Never consent to a search?

[NM_Shooter]

Peter suggested something that I thought was interesting....  http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=7976.msg102196#msg102196

I've noticed that the last two traffic stops over the past 4 years were prefaced by the question :  "Are you carrying a weapon?".  As a CCW permit holder, I am sure this is the first thing that pops up on their screen when they run my plates.  To date, I have carefully answered truthfully, but in all honesty I would rather say "I'd prefer to keep that information private" or something to that regard.  Primarily because I am trying to avoid a long, drawn out engagement (if I'm driving, I'm on my way somewhere) and don't want to open myself up to any sort of vindicative response from the police. 

It seems to me that if you refuse a search, they are going to detain you until they get dogs to sniff around your vehicle or whatever. 

Does anyone have experience with refusing the police access to a vehicle?  Or refusing to answer questions that are not pertinent to the nature of the stop? 

Similar thoughts the other day when I was out shopping for a birthday present.  I was on my motorcycle... loose clothing and a backpack when I went into an electronics store.  I thought... "no way are they going to let me out of here without looking in this backpack."  I was wrong.  The guy at the door smiled at me on the way out and told me to have a good day. 

Look, just because I'm paranoid does not mean that every body is not out to get me. 

[StinkerBell]

But if they are out to get you are you then really paranoid?

[Redoverfarm]

Frank here there is no cross referenced material of a gun permit with DMV.  Two seperate entities.  The only information that is visible is your driving record and the information that is on your license ie; organ doner, corrective lenses and the like.  Although some states may I think it is doubtful.  A call to your DMV should answer your question or maybe ease you mind.   I do know that Maryland cross references your automobile registration and drivers license through a Soundex # but that is the only one I am aware of.  Maybe some more liberal states go a bit farther.

[poppy]

Yes, you need to know your state laws.  In Ohio one must immediately inform an officer that you have a carry permit when stopped, even though they have that info. (if you're driving your own vehicle).

[NM_Shooter]

Holy cow.... you have to inform them that you have a permit, even if you are not carrying?

[bayview]

   
  For the police officers safety I think asking if you have a weapon is relevant.  However questions that are not relevant shouldn't be answered.

   I drive an older work truck for my business in higher income areas.  I have been followed and questioned about my presence.  I tell them why I am there, and generally that is all there is to it.  I did have one officer wanting to see my identification.  I answered with "what for", since I told him why I was there.  He said I was required by law that I have proper ID.  (I guess we live in a police state . . . Show me your papers, please!)   Instead of arguing, I gave him my license.  He took it back to his squad car  and called it in.  I guess I passed.

   However, I would never allow an officer access to my vehicle.


/

[RainDog]

  However, I would never allow an officer access to my vehicle.


/

They want it, they got it. Probable cause is apparently something they can just pull out of their butts if they're so inclined. Years ago I had one tell me "I smell marijuana", and I don't even drink.

EDIT: Well.... okay, I drink sometimes. 

[MountainDon]

It has been so many years since any police stopped me while driving I have no idea what is the norm here in NM. NM has an extended domain law, meaning that anything you can do in your home you can do in your vehicle. So just about anyone can carry a firearm in their vehicle. That does not apply to felons and others who are prohibited to possess firearms anywhere. That may be one reason police have asked whether or not there is a firearm in the vehicle.

The extended domain includes motorcycles and bicycles. So as long as you don't get of your bicycle you can carry a concealed weapon without a permit. There's a fine line there.

I believe, but am not certain, that a person over 19, legally in possession of a firearm is permitted by state law to be within 1000 yards of a school or preschool.

We also have open carry legal in many places.

One other area that is "gray" to me, is Tribal Lands. The statute states Places Off Off-Limits Even With A Permit/License: Tribal Land (29-19-10, NMSA, unless authorized by the governing body of the tribe or pueblo). I drive through several different tribal lands every time I go to or from the cabin.

State Parks are "gun free" zones as well. It can get very complicated as you drive rom one place to another.  

[peternap]

Here it pops up with the DMV information but there is no duty to inform.

