question for leo

A forum for LEOs, firefighters, EMT and other first responders to discuss issues pertaining to their fields.
BRAD
Member
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:39 am
Location: miami

question for leo

Post by BRAD » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:01 pm

I was riding with a buddy and he was pulled over. First thing the officer says is "are there any weapons in the car"
We are both cwp holders and were both carrying. We told him yes and he asked for the guns. We handed them over. He took them. Went to his car put them in the car, then came back for us. Had us each step out of the car and then searched us (frisked and pockets). After that he sent us back to the car. We waited about 10 minutes then he had us pop the trunk, he placed the guns inside the trunk (slide back mag out) and told us to have a nice night. The cop was cool and professional, no new scratches on the guns and I have no complaints with how it went. He however never told us why we were stopped. My buddy has an out of state plate that he is having a hard time getting swiched to a fl plate and I imagine it was the out of state plate.
My questions.

When leos run a plate, is there any indication that the owner is a cwp holder?
If you had been pulled over previously and had a concealed weapon (with permit) Would that be in a note on your record?
As the passenger, was I obligated to consent to search? To agnowlege my legaly concealed weapon?
I have searched and searched and found no laws or info on this.

Any help or input apreciated

User avatar
forcefed
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:14 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: question for leo

Post by forcefed » Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:43 pm

When leos run a plate, is there any indication that the owner is a cwp holder? NO
If you had been pulled over previously and had a concealed weapon (with permit) Would that be in a note on your record? NO
As the passenger, was I obligated to consent to search? To agnowlege my legaly concealed weapon? NO
Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.

User avatar
armedinpasco
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:38 am
Location: Madison County Alabama

Re: question for leo

Post by armedinpasco » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:44 pm

BRAD wrote: We told him yes and he asked for the guns. We handed them over.
I cannot believe what I'm reading here!
So this police officer asked both of you to draw you own weapons, presumably while still seated in the vehicle, with no backup and his weapon in it's holster? Where did this happen? City or county LEO? Uniformed? Was the vehicle a convertible with the top down? Did you already surrender your Carry Permits?
None of this makes any sense at all.
If you were stopped (possibly) because someone happened to see your weapon and freaked, the stop probably would have gone much differently. I can't imagine why else he would have asked for weapons right off of the bat.
I think I would be contacting a supervisor (or an attorney) and asking some questions.
JUST BIZARRE!!
[smilie=pdt_xtremez_10.gif]
AKA - The Stig
Abusus non tollit usum!

BRAD
Member
Member
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:39 am
Location: miami

Re: question for leo

Post by BRAD » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:34 pm

He did not have back up, He asked for the guns, while we were in the car, he drew his pistol asked us to one at a time roll on our side and remove the weapon in its holster. After he had both weapons he asked why we had guns, told him we had cwp and that we would have to reach down to get our wallets to hand them to him. City cop in uniform, car is not a convertable, Happened on us1 at aprox 230 sw street. Deffinatly wasnt becasue the weapons were spotted, we were 15 minutes from out last stop. The officer was cool and professonal, I just thought it was strange that it was the first thing he asked. I didnt get his badge or even his name. I was freezing sitting in a t shirt in the wind with the car off. And I had no idea why my buddy was getting stopped you never know when someone you thought you knew has a warrent.

User avatar
armedinpasco
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:38 am
Location: Madison County Alabama

Re: question for leo

Post by armedinpasco » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:00 pm

Thanks for the followup, Brad.
That clears things up some. Possibly looking for a suspect with unknown OUT-OF-STATE plates.
Glad it all worked out in the end!
[smilie=pdt_xtremez_30.gif]
Sean
AKA - The Stig
Abusus non tollit usum!

kilo905
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: question for leo

Post by kilo905 » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:21 pm

BRAD wrote:
When leos run a plate, is there any indication that the owner is a cwp holder?

Different query in Florida. Running a plate gives you the registered owner. Running the registered owner through the CCW database will give you CCW info. Some MDT systems are set up to do it automatically.

