• 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.

Police encounter

emoo_321

New member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
4
Location
US
I know that if I get pulled over I have to let the police know I have my cpl and my gun and what not but if I am just a passenger in a car that gets pulled over do I still have to let them know that I have it?

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I know that if I get pulled over I have to let the police know I have my cpl and my gun and what not but if I am just a passenger in a car that gets pulled over do I still have to let them know that I have it?

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

This is just an initial answer.

The Michigan State Police website has a section about "proper conduct during encounters with police". Since they don't actually cite the statute, I'm naturally suspicious about the information being skewed. However, they do expressly mention being "stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise)."

I'm betting this is a gray area--undecided by case law/court opinion.

I vaguely recall that federal case law considers the passengers "stopped"/seized for the purposes of the 4th Amendment. I'll bet a jerk cop or prosecutor would argue that since you were a passenger, you were "stopped", and thus compelled by law to disclose the gun. All it would take is an anti-gun or pro-cop trial judge to agree with their argument.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
Generally speaking (and since Citizen didn't post a link to his info *cough* cough*) in the states for which there is a notify requirement that I have specifically reviewed I am of the opinion that when the cop pulls over the car he is pulling over and stopping the driver. I'm going to sit still and shut up as the last thing I want to do is interrupt and agitate anyone. HOWEVER, the minute the cops addresses me "Good evening" "how are you today" or just leaning down looking in the window and making eye contact, now I am part of the interaction and I would notify at that point.

OMG I HAVE A GUN! Is probably not the best way to notify IMO but IANAL, etc.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
No blame for Citizen, it's not the easiest thing to find, I had to refine the search five times which is about three times more than usual.

28.425f Concealed pistol license; possession; disclosure to peace officer; violation; penalty; notice to department and issuing board; seizure; forfeiture; "peace officer" defined.

As to the OP's question, were I in that position I'd inquire of the officer if I was being detained. If the answer is a simple "Yes, sir, you are" then it's simple. If it's theatrical waving about of arms and threats to '... make you regret your whole day, boy. Do you wanna test me, boy?" then I'd begin to wonder.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or [concealed] in his or her vehicle.
OC?

Seems that the notification pertains to concealed weapons.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I thought that case law (limited jurisdiction? IDK) was that passengers were only detained during a vehicle stop if there was RAS which applied to them individually. In other words, if the only RAS/PC for any stop was that the officer observed the car turn without using a blinker, only the driver could be lawfully detained. In such a case, the passenger would be free to decline to identify and even leave if they so chose. Obviously the passenger isn't responsible for blinker usage. If the officer got to the window of the vehicle and observed a bag of what appeared to be an illegal narcotic on the floor, then he might seize all occupants, since that RAS/PC might apply to everyone within the vehicle.

I remember reading about this but I have no recollection of the case. Perhaps someone with better memory knows what I'm talking about?

Been researching, I'm probably wrong. Looks like the police get their way far too often in court rulings for the generic "officer safety" falsehood. Then again, I was reading on policeone, where they are unabashedly pro-police-state, and proudly twist court rulings to their favor (don't worry, this case doesn't really expand the people's rights, just read between the lines they say).
 
Last edited:

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
OC?

Seems that the notification pertains to concealed weapons.

Michigan requires a permit/license to carry a concealed pistol, on foot or in a vehicle (concealed or otherwise).

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1c...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-227

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

When "stopped" by a peace officer, disclosure is required if carrying a concealed pistol, on foot or in a vehicle (concealed or otherwise). When "stopped" while in a vehicle, the driver and all occupants are "stopped" and must disclose if carrying (concealed or otherwise). The latter, I believe, came about in the SCOTUS, Brendlin v California decision.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5i...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-425f

(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Generally speaking (and since Citizen didn't post a link to his info *cough* cough*) in the states for which there is a notify requirement that I have specifically reviewed I am of the opinion that when the cop pulls over the car he is pulling over and stopping the driver. I'm going to sit still and shut up as the last thing I want to do is interrupt and agitate anyone. HOWEVER, the minute the cops addresses me "Good evening" "how are you today" or just leaning down looking in the window and making eye contact, now I am part of the interaction and I would notify at that point.

OMG I HAVE A GUN! Is probably not the best way to notify IMO but IANAL, etc.

I thunked about it, but realized that since the cops didn't cite the statute or provide a link to the statute, there was no point in me linking back to the cops.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I thought that case law (limited jurisdiction? IDK) was that passengers were only detained during a vehicle stop if there was RAS which applied to them individually. In other words, if the only RAS/PC for any stop was that the officer observed the car turn without using a blinker, only the driver could be lawfully detained. In such a case, the passenger would be free to decline to identify and even leave if they so chose. Obviously the passenger isn't responsible for blinker usage. If the officer got to the window of the vehicle and observed a bag of what appeared to be an illegal narcotic on the floor, then he might seize all occupants, since that RAS/PC might apply to everyone within the vehicle.

I remember reading about this but I have no recollection of the case. Perhaps someone with better memory knows what I'm talking about?

Been researching, I'm probably wrong. Looks like the police get their way far too often in court rulings for the generic "officer safety" falsehood. Then again, I was reading on policeone, where they are unabashedly pro-police-state, and proudly twist court rulings to their favor (don't worry, this case doesn't really expand the people's rights, just read between the lines they say).