[rwanders]

  If I was stopped by a cop (especially late at night or by one who seemed nervous) and I was legally carrying or transporting a weapon and were asked, I probably would inform the officer of my situation. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor and I am mellow enough that I don't need to rub my "rights" into every cop's face----if he violates my rights there will be time enough to address those issues with his boss and perhaps through the court system. Two persons armed and intent on defending their perceptions of superior rights can lead both parties into very bad places and tragic consequences.

[Pox Eclipse]

Years ago I had one tell me "I smell marijuana", and I don't even drink.

I think the appropriate response is, "I smell bacon."

[Phssthpok]

I had the cops called on me last year at a local grocery store.  I wasn't there very long, but about 3/4 of the way through my trip i was approached by two employees. Apparently a customer had notified them of a MWAG. They asked me if i had a permit, and I indicated that I did indeed have a permit but that one was not required to OC. they asked if I would conceal, and (since they were actually quite casual about the whole thing) I acquiesced to their request, but I did ask them what would happen if one did not have a permit, as their request would then be asking one to violate state law. I guess they hadn't thought about it because they both got this kinda thoughtful look on their face for a second.

I then asked them "just out of curiosity, what exactly was the complaint from the customer?" They indicated that they couldn't say for sure since the complaint was made to a cashier, and passed along to them. I indicated that I was just curious if it was a 'panicked' complaint or more of a tattle tale "His gun is showing... he can't DO that!" kind of thing. That actually elicited a chuckle and sparked small side conversation about that actual law, and how most folks aren't aware of it. They indicated at that point that everything was ok, and that if they got any more comments they would acknowledge the customers concern but inform them that it was legal and that I did indeed have a permit. Everything was all friendly smiles and relaxed as we parted ways, and they even wished me a good rest of the evening.

I though this would be the end of it. I got some bread and ice cream, then checked out. JUST as I was wheeling my cart away from the line I started noticing cops...several of them...I think 6 in all. I just ignored them and made my way to the exit. I ignored the first couple of "excuse me, sir's" but after the third one I figured I'd best at least turn around. (What follows is paraphrased as I neglected to bring my recorder on this run since it was supposed to be a quick grocery dash...)

Clark County Deputy#1: Whats up with the gun?
Me: uh...nothing.
CCD: What are you doing carrying that around like that?
Me: Shopping.
Vancouver Police: Can you show me some ID?
Me: Am I under arrest?
VP: Well...no.
Me: Am I being detained?
VP: For now, yes.
Me : What reasonable suspicion do you have of unlawful activity?
VP: You have a gun!
Me: So? It's not illegal to open carry.
VP: Are you going to show us some ID?
Me: I'd rather not.
VP: why not?
Me: I'm not required to unless you have reasonable articulable suspicion that I'm engaged in some illegal activity.
VP: Ok, well... we'll let our Sergent handle it from here...
CCD: People are alarmed.
(somewhere in here a second CCD walks up and positions himself behind CD#1)
Me: I have no control over what people feel.
VP: You know...people see a gun, they get concerned and then they call us to check things out.
Me: But...You carry guns.
VP: Yes we do, and you know sometimes when we walk in a place, people get concerned!

Me:  ......But.....if people see your guns and get alarmed.... who do they call then to assuage their fears?
VP: ( throws his hands up in the air and mumbles something as he walks away, CCD rolls his eyes and sighs, CCD#2 actually SNICKERS!)
Me: What? It's a valid question, isn't it? (more snickering)

(there's more to the conversation, but for the most part is centered around them asking for ID and me refusing. They even asked me to just state my name and I said if they didn't have RAC then I wasn't required to....and that this was an illegal terry stop....CCD#1 and VP didn't like that!)

The sergeant shows up, and we go through the same rigmarole. Finally he states that at this point 'Procedure' is to disarm me 'for officer safety', and proceeds to do so. I stated that I did not consent to being disarmed and that it was an illegal seizure, but I didn't resist. They kept peppering me about any other weapons and I kept telling them no. VP swept my unzipped jacket aside and revealed my Leatherman, which he then proceeded to relieve me of. I told them I didn't consider that a weapon, but rather a tool. They didn't make an issue of it.

After standing around for about ten minutes my weapon was returned to me and they cut me loose. The Sgt said that at this time the Mgr wasn't going to trespass me but they don't want me bringing the weapon into the store again, and if I did they probbably would trespass me at that point.

