Can an off duty police officer ...........
- Thread starter westphoenix
- Start date
Let me see if I can restate this premise:
If one is driving a car, the police can not ask for your driver's licence unless you're doing something wrong. And this correlates to: if you're carrying your weapon, the police cannot ask for your carry permit unless you're doing something wrong.
Did I rephrase that appropriately?
Because if I did, it's complete nonsense. If an officer (on/off duty) sees someone carrying a gun, they can't check and see if the owner has the permit to carry? I'm so speechless at that idiocy that I cannot even attempt a rebuttal.
In TN, if an LEO is in his/her jurisdiction they have the same authority on/off duty. It gets a little tricky outside of one's jurisdiction. So if you are in a random place and an off-duty LEO sees you printing and identifies him/herself to you and asks if you have a permit to carry, the LEO is perfectly within their stated authority.
If one is driving a car, the police can not ask for your driver's licence unless you're doing something wrong. And this correlates to: if you're carrying your weapon, the police cannot ask for your carry permit unless you're doing something wrong.
Did I rephrase that appropriately?
Because if I did, it's complete nonsense. If an officer (on/off duty) sees someone carrying a gun, they can't check and see if the owner has the permit to carry? I'm so speechless at that idiocy that I cannot even attempt a rebuttal.
In TN, if an LEO is in his/her jurisdiction they have the same authority on/off duty. It gets a little tricky outside of one's jurisdiction. So if you are in a random place and an off-duty LEO sees you printing and identifies him/herself to you and asks if you have a permit to carry, the LEO is perfectly within their stated authority.
If a LEO sees someone printing, adjusting, a flash of muzzle, or any of the numerous giveaways, that constructs probable cause to believe that someone is carrying a concealed weapon, which outside of Vermont is either a crime or a permitted activity. The officer has PC and standing to investigate whether or not a law is being broken.
Sir William
New member
The interesting thing is if the LEO is active, retired or reserve or even special authorized LEO. The PCSO has active, reserves and auxiliary officers in uniform. Active officers can hire out as security. Tucson PD, Oro Valley and Pima County Parks LEOs often work for the malls as security. LEOs hire out for Christmas holidays as security also. Many retired LEOs still maintain their state comm by becoming reserve officers. Auxiliary forces sometimes contract for mobile patrol in marked units with subdivisions and community associations. It is allowed for the LEO/security officer to wear their agency uniform. It is a sight to see a Oro Valley motorcycle officer with hightop boots walking a beat inside the mall. Officers contract with Dillards and Wal-Mart also.
Apparrently it is not a simple question. Here is an article that discusses this in depth and provides additional information .
http://www.amguard.com/featured_article.htm
http://www.amguard.com/featured_article.htm
The answers to these questions, according to sendac, were yes.
I wonder, then, what he thinks of the idea that regardless of whether an officer believes he's seen a bulge caused by a gun, he could/should/may ask any random citizen, "Are you carrying a gun?/Do you have a permit?"
I mean, what's to stop the cop from asking anyone if they're carrying a gun?
And what if you, the questionee, simply say, "Nah," whether you have one or not?
You who seem to be defending this practice of challenging a "printing" person to show a license to be carrying, please address why or why not a cop should be able to just randomly go about asking these questions.
-blackmind
Blackmind
An officer cannot go around randomly asking people if they are packing. If, however he forms a reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of a weapon, he may inquire. Reasonable suspicion is formed based upon his observations, experience, training, conduct of the person (petting or adjusting the gun are two easy ones), bulges, etc. He may go so far as to perform a pat down (Terry frisk) if, despite denials, he believes the person to be armed. For those legally armed this isn't a problem. A simple yes I am and heres my permit/license will solve it. In those wonderful states where no permit is required it shouldn't be a problem at all.
The bottom line is that if you carry well (i.e. concealed is concealed) you'll probably never have this type encounter.
An officer cannot go around randomly asking people if they are packing. If, however he forms a reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of a weapon, he may inquire. Reasonable suspicion is formed based upon his observations, experience, training, conduct of the person (petting or adjusting the gun are two easy ones), bulges, etc. He may go so far as to perform a pat down (Terry frisk) if, despite denials, he believes the person to be armed. For those legally armed this isn't a problem. A simple yes I am and heres my permit/license will solve it. In those wonderful states where no permit is required it shouldn't be a problem at all.
