CCW, "Duty to Inform," and refusing a search

[brboyer]

Very clearly, I did NOT speak of Florida laws.
Im not going to educate you or anyone else on the various laws concerning probable cause. If you doubt what Im telling you, do your own research. Not one place in my post did I mention Florida law.
However, I can tell you that probable cause has been defined by the US Supreme Court and what Florida thinks of it is now absolutely irrelevant. Try more not to be a jackass.


BTW - you want a cite smart guy - try this - "If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 820–821 (1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found." SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARIZONA v. GANT
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
No. 07–542. Argued October 7, 2008—Decided April 21, 2009

Probable cause is not defined by statute. It is defined by common law. There is NO statute in Florida or anywhere else that defines it.

Read and learn - http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-04/07-probable-cause.html

Forgetful as well as mistaken?

I don't know Florida law to tell you all of the consequences. However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point.

Wow, a little defensive aren't we?

You said:

I don't know Florida law to tell you all of the consequences. However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point.

I was simply asking you to site the statute that supports this statement.



ETA: You're new here so we'll cut you some slack,. but you should try to be more precise in what you type.

 

[r_p_bayly]

here is something I would like to sell yo

And if you believe that they will just say OK and let it go, here is something I would like to sell yo


I dont just believe it - I know it
happened to me
i stated

NO - you dont have my permission to search
but I will not interfere with you
If you have the right and justification - without my permission
go ahead
if not - am I free to go?

answer from his supervisor was
GO

 

[brboyer]

tx and boyer.Please desist.

It may be a cliche' ,but this is The High Road.

You're right. I won't be wasting my time with this 'Gentleman' any further. Just trying to dispel incorrect information that is being posted.

 

[Flintknapper]

tx_atty wrote:

It may have already been pointed out but bears repeating if so - a duty to inform is NOT the same thing as giving consent to a search.

Exactly. Further, there is NEVER any advantage to giving consent to a search of your person, property or vehicle. DO NOT do it.

In TX, we must hand our CHL to the officer IF we are carrying. If not, the law does not require display.

I would add to this...that a CHL (when armed) is required to inform the officer by means of producing the CHL when the officer/official asks for identification. As noted...if you are not armed there is no duty to inform.

Additionally, a recent change in (Texas) law removes any "penalty" for not disclosing your CHL status....although the duty to notify remains.

You can still refuse a warrantless search of your vehicle

And I highly recommend you do so. If LEO had the authority to search...they would do so with or without your permission. They are on a "fishing expedition" when they ask permission. NEVER consent to a search.

 

[Flintknapper]

tx_atty wrote:

However, if you lie and the LEO finds out, you just gave him probable cause to arrest you and your vehicle WILL get searched at that point.

Well.....I would contest this notion. We both know there are very specific reasons/conditions under which LEO may Search, Contact, Detain or Arrest. I suggest that everyone become familiar with these terms and how they apply in your State.

It is an infraction to give LEO false information (lie) about your identity (when asked to produce it). Otherwise, unless you have been arrested, are being detained.... or the officer is asking direct and specific questions in regards to an investigation, lying is of no legal consequence if the subject matter is not gemane to the investigation or reason for the stop. Naturally, it can get more involved than what I have stated above "out on the street".

Bottom line: Know your rights, exercise those rights!

Don't overlook the obvious too; if the officer figures out you lied, he will likely immediately feel threatened and will have you eating dirt at gun point in 2 seconds flat.

If so, do not resist. I suspect the officer will have a hard time reasonably articulating his actions....once in court.

 

[nyresq]

Quote:
Don't overlook the obvious too; if the officer figures out you lied, he will likely immediately feel threatened and will have you eating dirt at gun point in 2 seconds flat.

If so, do not resist. I suspect the officer will have a hard time reasonably articulating his actions....once in court.

Assuming you make it to a court room and not the morgue...
You tell the officer "No, I dont have a gun..." then as you are reaching for your wallet, your pistol pokes out from beneath your shirt and he sees it. He thinks you are going for it since you just told him "no I dont have a gun". Two or three shots to your head at close range and its all over...
Oh, and since its on his dash cam with you reaching your arm around behind you and you are recorded as saying "No, I dont have a gun"... do you think any jury in the world is going to think that cop was wrong when your corpse is in all the crime scene photos with a gun straped on your hip??