First, I'm going from memory, and foggy memory at that, so take this as a suggestion that things might be this way, and keep hunting for cases if interested.

I think what we're looking at first of all is a difference in types of cases. Not all that many CCW permit holders have been cited under this statute, convicted, and then appealed to have binding case law handed down by an appellate court. Most of the stopped vs detained cases I've read were for some criminal conduct where the court was sorting out whether the evidence discovered on the passenger was the fruit of a poisonous tree/suppressible. For example, the cop stops the car for window tint as a pretext, but he suspects he saw a hand-to-hand drug sale while the car was stopped at a traffic light a couple blocks back. The passenger gets out and starts walking away as soon as the car is stopped. Did the cop have RAS to hold the passenger? To search him for officer safety and find the drugs? You get the idea. Totally different types of cases.

Thus, I suspect, there are distinctions. Whether a passenger is initially seized by the flashing lights of the cop car is pretty clear from my reading of cases (he is; but, that may only be recognition by the courts that he just happens to be in that vehicle and can't avoid being stopped or exercising refused consent.) But, I think it then comes down to whether the cop has reason to compel the passenger to remain. I've read the summary of at least one (state?) case where the cop had to let a passenger walk away when the cop didn't have RAS against the passenger. But, I've read another case summary where the cop was ruled in-bounds by handcuffing a passenger for officer safety while an inventory search was performed on the car.

Now, the Michigan statute does not distinguish whether the CCW passenger has enough RAS against him to seize him personally. The statute merely says "stopped". Not stopped and held.

Overall, I think its a gray area, betting there is very little, if any, case law directly on point.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Overall, I think its a gray area, betting there is very little, if any, case law directly on point.

I think it's a gray area as well. I also think existing rulings on this or similar/parallel issues probably vary, maybe wildly, by jurisdiction. It admittedly isn't something that I'm well versed in, so I probably spoke too soon by posting what I did. My bad guys.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
A quick search turned up some case law that is probably applicable, though not directly on point.

In this 2007 article on what looks to be a pro-police website, the author discusses the question of whether a passenger in a car is "seized" during a routine traffic stop. He cites Brendlin v. California, --- U.S. ---, 2007 with the unanimous decision that a passenger is "seized" during a routine traffic stop. This invokes certain protections for the passengers (4th amendment) it seems.

It doesn't seem to directly answer whether a passenger would be subject to laws requiring disclosure of the presence a gun.

In an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision in this area, California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621 (1991), the Court noted that a person is not seized until actually submitting to a show of police authority.

Obviously, this article predates this years SCOTUS decision limiting what cops can do during a routine stop.

Maybe someone else can run with this and reach an informed opinion on whether notification is required of passengers.

Charles
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
Guys it's Michigan where I have known of OCers being cited for not disclosing their openly carried side arm (in plain view) while walking???? So short answer = disclose to be safe. Wish I was kidding, but I'm not :(

If you really want to get heart burn here's a example from days past when the MI sub forum of OCDO had 750 active members (those days long gone).

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=68690
 
Last edited:

MikeTheGreek

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
590
Location
Northville, Michigan
It's always the best thing to do, even if it's a gray area.

I've been in the passenger seat twice while my friends were pulled over, and I disclosed. Both times the cops just laughed and said "I don't care, you're not the driver!" And didn't ask to see my ID or CPL, but I'm still going to do it, just in case!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Guys it's Michigan where I have known of OCers being cited for not disclosing their openly carried side arm (in plain view) while walking???? So short answer = disclose to be safe. Wish I was kidding, but I'm not :(

If you really want to get heart burn here's a example from days past when the MI sub forum of OCDO had 750 active members (those days long gone).

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?t=68690
But, was he convicted?
There's a saying down south that may be aprapos "You can be arrested for eating a ham sandwich on Sunday" if the cop 'believes' that's the way the law reads. It doesn't mean you will be convicted and it certainly doesn't mean the cop faces any disciplinary action because he doesn't know the law.
The trick to that is well known.
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
^^^ short answer no - however in MI, it is not uncommon for some officers (here after known as Opinion Enforcement Officers or OEO's) to simply throw BS non disclose or other rubbish charges against OCers. The point? They know the charges will probably be tossed out, BUT in the mean time the OCers CPL is suspended (if they have one), they lose time & $$$ off work for court & possibly their jobs & $$$$ for a lawyer. It is fiscal re-education on their part, in an attempt to dissuade people from OCing, and it has worked in the past. Hell, the NRA's lawyer in MI, Mr. Steve Dulan says he won't OC because he doesn't need the hassle of BS charges (paraphrasing). Sad state of affairs there in MI. Good people, with lots of shady politicians and OEO's :(
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
This is just an initial answer.

The Michigan State Police website has a section about "proper conduct during encounters with police". Since they don't actually cite the statute, I'm naturally suspicious about the information being skewed. However, they do expressly mention being "stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise)."

I'm betting this is a gray area--undecided by case law/court opinion.

I vaguely recall that federal case law considers the passengers "stopped"/seized for the purposes of the 4th Amendment. I'll bet a jerk cop or prosecutor would argue that since you were a passenger, you were "stopped", and thus compelled by law to disclose the gun. All it would take is an anti-gun or pro-cop trial judge to agree with their argument.

Well stated...
 
Top