close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Duty to Inform - Sobriety Checkpoint?

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by righteoushoot, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. righteoushoot

    righteoushoot Deluxe Member

    1,042
    5
    Oct 22, 2008
    Not New York (N.E. OH)
    Here in Ohio we have a duty to inform the LEO if pulled over. The assumption is usually that you got pulled over for some infraction, real or perceived. Also, your auto reg. is tied to your CCW status.

    I can't remember the topic coming up if you are required to inform if you are pulled over at one of those dragnet/sobriety check points where everyone going through a particular intersection is stopped and "questioned".

    Does anyone know if you have a duty to inform in this situation being that you presumably did nothing wrong prior to getting pulled over? I am asking about what is legal, not necessarily what is "prudent" or polite.

    (For the sake of my question, I am assuming you are SOBER, and did not break any traffic laws prior to checkpoint.) :dunno:
     
  2. kensteele

    kensteele

    5,379
    0
    Aug 3, 2003
    Leawood, KS
    in OH, you must inform the officer of your CCW status immediately at the checkpoint. ianal but i think i have a pretty good idea on this one.

    start from there, someone from OH will chime in shortly.
     

    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012

  3. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,346
    1,818
    Jul 12, 2007
    Check the OH statutes, post them if possible. I think its a poor gamble to make.

    If they can get your status via tags, I'd disclose. What's the downside? If you think there's a loophole because they don't stop you specifically for a specific reason, and they get the info on your tags, there's some very specific penalties should they choose to pursue them if you are wrong.

    Even if you are right, what's the harm in disclosing? What's the potential payoff for the risk you're taking? Nothing comes to mind.

    Rather risk being deprived of the weapon for a few minutes? How long would you be deprived of the weapon while in public if they revoke your permit?

    Randy
     
  4. Fragman

    Fragman

    473
    0
    Oct 23, 2006
    Houston
    If you want a purely legal answer, you probably answered your question with your first sentence. The duty to inform us not related to the infraction, but the LEO interaction.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  5. righteoushoot

    righteoushoot Deluxe Member

    1,042
    5
    Oct 22, 2008
    Not New York (N.E. OH)
    When in doubt, I take the tact of erring on the side of caution. I do not want to imply I was suggesting being a hard case and picking a legal argument with the LEO.

    This would not be my personal strategy nor would I advocate it for others.

    As far as the tags, I don't think they run your plates at the type of checkpoint I'm talking about, but then again it has been many many years since I have personally had any experience with one.

    That's why I asked if anyone knew what was legally required, not necessarily what was "PRUDENT". I agree it's not worth the risk to me.

    Quite frankly, even if I knew I did not have to inform in this specific type of interaction, I still would "choose" to inform. But I still want to know what's legal. Suppose for the sake of argument, you forget to inform. Bam! You're in trouble.
     
  6. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,346
    1,818
    Jul 12, 2007
    Thats why I wanted to see the actual OH statute. I think MI has "official contact" as the point you must inform. You could hear official contact in the CPL class and think "pulled over" as the only contact you can think of and miss the actual meaning... Just being thorough, I like to doublecheck when legal jeopardy is involved... just in case.

    For me, I'm not taking any chances... "ring... ring"... "911, what's the nature of your emergency?" "well, first I have to disclose that I am a CPL holder and am currently armed... " :whistling:

    Randy
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2012
  7. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,346
    1,818
    Jul 12, 2007
    My policy too, just that some on the boards have seemed to be doing exactly what you're suggesting they avoid doing. Wasn't completely clear where you were on that spectrum from your post, to me at least.

    Randy
     
  8. righteoushoot

    righteoushoot Deluxe Member

    1,042
    5
    Oct 22, 2008
    Not New York (N.E. OH)
    The CCW Handbook says: "If a person is stopped for a law enforcement purpose and is carrying a concealed handgun as a CCW licensee, whether in a motor vehicle or not, he shall inform the law enforcement officer that he is carrying a concealed handgun."

    I suppose that's general enough to cover all their bases. Although I remember just the other day a thread with the video of a gentleman refusing to answer the sobriety question. He was clearly sober, and when pressed , the female supervisor let him go after her failed attempt to cajole a response. (I don't remember the state.)

