View Full Version : LEO question: Police asked for my gun "paperwork?"
I am on way from CA to WI. On my way through NV almost into AZ I get pulled over after being followed for some distance.
The police officer questions me for a while after looking at my regerstration and license- he did not go back to his car to run my I.D. for some reason.
He then asks if I have guns, I say yes. He asks what kind they are say, I say shotguns and AR's. He then asks for "paperwork" for them. I say "uhhh, no..."
He then said "okay," and changed the subject.
Why would he ask that? Is it like a trick question to get me to say "No, my friend has it and lost it.." or something?
What paperwork am I suppose to have for non-NFA items? The recites?
Why would he ask then go no further?
After the questions he says I can go, walks about the distance to my rear wheel, then stops comes back and asks: "Oh yeah, did I tell you why I pulled you over?"
I said no, he said I was driving too slow in the fast lane. I know for a fact my speedometer said 78-80MPH. It was a 75 Interstate.
Does it sound like he thought I was a drug runner? lol
Also, I was on edge from the drive and move, when he pulled me over I was nervous, my voice was shaky too. I did not want another ticket, but I honestly thought I did nothing wrong.
Do Officers on here know how to tell the difference between someone nervous about getting a ticket than someone trying to hide something?
That was the first time I was questioned like that, though he seemed relaxed.
Interesting encounter. I'd like to hear some LEO responses to this post with possible explanations.
Voodoo_Man
09-24-13, 10:02
Papers for guns?
I mean, unless you have some sort of SBR, cans, etc, you don't really need papers other than your carry permit if you are carrying.
He could have just been fishing.
Shaky voice, nervous demeanor, out of state tags, what time of the day was it?
Depending on how you looked to him, that might have just been a rhetorical question to see your response.
How heavy was traffic and how fast was the other traffic moving? I recall hearing something a while back about some states enacting laws whereby you could be pulled over and ticketed for going too slow if you're not keeping up with the flow of traffic, even if you're technically speeding. I know this sounds weird and that's the only reason I remember it. I don't know which, if any states enacted such laws though.
Sounds like he was fishing and just seeing what your response would be. Its common practice. he probably know there is no paperwork but if somebody reacts in a uncommon manner or answer it hits a little bell in your head and tells you to dig further.
I do it all the time at work, 99% of the time its the common answer or he was asking a question he already knows the answer to just to see the reaction.
Pretty standard stuff.
4x4twenty6
09-24-13, 10:38
BIGUGLY is correct.
I do the same thing. If I have to pat some one down or do a search incidental to arrest I will ask if there is anything that will stick me or poke me. Then I will ask if they are hiding any guns, knives, hand grenades, or bombs... Its just a way to gauge some ones response.
If your answers are suspicious and he has half a brain he can justify detaining you and then go from there.
There was not much traffic, the time was around 3-4PM.
I surprised he did not want to search the car or anything. I guess my response about the paperwork sounded like I knew there is no paperwork needed.
I wish I could redo the stop, he caught at me at a bad time.
I guess he knew I was being honest. He could have searched car. I wouldn't care but it would have took an hour again to restuff it with all my crap :D
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-24-13, 11:24
BIGUGLY is correct.
I do the same thing. If I have to pat some one down or do a search incidental to arrest I will ask if there is anything that will stick me or poke me. Then I will ask if they are hiding any guns, knives, hand grenades, or bombs... Its just a way to gauge some ones response.
If your answers are suspicious and he has half a brain he can justify detaining you and then go from there.
I ask the same sort of questions. Got anything sharp on you, any needles knives or anything that might poke me? No? Got any chainsaws or grenades on you today? No? It lightens the mood the for those who really aren't hiding anything and stresses out those that are because they feel like you are continuing to push the issue.
OP, I want to say the LEO that pulled you over was doing the same thing, however some cops just don't know what they don't know. Many of my coworkers do not own a gun, just their agency issued M&P.
Off the subject but what part of WI are you headed to? Is this a permanent move? Hope you brought some warmer clothes along. ;)
Sent via Tapatalk
What paperwork am I suppose to have for non-NFA items?
Bill of Sale would be one example of paperwork you might have, but it is not required.
NCPatrolAR
09-24-13, 11:47
Sounds like you were pulled by an interdiction unit.
Off the subject but what part of WI are you headed to? Is this a permanent move? Hope you brought some warmer clothes along. ;)
Sent via Tapatalk
I'm going to be living in Mildeton.
And what do you mean warmer clothes? I have jeans and sweater for winter? :D
I'm going to be living in Mildeton.
And what do you mean warmer clothes? I have jeans and sweater for winter? :D
Assuming you meant Middleton, that's awfully close to Madison but I guess it's still better than CA. :D
Congrats on your move.
