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

[williamlayton]

I have always given them my CHL---when I got it---before that, I just kept my mouth shut.
Course, I been carrying for a lot longer than the CHL was.
Now, I gave my CHL to the Abbiville Sheriff as he was trying to fill quota---he looked at it and asked what it was---this was after he asked for my registraion papers and I thought I was going to be hauled in when I said it was on my windshield and he argued the point.
True story, without any add-ons.
Blessings

 

[T.L.R.]

C.C. is relatively new in Wisconsin. One mourning while driving to work, 5:00am, I get pulled over for a burned out headlight bulb, which had just happened that mourning.

The officer asked to see my D.L. , so I gave it to him and stated that I have my C.C. permit and gave that to him also. He asked where the Firearm was located . I told him, and that was all that was said about that. He then told me to get headlight fixed. He did not even give me a 5 day repair ticket. First time I wasn't given one of those. Very friendly officer.

 

[GaryS]

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

I've never heard this, nor would I take my legal information from a novel anymore than I would from a TV show or movie.

The way I was taught the law on search and seizure, probable cause or a warrant is required to search a trunk or other area outside of the control of the occupants.

 

[mkk41]

I'm in PA , and though we don't have to , on the infrequent occasions I get pulled over , or go thru a check-point , I always tell the officer and hand him my LTCF as well as my D/L.

 

[GaryS]

Consenting to a search lowers the bar for the police considerably. Getting a warning now becomes the very least of your warnings. By consenting you lose almost all of the leeway your attorney would have in the event of a prosecution. A good "alerting" on something could well be a bluff on their part. It's not illegal for the police to mislead suspects about this sort of thing. That's if there is even a dog available, very often there isn't as there are only so many K-9 units available and they are more and more becoming specialized. Most dogs can track suspects, but after that they are specialized. Gun dogs, drug dogs, explosive dogs, etc.

During a K-9 familiarization class the officer told us dogs can be trained to do two things, not more. One is to track and hold suspects, the other a specialty.

You might be tempted to think I'm anti cop. I'm not, I worked with police officers for almost 34 years and was in the same union with them for almost 20 of those years.

Even with that I would no more let a police officer have a look in my trunk than I would let one wander around my house taking a look at things without a warrant.

Requiring them to follow the Constitution and the law protects me, them, and every other law abiding citizen.

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.

 

[Bob R]

In WA, we have no requirement to notify when stopped. As soon as he runs the license though, he will know you have a CPL and know what guns you own that were sold to you, or transferred, to you in WA. Yet, we don't have registration of firearms. And no, the couple of times I have been stopped, I have not informed the LEO, and I still did not get a ticket, or have to open my trunk.

bob

 

[mkk41]

As soon as he runs the license though, he will know you have a CPL and know what guns you own that were sold to you, or transferred, to you in WA. Yet, we don't have registration of firearms.

bob

License plate or drivers license? Driver need not be registered owner of a vehicle.

We don't have registration of firearms in PA either , it's against the law.

However the state police maintain an illegal "record of sale database'.

 

[Imaposer]

Consenting to a search lowers the bar for the police considerably. Getting a warning now becomes the very least of your warnings. By consenting you lose almost all of the leeway your attorney would have in the event of a prosecution. A good "alerting" on something could well be a bluff on their part. It's not illegal for the police to mislead suspects about this sort of thing. That's if there is even a dog available, very often there isn't as there are only so many K-9 units available and they are more and more becoming specialized. Most dogs can track suspects, but after that they are specialized. Gun dogs, drug dogs, explosive dogs, etc.

During a K-9 familiarization class the officer told us dogs can be trained to do two things, not more. One is to track and hold suspects, the other a specialty.

You might be tempted to think I'm anti cop. I'm not, I worked with police officers for almost 34 years and was in the same union with them for almost 20 of those years.

Even with that I would no more let a police officer have a look in my trunk than I would let one wander around my house taking a look at things without a warrant.

Requiring them to follow the Constitution and the law protects me, them, and every other law abiding citizen.

I fully understand the ramifications of foregoing our constitutional rights. As I said earlier, I don't agree with it and I'm not saying that it is the "right" thing to do. I also fully understand the "slippery slope" effect. It is unfortunate, but it's simply a fact that exercising our constitutional rights often gives the impression of guilt. It happens on the street and it happens with juries in a court room. But, in the real world, I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide from the law, and opening my empty trunk to let an officer peek inside is much better, and quicker for all involved. Now, if you have a body or something illegal in your trunk, then by all means, exercise all of your rights in order to give your attorney every opportunity to defend you.

