Traffic Stop Scenario

Seattleite · Feb 7, 2013

Munkey Butt said:
Well i dont believe Lying would be the correct response to his questions. If he directly asks are you going to say no? ".

Mybe I heard the question wrong, I thought the officer was referring to any unlawful guns.

Either way, I have been pulled over just once since 1976, and that was while openly armed. (I immediately acknowledged why he pulled me over, and appologized profusely for doing so and wasting his time, as I offered him my driver license.) The deputy asked if I was a cop (I really do not know why he asked that). I told him no. He asked if he would find any recent traffic records if he checked, I told him, "No, I haven't been pulled over since 1976."

It was a newly established school zone. He thanked me, told me to be careful, and let me go. He never handled my driver license.

I have driven through almost all Western and Central states, always with a firearm. Still, I have only been pulled over once since 1976 and nothing happened. I just don't seem to get pulled over. Don't know why, except that I truly try not to. And that... I once heard during a John Farnhum class back in the 20th Century.

Prior to 1976, the coppers usually had me get out of my car, frisked me, took whatever I was carrying away until I came back clean on all records... whether they saw a gun or not. They would put the unloaded pistol on the hood of the car, with ammo separated, then leave and either thump my head on the car, pull my feet out from under me, and say words to the effect of get lost! A hassle, but it was how it was back in the day. Durned hippies! I lost track of how many times I was frisked and no one found what I was carrying. I used to try to tell them, but they would find a pager (1976 voice pagers were larger that most carry guns), call me a liar-hippie and let me go. I cut my hair, then no more hassles.

carolina guy · Feb 7, 2013

Does anyone know if "officer safety" has been tested post Heller/McDonald?

Freedom1Man · Feb 7, 2013

SeattleWingsfan said:
RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.
SNIP

Please show me where the, "when and if," requirements are found in the law.

If there is no separate part/section defining the "when and if" then there is no requirement.

Edit

I found the federal law I was thinking of.

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor .....

Where is the requirement in the title? There is none for the average citizen. So, you have not answered the original question.

Freedom1Man · Feb 7, 2013

Here is an email I sent off to the AG to gain clarification on this issue.

Subject: What is the requirement under the law for this RCW?
Message:
The following is the law in question.

RCW 9.41.050
(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

The part that is in question is "and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so". After spending much time searching through the laws I could nto find any requirement in the law to display my CPL. Could you please direct me to any such requirement known to your office?

Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Vitaeus · Feb 7, 2013

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/images/LE_Legal_Update_ current through August 2 2012.pdf

tl;dr version, they should only processing the traffic violation that caused the stop, all else is fishing and should be ignored.

7. May consent to search be sought routinely during or after MV stop for a civil infraction or minor offense or is this additional intrusion an impermissible extension of the seizure?
Generally no, though a “clean break” might change things.
State v. Cantrell, 70 Wn. App. 340 (Div. II, 1993) Oct. '93 LED:21 (After speeding ticket signed by violator, it was unlawful seizure for officer to extend the duration and scope of the stop by asking for consent to search MV)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) Feb. '97 LED:02 (U.S. Supreme Court did not expressly address this issue but did rule that after completion of a traffic stop police obtained valid consent to search without first telling the detainee that he was free to go. Beware, however, of the 1997 Ohio Supreme Court decision on remand holding that police unlawfully extended the traffic stop when they pursued consent to search after issuing the ticket)
See two-page article on this issue in the October '96 LED at pages 19-21. The article also discusses the then-recent decision of Division Three in State v. Henry, 80 Wn. App. 544 (Div. III, 1995). The article suggests that, if officers are going to attempt to get consent to search in traffic stop circumstances where they lack “reasonable suspicion” to justify extending the duration of the stop or expanding the scope of the investigation, they use either a “clear break” or an “in the process” method of requesting consent. In light of Henry and discussion in State v. Allen, 138 Wn. App. 463 (Div. II, 2007) July ’07 LED:21 placing restrictions on what questions may be asked without reasonable suspicion during a routine traffic stop, the “clear break” approach appears to be the more readily defended approach.
For additional discussion of Washington and federal case law on possible constitutional restrictions on expanding the duration and scope of traffic and investigatory stops, see the LED discussion of Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S.Ct. 834 (2005) March ’05 LED:03, April ’05 LED:02 (United States Supreme Court rules that using dog outside stopped car did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution).