Sent via Tapatalk
Maybe since he saw you were from Kali he assumed you should have some such "paperwork" from the authoritahs there for said weapons? Granted, it wasn't in his jurisdiction even if you WERE required by Kali law to have paperwork....it would be irrelevant in Nevada.
Good luck freezing your ass off! :)
Hey, at least you're out of Kali!
theblackknight
09-24-13, 14:19
YOUR PAPERS,SIR?
sent from mah gun,using my sights
Sounds to me like your rights are under attack if he admitted you did nothing wrong. I don't buy the going to slow bit.
4x4twenty6
09-24-13, 16:12
So a cop asks a few questions and then lets dude go qualifies as his rights being under attack. Wow! A little paranoid are we? Haha
After the questions he says I can go, walks about the distance to my rear wheel, then stops comes back and asks: "Oh yeah, did I tell you why I pulled you over?"
I said no, he said I was driving too slow in the fast lane. I know for a fact my speedometer said 78-80MPH. It was a 75 Interstate.
The officer should be given a raise post haste! I hate all the drivers from CA who hibernate in the fast lane while barely doing the speed limit on I-15 between Vegas & CA! He should've given you a ticket for impeding the passing lane. ;) NRS 484B.627 (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec627) states (b) If the highway has two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the direction in which the driver is traveling, drive in the extreme right-hand lane except when necessary to pass other slowly moving vehicles.
I guess he knew I was being honest. He could have searched car. I wouldn't care but it would have took an hour again to restuff it with all my crap :D
Why could he have searched the car? Would you acquiesce to his request to search the car or are you thinking that a search wouldn't fall under the 4th Amendment because you admitted to having firearms in the vehicle?
Were you stopped in NV? I also fail to see how he could have searched your vehicle unless you allow it.
Also, you are not required to notify law enforcement of firearms when stopped (last I checked) so I don't know why you would have done this.
I have read nothing about giving "papers" to LEO as far as NFA stuff goes.
Only ATF agents can request.
Sme guys ask me if cops ever hassle me about my rifles.....to be honest, the majority of LEOs don't even know what they are in the first place....let alone what paperwork goes along with them.
Edit: I do not think you can be arrested for denying paperwork if asked by LEO.
Here in WA they've been selectively enforcing the same statue requiring drivers to move right except to pass. Hasn't bothered me, just because it's the way I was taught to drive. I believe here they've only been citing for it during heavier traffic times. Just trying to keep slower traffic right, and hopefully improve on our rank of top five for terrible traffic.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 16:45
The officer should be given a raise post haste! I hate all the drivers from CA who hibernate in the fast lane while barely doing the speed limit on I-15 between Vegas & CA! He should've given you a ticket for impeding the passing lane. ;) NRS 484B.627 (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484B.html#NRS484BSec627) states (b) If the highway has two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the direction in which the driver is traveling, drive in the extreme right-hand lane except when necessary to pass other slowly moving vehicles.
Why could he have searched the car? Would you acquiesce to his request to search the car or are you thinking that a search wouldn't fall under the 4th Amendment because you admitted to having firearms in the vehicle?
The passing lane is for people wanting to drive the speed limit and the other lanes are for those wanting to go more slowly for what ever reason. The passing lane is not a license to speed.
Pat
thopkins22
09-24-13, 16:48
If Americans would learn to drive to the right, German style highways could safely happen here. Get in the passing lane to pass, and then get back over.
I'm firmly all for giving tickets to people slowing things down as opposed to half the crap that's shoved down our throats. "Slow it down," "click it or ticket." BS
The only times I feel any rage while driving is when someone is sitting at the speed limit in the passing lane, and when someone won't turn left on red when in situations where it's perfectly freaking legal to do so. Hell I've started turning left on red when it isn't legal and nobody is around, and it's the most liberating thing I've felt in years.
The passing lane is for people wanting to drive the speed limit and the other lanes are for those wanting to go more slowly for what ever reason. The passing lane is not a license to speed.
Pat
Nobody said it's a license to speed, it's a passing lane, not a drive the speed limit lane. And it's because of attitudes like this we have so many ****wads screwing up traffic on our freeways. Get out of the ****ing way.
All the stuck in CONUS, never been out of 'Murica numb nuts who have no clue to drive should go to Deutschland or many other countries where they abide by the rules of the road.
ETA - You also didn't read the NRS I posted, ya know, the law! I'll do it again for clarification: (b) If the highway has two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the direction in which the driver is traveling, drive in the extreme right-hand lane except when necessary to pass other slowly moving vehicles.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:01
Nobody said it's a license to speed, it's a passing lane, not a drive the speed limit lane. And it's because of attitudes like this we have so many ****wads screwing up traffic on our freeways. Get out of the ****ing way.
