-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Duty to Inform
- Thread starter Tay
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Are you all this paranoid all the time? I know for a fact I have nothing illegal in either of my cars right now. Period. Why would you not know what's in your car? What kind of activities do you participate in or people do you associate with that this is an issue?
Fine, I gave you what I believe to be best advice. If you want to believe I am just being paranoid (which I'm not) and ignore the facts then fine. Maybe others will heed this advice and for that will not land in jail. I know one thing for sure: many people tonight will have wished they read what I, and others, have said.
Luckily for you even if you do not your chance of it coming back to bite you are slim. You, sir, are braver than me though and I will hand you that.
Got to love how so many people have become so indoctrinated that they believe standing up for your rights, exercising them, and not giving them up makes you crazy.
Last edited:
I'm not just trying to keep an argument going here, but I'm getting increasingly confused with some of your responses.
All my replies below in blue
If you admit to it you might be giving up your right to keep it from the officer without a warranted search.
If you admit you have a gun, you're not giving up anything including rights. if the LEO sees fit violate those rights that doesn't mean you gave them up, it jet means he's in the wrong.
Courts have ruled in some cases an officer can conficaste a known gun during a traffic stop for the duration of the stop.
You have the option to continue to answer that way or simply take the 5th.
Taking the 5th doesn't just mean you don't answer anything or say whatever you want. How is not telling the truth any different then lying? How is answering in the affirmative or not protecting you from self incrimination? < If you're not breaking any laws by carrying or in possession legally?
Taking the 5th meaning exactly that you don't answer.
Not sure why you guys think it is best to give up a right just to please an officer and make the stop go smoother. You should NEVER take the approach of solely doing whatever you can to please an officer during an encounter with them. If you do I just hope you do not end up in cuffs.
I don't feel like I'm giving up any rights by just saying NO. Again, I still don't understand why anyone would end up in cuffs? You keep mentioning this and I don't get it? Cuffs over a traffic stop? I think going the "I refuse to answer, plead the 5th, I have nothing illegal route is just as or more likely to get you in cuffs then just saying NO.
Cuffs in result to them finding/tripping into a charge. As I said before I believe saying no (even if a lie) is legally okay.
I'll say it again: When you are pulled over by the police they are not your friend. They are not there to help you. You need to protect yourself and admitting you have a weapon, even if you believe you are fully within the law, is just opening the door for him to find something you may not be aware of to charge you with. Comply with what you must (legally). Keep quiet on the rest.
Not admitting you have a weapon in the manner you're suggesting is opening the door for just as much trouble in my opinion. Where just saying no puts a stop to it. I don't get the "something you may not be aware of" part.
It opens the door for nothing. I fail to see your point. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE 5TH
I don't care if he asks me if I have bubble gum, a potato, an extra pair of shoes, or a gun in my car. A cop is not going to get an answer to any question like that. In addition, it is none of his business to begin with. Nor will I answer where I am going or where I am coming from. Especially where I have been since I do not know if they might be looking for someone around the area where I just was and start believing it was me who did something.
This I can agree with base don the circumstances of the stop.
As others and myself have said already. It is most likely not illegal (only reason I wont say with certainty is because IANAL). Not. I'll say it.
It is never a good idea to lie to police though (illegal or not). It is just shaky ground and you might trip into a charge. Luckily in America we have the 5th which, so far, allows us to avoid providing a truthful answer without lying. The best course of action is not to talk at all to cops if not required.
Nor is it to bait them into a confrontation. Again, I don't get the trip into a charge part? We have the 5th to keep from self incriminating (due process, double jeopardy... Etc), it doesn't NOT allow you to provide a truthful answer, your claim is that it just allows you to NOT answer. I'll ask again, how is not answering any different then just saying no?
By tripping into a charge I mean them finding something out that they would not have had you kept your pie hole shut.
To me I would inform the officer that I am exercising my 5th adm. right and not answering. I would not be doing so to "search out [a] confrontation". I would be doing so to protect myself by not providing more information to an officer than I am required to that could land me a charge from something I am unaware of.
By doing this I'd suspect that more LEO would be inclined to start searching to find charges you were unaware of. I don't think you can just "land" random charges. Either you're breaking the law or you aren't.
If they start searching that is illegal without cause. Again, this is the whole point of the 4th.
Your approach to that situation, chezuki, is why many people land in jail. Would you also submit to a search just to avoid a confrontation if the officer thinks you have something else in the car? Same principle, and just as dangerous to your freedom.
Submitting to a search is an entirely different topic altogether.
Yes, this is another issue that guy brought up. Nothing you and I discussed.
Many people today will submit to their cars being searched just to please an officer and avoid a possible confrontation. Many of them will spend the night regretting that choice inside their cold jail cell. Others will be doing the same because they told an officer they had a gun when they did not have to (again, thinking they were all good legally).
