I got pulled over today while carrying.. Didn't tell the cop

[moe l.]

Thanks. I live in CA with nothing but fruits and nuts, so even owning a gun feels like you're breaking a law.

 

[Bullzaye]

Not unless asked. Of course if he asked me to open the trunk I'd probably tell him before he saw them.

Keep in mind that, unless I'm mistaken, an officer cannot legally search your trunk without a warrant...unless your vehicle has an interior trunk release, in which case they can search your trunk. I recall a novel (Molon Labe, IIRC) in which a character had intentionally disabled his interior trunk release for just such a reason.

Tim

 

[kisportolt]

Last time I got pulled over I told the officer that I have a permit, but was not carrying. I believe central dispatch gives them the permit info when they call in the stop. I was thanked for letting him know and let go with a warning.

I have yet to be pulled over (knock on wood) since getting my CPL, and even when I'm not carrying I plan on telling just to be on the safe side. Being a must-tell state, I'd rather air on the side of caution.

 

[Steve O]

As stated previously, we have to inform we are carrying in Texas if we are stopped. The 2 times I have been stopped since getting my permit, I have informed the officers that I had my CHL and was carrying after they asked for my drivers license and insurance. Both times I asked them if they wanted to see the CHL with my drivers license, and they said no. They asked if I had the gun on my person, which I answered affirmatively, and then let me get the drivers license out of my wallet so that they could proceed with giving me a warning.

 

[palmettosunshine]

Haven't been pulled over since getting my CCW permit either but here in SC we must disclose such and are required to present CCW permit along with DL. Now bear in mind that you don't have to have a a CCW permit here to carry in the car as long as it's in the glovebox, center console or other covered enclosure. The one time I was stopped prior to the CCW permit law I had a loaded 45 in the glove compartment. When the officer approached, I had my Driver's License in hand but not the registration and proof of insurance. When he asked me why I didn't have them in hand I told him that they were in the glovebox along with my 45 and I didn't want him walking up on me reaching in my glovebox with a pistol in sight. He thanked me for that and then asked for the documents. I told him I was reaching for them VERY slowly with two fingers and did so as he unstrapped his gun. After a VERY tense moment I produced the documents he required, he re-secured his gun and thanked me for being up front and honest about having a loaded gun in the car even though I was under no obligation (at that time) to tell him about it. We ended up exchanging pleasantries and I left with a warning.

 

[nipster]

Keep in mind that, unless I'm mistaken, an officer cannot legally search your trunk without a warrant...unless your vehicle has an interior trunk release, in which case they can search your trunk. I recall a novel (Molon Labe, IIRC) in which a character had intentionally disabled his interior trunk release for just such a reason.

Tim

They cant search your trunk without either your consent or a warrant. Period. It's got nothing to do with what kind of trunk release is on the vehicle

 

[tc215]

They cant search your trunk without either your consent or a warrant. Period. It's got nothing to do with what kind of trunk release is on the vehicle

Not true. Warrantless searches of vehicles are very common. As long as the two requirements of the Carroll Doctrine are met (Vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists), a vehicle can be searched based on PC with no need for a warrant or consent.

EDIT: In most states, anyway.

 

[kennyb]

They cant search your trunk without either your consent or a warrant. Period. It's got nothing to do with what kind of trunk release is on the vehicle

wrong answer...read up on the carrol doctrine..its very old,holds just as true today....
from reviewing quite a few of your posts...you really need to take a long and dedicated study in constitutional law

 

[gdauth]

Thanks. I live in CA with nothing but fruits and nuts, so even owning a gun feels like you're breaking a law.

Move to Flrida!

 

[gdauth]

My take on this is if you are legal and if you respect LEOs you will tell. I routinely travel to and from the range with a bag of guns and ammo in my range bag. If I am stopped I will tell.

 

[nipster]

Not true. Warrantless searches of vehicles are very common. As long as the two requirements of the Carroll Doctrine are met (Vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists), a vehicle can be searched based on PC with no need for a warrant or consent.

EDIT: In most states, anyway.

First, I'm not a lawyer.

I just read up on US vs Carroll. It does not just allow cops to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle without probable cause. The actual case Carrol was based on, the cops had probable cause (they had set up a buy of illegal liquor, they had probable cause to believe had liquor in his vehicle). The court even went so far as to say that:

It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor, and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search. Those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official, authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise. The Court added that where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used. In a situation like a traffic stop, where the suspect is detained, there is no chance of the vehicle being moved, Carroll should not be used just because it is more convenient for the LEO than actually doing the proper thing and getting a warrant.

So let's say this, within the conversation of this conversation where we are talking about being pulled over for a traffic offense (say, running a red light, or a speeding ticket), given no other info, the cop would have no probable cause to perform a search of the vehicle. Also, there was a mention of a trunk release inside the vehicle specifically allowing a cop to search the trunk. That cannot be in CARROLL because it was from the 1930's, and I doubt cars back then had trunk releases.

wrong answer...read up on the carrol doctrine..its very old,holds just as true today....
from reviewing quite a few of your posts...you really need to take a long and dedicated study in constitutional law

Again, I am not a lawyer. Are you? Your profile says you are LEO.

 

[Old TexMex]

First, I'm not a lawyer.

I just read up on US vs Carroll. It does not just allow cops to perform a warrantless search of a vehicle without probable cause. The actual case Carrol was based on, the cops had probable cause (they had set up a buy of illegal liquor, they had probable cause to believe had liquor in his vehicle). The court even went so far as to say that:

It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a prohibition agent were authorized to stop every automobile on the chance of finding liquor, and thus subject all persons lawfully using the highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a search. Those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official, authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise. The Court added that where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used. In a situation like a traffic stop, where the suspect is detained, there is no chance of the vehicle being moved, Carroll should not be used just because it is more convenient for the LEO than actually doing the proper thing and getting a warrant.