The sergeant said have a good evening as I was turning to go. I just 'harrumphed', whipped the cart around and started toward the door. They followed me as a group (at a distance) as I walked out to my truck but split up to their respective rides. As I was piling my groceries in the truck I noticed the K-9 SUV actually CUT OFF a customer while SPEEDING through the parking lot....and the customer actually LAID ON THE HORN at him!

I was laughing. The whole thing was asinine.

[rwanders]

  Incident ended well but, you know what they say about tugging on superman's cape-----I just don't see the point of manufacturing scenes that can so easily develop into bad ones. I believe in standing up for one's rights but shin-kicking contests often produce only sore shins and also serve to spread an unfortunate stereotype of "gun lovers" as "gun nuts".

[LeoinSA]

I had the cops called on me last year at a local grocery store.

I'm actually a bit surprised that you didn't get tasered for being "uncooperative".  Maybe it's because you weren't a 12 year old girl.  --Leo

[NM_Shooter]

I had the cops called on me last year at a local grocery store. 
<snip>
I was laughing. The whole thing was asinine.

This is the sort of thing that I want to avoid.  I am also uninterested in the police disarming me and recording the serial # of any weapon I may be carrying.  I feel they have no damn right to do this unless I am breaking the law by carrying.

I wish there were a comprehensive site to find out exactly what my response requirements are.

Makes it worse that we have a DA in ABQ who is not really interested in facts.

Vancouver?  Canada? 

[MountainDon]

Here in NM, as far as retail stores and other places owned by someone other than yourself, a sign can be posted stating that concealed firearms are prohibited. In lieu of a sign they can make a verbal request that you must honor. It does not matter if you have a CCW permit.



Vancouver, WA I think.

[poppy]

Holy cow.... you have to inform them that you have a permit, even if you are not carrying?

Yes, the fact that you have a permit causes the requirement to inform; even though you are not carrying at the time or even though there is no gun, loaded or unloaded, in the vehicle.

This was one of the compromises made before the carry law passed, because it was claimed that law enforcement would be in more danger if the permit holder did not declare.

The question came up during a citizen police academy course that I took in my town and the local cops couldn't care less whether you have a permit or are carrying for that matter.  Their comment was basically, "We don't care; we are not worried about law abiding citizens."

I was involved in a car crash in another local jurisdiction, and when I informed the responding cop that I had a permit and he just shrugged and continnued to investigate the crash.

The state troopers on the other hand.....

[ScottA]

It's pretty much pointless to refuse in this day and age. You will just irritate the cops and they'll search anyway in most cases. If you are guilty of something you may as well refuse since you have nothing to lose at that point.

[Squirl]

Many issues have been brought up here.

I was pulled over a few times in my teens.  The line I always gave was that "my Lawyer told me I should never consent to a search."  Usually the headache of having to possibly deal with my attorney was enough to dissuade them from proceeding.  (It always bought me a ticket for what I was pulled over for though.)

Consenting to a search for a traffic stop and consenting to a search in a store, I believe have very different legal standards.  Private citizen vs. public officer.  Also dealing with the gun issue, I believe most states require you to tell an officer if you are carrying.  IRRC, there is a clause in the concealed weapons permit in my state.
Many states there is a certain requirement of giving basic information (name or ID) if asked.  It varies from state to state.  I know someone who was recently charged with obstruction in such an incident.

[MountainDon]

This may be of interest...


"Federal judge (in New Mexico) rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns "

On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.

In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.  The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that

"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded that

"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.  Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns?cid=exrss-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner

http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=3095

[rwanders]

Info above from Don, I believe, reinforces my point----assert your rights politely, then comply with a police officers requirements, then consult your attorney and let the judge/jury determine the remedy if the cop/trooper was out of line.

No "unfortunate gunshots are fired or tasers"used and you may pocket a nice judgment and the police may learn a valuable lesson in constitutional law. As has been said; "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

[peternap]

Phssthpok, you're in Virginia, aren't you.

[Phssthpok]

Nope. Was in Washington, but now in Montana.

[peternap]

Nope. Was in Washington, but now in Montana.

You handled it by the Va Book. Good Job!

[NM_Shooter]

So... I had to google "Terry Stop".  I found an interesting page:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_stops.html