"Reasonable suspicion" to stop

[Outdoorsman]

What you are seeing is a "third way". Basically, the legislature has made it a "crime" not to show your license to the DNR when asked. The elements of the crime are: 1, You are hunting, 2) DNR asks for license, 3) You do not exhibit the license.

The DNR has been given HUGE power here in Michigan; there is movement from time to time to change that however: http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/legislationdocs/position/HB 5590 Analysis_10.htm

(I do think it "speaks volumes" that the DNR analyst could find no "pro" arguments to this bill which sought to limit their power...perhaps the analyst needs to go back and read the 4th Amendment)

They (the DNR) also require you to have your identification with you (the one you used to purchase the hunting/fishing license).

 

[Venator]

I know this is going a little off-topic, but if an officer is not allowed to stop someone who is driving and ask for their Driver's License, why is it ok for a DNR officer to ask for someone's hunting or fishing license while they are hunting or fishing? Wouldn't this basically be the same situation?

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324-43516

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994

324.43516 Hunting, fur harvester, or fishing license; carrying license; exhibiting license on demand; firearm deer license with unused kill tag; exhibiting tag on request.
Sec. 43516.

(1) A person who has been issued a hunting, fur harvester's, or fishing license shall carry the license and shall exhibit the license upon the demand of a conservation officer, a law enforcement officer, or the owner or occupant of the land if either or both of the following apply:

(a) The person is hunting, trapping, or fishing.

(b) Subject to section 43510(2) and except as provided in section 43513, the person is in possession of a firearm or other hunting or trapping apparatus or fishing apparatus in an area frequented by wild animals or fish, respectively.

(2) Subject to section 43510(2) and except as provided in section 43513, a person shall not carry or possess afield a shotgun with buckshot, slug loads, or ball loads; a bow and arrow; a muzzle-loading rifle or black powder handgun; or a centerfire handgun or centerfire rifle during firearm deer season unless that person has a valid firearm deer license, with an unused kill tag, if issued, issued in his or her name. The person shall exhibit an unused kill tag, if issued, upon the request of a conservation officer, a law enforcement officer, or the owner or occupant of the land.

History: Add. 1995, Act 57, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 129, Imd. Eff. June 3, 2004 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 433, Imd. Eff. Oct. 5, 2006
Popular Name: Act 451
Popular Name: NREPA

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

This brings up another instance when a CPL holder carrying OC in the woods could be stopped to see if they have a hunting license, but not have one, because he is carrying with a CPL and not attempting to take game.

Gets ugly.

 

[Venator]

Venator, no court case is needed as this is pretty standard legal reasoning...

If the offense of "Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited" (MCL 750.234d) were worded as "a person shall not possess a firearm on these premises unless that person has a CPL," then lack of a permit is part of the offense and until there is reason for the officer to suspect that one lacks a CPL, there is no RAS and detention would be illegal.

But since it is worded as "a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following..." and later provides an exception for people having permits, then possessing the firearm on the listed premises is the offense and sufficient suspicion of that (ie seeing the firearm) justifies a detention. Having the CPL is a defense, and the officer doesn't have to rule that out, any more than he or she has to rule out insanity, that the suspect is a police officer, agent of the owner, etc.



You bring up driving: A person has to wear a seatbelt in Michigan, it is presumptively against the law not to wear one. There is an exception to the seatbelt law for people with a physician's statement that the person suffers from some sort of condition which precludes having to wear one. Since driving without a seatbelt on is presumptively prohibited, an officer can stop someone for not wearing it. Does the officer need to rule out the exception before effecting the stop? Ah..., no.

But, the law concerning driver's licenses in general is different, and on your point above about just stopping drivers to ascertain whether they have a DL, you are correct:

MCL 257.301 Valid operator's or chauffeur's license required...;
Sec. 301.
(1) Except as provided in this act, a person shall not drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless that person has a valid operator's or chauffeur's license with the appropriate group designation and indorsements for the type or class of vehicle being driven or towed.