The bottom line is that if you carry well (i.e. concealed is concealed) you'll probably never have this type encounter.
westphoenix
New member
The entire act of the driver would be an offense if the driver did not have a driver's license right?
If a conceal weapons carrier adjusted his weapon, without flashing it in anyway, he is only committing a crime of concealing a weapon if he does not have a concealed weapons permit. I don't understand how it is ok to assume the concealed weapons carrier does not have a permit, but an operator of a motor vehicle is given the benefit of the doubt until he makes a driving mistake.
If a conceal weapons carrier adjusted his weapon, without flashing it in anyway, he is only committing a crime of concealing a weapon if he does not have a concealed weapons permit. I don't understand how it is ok to assume the concealed weapons carrier does not have a permit, but an operator of a motor vehicle is given the benefit of the doubt until he makes a driving mistake.
If have not read the link yet, but I plan to soon.djames said:
A quick look at Arizona's law on CCW says "ARS 13-3112 D. A person who fails to present a permit for inspection on the request of a law enforcement officer is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor."
If a LEO is considered a LEO 24/7 I would guess that this covers the original question. There are no terms and conditions attached.
My home state has similar wording requiring a license (CPL in WA) be shown whenever requested by a LEO or "any other person requesting when required by law". This would cover private security as well as LEO.
Of course one could refuse on principle and go through the expense of Bail, Attorney and Court Costs, time off work, etc. only to find out that Off Duty LEO's are allowed to ask for the license.
If a LEO is considered a LEO 24/7 I would guess that this covers the original question. There are no terms and conditions attached.
My home state has similar wording requiring a license (CPL in WA) be shown whenever requested by a LEO or "any other person requesting when required by law". This would cover private security as well as LEO.
Of course one could refuse on principle and go through the expense of Bail, Attorney and Court Costs, time off work, etc. only to find out that Off Duty LEO's are allowed to ask for the license.
It isnt about the benefit of the doubt, it is about reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Are you seriously claiming that when a LEO sees evidence of a concealed firearm he or she should assume that the person is legit, instead of investigating and finding out for certain ? We are supposed to be looking for people breaking the law, but you want us to ignore potential evidence of that?
Suppose I am out on the road and see someone forcing a window open into a house. They could be a burglar, or they could be a homeowner who locked themselves out. Should I assume the later, or should i check it out and find out?
Suppose I am out on the road and see someone forcing a window open into a house. They could be a burglar, or they could be a homeowner who locked themselves out. Should I assume the later, or should i check it out and find out?
westphoenix
New member
Sendec,
I see your point. I do agree that someone attempting to break into something, legally or not should be investigated to find out.
But what about this quote:
Breaking the law is breaking law, but how the cops investigate it can change peoples opinion and actions towards the police. There is an article in Sept. 2005 S.W.A.T magazine that talks about some scenarios where police acted legally; yet made legal law abiding citizens untrusting of LEO's. I guess I just don't understand why a LEO should assume the concealed weapon carrier is breaking the law. On top of that I can't understand why an off-duty police officer working security would stop and question a customer who has done nothing wrong just to see if that bulge is a concealed weapon and if it is being carried legally.
What about a car with a busted out side window or missing trunk lock?
It is highly possible the car is stolen or has been stolen in the past.
Should this car be stopped simply for the broken side window or missing trunk lock?
Would this be considered reasonable suspicion and probable cause?
Please don't take my responses as arguments against you or anyone else.
I am just trying to understand.
I see your point. I do agree that someone attempting to break into something, legally or not should be investigated to find out.
But what about this quote:
I would rather my local police stop a man running down the street with a purse, than stop a man with a bulge in his pants because he might be breaking the law. At which point that law he is breaking is victimless, but the man with the purse could very well have left a victim lying dead in an ally.blackmind said:
Breaking the law is breaking law, but how the cops investigate it can change peoples opinion and actions towards the police. There is an article in Sept. 2005 S.W.A.T magazine that talks about some scenarios where police acted legally; yet made legal law abiding citizens untrusting of LEO's. I guess I just don't understand why a LEO should assume the concealed weapon carrier is breaking the law. On top of that I can't understand why an off-duty police officer working security would stop and question a customer who has done nothing wrong just to see if that bulge is a concealed weapon and if it is being carried legally.
What about a car with a busted out side window or missing trunk lock?
It is highly possible the car is stolen or has been stolen in the past.
Should this car be stopped simply for the broken side window or missing trunk lock?
