GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-04-2012, 14:05   #1
righteoushoot
Deluxe Member
 
righteoushoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Not New York (N.E. OH)
Posts: 999
Duty to Inform - Sobriety Checkpoint?

Here in Ohio we have a duty to inform the LEO if pulled over. The assumption is usually that you got pulled over for some infraction, real or perceived. Also, your auto reg. is tied to your CCW status.

I can't remember the topic coming up if you are required to inform if you are pulled over at one of those dragnet/sobriety check points where everyone going through a particular intersection is stopped and "questioned".

Does anyone know if you have a duty to inform in this situation being that you presumably did nothing wrong prior to getting pulled over? I am asking about what is legal, not necessarily what is "prudent" or polite.

(For the sake of my question, I am assuming you are SOBER, and did not break any traffic laws prior to checkpoint.)
__________________
"Common Sense" gun laws
Won't somebody please think of the children!

"Dear Lord, please grant me the ability to punch people in the face over the internet." - Child's Prayer
righteoushoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 14:16   #2
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
in OH, you must inform the officer of your CCW status immediately at the checkpoint. ianal but i think i have a pretty good idea on this one.

start from there, someone from OH will chime in shortly.

Last edited by kensteele; 03-04-2012 at 14:17..
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 14:50   #3
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,304
Check the OH statutes, post them if possible. I think its a poor gamble to make.

If they can get your status via tags, I'd disclose. What's the downside? If you think there's a loophole because they don't stop you specifically for a specific reason, and they get the info on your tags, there's some very specific penalties should they choose to pursue them if you are wrong.

Even if you are right, what's the harm in disclosing? What's the potential payoff for the risk you're taking? Nothing comes to mind.

Rather risk being deprived of the weapon for a few minutes? How long would you be deprived of the weapon while in public if they revoke your permit?

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 15:01   #4
Fragman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 533
If you want a purely legal answer, you probably answered your question with your first sentence. The duty to inform us not related to the infraction, but the LEO interaction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by Fragman; 03-04-2012 at 15:02..
Fragman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 15:06   #5
righteoushoot
Deluxe Member
 
righteoushoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Not New York (N.E. OH)
Posts: 999
When in doubt, I take the tact of erring on the side of caution. I do not want to imply I was suggesting being a hard case and picking a legal argument with the LEO.

This would not be my personal strategy nor would I advocate it for others.

As far as the tags, I don't think they run your plates at the type of checkpoint I'm talking about, but then again it has been many many years since I have personally had any experience with one.

That's why I asked if anyone knew what was legally required, not necessarily what was "PRUDENT". I agree it's not worth the risk to me.

Quite frankly, even if I knew I did not have to inform in this specific type of interaction, I still would "choose" to inform. But I still want to know what's legal. Suppose for the sake of argument, you forget to inform. Bam! You're in trouble.
__________________
"Common Sense" gun laws
Won't somebody please think of the children!

"Dear Lord, please grant me the ability to punch people in the face over the internet." - Child's Prayer
righteoushoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 15:20   #6
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragman View Post
If you want a purely legal answer, you probably answered your question with your first sentence. The duty to inform us not related to the infraction, but the LEO interaction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thats why I wanted to see the actual OH statute. I think MI has "official contact" as the point you must inform. You could hear official contact in the CPL class and think "pulled over" as the only contact you can think of and miss the actual meaning... Just being thorough, I like to doublecheck when legal jeopardy is involved... just in case.

For me, I'm not taking any chances... "ring... ring"... "911, what's the nature of your emergency?" "well, first I have to disclose that I am a CPL holder and am currently armed... "

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 03-04-2012 at 15:21..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 15:23   #7
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by righteoushoot View Post
When in doubt, I take the tact of erring on the side of caution. I do not want to imply I was suggesting being a hard case and picking a legal argument with the LEO.

This would not be my personal strategy nor would I advocate it for others.
My policy too, just that some on the boards have seemed to be doing exactly what you're suggesting they avoid doing. Wasn't completely clear where you were on that spectrum from your post, to me at least.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 15:56   #8
righteoushoot
Deluxe Member
 
righteoushoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Not New York (N.E. OH)
Posts: 999
The CCW Handbook says: "If a person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun as a CCW licensee, whether in a motor vehicle or not, he shall inform the law enforcement officer that he is carrying a concealed handgun."

I suppose that's general enough to cover all their bases. Although I remember just the other day a thread with the video of a gentleman refusing to answer the sobriety question. He was clearly sober, and when pressed , the female supervisor let him go after her failed attempt to cajole a response. (I don't remember the state.)

So, if you are not being held, and if you are free to go, and if you do not have to answer their questions, are you being "stopped"? I would think flooring the gas to get away from the checkpoint would be probable cause, but that's not what I'm asking.

"Official Contact", "law enforcement purpose" can be fairly broad.
__________________
"Common Sense" gun laws
Won't somebody please think of the children!

"Dear Lord, please grant me the ability to punch people in the face over the internet." - Child's Prayer
righteoushoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 16:48   #9
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by righteoushoot View Post
The CCW Handbook says: "If a person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun as a CCW licensee, whether in a motor vehicle or not, he shall inform the law enforcement officer that he is carrying a concealed handgun."