These people are dumb.
Anyone who submits to a search is dumb in my opinion.
Google how many felonies the average person commits without knowing it. Then I hope you reconsider and realize that you should take every step, no matter how small, in protecting yourself during an encounter with police. Even if that little thing is as simple as not answering if you have a gun or not on you.
Agree here. My point is that I take ONLY 1 SMALL step to accomplish everything you're talking about. I just say NO! Everything else you're talking about comes to an end when I say no.
If you admit to it you might be giving up your right to keep it from the officer without a warranted search.
If you admit you have a gun, you're not giving up anything including rights. if the LEO sees fit violate those rights that doesn't mean you gave them up, it jet means he's in the wrong.
Courts have ruled in some cases an officer can conficaste a known gun during a traffic stop for the duration of the stop.
You have the option to continue to answer that way or simply take the 5th.
Taking the 5th doesn't just mean you don't answer anything or say whatever you want. How is not telling the truth any different then lying? How is answering in the affirmative or not protecting you from self incrimination? < If you're not breaking any laws by carrying or in possession legally?
Taking the 5th meaning exactly that you don't answer.
Not sure why you guys think it is best to give up a right just to please an officer and make the stop go smoother. You should NEVER take the approach of solely doing whatever you can to please an officer during an encounter with them. If you do I just hope you do not end up in cuffs.
I don't feel like I'm giving up any rights by just saying NO. Again, I still don't understand why anyone would end up in cuffs? You keep mentioning this and I don't get it? Cuffs over a traffic stop? I think going the "I refuse to answer, plead the 5th, I have nothing illegal route is just as or more likely to get you in cuffs then just saying NO.
Cuffs in result to them finding/tripping into a charge. As I said before I believe saying no (even if a lie) is legally okay.
I'll say it again: When you are pulled over by the police they are not your friend. They are not there to help you. You need to protect yourself and admitting you have a weapon, even if you believe you are fully within the law, is just opening the door for him to find something you may not be aware of to charge you with. Comply with what you must (legally). Keep quiet on the rest.
Not admitting you have a weapon in the manner you're suggesting is opening the door for just as much trouble in my opinion. Where just saying no puts a stop to it. I don't get the "something you may not be aware of" part.
It opens the door for nothing. I fail to see your point. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE 5TH
I don't care if he asks me if I have bubble gum, a potato, an extra pair of shoes, or a gun in my car. A cop is not going to get an answer to any question like that. In addition, it is none of his business to begin with. Nor will I answer where I am going or where I am coming from. Especially where I have been since I do not know if they might be looking for someone around the area where I just was and start believing it was me who did something.
This I can agree with base don the circumstances of the stop.
As others and myself have said already. It is most likely not illegal (only reason I wont say with certainty is because IANAL). Not. I'll say it.
It is never a good idea to lie to police though (illegal or not). It is just shaky ground and you might trip into a charge. Luckily in America we have the 5th which, so far, allows us to avoid providing a truthful answer without lying. The best course of action is not to talk at all to cops if not required.
Nor is it to bait them into a confrontation. Again, I don't get the trip into a charge part? We have the 5th to keep from self incriminating (due process, double jeopardy... Etc), it doesn't NOT allow you to provide a truthful answer, your claim is that it just allows you to NOT answer. I'll ask again, how is not answering any different then just saying no?
By tripping into a charge I mean them finding something out that they would not have had you kept your pie hole shut.
To me I would inform the officer that I am exercising my 5th adm. right and not answering. I would not be doing so to "search out [a] confrontation". I would be doing so to protect myself by not providing more information to an officer than I am required to that could land me a charge from something I am unaware of.
By doing this I'd suspect that more LEO would be inclined to start searching to find charges you were unaware of. I don't think you can just "land" random charges. Either you're breaking the law or you aren't.
If they start searching that is illegal without cause. Again, this is the whole point of the 4th.
Your approach to that situation, chezuki, is why many people land in jail. Would you also submit to a search just to avoid a confrontation if the officer thinks you have something else in the car? Same principle, and just as dangerous to your freedom.
Submitting to a search is an entirely different topic altogether.
Yes, this is another issue that guy brought up. Nothing you and I discussed.
Many people today will submit to their cars being searched just to please an officer and avoid a possible confrontation. Many of them will spend the night regretting that choice inside their cold jail cell. Others will be doing the same because they told an officer they had a gun when they did not have to (again, thinking they were all good legally).
These people are dumb.
Anyone who submits to a search is dumb in my opinion.
Google how many felonies the average person commits without knowing it. Then I hope you reconsider and realize that you should take every step, no matter how small, in protecting yourself during an encounter with police. Even if that little thing is as simple as not answering if you have a gun or not on you.