Would this be considered reasonable suspicion and probable cause?
Please don't take my responses as arguments against you or anyone else.
I am just trying to understand.
"What about a car with a busted out side window or missing trunk lock?
It is highly possible the car is stolen or has been stolen in the past.
Should this car be stopped simply for the broken side window or missing trunk lock?
Would this be considered reasonable suspicion and probable cause?"
Yes. As a matter of fact I can remember the punched lock scenario being used in training textbooks as an example of PC to make a stop. Back in the day when cars had vent wings we were taught, and experience proved, that popping the vent window was a common way to B&E a car. Suspicion and probable cause are far lower standards of proof than guilt.
Carrying a concealed weapon illegally doesnt really fit the definition of a victimless crime, but that is a whole different can of worms. Just keep in mind that some bad guys and girls carry guns, and those are the ones we are interested in, not some CHL holder who printed.
FWIW, off-duty and plainsclothes cops get confronted and questioned also, when we get a little careless about concealment.
It is highly possible the car is stolen or has been stolen in the past.
Should this car be stopped simply for the broken side window or missing trunk lock?
Would this be considered reasonable suspicion and probable cause?"
Yes. As a matter of fact I can remember the punched lock scenario being used in training textbooks as an example of PC to make a stop. Back in the day when cars had vent wings we were taught, and experience proved, that popping the vent window was a common way to B&E a car. Suspicion and probable cause are far lower standards of proof than guilt.
Carrying a concealed weapon illegally doesnt really fit the definition of a victimless crime, but that is a whole different can of worms. Just keep in mind that some bad guys and girls carry guns, and those are the ones we are interested in, not some CHL holder who printed.
FWIW, off-duty and plainsclothes cops get confronted and questioned also, when we get a little careless about concealment.
How do you figure this covers private security?
Well that's certainly what I'm suggesting. What is the difference between driving and carrying a gun? Well, carrying a gun is a right, driving (for the purposes of this argument) is not. Yet the state is pre-disposed to make people prove they are ok to have/carry that gun, but not drive that car? Why not? If we are going to assign a danger level to inanimate objects, I'd say a car and a gun should be about equal. So if the danger level is not the issue (which it can't be if the danger levels are equal), then what is the issue?
Maybe you could explain to me why it's a bad analogy, because I don't see that it is. I was comparing two individuals who are responsible to operate a dangerous piece of equipment. I noted that a police officer observed them operating said equipment. I noted that the operation of said equipment with out government license or permit is against the law. I noted that given all of these equal facts, these two people should be treated equally by the law.
Yeah, and the lower standards for those things go, the more and more we "civilians" will resent law enforcement officers for looking at ALL of us as though we are suspects.
So you draw no distinction between the thief or the VICTIM when it comes to the vent window being broken or the lock being punched out?
So if a guy's car gets broken into by someone who punches out the lock, and the guy is on tough times and can't afford to get it fixed for a while, every time he drives that car in public, cops should pull him over when they see the broken lock and check to make sure he's not a car thief?
Welcome to the Police State in America. Thanks, sendec.
BS. If no one has been hurt by them using the concealed weapon, it is a victimless crime.
We are not saying that it is not a victimfull crime waiting to happen (that is, if the weapon carrier intends an attack on someone) but until that happens, the weapon's presence is no less of a victimless crime than the presence of the same weapon on a CCW licensee.
Lack of a license does not a violent criminal make. One can be just as good of a person, but carry illegally because, for instance, he has moved from one state where he could carry, into another state where he now has to wait for the slow cogs and wheels to turn and grant him his shall-issue CCW license. That guy, who was vetted and licensed in the prior state, should be forced to go unarmed for a few months in his new state, just because of paperwork? YOU would claim that he's a criminal.
I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy. Sendec has informed us that cops are actually subject to the law!
-blackmind
Last edited:
RangerJoe1966
Inactive
Carrying a gun in plain/partial sight SHOULD be checked out.
So let me get this straight: A couple of people on this board would have us believe that an "off-duty" police officer sees someone carrying a gun (even a "partially concealed" one) and is NOT supposed to investigate?
These people tried to equate carrying a gun in plain/partial sight with "driving around in your car innocently", however, they conveniently forgot the main requirement of BOTH concealed handgun (CCW) laws AND driving laws: That you must be COMPLYING with the law(s) in the FIRST place!
