POLL: Inform LEO of your CHP?

[allingeneral]

I want to see how this shakes out. Please vote in the poll to indicate whether or not you would inform LEO of you CHP and whether or not you are armed at the moment.

[viiiball]

I want to see how this shakes out. Please vote in the poll to indicate whether or not you would inform LEO of you CHP and whether or not you are armed at the moment.

I think I voted incorrectly and its the way the poll is worded that now makes me think I would not have voted Yes. The question asks if I would inform the LEO of my CHP. The only time I am going to inform the LEO of my status is when I am CURRENTLY armed. I see no reason to inform him that I possess a piece of paper. So my answer actually will depend on my carry status.

[Palladin]

I want to see how this shakes out. Please vote in the poll to indicate whether or not you would inform LEO of you CHP and whether or not you are armed at the moment.

I think I voted incorrectly and its the way the poll is worded that now makes me think I would not have voted Yes. The question asks if I would inform the LEO of my CHP. The only time I am going to inform the LEO of my status is when I am CURRENTLY armed. I see no reason to inform him that I possess a piece of paper. So my answer actually will depend on my carry status.

poll needs to be worded differently... I agree with viiiball, to many variables, speeding infraction, normal Fri/Sat nite traffic stop? Each stop could warrant a different response from me...

[Palladin]

Any troopers on board? How does the sequence of events play out in a routine traffic infraction stop(speeding, running red light/ stop sign, improper equpment) - don't you run the plates before approaching the vehichle? And is the CHP tied to ALL vehichles in the family or at that address? For instance spouse doesn't CHP (yet )

[GS78]

am I really the only "no"? damn I guess I am a desperato.....

[scampbell3]

am I really the only "no"? damn I guess I am a desperato.....

You are not alone, I to voted no. At no time does a LEO (state, local, tribal, interstellar) need to know that I have a concealed firearm.

Several things to keep in mind, If you disclose the fact that you have a concealed firearm, and that LEO orders you to exit the vehicle, YOU HAVE BEEN DETAINED. Just because he states, "it's for safety reasons", you have been detained, and detained without RAS if the initial stop was for a traffic infraction. If the LEO then removes your firearm without your consent "for safety reasons" he has now detained you, and seized your personal property WITHOUT RAS of a crime. You have allowed a LEO to violate your 4th and 14th Adm rights.

[Username]

Where's my tin foil hat, I swear I just saw it.... I voted No for the reasons I've covered in the other thread. My locality the police network tells them I have a CHP as soon as they run my plates, so whats the point of me announcing what they already know.

If they ask, I'm willing to let them know yes I am carrying. If they ask me to get out of the car and search me, I might have a problem with that.

Leaving the firearm where it is seems like an option where it doesn't become a big deal, the officer will deal with the issue at hand, and ignore making an issue of the concealed firearm.

[flash2pablo]

If I am carrying I am not going to say anything unless asked about it. If I am not carrying I will mention it everytime, that way they know I am a law abiding citizen.

[wylde007]

If I am carrying and he demands to see it, I will show it and the required government-issued picture ID. If I am carrying openly or not carrying at all (which is like, never) or he does not mention it then it stays in my pocket.

[VBshooter]

Same here,,,I won;t volunteer it,but if they ask I'll show it and my DL to keep within the law

[Vahunter]

If a LEO calls in your license number before he pulls you over as is the case in most instances, he already knows you have a CHP. That is if your'e driving a vehicle registered to you.

[VBshooter]

For review purposes,,,This is the section from the Code of Virginia ,,It states "On Demand" ,,if they don;t demand, I ain't showing or saying anything about it.

The person to whom the permit is issued shall have such permit on his person at all times when he is carrying a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth and shall display the permit on demand by a law-enforcement officer.

[zephyp]

I voted only if he asks. Here in NOVA I dont OC because I fear someone yelling "he's got a gun" and I dont care to be the guy that says to a cop "I've got a gun."

So, I think to be in full compliance with the law is to tell him if he/she asks.

[GS78]

thats right "if"... I have been asked by State Trooper "Mr. so and so, are you armed?" and I have replied "yes" and that was that, he never asked to inspect or see the weapon, just asked.

[herohog]

If I am carrying, I notify. Old habit and I am going back to LA where it is REQUIRED so it's a good habit!

[herohog]

Several things to keep in mind, If you disclose the fact that you have a concealed firearm, and that LEO orders you to exit the vehicle, YOU HAVE BEEN DETAINED. Just because he states, "it's for safety reasons", you have been detained, and detained without RAS if the initial stop was for a traffic infraction. If the LEO then removes your firearm without your consent "for safety reasons" he has now detained you, and seized your personal property WITHOUT RAS of a crime. You have allowed a LEO to violate your 4th and 14th Adm rights.