All the stuck in CONUS, never been out of 'Murica numb nuts who have no clue to drive should go to Deutschland or many other countries where they abide by the rules of the road.
ETA - You also didn't read the NRS I posted, ya know, the law! I'll do it again for clarification: (b) If the highway has two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic traveling in the direction in which the driver is traveling, drive in the extreme right-hand lane except when necessary to pass other slowly moving vehicles.
Again passing is for when you need to go around someone driving less than the speed limit. It depends on state law but generally just because you are passing someone does not give you the right to exceed the speed limit while you are passing them. I do agree that people need to stay out of the passing lane except when passing.
Pat
Again passing is for when you need to go around someone driving less than the speed limit. It depends on state law but generally just because you are passing someone does not give you the right to exceed the speed limit while you are passing them.
Pat
Meh, whatever. Honestly, I care less and will continue to drive the way I always have. Valentine One scanning... Now get out of the fast lane! :D
Again passing is for when you need to go around someone driving less than the speed limit. It depends on state law but generally just because you are passing someone does not give you the right to exceed the speed limit while you are passing them.
Pat
Your right, it doesn't legalize speeding. However, it's a freaking COMMON COURTESY to get out of the way if someone is going faster than you; if they want to speed it's on them, and that person sitting in the passing lane is not the arbiter of the law. I'll take my chances on the speeding ticket, thank you very much, so GTF out of the way and let me go by. Hell, if I'm doing 80 in a 70 and someone comes zooming up behind me, guess what? I move over for them! Pretty simple.
I do agree that people need to stay out of the passing lane except when passing.
Pat
Okay, then we agree on this point.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:10
Your right, it doesn't legalize speeding. However, it's a freaking COMMON COURTESY to get out of the way if someone is going faster than you; if they want to speed it's on them, and that person sitting in the passing lane is not the arbiter of the law. I'll take my chances on the speeding ticket, thank you very much, so GTF out of the way and let me go by. Hell, if I'm doing 80 in a 70 and someone comes zooming up behind me, guess what? I move over for them! Pretty simple.
They should move out of the fast lane and then call you in to the police hot line for speeding and reckless driving depending on how fast you were going. If your going 10 over no big deal but if your going 15 or more you need a ticket.
They should move out of the fast lane and then call you in to the police hot line for speeding and reckless driving depending on how fast you were going. If your going 10 over no big deal but if your going 15 or more you need a ticket.
Yeah, okay. And BTW, good luck proving that. His word against yours. "Why, we exchanged middle fingers 'cause he almost cut me off and he's making this up out of revenge." Prove otherwise.
There was a guy from TOS named Dave_A who some of you may remember. Law and order uber alles.
Jeesh......
Pat - You realize that when Montana had no speed limits their highways were much safer than after they posted limits, right? http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox
Also, Texas and Utah are busting out 85mph zones and increasing speeds. Why you might ask? Let's look at facts, instead of hyperbole, and admit that most speeding tickets are a source of revenue and fishing expeditions for cops, not safety.
After this I'm out... I'm not gonna argue and split hairs over inane bullshit.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:30
Yeah, okay. And BTW, good luck proving that. His word against yours. "Why, we exchanged middle fingers 'cause he almost cut me off and he's making this up out of revenge." Prove otherwise.
There was a guy from TOS named Dave_A who some of you may remember. Law and order uber alles.
Jeesh......
Actually we can write the ticket on their testimony and have them show up to court. Its more for cases of extreme speed/negligent driving. A judge would decide just like if we wrote the ticket.
Pat
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:32
Pat - You realize that when Montana had no speed limits their highways were much safer than after they posted limits, right? http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox
Also, Texas and Utah are busting out 85mph zones and increasing speeds. Why you might ask? Let's look at facts, instead of hyperbole, and admit that most speeding tickets are a source of revenue and fishing expeditions for cops, not safety.
After this I'm out... I'm not gonna argue and split hairs over inane bullshit.
Montana is very sparsely populated and the revenue argument is mostly hyperbola. The only thing we get here when we write a ticket is a $10 sur charge that goes to police training. The reason for speed limits is speed kills. The countries with little or no traffic laws have the most fatalities.
Pat
thopkins22
09-24-13, 17:33
Actually we can write the ticket on their testimony and have them show up to court. Its more for cases of extreme speed/negligent driving. A judge would decide just like if we wrote the ticket.
Pat
A mediocre lawyer would destroy it as hearsay without them showing up(almost zero chance of that most places.) I'm all for calling in if someone is being dangerous/reckless. But at the end of the day it needs to be witnessed and documented.
Honestly I've seen A LOT of actual police officer testimony tossed as hearsay in traffic cases.