Obviously, if you are "printing" (or showing part or all of your weapon) you are NOT complying with the letter of a CONCEALED handgun law, mainly that the weapon MUST BE CONCEALED! If the weapon is visible or even partially visible, then it is no longer CONCEALED, now is it? The same goes for driving. If you are driving erratically or have a car with broken or defective equipment, you are NOT complying with the law, and you can expect the nice man/lady in blue to stop you and have a nice chat with you. Now I guess if you are walking around showing or even partially showing a GUN, the nice off-duty cop should give you a break cus he/she should "know" you're such a nice guy and all, but, uh, don't think so!
So the previous posters would have us believe that even though they didn't care enough about gun safety and responsibility to PROPERLY observe concealed handgun laws, they should get a "pass" from an off duty LEO because he/she should "know" that they are law abiding citizens. OK, Uh, sure. Lemme just go down to the mall with the butt of my GUN sticking out of my pants pocket and get upset when an off duty LEO investigates 'cus he/she would be "violating my civil rights" by failing to let me walk around with an UNCONCEALED WEAPON in violation of CCW laws. Man, what UNIVERSE are these people living in?
So what if the LEO sees someone partly showing a weapon, doesn't investigate it -- we wouldn't want to be "anti-pc" and make people feel "targeted" -- and the person goes into a mall and kills a bunch of people? The FIRST thing people would say was "WHY DIDN'T THE OFF-DUTY OFFICER CHECK THE PERSON WITH THE GUN?"
I am fully aware of people's concern about civil liberties, however, when a person goes into a PRIVATE BUSINESS, that business has a right to either allow or deny the carrying of weapons (under CONCEALED HANDGUN laws) at their place of business. Off duty LEOs are only complying with the wishes of the BUSINESS when they investigate a REASONABLE SUSPICION that someone may have a weapon on them in violation of that businesses policy.
Obviously, off duty LEOs can't just go around harassing people for no reason, but I believe the premise of this threat was that the off duty LEO had a REASONABLE SUSPICION that a person was armed. This REASONABLE SUSPICION would be more than just a "bulge", but would have to be a "print" (or an IMPRINT) of the weapon inside someone's pants, or the butt of a weapon sticking out of someone's clothing, etc.
When an officer sees this, he/she is OBLIGATED BY LAW to investigate, just as they are obligated by law to investigate when someone is driving erratically or has broken/unsafe equipment on their car, or has expired license tags, etc.
The reason is that once the officer has a REASONABLE SUSPICION (either a "print" of a gun or part of a gun showing), the inference is that the person is NO LONGER IN COMPLIANCE with a concealed handgun law (i.e., the weapon is no longer "concealed", but partially visible).
The fact is if someone is in compliance with the law, they shouldn't have anything to worry about. If someone is NOT in compliance with concealed handgun (and traffic/driving) laws, then OF COURSE LEOs should investigate!
Nice try by some on these boards to mistakenly equate driving with CARRYING A GUN IN FULL OR PARTIAL SIGHT, but as they say in the south "That ole' dog just won't hunt!"
So let me get this straight: A couple of people on this board would have us believe that an "off-duty" police officer sees someone carrying a gun (even a "partially concealed" one) and is NOT supposed to investigate?
These people tried to equate carrying a gun in plain/partial sight with "driving around in your car innocently", however, they conveniently forgot the main requirement of BOTH concealed handgun (CCW) laws AND driving laws: That you must be COMPLYING with the law(s) in the FIRST place!
Obviously, if you are "printing" (or showing part or all of your weapon) you are NOT complying with the letter of a CONCEALED handgun law, mainly that the weapon MUST BE CONCEALED! If the weapon is visible or even partially visible, then it is no longer CONCEALED, now is it? The same goes for driving. If you are driving erratically or have a car with broken or defective equipment, you are NOT complying with the law, and you can expect the nice man/lady in blue to stop you and have a nice chat with you. Now I guess if you are walking around showing or even partially showing a GUN, the nice off-duty cop should give you a break cus he/she should "know" you're such a nice guy and all, but, uh, don't think so!
So the previous posters would have us believe that even though they didn't care enough about gun safety and responsibility to PROPERLY observe concealed handgun laws, they should get a "pass" from an off duty LEO because he/she should "know" that they are law abiding citizens. OK, Uh, sure. Lemme just go down to the mall with the butt of my GUN sticking out of my pants pocket and get upset when an off duty LEO investigates 'cus he/she would be "violating my civil rights" by failing to let me walk around with an UNCONCEALED WEAPON in violation of CCW laws. Man, what UNIVERSE are these people living in?
