Question for you LEO folks .

[WhereIsIt?]

The state police website states "when any peace officer approaches a permittee in an official manner or with an identified purpose, the permittee shall" notify him he's carrying a weapon, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm you.

Personally, I would consider a traffic stop to be an official manner, and wouldn't matter if I was the driver or passenger.

As a concealed carrier, I have duty to inform and produce ID if stopped. I don't recall seeing anything that gives me the option to disregard this rule if I don't agree with the reason for being stopped.

I agree.. I've been pulled over twice while carrying. One cop freaked out and one cop was cool as a cucumber about it.

Tactitools and blanket statements... Welcome to Bayoushooter.

 

[AustinBR]

What's the downside to telling the LEO that you're carrying if you're a passenger in a car? I see none. Hell, it might even get the driver out of the ticket...

 

[thperez1972]

A Supreme court decision. Does the constitution expire? Did you swear to uphold, defend, and protect, or did that expire as well?

While on the topic of expiration....Can a grown man get a circumcision, or is there a cut-off date?

The constitution does not expire. But you weren't talking about the constitution. You referenced a supreme court decision. And supreme court decisions get clarified all the time, changing the scope of the original decision. In fact, the article you presented to support your statement indicated the supreme court case you referenced is no longer "good law."

"This case has been widely cited on the internet, but is no longer considered good law in a growing number of jurisdictions. Most states have, either by statute or by case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest."

 

[charlie12]

While on the subject of police. I have a CHP, I know that if stopped while driving I have to notify the officer. What about if my wife is driving her car with me along for the ride. Her car is registered in her name not mine so there shouldn't be any linkage between her car and my CHP.

I don't think when they run the plate it shows if the owner has a CHP. They would need to run the owners DL to get that. Then if they run your wife's DL there wouldn't be anything about a CHP. But if you're in the car with her I think you need to inform. OK some LEO answer am I right or wrong?

 

[AdvancedLaser]

I don't think when they run the plate it shows if the owner has a CHP. They would need to run the owners DL to get that. Then if they run your wife's DL there wouldn't be anything about a CHP. But if you're in the car with her I think you need to inform. OK some LEO answer am I right or wrong?

Correct, gotta run the driver separate. Wife's DL would have no correlation to husband's CCW.

 

[buttanic]

What's the downside to telling the LEO that you're carrying if you're a passenger in a car? I see none. Hell, it might even get the driver out of the ticket...

Or it might get you out of the car with your hands on the roof. I have no problem informing the officer, I did it the time I was stopped. I just wonder if, depending on the officer, will it change the interaction between officer and the occupants.
If my wife and I were standing on the street together and an officer starts questioning her would I have to inform him I am carrying.

 

[Fordfella]

You should be familiar with it and with any subsequent court decisions relative to it. If someone bases their actions solely on that case, they are setting themselves up for failure.

I'm not aware that it has been overturned.

 

[Fordfella]

The constitution does not expire. But you weren't talking about the constitution. You referenced a supreme court decision. And supreme court decisions get clarified all the time, changing the scope of the original decision. In fact, the article you presented to support your statement indicated the supreme court case you referenced is no longer "good law."

"This case has been widely cited on the internet, but is no longer considered good law in a growing number of jurisdictions. Most states have, either by statute or by case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest."

State law trying to overturn federal precedent? NY is trying that now and it's not working out for them. Don't make any unlawful arrest and it won't be an issue will it? You referred to it as a 122 year old case. That's the Luke Skywalker argument that the 2nd amendment refers to a musket. Is that the point you want to make on this forum? All involved in the JBE case were LEO, and set the precedent for LEO's to follow. Supreme court decisions do get clarified all the time. Qill, RvW, Dred Scott. When has this been overturned, clarified? Kenneth Walker is NOT in jail nor has he been charged because he had the right to defend himself against illegal actions by law enforcement. Was JBE mentioned, no, it didn't have to be!! If he were charged it very well could have been part of his defense. And, it very well could have been a reason he wasn't charged. One officer has taken a plea and others are under indictment in that case.

 

[thperez1972]

State law trying to overturn federal precedent? NY is trying that now and it's not working out for them. Don't make any unlawful arrest and it won't be an issue will it? You referred to it as a 122 year old case. That's the Luke Skywalker argument that the 2nd amendment refers to a musket. Is that the point you want to make on this forum?

