Should I declare I have concealed weapon when pulled over by an officer?

[GunnerDan]

So, can someone answer the question about is it illegal to lie to the police about the status of a weapon in the vehicle? As I said during a Terry stop one must identify themselves truthfully or it is illegal. BUT, what is the legalities of lying about the presence of a firearm?

Gunner

 

[LANShark42]

To the OP:
Just know that if you choose not to inform (and you will be well within your rights to do so) and the LEO somehow is surprised to find a gun you didn't tell him about, it will most assuredly NOT go well for you. Be prepared to eat gravel or asphalt and to be disarmed forcefully.

 

[Expat]

So, can someone answer the question about is it illegal to lie to the police about the status of a weapon in the vehicle? As I said during a Terry stop one must identify themselves truthfully or it is illegal. BUT, what is the legalities of lying about the presence of a firearm?

Gunner

I think only bad could come from that...

 

[armedhoosier451]

Hmm wonder if that cop has some mental issues that would prevent him from owning a firearm had the legislation passed..

 

[jerryv]

I would not inform under most circumstances, because it's not relevant to the stop. However, if I had a weapon in the glove compartment, and was asked to produce vehicle registration, I would first inform the LEO that there is a legal weapon in there .. this would be to avoid him/her seeing the weapon and assuming it to be a threat. Surprising a LEO during a traffic stop can raise tensions.

 

[H.T.]

When I am pulled over I look at the officer with my eyes crossed and in a loud clear voice I say. " I have something hard in my pants!"

 

[ATM]

So, can someone answer the question about is it illegal to lie to the police about the status of a weapon in the vehicle? As I said during a Terry stop one must identify themselves truthfully or it is illegal. BUT, what is the legalities of lying about the presence of a firearm?

Gunner

Why would you lie rather than simply remaining silent if you don't want to tell them or answer their question?

One of those two choices is a protected right.

To the OP:
Just know that if you choose not to inform (and you will be well within your rights to do so) and the LEO somehow is surprised to find a gun you didn't tell him about, it will most assuredly NOT go well for you. Be prepared to eat gravel or asphalt and to be disarmed forcefully.

They may have the physical power to accomplish that but they lack the authority or protection of the law if they choose to.

The follow up will not go well for them if they overreact in such manner.

 

[CPT Nervous]

You don't have an Indiana concealed carry permit.

 

[GunnerDan]

Why would you lie rather than simply remaining silent if you don't want to tell them or answer their question?

One of those two choices is a protected right.



They may have the physical power to accomplish that but they lack the authority or protection of the law if they choose to.

The follow up will not go well for them if they overreact in such manner.

I didnt say I wouldnt just shut my pie hole and allow the officer to find whatever he/she finds. But I am just trying to determine if it is unlawful to lie specifically about the presence of a firearm.

Officer - "Are there any weapons in the vehicle?"

Driver - "Nope"

Officer - "Please step out of the vehicle."

Driver - "OK"

Officer - "Do you have any weapons on you?"

Driver - "Nope" <The driver has a pistol in their pocket>

Has the driver broken the law in regards to notifying the officer about the presence of a weapon?

Gunner

 

[Mr. Habib]

So, can someone answer the question about is it illegal to lie to the police about the status of a weapon in the vehicle? As I said during a Terry stop one must identify themselves truthfully or it is illegal. BUT, what is the legalities of lying about the presence of a firearm?

Gunner

One is only required to identify one's self if they have committed an infraction or ordinance violation. Terry has nothing to do with it.

 

[scootn103]

I never offer unless they ask , would it come up running your plate saying , operator has cdl , motorcycle , so on and a carry permit

 

[Fedempl]

NEVER let them know, none of thier business. Learned my lesson today, see my thread about the confiscation to chekc if stolen...

 

[GunnerDan]

One is only required to identify one's self if they have committed an infraction or ordinance violation. Terry has nothing to do with it.

But a Terry stop is just that a stop based upon the suspicion of one committing a crime or an ordinance violation... Correct?

Gunner

 

[PX4me]

...would it come up running your plate...

I believe the LTCH comes up when a DL is run, which makes the entire argument moot.

When have you not had to hand over a DL during a traffic stop?

 

[Mr. Habib]

For a Terry stop the officer must have RAS that a person is committing a crime, is armed, and is dangerous. Refusal to id one's self only applies, in Indiana, to infractions and ordinance violations, not more serious crimes. Example 1: You are stopped for having a tail light burned out, an infraction, you are required to id yourself per Indiana law. Terry does not apply because there is no RAS that you are either armed or dangerous. Example 2: An LEO sees you firing shots into the liquor store that you just held up. He has RAS that you are armed, dangerous, and have just committed a crime. Terry applies. When apprehended, you have no legal obligation to id yourself, because armed robbery is a felony not an infraction or ordinance violation.