Most people simply don't know the system well enough, or they fail to hire an attorney worth his salt.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:42
A mediocre lawyer would destroy it as hearsay without them showing up(almost zero chance of that most places.) I'm all for calling in if someone is being dangerous/reckless. But at the end of the day it needs to be witnessed and documented.
Honestly I've seen A LOT of actual police officer testimony tossed as hearsay in traffic cases.
Most people simply don't know the system well enough, or they fail to hire an attorney worth his salt.
If they have to pay for an attorney in a simple traffic trial then I have already won because an attorney's fee is a lot more than the fine is going to be. As for getting tossed it depends on your reputation with the judge. The judge knows I don't lie and I am fair so I almost always win in traffic trials. Some officers are not as lucky due to past performance.
Actually we can write the ticket on their testimony and have them show up to court. Its more for cases of extreme speed/negligent driving. A judge would decide just like if we wrote the ticket.
Pat
Jury trial. His word against mine. Reasonable doubt. Your testimony would not matter one iota, as you didn't see anything and only wrote what the do-gooder told you.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:49
Jury trial. His word against mine. Reasonable doubt. Your testimony would not matter one iota, as you didn't see anything and only wrote what the do-gooder told you.
I guess it depends on the state but in most I know about you don't get a jury trial for traffic citations. Also in extreme cases there is generally more than one so called do-gooder (real world term is responsible citizen who does not like to see people risking everyone else lives on the road) calling you into the police. Multiple witnesses can get rid of reasonable doubt. Either way at least the irresponsible driver has to pay for an attorney and is inconvenienced so perhaps he won't do it again. The laws are there for a reason follow them that simple.
Pat
I guess it depends on the state but in most I know about you don't get a jury trial for traffic citations. Also in extreme cases there is generally more than one so called do-gooder (real world term is responsible citizen who does not like to see people risking everyone else lives on the road) calling you into the police. Multiple witnesses can get rid of reasonable doubt. Either way at least the irresponsible driver has to pay for an attorney and is inconvenienced so perhaps he won't do it again. The laws are there for a reason follow them that simple.
Pat
Or, even simpler, just get out of the way for someone wanting to pass.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:54
Or, even simpler, just get out of the way for someone wanting to pass.
We already agreed on that. Seems that some here think speeding is ok. We will have to agree to disagree.
Pat
It sounds like an interdiction stop. Maybe the officer needs to work on his delivery a bit. If you did not get searched or cited I would not worry about it.
A few others have posted about driving in the passing lane. The passing lane is for passing. Other than the legalities of being in the passing lane when the right lane is open, there is a safety issue to consider. Most wrong way drivers come at you in the passing lane thinking they are keeping to the right. This is especially true with drunk drivers, people under the influence of drugs and really old people. It seems to occur with greater frequency these days. BTDT.
We already agreed on that. Seems that some here think speeding is ok. We will have to agree to disagree.
Pat
I've had a ticket or two in my day that says it isn't okay. However, it's a calculated risk. You takes your chances! ;)
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 17:59
I've had a ticket or two in my day that says it isn't okay. However, it's a calculated risk. You takes your chances! ;)
It is a risk but the risk is more than just a traffic ticket. The risk is lives. Say your going 90 in a 65 no problem until a deer runs out in front of your car and then your dead. We have moose up here and you always have to watch for them especially at night. If you see a fatality accident or two it might change your mind. I will say however that people going way under the limit are also a big part of the problem. We have mostly 2 lane highways up here and a lot of head on collisions. We get older tourists in motor homes going 45 in a 65 and then we get people backed up behind them getting impatient and they pass when they should not and disaster strikes. We do have a law however if they are holding up more than 5 cars and don't pull off the road to let traffic around them, we can ticket them.
Pat
It is a risk but the risk is more than just a traffic ticket. The risk is lives. Say your going 90 in a 65 no problem until a deer runs out in front of your car and then your dead. We have moose up here and you always have to watch for them especially at night. If you see a fatality accident or two it might change your mind.
Pat
Well, being employed in the healthcare realm for 23+ years I've worked the ER and seen quite a few things (unfortunately).
I keep it to = or < 10mph over as it is *generally* ignored.
BTW, like your edit about the law concerning 5+ cars being held up and not letting them by gets you a ticket. Good! Wish they had that here with all the farm vehicles, especially this time of year with the tobacco harvest in full swing.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 18:07
Well, being employed in the healthcare realm for 23+ years I've worked the ER and seen quite a few things (unfortunately).
I keep it to = or < 10mph over as it is *generally* ignored.
BTW, like your edit about the law concerning 5+ cars being held up and not letting them by gets you a ticket. Good! Wish they had that here with all the farm vehicles, especially this time of year with the tobacco harvest in full swing.