Agree here. My point is that I take ONLY 1 SMALL step to accomplish everything you're talking about. I just say NO! Everything else you're talking about comes to an end when I say no.
Spark - I'll stop using quotes, it just takes up to much space...
My question is this I guess since we seem to be talking circles.
You think that by refusing to answer, pleading the 5th, "I have nothing illegal" IS NOT going to open the door to additional questions? To LEO looking a lot more closely for those charges you might be unaware of or can trip into? You think this is surely not the easier route, but the correct one that will work the best?
You think my route of just saying "no", when that will likely turn all events and interactions directly back to the matter at hand and stop further questioning, the traffic stop is giving up my rights?
You think that all the things you've mentioned throughout this thread, not answer, refusing to answer, talking around the truth IS different then just NOT telling the truth?
My question is this I guess since we seem to be talking circles.
You think that by refusing to answer, pleading the 5th, "I have nothing illegal" IS NOT going to open the door to additional questions? To LEO looking a lot more closely for those charges you might be unaware of or can trip into? You think this is surely not the easier route, but the correct one that will work the best?
You think my route of just saying "no", when that will likely turn all events and interactions directly back to the matter at hand and stop further questioning, the traffic stop is giving up my rights?
You think that all the things you've mentioned throughout this thread, not answer, refusing to answer, talking around the truth IS different then just NOT telling the truth?
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
If you are into that kind of thing.
I don't make it a habit of looking in people's cavities, so if you have something in your prison wallet you can keep it.
LANShark42
Master
This has worked for me almost 56 years. Other than to get warm after an accident, I've never seen the back seat of a police car, much less a jail cell. Oh, I've been pulled over plenty of times. I'm sort of a lead-foot. And for the record I've been stopped once since I got my LTCH - for speeding. I handed the officer both my license and LTCH. He asked if I had a weapon on me. I answered yes, that it was in my jacket pocket. He said "Just leave it there and keep your hands where I can see them" which was exactly my plan anyway. He later thanked me for informing him I was carrying and said he himself was a big proponent of the 2nd Amendment. I was given a warning and wished a Good Day. I can't help but think it has a great deal to do with attitude.
Darn, I was fishing for a "Frank's Special", but I guess you don't do that.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
What if you stepped on someones discarded joint and tracked it into the car? I assume they can stick to the bottom of a shoe just like a cigarette or any other trash.
Let me be perfectly clear: I do believe there is a STRONG possibility that answering "I have nothing illegal" or refusing to answer (5th) that the officer will ask additional questions or even get a little upset.
However ...
Let me be even more perfectly clear: I don't care. I do not have to answer any additional questions and pleasing the officer is the last thing I care about in such situation. Some officers hate it when anyone invokes their rights or challenges their "ultimate authority" (which they don't really have). My goal though is not to upset the officer or cause issues, just to protect myself.
And let me be clear on one more thing: Lying by saying no, even if you do, is the most likely way to end it right there. However, I do not believe lying to the police is a good idea (illegal or not)
Am I clear?
If you go back to my first post I even list lying as an acceptable response (it was #4 I believe). I did add the footnote that I personally would not choose that option though.
Also, saying no is not always going to end it. In fact just a few months ago there was a huge thread on here about a guy who said no but the officer knew he had a permit (yes permit, it was a different state). The officer became very angry and wanted to search the car right away. He then got the guys wife to admit he MAY have a gun and tricked or convinced her into submitting to a search. It is a long story and I'm sure someone here can link to that thread.
To close: I'm perfectly okay with you lying and saying no. Again, I listed it as an option on my first post. It is just not the one I would recommend or practice myself.
Last edited:
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
I don't do cavity sesrches on a regular basis, but for the right person I can oblige.
IN_Sheepdog
Expert
On this I will agree with you... Just because you are stopped for a speeding infraction (or similar) does NOT mean you have to consent to a search either of you personally or a vehicle you are driving... Because of this, and because there is a 4th Amendment, if an officer asks you to exit the vehicle, you do so. (lawful command ) However, as you exit, there is nothing wrong with Locking your vehicle behind you. If he wants to get a warrant, or get the dogs out there or whatever, let him do so... There is nothing wrong with refusing to consent to a search of your vehicle. (or yourself for that matter...) However, if he shines the light in the back seat and SEES a visible illegal substance (such as an open alcohol container or worse) he will then have probable cause to search the vehicle...
On another note, as the Driver of the vehicle, you are the ONLY one that has to answer questions or provide identification. He can not interrogate the other passengers of the vehicle... (there is a case on this, but Im too lazy today to look it up...). He has stopped you the driver, not the others as passengers, incident to the stop...