If you had been pulled over previously and had a concealed weapon (with permit) Would that be in a note on your record?

Depends on the CAD system the agency uses. Some CADs are set up for the dispatcher to makes notes. Not sure what you mean by "Record". The information would only reside in the local CAD system and come up if your name or tag is run through it again. The information does not go into the state/national information system.

As the passenger, was I obligated to consent to search? To agnowlege my legaly concealed weapon?

Yes you must acknowledge if asked. You never have to consent to anything. That is why they call it "consent". The LEO may search/frisk anyways if he can articulate probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

I have searched and searched and found no laws or info on this.

Statutory law is maybe 20-30% of the actual criminal process. Case law and jury instruction accounts for the majority of the criminal process. Research "Carroll Doctrine" and "Terry Frisk" for more info on your situation.

Any help or input apreciated

LEO not telling someone why they were stopped/detained is a popular complaint.

User avatar
Taco
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2716
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Minneola, Fl

Re: question for leo

Post by Taco » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:31 pm

kilo905 wrote:
BRAD wrote:
As the passenger, was I obligated to consent to search? To agnowlege my legaly concealed weapon?

Yes you must acknowledge if asked. You never have to consent to anything. That is why they call it "consent". The LEO may search/frisk anyways if he can articulate probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

I have searched and searched and found no laws or info on this.

Statutory law is maybe 20-30% of the actual criminal process. Case law and jury instruction accounts for the majority of the criminal process. Research "Carroll Doctrine" and "Terry Frisk" for more info on your situation.

Any help or input apreciated

LEO not telling someone why they were stopped/detained is a popular complaint.
That is not necessarily correct. While in many states, you must offer the information that you are carrying a firearm (see N.C.), in Florida you are not obligated. In this state you still maintain your constitutionally protected rights guaranteed by amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 [Admitedly finding a way to get this situation covered by these amendments is a bit of a stretch].

That said, never lie to the police. Fell free to dodge the question or not answer it at all.

Let's practice:
Do you have any weapons or drugs in the car?

You:
I have nothing illegal in the car officer.

You just left a crack house. Why were you there?

You:
...

Do you know how fast you were going?

You:
Officer, couldn't this line of questioning be used against me in court?

You only had a couple of beers, right?

You:
...


That said, once you acknowledge a weapon, 'officer safety' case law screws many of your freedoms. Check out Gutmachers book, it is covered.

<reference comming if I can find where I tossed it>
EDIT: Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership, 6th Edition, Gutmacher, p. 236 under GETTING STOPPED BY THE POLICE
Last edited by Taco on Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Col. Hans Landa: I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, but rumors, true or false, are often revealing.

glockpacker
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 6610
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:23 pm
Location: Fort Lauderdale

Re: question for leo

Post by glockpacker » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:46 pm

LEO not telling someone why they were stopped/detained is a popular complaint.


The whole concept, in the United States, of having to make that comment, is really pathetic.


YOUR PAPERS!!
Eric
Shooter of 1,000 yards

(Stolen from Moe without permission... because it's true) Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you. John Steinbeck

User avatar
wakkoss
BANNED
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:48 am
Location: Palm Beach County

Re: question for leo

Post by wakkoss » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:31 pm

huh?
NRA Life Member - GOA Life Member
"That guy way-co, or whacko, he's just an a;;h;;e!" "yep...still an a;;h;;e"
Mom says when I grow up, I could be anything I wanted to...so I became an a;;h;;e!

User avatar
False Prophet
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 8093
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: MIAMI

Re: question for leo

Post by False Prophet » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:28 am

kilo905 wrote:
BRAD wrote:
As the passenger, was I obligated to consent to search? To agnowlege my legaly concealed weapon?

