Duty to Inform

[Booya]

DO NOT LIE TO THE COPS.

They CAN lie to you - don't lie back.
Someone should be along to quote the Code for this shortly. Something about interfering with an investigation or something like that. He asks about a gun, you can go around in that circle with -"There is nothing illegal in my car or on my person". Most experienced officers will see right through this one though. Eventually they will ask the right question.

Those of you that want to inform voluntarily by verbally admitting the guns existence or by handing over your LTCH, you enjoy your delay because that can of worms has now been opened. Not every contact has to be negative when informing. Some cops will just blow you off by handing the license back and saying they don't need it.





Accidentally flashing your gun or pink card can have some interesting effects also.

Once my pink slipped out a bit while putting my drivers license back in my wallet and the cop went ape **** on me. Told me I should always inform immediately on contact and that if his partner (at my passenger door) had seen a gun, this stop would have ended very badly for me.

I took that as a threat but couldn't stop laughing at the time. (he didn't like that) I finally told him to write me up for not informing him. He said he didn't want to have to do that (because he couldn't) and gave me his verbal warning instead. Did he lie? Just ignorant?

If you don't intend on informing, then bury your LTCH deep in your wallet. Don't put it behind your DL or where it will be seen.


Story Moral - Never Flash Your Pink Until They Ask For It!

And lying to cops isn't illegal, as long as it's not pertinent to the investigation. I'm pretty sure I quoted an Indiana detective in my post that said the same thing. the whole "dad was in the civil war and your a blimp pilot" thing. The thing is, I CAN lie. The only way I'm going to be found out is if the LEO starts breaking the law and I end up out of the vehicle and my vehicle is being searched. Like I said, if we're at that point, things have already gone sour and we've got other problems anyway. What if he asks if I have a package of balloons in my car? Do I have a bowling ball? I can lie about that also... Those things are of no value into an investigation regarding a traffic stop. If he asks me about anything illegal and I lie... Maybe, but I don't have anything illegal.

I hold my ground, there is NO reason to introduce a gun into this scenario, it can almost never be a good thing. Now, I've been lucky, all my LEO interactions, even when pulled over have all been great. I've even chatted about guns and the service and all that with LEOs when pulled over. I have lied previously about having a gun. I'm kind and courteous and respectful. I see no reason why I would be suspected of breaking any laws outside of the reason I was pulled over. To me lying about having a gun in my vehicle is exactly the same as omitting that piece of information as soon as he arrives at my door. If I'm not going to lie about it, then I might as well just announce it when he gets to my window. Why not if I'm just going to tell him about it anyway.

I would hazard to guess that any LEO that has pulled me over probably left the interaction thinking I was a pretty nice guy, just need to slow down... Or who knows maybe he thought I was a jacka$$? I don't care as long as he was comfortable dealing with me. Telling him I have a gun is probably not going to help him feel comfortable and him taking it from me and playing with it and taking it apart isn't going to help me feel comfortable. My way, everyone wins.

 

[TheSpark]

Here is my take on this... (Kirk, Guy feel free to jump all over me...)

1. Indiana has no DUTY to inform... However if you are ASKED by the LEO, ie... are you armed? ... you are then required to inform them of same and present the License... To LIE to them in the course of a valid stop is to MISINFORM a Law Enforcement officer, which will get you in trouble for an entirely different set of reasons... none pleasant...

Absolutely wrong. You are not required to inform if they ask. If they ask you have a few options:

1) Tell them what they want to know (Good luck)
2) Refuse to answer (This is where the good ol' 5th amendment comes into play)
3) Simply reply: I have nothing illegal.
4) Lie. I do not believe this is illegal but I do not recommend this either. It should, if I understand the law correctly, only be illegal if the lie pertains to what violation they are investigating.

So: Yes you should not lie but you are NOT required to answer.

The only question you really have to answer if confronted by the cops for a violation are the questions to determine who you are. If you have a government issued license you can use that to answer all them and never open your mouth (except maybe to breath). Never volunteer information if you don't have to.

 

[Booya]

Now we're back to the age old question...

Isn't not telling the same as lying? Maybe, Maybe not. At the end of the day the end result is the same, only:


1) Tell them what they want to know (Good luck) - I didn't go this route.
2) Refuse to answer (This is where the good ol' 5th amendment comes into play) - Because you're going to have a better interaction by pleading the 5th or getting into an argument / battle of wits on the side of the road.
3) Simply reply: I have nothing illegal. - This will just get you more questions or the same ones over again.
4) Lie. I do not believe this is illegal but I do not recommend this either. It should, if I understand the law correctly, only be illegal if the lie pertains to what violation they are investigating. - "Oh, ok, just thought I'd ask". Done.