Notice that the law doesn't state that it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle in Michigan and then provide a list of exceptions, one being a driver's license. Rather, it says that one shall not drive a motor vehicle unless you have a license. This wording requires the officer to raise the probability that you do not have a valid license to a sufficient level in order to conduct a stop. As the officer develops a list of reasons for his belief, one could say that he is "articulating" his "reasonable suspicion".

The law clearly establishes that by possessing a firearm on certain premises a person is violating the law AND then goes on to list exceptions to that law. To not show your ID/CPL and prove you are carrying under an exception would most likely subject the OCer to arrest and confiscation of the firearm until such time as the OCers "affirmative defense" is proven.

And this is the reasons the LEOs have brought up. I'm still not convinced, but that's just me. If something is allowed with or without a license like firearms in a beer store, then my thinking is that the person is presumed lawful unless the LEO has some RAS that they are not. I guess I believe in being thought innocent unlit proved guilty. Silly me.

 

[DanM]

I brought this over from the other thread the discussion had started in:

If 50%+ of Michigan's firearm owners had a CPL, I MIGHT agree. But since the percentage w/ a CPL is not even close to that, and since most CPL holders CONCEAL, I think most judges would believe an officer could reasonably suspect that a person OCing a firearm in a PFZ is doing so without benefit of exception and is therefore violating MCL750.234d. "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion" is a very minimal level of "proof" and most of the time will be decided in the officer's favor, especially when you had ample opportunity to prove your exemption and failed to do so.

Sure, judges (and juries) can make legal mistakes such as this. Happens all the time. But the mistake of thinking there is a "low probability the person is legal" exception to the need for officers to have RAS or PC to detain/arrest likely would not survive appeal or SCOTUS review. The essence of RAS or PC is that the officer has some specific information or knowledge about the individual he is detaining/arresting in order to justify the detention/arrest. General knowledge of a particular probability about the population IS NOT specific information or knowledge about an individual an officer is observing, therefore RAS or PC for a justified detention/arrest of the individual is not satisfied. Applying general knowledge (whatever it is) to making guesses about what is up with an individual is called "having a hunch", and hunches have been explicitly ruled out by courts as providing legal RAS or PC.

Let's talk about this with another hypothetical closely matching yours which we CLEARLY know to be an illegal detention/arrest. An officer observes a black person walking in a particular neighborhood. This particular neighborhood is fenced-off except at entry points, and entry by non-residents or non-guests is explicitly posted as trespassing. The percentage of residents and guests that are black is low. With this information and knowledge, the officer has a hunch that the black person is probably not a resident or guest, therefore the person is probably not there legally, but the officer has no specific information or knowledge that that particular black person isn't a resident or guest. The officer stops the black person and asks him to prove he is in the neighborhood legally. The person refuses, and the officer detains or arrests him in order to investigate whether or not the person is in the neighborhood legally. That is an illegal detention/arrest.

You cannot be legally detained/arrested for simply "walking/driving while black", even in a place that normally has a low percentage of black population. And you cannot be legally detained/arrested for "walking while OC", even in a place where OC with a CPL is legally required and the population having CPLs is a low percentage. In both cases, officers must presume you are legal unless they have specific information or knowledge that you, specifically, probably are not legal, before they may legally detain/arrest you. The officer excusing his detention/arrest with "Well, I believed there was a low probability the person was legal", while perhaps getting by a lazy judge or jury, would not survive appeal or SCOTUS, in my opinion.

 

[Outdoorsman]

And this is the reasons the LEOs have brought up. I'm still not convinced, but that's just me. If something is allowed with or without a license like firearms in a beer store, then my thinking is that the person is presumed lawful unless the LEO has some RAS that they are not. I guess I believe in being thought innocent unlit proved guilty. Silly me.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Michigander]

This brings up another instance when a CPL holder carrying OC in the woods could be stopped to see if they have a hunting license, but not have one, because he is carrying with a CPL and not attempting to take game.