Yea 10 over is fine in my opinion. Sorry did not realize you worked in the ER. You have seen plenty then.
Pat
Pat,
Do you have any facts to back your assertion that countries with the higher speeds have more accidents?
I lived in Germany when there were still very little speed controls and I have been on the Autostrada in Italy.
If I remember there was a study done and the cause of most accidents was due to drivers not paying attention and drivers passing on the right and middle lanes because of other drivers slowing traffic- in other words not following traffic guidelines.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 18:15
Pat,
Do you have any facts to back your assertion that countries with the higher speeds have more accidents?
I lived in Germany when there were still very little speed controls and I have been on the Autostrada in Italy.
If I remember there was a study done and the cause of most accidents was due to drivers not paying attention and drivers passing on the right and middle lanes because of other drivers slowing traffic- in other words not following traffic guidelines.
I do. Germany restricts license until your 18 years old and the testing is a lot harder than in the US. What turned me onto this was watching an episode of top gear in India and they talked about the accidents they have there and how they have almost no laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
http://top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=d59e477c
Gutshot John
09-24-13, 18:15
Having lived and driven in Europe a good bit in my life...
Germans are exceptionally good drivers in my experience, even by American standards (Americans are pretty mediocre). It works because Germans have it beaten into them to obey the rules/conventions of the road/autobahn.
The French, Italians, and Spanish...not so much.
If we had the same driving standards in the U.S. as they do in Germany, a hell of a lot of people would be riding the bus.
Gutshot John
09-24-13, 18:22
If we had the same driving standards in the U.S. as they do in Germany, a hell of a lot of people would be riding the bus.
From your lips...
Probably the short ones.
So a cop asks a few questions and then lets dude go qualifies as his rights being under attack. Wow! A little paranoid are we? Haha
Not the questions, I dislike myself or others being pulled over for fishing expeditions when not breaking laws. I like to see some concrete facts (speeding, light out, etc.) when lit up or its BS.
To the OP,
You probably got lit up for the same reason I did about 12 years ago in TN - that is having CA plates. The excuse used on me was that my passenger side tires touched the white line and I was "a bit close" to the truck in front of me. Yeah, of course I was - soon as the truck driver saw two THP rolling up on us code 1, he hit his brakes, forcing me to do the same.
Honestly, it was worth getting pulled over to see the looks on their faces when this tobacco chewing redneck responded that he was heading to a gun show in Nashville. Definitely not what they expected. Even funnier when my dog (akita/gsd mix) popped his head up from the back seat! Finally, they decided I wasn't running drugs for some Mexican cartel - I had a TN DL, just hadn't changed my truck registration over yet - and I was free to go on my way.
Thanks for the replies everyone.
I did not know that law about the passing lane, I do not recall being a hazard to anyone while I was driving in it.
Also I forgot to add: The Police Officer first saw me go past him while I was in the left lane- he was stopped doing whatever. I switch over to the right lane like 10 seconds after passing the cop or something.
After a few minutes I see the officers vehicle going at least 100 behind me, he slows down then follows me. Now, I guess I was wrong in assuming 80 is okay in a 75, I should have been going 85? Anyway, he then pulled me over and all that ensued.
Also, I said he could have searched my car by saying I was acting suspicious since I was nervous. I do not know what cops go by, I just assumed that.
And, I told him I had guns when asked, because, why not?
Since the Officer did not say anything about me moving to the right line, what should I assume? To go 10 over the limit? That is what I am confused about. I would have understood if he told me to not drive constantly through the left lane, but he said I was going too slow, that I was going "70" when I know, since I was looking at my gauges worried about speeding in front of him, I was going 78-80 most of the time.
Another thing: he almost forgot to tell me why I was pulled over, so the stop was obviously for the questioning.
threeheadeddog
09-24-13, 20:30
Someone mentioned not being required to disclose if you have guns in the car. How do you not tell them when they ask?
An experienced officer can ask three or four questions and determine if asking for consent to search a vehicle would be a waste of time. If a search is not going to be productive, why ask and why intrude on a motorist's day?
I can understand why someone would not want to be stopped. I think that off duty and retired LEO feel more strongly about it than anyone.
Don't take getting stopped personally. Asking questions about the traffic stop is a good thing and airs the issue.
After some reflection, would you rate the traffic stop positive, negative or neutral?
I have read nothing about giving "papers" to LEO as far as NFA stuff goes.
Only ATF agents can request.
Why do you think that?
Seems that some here think speeding is ok. We will have to agree to disagree.