 

[GunnerDan]

For a Terry stop the officer must have RAS that a person is committing a crime, is armed, and is dangerous. Refusal to id one's self only applies, in Indiana, to infractions and ordinance violations, not more serious crimes. Example 1: You are stopped for having a tail light burned out, an infraction, you are required to id yourself per Indiana law. Terry does not apply because there is no RAS that you are either armed or dangerous. Example 2: An LEO sees you firing shots into the liquor store that you just held up. He has RAS that you are armed, dangerous, and have just committed a crime. Terry applies. When apprehended, you have no legal obligation to id yourself, because armed robbery is a felony not an infraction or ordinance violation.

Maybe I am being thick, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Ok, I am driving and get pulled over for a tail light out, I am required to give me drivers license because it is illegal to drive without one, and by providing my drivers license, I am identifying myself. Now, an officer sees me shooting into a liquor store I held up and I am not required to identify myself based on it now being a Terry stop?

Gunner

 

[chezuki]

I stick by what I said.

The real answer is "maybe". It wholly depends upon the totality of the circumstances. There is not, cannot, and should not be any kind of "boilerplate" response/answer. Because as soon as you start doing that, you'll very quickly find out that the boiler plate doesn't fit any, every, and all circumstances.

Just like the "What would you do if you saw a guy robbing a store you were in" threads. My answer "It depends".

So, would I inform? Maybe. It depends.

-J-

+1 on this.

Sorry Indy_Guy_77 your answer of maybe is way off the mark. There is absolutely no requirement to notify an officer of your carrying status whatsoever. Since I am making a couple of general assumptions, and yes I know what happens when you assume things, but my assumption is that as a legal gun owner and carrier, the person should know without a shadow of a doubt if they have any "legal issues" that may arise if they are stopped for a traffic infraction. If someone is pulled over for doing 65 in a 55 or doing a rolling stop thru a intersection, then only thing that person has to worry about when dealing with the traffic stop is ensuring that they have all their proper paperwork in order, license is valid, insurance is up to date and registration is valid. There should be no reason whatsoever that the officer should be going on any kind of a fishing expedition by giving you a ticket for speeding. If you are stopped and you dont have to escalate the stop by informing the officer of your carry status, then why escalate it by notifying? That does nothing more than in introduce another level of escalation that can go bad quickly if the officer has no clue about how your particular firearm works, maybe he sweeps you with your own weapon, or maybe he or she is so scared of civilians with weapons they pull their own weapon and pull you out of the car, handcuff you and stuff you in the back of the patrol car while your info is being ran, and the weapon is being ran, and possibly unloaded and sometimes even field stripped. If I were stopped and the officer asked me a direct question like "Are there any weapons in the vehicle?" My standard answer will be "There are no illegal weapons in the vehicle." Only and I mean only if I were being removed from the vehicle, which should be a VERY rare occurrence for a traffic stop, would I then notify the officer of my carry status and where the weapon is located.

Gunner

Here's my support of "maybe".

Usually, I do not inform. The "maybe" comes into play in the event the officer may discover on his own and misread the situation.

Example:

I was once pulled over on the way to work with a .380 in the glovebox. The officer came to my passenger window so he wasn't standing with his back to traffic and asked for my license and registration. I could have popped open the glovebox and reached for the registration, but I thought "maybe" I should inform him of the legally possessed pistol sitting directly on top of it and ask him how he wanted to proceed. I did and reached my destination with no more holes than I started with.

 

[GunnerDan]

I was once pulled over on the way to work with a .380 in the glovebox. The officer came to my passenger window so he wasn't standing with his back to traffic and asked for my license and registration. I could have popped open the glovebox and reached for the registration, but I thought "maybe" I should inform him of the legally possessed pistol sitting directly on top of it and ask him how he wanted to proceed. I did and reached my destination with no more holes than I started with.

And that my friend is why my pistol stays hidden well away from the prying eyes of anyone that may be looking into my vehicle.

Gunner

 

[Mr. Habib]

Terry is irrelevant. The only thing that applies is the this:
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

 

[GunnerDan]

Terry is irrelevant. The only thing that applies is the this:
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

So, If I litter in front of a police officer which is an infraction I am required to identify myself, but if I commit a murder in front of a police officer, I am under no legal obligation to identify myself... Wierd.

Gunner