Yes you must acknowledge if asked. You never have to consent to anything. That is why they call it "consent". The LEO may search/frisk anyways if he can articulate probable cause/reasonable suspicion.
Taco wrote:That is not necessarily correct. While in many states, you must offer the information that you are carrying a firearm (see N.C.), in Florida you are not obligated. In this state you still maintain your constitutionally protected rights guaranteed by amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 [Admitedly finding a way to get this situation covered by these amendments is a bit of a stretch.
Taco, as Kilo said, you do not have to volunteer the fact that you are carrying concealed but if asked, you must acknowledge that you are. He was absolutely correct.

User avatar
Glades
BANNED
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:45 pm
Location: Pop's Gun Range-Broward

Re: question for leo

Post by Glades » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:40 am

your vehicle is your private property. Just like your home; they need a warrant. Not to be construed as legal advice.

User avatar
Taco
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2716
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Minneola, Fl

Re: question for leo

Post by Taco » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:09 am

False Prophet wrote:
kilo905 wrote:
BRAD wrote:
As the passenger, was I obligated to consent to search? To agnowlege my legaly concealed weapon?

Yes you must acknowledge if asked. You never have to consent to anything. That is why they call it "consent". The LEO may search/frisk anyways if he can articulate probable cause/reasonable suspicion.
Taco wrote:That is not necessarily correct. While in many states, you must offer the information that you are carrying a firearm (see N.C.), in Florida you are not obligated. In this state you still maintain your constitutionally protected rights guaranteed by amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 [Admitedly finding a way to get this situation covered by these amendments is a bit of a stretch.
Taco, as Kilo said, you do not have to volunteer the fact that you are carrying concealed but if asked, you must acknowledge that you are. He was absolutely correct.
Please give me some info related to this, as it seems to be in direct opposition to the cited section in Gutmachers book.
Col. Hans Landa: I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, but rumors, true or false, are often revealing.

User avatar
flashooter22
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 12:40 pm
Location: Palm Beach county

Re: question for leo

Post by flashooter22 » Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:28 am

Glades wrote:your vehicle is your private property. Just like your home; they need a warrant. Not to be construed as legal advice.
You only need a warrant for very specific instances involving vehicles. Google the carroll doctrine.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats - H.L. Mencken

User avatar
False Prophet
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 8093
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: MIAMI

Re: question for leo

Post by False Prophet » Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:19 pm

Taco wrote:
False Prophet wrote:
kilo905 wrote:
BRAD wrote:
As the passenger, was I obligated to consent to search? To agnowlege my legaly concealed weapon?

Yes you must acknowledge if asked. You never have to consent to anything. That is why they call it "consent". The LEO may search/frisk anyways if he can articulate probable cause/reasonable suspicion.
Taco wrote:That is not necessarily correct. While in many states, you must offer the information that you are carrying a firearm (see N.C.), in Florida you are not obligated. In this state you still maintain your constitutionally protected rights guaranteed by amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 [Admitedly finding a way to get this situation covered by these amendments is a bit of a stretch.
Taco, as Kilo said, you do not have to volunteer the fact that you are carrying concealed but if asked, you must acknowledge that you are. He was absolutely correct.
Please give me some info related to this, as it seems to be in direct opposition to the cited section in Gutmachers book.

790.06 The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.


This is a non-criminal offense (with fine) but you run the risk of other ramifications such as a revocation of your license.


Depending on the circumstances surrounding the stop, here's another one that can come into play.


843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.



So, a passenger of a vehicle who interferes with law enforcement’s efforts to conduct an investigation of the driver for example, can be arrested for the offense of Resisting or Obstructing without Violence. A lot of this is discretionary so it very well can vary from case to case.

Bottom line: I just don't think it's a good idea, especially when dealing with a firearm. YMMV [smilie=pdt_xtremez_23.gif]

User avatar
Taco
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2716
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Minneola, Fl

Re: question for leo

Post by Taco » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:03 pm

False Prophet wrote:
790.06 The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer.


This is a non-criminal offense (with fine) but you run the risk of other ramifications such as a revocation of your license.


Depending on the circumstances surrounding the stop, here's another one that can come into play.


843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.