Gets ugly.

Not too ugly. My understanding is that in game areas you have to have (cpl or hunting license to be armed) it, but you don't have to show it.

 

[DanM]

I brought this over from the other thread the discussion had started in:

If 50%+ of Michigan's firearm owners had a CPL, I MIGHT agree. But since the percentage w/ a CPL is not even close to that, and since most CPL holders CONCEAL, I think most judges would believe an officer could reasonably suspect that a person OCing a firearm in a PFZ is doing so without benefit of exception and is therefore violating MCL750.234d. "Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion" is a very minimal level of "proof" and most of the time will be decided in the officer's favor, especially when you had ample opportunity to prove your exemption and failed to do so.

Sure, judges (and juries) can make legal mistakes such as this. Happens all the time. But the mistake of thinking there is a "low probability the person is legal" exception to the need for officers to have RAS or PC to detain/arrest likely would not survive appeal or SCOTUS review. The essence of RAS or PC is that the officer has some specific information or knowledge about the individual he is detaining/arresting in order to justify the detention/arrest. General knowledge of a particular probability about the population IS NOT specific information or knowledge about an individual an officer is observing, therefore RAS or PC for a justified detention/arrest of the individual is not satisfied. Applying general knowledge (whatever it is) to making guesses about what is up with an individual is called "having a hunch", and hunches have been explicitly ruled out by courts as providing legal RAS or PC.

Let's talk about this with another hypothetical closely matching yours which we CLEARLY know to be an illegal detention/arrest. An officer observes a black person walking in a particular neighborhood. This particular neighborhood is fenced-off except at entry points, and entry by non-residents or non-guests is explicitly posted as trespassing. The percentage of residents and guests that are black is low. With this information and knowledge, the officer has a hunch that the black person is probably not a resident or guest, therefore the person is probably not there legally, but the officer has no specific information or knowledge that that particular black person isn't a resident or guest. The officer stops the black person and asks him to prove he is in the neighborhood legally. The person refuses, and the officer detains or arrests him in order to investigate whether or not the person is in the neighborhood legally. That is an illegal detention/arrest.

You cannot be legally detained/arrested for simply "walking/driving while black", even in a place that normally has a low percentage of black population. And you cannot be legally detained/arrested for "walking while OC", even in a place where OC with a CPL is legally required and the population having CPLs is a low percentage. In both cases, officers must presume you are legal unless they have specific information or knowledge that you, specifically, probably are not legal, before they may legally detain/arrest you. The officer excusing his detention/arrest with "Well, I believed there was a low probability the person was legal", while perhaps getting by a lazy judge or jury, would not survive appeal or SCOTUS, in my opinion.

 

[ghostrider]

I brought this over from the other thread the discussion had started in:



Sure, judges (and juries) can make legal mistakes such as this. Happens all the time. But the mistake of thinking there is a "low probability the person is legal" exception to the need for officers to have RAS or PC to detain/arrest likely would not survive appeal or SCOTUS review. The essence of RAS or PC is that the officer has some specific information or knowledge about the individual he is detaining/arresting in order to justify the detention/arrest. General knowledge of a particular probability about the population IS NOT specific information or knowledge about an individual an officer is observing, therefore RAS or PC for a justified detention/arrest of the individual is not satisfied. Applying general knowledge (whatever it is) to making guesses about what is up with an individual is called "having a hunch", and hunches have been explicitly ruled out by courts as providing legal RAS or PC.

Let's talk about this with another hypothetical closely matching yours which we CLEARLY know to be an illegal detention/arrest. An officer observes a black person walking in a particular neighborhood. This particular neighborhood is fenced-off except at entry points, and entry by non-residents or non-guests is explicitly posted as trespassing. The percentage of residents and guests that are black is low. With this information and knowledge, the officer has a hunch that the black person is probably not a resident or guest, therefore the person is probably not there legally, but the officer has no specific information or knowledge that that particular black person isn't a resident or guest. The officer stops the black person and asks him to prove he is in the neighborhood legally. The person refuses, and the officer detains or arrests him in order to investigate whether or not the person is in the neighborhood legally. That is an illegal detention/arrest.

