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

larch said:

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.

Click to expand...

I certainly hope to not have to refine my skills, but I certainly will if they continue to be necessary.

I do need to point out however that it is not my duty to keep LEOs from making mistakes. They should know everything relevant to this thread by the time they finish the academy.

larch said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is also not my intention to cost the taxpayers any money. I would much rather LEOs would just leave me alone if I am not breaking any laws.

KIX said:

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

Click to expand...

We don't have to coddle Rich. He's a tough guy and knows more about this stuff than most of us, myself included.

One thing we need to do is critique each other constructively. Its not an attack, just a means to get better.

Rich should NOT have provided his drivers license. Period. Its not required by law.
Rich SHOULD have assertively refused to provide his drivers license.

When it comes to his Permit to carry Pistols and Revolvers, its an entirely different story.
I'd probably cave.

The law says we must carry it, but does not say we must provide it. Thats grey to me, which is why I put this up.

This came up 6 months ago or so and someone on the board, I believe guntotingattorney said it was still grey to him.

So here's the summary as I see it:

1) Target shooting with long guns on private land - no requirement to show any ID at all.
2) Any kind of carrying or shooting of handguns - no requirement to show any non-pistol permit ID. Requirement to show permit is still open for debate.

Rich - you are doing us all agreat service. Please do not take these comments as a flame.

Its funny, the first time I refused to provide any information to officers at a sobriety check I was nervous. When asked to do a field sobriety check I complied.

After a couple of encounters with these stops I've progressed to being able to confidently refuse to discuss my personal affairs. Typically I am then asked for my license and registration, I comply with that.

Then I am typically asked to "follow the pen". My response is to refuse the FST but offer to comply with a chemical sobriety test as required by CT law. I then remind the officer that refusal to take a FST is not the probable cause required for a legal chemical test.

Typically my encounter ends there.

My encounters with State Troopers have been very professional. I get the impression they know the law and don't take offense to my position.

I've had one BAD encounter with a local officer in my home town of Essex.

His name is Russel Gingras and he was VERY unprofessional and rude. He repeatedly asked me why I refused to submit to his questions. He tried to intimidate me into compliance. Finally as I drove away, he said "I'll see you around". A thinly veiled threat.

I understand the tension. We've been trained from birth that cops are authority figures. It takes some real world encounters to untrain yourself.

One thing I'd suggest is to look in the Hartford Courant using their search feature for the words: sobriety, drunk, checkpoint. Find the checks and drive into them on purpose.

Its a great, zero risk way to get practice saying NO to a cop. Believe me, now my heart rate barely raises when I run into a sobriety checkpoint.

Don

p.s. Before I had kids I used to fly formation aerobatics with 2 ex-airforce guys. After every flight we would debrief. That included an open discussion of what each of us did right and what each of us did wrong. We need to foster that kind of openness here. No thin skins allowed.

Regarding recording, CT is superior to NH.

CT is a TOTALLY free state when it comes to recording encounters with anyone including LEOs.

IN CT it is legal to audio or video record anyone anytime in any face to face encounter.
Neither notification nor permission is required to audio or video record anyone anytime.

I got this from Deputy Attorney General Steve Sarnoski. He is a great guy, who is always willing to answer my questions of law.

Don
p.s. I believe the law does forbid recording "for prurient purposes" but thats not germane to this discussion.

dcmdon said:

Regarding recording, CT is superior to NH.

CT is a TOTALLY free state when it comes to recording encounters with anyone including LEOs.

IN CT it is legal to audio or video record anyone anytime in any face to face encounter.
Neither notification nor permission is required to audio or video record anyone anytime.

I got this from Deputy Attorney General Steve Sarnoski. He is a great guy, who is always willing to answer my questions of law.

Don
p.s. I believe the law does forbid recording "for prurient purposes" but thats not germane to this discussion.

Click to expand...

Interesting to note. We should all record any encounters with law enforcement in general - they do!!!