So, a passenger of a vehicle who interferes with law enforcement’s efforts to conduct an investigation of the driver for example, can be arrested for the offense of Resisting or Obstructing without Violence. A lot of this is discretionary so it very well can vary from case to case.

Bottom line: I just don't think it's a good idea, especially when dealing with a firearm. YMMV [smilie=pdt_xtremez_23.gif]
Both are a stretch, but I understand.
:ber

You know me, the question was not what 'I would do', but what is legal [smilie=011.gif]. Beat the rap but not the ride. And yes, Mr. G's legal services are free to himself /:f. Everyone else expect to pay a premium.
Col. Hans Landa: I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, but rumors, true or false, are often revealing.

User avatar
mjmensale
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 9500
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:47 am
Location: Palm Beach County

Re: question for leo

Post by mjmensale » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:02 pm

Taco wrote:Please give me some info related to this, as it seems to be in direct opposition to the cited section [page 236] in Gutmachers book.
False Prophet wrote: FS 790.06 and FS 843.02
Taco wrote:Both are a stretch, but I understand.
You need to read that section again. There's no contradiction or stretching between what Mr. Gutmacher said and the two statutes quoted.
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. Claire Wolfe

Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you. John Steinbeck

If you try to take our firearms, we will kill you. Mike Vanderboegh

User avatar
Taco
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2716
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Minneola, Fl

Re: question for leo

Post by Taco » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:36 pm

mjmensale wrote:
Taco wrote:Please give me some info related to this, as it seems to be in direct opposition to the cited section [page 236] in Gutmachers book.
False Prophet wrote: FS 790.06 and FS 843.02
Taco wrote:Both are a stretch, but I understand.
You need to read that section again. There's no contradiction or stretching between what Mr. Gutmacher said and the two statutes quoted.
790.06 I ask that you re-read the statue. If asked for the licence for the firearm you are asked about carrying, or for your licence in general, you may not withhold it. If you couple it with a standard 'officer safety' frisk, you begin to get somewhere (they have found the gun, see the last paragraph). Once asked for your CCW, give it up. That says nothing about the firearm itself, nor the presence of one.

843.02 is typically used for those who use a false name, or otherwise knowingly obstruct an officer. While you are carrying a CCW, with a licence you are not obstructing simply failing to answer the question. That silly first amendment combined with the fifth says you have the right to speak, but no duty to speak against yourself.

My research has backed myself up, please prove me wrong. I'd prefer to save some cash rather than spend it producing an addition to Gutmacher's book.
Col. Hans Landa: I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, but rumors, true or false, are often revealing.

User avatar
Seawolf
Member
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: Clearwater, Fl.

Re: question for leo

Post by Seawolf » Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:53 pm

Brad,
Keep in mind as you read through these forums you have some dudes in here that talk a lot of talk, but when the blue lights come on it's a whole different ball game.

Hopefully I can help you understand your traffic stop and why he did some of the things he did. First and formost don't read too much into the actions of an LEO on a stop like that because there are a lot of things that happen on a stop that you are unaware of as a civilian.

First and formost your CCW information can be obtained through a license plate check. In the FCIC/NCIC system there are attachments and under those attachments are your CCW permits. When an Officer runs your tag through his computer it will pop up the owners information with Driver's License info. He/She can then run that DL, which will have the CCW permit listed. Now this information is only available to Law Enforcement and not by the generl public even if you chose on your CCW app to keep your info private.

The reason the Officer asked for your firearms and did a patdown is for no other reason than his peace of mind and Officer Safety. When you do as many traffic stops as we do you learn real quick to trust no one and to expect everything. Some may say what the Officer did by holding your weapons until the end of the stop was a violation of your 2nd Amend rights, but there are certain situations where the Officers safety factors in. Our goal is to get you home to your family and get ourselves home to our families safe.
It sounds to me like the Officer did exactly what he was supposed to do and in a professional way.

As far as a search of your vehicle goes you do have the ability to refuse a search, but keep in mind if the Officer has probable cause to go into that vehicle, for example he smells marijuana or can see a pistol grip sticking out from under the seat, he can enter and search your vehicle without a warrant. There is also incident to arrest, but that's something totally different and not related to your situation.