You cannot be legally detained/arrested for simply "walking/driving while black", even in a place that normally has a low percentage of black population. And you cannot be legally detained/arrested for "walking while OC", even in a place where OC with a CPL is legally required and the population having CPLs is a low percentage. In both cases, officers must presume you are legal unless they have specific information or knowledge that you, specifically, probably are not legal, before they may legally detain/arrest you. The officer excusing his detention/arrest with "Well, I believed there was a low probability the person was legal", while perhaps getting by a lazy judge or jury, would not survive appeal or SCOTUS, in my opinion.

What about the aspect that, "Most criminals/felons do not OC. About the only people who will OC in such places are those who are allowed to do so."?


ETA:
Bottom line is that the law states that the CPL holder must do certain things. One of those is that if you are carrying concealed, then you must disclose, and that you must show ID/CPL upon an officers request.

There is no requirement under MCL 750.234d that requires one to submit ID upon request of a officer. When one is carrying in a restricted zone with a CPL, one is carrying under the exception of 234d, not "under their CPL" like some like to say. Problem is, one will never know if the judge will agree (Witness the Tigh Croff case). This is one of the reasons why I wrote "WASH, RINSE, REPEAT".

One has to decide to submit IC/CPL or not. Of course the law doesn't "require" you to do so when openly carrying, but that doesn't mean one will not have to pay lawyer/court fees, and face possible prosecution.

 

[DrTodd]

Interesting viewpoint, I don't quite think I agree, but it's thought provoking.

If I sterile carry a friends registered pistol or an antique BP muzzle loading pistol into a bar, church, or other criminal empowerment zone, a cop can attempt to find out who I am, but it won't happen unless they arrest me and take my finger prints, which would of course be followed up with a hell of a law suit since I would have been arrested while obeying all laws.

There is absolutely no law that even suggests that OCers on foot without concealed backups should disclose a thing. But you're inferring that this law gives police a right to arbitrarily investigate someone, even though they'd have no reason whatsoever to comply, and the police would have no reasonable suspicion to believe a crime had been committed, other than a law that can be used to try to make an excuse.
What laws would not be an excuse?? The ONLY necessity for a criminal investigation is the reasonable, articulable suspicion that crime is afoot. If the crime is carrying a firearm in certain places, the only thing the officer needs to prove is 1. You are carrying a firearm, 2. you are in certain places.

If your analysis is correct, it still wouldn't stand up to the 4th amendment, and thus I find it likely that a higher court would rule against the stop and ID policy you're suggesting to be legally permissible.

There is no stop and ID policy. There is no requirement you ID in this. If I refuse to show my ID/CPL I will not be charged with any "stop and ID" violation as Michigan doesn't have one, however, I will be charged with the mcl 750.234d violation. If I get to the police station and they figure out who I am because one of my students sees me, they run my name, and then let me go... I have not been forced to give my ID or even my name.

The elements of the crime of carrying in a MCL 750.234d area are:
1. Possession of a firearm.
2. In one of the listed places (banks, Alcohol Licensee, etc)

You are OCing in a Bank:

Element 1 is evidenced by the pistol being clearly seen on your belt (possession)
Element 2: You are in a Bank (defined by state law but probably pretty apparent)

That is the crime... the ONLY elements. Upon seeing this the officer now not only has Reasonable Suspicion but also PC to arrest on the MCL 750.234d misedemeanor.

Your defense, then is the CPL. Show that and you should be "let go". Refuse to show it they hold you until they figure out that you have a CPL or are an officer.

