The legal requirement to inform the officer that you are carrying legally give the officer the knowledge that you have a firearm and the legal authority to temporarily seize it for the duration of the contact if he/she wishes.
In Washington vs. State, Washington informed the police officer that he had a firearm and a concealed weapon permit.
The court ruled that the officer DID NOT have the legal authority to temporarily seize it without a reason to believe his safety was at risk.
...He merely testified that, as a matter of general practice, he inquired as to whether Washington had any weapons, and when Washington stated he had a handgun, Officer Reynolds searched under the driver’s seat to retrieve it. As in Malone, we conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was being committed, the search of Washington’s car for a handgun was not justified. Here, because neither of these conditions was satisfied, the search was illegal, and the trial court should have suppressed the evidence.
I think we're confusing the term search and/or seizure. Both of these actions require legal justification. Generally they cannot be severed from each other.
in Malone, the officer was ruled unjustified in searching and seizing a handgun from the waistband of a subject, as he could not articulate why there's any criminal activity afoot.
Even if a carrier informs an officer of his handgun, it still becomes a seizure when the officer decides to remove it.
Last edited: