brief novi pd encounter

[kryptonian]

stopping at my usual gas station for donuts and monster energy on my way to work.  novi police unit parked in front and officer is helping a woman who locked her keys in her car at the pump. on my way back out i open my driver door and see the officer heading towards his unit 2 spots down from me. i get in and see him veer from his car towards my passenger side door. i motion that it is unlocked and open it. he does and asks
NPD - "are you just getting off duty?"
me - "no. just open carry"
NPD - "well you're in your car now so it's now considered concealed and i need you to get out please"
me - (getting out) "I have a CPL and i know you need one to open carry in a vehicle"
NPD - "oh. you didn't say CPL just open carry. since it was concealed can i see you CPL? you have to have a CPL to open carry in your car you know"
me - (handing him my CPL) "yes i do know. i know the law...WELL"
NPD - "just checking and make sure you do know that you need a CPL to open carry in a vehicle"
me - "yes. i know the law...WELL. thanks."
NPD - (handed it back) "ok. have a good day. bye"
this conversation was paraphrased and total time was about 1 minute. i can already predict the comments. probably should have said OC WITH A CPL. why let him open your door?
i thought my comment "i know you need a CPL..." established i knew the law and twice said "i know the law..WELL". not sure to class this one as positive or negative.
2 notable incidents at same 7-11 near my house. stopped on my way home and noticed when i got out an oakland co. deputy unit in lot. went in deputy standing in an aisle meandering never leaving. i entered, got my drink, paid and left. he never noticed and even made eye contact and a nod.
this past weekend stopped again 2 walled lake units 3 officers inside. while walking up to door all 3 ran out  (thought it was for me) but all jumped in cars and took off lights and sirens. no comments towards me.

[CV67PAT]

Bravo Zulu kryptonian

[Super Trucker]

Did you ask him if he checks the drivers license of all people sitting in cars?

[CV67PAT]

Did you ask him if he checks the drivers license of all people sitting in cars?

I don't believe he did. I read his post several times and did not note that anywhere therein.

[kryptonian]

no i did not..had the conversation extended beyond what you read i would have clicked into lawyer mode and defended the OC legality. if you have to point out the car/license analogy be sure to point out that cars (and cigarettes) kill hundreds more people than handguns. the transaction was very brief and ended as it should have. i think i demonstrated a necessary legal knowledge and left no room for sway in my conviction to OC. i believe a lot can be read into your demeanor when approached. the officer can quickly size up your ability to state your rights and back them up with the law. if some officers think you aren't able to state your case they will try to get you to believe you are in violation of law.
i recommend on any extended confrontation with an officer establish right away with him that you are NOT in violation of any law. once that is established their duties as an officer are not necessary.

[ocdetroit]

  +1 Carry On.

[Big Gay Al]

Well, as long as he didn't give you a lecture on the "evils" of OC, or carry in general, I'd say since you didn't get arrested and go to jail, it's mostly a positive encounter.

But that's just my opinion. 

[redskin]

Am I right in thinking the officer had no legal right to ask for your credentials? Yes you were in your car, but he still needs RS to detain you, right?

[kryptonian]

not sure of the legality of that. he saw me OC and then get in the vehicle which i started. the purpose of calling an OC in a vehicle concealed is for officer safety as they can't see your weapon and need to be notified. if the officer already saw it OC and then it becomes temporarily concealed it kind of defeats the purpose of classifying it as concealed carry. wonder if there is some case law that covers that. when i got in the vehicle with keys he can legally require ID as i was operating a motor vehicle. i gave implied permission to open my door. it wasn't consent for search if anybody thought that.
what would stop an officer from just watching you OC until your weapon becomes even momentarily concealed by a shirt or coat or something and run up and demand ID for concealed carry?

[redskin]

To my knowledge, a cop needs Reasonable Suspicion (RS) of a crime before he can detain you (even something as little as asking for your ID). Did you do anything to give him RS? Having a gun in and of itself cannot be used for RS. If he came over and detained you (stopping you and taking your ID so you can't leave), he surely must've needed a reason.

I'm up in the air here, hoping a vet will help me out.

[ocdetroit]

I am sure one of thee other guys will agree with me . If you are open carrying and a LEO see this ok, he should not have a problem. But once you conceal it ,  under your coat shirt ect..in this case the officer should be able to ask for your CPl. Why i say this is because as we know open carry is legell but once you entered the car its concealed. He would asked to see your CPl. Not your drivers licences. Now if you did not seperate the gun an ammo., you are concealing and must have an CPl. Hope this helped. Please forgive my spelling. Carry On. .

[CV67PAT]

OK... Let's get part of this clear. Possession of a loaded pistol in a vehicle is not "concealed". It is "transporting" a firearm. A CPL is required to transport a loaded pistol.

Case law has not been established in Michigan as to whether or not the transition from OC to CC constitutes reasonable suspicion. And there will those that will pounce on me for stating that and they will cite some Ohio/SCOTUS verdict. However, there is also a case in Georgia, that was upheld upon appeal where a man was detained when someone saw his openly displayed pistol that he covered up prior to getting on the subway. He was removed fro the subway by police and detained while a check was done on him, his weapon and permit. Both courts that heard the case opined that there was RAS to detain him. It is a case that is about 2-3 years old, so it will take a bit of searching for me to recover it. But I will commence now.

As you were.

