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

[Scutter01]

Fair point. I still say the cops he was specifically talking about were in Michigan, but that does nothing to diminish your point as well.

To be fair, Michigan has a must-inform law, but the Ohio video shows exactly why this is a bad law (and why Ohioans got it repealed).

I don't know what they had you do (SFSTs, blow in the little plastic straw, whatever) but on the DUI, I can fight that easily. (It helps that I don't drink alcohol at all.) The supposed illegal turn is a little tougher, and is the biggest problem I have with the presumption of truth given to LEOs. I don't know how I'd fight that one. And yes, I see your point about the contempt of cop ticket, which is why I agreed with you. I guess it's a little naive to think that a LEO would only pull you over for something you actually did. So far, that's been my experience.

I was not given a field sobriety test. His first question was to ask me if I had been drinking. When I said "no", he proceeded to "chat" me, and having me do several simultaneous tasks while talking. When it was obvious that I hadn't been drinking and that he had no RAS to pull me over, he switched to "Well, the reason I pulled you over was..." and proceeded to tell me that I had made an illegal turn three miles back, in an intersection I had not passed through. Unfortunately, I did not have my dash cam at the time* and had no way to refute his bull**** claim. So, what was supposed to be a pleasant evening out with my wife turned into a giant pain in the ass for me because a bored cop trying to fill a quota didn't like to be caught violating someone's rights.



*A dash cam I bought specifically because of the Harless video and for which many cops right here on INGO chastised me for suggesting I needed. Well, I needed it. My own damn fault that I didn't have it when I needed it, though.

 

[random_eyes]

Thanks for the info, I guess I had read that before but forgotten it.

From the Indiana Court of Appeals, Lockett v. Indiana, 1999,

Prior to making an inquiry about the presence of weapons the officer must: 1) either be warranted in believing that his safety was threatened; or 2) the question must reasonably relate to the basis for the traffic stop, such as may be the case after stopping a suspected armed burglar or bank robber. When an officer's safety is not at risk, then an officer may not as a matter of routine practice inquire about the presence of weapons. The police do not have a right to inquire about the presence of weapons without some reasonable and articulable basis for the question.

Also, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

Under IC 35-47-14-1, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.

 

[CathyInBlue]

From the Indiana Court of Appeals, Lockett v. Indiana, 1999,

Prior to making an inquiry about the presence of weapons the officer must: 1) either be warranted in believing that his safety was threatened; or 2) the question must reasonably relate to the basis for the traffic stop, such as may be the case after stopping a suspected armed burglar or bank robber. When an officer's safety is not at risk, then an officer may not as a matter of routine practice inquire about the presence of weapons. The police do not have a right to inquire about the presence of weapons without some reasonable and articulable basis for the question.

Also, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

Whenever attempting to rely on cases out of the Indiana Court of Appeals… always check to see if it made it all the way to the SCIN.

Charged with carrying a handgun without a license as a class C felony,1 the defendant-appellant brought this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the handgun seized by police during a routine traffic stop.   The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that a police officer may not as matter of routine practice question about the presence of weapons during a traffic violation stop.  Lockett v. State, 720 N.E.2d 762 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).   We granted transfer and now affirm the trial court, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit police from routinely inquiring about the presence of weapons.

-- Lockett V State (02S03-0004-CR-00232), May 21, 2001 LOCKETT v. STATE

 

[Fedempl]

Whenever attempting to rely on cases out of the Indiana Court of Appeals… always check to see if it made it all the way to the SCIN.
-- Lockett V State (02S03-0004-CR-00232), May 21, 2001 LOCKETT v. STATE

Agree, but as they stated, "inquiring about the presence of weapons." Which I have no problem with, but inquiring about is not the same as seizing the weapon under a warrantless search which requires the person to armed and DANGEROUS. Which then requires the officer to retain the weapon and notify the court. Then the state has the burden of proof to prove that I am dangerous. If they don't then what, to my mind, that proves that an illegal seizure took place. Again, a case for the couorts to decide anyone game..

 

[RFox]

generally i would inform but that also is circumstantial upon the LEO

 

[casket]

I had a car accident 29 yrs ago and wasn't wearing a seat belt. I was told if I had been wearing it I would have died. I wear a seatbelt everyday due to the fact that my chances of surviving an accident are much greater. The same goes for informing LEO that I am carrying a gun. There are some uneducated chip on their shoulder LEO's out there that have done stupid stuff but the good officers far out weigh the bad. I put myself in their place. I would want to know so I would inform. Don't do stupid stuff and LEO wont need to pull you over in the first place.

 

[Scutter01]

The same goes for informing LEO that I am carrying a gun. There are some uneducated chip on their shoulder LEO's out there that have done stupid stuff but the good officers far out weigh the bad.

The good do outweigh the bad, but we don't have any way of knowing which one we'll get when we get pulled over. I'd rather err on the side of not having Officer Friendly take two steps back and put ten rounds into me because someone bit his finger three years ago and now he has PTSD.

Don't do stupid stuff and LEO wont need to pull you over in the first place.

This is patently, categorically, and demonstrably untrue. People get pulled over on fishing expeditions all the time. If an officer wants to stop you, he will find a reason, whether you've committed a violation or not.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Don't do stupid stuff and LEO wont need to pull you over in the first place.

Many here on INGO have been stopped for not breaking the law.

I think it is . . . precatory to believe that the government will not interfere with you as long as you think happy thoughts or the like.

But, the important thing for this discussion is, you are not doing anything wrong. You have your carry license. You are not breaking any criminal laws, it's just an infraction.

If the officer wants to write you a ticket, he can. Keep your baconhole shut, don't do anything stupid (e.g. hand your BB gun to the officer, play twenty questions with the officer, talk about the guns on your belt).

1. Shut your baconhole.

2. license, registration.

3. Don't play his 20 questions game; "am I free to go?" if you really must say something.

4. Shut your baconhole.

5. If he wants you out of the car, he can do that; get out of the car.

6. No, it's not a trial, you don't have to introduce evidence, shut your baconhole. No, it's not a symposium and the officer does not care about the inherent injustice in the system. Tell your lawyer that in a nice quiet office with coffee without the possibility of a Mack truck running anyone over.

7. He wants to talk because he is lonely or maybe he is just the chatty type (pinging like a whale). You don't have to answer, just shut your baconhole.

8. Above all relax, it's just an infraction. If you relax, the officer will read your body language and may relax himself (well, sometimes they don't but say rules apply).

So, in summary, relax, shut up, use your turn signals, and come to a complete stop in Kirk's neighborhood we have friggin' kids on bikes all over.

 

[DC47374]

My momma always told me....."If you have to ask, it probably isn't a good idea." That being said I wouldn't inform, unless it was the law, which it isn't in Indiana.

 

[DC47374]

I put myself in their place. I would want to know so I would inform.

Cool. So you inform everyone you come into contact with out in public? Yeah...didn't think so.

 

[Notavictim646]

I have a little double sided window in my wallet so that if i am asked to remove the license........the pink card becomes clearly visible. This way, we are all on the same page and if the officer is interested he can ask. Some do, some dont. No big deal.

 

[MTC]

for entertainment

I think it is . . . precatory to believe that the government will not interfere with you as long as you think happy thoughts or the like.

Cletus dun told me that down t' his church they don't believe in that there preca- whatever, or where ya git sent after ya kick tha bucket an' ya been kinda bad, but not bad enuf ta git sent straight ta hell. Nope, it's either Heaven or Hell, one or t' other, an' thar ain't nuthin' twixt 'em. He also sed he don't wanna hear no more o' them fancy wurds.