You are creating a new topic, assigning me a stance within that topic, then questioning me on why I have that stance. That's a strawman argument and does not need to be addressed.

All involved in the JBE case were LEO, and set the precedent for LEO's to follow. Supreme court decisions do get clarified all the time. Qill, RvW, Dred Scott. When has this been overturned, clarified?

First of all, the bad Bad Elk decision did not say someone has the right, free of punishment, to resist an illegal arrest. The decision said the jurors were improperly informed. They were told JBE had no right. The decision said the jurors should have been told JBE did have the right to resist and added the murder charge should have been manslaughter because of that right. The "right to resist" is based on common law, not on the constitution. Because it is not in the constitution, it is left up to the states. Almost all states have enacted laws making it illegal to resist arrest. The constitution, in the 14th amendment, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The part about due process of law is the key here.

Kenneth Walker is NOT in jail nor has he been charged because he had the right to defend himself against illegal actions by law enforcement. Was JBE mentioned, no, it didn't have to be!! If he were charged it very well could have been part of his defense. And, it very well could have been a reason he wasn't charged. One officer has taken a plea and others are under indictment in that case.

The circumstances involving Walker do not fit your argument. He felt he was defending himself from intruders. An unlawful arrest played no part in his actions. His charges were dismissed because it was reasonable to say he didn't know they were police officers.

From an article in USA Today
"Mattingly, who required surgery after the bullet severed an artery, said in October that he understood it might be difficult to get 12 jurors to unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker knowingly fired at a police officer.

'I'm not naive enough to believe that, A, maybe Kenneth Walker didn't hear us, or B, that (attorneys) couldn't convince one out of 12 people that he didn't hear us,' Mattingly said."

 

[AdvancedLaser]

Or it might get you out of the car with your hands on the roof. I have no problem informing the officer, I did it the time I was stopped. I just wonder if, depending on the officer, will it change the interaction between officer and the occupants.
If my wife and I were standing on the street together and an officer starts questioning her would I have to inform him I am carrying.

No you dont have to inform him per the legislation. Should you, thats up to you. Depending on the situation I might mention it before he potentially sees it printing, or separate yourself from the situation and monitor from a few feet away. I guess it all depends on your demeanor.

A cool head always prevails. If you are of the mindset like some on this board, or even in this thread, consider stepping far away. Losing your mind telling the Officer he doesnt know the law, or his job, or the other usual rantings dont ever work. I dont know a single instance when someone, who may have been right, told the Officer the law and he suddenly retracted and said "wow, you are right" and then walked off. So either keep a cool quiet head, or deal with it in court. Flying off the handle, and then getting noticed carrying a gun isnt exactly being smart.

(Not you, just an example how someone whos not being interviewed suddenly becomes the focus)

 

[AustinBR]

Or it might get you out of the car with your hands on the roof. I have no problem informing the officer, I did it the time I was stopped. I just wonder if, depending on the officer, will it change the interaction between officer and the occupants.
If my wife and I were standing on the street together and an officer starts questioning her would I have to inform him I am carrying.

If you're in a car that is stopped for a traffic stop, I think it's blurry if you are also detained in addition to the driver. But most cops will be very cool with you telling them that you have a carry permit and are carrying.

If they make you get out and quickly pat you down...so what?

As for standing on the street with your wife questioned - does that happen to you or your wife frequently? Do they walk up to question you/her regarding a potential crime? If you're part of the questioning, I'd say it's probably a good idea to inform him. If you're not partaking in the conversation, I don't think it'd be necessary to volunteer it.

 

[thperez1972]

If you're in a car that is stopped for a traffic stop, I think it's blurry if you are also detained in addition to the driver. But most cops will be very cool with you telling them that you have a carry permit and are carrying.

If they make you get out and quickly pat you down...so what?

As for standing on the street with your wife questioned - does that happen to you or your wife frequently? Do they walk up to question you/her regarding a potential crime? If you're part of the questioning, I'd say it's probably a good idea to inform him. If you're not partaking in the conversation, I don't think it'd be necessary to volunteer it.

Whether a passenger is detained in addition to the driver may not be as blurry as you may think.

Brendlin v. California (2007)
"We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission."

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.

When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment . The question in this case is whether the same is true of a passenger. We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop.