[redskin]

OK... Let's get part of this clear. Possession of a loaded pistol in a vehicle is not "concealed". It is "transporting" a firearm. A CPL is required to transport a loaded pistol.

Case law has not been established in Michigan as to whether or not the transition from OC to CC constitutes reasonable suspicion. And there will those that will pounce on me for stating that and they will cite some Ohio/SCOTUS verdict. However, there is also a case in Georgia, that was upheld upon appeal where a man was detained when someone saw his openly displayed pistol that he covered up prior to getting on the subway. He was removed fro the subway by police and detained while a check was done on him, his weapon and permit. Both courts that heard the case opined that there was RAS to detain him. It is a case that is about 2-3 years old, so it will take a bit of searching for me to recover it. But I will commence now.

As you were.

Disregarding the transition, what I gather is that you aren't required to submit your license to a police officer while OCing in a car because you aren't actually concealing, and 28.425f(2) only applies to when you are concealing, and 28.425f(3) applies to lawful stops, which this wasn't. I only ask because I feel like if I was in the same situation I would avoid submitting to the officer in any way.

[CV67PAT]

OK... Let's get part of this clear. Possession of a loaded pistol in a vehicle is not "concealed". It is "transporting" a firearm. A CPL is required to transport a loaded pistol.

Case law has not been established in Michigan as to whether or not the transition from OC to CC constitutes reasonable suspicion. And there will those that will pounce on me for stating that and they will cite some Ohio/SCOTUS verdict. However, there is also a case in Georgia, that was upheld upon appeal where a man was detained when someone saw his openly displayed pistol that he covered up prior to getting on the subway. He was removed fro the subway by police and detained while a check was done on him, his weapon and permit. Both courts that heard the case opined that there was RAS to detain him. It is a case that is about 2-3 years old, so it will take a bit of searching for me to recover it. But I will commence now.

As you were.

Disregarding the transition, what I gather is that you aren't required to submit your license to a police officer while OCing in a car because you aren't actually concealing, and 28.425f(2) only applies to when you are concealing, and 28.425f(3) applies to lawful stops, which this wasn't. I only ask because I feel like if I was in the same situation I would avoid submitting to the officer in any way.

You are citing the applicable statutes, but are misinterpreting them. Look of the word "or" contained therein.

[redskin]

If its in 28.425f, I can't find it. I don't see anything that hurts my analysis.

[CV67PAT]

If its in 28.425f, I can't find it. I don't see anything that hurts my analysis.

(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

You can argue the lawful part of the stop in court, if so inclined. Until then, if in a vehicle with a loaded firearm... disclose. There is no stipulation about OC in a vehicle and the statute does not call it concealed either.

On the other hand, your analysis is quite sound. Let us know how it works out for you. I'd be interested to see if a non-disclosure citation is or is not issued for possession of a loaded firearm in a vehicle.

[redskin]

I'm sure I'll post my experience here. After the court case is over, of course.

[Bronson]

This is my take, others disagee with me.

While it is true that the simple act of carrying a firearm isn't grounds for RS I don't believe that's the issue.  The issue is carrying a firearm in an area/maner that is restricted/illegal.  I will also agree that the law does not require you to provide a CPL or other proof of exemption to the Pistol Free Zone on the scene if you're not concealing, but lacking any evidence to the contrary a LEO will act with what evidence he has:  1) you are possessing a firearm in a place/manner that is illegal 2) you have not shown him any proof of an exemption from that illegality.  I believe in that instance he would be justified in arresting you and I think his superiors would back him up on it.

Now all that being said there is a law that places the burden of proving any exemption to a firearms law squarely on the shoulders of the carrier during any prosecution:

[urlhttp://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lzjyju45occv4t45lziaixe2))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-776-20]776.20[/url]

In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.

So while you may not specifically be required to show the officer your proof of exemption to a PFZ that action carries consequences, one of which is the real possibility of being arrested (remember he is operating on the info he has available to him 1) you have a gun 2) that gun is being carried in a place or manner that is illegal unless you meet the criteria for one of the exemptions 3) you have not shown him any proof that you meet any of the exemption criteria).  Once arrested you may be prosecuted and during that prosecution you will have to show any proof of exemption....why not just show it to the officer on the scene and be done with it.

Just my take.

Bronson

[ocdetroit]

 +1 Good Luck Carry On.

[jeffsayers]

Am I right in thinking the officer had no legal right to ask for your credentials? Yes you were in your car, but he still needs RS to detain you, right?

No, you are off a little. Anyone can ask you for anything anytime they choose. Whether an officer of the law can demand something of you is a different story however. Sometimes theycan and sometimes they can't; it is up to you to know the difference if and when the time comes.

In this case, there was no legal authority to demand the document and accordingly, Kryptonian stated the officer "asked" to see it.

And now I shall continue and share my personal reality on this situation...

I give praise to Kryptonian for honoring the request in this situation by the sounds of it all. After all, there is an organization that has been going around teaching multitudes of people about their right to OC. Seing as the officer was doing nothing (having just wrapped with another task) he thought he might just make sure the citizen was aware of this particular aspect of the law also.

Now, before you (yea you, the one who's blood pressure is now on the rise, whoever you are!) light me up, let's say this...

One possible suggestion for this situation would be to respond to the officers question with something like "Of course I have a CPL, MOC made it perfectly clear that it was necessary to transport. They also made it clear that without suspicion of a crime I am not obligated to show any papers. You are aware of that too right?" Proceed from there as the situation calls for.