got pulled over today for OCing

[gogodawgs]

No disrespect...

Well, I'm just askin', 'cause you first said this:



So, during daylight hours, by the time you gassed up and pulled out of the station, two cop cars lit you up? Pretty good response time, that.

And you recognized neither the vehicles by agency colors and markings, nor whether the cops were wearing dark blue, light blue or green uniforms, shields or stars?

If the story is important enough to post about, surely the department involved should be identified. I simply can't believe that a responsible member of the open carry community, and this forum, cannot ID his local law enforcement agency when it's a vital matter of the civil and legal rights that this board is all about ... because he's in a hurry to get to dinner.

No disrespect intended. That is all.

I would agree.
Matt, you brought the incident to the group. The benefit of that is you get a 100 or so 'monday morning quarterbacks', that is a good thing. Don't take offense, it will help everyone learn what to do and how to handle the next time. Be humble enough to listen and share the experience.

 

[Matt85]

im not offended, i understand i did not get the best info in this situation. i onley brought it up to the group because i felt it was worth noting. saying something about this was better then saying nothing right?

for the sake of other people who OC i will do a better job of collecting info the next time something like this happens.

-matt

 

[daddy4count]

One thing I have learned in my short time here is that you will always get a wide variety of opinions... but I have yet to feel like any were meant to offend.

Personally I like that I am corrected right away here when I post something that is incorrect, and that members here are so willing to share their passion and excitement over 2A issues.

I wouldn't worry so much about gathering info or satisfying every question or opinion you see posted here... just posting your story and opening the discussion is important, IMO. Dialogue is a key element in any debated issue... no less for these.

The next time you are stopped or detained you will no doubt remember this thread and take notice of a few details you may not have thought about before. But do not feel the need to censor yourself or postpone an important discussion because you may not have gathered all the information there is to know...

As this thread shows... the discussion will take shape regardless. But we can only discuss if you post.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP whether or not my firearm was loaded or i was carrying a CPL has nothing to do with the stop. at no point did the officer actually ask to see my CPL or even ask if the firearm was loaded. the onley mention of a CPL was whether i had one or not and i answered his question. i was not being stopped because of a firearm in a vehicle, i was being stopped for having a firearm on my hip when i went into the gas station. (some joker in the parking lot called the cops)

Your explanation makes sense. In your shoes I might even pursue a formal written complaint based on your analysis.

However, there is an alternate analysis that fits the facts given so far that the officer could claim was the reason for the stop. I give it below. You just have to understand that the cop could wriggle out of the complaint using some version of my explanation. Any details that come to mind that close the door on the explanation I'm about to give would be good to include in a complaint.

First the law. RCW 9.41.050 provides:

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050

I believe that observing you get into your car with a holstered handgun would be reasonable suspicion (as viewed by cops and courts) that the misdemeanor might be taking place. It is my understanding the police are not required to exclude all innocent explanations, like having a CPL or an unloaded chamber, before initiating an investigative stop. More's the pity; but that is my understanding.

That the first thing the cop asked about was your CPL tends to support that he was investigating that offense.

Realize, also, that he may not have needed to personally observe you get in the car. It might only take a tip from a reliable person to give him the reasonable suspicion he needed. If it was a store clerk known to the cops from coffee breaks, or a parking lot caller who gave his name, address, and phone number, that might be all it takes. There is a whole raft of 4A (search and seizure) court opinions dealing with reliability of tips and how the reliability affects reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

One big thing we have overlooked, though, is that he did not temporarily seize your weapon for officer safety. While PA vs Mimms allows it for a traffic stop, which this wasn't, it would have been too easy for the cop to seize it anyway and later justify it under the broader officer safety issue discussed in Mimms. These things tells me he did not consider you dangersous. This also suggests the cop may have been up to speed on the OC Training Bulletin. "Oh, its just some OCer. I'll just double-check."

If your CPL is tied to your drivers license in the computers, he would have known that even if you were lying about having a CPL, his computer check would reveal your lie. Also, since he didn't demand your CPL, it suggests he wasn't all that concerned about you, and/or found nothing suspicious in your reply. It also suggests he had you mentally filed under "probably one of those OC rights guys." Well known, as a group, to be law-abiding.

The upshot is that I think the cop will be able to wriggle out from under a formal complaint because he can justify the stop based on investigating a possible violation of 9.41.050(2)(a). However, just because he can wriggle out does not mean there will be no effect. He'll get the idea that stopping OCers may not be worth it, what with having to be interviewed about the stop by his supervisor, a complaint in his file, and so on. And, he will know whether he violated any procedures, and if he did, having his boss find out about it will help dis-incline him towards stopping those darned OCers who write formal complaints at the least perceived infringement.

