Terry Stop Questions

Munkey Butt · Sep 25, 2012

So i decided to ride my dual sport to work today. As I'm riding i can tell my coat is over my pistol, then as i adjust it exposes my firearm. So per Terry Vs. Ohio, they cannot stop me unless i am committing/ going to commit a crime. So theoretically if i am stopped for a moving violation, my pistol cannot come into question correct?

Do i need to provide my CPL if asked because i am carrying (if stopped for a moving violating)?

Is there a difference between OC and CC (ON/IN) a motor vehicle since its still loaded?

Anyone have any insight into this?

Bookman · Sep 25, 2012

IIRC you must produce your CPL if asked during a traffic stop.

As to whether or not the rules for carry differ between a car and a bike, I don't think so. I would think that all rules pertaining to vehicle carry would apply.

Sorcice · Sep 25, 2012

It varies state to state. Be certain in the state your in. Some like Ohio require you tell the Leo ASAP. Others don't.

Schlepnier · Sep 25, 2012

The officer is limited to the nature of the traffic violation. he may ask if you have a CPL if he notices you have a weapon, after you say yes he has no further RAS of a crime and it should go no further. unlike ohio you are not required to declare anything about your firearm to the police officer in WA state.

If he asked to see your CPL the course of action you take is up to you. you can voluntarily give him the infromation however given that the purpose of the stop was a traffic infraction, not to verify legal vehicle carry you are not required by law to provide it. police are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions under pretense. The RCW in question says that you are to provide it upon demand "WHEN YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO"

it would be no different than if you had it concealed and he never knew it was there since you never mentioned you had it.

Now if he stops you specifically for vehicle carry then you would be required to do so since it is the reason for the stop.

Jeff Hayes · Sep 25, 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Freedom1Man · Sep 25, 2012

So, at a traffic stop then, if a cop asks if you are armed you don't have to inform them as to whether you are or are not?

I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.

MSG Laigaie · Sep 25, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
So, at a traffic stop then, if a cop asks if you are armed you don't have to inform them as to whether you are or are not?

I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.

In some places it is required by law. North Carolina, yes....New Mexico, no.....Ohio, yes............Washington State, no

Monkey, you are asking a lot of basic questions that have been covered extensively. Have you considered the "search" program, it will save you a bunch of time.

Jeff Hayes · Sep 25, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
So, at a traffic stop then, if a cop asks if you are armed you don't have to inform them as to whether you are or are not?

I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.

OK you are wrong in Washington State.

Freedom1Man · Sep 25, 2012

MSG Laigaie said:
In some places it is required by law. North Carolina, yes....New Mexico, no.....Ohio, yes............Washington State, no

Thank you,

I should have mentioned that I was only talking about Washington.

davidmcbeth · Sep 25, 2012

I don't think that any of these laws requiring a person who has a gun that needs or is required to tell a cop that he has one is constitutional.

if cops can just walk up to you and ask you if you have a gun, then your 2nd amendment right means nothing.

Tawnos · Sep 25, 2012

Bookman said:
IIRC you must produce your CPL if asked during a traffic stop.

As to whether or not the rules for carry differ between a car and a bike, I don't think so. I would think that all rules pertaining to vehicle carry would apply.

The difference is that the vehicle carry law says "In a vehicle" and not "in or on". I've met some small people, but none that were small enough to ride in a motorcycle

kparker · Sep 25, 2012

I thought you had to disclose when asked during a traffic stop. I would love to know that I was wrong about that.

Given that a CPL is required by law in order to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, yes you do have to disclose during a traffic stop in Washington if you are asked. I.e. there's no duty to inform (like some state, e.g. Ohio?) but if asked you must produce your CPL.

Freedom1Man · Sep 25, 2012

kparker said:
Given that a CPL is required by law in order to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, yes you do have to disclose during a traffic stop in Washington if you are asked. I.e. there's no duty to inform (like some state, e.g. Ohio?) but if asked you must produce your CPL.

Cite please.

rapgood · Sep 25, 2012

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?106539-Motorcycles

SpyderTattoo · Sep 25, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
I don't think that any of these laws requiring a person who has a gun that needs or is required to tell a cop that he has one is constitutional.

if cops can just walk up to you and ask you if you have a gun, then your 2nd amendment right means nothing.

That's not a 2nd amendment issue. Wouldn't that be a 5th amendment issue?

1245A Defender · Sep 25, 2012

Well,,,

NavyLCDR said:
Pretty bad advice, given what the RCW in question really says:

It could very easily be interpreted that there are two seperate and distinct phrases separated by the second "or" in the first sentence. The two separate and distinct phrases are "upon demand to any police officer" or "to any other person when and if required by law to do so." I believe this would be the more common interpretation and "when and if required by law to do so" would ONLY apply "to any other person".

This is further evidenced by the fact that the word "to" is included before each separate and distinct phrase. "to any police officer" or "to any other person when and if required by law to do so."

If the legislature intended for "when and if required by law to do so" was meant to apply to both, they could have indicated their intention by either writing, "upon demand to any police officer or to any other person, when and if required by law to do so" or "upon demant to any police officer or any other person when and if required by law to do so." In the first case, the added comma separates the limitation from the list, making it applicable to all the items in the list. In the second case the absence of the word "to" ties only "any police officer" and "any other person" together by themselves just like "his or her" before that.