So what if the LEO sees someone partly showing a weapon, doesn't investigate it -- we wouldn't want to be "anti-pc" and make people feel "targeted" -- and the person goes into a mall and kills a bunch of people? The FIRST thing people would say was "WHY DIDN'T THE OFF-DUTY OFFICER CHECK THE PERSON WITH THE GUN?"
I am fully aware of people's concern about civil liberties, however, when a person goes into a PRIVATE BUSINESS, that business has a right to either allow or deny the carrying of weapons (under CONCEALED HANDGUN laws) at their place of business. Off duty LEOs are only complying with the wishes of the BUSINESS when they investigate a REASONABLE SUSPICION that someone may have a weapon on them in violation of that businesses policy.
Obviously, off duty LEOs can't just go around harassing people for no reason, but I believe the premise of this threat was that the off duty LEO had a REASONABLE SUSPICION that a person was armed. This REASONABLE SUSPICION would be more than just a "bulge", but would have to be a "print" (or an IMPRINT) of the weapon inside someone's pants, or the butt of a weapon sticking out of someone's clothing, etc.
When an officer sees this, he/she is OBLIGATED BY LAW to investigate, just as they are obligated by law to investigate when someone is driving erratically or has broken/unsafe equipment on their car, or has expired license tags, etc.
The reason is that once the officer has a REASONABLE SUSPICION (either a "print" of a gun or part of a gun showing), the inference is that the person is NO LONGER IN COMPLIANCE with a concealed handgun law (i.e., the weapon is no longer "concealed", but partially visible).
The fact is if someone is in compliance with the law, they shouldn't have anything to worry about. If someone is NOT in compliance with concealed handgun (and traffic/driving) laws, then OF COURSE LEOs should investigate!
Nice try by some on these boards to mistakenly equate driving with CARRYING A GUN IN FULL OR PARTIAL SIGHT, but as they say in the south "That ole' dog just won't hunt!"
First of all, an off-duty officer will more than likely NOT simply walk up to you and ask for your concealed weapon license. More than likely, they will evaluate the entire situation:
Is the guy with the bulge out with his family, and is wrestling with an armful of packages and 2.3 kids? If so, I would approach very quietly, identify myself, and tell the guy his piece was printing.
Is the guy standing in line in a bank, looking fidgety? If so, I will quietly put my back to the nearest wall, apply the +1 rule, and pull out my cell phone to call the cavalry for priority backup. If our hero in line whips out that roscoe, he's going to get ambushed. If he does not, he will be talking to the uniforms outside the bank.
Oh, and by the way...
Well, would'nt you know, one of the local JBT's saw a car driving on an interstate without a proper license tag or tab. He pulled it over. Harassment? Maybe so, according to some of you. And, yes, the "JBT" went on a "fishing" expedition--he kept finding things wrong with the guy and his story. So, what happened to the guy who had his "civil rights" stepped all over? Well, he managed to go to jail.
A little while, the poor citizen in the car had a date with the needle that he kept. Hopefully, the poor citizen--who was known as Timothy McVeigh--is burning in hell right now.
And, all because some overbearing State Trooper trampled on his rights.
Is the guy with the bulge out with his family, and is wrestling with an armful of packages and 2.3 kids? If so, I would approach very quietly, identify myself, and tell the guy his piece was printing.
Is the guy standing in line in a bank, looking fidgety? If so, I will quietly put my back to the nearest wall, apply the +1 rule, and pull out my cell phone to call the cavalry for priority backup. If our hero in line whips out that roscoe, he's going to get ambushed. If he does not, he will be talking to the uniforms outside the bank.
Oh, and by the way...
Well, would'nt you know, one of the local JBT's saw a car driving on an interstate without a proper license tag or tab. He pulled it over. Harassment? Maybe so, according to some of you. And, yes, the "JBT" went on a "fishing" expedition--he kept finding things wrong with the guy and his story. So, what happened to the guy who had his "civil rights" stepped all over? Well, he managed to go to jail.
A little while, the poor citizen in the car had a date with the needle that he kept. Hopefully, the poor citizen--who was known as Timothy McVeigh--is burning in hell right now.
And, all because some overbearing State Trooper trampled on his rights.