 

[jbone]

whether or not my firearm was loaded or i was carrying a CPL has nothing to do with the stop. at no point did the officer actually ask to see my CPL or even ask if the firearm was loaded. the onley mention of a CPL was whether i had one or not and i answered his question. i was not being stopped because of a firearm in a vehicle, i was being stopped for having a firearm on my hip when i went into the gas station. (some joker in the parking lot called the cops)

some of you guys are reading more into this then there really was.

as for why i am not master of all that is police officers and didnt recognize whether they were sheriffs or local police, I WAS IN A HURRY and did not care at the time.

-matt

Got it! somehow I misread, thanks for clearing that up with me. Looks like i was one of the ones reading to much into it.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

Huh? To put it another way: "If the stop was illegal, then the request for ID is legal".
I don't see how the request for ID is legal, based on the stop being illegal.

If "The request for ID can not be illegal if the stop was illegal...", then the request for ID cannot be illegal for any reason, right? Then, why didn't you just say "The request for ID can not be illegal"?

I corrected my half asleep post.

The request cannot be legal if the stop is illegal....

fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

[1245A Defender]

trees

its not fruit from the tree thats forbidden
the fruit is from a poisenous tree!

 

[Citizen]

its not fruit from the tree thats forbidden
the fruit is from a poisenous tree!

Interesting article on the Exclusionary Rule at the link below. It seems exclusion may have been around far longer than the ruling in Weeks in (1914?)

Also, the author, Dr. Roger Roots, has other very, very interesting articles and essays showing the deterioration of rights. People talk about the "slippery slope." Ha! Reading Dr. Roots papers, you see how far things have slid. When you see the total slide across time presented by Roots, it looks like a bloody luge run, and we're already on it. Just google his name. His articles and so forth come up.

Here is the one on exclusion:

http://rogerroots.info/

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

I corrected my half asleep post.

The request cannot be legal if the stop is illegal....

fruit of the forbidden tree.

Thanks Techo.

So, I guess your post here answers my other question. Correct me if I'm wrong. Here, you are saying that, if an officer stops you and requests ID for an unjustified reason, even though you are driving a car, it is also unjustified for him to demand you provide ID.

I don't agree. The RCW states that you must provide ID if operating a vehicle and ID is requested by a cop. It does not give any exceptions to that (such as, only if the stop is justified). I think you will find yourself in some (minor) trouble for refusing to provide ID. Thoughts?

 

[Tomas]

Thanks Techo.

So, I guess your post here answers my other question. Correct me if I'm wrong. Here, you are saying that, if an officer stops you and requests ID for an unjustified reason, even though you are driving a car, it is also unjustified for him to demand you provide ID.

I don't agree. The RCW states that you must provide ID if operating a vehicle and ID is requested by a cop. It does not give any exceptions to that (such as, only if the stop is justified). I think you will find yourself in some (minor) trouble for refusing to provide ID. Thoughts?

Even just as a practical matter, when a cop pulls one over and asks for ID, which state code requires one to provide, if the driver tries to get cute and complain it's an unlawful stop and they don't have to show their ID, I'll guarantee that officer can find something, even if it's as simple as saying that you changed lanes without signaling or made a turn into the wrong lane, or that one your license plate lights appeared to be out when he was behind you, or it looked like you had tint on the driver's side window, but he was wrong. Personally, I don't think I'd push it.

 

[Trigger Dr]

I seriously doubt that there is a vehicle on the road that an LEO could not find a reason to stop. Anything from a hitch ball obscuring the license plate, cracked windshield, mud flaps or lack thereof, hitting the fog line,and the list goes on.

 

[heresolong]

I remember reading years ago that in one state you could be pulled over for:

1) Driving below the speed limit as this is often a sign of intoxication

2) Driving exactly the speed limit as this indicates that you are trying very hard to avoid notice, a common sign of an intoxicated driver

3) Driving over the speed limit as you are breaking the speed limit laws

 

[Citizen]

I seriously doubt that there is a vehicle on the road that an LEO could not find a reason to stop. Anything from a hitch ball obscuring the license plate, cracked windshield, mud flaps or lack thereof, hitting the fog line,and the list goes on.

This is why I follow Kenneth Royce's advice and never let a cop follow directly behind me. I pull in to the nearest parking lot or side street (with properly signaled turn).

