I met with the BC Internal Affairs officer yesterday. Lenghty meeting. He was told by the city attorney to investigate this. He has determined that BC police will in all probability continue to stop anyone on a motorcycle that is OC. because that's the way the city attorney interprets it and they take her ruling on how they do police business. But..........what they did during the stop was wrong and he agreed with me that it shouldn't have lasted 45 minutes and involved 6 police officers. He indicated it will get straightened out when he talks to the officers this week and will be sending me a letter as to what is going to happen over this. Once they pulled me over and asked for my CPL that should have been the end of it. Instead, they chose to engage me in rhetoric that was uncalled for and demeaning. That in itself is not violating any sort of policy. To me that's bull***t. Show some respect for the people you stop. So, I guess my position on this is that next time they pull me over I'll refuse to show my CPL and see what they do. If they arrest me we'll have to do battle in a court room. I DO NOT believe you should get stopped on a motorcycle for OC when your firearm is in plain sight. The law is very clear to me. The law states 'IN' a vehicle, not 'ON' a vehicle. I know this is a gray area and has been kicked around forever. It needs to get addressed now.
"lasted 45 minutes"....therein lies the crux of the issue. The officers easily could have checked and verified that you have a CPL, thereby dispelling their belief that you were violating their interpretation of the law.
In fact, MCL28.425c specifically authorizes a CPL holder to carry "unconcealed" (openly) in a motor vehicle:
MCL 28.425c
License; form; authorized conduct.
Sec. 5c.
(2) Subject to section 5o and except as otherwise provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol
issued by the county concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee to do all of the following:
(a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person anywhere in this state.
(
b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed, anywhere in this state.As stated in Terry v. Ohio,: "The scope of the search must be strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible." 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 19, quoting Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 387 U. S. 310 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring). The reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment requires no less when the police action is a seizure permitted on less than probable cause because of legitimate law enforcement interests. The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.
The predicate permitting seizures on suspicion short of probable cause is that law enforcement interests warrant a
limited intrusion on the personal security of the suspect. The scope of the intrusion permitted will vary to some extent with the particular facts and circumstances of each case. This much, however, is clear:
an investigative detention must be temporary, and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time. See, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 422 U. S. 881-882; Adams v. Williams, supra, at 407 U. S. 146.
Therefore, the Investigative stop, IMHO, was in actuality an illegal "arrest"--- I would definitely at least inform the PD that you are considering legal action.
