at home?
this brings up another point if your car does not have the same property rights to require LE get a warrant to access your car what if you are homeless and living out of your car then do the same property right come into play or what if you are in an RV at the time?
i know that the OP was stopped b/c expired tags so maybe that gives the LE marginal leeway to enter your car but LE has before used made up excuses to stop a car, ie malfunctioning tail light (no way to really prove if it was or wasn't if there was a short)
long story short can you tell the LE that you are willing to exit your car but you do NOT consent to him entering your car without a warrant (if you are the sole occupant of the car and you exit the car and lock the doors then the firearm cannot be a threat to the LE anymore than a gun in your gunsafe at home is)
Jerry1981
Regular Member
read up on this I would think it applies to what your talking about
Pennsylvania vs Mimms: Can police order you out of your car during a traffic stop?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/434/106/case.html
US vs Baker (4th Circuit): Can police seize your gun during a traffic stop?
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955287.P.pdf
Last edited:
edrolee
Regular Member
Jerry1981
Regular Member
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
General answer: Unfortunately, the 4th Amendment leaves enough wiggle room that a cop can pretty much do anything he wants unless it has been specifically prohibited by the 4th Amendment or 4th Amendment court opinions. And, sometimes even that doesn't stop them. If he wants to search or seize, he's going to search or seize.
Specific answer: I believe he can. In one of the cases at the link below, the court refers back to an earlier case where police had the suspect at their car, but went back to the suspect's car to search or retrieve a large knife. I forget the exact details.
Also, I believe police are allowed to search nearby areas for weapons if they seize you in a home because you might get free and get a weapon. Google "protective sweep"; it might include the information for which you are looking. It would be no stretch for the courts to allow the cops to search or seize in a car if they are already allowing it in a home.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Amendment-Resources-Here!!&highlight=inchoate
chiefjason
Regular Member
Citizen, I'm sure you have looked into Arizona v Gant.
The Court held: “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.”
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/az_v_gant_vehicle_search_final.shtml
Case here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html
Now for the dangerous part. Are we to assume that an arrested individual has more rights than a detained individual? In my world, I see a person loosing rights and freedoms the more they progress into the judicial system. From free, detained, arrested, jailed, imprisoned. Maybe that makes too much sense. So it would seem that locking yourself and the officer out of the vehicle would satisfy the officer safety issue. I'm sure it would really tick off the officer too though. Maybe lock the keys in the car and have a spare set somewhere on the vehicle, hehe. This alway makes for lively discussion.
The Court held: “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.”
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/az_v_gant_vehicle_search_final.shtml
Case here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html
Now for the dangerous part. Are we to assume that an arrested individual has more rights than a detained individual? In my world, I see a person loosing rights and freedoms the more they progress into the judicial system. From free, detained, arrested, jailed, imprisoned. Maybe that makes too much sense. So it would seem that locking yourself and the officer out of the vehicle would satisfy the officer safety issue. I'm sure it would really tick off the officer too though. Maybe lock the keys in the car and have a spare set somewhere on the vehicle, hehe. This alway makes for lively discussion.