imported post
Now first of all, I understand that the reason you should bother is because it is legally required, and I am by NO WAY arguing that point. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that anyone SHOULD break the law. This is just a hypothetical situation posed for conversation:
Ok, so we know that it is illegal for a LEO to stop a person driving a car JUST TO CHECK if they are indeed licensed to drive said car. For the LEO to stop anyone, they must have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). With this is mind, you should theoretically be able to drive and ALMOSTNEVER be checked for a license, as long as you never break any laws. Obviously, there are special circumstances like getting in an accident OR your vehicle matching that of a suspect, so this why I said almost.
This same theory should be able to be applied to openly carrying where a permit is required, as well. If one is breaking no laws, therefore not giving a LEO RAS, then there should be, under almost all circumstances, no reason for you to be stopped and asked for said permit. This obviously is NOT suggest because, again, if you happen to fit the description of a suspect, or there is another issue, you might very well be arrested and charged.
Anyway I've also heard that there is a law that says something to the extent of any evidence that is collected illegally cannot be used against you. If this is correct, and you were illegally stopped and asked for your permit (or drivers license) at which time you didn't have one, couldn't you then argue that that fact was collected illegally and therefore cannot be held against you?
Just some random thoughts I thought I'd share....
Now first of all, I understand that the reason you should bother is because it is legally required, and I am by NO WAY arguing that point. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that anyone SHOULD break the law. This is just a hypothetical situation posed for conversation:
Ok, so we know that it is illegal for a LEO to stop a person driving a car JUST TO CHECK if they are indeed licensed to drive said car. For the LEO to stop anyone, they must have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). With this is mind, you should theoretically be able to drive and ALMOSTNEVER be checked for a license, as long as you never break any laws. Obviously, there are special circumstances like getting in an accident OR your vehicle matching that of a suspect, so this why I said almost.
This same theory should be able to be applied to openly carrying where a permit is required, as well. If one is breaking no laws, therefore not giving a LEO RAS, then there should be, under almost all circumstances, no reason for you to be stopped and asked for said permit. This obviously is NOT suggest because, again, if you happen to fit the description of a suspect, or there is another issue, you might very well be arrested and charged.
Anyway I've also heard that there is a law that says something to the extent of any evidence that is collected illegally cannot be used against you. If this is correct, and you were illegally stopped and asked for your permit (or drivers license) at which time you didn't have one, couldn't you then argue that that fact was collected illegally and therefore cannot be held against you?
Just some random thoughts I thought I'd share....