 

[TheSpark]

Now we're back to the age old question...

Isn't not telling the same as lying? Maybe, Maybe not. At the end of the day the end result is the same, only:


1) Tell them what they want to know (Good luck) - I didn't go this route.
2) Refuse to answer (This is where the good ol' 5th amendment comes into play) - Because you're going to have a better interaction by pleading the 5th or getting into an argument / battle of wits on the side of the road.
3) Simply reply: I have nothing illegal. - This will just get you more questions or the same ones over again.
4) Lie. I do not believe this is illegal but I do not recommend this either. It should, if I understand the law correctly, only be illegal if the lie pertains to what violation they are investigating. - "Oh, ok, just thought I'd ask". Done.

There is no "age old question" in the United States regarding if not telling (pleading the 5th) is the same as lying. Simple FACT is it is not and is a right we all share. As the age old saying goes: "Never talk to the police." That applies to answering their questions as well and technically this is legally your best option.

As for pleading the 5th causing the officer to engage in an argument I see no issue there. Does it **** off some officers when you enact your rights? Yes. Is that ever a valid reason not to? No. An officer can throw a sissy fit all (s)he wants if you go this route but they pretty much all know if they do anything to you as a result of that they are in for major issues themselves.

As for them asking more questions if you reply "I have nothing illegal" you just keep repeating that same answer or resort to #2.

You are right that #4 is likely to cause the least amount of issues but I still am not able to recommend lying. (Illegal or not)

Remember: When police ask you questions after pulling you over they are not going to ask you any question with the intent of helping you. With all the laws on the books today it is impossible to know for sure that you are not in violation of some criminal law. For that reason you should never give up any rights or offer information you do not have to give. When they are investigating you on the side of the road they are not your friend. They are not there to help you. They are there to prove their case against you further and find any additional charges they can come up with.

 

[Booya]

There is no "age old question" in the United States regarding if not telling (pleading the 5th) is the same as lying. Simple FACT is it is not and is a right we all share. As the age old saying goes: "Never talk to the police." That applies to answering their questions as well and technically this is legally your best option.

As for pleading the 5th causing the officer to engage in an argument I see no issue there. Does it **** off some officers when you enact your rights? Yes. Is that ever a valid reason not to? No. An officer can throw a sissy fit all (s)he wants if you go this route but they pretty much all know if they do anything to you as a result of that they are in for major issues themselves.

As for them asking more questions if you reply "I have nothing illegal" you just keep repeating that same answer or resort to #2.

You are right that #4 is likely to cause the least amount of issues but I still am not able to recommend lying. (Illegal or not)

#4 is not illegal and clearly the easiest route. Why not go that route? It sounds like everything else is just unnecessary pot stirring.

My age old question comment had nothing to do with the 5th and I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I meant.

As for the bolded part - Why? Why do you want to start an argument on the side of the road? Why do you want to **** off some officers? Why do you need a valid reason NOT to do those things? Why do you need a valid reason to NOT **** off an officer?

I guess I just prefer the road less traveled, the easy road. I'd just as soon have a pleasant interaction then a $#!tt* one.

That said though, it doesn't give me ammo to rush back to INGO to post some horrible story about jerk off cops either. < Not directed at you Spark, just in general.

 

[TheSpark]

#4 is not illegal and clearly the easiest route. Why not go that route? It sounds like everything else is just unnecessary pot stirring.

My age old question comment had nothing to do with the 5th and I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I meant.

As for the bolded part - Why? Why do you want to start an argument on the side of the road? Why do you want to **** off some officers? Why do you need a valid reason NOT to do those things? Why do you need a valid reason to NOT **** off an officer?

I guess I just prefer the road less traveled, the easy road. I'd just as soon have a pleasant interaction then a $#!tt* one.

That said though, it doesn't give me ammo to rush back to INGO to post some horrible story about jerk off cops either. < Not directed at you Spark, just in general.

If your age old question was not related to 5th then I have NO idea what you meant.