I think it is illegal to record phone conversations without notification that the conversation is being recorded. I remember that being a hot topic when I took a couple semesters of law quite some time ago.

Jonathan

http://www.ctguntalk.com/testforum/YaBB.pl?num=1282748123/60

Some question as to the legality/illegality of detainment...take it for what you will.

KIX said:

Interesting to note. We should all record any encounters with law enforcement in general - they do!!!

I think it is illegal to record phone conversations without notification that the conversation is being recorded. I remember that being a hot topic when I took a couple semesters of law quite some time ago.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

That is correct. Thats why I said any FACE TO FACE encounter.

I'm trying to figure a place to put my audio of the sobriety checkpoint if anyone wants to listen.

larch said:

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.


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?.

Click to expand...

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...

Doesn't seem that you are required to provide a permit, or that the Police have to or even should ask, however, if you want to avoid being detained or even arrested until they are able to independently ascertain your permit status, you are going to have to provide the document.
State v. Williams, 758 A.2d 400 (Conn. App. 2000).

Prior to trial, the defendant in Lizotte moved to suppress the items seized in his vehicle. This court upheld the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. We concluded that the officers' observation of the gun belt with ammunition “constituted sufficient facts or circumstances to support a reasonable belief that the defendant was also carrying a weapon in the vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 29-38....” Id., at 19, 525 A.2d 971. This court also held that “n determining whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant for carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle, we also note that probable cause may exist even without ascertaining whether the defendant had a permit to carry the weapon discovered.” (Emphasis added.) Id., citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 148-49, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). Just as police in Lizotte did not have to ascertain whether the defendant had a permit for the weapon for probable cause to have *776 existed, the police in this case also did not have to determine whether the defendant had a permit before arresting him.

[4] “[T]o establish probable cause, it is not necessary to produce a quantum of evidence necessary to convict.” State v. Cobuzzi, 161 Conn. 371, 376, 288 A.2d 439 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1017, 92 S.Ct. 677, 30 L.Ed.2d 664 (1972). State v. Lizotte, supra, 11 Conn.App. at 19, 525 A.2d 971, instructs us that police may arrest someone in possession of a weapon without determining whether the possessor has a proper permit, and we decline the defendant's invitation to depart from that precedent.

Click to expand...

Also see State v. Lizotte

http://www.ctguntalk.com/testforum/YaBB.pl?num=1282748123/all

emsjeep said:

Doesn't seem that you are required to provide a permit, or that the Police have to or even should ask, however, if you want to avoid being detained or even arrested until they are able to independently ascertain your permit status, you are going to have to provide the document.
State v. Williams, 758 A.2d 400 (Conn. App. 2000).



Also see State v. Lizotte

http://www.ctguntalk.com/testforum/YaBB.pl?num=1282748123/all

Click to expand...

Both Williams and Lizotte deal with a very specific statute: CGS 29-38 Weapons in a Vehicle. In CT it considered to be Prima Facie Evidence that if an officer sees a weapon in a vehicle the suspect is assumed guilty until he proves otherwise....IE shows a permit to possess such weapon. Prima Facie evidence is PC for an arrest which is also RAS for an investigative detention. Fruits of the search, incident to arrest/detention, are not poisonous even if the suspect later provides a permit and affirmatively refutes the Prima Facie evidence of the statute.

I was a cop for several years. I've arrested people for 29-38. I don't see how this statute or case law would be germane to a person OC'ing NOT in a motor vehicle.

Please explain

larch said:

Both Williams and Lizotte deal with a very specific statute: CGS 29-38 Weapons in a Vehicle. In CT it considered to be Prima Facie Evidence that if an officer sees a weapon in a vehicle the suspect is assumed guilty until he proves otherwise....IE shows a permit to possess such weapon. Prima Facie evidence is PC for an arrest which is also RAS for an investigative detention. Fruits of the search, incident to arrest/detention, are not poisonous even if the suspect later provides a permit and affirmatively refutes the Prima Facie evidence of the statute.