Vitaeus · Feb 7, 2013

WA also has stronger protection in regards to "terry stops, both on foot and in vehicles. I don't have good citations at hand for that, but it has been discussed in detail in earlier threads in this subforum.

Vitaeus · Feb 7, 2013

I tend to fall somewhere between MSG and Gogo, I don't tend to get stopped anymore, but if I did I would use Gogo's tactic of not rolling window down any further than necessary. Also any passenger's in the vehicle are none of the LEOs business as long as it was a simple traffic violation.

jt59 · Feb 7, 2013

Interesting thread, as I just had a friend pulled over by WSP on the east side.....initially for speeding. The officer asked the usual "do you know why I pulled you over"...."no officer"....

Officer Friendly then asked him if he had an firearms.... and this is where it went downhill.... not wanting to appear uncooperative and not really knowing his rights, he said "yes, I have a pistol in my chest holster under my shirt and I have my CPL".

The officer instructed him out of the vehicle and around to the front, and with his hands above his head, proceeded to unbutton his shirt to secure the firearm. My friend, making the best of the situation asked "Aren't you supposed to buy me a drink first?" No reaction by WSP...he took the gun back, ran the numbers and brought it back unloaded, and gave him his gun and the magazine to his wife and said "hold onto this until I leave."

The cop said "just a warning, because I didn't buy you a drink"...and turned them on their way.

We later talked about this and didn't come up with much better answers than Nic and Hermmanr....but one of the guys said his brother was a cop, and so I had him pose some of the questions to him on here about what they know when the run your DL.

He is a local city cop, and said that when he pulls someone over and runs their plates, that it generally doesn't come up automatically if they have a CPL. He has the ability to ask the computer that question, but generally doesn't. When he calls in a plate to dispatch, they ALLWAYS check for and advise if the driver has a CPL. When the CPL comes up, they also have a list of any owned firearms that went through a FFL purchase. He said that disarming for "officer safety" for him is dependent on his spidy sense more than anything and the circumstances, ie: daytime, kids in the backseat vs. 1:30AM on some lonely county road.... he said that not all of their systems are as new as the WSP and not everything is linked to everything because of that.

So, I don't know if that helps the discussion or not, but it's the way it is and the way it works....

Ultra09 · Feb 7, 2013

Some people on here should maybe practice their driving skills!
Driving 38+ years and pulled over four times, two times was before I turned 18!
Everyone makes mistakes but.......

Freedom1Man · Feb 8, 2013

Ultra09 said:
Some people on here should maybe practice their driving skills!
Driving 38+ years and pulled over four times, two times was before I turned 18!
Everyone makes mistakes but.......

I have been handcuffed and thrown on the curb without breaking any traffic law.

gogodawgs · Feb 8, 2013

Ultra09 said:
Some people on here should maybe practice their driving skills!
Driving 38+ years and pulled over four times, two times was before I turned 18!
Everyone makes mistakes but.......

My driving skills are excellent, never been in an accident.

What's your point?

skeith5 · Feb 8, 2013

My Windows are tinted maybe a little more than they should be. I've only been pulled over once since getting them tinted and I rolled both the driver and passenger window down so that the officer had a clear view. If I didn't have the windows tinted so much I would only crack the front window but as they sit I'd hate to have an officer decide to write a ticket for tint.

Munkey Butt · Feb 8, 2013

Ultra09 said:
Some people on here should maybe practice their driving skills!
Driving 38+ years and pulled over four times, two times was before I turned 18!
Everyone makes mistakes but.......