If ANY of that happens, I will lock the door on exit and will file suit for his/her unlawful detention. All I have done is stated that I am licensed to carry and am, PERIOD. I have given NO permission to violate my rights. I have given NO probable cause. If you ALLOW the officer to do that without your opposition, you are an idiot. Simply informing an officer you are legally carrying, you have done NOTHING wrong. I know this to be true because I have done this several times and have yet to be hassled in the least. Yes, in THIS state (VA).

[WRW]

am I really the only "no"? damn I guess I am a desperato.....

You are not alone, I to voted no. At no time does a LEO (state, local, tribal, interstellar) need to know that I have a concealed firearm.

Several things to keep in mind, If you disclose the fact that you have a concealed firearm, and that LEO orders you to exit the vehicle, YOU HAVE BEEN DETAINED. Just because he states, "it's for safety reasons", you have been detained, and detained without RAS if the initial stop was for a traffic infraction. If the LEO then removes your firearm without your consent "for safety reasons" he has now detained you, and seized your personal property WITHOUT RAS of a crime. You have allowed a LEO to violate your 4th and 14th Adm rights.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this:
Held: Officer Trevizo’s patdown of Johnson did not violate the FourthAmendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Pp. 5–9.
(a)
Terry established that, in an investigatory stop based on rea-sonably grounded suspicion of criminal activity, the police must bepositioned to act instantly if they have reasonable cause to suspect that the persons temporarily detained are armed and dangerous. 392
U.
S., at 24. Because a limited search of outer clothing for weaponsserves to protect both the officer and the public, a patdown is consti-tutional. Id., at 23–24, 27, 30–31. Traffic stops, which “resemble, induration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry,” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439, n. 29, are “especiallyfraught with danger to police officers,” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1047, who may minimize the risk of harm by exercising “ ‘un-questioned command of the situation,’ ” Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 414. Three decisions cumulatively portray Terry’s application in a traffic-stop setting. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (per curiam), the Court held that “once a motor vehicle has been lawfullydetained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment,” id., at 111, n. 6, because the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighs the “de minimis” additional intru-sion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehi-cle, id., at 110–111. Citing Terry, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver might bearmed and dangerous. 434 U. S., at 112. Wilson, 519 U. S., at 413, held that the Mimms rule applies to passengers as well as drivers,based on “the same weighty interest in officer safety.” Brendlin, 551
U.
S., at 263, held that a passenger is seized, just as the driver is, “from the moment [a car stopped by the police comes] to a halt on theside of the road.” A passenger’s motivation to use violence during the stop to prevent apprehension for a crime more grave than a trafficviolation is just as great as that of the driver. 519 U. S., at 414. And as “the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of thevehicle,” id., at 413–414, “the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal,” id., at 415. Pp. 5–7.

[scampbell3]

You may be reading to much into this. Based on that assumption, it would seem that a LEO can if he chooses to, on every traffic stop from running a stop sign, speeding, failing to signal, expired registration, etc, could in fact order you to exit the vehicle and search your person and vehicle.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: Ter·ry stop
Pronunciation: 'ter-E-
Function: noun
Etymology: from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), case in which the right of police to stop and question a suspect was first discussed
: a stop and limited search of a person for weapons justified by a police officer's reasonable conclusion that a crime is being or about to be committed by a person who may be armed and whose responses to questioning do not dispel the officer's fear of danger to the officer or to others —compare REASONABLE SUSPICION

Terry Stop Law & Legal Definition

A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

The issue in the case was whether police should be able to detain a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons without probable cause for arrest. The Court held that police may conduct a limited search of a person for weapons that could endanger the officer or those nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence.

When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to reasonably suspect criminal activity may be occurring and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her


In the case that started these threads, the OP as ordered to exit the vehicle, searched, firearms seized until such time the LEO finished the citation for speeding. The OP was 'Terry Stopped' without RAS of criminal activity, just cited for speeding. This situation was an unwarranted 'Terry Stop'

I travel to and through VA extensively on business and carry my firearm, I don't have a VA CHP, but one from a state that VA recognizes, if stopped by LE for a traffic infraction they will not know I have a firearm, and unless the situation warrants me to disclose that fact, I am will not divulged such information, just the same in my home state.

[WRW]

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (per curiam), the Court held that “once a motor vehicle has been lawfullydetained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment,” id., at 111, n. 6, because the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighs the “de minimis” additional intru-sion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehi-cle, id., at 110–111. Citing Terry, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver might bearmed and dangerous.

It's not necessarily a Terry Stop, just citing the Terry Decision as basis for the pat down.

I must have missed where the OP's car was searched.

[DEgunner]

When stopped at a routine highway checkpoint (which they frequently do in this county) I routinely show my drivers license and I am waved through.
If I were to be singled out or stopped, I would hand the officer my drivers license and CHP only if I were armed (which is always).