I won't bet my defense on the grammatical interpretation of the law and I will assume "when and if required to do so by law" only applies to "any other person". So, if I am in a situation that requires a CPL, and a police officer demands to see my CPL, I will display it to them. If I am not in a situation that requires a CPL - then there can be no punishment for failure to provide a document for which there is no legal requirement for me to have in my possession.

You,, and others, have forgot my series of threads that prove our protection of our 4th amendment right
against fishing expaditions by our jack booted thuggers...

Your interpetation of 9,41.050 allows ANY cop, ANY time, ANY where to DEMAND to see your CPL at a whim...
That aint right!!!

Not only that. But as I have said before.
I am any other person... If you are required to have a CPL,,, I DEMAND to see it...

Munkey Butt · Sep 25, 2012

Some great advice guys, though I'm starting to think the question hinges on many factors. Guess that this will be a "play by ear" scenario.

Jeff Hayes · Sep 25, 2012

There is a huge difference between informing a Cop that you are armed and a Cop asking for your CPL.

No one in Washington State has a duty to inform a Cop that they are armed. I would not bring it up unless I was asked to step out of the car during a traffic stop or I was concealed and they were about to pat me down then I most likely would let them know.

Remember if a Cop asks you if you are armed you never have to answer him you can remain silent.

Never lie to a Cop if they ask remain silent or tell the truth.

Now if a Cop asks to see your CPL you must show it on demand.

rapgood · Sep 25, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
I don't think that any of these laws requiring a person who has a gun that needs or is required to tell a cop that he has one is constitutional.
if cops can just walk up to you and ask you if you have a gun, then your 2nd amendment right means nothing.

4th and 5th Amendments, not 2nd.

Bookman said:
IIRC you must produce your CPL if asked during a traffic stop.
As to whether or not the rules for carry differ between a car and a bike, I don't think so. I would think that all rules pertaining to vehicle carry would apply.

Tawnos said:
The difference is that the vehicle carry law says "In a vehicle" and not "in or on". I've met some small people, but none that were small enough to ride in a motorcycle

I submit that a judge would interpret the law to mean "in or on."

kparker said:
Given that a CPL is required by law in order to have a loaded pistol in a vehicle, yes you do have to disclose during a traffic stop in Washington if you are asked. I.e. there's no duty to inform (like some state, e.g. Ohio?) but if asked you must produce your CPL.

Yep.

SpyderTattoo said:
That's not a 2nd amendment issue. Wouldn't that be a 5th amendment issue?

Yes. 4th and 5th.

NavyLCDR said:
However, I am only required in certain circumstances to have the CPL in my possession. I can't show him what I don't possess, and I can't be prosecuted for not possessing it when there is no requirement to posses it. In addition, a law enforcement officer cannot DEMAND ANYTHING of me unless the detainment is legal to begin with. The RCW says I have to display it upon DEMAND, not request.
For example: officer stops me for running a stop sign. Walks up to my car and sees a gun sitting on the passenger. Officer asks me to exit the vehicle. Officer retrieves the gun from the passenger seat and finds that it is loaded. So far, Officer Friendly has acted completely within his rights according to the US Supreme Court. Now, you say I am under no obligation to display my CPL to the officer if he demands it because he has no RAS to believe that I don't have a CPL or because he stopped for a stop sign violation and not a firearms violation. I wonder how the court would view that?

If the gun came into view of the LEO, it gives him RAS to pursue questioning about a CPL since a CPL is required to permit possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle in Washington. Curiously, this begs the question of whether you are required by the statute to actually show the gun.

NavyLCDR said:
WHEN AND IF REQUIRED TO DO SO BY LAW! You can demand to see it all you want to and I will tell you to go away, you are bothering me.

Something I encourage you not to do unless you're ready to pay me a retainer (assuming that this is an extension of your hypo about LEO seeing and then inspecting the gun to see if it's loaded). If the LEO is asking me "out of the blue" without seeing a gun in my possession, custody or control or having a reasonable suspicion that I have a gun in my possession, custody or control, I'll politely suggest that he go elsewhere and amuse himself with his thumbs.

Orphan said:
There is a huge difference between informing a Cop that you are armed and a Cop asking for your CPL.
No one in Washington State has a duty to inform a Cop that they are armed. I would not bring it up unless I was asked to step out of the car during a traffic stop or I was concealed and they were about to pat me down then I most likely would let them know.

Yep.

Orphan said:
Remember if a Cop asks you if you are armed you never have to answer him. You can remain silent.
Never lie to a Cop. If they ask, remain silent or tell the truth.
Now if a Cop asks to see your CPL you must show it on demand.

I agree. The most important thing to remember is tell the LEO that you are exercising your right to remain silent, or simply say nothing at all (and continue to say nothing at all, except for maybe "Am I free to go?") Lying to LEO is obstruction of a public servant and is a gross misdemeanor in Washington.

Tawnos · Sep 25, 2012

rapgood said:
I submit that a judge would interpret the law to mean "in or on."

Why would judges insert words that aren't in the clear statutory language, when other laws specify "in or on" language? E.g. RCW 46.61.255 and 69.50.435, or WAC 480-30-216 (which specifically deals with transportation "in or on" motor vehicles).

This is especially relevant because it's clear the language deals with being inside a vehicle, e.g. the use of "within the vehicle." It presumably requires a concealed pistol license because a person inside a vehicle has concealed the pistol from outside view or observation, even if open carrying. The same is not true when one is "on" a vehicle, and a judge who interprets the law that way would be torturing the law as well as interpreting it in a way that is not reasonable based on the plain statutory language.

Terry Stop Questions

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member