The reason for the stop was probably the tag and I don't recall reading in your thread if the Officer asked your buddy any questions regarding the tag, but here in Florida we have the ability to run tags right from the patrol car. This means anytime a Police Officer is behind you he has the ability to run your tag to see if it's expired,etc. I'm sure he saw the out of state plate, saw that it was past the alloted time allowed to switch over to a FL plate, and made the stop. Once he saw that you guys were CCW holders and armed he then probably ran the serial numbers on your guns while he had them back at his car.

It sounds to me like it was just a average traffic stop and he went through the investigative steps he is supposed to. I know it's no fun being stopped and especially having to give up your guns, but just keep in mind that's not about taking your rights away, but about making sure everyone leaves the stop safe including the Officer.

FYI- Florida DOES NOT require a ccw holder to tell an Officer about his CCW or firearm, but I can tell you from experience that it makes things go a lot smoother and keeps the Officer from thinking you have something to hind if you offer that information right off the bat. Some states do require you to inform the Officer so be aware of that when traveling out of Florida.

Keep in mind guys we are all Sheepdogs here so we are on the same team. 99% of the cops out there support the 2nd Amend and know first hand how important it is for citizens to protect themselves. You will occasionally run into one of these young college trained rookies that thinks because he scored average on his last qual that he is the only one that should be allowed to carry a gun, but try to cooperate and get through that situation the best you can.

Be Safe!
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

User avatar
False Prophet
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 8093
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: MIAMI

Re: question for leo

Post by False Prophet » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:12 pm

Taco wrote:My research has backed myself up, please prove me wrong. I'd prefer to save some cash rather than spend it producing an addition to Gutmacher's book.

Like you said, you may beat the rap but not the ride. If it's that important to you to lie about carrying a firearm, don't be surprised if you have one pissed off LEO making your life impossible instead of sending you on your merry way. I don't play with my safety out on the street because I've been in too many close calls. I've been shot at and I have shot at. I don't give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to safety. Some officers will use the fact that you lied as probable cause to search your car. You can argue that it's an illegal search all you want, but you're still going to sit somewhere for hours.... and I don't know of any judges that would be sympathetic to your cause of risking officer safety just to prove a point.

Here's something else you can do. Try sneaking a FAKE grenade past airport security. When they ask you if you have anything, say "no". It's a fake grenade, right? Nothing illegal there? Let me know how many hours you spend being questioned and sitting in lockup. Then ask yourself, was it worth it?

User avatar
Taco
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2716
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Minneola, Fl

Re: question for leo

Post by Taco » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:19 pm

False Prophet wrote:
Taco wrote:My research has backed myself up, please prove me wrong. I'd prefer to save some cash rather than spend it producing an addition to Gutmacher's book.

Like you said, you may beat the rap but not the ride. If it's that important to you to lie about carrying a firearm, don't be surprised if you have one pissed off LEO making your life impossible instead of sending you on your merry way. I don't play with my safety out on the street because I've been in too many close calls. I've been shot at and I have shot at. I don't give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to safety. Some officers will use the fact that you lied as probable cause to search your car. You can argue that it's an illegal search all you want, but you're still going to sit somewhere for hours.... and I don't know of any judges that would be sympathetic to your cause of risking officer safety just to prove a point.

Here's something else you can do. Try sneaking a FAKE grenade past airport security. When they ask you if you have anything, say "no". It's a fake grenade, right? Nothing illegal there? Let me know how many hours you spend being questioned and sitting in lockup. Then ask yourself, was it worth it?
Good thought, but possession of a fake grenade is still a crime [smilie=011.gif].

My point is you have no duty to volunteer that information, and no duty to answer any questions* you do not wish to. I am not advocating lying to the police. In fact, I'm advocating learning to STFU.


*Some questions you are required to answer, such as name and birth date.
Col. Hans Landa: I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, but rumors, true or false, are often revealing.

Post Reply