BRENDLIN v. CALIFORNIA

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Fordfella]

You are creating a new topic, assigning me a stance within that topic, then questioning me on why I have that stance. That's a strawman argument and does not need to be addressed.

I won't put words in your mouth...Current storylines, not a straw man.

First of all, the bad Bad Elk decision did not say someone has the right, free of punishment, to resist an illegal arrest. The decision said the jurors were improperly informed. They were told JBE had no right. The decision said the jurors should have been told JBE did have the right to resist and added the murder charge should have been manslaughter because of that right. The "right to resist" is based on common law, not on the constitution. Because it is not in the constitution, it is left up to the states. Almost all states have enacted laws making it illegal to resist arrest. The constitution, in the 14th amendment, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The part about due process of law is the key here.

State law didn't come into play in the JBE case. But the precedent it set did. All involved were federal law enforcement on Indian land. If you are unconcerned about a 122 year old precedent, then I'm not going to argue the Magna Carta with you.

The circumstances involving Walker do not fit your argument. He felt he was defending himself from intruders. An unlawful arrest played no part in his actions. His charges were dismissed because it was reasonable to say he didn't know they were police officers.

Law enforcement was serving a warrant on the wrong house for a suspect that was already in custody. He shot at law enforcement and wasn't charged. These actions of LE has brought more scrutiny and more laws restraining LE just like JBE did.

From an article in USA Today
"Mattingly, who required surgery after the bullet severed an artery, said in October that he understood it might be difficult to get 12 jurors to unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker knowingly fired at a police officer.

'I'm not naive enough to believe that, A, maybe Kenneth Walker didn't hear us, or B, that (attorneys) couldn't convince one out of 12 people that he didn't hear us,' Mattingly said."

Is there a point here

I have more important things to do today than argue with you. I'll leave you with the wish that neither one of us suffer from first hand knowledge of the JBE decision. You have a great day.

 

[thperez1972]

I won't put words in your mouth...Current storylines, not a straw man.

Even if it were a current storyline, you still assigned me a position on a subject then questioned if I really wanted to take that position. Classic strawman. "A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version."

State law didn't come into play in the JBE case. But the precedent it set did. All involved were federal law enforcement on Indian land. If you are unconcerned about a 122 year old precedent, then I'm not going to argue the Magna Carta with you.

You're making another generalization when we're talking about specifics. I'm not unconcerned by a case simply because the case is 122 years old. I'm unconcerned with the specific case you mentioned. And even then, the age of the case isn't what make me unconcerned. It's the fact that the justification for the case and the ramifications from the case no longer exist. Common law was used as the basis for the judgement because there was an absence of anything else to use. But now, almost all states have laws that address the issue, making the common law on the issue moot. Therefore, that specific decision has little to no bearing on things today.

Law enforcement was serving a warrant on the wrong house for a suspect that was already in custody. He shot at law enforcement and wasn't charged. These actions of LE has brought more scrutiny and more laws restraining LE just like JBE did.

So you're equating the two cases on the sole basis they both "brought more scrutiny and more laws restraining LE just like JBE did?" Is that really where you're backtracking to?

Is there a point here?

Of course there is. It was evident in the post you replied to but I'll reiterate. You claimed Walker was not charged "because he had the right to defend himself against illegal actions by law enforcement." You said JBE wasn't mentioned, but it didn't have to be. (Note: you used 2 exclamation points to emphasize that it didn't have to be.) You then claimed "it very well could have been a reason he wasn't charged." The point of the quote from the people involved in the case was to show that "the right to defend himself against illegal actions by law enforcement" was not the reason the charges were dropped. The charges were dropped because the prosecution felt the defense would have an easy time convincing at least one juror that Walker never knew they were the police and, in Walker's mind, Walker was defending himself against unknown intruders. So it would be impossible for Walker to be resisting an unlawful arrest by law enforcement if Walker had no idea the people outside were law enforcement. I believe the point should be clear now.

I have more important things to do today than argue with you. I'll leave you with the wish that neither one of us suffer from first hand knowledge of the JBE decision. You have a great day.

Of course you have more important things to do. I would too if I had to use facts to argue your position.

 

[AustinBR]

Locking thread per the OP's request.

This is a rather circular discussion, anyway. One that's been had before. For additional questions for anyone who disagrees it's probably best to consult an attorney.