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

After the McDonald ruling, we should fight the law that requires us to have a CPL for car carry... it violates our right to travel. To be a little more complete in my meaning, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, the right to travel is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. And if we have a constitutional right to OC... then it begs the question how they can nullify that right just because we want to exercise our other constitutional rights.

 

[Matt85]

Even just as a practical matter, when a cop pulls one over and asks for ID, which state code requires one to provide, if the driver tries to get cute and complain it's an unlawful stop and they don't have to show their ID, I'll guarantee that officer can find something, even if it's as simple as saying that you changed lanes without signaling or made a turn into the wrong lane, or that one your license plate lights appeared to be out when he was behind you, or it looked like you had tint on the driver's side window, but he was wrong. Personally, I don't think I'd push it.

i got one you will like.

about two weeks ago i was pulled over for... the officer couldnt see if i was wearing a seatbelt because my truck is lifted (talk about a stupid reason to pull someone over!). but it does go to show that cops can and will find a reason to stop you if they really want it.

-matt

 

[Citizen]

SNIP about two weeks ago i was pulled over for... the officer couldnt see if i was wearing a seatbelt because my truck is lifted (talk about a stupid reason to pull someone over!). but it does go to show that cops can and will find a reason to stop you if they really want it.

No offense, but why tolerate it. Why not shoot back with a formal complaint on a 4th Amendment violation? If your truck is of an age before shoulder belts came out (I had one), the cops ought to be able to figure it out rather than use it as a lame excuse to go fishing.

One of the cops' favorite court rulings, Terry v Ohio quoted an earlier case. It is very noteworthy that the Terry court chose to include this quote. They did chose a different quote. They could have created their own language to water down the quote, but didn't. They wrote this quote into their opinion:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs. Botsford.

No right. More sacred. Free from all restraint. Free even from all interference. Unless by clear AND unquestionable authority of law.

If we do not assign such level of importance to our rights, we can hardly expect police to.​

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I seriously doubt that there is a vehicle on the road that an LEO could not find a reason to stop. Anything from a hitch ball obscuring the license plate, cracked windshield, mud flaps or lack thereof, hitting the fog line,and the list goes on.

I heard on TV (so it must be true) that in WA a license plate FRAME is technically an infraction, since it obscures a portion of the plate.

 

[Tomas]

I heard on TV (so it must be true) that in WA a license plate FRAME is technically an infraction, since it obscures a portion of the plate.

If the frame covers any part of the tags or other printed information you are correct. I do know that a cover over the plates is also unlawful in many places, no matter how clear it is.

My rear plate has a frame - but it does not cover ANY of the face of the plate, so it is 100% legal...

________________

RCW 46.16.240
Attachment of plates to vehicles — Violations enumerated.
The vehicle license number plates shall be attached conspicuously at the front and rear of each vehicle for which the same are issued and in such a manner that they can be plainly seen and read at all times. However, if only one license number plate is legally issued for any vehicle such plate shall be conspicuously attached to the rear of such vehicle. Each vehicle license number plate shall be placed or hung in a horizontal position at a distance of not more than four feet from the ground and shall be kept clean so as to be plainly seen and read at all times. In cases where the body construction of the vehicle is such that compliance with this section is impossible, permission to deviate therefrom may be granted by the state patrol. It shall be unlawful to display upon the front or rear of any vehicle, vehicle license number plate or plates other than those furnished by the director for such vehicle or to display upon any vehicle any vehicle license number plate or plates which have been in any manner changed, altered, disfigured or have become illegible. License plate frames may be used on vehicle license number plates only if the frames do not obscure license tabs or identifying letters or numbers on the plates and the plates can be plainly seen and read at all times. It is unlawful to use any holders, frames, or any materials that in any manner change, alter, or make the vehicle license number plates illegible. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate any vehicle unless there shall be displayed thereon valid vehicle license number plates attached as herein provided.

(Emphasis added...)

 

[Dave_pro2a]

If the frame covers any part of the tags or other printed information you are correct. I do know that a cover over the plates is also unlawful in many places, no matter how clear it is.

My rear plate has a frame - but it does not cover ANY of the face of the plate, so it is 100% legal...

________________

(Emphasis added...)

Unfortunatly a lot of frames look like this:

Dealer frame, covers a small portion of the tab, and a hair of the O.

 

[phoneguy]

Matt , I see you were trying to be big man with a gun. That cop should have just threw you in jail.
Why do you scare everyone ?