Besides, my Jeep doesn't even have a trunk. ;-)

 

[tc215]

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".

I'm no lawyer either, but I do have extensive experience with the Carroll doctrine and searching vehicles.

You also appear to have not read the full FLETC article that you posted the link to:

There are two (2) requirements for a valid search under the mobile conveyance exception. First, there must be probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime or contraband is located in the vehicle to be searched.

The second requirement for a valid search under the mobile conveyance exception is that the vehicle be "readily mobile." This does not mean that the vehicle be moving at the time it is encountered, only that the vehicle be capable of ready movement. Illustrative on this point is the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Carney.22 In Carney, law enforcement officers searched a motor home after establishing probable cause that marijuana was located inside. At the time of the search, the motor home was parked in a parking lot in downtown San Diego. Upon finding marijuana, the defendant was arrested and later pled nolo contendre to the charges against him. On appeal, the California Supreme Court overturned the defendant's conviction, finding that the mobile conveyance exception did not apply in this case, in that "the expectations of privacy in a motor home are more like those in a dwelling than in an automobile because the primary function of motor homes is not to provide transportation but to 'provide the occupant with living quarters.'"23

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, finding the mobile conveyance exception applicable in this case. After reviewing the bases for the exception, the Court concluded:

When a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes – temporary or otherwise – the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play. First, the vehicle is obviously readily mobile by the turn of an ignition key, if not actually moving. Second, there is a reduced expectation of privacy stemming from its use as a licensed motor vehicle subject to a range of police regulation inapplicable to a fixed dwelling. At least in these circumstances, the overriding societal interests in effective law enforcement justify an immediate search before the vehicle and its occupants become unavailable.

Two additional matters regarding the mobile conveyance exception deserve comment. First, there is no "exigency" required to conduct a warrantless vehicle search; all that is required is a mobile conveyance and probable cause. Thus, even if a law enforcement officer had the opportunity to obtain a warrant and failed to do so, the search will still be valid if the two requirements discussed above were present.

In upholding the search, the Supreme Court cited to their previous decisions in finding that "the automobile exception does not have a separate exigency requirement: 'If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment ... permits the police to search the vehicle without more.'"

Second, once a law enforcement officer has probable cause to search a readily mobile vehicle, the search may be conducted immediately or later at the police station. "There is no requirement that the warrantless search of a vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful seizure."

We hold that the scope of the warrantless search authorized by [the mobile conveyance] exception is no broader and no narrower than a magistrate could legitimately authorize by warrant. If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.

If that's not enough, I can send you the Powerpoint I use when teaching vehicle searches.

 

[RandomMan]

I was stopped about 6 weeks ago, in rural Texas, for no front license plate. I was cruising along at the speed limit, saw the state trooper coming towards me, then saw him make a u-turn. I've been through this routine a time or two...so I pulled over and waited for him. Sure enough, he came up behind me lights on.

He walked up, asked me if I knew why he stopped me, I said, "No front plate." "Right." Then he asked for license and insurance. I handed him my DL, CHL, and insurance card. He looked at the CHL and asked, "Are you carrying a gun?" "Yes sir I am." "What kind and where?" "A 9mm on my right hip." "Great, just keep your hands on the wheel for me." "No problem." He walks back to his cruiser, comes back a couple of minutes later with a warning for the plate. We wished each other a nice day and went on with our lives.

That's the third or fourth time, I've been stopped since getting my permit ages ago. Never a problem. I find communication short, simple, and informative is what cops want. I don't ever TELL a cop I have a gun. I give him my CHL and wait for him ask me what information he wants. I spent a lot of time as a teenager sitting in front of police cruisers, I learned long ago. Answer questions truthfully and shortly, never offer extra information, and keep your hands on the steering wheel.

-Rob

 

[Faulkner]

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????

The answer is yes, but reasonable suspicion is not probably cause. I've had reasonable suspicion to ask a vehicle driver to allow me to look in their trunk, but when they said no I walked away. Had I had probably cause, we would have opened the trunk.

 

[tc215]

Originally Posted by 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????

The answer is yes, but reasonable suspicion is not probably cause. I've had reasonable suspicion to ask a vehicle driver to allow me to look in their trunk, but when they said no I walked away. Had I had probably cause, we would have opened the trunk.

The Supreme Court has ruled that refusal to consent to a search (alone) does not equal reasonable suspicion. (United States v. Fuentes)