Should I declare I have concealed weapon when pulled over by an officer?

[Mr. Habib]

It doesn't have to make sense, it's the law.

 

[CathyInBlue]

It doesn't have to make sense, it's the law.

^^^ THIS!!!

It is weird, but once you're arrested (which can't happen for a simple infraction), you have no right to remain silent WRT your identity when being booked into jail. The 5th Am right to remain silent does not extend to "pedigree" info, according to SCOTUS, so for an arrestable offense, misd/fel, they'll get your ID anyway. No point in making it an issue in the field.

 

[Trigger Time]

No.

 

[Boost Lee]

Where do I get my Indiana Concealed Carry Permit?




And no, once again, for clarification.

 

[figley]

Every time this comes up, I vote for screaming "I HAVE A GUN!!!11" , so that the officer gets the message loud & clear.

 

[9mmfan]

Read this https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...mporarily_confiscated_to_check_if_stolen.html then decide.

 

[SmithGuy]

Since no one else yet has mentioned it.... Welcome SmithGuy to the site and good question to ask! You'll get lots of information here.. some that you don't even ask for..

Keep the good questions and education going!

Thanks, Kev! So far I really like the site.

 

[fw501]

No. You don't even have to talk to them. If they ask you if you know why they pulled you over, shrug

People who do that with me automatically get a ticket. Be honest and own it and you'll be better off. When we call the plate in your LTCH shows up on the computer screen in the car, we already know! Be honest and polite and it won't be a totally unpleasant experience.

 

[Bunnykid68]

People who do that with me automatically get a ticket. Be honest and own it and you'll be better off. When we call the plate in your LTCH shows up on the computer screen in the car, we already know! Be honest and polite and it won't be a totally unpleasant experience.

Now you are assuming they are driving their own vehicle.

 

[fw501]

Yeah, whatever. Trying to help. People who want to act like that they deserve what they get.

 

[ATM]

People who do that with me automatically get a ticket. Be honest and own it and you'll be better off. When we call the plate in your LTCH shows up on the computer screen in the car, we already know! Be honest and polite and it won't be a totally unpleasant experience.

Not sure exactly how remaining silent could be construed as being impolite or dishonest. Please elaborate.

As far as the ticket goes, get to it, I have places to be.

And... regardless of knowing my status as an LTCH holder, you still don't get to know if I have any actual firearms in the vehicle, but you're welcome to assume that I have a few.

Yeah, whatever. Trying to help. People who want to act like that they deserve what they get.

Depends on if you stop at the mere ticket they deserve or if you're the type to try building up something bigger just because the subject was not submissive enough.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Yeah, whatever. Trying to help. People who want to act like that they deserve what they get.

If you're talking about not being subjected to an illegal search, not having their lawfully owned property seized without a warrant, and not having their lives put in danger by having a loaded firearm pointed at them, then yeah, you're right, they are getting what they deserve.

 

[Scutter01]

Not sure exactly how remaining silent could be construed as being impolite or dishonest. Please elaborate.

What he's trying to say is if you don't voluntarily give up your rights and immediately spill your guts, you get a ticket for contempt of cop.

 

[Bunnykid68]

What he's trying to say is if you don't voluntarily give up your rights and immediately spill your guts, you get a ticket for contempt of cop.

That is kinda how I read his statement as well. Play ball or else.....

 

[Fedempl]

People who do that with me automatically get a ticket. Be honest and own it and you'll be better off. When we call the plate in your LTCH shows up on the computer screen in the car, we already know! Be honest and polite and it won't be a totally unpleasant experience.

So, since the car is registered to me, if my wife gets pulled over and she answers no weapons in the car, you are going to write her a ticket just because you assume she is lying to you.

Be honest you say. But that works both ways. I forgot, it's ok for a cop to lie to the public, but don't lie to a cop then you go to jail or get a ticket.

Really? Not totally unpleasant, how about you letting me pull you over, reach over your passenger (son, daughter or wife), disarm you, sweep them with a loaded weapon, and clear the weapon on the floor of the vehicle by the passengers feet. All under guise of "officer safety" and to ensure the weapon the isn't stolen. (Not to mention the possibility of being shot BY YOUR OWN WEAPON during this due to an accidential or neglegent discharge by the LEO)

There are times I just do not understand the logic LEO's use.