If we took the logic of posters here who thinks that an officer needs to have a reasonable suspicion of the exceptions to the laws, this is what we would have:

1. Can't even investigate a person smoking Marijuana on their front yard unless the officer ascertains that the person doesn't have a Medical Marijuana Card? If I ask for ID, have I turned Michigan into a Stop and ID state and violate the 4th Amendment??

2. Driving by a house late in the eveneing and see someone breaking into a house; oh, can't investigate unless the officer knows for certain that the person is not the homeowner. If the officer does go and ask for ID to prove the person lives there, they somehow turn Michigan into a "stop and ID" state?

3. Actually, since "insanity at the time of the crime" is a defense to any crime, under your logic, police officers would need to prove that a person is NOT insane at the time of the crime in order to even question a suspect they see most likely breaking a law, let alone arrest.

So, since the arrest and or detention for any crime at anytime is most likely just a pretext to ID you, and because you think that the officer needs to prove you ARE NOT an exception (insane), you will sue under your 4th Amendment rights, and win.
Good luck with that...

Ridiculous...

 

[fozzy71]

Can we get a mod to merge these 2 threads? It was bad enough that it was being discussed in the experiences thread but now having 2 new threads about the topic does not help much.

 

[Michigander]

If we took the logic of posters here who thinks that an officer needs to have a reasonable suspicion of the exceptions to the laws, this is what we would have:

1. Can't even investigate a person smoking Marijuana on their front yard unless the officer ascertains that the person doesn't have a Medical Marijuana Card? If I ask for ID, have I turned Michigan into a Stop and ID state and violate the 4th Amendment??

2. Driving by a house late in the eveneing and see someone breaking into a house; oh, can't investigate unless the officer knows for certain that the person is not the homeowner. If the officer does go and ask for ID to prove the person lives there, they somehow turn Michigan into a "stop and ID" state?

3. Actually, since "insanity at the time of the crime" is a defense to any crime, under your logic, police officers would need to prove that a person is NOT insane at the time of the crime in order to even question a suspect they see most likely breaking a law, let alone arrest.

So, since the arrest and or detention for any crime at anytime is most likely just a pretext to ID you, and because you think that the officer needs to prove you ARE NOT an exception (insane), you will sue under your 4th Amendment rights, and win.
Good luck with that...

Ridiculous...

No, not very ridiculous. Breaking into a home is sufficient for a Terry Stop. I might have lost my keys, but it isn't likely. The hypothetical officer in question could argue this in court, and I would be the first to agree with his logic.

A lunatic criminal needs to be stopped, regardless of the reasoning behind his lunacy. This is a job that we the people hire the police to take on for us.

Smoking possibly licensed weed is a good one, and one that I'd be interested to see play out in court. I would be totally against the police arbitrarily taking ID for that, but I don't want to talk out of turn in terms of legality, because that subject isn't a specialty of mine.

In terms of your original point, I will again say that I disagree, but see how you could argue that point. I don't see a direct reason why it would be interpreted that way, because a Terry stop relies on the officer to articulate reasonable suspicion based on past experiences that would lead him or her to believe criminal action was is or is about to be taking place. OCers in CEZ's are pretty well universally CPL holders, if not someone with written permission from the owner of the establishment. There is almost no way in hell I could believe a cop could make a credible claim for a Terry stop merely on the basis of OCing in a CEZ, because it's simply not something criminals do.

And again, if a court decided to agree, I am confident that it could be overturned on the basis of the bill of rights. For that matter, the much more clear disclosure law could be overturned on the same basis if a competent lawyer took that task on.

 

[DrTodd]

I brought this over from the other thread the discussion had started in:



Sure, judges (and juries) can make legal mistakes such as this. Happens all the time. But the mistake of thinking there is a "low probability the person is legal" exception to the need for officers to have RAS or PC to detain/arrest likely would not survive appeal or SCOTUS review. The essence of RAS or PC is that the officer has some specific information or knowledge about the individual he is detaining/arresting in order to justify the detention/arrest. General knowledge of a particular probability about the population IS NOT specific information or knowledge about an individual an officer is observing, therefore RAS or PC for a justified detention/arrest of the individual is not satisfied. Applying general knowledge (whatever it is) to making guesses about what is up with an individual is called "having a hunch", and hunches have been explicitly ruled out by courts as providing legal RAS or PC.