Dont ever say your not armed if you are carrying and are questioned about having any weapons in the car... you are just asking for trouble, rights or no rights, its what was known to the officer at the time that he will be judged on... Your CCW permit and your wife and three kids will not be admitted into evidence, the only thing that will be admitted is you saying on tape "No I dont have any guns."

 

[lobo9er]

wasr840

Ever since it became "cool" to be a lowlife (James Dean?), the beatnics, the hippies, the yippies, the punks, the goths, and now the tattooed/pierced people with their pants around their knees have belly-ached about being "mistreated" by the law. Boo foogin' hoo. If you wear a UNIFORM that screams: "I'm un-cooperative", expect the washed world to take you at face value. Is it your "right" to don the uniform of the shady persona du-jour? Sure. But if you don't want to be treated like a criminal, don't accessorize yourself as one. Especially if you carry a gun. This is all pretty simple. Sorry.

Les

sounds like your sorta uppity? your right kinda but for the most ones attitude is what determines wether or not you may or may not be hassled by police, or anyone reasonable.

 

[Flintknapper]

nyresq wrote:

Assuming you make it to a court room and not the morgue...

All things are possible I suppose.

You tell the officer "No, I dont have a gun..." then as you are reaching for your wallet, your pistol pokes out from beneath your shirt and he sees it. He thinks you are going for it since you just told him "no I dont have a gun".

So you are saying that LEO now possess the right to use deadly force anytime the presence of a weapon (other than theirs) is evident, regardless of intent?

What is the “Standard” by which LEO in N.Y. may use deadly force, I am curious to know. Let’s say for instance the scenario is a little different.. Let’s say my wife (or daughter) jumps into my vehicle to run down to the store. Suppose… I forgot to remove my pistol from the glove box and She is stopped for speeding. The officer asks if there is a gun in the car. The answer is no (Wife/Daughter didn’t know).

When Wife/Daughter opens the glove-box to retrieve the insurance card and registration the officer sees the pistol, surmises he was lied to, assumes my wife intends to kill him, then promptly puts “Two or three shots to her head at close range and its all over...” to quote you.

Oh, and since its on his dash cam with you reaching your arm around behind you and you are recorded as saying "No, I dont have a gun"... do you think any jury in the world is going to think that cop was wrong when your corpse is in all the crime scene photos with a gun straped on your hip??

I concede the potential for error is greater here, but lets run with it anyway. Yes…I think there are plenty of juries and competent lawyers that would pick this apart.

What do the academies teach these days with respect to escalation of force, the “Force Continuum” and the use of Deadly Force? Is the standard now: Use deadly force as soon as possible?

And do you think some small points of interest (also caught on that dash-cam) might play some role in a jury’s decision.

Little things like: No aggressive behavior displayed by victim. No quick movements made by victim. No posturing or verbal threats, no blading away from officer, no ocular fixation on officer, no attempt to seek cover or flank officer, no distractions of any kind.

In fact…nothing but a normal reach to retrieve his wallet. No contact with the weapon. Weapon not removed from holster.

Absolutely NO empirical evidence that this person had any “intent” to access his weapon. ONLY the presence of the weapon seems to be the criteria here in which the officer chose to use deadly force.

Could/Should the officer draw their own weapon (while creating distance and seeking cover). YES!

Could/Should the officer (time permitting) command the person to “Show me your hands, DO NOT touch your weapon”! Is this not the “correct” response both legally and tactically?

Dont ever say your not armed if you are carrying and are questioned about having any weapons in the car... you are just asking for trouble, rights or no rights,

I see from your perspective you put little value on “rights”. They should not be taken lightly, should always be exercised (when appropriate) and fought for with zeal. Sometimes exercising your rights attracts “trouble”. Each person must decide how important your individual rights are to you.

its what was known to the officer at the time that he will be judged on...

Perhaps back at the station…and it might even fly with the “thin blue line”, but in the courts….the officer will be judged by a jury.

The jury will be instructed to consider what the “law” has to say about it, and the law will say that the officer must be judged on what he/she “REASONABLY” knew at the time; else the officer’s thoughts/actions would be completely subjective. Maybe that puts a new complexion on it for you.

Your CCW permit and your wife and three kids will not be admitted into evidence, the only thing that will be admitted is you saying on tape "No I dont have any guns."

I don’t know the extent to which you have experience in the courts, but you would be surprised what gets admitted as evidence/testimony.


In closing, permit to me to submit that I am NOT advocating lying to LEO when there is no reason.

There is an oft used phrase among LEO that carries some truth: “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”.

As each person decides to exercise his/her rights…..keep that in mind.