 

[Bill of Rights]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, you're adorable.

http://youtu.be/kassP7zI0qc

In fairness, Scutter, he was specifically referring to Michigan...

So, can someone answer the question about is it illegal to lie to the police about the status of a weapon in the vehicle? As I said during a Terry stop one must identify themselves truthfully or it is illegal. BUT, what is the legalities of lying about the presence of a firearm?

Gunner

I thought I knew the answer to this. I was evidently mistaken. It does not come under Obstruction of Justice, False Reporting, or Perjury statutes, so under which statute is it unlawful to lie about this? (Immoral, perhaps, in that lying is such, in and of itself, but I question where in the IC it is unlawful to do so.)

So, If I litter in front of a police officer which is an infraction I am required to identify myself, but if I commit a murder in front of a police officer, I am under no legal obligation to identify myself... Wierd.

Gunner

Yep. They won't be arresting you for an infraction or ordinance violation. For a criminal act, they can and possibly/probably will, and thus, your identity will be confirmed eventually. That's the only sense I can make of it.

Every time this comes up, I vote for screaming "I HAVE A GUN!!!11" , so that the officer gets the message loud & clear.

Do you scream the "11" also? What if you scream, "I HAVE A GUN!!!1!!!!!eleventy!!!!1"?

People who do that with me automatically get a ticket. Be honest and own it and you'll be better off. When we call the plate in your LTCH shows up on the computer screen in the car, we already know! Be honest and polite and it won't be a totally unpleasant experience.

If I've earned the citation, issue it. No, I don't want to be cited, have to pay money, and have my insurance rates go up, but I make that choice by speeding, not by not answering fool questions that have nothing to do with the reason you stopped me. I'm about the farthest thing from anti-LEO you'll find on this site, but at the same time, I agree with Scutter: the violation you write on the citation may be excessive speed, but the crime you're punishing is "contempt of cop". If I'm ever pulled over in your area, I will make sure that I know your identity and that this post comes out in court. A quick glance at your posts tells me your first name and city, (which your screen name backs up) and you've posted your birthday in your profile. I don't even have to be a mod to use that info to figure out who you are.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Scutter01]

In fairness, Scutter, he was specifically referring to Michigan...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize insane cops were limited to Ohio only. I retract my statement and wholeheartedly endorse immediately spilling your guts to any non-Ohio cop who stops you.

If I've earned the citation, issue it. No, I don't want to be cited, have to pay money, and have my insurance rates go up, but I make that choice by speeding, not by not answering fool questions that have nothing to do with the reason you stopped me.

What if you weren't speeding? What if he decides that maybe you're driving drunk and he just needs some excuse to pull you over to find out? That happened to me several weeks ago. I was accused of making an illegal turn at an intersection that I hadn't passed through, but not until after he completed his DUI fishing expedition (I hadn't been drinking, but my crime was being on the road past 8PM on a Friday). What choice did I make? Either accept a bogus ticket on a trumped-up charge or voluntarily give up my Rights. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me. I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with Contempt of Cop tickets. That's not justice and it's not safety. It's just ego-fueled vengeance and the officer who does it should be out of a job.

 

[random_eyes]

I received a 'contempt of cop' ticket back in January and it was dismissed in a bench trial a few weeks back because the officer did not appear in court. I had photographic evidence that my vehicle was visible from 750 feet away and thus I didn't believe myself to be in violation of IC 9-21-8-22.

I stopped answering questions after foolishly falling for a couple "Can I search your vehicle" (no) "Are there drugs in the vehicle" (no) but finally "If I bring a K9 unit will it indicate positively for drugs" to which I replied "I am finished answering your questions"

I asked him "Are you going to give me a ticket or what?" and he replied to the effect of "it depends how you answer my questions" but I adamantly refused to answer.