PatIf it wasn't, a speeding LEO, even if they know your personal vehicle, would get stopped and ticketed. But it's not a real crime, so that doesn't usually happen. It doesn't have a direct correlation with driving recklessly and is just a made up offense (like a penalty from the federal gov if you don't buy their buddies' health insurance plans)
NCPatrolAR
09-24-13, 21:53
If Americans would learn to drive to the right, German style highways could safely happen here. Get in the passing lane to pass, and then get back over.
People hang out in all the lanes on the autobahn as well
Assuming you meant Middleton, that's awfully close to Madison but I guess it's still better than CA. :D
Capital Brewery Baby! You'll like it here.
Sounds like a fishing stop. Cop had some obscure/borderline PC for the stop and threw out the "papers" line either b/c you're from Cali, or to see if your response was awkward. When I worked nights, I'd do a lot of speeding stops on the Beltline (you'll find out what that is when you get here). I'd try to ask one question two different ways to see if the responses conflict, ask a question that makes no sense(like sports scores for out of season leagues), or ask a question about where they're coming from (so how was the weather in San Diego?).
I made a lot of stops, and made a lot of good pinches, but not more than others. But because I waited until I had good solid articulable reasons for the stop, I didn't have my cases thrown out or suppressed.
Searching roadside is dicey. This is 4th Amendment 101: consent searches have to be voluntary. Being pulled over, and kept there while an officer (presumably) dutifully works to complete the traffic stop, is a seizure. There have been cases and concerns that, in such a situation, a motorist may not believe that they can refuse, and thus a lawyer might argue that consent might not be given voluntarily. This is very muddy.
Here's a link that goes into a lot of the permutations of the roadside consent search, and how the courts at varying levels might consider them valid or invalid:
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/vehicle_searches.shtml
I have read nothing about giving "papers" to LEO as far as NFA stuff goes.
Only ATF agents can request.
Sme guys ask me if cops ever hassle me about my rifles.....to be honest, the majority of LEOs don't even know what they are in the first place....let alone what paperwork goes along with them.
Edit: I do not think you can be arrested for denying paperwork if asked by LEO.
No, but you can be arrested for possession of an NFA item if you can't produce evidence that you are a lawful possessor.
Can you cite a source for this belief? I'm not calling you out; I'm of a different opinion, as both an LEO and an NFA owner.
My example is Wisconsin specific, but I'm sure most states have some sort of "no sawed-offs" law.
WI State Statute 941.28 (http://docs.legis.wi.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/28) prohibits possession of rifles with barrels shorter than 16". The statute continues, adding that certain parties are exempt, one of them being a person who has complied with the NFA. As its written, your "out" is the ability to show to the investigating entities that you fall into a category of possessor that is lawful. Without you notifying the officer that you are a lawful possessor(because the gun can't do it by itself), what else do they have to go on? Now, this is different from asking the same BS "paperwork" question of all guns, because this gun (<16") is specifically listed as being controlled by state/federal law.
In a case where an officer lawfully comes into contact with you and your NFA item, all that separates you from a Class H felony (around here its like a parking ticket) is the ability of the officer to show that you, the possessor, have complied with NFA. How can we do that? In a case like this, where a particular firearm does actually have paperwork, I'd ask for the paperwork, which would place you in compliance with the state statutes. Burden of proof in this case, is upon you, since you alone have the paperwork that exempts you from my arrest. Whether you want to produce if curbside or at your preliminary hearing is up to you.
This does not mean that the police can do random compliance checks on NFA owners, and it does not mean that you are required to inform an officer pulling you over that you have a firearm in the trunk (let alone an NFA item), at least not here. It also bears mentioning that this only works in cases where the possession of the gun in question is prohibited by statute. At least here, you don't need "papers" for a handgun or an AR, so absent some further suspicion, their legality and ownership aren't in question.
Capital Brewery Baby! You'll like it here.
Sounds like a fishing stop. Cop had some obscure/borderline PC for the stop and threw out the "papers" line either b/c you're from Cali, or to see if your response was awkward. When I worked nights, I'd do a lot of speeding stops on the Beltline (you'll find out what that is when you get here).
I liked Middleton when I was there a month ago, and I vaguely remember what the Beltine was all about- not sure if we drove on it.
I think next year depending how things go I may move to Dane or Waunakee. I really liked both those places as well.
Do you think I will have problems with CA plates driving through WI? I did not last time. But it seems CA plates are an attraction for police to pull you over.
Alaskapopo
09-24-13, 22:39
If it wasn't, a speeding LEO, even if they know your personal vehicle, would get stopped and ticketed. But it's not a real crime, so that doesn't usually happen. It doesn't have a direct correlation with driving recklessly and is just a made up offense (like a penalty from the federal gov if you don't buy their buddies' health insurance plans)
Can you re type that in English. Can't understand what you just posted.
