what law is violated???

[FireForged]

You can ask the question here on the forum but what really matters is the State you live in and how your laws are written. The Constitution is the same but local laws are different from State to State.

 

[koolminx]

I've gotta say, I LOVED the video link about the "Never talk to the cops ever!"

I fully agree that there is no need to speak if you get pulled over. You are not compelled to answer any questions, nor can you be compelled under ANY law.

Now...

However, once on a public road with deemed privileges your rights only go so far when an officer sworn to protect the public trust has you pulled over for a reason.
________

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! {angry face}

A citizens rights NEVER only go so far! NEVER! You are always 100% completely within your rights to say absodamnlutely NOTHING to a peace officer if you are pulled over. At the same time now, you also have the right to say absolutely anything you want to... But remember that some things can get you a billy clubbing just the same... Some officers don't like to be screwed with...

 

[ZeSpectre]

One of the interesting things to grow out of stuff like this is the existence of paid services that will record any video/audio from your cell phone.

In other words if you are pulled over you hit speed-dial to that service and put your phone in your pocket or on your dash or whatever and the whole thing gets recorded in a remote location.

So now BOTH sides of the equation need to remember that "big brother" really is watching/listening.

I suspect the next evolution of "OnStar" is going to include dashcams.

 

[OuTcAsT]

once on a public road with deemed privelages

Tut, we've covered this ground before, but just in case you missed it, freedom of travel is a right, not a "privilege" no matter what the method of conveyance. This is a common myth from drivers ed class, but it just ain't true. but I digress..

your rights only go so far when an officer sworn to protect the public trust has you pulled over for a reason.

AFAIK, I give up absolutely none of my rights simply because I am stopped by LE, or detained, or arrested, for that matter. The only way my rights are curtailed is if I choose to waive any of them.

There is a reason they are called "rights" instead of "maybes"

You only provided a clipping of mrray's statement to artificially support your claim.

Actually the statement came from jgcoastie, and the two statements appear back to back in his post, to wit;

Officer safety comes before the safety of any other. Period. As law-abiding citizens you should not allow your rights to be infringed,

There is nothing "artificial" about the dichotomy in that statement, I do not see the ambiguity. The remainder of the sentence merely goes on to point out the dichotomy further;

but you should also know the exact legal limitations of those rights as well as the legal obligation to comply and inform the officer.

In some jurisdictions, that obligation to inform does not exist.

 

[Micropterus]

I'm pretty sure that in Virginia you legally have to inform an officer that you have a weapon if they ask, though after trying to find the statute I've come up empty handed. I'll have to double check with my cop buddy...

Best not to check with a cop. Best to speak to an attorney. I love our Commonwealth's law enforcement officers. They do a job I'd not want to do. But their job is to interept laws only to the extent that they can decide if a law as been broken. At that point, they decide if there is cause to arrest or not. They do not decide facts. They merely present their version of them.

In Virginia, there is no duty to engage in conversation with an officer. Under the law, an officer has a duty to limit his investigation to the alleged offense. For instance, if you have been pulled over for allegedly exceeding the speed limit, the investigation does not necessitate searching your trunk, or sniffing your car with a dog.

There is no law, however, that prohibits an officer from engaging in chit-chat during a stop. And he'll engage in it in such a manner that most people believe they have a duty to engage back. Indeed, no such duty exists. Engaging in this sort of consensual conversation with a police officer is dangerous. People often implicate themselves during these sorts of consentual conversation.

If an officer were to ask me during a traffic stop if I had a weapon, I'd ask him why that is germane to his investigation of a traffic infration, or simply refuse to speak with him about anything other than the alleged offense (and provide limited information at that.) By doing so, you allow him to do his job with respect to the issue at hand, and preserve for yourself you ability to argue that he had no probable cause should he take the matter further.

Officers have a tough job, but they must be careful, too. A 4th ammendment violation is a big deal and opens a city, a police department and the officer to criminal and civil penalties.

 

[MLeake]

Micropterus...

... I'll agree with you with regards to drugs, money, etc.

However, when it comes to weapons, the Terry decision by SCOTUS gives officers some leeway when it comes to their own safety during an official interaction; IE they ARE allowed to check for weapons under the justification of "officer safety." How this would be interpreted with regard to a traffic stop, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't bet on a decision against the officer.

Regards,

M

 

[Micropterus]

if carry was legal, and you had abided by all laws concerning that legality, i would probably not retain the weapon

"Probably?" If carry were legal, and there was complaince with all laws, under what circumstances would you "retain" the weapon? And under what authority?

 

[hogdogs]

Good lord... What the snot? Can't anyone handle a direct OP intent? Since my post #8 or so only one person posted like they had the OP jist but they didn't seem to see I admitted I may have been correct in 1978 but no longer.
I ain't gonna spell it out again as it is in post #8...
Brent

 

[MLeake]

Brent...

I think wilfully giving false information to the officer would get you a charge of interfering with an investigation, or similar.

Not giving any information could cause you some hassles, but probably not charges per se due to 5A protections.

5A doesn't allow you to lie, just to not answer. The lie may or may not be criminally chargeable.

I had to look up post 8 to remember what the original question was.

 

[jfrey123]

I believe you will see some state to state variance on that and that in Ohio, you have no right to withhold your identity from an inquiring LEO.

You are correct. I am in Nevada, and they do have a statute requiring one to identify themself to a officer. I'd agree that most state's do. My original statement reflected the OP's question of "guns, drugs or money" which is what I was referring to, but I've amended my post for your information so no others will be confused.

again, inform me of that in my state, you will be stepping out of the vehicle, and turning over your weapon.