I did not say you should plead the 5th with the intent of starting an argument. However, fact is, that might result. There are many people in prison today who would not be if they had kept their pie hole shut and plead the 5th. Also, if you read my first post I clearly state that I believe lying in this case is not illegal. Regardless, I still do not PERSONALLY recommend it.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Remember guys, if you are going to remain silent at any point and not answer any questions, that you must state you are invoking your 5th Amendment rights. We have Salinas v Texas to thank for that. This includes pre-Mirandized as well. I guess we should also state we are invoking our 1st Amendment rights before we speak from now on, but that is irrelevant.

 

[TheSpark]

Remember guys, if you are going to remain silent at any point and not answer any questions, that you must state you are invoking your 5th Amendment rights. We have Salinas v Texas to thank for that. This includes pre-Mirandized as well. I guess we should also state we are invoking our 1st Amendment rights before we speak from now on, but that is irrelevant.

In a way he gave up his 5th amendment right in that case in the first place and did not re-invoke it. Obviously if at any point you start answering questions there is, even in my opinion, a legitimate assumption that you have waived it. If someone never says they are invoking their rights and at no point says a single word I think that would hold up. Then again, the supreme court is very wrong on many of their decisions so even though I'm confident in that I'm not confident the courts would agree.

Regardless, that guy made the fatal mistake of answering questions in the first place. Goes back to what I said a few posts ago: many people are in prison today because they would not keep their pie hole shut.

 

[88GT]

In a way he gave up his 5th amendment right in that case in the first place and did not re-invoke it. Obviously if at any point you start answering questions there is, even in my opinion, a legitimate assumption that you have waived it. If someone never says they are invoking their rights and at no point says a single word I think that would hold up. Then again, the supreme court is very wrong on many of their decisions so even though I'm confident in that I'm not confident the courts would agree.

Regardless, that guy made the fatal mistake of answering questions in the first place. Goes back to what I said a few posts ago: many people are in prison today because they would not keep their pie hole shut.

One does not "give up" one's rights. One may choose not exercise them for a defined period of time. But the notion that one has to "re-invoke" is ludicrous. The SCOTUS decision in that case was wrong IMO.

 

[TheSpark]

One does not "give up" one's rights. One may choose not exercise them for a defined period of time. But the notion that one has to "re-invoke" is ludicrous. The SCOTUS decision in that case was wrong IMO.

Yea, you are right.

Still I think it is best, required or not, to verbally let them know you are exercising your right. At least that way all doubt is washed away.

 

[88GT]

Yea, you are right.

Still I think it is best, required or not, to verbally let them know you are exercising your right. At least that way all doubt is washed away.

Yes, because of the world we live in and the idea that rights are no longer unalienable and inherent to the person, you are correct. Best practices do not reflect the way things should be but the way they are. It just pisses me off sometimes because it's essentially asking the government for permission, which negates the whole concept of a right.

 

[ATM]

...Why? Why do you want to start an argument on the side of the road? Why do you want to **** off some officers? Why do you need a valid reason NOT to do those things? Why do you need a valid reason to NOT **** off an officer?

Start an argument? By not answering questions? Are you being serious?

I guess I just prefer the road less traveled, the easy road. I'd just as soon have a pleasant interaction then a $#!tt* one.

The easy road is never the road less travelled, it is the common default road of the masses.

 

[TheSpark]

The only problem with lying and saying "No" being the easier road is there is a chance the officer finds out you are lying. Then it will be worse than the "argument" Booya fears from the pleading the 5th option. You think pleading the 5th will start an argument, try having the officer find out you lied about having a deadly weapon or not. That is likely to **** him off more (even if it still is not illegal).

Personally I don't care if my answers, or actions, offend or **** off an officer. I'm not there to please that officer, nor is it my responsibility. In the case of being pulled over on the side of the road there is only one goal I personally have: Protect myself from criminal charges. (Well, and maybe get out of a ticket, but I'm not going to put myself in danger of criminal charges to accomplish that.)

 

[Dead Duck]

Start an argument? By not answering questions? Are you being serious?

Sounds exactly like my marriage.
I plead the 5th and then start catching things as they wiz by my head.

 

[SteveM4A1]

One does not "give up" one's rights. One may choose not exercise them for a defined period of time. But the notion that one has to "re-invoke" is ludicrous. The SCOTUS decision in that case was wrong IMO.

Exactly my point. SCOTUS messed that one up badly. I guess you have to inform the officers you are invoking your right to life as well, so they don't just kill you. The whole idea of "invoking a constitutional right" doesn't make sense to me personally. You already have the right, and unless you waive it, you are utilizing that right.