So let's say this, within the conversation of this conversation where we are talking about being pulled over for a traffic offense (say, running a red light, or a speeding ticket), blah blah blah

.........
No, you are not a lawyer, you missed the part that says "there is no chance of the vehicle being moved"
I'm not a lawyer either, but I can read. But please, next time an officer stops you for exercising your right to run a stop light, refuse to open your trunk. You will learn the meaning of " you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
Enjoy your balony sandwich and your night with Bubba.

 

[Lost Lake]

This is a little light for the subject matter but I often find myself coming back from my FFL with a new gun (of course I go there with one on my hip, and the truck gun is always in the truck) and I run this scenario through my mind... (hey, I'm easily amused )

A cop pulls me over and I hand him my license and permit. He would ask 'Are you carrying now?' and I would say,

'Yes officer, I have a .45 on the passenger seat, a .380 in the truck cubby and a 9mm on my hip.'

And the officer would say, 'Boy! Carrying all those weapons, what in the world are you afraid of?'

And I would look him in the eye and say...

'Absolutely nothing sir.'

I know, it's cheesy as all heck, but I think that scene through every time I pick up a new gun and I drive home....

 

[nipster]

blah blah blah

.........
No, you are not a lawyer, you missed the part that says "there is no chance of the vehicle being moved"
I'm not a lawyer either, but I can read. But please, next time an officer stops you for exercising your right to run a stop light, refuse to open your trunk. You will learn the meaning of " you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
Enjoy your balony sandwich and your night with Bubba.

And you missed the "probable cause" part...

So tell me, exactly how could the vehicle be moved while you have the driver detained?

I dont appreciate being talked down to...

This is the document I read: http://www.fletc.gov/training/progr...-amendment/searchingavehicle-carroll.pdf/view

It seems to not support your interpretation of the law. And you seem to be bragging about not following the law (disregarding the whole "no probable cause thing") when you say "beat the rap but not the ride".

 

[M3Stuart]

Similar thing happened to me; I was riding my scooter (an actual, factual little scooter - not a big bike), cop pulls me over. He gets out sort of apologizing asking to see my license. I didn't have time to say a word. He was saying that lots of people who buy scooters don't realize you have to have a motorcycle license (above 49cc here, mine is a 110cc). I show him the license, it has the 'M' code. He says 'thanks' and walks away. I didn't say a word.

Here, there's something on the license (in the number or something, maybe they have to pull it up on their computer) that let's them know immediately if you have a CHL.

Of course had there been more time, I would have handed him both my license and CHL (the law got changed here awhile back - you don't have to legally hand them your CHL anymore, of course I would hand it to them while riding a motorcycle/scooter).

 

[Old TexMex]

And you missed the "probable cause" part...

So tell me, exactly how could the vehicle be moved while you have the driver detained?

I dont appreciate being talked down to...

This is the document I read: Searching A Vehicle Without A Warrant (The Carroll Doctrine) (PDF) — Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

It seems to not support your interpretation of the law. And you seem to be bragging about not following the law (disregarding the whole "no probable cause thing") when you say "beat the rap but not the ride".

Sir, Your interpretations are errant nonsense, insinuating that I have disrespect for the law. You're quite a theorist. Just get as smart with a police officer in person as you do on the internet and you'll understand
"Probable cause". Jails are always making room for another specialist in the Constitution. Enjoy your balony sandwich and your night with bubba.

 

[Imaposer]

I'm not a lawyer either, and I haven't even read the above mentioned documents. I won't bother debating the issue of whether it's right or wrong. But, I can tell you what is very likely going to happen if a cop asked you to open your trunk and you refuse. They will not appreciate it. You can kiss your "warning" good bye, you will be detained while they call and wait for a K9 unit to come to the site. During this time you will be handcuffed and made to sit somewhere uncomfortable. You could even slip down at some point or bump your head while be helped into the rear seat of the cruiser.

The K9 will be perceived to "alert" on something and then you WILL open the trunk because they then have probably cause for a search, possibly including but not limited to a full cavity search of your person . They'll then have a reason to start looking for anything and everything that falls outside the law... laws that you don't even know about. Then they might just let you go with a ticket, after you've wasted a few hours of your time.

Besides, an improper search is only really relevant if an arrest takes place as a result, and you are able to successfully challenge the evidence obtained due to the search being unlawful. This may or may not get the case thrown out, but it won't take the money out of your lawyers pocket and put it back in yours.

While I fully understand the importance of exercising our constitutional rights, sometimes we just have to understand when it's worth it and when it isn't. Long story short, if a cop asked you to open your trunk, you're probably going to open your trunk whether you like it or not. If you refuse, they will assume you have a reason and they aren't going to just let you drive away without finding out why. I may not necessarily agree with this sort of thing, but it is reality. I personally know people that it's happened to.

 

[Black_Sheep]

In Minnesota we are not required to inform the officer unless asked. Although, long before CCW was allowed, one of the first questions asked during a traffic stop is "are there any drugs or weapons in your vehicle?"

 

[davek610]

Oklahoma requires that you inform the officer that you are carrying when you have any official contact.
My wife got stopped for speeding and initially forgot to tell the officer. She remembered just after the officer was walking back to her car to call in the license, etc. When she got back to my wife's car my wife told here she was carrying and handed her the license for that.
Officer: "You should have told me that when I first spoke to you."
Wife: "I remembered that as you were walking back to your car. I almost yelled back to you "I have a gun!", but then decided to wait."
Officer: (Laughing) OK, just remember to do it right the next time."

 

[Lost Lake]

Good point Poser,

If everyone that has nothing to hide gladly opens their trunk when asked to, does a cop have reasonable suspicion when a person refuses to open their trunk????