First off, before I respond to your response to my weapon, let me comment that LEO rarely make themselves available to discussion in this manner. My following post is made with my personal respect to your position and all your brotheren.


Ok, so I know concealed firearms are illegal in your state. As a law abiding citizen, I wouldn't be carrying in a state that didn't accept my permit. You and I will have no issues if you catch me speeding in your state.

But to take this a step further: let's say for the sake of arguement that you are a LEO in a state that does recognize my permit. Hell, let's say you are LEO in my home state of Nevada. Same situation: I choose to inform you from the first moment of the stop. I'm not required to by law in Nevada (known fact). How would you respond to that?

As a Nevada citizen, I choose to inform LEO to avoid problems later during the stop. I will furnish proof of my legality in the form of my CFP. I will not agree to let you check my weapon. I will not agree to step out of the vehicle. I will not agree to a search of my vehicle. So, again with the due respect for your position, how would you respond if CCW was legal in your state and a person refused the search?

 

[Micropterus]

However, when it comes to weapons, the Terry decision by SCOTUS gives officers some leeway when it comes to their own safety during an official interaction; IE they ARE allowed to check for weapons under the justification of "officer safety." How this would be interpreted with regard to a traffic stop, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't bet on a decision against the officer.

I would.

If I was suspected of dealing drugs on a street corner and detained for that, a check for weapons may be construed as reasonable. Certainly, if you've detained me for dealing drugs, you've witnessed unusual behavior. However, if I've been detained for a speeding infraction, but displayed no other unusual behavior, a check for weapons would most likely be seen as a violation of the 4th Ammendment (except in the most liberal of venues, and suit brought in federal court levels that playing field).

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I just researched the word gun and it seems I would be lying as it looks like gun is no longer smoothbore and any projectile emitting hand held device could be termed a gun...

Is this the only reference of definition you have found? What if the LE officer ask if you have a firearm?

 

[Micropterus]

I think wilfully giving false information to the officer would get you a charge of interfering with an investigation, or similar.

Why? If an officer has detained you for speeding, he is not investigating a potential weapons violation. You have a duty to provide certain information to police about the matter at hand. You have no duty to incriminate yourself and you have no duty to engage in conversation with an officer about anything outside the matter at hand - or to be truthful with the officer if you do.

If you have not already done so, I recommend you watch part II of the YOUTUBE video posted earlier in this thread.

All this may make it appear to be on the side of the crook. But I'm not. I very much appreciate law enforcement officers. I believe they are the most important component in the legal process - because they are the ones that decide if the process even begins. But I also appreciate the Constitution and the rights bestowed therein.

 

[MLeake]

Micropterus...

... you are talking about not answering; that is covered by 5A.

Lying is not.

We are not in disagreement, as far as I can tell, unless you are advocating lying vs declining to answer.

 

[yrralguthrie]

Lie or not to lie

Truth be told, I suspect if you have a gun in the car illegally (no permit) then you might not violate a law by lying.

If you have a CCP then you have agreed to inform the officer if you have a gun immediately upon interaction. You signed your name to the application and agreed to follow the rules and regulations of a CCP carrier. There is no question of "rights", and it's not a matter of interfering with an investigation. If you don't follow the laws concerning the granting of the permit you AGREED that you can be fined and/or have the permit revoked.

And a gun is as defined by the laws of the state not by Webster.


Larry

 

[Wagonman]

QUOTE]
if carry was legal, and you had abided by all laws concerning that legality, i would probably not retain the weapon

"Probably?" If carry were legal, and there was complaince with all laws, under what circumstances would you "retain" the weapon? And under what authority?

[/QUOTE

I would think the fact that CCW is against the law in Illinois he would probably arrest you for UUW and the associated charges.

But, if your CCW is Bona Fide in your home state and you passed the hello test you would be sent on your way with a short tutorial on Illinois's draconian gun laws.

 

[hogdogs]

Tuttle, Yer a mod fer a reason I can see... If asked if I had a firearm, all bets are off and I would have to answer the direct question, I reckon, no matter if I wish or not... Or I could assert my 5A or ask if I were legally required to answer or under arrest at which time we would play it by ear...
Brent

 

[Micropterus]

I never advocate lying. But strictly speaking, if an officer stops a suspect for speeding and asks if he has any weapons, and the supsect says no, and he is searched anyway in the absence of any unusual behavior, the officer may very well have blown his "probable cause" theory (because there is none), and opened himself up to a 4th Ammendment violation - even in the face of that lie. In the face of a 4th Ammendment violation, little comfort is going to be found by asserting that suspect "lied." The discovery of a lie does not give retrospective probable cause.

 

[Wagonman]

Well. Isn't that nice to know

I can only speak from my experience and to a person all criminals lie to the Police

That's not improving the public's image of traffic cops, now is it.

I am not a traffic cop-- I use traffic violations as PC to investigate the hinky. If you are legit and admit your transgression you ride off into the sunset sans citation.

never advocate lying. But strictly speaking, if an officer stops a suspect for speeding and asks if he has any weapons, and the supsect says no, and he is searched anyway in the absence of any unusual behavior, the officer may very well have blown his "probable cause" theory, and opened himself up to a 4th Ammendment violation - even in the face of that lie.

Not if he uses the law correctly. Plus, I don't ask. The search would be done according to protocol that has been affirmed by the SCOTUS.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Upon Original Poster's permission, this one is closed for veering way off-topic from post #9.