Until, he turned away, with a parting shot of "Are there any weapons in the vehicle?" I looked at him for a while, then deadpan "You know... I don't know" and he made me exit the vehicle and lean against my bumper while he worked on paperwork and perhaps played a game or two of solitaire. I smiled at him the whole time.

After dismissal, I went to police headquarters and asked to speak with a shift supervisor. I explained that I did not wish to issue a complaint against the officer, but I disagreed with the policy that permitted these fishing trips. The officer I spoke with defended the policy but told me that his teenage son has been advised to never speak to a police officer unless dad is present.

The discussion with the shift supervisor was pleasant and I was appreciative that he was willing to spend 20 minutes or more discussing my concerns.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize insane cops were limited to Ohio only. I retract my statement and wholeheartedly endorse immediately spilling your guts to any non-Ohio cop who stops you.

Fair point. I still say the cops he was specifically talking about were in Michigan, but that does nothing to diminish your point as well.

What if you weren't speeding? What if he decides that maybe you're driving drunk and he just needs some excuse to pull you over to find out? That happened to me several weeks ago. I was accused of making an illegal turn at an intersection that I hadn't passed through, but not until after he completed his DUI fishing expedition (I hadn't been drinking, but my crime was being on the road past 8PM on a Friday). What choice did I make? Either accept a bogus ticket on a trumped-up charge or voluntarily give up my Rights. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me. I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with Contempt of Cop tickets. That's not justice and it's not safety. It's just ego-fueled vengeance and the officer who does it should be out of a job.

I don't know what they had you do (SFSTs, blow in the little plastic straw, whatever) but on the DUI, I can fight that easily. (It helps that I don't drink alcohol at all.) The supposed illegal turn is a little tougher, and is the biggest problem I have with the presumption of truth given to LEOs. I don't know how I'd fight that one. And yes, I see your point about the contempt of cop ticket, which is why I agreed with you. I guess it's a little naive to think that a LEO would only pull you over for something you actually did. So far, that's been my experience.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fedempl]

I received a 'contempt of cop' ticket back in January and it was dismissed in a bench trial a few weeks back because the officer did not appear in court. I had photographic evidence that my vehicle was visible from 750 feet away and thus I didn't believe myself to be in violation of IC 9-21-8-22.

I stopped answering questions after foolishly falling for a couple "Can I search your vehicle" (no) "Are there drugs in the vehicle" (no) but finally "If I bring a K9 unit will it indicate positively for drugs" to which I replied "I am finished answering your questions"

I asked him "Are you going to give me a ticket or what?" and he replied to the effect of "it depends how you answer my questions" but I adamantly refused to answer.

Until, he turned away, with a parting shot of "Are there any weapons in the vehicle?" I looked at him for a while, then deadpan "You know... I don't know" and he made me exit the vehicle and lean against my bumper while he worked on paperwork and perhaps played a game or two of solitaire. I smiled at him the whole time.

After dismissal, I went to police headquarters and asked to speak with a shift supervisor. I explained that I did not wish to issue a complaint against the officer, but I disagreed with the policy that permitted these fishing trips. The officer I spoke with defended the policy but told me that his teenage son has been advised to never speak to a police officer unless dad is present.

The discussion with the shift supervisor was pleasant and I was appreciative that he was willing to spend 20 minutes or more discussing my concerns.

From the Indiana Court of Appeals, Lockett v. Indiana, 1999,

Prior to making an inquiry about the presence of weapons the officer must: 1) either be warranted in believing that his safety was threatened; or 2) the question must reasonably relate to the basis for the traffic stop, such as may be the case after stopping a suspected armed burglar or bank robber. When an officer's safety is not at risk, then an officer may not as a matter of routine practice inquire about the presence of weapons. The police do not have a right to inquire about the presence of weapons without some reasonable and articulable basis for the question.

Also, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.

Under IC 35-47-14-1, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual; or
(2) the individual may present a risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual in the future and the individual:
(A) has a mental illness (as defined in IC 12-7-2-130) that may be controlled by medication, and has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual's medication while not under supervision; or
(B) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.
(b) The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual is dangerous for the purposes of this chapter.