I suppose that's general enough to cover all their bases. Although I remember just the other day a thread with the video of a gentleman refusing to answer the sobriety question. He was clearly sober, and when pressed , the female supervisor let him go after her failed attempt to cajole a response. (I don't remember the state.)

So, if you are not being held, and if you are free to go, and if you do not have to answer their questions, are you being "stopped"? I would think flooring the gas to get away from the checkpoint would be probable cause, but that's not what I'm asking.

"Official Contact", "law enforcement purpose" can be fairly broad.
I'm guessing they're a little vague on purpose to avoid accidentally creating loopholes... they want it to cover more situations rather than less.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 17:22   #10
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Unless compelled by law (which is basically the discussion here), I wouldn't disclose firearms at a sobriety checkpoint. The officers are looking for drunk drivers, if you're not drunk, why start a different discussion. Officers frequently describe the checkpoint as catching all kinds of other violations and infractions so if you're not a criminal, you should go thru in a matter of seconds. I don't drink, at all, I don't know how they know this but the last checkpoint I went thru, "have you had anything to drink tonight" "Nope" and off you go....in seconds. That's what happened to me, not sure why I would say "Nope but I do have a permit [here you go] and my firearms with me...."
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 18:01   #11
HarleyGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,078
In Michigan, if you are pulled over by an officer, you and everyone in the vehicle is "stopped" and everyone who has a CPL is required to "promptly notify" the officer that they are carrying.
I'm not advocating "I have a gun", or "we all have guns"

Anytime and officer says "I want to talk to you" I'd call that a stop unless he likes your motorcycleand just wants to shoot the breeze with you.

Risking losing your CPL just because you don't want the officer to know that you're armed ain't smart in my book.
HarleyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 18:10   #12
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyGuy View Post
In Michigan, if you are pulled over by an officer, you and everyone in the vehicle is "stopped" and everyone who has a CPL is required to "promptly notify" the officer that they are carrying.
I'm not advocating "I have a gun", or "we all have guns"

Anytime and officer says "I want to talk to you" I'd call that a stop unless he likes your motorcycleand just wants to shoot the breeze with you.

Risking losing your CPL just because you don't want the officer to know that you're armed ain't smart in my book.
This is quite interesting. No charges over gun in voting booth
MI has some strange laws.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1406095

__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 23:44   #13
drew4691
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West-Central, OH
Posts: 1,916
a dui checkpoint is stopping you, so i'd say tell them immediately.
drew4691 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 01:25   #14
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 9,087
In Ohio, any time your carrying and have any kind of official interaction with LE, you must notify.

I hope this changes in the near future. I hate this law.
__________________
[B]When you finish speaking, don't forget to wipe.[/B]
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 06:38   #15
cloudbuster
Senior Member
 
cloudbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,296
The first respondent and several others who agree with him and post the relevant line from the concealed carry handbook are correct. This isn't even negotiable. The language is very clear. You don't need to be suspected of wrong-doing, or detained, etc. There are no mitigating circumstances. "Law enforcement purpose" effectively covers any official contact with a police officer. You better be darn sure it's just casual conversation (like casual conversation when you're both leaning against the counter at a gun store), before you decide not to notify.

I also agree with the previous poster that I wish this would get repealed. Like the vehicle notification rules, it's ridiculous, unnecessary and doesn't enhance anyone's safety. It's one of the few remaining "gotcha" provisions of the Ohio CCW law that has yet to be repealed.

I admit, though, I've been really impressed with the legislature overall. In successive modifications in the 8 or so years since the law passed, the law has been greatly improved and liberalized with each modification. It really stands out as a justification for those who were on the side of "support an imperfect law, because it gets us a big foot in the door" as opposed to the purists who wanted to get the law absolutely perfect on the first pass.
__________________
"A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all." -- Justice Antonin Scalia, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, June 26, 2008
cloudbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 06:40   #16
cloudbuster
Senior Member
 
cloudbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,296
... double post ...
__________________
"A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all." -- Justice Antonin Scalia, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, June 26, 2008

Last edited by cloudbuster; 03-05-2012 at 06:41.. Reason: double post
cloudbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 09:32   #17
fuzzy03cls
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,744
More interesting question... Is this "checkpoint" legal? Some think it's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Last edited by fuzzy03cls; 03-05-2012 at 09:33..
fuzzy03cls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 09:35   #18
cloudbuster
Senior Member
 
cloudbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy03cls View Post
More interesting question... Is this "checkpoint" legal? Some think it's a violation of the 4th amendment.
That's a topic for the Civil Liberties forum, I think, but my take is:

A) They are obviously unconstitutional

B) The Supreme Court has ruled that they are constitutional.
__________________
"A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all." -- Justice Antonin Scalia, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, June 26, 2008

Last edited by cloudbuster; 03-05-2012 at 09:37..
cloudbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 11:57   #19
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,212
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudbuster View Post
That's a topic for the Civil Liberties forum, I think, but my take is:

A) They are obviously unconstitutional

B) The Supreme Court has ruled that they are constitutional.
There is one there...http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1388886
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2012, 12:47   #20
righteoushoot
Deluxe Member
 
righteoushoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Not New York (N.E. OH)
Posts: 999
Thanks Russ.
__________________
"Common Sense" gun laws
Won't somebody please think of the children!

"Dear Lord, please grant me the ability to punch people in the face over the internet." - Child's Prayer
righteoushoot is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 835
239 Members
596 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42