Terry Stop Hypothesis for Lawyers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless, I am mistaken the issue is the fact that the CHL failed to inform and he did in fact have his CCW with him in a jurisdiction that requires notification. in which case I would think that depending on totality of circumstances would earn him a custodial search.

In the issue of having a CHL and not carrying it's a little murkier. However, speaking as a Cop the lie of omission irritates the bejeezus out of me. You may be right in the courtroom but you failed real life and that might contribute to a bad hair day.

disclaimer: This is from someone who works in a state that prohibits CCW
 
I'm still curious how Michigan v. Long raises a legal issue after Az v. Grant?

Anyone? Bueller?
Click to expand...

In AZ v. Gant is dealing with searches incident to arrest. Requiring that an officer prove a continuing threat or a need to preserve evidence. The suspect was arrested then his car was searched. The court said you can't search a car unless there is a continuing threat or evidenceneeds to eb preserved.

Michigan v. Long didn't deal with a search incident to arrest but was an extension of a Terry search to include automobiles. But it requires that the officer believe the suspect be armed and present a threat.

The two decisions are not incompatibel and they deal with two distinct scenarios.
 
Unless, I am mistaken the issue is the fact that the CHL failed to inform and he did in fact have his CCW with him in a jurisdiction that requires notification. in which case I would think that depending on totality of circumstances would earn him a custodial search.

In the issue of having a CHL and not carrying it's a little murkier. However, speaking as a Cop the lie of omission irritates the bejeezus out of me. You may be right in the courtroom but you failed real life and that might contribute to a bad hair day.
Click to expand...

Agree complitely Wagonman.
 
WagonMan said:
In the issue of having a CHL and not carrying it's a little murkier. However, speaking as a Cop the lie of omission irritates the bejeezus out of me. You may be right in the courtroom but you failed real life and that might contribute to a bad hair day.
Click to expand...


What "lie of omission". Where is the requirement (or even logic) requiring notification that I am NOT carrying a gun.

Personally, I would think that's just weird. "Officer, I'd like you to know that I'm not carrying a gun."

There's no sense in that. My thought process would be "Why is this guy mentioning a gun out of the blue?" It would make me think that he WAS hiding something, otherwise I would not expect the "absent" gun to even cross his mind during a routine traffic stop.
 
Unless, I am mistaken the issue is the fact that the CHL failed to inform and he did in fact have his CCW with him in a jurisdiction that requires notification. in which case I would think that depending on totality of circumstances would earn him a custodial search.
Click to expand...

The problem is, we're talking about a custodial search *before* the officer knew that the driver did in fact have a weapon. In the example given, the cop's entire justification for the search is simply the fact that the driver possesses a CHL and didn't say anything one way or the other about having a weapon.

From Post #16, it sounds like some jurisdictions have already decided that the mere possession of a CHL isn't grounds to assume nefarious activity. I suspect that if the issue ever comes under close scrutiny by the courts, the fact that a person has a CHL will not be considered valid grounds for a Terry search, absent any other articulable reasons for the search.
 
OK. For arguments sake, there are two different issues. The first is a Terry stop b/c of a failure to disclose and the second is the inference that a person is CC based solely on the fact that the subject has a permit.

Law says you have an obligation to disclose if you have a permit whether you carry or not at the moment. You must comply. Failure to do so will get you a pat-down. It is that simple. The pat-down in a Terry stop comes because of the lack of disclosure, not b/c the officer thinks your carrying concealed because you have a permit.

Like Scott said, it is irrelevant what the officer thinks, whether you have a gun or not based solely on the fact you have a permit. The intervention is initiated because of the failure to disclose you have the permit, period.
 
Law says you have an obligation to disclose if you have a permit whether you carry or not at the moment. You must comply.
Click to expand...

This is not true in many places. In Virginia, notification is only required *if you're currently carrying*, and I think that's the norm, rather than the exception.
 