Try to be courteous and co-operative with LEO (they deserve it). But, if they begin to cross the line….or make you uncomfortable with requests that you know are not legally binding/required, simply refuse to answer and ask for a lawyer.

 

[nyresq]

Let’s say my wife (or daughter) jumps into my vehicle to run down to the store. Suppose… I forgot to remove my pistol from the glove box and She is stopped for speeding. The officer asks if there is a gun in the car. The answer is no (Wife/Daughter didn’t know).

This was about lying to a cop when you knew full well you had a gun in the car. I can think of a hundred tragic scenarios that have actually occured with unknown weapons and found guns that have resulted in injury and death of innocents due to misunderstandings and mistaken actions, that is not what my answer was in response to.

Little things like: No aggressive behavior displayed by victim. No quick movements made by victim. No posturing or verbal threats, no blading away from officer, no ocular fixation on officer, no attempt to seek cover or flank officer, no distractions of any kind.

Watch a few car stop videos online (there are hundreds) of officers getting shot at (or shot) by a perp still inside the car and tell me how many of those videos you can see anything you mentioned above? how many videos where it started perfectly normal and the perp is talking in a calm voice and answering all the officers questions, then without warning or eye contact or build up of rage, they just snap and start shooting.

In fact…nothing but a normal reach to retrieve his wallet. No contact with the weapon. Weapon not removed from holster.

And thats not the exact same movement as drawing from a holster on your hip as viewed from behind a car or to the side looking in the window?

Sometimes exercising your rights attracts “trouble”. Each person must decide how important your individual rights are to you.

if you wind up with a barrel pressed in your ear after lying about having a gun, don't complain about the "******* pig with an attitude" who decided not to "just hope you are only excercising your rights".

The jury will be instructed to consider what the “law” has to say about it, and the law will say that the officer must be judged on what he/she “REASONABLY” knew at the time; else the officer’s thoughts/actions would be completely subjective. Maybe that puts a new complexion on it for you.

And what the officer knew at the time was he just asked a stopped motorist if they had a weapon and was responded to with a "no". Then he sees the person does in fact have a weapon on their person and a hand is going for it. Does this legaly give them permission to fire, not at all, and I am not saying thats what I would do, but I have also played this game for 12 years and have seen stupid people do stupid things more then once and have learned from that experience.
I have also drawn my weapon in fear for my own life several times only to find out what looked like a gun was a toy, a cell phone, a steering wheel locking device and several other things that at 1pm on a sunny day would seem laughable, but at 3am on the wrong side of the tracks looks like any number of weapons that will prevent me from going home at the end of my shift.

The jury will be instructed to consider what the “law” has to say about it, and the law will say that the officer must be judged on what he/she “REASONABLY” knew at the time

And he knew he just pulled over someone for speeding at 3 am in a not so nice part of town and when he walked up to the car the motorist seemed like a regular guy, and when asked he responded, "no, I dont have a gun..." but he did... in a split second the officer is going to ask himself, why would he lie about that?? why is he reaching for it??? ... uh oh. And thats all that was known at the time to that officer who made a snap decision. And the jury will ask themselves that same question, why would he lie about having a gun if he knew he did?

I don’t know the extent to which you have experience in the courts, but you would be surprised what gets admitted as evidence/testimony.

I have testified for myself, for other officers, civilians, and against criminals and have been the lead on several large scale investigations. I have done my time in court and I have a pretty good idea of what gets in and what gets tossed out, and things that could not be known to an individual at the time of a shooting are going to get thrown out 99 times out of 100...

I'm not saying its legal, its propper, its right or its what I would do.
But untill you have done car stops in the ghetto at 3am, and untill you have had had that adrenalin dump 15 minutes before the end of your 12 hour shift because some idiot does something stupid, you cant assume your "excercising your right" is not going to get you into something you may not get out of. (handcuffs, a cell or a bodybag )

And I dont think telling a cop you dont have a gun when in fact, you do, is "excercising your rights". I see it as more of a "fight the power" or "down with big brother" attitude that is more harmful then helpful....

I have a much more relaxed feeling when someone tells me they have a pistol permit whether they are armed or not for the simple fact they have had a clean background check done and I am 99.9% sure they are not a wanted felon unless it happened in the last few hours and their license hasnt been suspended yet...
I believe in an individuals right to privacy and to be secure in their home and in their cars, but again I have to think nothing good will come from lying about being armed when questioned by police...

 

[Art Eatman]

This has gone too far from the original post...