Do you think I will have problems with CA plates driving through WI? I did not last time. But it seems CA plates are an attraction for police to pull you over.
You'll be fine. With UW here, out of state plates aren't that out of place.
Despite the Hippies, this really isn't a bad place to live/work.
It is a risk but the risk is more than just a traffic ticket. The risk is lives. Say your going 90 in a 65 no problem until a deer runs out in front of your car and then your dead. We have moose up here and you always have to watch for them especially at night. If you see a fatality accident or two it might change your mind. I will say however that people going way under the limit are also a big part of the problem. We have mostly 2 lane highways up here and a lot of head on collisions. We get older tourists in motor homes going 45 in a 65 and then we get people backed up behind them getting impatient and they pass when they should not and disaster strikes. We do have a law however if they are holding up more than 5 cars and don't pull off the road to let traffic around them, we can ticket them.
Pat
Speed kills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw).
Alaskapopo
09-25-13, 00:37
Speed kills (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw).
Slanted video. It really does kill. Speed reduced your reaction time and increases the force of impacts exponentially when you are in a collision. Its really not worth getting there 10 minutes sooner just leave a bit earlier and drive the speed limit.
Pat
I am well aware of the laws there since I had a German license. Comparing Germany to India isn't the same. Germany actually has laws. I am still talking about the assertion that high speed alone is the cause for accidents.
I do. Germany restricts license until your 18 years old and the testing is a lot harder than in the US. What turned me onto this was watching an episode of top gear in India and they talked about the accidents they have there and how they have almost no laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
http://top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=d59e477c
Alaskapopo
09-25-13, 00:49
I am well aware of the laws there since I had a German license. Comparing Germany to India isn't the same. Germany actually has laws. I am still talking about the assertion that high speed alone is the cause for accidents.
Speed reduced the time you have to react to something like an animal in the road way or a slower moving vehicle ahead of you in your lane. It greatly increases the fatality rates of accidents. Hitting an object going 20 mph is not the same as hitting it at 50 mph. Much of this is common sense. In a perfect world with cars that have good tires and roads clear of animals and other drivers it would not make much difference but we don't live in a perfect world. I am keenly aware of that during the pursuits I have been on. You need to be paying very close attention to what your doing and that level of alertness needs to be amplified as the speed increases. There is little room for error when your going 100 mph plus. Police pursuit policies have been changed to recognize these facts. We don't chase people nearly as much as we used to because its not worth the risk to the public, ourselves or the offender.
The passing lane is for people wanting to drive the speed limit and the other lanes are for those wanting to go more slowly for what ever reason. The passing lane is not a license to speed.
Pat
Wrong, Pat. (Sorry I someone else responded) People need to keep their asses OUT of the left lane. It's for PASSING; not for "those who wish to do the speed limit".
That's what's wrong about Indiana...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Someone mentioned not being required to disclose if you have guns in the car. How do you not tell them when they ask?
Depends on the State. In Michigan you are required to "immediately" let the officer know.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
You have to read the wording of the law. In some states if you are carrying concealed you must notify right away. In others you must notify when asked. Transport is different. I am not going to tell them and they aren't going to know because I will NEVER give consent to search.
Someone mentioned not being required to disclose if you have guns in the car. How do you not tell them when they ask?
platoonDaddy
09-25-13, 07:03
Transport is different. I am not going to tell them and they aren't going to know because I will NEVER give consent to search.
If you are transporting and they ask, what is your reply?
This was a pet peeve of mine while I was still working.
The passing lane is for passing. If you are not passing, you should not be in the passing lane.
I have read nothing about giving "papers" to LEO as far as NFA stuff goes.
Only ATF agents can request.
Sme guys ask me if cops ever hassle me about my rifles.....to be honest, the majority of LEOs don't even know what they are in the first place....let alone what paperwork goes along with them.
Edit: I do not think you can be arrested for denying paperwork if asked by LEO.
I don't think that's universally true. It is true that state-level cops can't really enforce federal law, but some states have statutes that require that Title II weapons, including suppressors, be registered and stamped by NFA before they're legal in that state. That puts NFA weapons in the purview of LEO.
I agree that the VAST majority of LEO don't have a clue about NFA weapons. Your SBR would have to be REALLY short before your average cop would notice.
Alaskapopo
09-25-13, 12:05
Wrong, Pat. (Sorry I someone else responded) People need to keep their asses OUT of the left lane. It's for PASSING; not for "those who wish to do the speed limit".
That's what's wrong about Indiana...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
NO YOU'RE WRONG. The left lane is not a license to speed!
Pat
If you are transporting and they ask, what is your reply?
"Why, do you need to borrow one?". :D
If I am transporting (i.e.- moving or going to a class) and I am stopped and asked I say no. Unless that state specifically has some law that says otherwise. For the most part I don't play 20 questions with the police. If they ask for a license and what not they will get it.