Law says you have an obligation to disclose if you have a permit whether you carry or not at the moment.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in some states... In Alaska I have to disclose if I'm carrying, but I'm under no obligation to broach the subject when I'm not carrying.
 
My bad. Op stated failure to inform he was carrying in a jurisdiction requiring disclosure of ccweapon, not permit. Like I previously stated in another post the search is unwarranted in law. Is it not reasonable for the cop to perform a search (terry stop) based solely on the fact that the subject did not disclose he had a gun. Again, the officer will perform the search and if he finds anything he most likely will be able to justify his intervention in a courtroom.

Is it reasonable to imply a person is CC a gun solely upon the fact he has a permit? Again, not reasonable in theory but realy easy to justify in reality.
 
Last edited:
Re-read the OP:

You are in a jurisdiction where statute requires concealed handgun license holders to notify law enforcement if they are carrying a firearm.
Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

If they're not carrying a firearm, no notification is required. We're not the ones moving the goalposts (intentionally or otherwise.)
 
Is it reasonable to imply a person is CC a gun solely upon the fact he has a permit? Again, not reasonable in theory but realy easy to justify in reality.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be easy at all to justify the search, unless the cop starts making stuff up about the subject "acting furtively" or "adjusting something under his shirt."

I think the reason we don't hear about this situation in real life (Terry frisks based solely on the fact that the subject is a CHL licensee) is that the cops know better. They're not lawyers, but they probably received guidance on the subject once "shall issue" became popular.
 
The point I am making is that if I stop you you had better be more forthcoming than your computer check not less. You don't have to be---see previous post but probably in your best interest.

I am not suggesting mentioning a gun out af the blue.

"Officer, in the interest of full disclosure I have a CCW but I am not presently armed"

What is the percentage of population that has a CCW on average?
 
I think I found a source that put the number of CCW holders at about five million, nationwide, but I'll check again. No data on how frequently holders actually carry, though.
 
What is the percentage of population that has a CCW on average?
Click to expand...
In your world (Illinois) close to zero. Here in Clark County, NV, 1 in 100 are legally CCW. But anyone (not felons, MDV, etc) can have it loaded in their vehicle (not on their person) and no requirement to disclose.

But why all the worry about a person who has passed a background check, and completed a course? These folks are statistically the most law abiding, peaceful trustworthy folks on the planet. The chances of someone from that group going sideways is astronomical. I can't understand why the permit ought to raise the alarm level. If anything, the opposite should be true.

How do AZ, AK, and VT officers somehow avoid all this hand-wringing over armed, law-abiding folks? They barely blink when the guy in line in front of them at the grocery store is OC'ing. And now, unless prohibited from owning the gun in the first place, one doesn't even need the permit in AZ. The wide disparity in perception of what represents a threat to officer safety in various jurisdictions is interesting. There aren't any increased numbers of officer shootings in these states, quite the contrary.

If there's no evidence or suspicion beyond the existence of a permit, I can't see how a search is justified. Now if the person is the slightest bit belligerent, argumentative, intoxicated, whatever then by all means, get them out of the car and Terry pat 'em.
 
If an officer wants to search me or my vehicle, I have nothing to hide. I will never give consent, but I have enough inteligence to be calm and cool and not be beligerant. I want to keep my permit, which would be at stake. At that point, I would want to be in front of a judge later to hear the officer explain as to why he believed a search was necessary, when I'm only required by law to disclose if I am carrying, and not required to disclose if I'm not carrying. I live in North Carolina. Not a rant, just how I feel.
 
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure. I agree that having a CHL would be like a good guy membership card. But, like I said the roadside is not the place for constitutional challenges. YMMV
 
The permit is not the issue it's the non-disclosure.
Click to expand...

But how can the non-disclosure be an issue when, for all the cop knows, there's nothing to disclose?

I couldn't understand exactly what you were saying in post #35, so perhaps you could clarify - as CHL holders, do you think we should make it a point to tell the officer when we're *not* carrying?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top