No one "Plans" to get pulled over. I am a good driver but got stopped for speeding when heavy traffic parted ways and I happen to be the loan wolf that got popped, as well as had my rights as a gun owner stomped on.

So I think that this thread could be full of great information for others, even if it is not during a traffic stop.

Jeff Hayes · Feb 8, 2013

sirpuma said:
The downside with this is that per officer mentality the only way they are safe in this world is if they have all the guns and everyone else has nothing.

This is the same mentality most politicians/government have as well, if we gun owners were not so vocal they would already have all the guns.

Jeff Hayes · Feb 8, 2013

I also have not had a moving violation in 34 1/2 years, no accidents for a lot longer than that. I have been stopped and I have received a couple of warnings. I have had more than my share of contact with LE over the years due to other things I do like OC. Having the confidence & knowledge to deal with LE makes a big difference in the outcome. You know you have won if they ask you if you are an attorney, BTW I never answered that question except by asking what does my occupation have to do with this.

Just to be clear here I am never rude or crass to LE and I am not suggesting anyone else take that tact.

sudden valley gunner · Feb 8, 2013

Jeff Hayes said:
Yes you must display your CPL upon demand by any Cop.

Nothing would stop them from temporarily seizing your firearm at that moment in time.

SeattleWingsfan said:
RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.

(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

(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.

(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

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

(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

I wonder if you have a gun in your trunk lets say transporting it. It's unloaded and you are not required in that situation to have a CPL. Would you still have to show it? I think you could argue no.

Hold on fella's. They still need RAS or PC to demand your CPL, I have talked to a pro gun attorney and a city attorney who both agree with me on this. And the fact the law requires you to have one in certain scenarios is not RAS or PC, without supporting evidence.

Florida Supreme court has ruled that way and their law is similar to ours. You can not glean by mere observation whether someone has there permit or not.

Jeff Hayes · Feb 8, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Hold on fella's. They still need RAS or PC to demand your CPL,

Fully agreed, Cops can not just walk up to people and ask for their CPL they have to have a reason. If a Cop were to see your CC pistol, find it during a pat down or you volunteered that you were carrying then he could ask to see your CPL. Until you provide the CPL you are unlawfully carrying a firearm concealed.

Now if you are OCing he has no right to ask for your CPL because you are not required to have a CPL on your person when OCing.

I often leave my CPL and DL in the car when I am OCing.

Notice the law says

"Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license"

ak56 · Feb 8, 2013

Jeff Hayes said:
Fully agreed, Cops can not just walk up to people and ask for their CPL they have to have a reason. If a Cop were to see your CC pistol...then he could ask to see your CPL. Until you provide the CPL you are unlawfully carrying a firearm concealed.
...

Close, but not quite.

If a cop sees you driving a car, are you unlawfully driving until you show him your drivers license, and would he be allowed to stop you and check?

Not in this state.

He would need to have PC or RAS that you DO NOT have a license in both cases.

Jeff Hayes · Feb 8, 2013

ak56 said:
Close, but not quite.

If a cop sees you driving a car, are you unlawfully driving until you show him your drivers license, and would he be allowed to stop you and check?

Not in this state.

He would need to have PC or RAS that you DO NOT have a license in both cases.

No, I am going to bet that if a Cop sees you CCing a firearm he can ask you for your CPL and if he does you must produce it. I base this on

"(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.".

As soon as a Cop becomes aware that you are carrying he has all he needs to ask for a CPL, if he is not aware of a CC firearm or your are OC he has no right to ask for your CPL.

You are also wrong in Washington any Cop anytime can stop your car and ask for your DL, registration and proof of insurance. I will try to find the cite. I was shocked not too long ago to discover this. They can do road blocks but they can stop any car any time.

Jeff Hayes · Feb 8, 2013

CITE for AK56

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Authorized — Powers additional.

I was wrong about any time, it is daylight hours only, WSP only.

To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

Traffic Stop Scenario

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member