I was a cop for several years. I've arrested people for 29-38. I don't see how this statute or case law would be germane to a person OC'ing NOT in a motor vehicle.

Please explain

Click to expand...

So many threads going here:

(a) Any person who knowingly has, in any vehicle owned, operated or occupied by such person, any weapon, any pistol or revolver for which a proper permit has not been issued as provided in section 29-28 or any machine gun which has not been registered as required by section 53-202, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both, and the presence of any such weapon, pistol or revolver, or machine gun in any vehicle shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the owner, operator and each occupant thereof.

Click to expand...

It appears that "any such weapon..." refers directly back to "any weapon for which a permit has not been issued" making it not a clause that statutorily does away with further evidentiary requirements but simply a somewhat awkward form of what every state has, a vehicular constructive possession clause, ie. if there is a weapon in a vehicle, everyone is in possession of it unless someone can possess it legally.* Thereby, the standard for RAS is derived from the case law, not the statute, and indeed if the standard for RAS/PC is derived from the case law, the case law can be applied to other situations.

I can see how someone might read the statute and see in it what you are saying...and in acting on that reading you wouldn't be wrong, BUT it would only be because the misinterpretation of the statute corresponds with a correct interpretation of the case law.* The fact that most every state I know of has or had some form of constructive possession statute in regards to weapons carried in a vehicle serves to reinforce the fact that 1) thats what the above is, and 2) that it would be really strange for CT to not have such a statute.

Thats JHMO though...

ETA: In addition, the Lizotte court doesn't even cite that portion of the statute in reference to its determination.* They cite the relevant part as follows:

“[General Statutes] Sec. 29-38. WEAPONS IN VEHICLES. Any person who knowingly has, in any vehicle owned, operated or occupied by him, any weapon for which a proper permit has not been issued as provided in section 29-28 or section 53-206, or has not registered such weapon as required by section 53-202, as the case may be, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both.... The word ‘weapon,’ as used in this section, means any pistol or revolver....”

Click to expand...

Here is New York's statute, just as an example (prima facie evidence being synonymous with presumptive evidence):

3.* The presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public
* omnibus, of any firearm . . . is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons
occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or appliance is found.

Click to expand...

Lizotte & Williams were arrested under 29-38 Weapons in a Vehicle. Any cites to those cases, including partial cites, are inherently linked to 29-38 and the authority granted to police under that statute.

29-38 basically has 2 elements of the crime. 1) A weapon and 2) A vehicle. Absent one or both of those elements the statute does not apply and thus the authority under that statute for the police to arrest first and ask questions later (Prima Facie) does not apply.

These cases are irrelevant to a person OC'ing NOT in a vehicle. There is clearly no requirement to produce a driver's license when OC'ing if requested by a cop. Refusing to produce a Carry Permit when OC'ing has not been tested in the court. It will be interesting to see the outcome if it happens.

larch said:

Lizotte & Williams were arrested under 29-38 Weapons in a Vehicle. Any cites to those cases, including partial cites, are inherently linked to 29-38 and the authority granted to police under that statute.

29-38 basically has 2 elements of the crime. 1) A weapon and 2) A vehicle. Absent one or both of those elements the statute does not apply and thus the authority under that statute for the police to arrest first and ask questions later (Prima Facie) does not apply.

These cases are irrelevant to a person OC'ing NOT in a vehicle. There is clearly no requirement to produce a driver's license when OC'ing if requested by a cop. Refusing to produce a Carry Permit when OC'ing has not been tested in the court. It will be interesting to see the outcome if it happens.

Click to expand...

29-38 is extremely similar to 29-35; 29-38 prohibits the carry (possession) of pistols (and other weapons) in vehicles except when one has a permit issued under 29-28, 29-35 prohibits the carry (possession) of pistols (and other weapons) anywhere outside of his dwelling or place of business except when one has a permit issued under 29-28.