    So, if you are not being held, and if you are free to go, and if you do not have to answer their questions, are you being "stopped"? I would think flooring the gas to get away from the checkpoint would be probable cause, but that's not what I'm asking.

    "Official Contact", "law enforcement purpose" can be fairly broad.
     
  9. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,346
    1,818
    Jul 12, 2007
    I'm guessing they're a little vague on purpose to avoid accidentally creating loopholes... they want it to cover more situations rather than less.

    Randy
     
  10. kensteele

    kensteele

    5,379
    0
    Aug 3, 2003
    Leawood, KS
    Unless compelled by law (which is basically the discussion here), I wouldn't disclose firearms at a sobriety checkpoint. The officers are looking for drunk drivers, if you're not drunk, why start a different discussion. Officers frequently describe the checkpoint as catching all kinds of other violations and infractions so if you're not a criminal, you should go thru in a matter of seconds. I don't drink, at all, I don't know how they know this but the last checkpoint I went thru, "have you had anything to drink tonight" "Nope" and off you go....in seconds. That's what happened to me, not sure why I would say "Nope but I do have a permit [here you go] and my firearms with me...."
     
  11. HarleyGuy

    HarleyGuy

    3,420
    132
    Mar 29, 2008
    In Michigan, if you are pulled over by an officer, you and everyone in the vehicle is "stopped" and everyone who has a CPL is required to "promptly notify" the officer that they are carrying.
    I'm not advocating "I have a gun", or "we all have guns":supergrin:

    Anytime and officer says "I want to talk to you" I'd call that a stop unless he likes your motorcycleand just wants to shoot the breeze with you.

    Risking losing your CPL just because you don't want the officer to know that you're armed ain't smart in my book.
     
  12. pipedreams

    pipedreams Member

    9,322
    854
    Feb 19, 2011
    S. E. Iowa
    This is quite interesting. No charges over gun in voting booth
    MI has some strange laws.
    http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1406095

     
  13. a dui checkpoint is stopping you, so i'd say tell them immediately.
     
  14. NEOH212

    NEOH212 Diesel Girl

    8,983
    11
    Mar 25, 2008
    North East Ohio
    In Ohio, any time your carrying and have any kind of official interaction with LE, you must notify.

    I hope this changes in the near future. I hate this law.
     
  15. cloudbuster

    cloudbuster

    1,098
    1
    Mar 17, 2005
    The first respondent and several others who agree with him and post the relevant line from the concealed carry handbook are correct. This isn't even negotiable. The language is very clear. You don't need to be suspected of wrong-doing, or detained, etc. There are no mitigating circumstances. "Law enforcement purpose" effectively covers any official contact with a police officer. You better be darn sure it's just casual conversation (like casual conversation when you're both leaning against the counter at a gun store), before you decide not to notify.

    I also agree with the previous poster that I wish this would get repealed. Like the vehicle notification rules, it's ridiculous, unnecessary and doesn't enhance anyone's safety. It's one of the few remaining "gotcha" provisions of the Ohio CCW law that has yet to be repealed.

    I admit, though, I've been really impressed with the legislature overall. In successive modifications in the 8 or so years since the law passed, the law has been greatly improved and liberalized with each modification. It really stands out as a justification for those who were on the side of "support an imperfect law, because it gets us a big foot in the door" as opposed to the purists who wanted to get the law absolutely perfect on the first pass.
     
  16. cloudbuster

    cloudbuster

    1,098
    1
    Mar 17, 2005
  17. fuzzy03cls

    fuzzy03cls

    2,855
    19
    Jan 28, 2010
    Florida
    More interesting question... Is this "checkpoint" legal? Some think it's a violation of the 4th amendment.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
  18. cloudbuster

    cloudbuster

    1,098
    1
    Mar 17, 2005
    That's a topic for the Civil Liberties forum, I think, but my take is:

    A) They are obviously unconstitutional

    B) The Supreme Court has ruled that they are constitutional.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2012
  19. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,412
    2,801
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    There is one there...http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1388886