 

[TheSpark]

Exactly my point. SCOTUS messed that one up badly. I guess you have to inform the officers you are invoking your right to life as well, so they don't just kill you. The whole idea of "invoking a constitutional right" doesn't make sense to me personally. You already have the right, and unless you waive it, you are utilizing that right.

It is the sad point our country has reached. Unfortunately, I foresee it only getting worse.

 

[88GT]

The only problem with lying and saying "No" being the easier road is there is a chance the officer finds out you are lying.

Boo ****ing hoo.

Then it will be worse than the "argument" Booya fears from the pleading the 5th option. You think pleading the 5th will start an argument, try having the officer find out you lied about having a deadly weapon or not. That is likely to **** him off more (even if it still is not illegal).

He'll get over it.

Personally I don't care if my answers, or actions, offend or **** off an officer. I'm not there to please that officer, nor is it my responsibility. In the case of being pulled over on the side of the road there is only one goal I personally have: Protect myself from criminal charges. (Well, and maybe get out of a ticket, but I'm not going to put myself in danger of criminal charges to accomplish that.)

Assuming you aren't being stopped for a crime and that you don't have any warrants out for your arrest, why on earth would you be worried about criminal charges resulting from a mere traffic stop?

 

[Booya]

As for pleading the 5th causing the officer to engage in an argument I see no issue there. Does it **** off some officers when you enact your rights? Yes. Is that ever a valid reason not to? No. An officer can throw a sissy fit all (s)he wants if you go this route but they pretty much all know if they do anything to you as a result of that they are in for major issues themselves.

Start an argument? By not answering questions? Are you being serious?


The easy road is never the road less travelled, it is the common default road of the masses.

I get you, I was being a wise guy for the most part.

What I'm saying is, if I'm asked if I have a gun, I'll just say no and that's the end of it.

We all know that the likelihood of saying "I'd like to invoke my 5th amendment right.... Etc" isn't going to go as smoothly. The only reason I said "start an argument" was in reply to the top quote.

The only problem with lying and saying "No" being the easier road is there is a chance the officer finds out you are lying. Then it will be worse than the "argument" Booya fears from the pleading the 5th option.

Personally I don't care if my answers, or actions, offend or **** off an officer. I'm not there to please that officer, nor is it my responsibility. In the case of being pulled over on the side of the road there is only one goal I personally have: Protect myself from criminal charges. (Well, and maybe get out of a ticket, but I'm not going to put myself in danger of criminal charges to accomplish that.)

What chance is there I'll be found out? Like I said in all my other posts, if it's found out, there is already something way bigger going on. I've been removed from my vehicle and it's now being searched. Over an alleged traffic violation. I don't fear from pleading the 5th, I just see it as unnecessary. I feel like that's exactly what I'm doing. I don't see a real difference in just saying "no" or repeating "I have nothing illegal in my possession". Except one is going to move things along much faster, maybe even result in a smooth interaction, where the other is just going to make everything harder.

I see just saying "no" and moving on in the same context as doing any of these other things, omitting the truth, talking in circles... Etc. All the other options. Spark hit the nail on the head, all I want to do is protect myself from criminal charges (& get out of a ticket). Get the whole ordeal done and over with as quickly as possible and everyone on their way. I don't fault an officer for asking, but I don't oblige by answering to the affirmative. If I knew every cop would be as cool as the motorcycle cop on 465 one day that asked me and eventually found out I did have a gun (and asked me to remove it, I refused and suggested it best for all of us if no one touched it, and he agreed) then I would tell all of them when asked. However, I don't want to play that game of going back and forth and playing with our guns on the side of the road. So I just say no.

 

[nakinate]

When they asked me at the 1500 if I had a gun I said, "No". They didn't bat an eye even as I stood next to my friend who decided to tell the truth. They HAVE to take your word or they are breaking the law.

 

[TheSpark]

When they asked me at the 1500 if I had a gun I said, "No". They didn't bat an eye even as I stood next to my friend who decided to tell the truth. They HAVE to take your word or they are breaking the law.

What law would they be breaking if they don't take your word for it. I know if I was a cop I would never take anyone's word for it personally if they said no. I'd still be on high alert.

Now yes, if you say no they can't start searching to make sure you are telling the truth. (If that is what you mean)