Again, there is no "authority under the statute" as you claim there to be, the "prima facie evidence" clause is a constructive possession clause and makes no modification to the concept of RAS/PC except that it would allow the arrest of anyone and everyone in a vehicle instead of just one person to whom the gun was closest or upon. In the case of one person in the vehicle it has NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER. And again, the fact that the Lizotte court, nor the Williams court in citing Lizotte, even quoted that portion of the statute as relevant is telling.

In general, 29-35/38 Can be said to say - The carrying of firearms is prohibited in certain places without a permit issued in accordance with 29-28 - and on that level you can apply anything regarding 38 to 35 and vice versa. Again, 29-38 DOES NOT confer any additional police powers in regards to RAS/PC and a single person.

The specific facts of the cases matter very little, in general, Lizotte would apply to open carrying if, for example, heroin was illegal to possess in a vehicle without a permit and the officer saw drug paraphernalia and commenced a search that was upheld by the court in the same manner. It is how the court establishes the evidentiary standard for RAS/PC in regards to a permit controlled behavior. If only factually identical cases were controlling in subsequent situations common law research and interpretation wouldn't require anything above a 6th grade education...which is obviously not the case.

And again, this doesn't modify your requirement to provide a permit, but if you don't the police have been given broad authority to make your life miserable until your permit status can be ascertained.

dcmdon said:

That is correct. Thats why I said any FACE TO FACE encounter.

I'm trying to figure a place to put my audio of the sobriety checkpoint if anyone wants to listen.

Click to expand...

I will be happy to host it like I did for my audio. PM me if you need it.

larch said:

These cases are irrelevant to a person OC'ing NOT in a vehicle. There is clearly no requirement to produce a driver's license when OC'ing if requested by a cop. Refusing to produce a Carry Permit when OC'ing has not been tested in the court. It will be interesting to see the outcome if it happens.

Click to expand...

I expect it will go pretty much the same as if you are pulled over for no RAS and you refuse to provide your driver's license.

That said, we all know how that will go down. I am confident in an arrest, but I am also confident in a win.

Other states already have people winning these cases, and there is absolutely nothing I have seen so far in our law that separates us from them.

This has been posted in other threads, but bears a bit of relevance here, and is at the very least a good read.

http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=757&issue_id=122005

The core of this issue is:

a) Police only have the right to identify you during a detainment (ie: a Terry stop)
b) Police do not have the required RAS for a Terry stop from just knowing you have a firearm.

If they cannot legally make the Terry stop, they cannot legally demand your pistol permit or driver's license.

This would not be the case if this state had a statute that required a permit holder to show their permit at any LEO request, and I believe there are states that have such statutes, so this only applies here.

Rich,

Just to be 100% clear on this when you say "Demand ID" do you mean demand your identification by verbal means or demand a physical document like a driver's license???

SCOTUS has ruled on this and I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

larch said:

Just to be 100% clear on this when you say "Demand ID" do you mean demand your identification by verbal means or demand a physical document like a driver's license???

SCOTUS has ruled on this and I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

Click to expand...

When I am referring to ID, I am referring to your Pistol Permit or Driver's License as the topic of this thread states.

A person is not required to provide a physical document during a Terry Stop. He need only verbally state his identity. This excludes a Terry Stop that includes a licensed activity such as driving or, in CT, carrying a pistol.

larch said:

A person is not required to provide a physical document during a Terry Stop. He need only verbally state his identity. This excludes a Terry Stop that includes a licensed activity such as driving or, in CT, carrying a pistol.

Click to expand...

I agree, but this is not a relevant concept. There needs to be RAS for the Terry stop in the first place which is what this thread is about.

I do see where my wording may not have been 100% though. I think I have corrected it.

I just wanted to make sure you were referring to a Terry Stop that included a licensed activity vs. one that did not include a licensed activity. Thanks for clarifying.