Let's talk about this with another hypothetical closely matching yours which we CLEARLY know to be an illegal detention/arrest. An officer observes a black person walking in a particular neighborhood. This particular neighborhood is fenced-off except at entry points, and entry by non-residents or non-guests is explicitly posted as trespassing. The percentage of residents and guests that are black is low. With this information and knowledge, the officer has a hunch that the black person is probably not a resident or guest, therefore the person is probably not there legally, but the officer has no specific information or knowledge that that particular black person isn't a resident or guest. The officer stops the black person and asks him to prove he is in the neighborhood legally. The person refuses, and the officer detains or arrests him in order to investigate whether or not the person is in the neighborhood legally. That is an illegal detention/arrest.

You cannot be legally detained/arrested for simply "walking/driving while black", This is not a crime, so you are correct. If the officer develops other indices of a crime, perhaps at some point the officer can articulate a suspicion even in a place that normally has a low percentage of black population. And you cannot be legally detained/arrested for "walking while OC" This is legal, so no crime, even in a place where OC with a CPL is legally required and the population having CPLs is a low percentage Wrong, this is a crime in and of itself. In both cases, officers must presume you are legal unless they have specific information or knowledge that you, specifically, probably are not legal, before they may legally detain/arrest you.WRONG WRONG WRONG. The presumption of guilt is present in the crime 1. Possess a firearm, 2. In a prohibited place) The officer excusing his detention/arrest with "Well, I believed there was a low probability the person was legal", while perhaps getting by a lazy judge or jury, would not survive appeal or SCOTUS, in my opinion. No, he would actually say that he saw a violation of MCL 750.234d and arrested for that. No violation because lack of a CPL is not an element of the crime!! He doesn't have to. The crime does not require that the person not have a CPL, the crime only requires possesion on the aformentiuoned premises. If you possess a firearm on the premies, you have violated the law. If you can then prove to be an exception, then you are free to go.

There is a difference: the lack of a CPL makes this a crime vs. The CPL provides an exception to the crime. Lack of a driver's license is an element to driving a car without a license, it is not a defense against some law that makes it a crime to drive a car. Driving a car is not a crime. Possessing a firearm in certain places is.

 

[Michigander]

There is a difference: the lack of a CPL makes this a crime vs. The CPL provides an exception to the crime. Lack of a driver's license is an element to driving a car without a license, it is not a defense against some law that makes it a crime to drive a car. Driving a car is not a crime. Possessing a firearm in certain places is.

I will again reiterate. Terry requires reasonable, articulateable suspicion.

You can articulate all day long that you think the law allows a Terry Stop because Michigan law figured out a way to override the suspicious part, but it doesn't change the fact CEZ OC isn't a suspicious behavior because criminals simply don't do it, and therefore it falls outside of the boundaries of a lawful Terry stop unless there is some other evidence to look at, such as being in a CEZ that isn't covered under preemption, as apparently happened recently with the OCer charged for carrying on a college campus.

 

[DrTodd]

I will again reiterate. Terry requires reasonable, articulateable suspicion that a crime "is afoot." The elements of the crime as required in MCL 750.234d would be met by the officer observing the firearm (person OC) and the place where the firearm is observed being one of the prohibited places. THERE IS NO "ABSENCE OF A CPL" AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME. In law, any defense needs to be asserted by the accused.