If they start fishing I pretty much tell them I have nothing to say. I also don't volunteer information. If I am in a state and 100% legal to have CCW or in vehicle and I am lazy (gun is on other seat in plain view) I simply tell them I have my pistol on the seat and that's it.
Strangely enough an associate of mine was just arrested in Texas and charged with possessing an unlawful weapon (suppressed M4) in none other than Austin. The officer was working off-duty and refused to look at his paperwork. He was completely clueless about what Title II meant or anything else.
After he wins his lawsuit against the city and the officer for false arrest I will travel to Texas and party like a rock star.
If you are transporting and they ask, what is your reply?
You are correct. In Arizona for example we pretty much default to the federal laws. So if an officer stops you and was to find you with an SBR or suppressor you would have to show an approved Form 1 or 4 or you would face charges.
I don't think that's universally true. It is true that state-level cops can't really enforce federal law, but some states have statutes that require that Title II weapons, including suppressors, be registered and stamped by NFA before they're legal in that state. That puts NFA weapons in the purview of LEO.
I agree that the VAST majority of LEO don't have a clue about NFA weapons. Your SBR would have to be REALLY short before your average cop would notice.
Strangely enough an associate of mine was just arrested in Texas and charged with possessing an unlawful weapon (suppressed M4) in none other than Austin. The officer was working off-duty and refused to look at his paperwork. He was completely clueless about what Title II meant or anything else.
After he wins his lawsuit against the city and the officer for false arrest I will travel to Texas and party like a rock star.
If anything about this hits the news, can you let us know? I'd like to put something together for my coworkers, and having an actual case to cite would go a long way.
Good luck to your buddy.
I believe it did already. Some news outlet in San Antonio.
If anything about this hits the news, can you let us know? I'd like to put something together for my coworkers, and having an actual case to cite would go a long way.
Good luck to your buddy.
Strangely enough an associate of mine was just arrested in Texas and charged with possessing an unlawful weapon (suppressed M4) in none other than Austin. The officer was working off-duty and refused to look at his paperwork. He was completely clueless about what Title II meant or anything else.
After he wins his lawsuit against the city and the officer for false arrest I will travel to Texas and party like a rock star.
OT: Maybe someone was already partying like a rock star? http://www.kvue.com/news/San-Antonio-man-arrested-at-Omni-Hotel-with-AR-15-224929202.html
NO YOU'RE WRONG. The left lane is not a license to speed!
Pat
Isn't 'speeding' relative.....LINK (http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/lift_the_cap_on_michigan_speed.html)
"There's a misconception that the faster the speed limit, the more dangerous the road, and that's not necessarily true," said MDOT spokesman Rob Morosi. "Speed limits are most effective when the majority of people driving are comfortable at that speed."
LINK (http://autos.aol.com/article/higher-speed-limit-safer/)
Will higher speed limits make us less safe? After New York raised the limit on its highway traffic to 65 mph in 1995, the state's total crash rate dropped by 4 percent. In 2000, the Automobile Club of Southern California determined that higher speed limits in that state did not increase the rate of statewide accidents over a period of five years. Additionally, traffic fatalities as a percentage of miles traveled dropped sharply after the repeal of the 55 mph rule.
I don't think that's universally true. It is true that state-level cops can't really enforce federal law, but some states have statutes that require that Title II weapons, including suppressors, be registered and stamped by NFA before they're legal in that state. That puts NFA weapons in the purview of LEO.
I agree that the VAST majority of LEO don't have a clue about NFA weapons. Your SBR would have to be REALLY short before your average cop would notice.
Sure thing. And I agree.
I am not sure about some states, besides the obvious ones, whether NFA is prohibited. I need to research more.
Also, I don't want to come across like "that guy".....giving a hard time to LEO and not complying whether he has grounds to ask for paperwork. I would have zero problems letting a cop see my papers
The story is completely untrue and they are also going to be getting some paperwork as well.
OT: Maybe someone was already partying like a rock star? http://www.kvue.com/news/San-Antonio-man-arrested-at-Omni-Hotel-with-AR-15-224929202.html
The story is completely untrue and they are also going to be getting some paperwork as well.
Certainly doesn't sound right in any way. "Dur, I'm drunker than hell, I think I'll hand my suppressed M4 to a cop!"
This was a pet peeve of mine while I was still working.
The passing lane is for passing. If you are not passing, you should not be in the passing lane.
Agreed.
Without getting too deep, he was a guest there and was checking into another room when the officer engaged him in "conversation".
Certainly doesn't sound right in any way. "Dur, I'm drunker than hell, I think I'll hand my suppressed M4 to a cop!"
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.