I hate quoting wikipedia, but it probably is the most concise explanation:

Legal Defense:
In civil proceedings and criminal prosecution..., a defendant may raise a defense... in an attempt to avoid criminal or civil liability. Besides contesting the accuracy of any allegation made against him or her in a criminal proceding ...or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable. (Having firearm in a PFZ, CPL exception)
Since a defense is raised by the defendant in a direct attempt to avoid what would otherwise result in liability, the defendant typically holds the burden of proof.

 

[Jblack44]

So to expand on the good Dr's point....If the said OC'er who is in a PFZ and is obvserved by the officer, then walks to his vehicle and enters the vehicle. Now under your "theory" this person has now broken the law again by "concealing" his weapon "in" the vehicle. So now he's broken two laws in your eyes. does the officer have legal RAS to question the person in regards to having a CPL????

 

[Bronson]

I can't really add anything to this thread that hasn't already been said but I just want to throw in my agreement with DrTodd's analysis.

Bronson

 

[DrTodd]

So to expand on the good Dr's point....If the said OC'er who is in a PFZ and is obvserved by the officer, then walks to his vehicle and enters the vehicle. Now under your "theory" this person has now broken the law again by "concealing" his weapon "in" the vehicle. So now he's broken two laws in your eyes. does the officer have legal RAS to question the person in regards to having a CPL????

YES see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408804/posts

 

[lapeer20m]

one more thing to add is that you are not required to carry id or cpl on your person unless carrying concealed (or in a vehicle, and a few other exceptions)

how can a person be required to produce an item they are not required to carry?

 

[DrTodd]

You could "prove" that you have a CPL by other means.

I, for example, have my DL # memorized and CPL # memorized. They could run that in LEIN and see I have a CPL.

The law does not require that I have my CPL on me when I OC in a PFZ, only that I be a person licensed to carry a concealed pistol. If I tell the officer I have a CPL, then the issue becomes what level of "proof" the officer needs. That would probably be an issue for the courts to determine. I would argue that by knowing the exception, stating that I fall under the exception, and providing my DL # and or CPL # which then, by accessing LEIN would indicate my CPL status, and matching the description to the person who comes up under that DL # the likelihood that I am in fact a CPL holder and thus "excepted" has increased exponentially. This may take a while, however. Since the officer may only take such time as necessary to determine whether I have broken the law, by having my CPL on me while OC, I could cut a 15-20min encounter down to a 1 minute encounter. Once I get in the car though, my CPL would be required as that is covered under the CCW statute.

BTW, what is interesting about the Fed case I linked to above, the court eventually found that keeping the suspect detained for an hour was "excessive" because the suspect IMMEDIATELY showed his Georgia carry license.

 

[Michigander]

I will again reiterate. Terry requires reasonable, articulateable suspicion that a crime "is afoot." The elements of the crime as required in MCL 750.234d would be met by the officer observing the firearm (person OC) and the place where the firearm is observed being one of the prohibited places. THERE IS NO "ABSENCE OF A CPL" AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME. In law, any defense needs to be asserted by the accused.

The problems you still haven't addressed are the 4th (and for that matter 2nd) amendments as well as in my opinion reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. What you are suggesting is that the bill or rights and Terry v Ohio can be legislated away by making a status offense into a crime for everyone that they have to prove an exemption to later. I just don't buy it.

That is quite a lot like arguing that by making their own local law and having a contract, royal oak has the right to defy preemption. The constitution says there are certain things the government cannot do, and I don't know of a single case where the SCOTUS has ruled that state or local bypass laws against the constitution are legal.

A police officer, other than perhaps arguably one who hasn't been educated on the matter, cannot without lying claim to believe that an OCer in a CEZ is likely a criminal, and thus it appears to me to fail the test of Terry. It seems that you are describing a problem caused by one Michigan law that appears to contradict a SCOTUS ruling and the Bill Of Rights.

It is not something that a CPL holder could get prosecuted for, and because of that, it's not something worth worrying about. If a CPL holder gets detained for OCing in a CEZ, the appropriate response will be to complain to every applicable government agency, and file a lawsuit if possible.