JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
He broke the law. According to OFF, the OR courts have ruled that he could not even ask if you had a gun in the car. He had no PC. He also knew you had a OR CCW before he walked up to your car. He got that info when he ran your plates. But knowing you had a CCW still does not give him PC to ask if you had a gun.

You did not have to answer his question about you having a gun. A mistake on your part. Just keep your spread hands on the wheel and say nothing. You also did not have to give him your CCW. You are not required to under OR court rulings. Do I have any of this wrong? Possibly. If sosss, my apologies. Most respectfully.

Please tell me the law that he broke.
 
I just love all these Internet lawyers who have no concept of what the law (statute and case law) actually are. Most of it is being misinterpreted. Why turn a basic traffic stop into an adversarial confrontation? How would you like it if everyone who walked into your job at McDonalds was telling you how to do your job, calling you a liar, telling you they pay your salary because they are buying that burger, shove their cell phone or camera in your face and tell you they are recording this interaction for their safety. Jeesh people. The main stream media has turned the normal person against all law enforcement by over sensationalizing every little morsel for ratings. The Officer/Trooper/Deputy has a job to do. They don't go out looking to screw with people for no reason. There is plenty of people screwing up on their own to go around. If you are polite and respectful, guess what? You get respect back. If you screwed up or were in a hurry, man up and own it instead of calling them a liar or arguing. That is a sure way to get a citation so you can explain the incident and your behavior to the judge. If the Trooper said he needed to wait longer for the lane change, there was probable cause for the traffic stop as you are required to signal 100ft prior to a lane change.

No you don't have to engage in conversation. And yes, the Officer/Trooper/Deputy can ask you questions and has a lawful right to do so. Like is this your current address? And yes, you can be detained on reasonable suspicion, not just probable cause. And yes, if the red and blue lights are on YOU ARE detained and not free to leave until advised you can leave. You want to record my every actions? Fantastic. By the way I'm recording everything you say and do and have done prior to the traffic stop for MY protection.

Bottom line is, if you obey the traffic laws and equipment laws on your vehicle, guess what, you aren't going to be stopped. Amazing how that happens. You don't like a traffic law or equipment law, guess what, the cop didn't make that crap up and may not agree with it either. The legislators you elected did. Go complain to them and get it changed.
 
Please tell me the law that he broke.
I would assume by the post and what the Trooper said to him, 811.375 Unlawful Lane change. You are required to signal your intent to change lanes for at least 100ft prior to doing so. Not while you are in the act of changing lanes, not after you have pulled into the turn lane, and yes you must signal when taking an exit ramp, etc.
 
I would assume by the post and what the Trooper said to him, 811.375 Unlawful Lane change. You are required to signal your intent to change lanes for at least 100ft prior to doing so. Not while you are in the act of changing lanes, not after you have pulled into the turn lane, and yes you must signal when taking an exit ramp, etc.

No. I quoted HB of CJ because of his implication that the Cop broke the law by asking the OP if he had a gun in the car. I merely wished to know the statute or case law that he supposedly broke.
 
He broke the law. According to OFF, the OR courts have ruled that he could not even ask if you had a gun in the car. He had no PC. He also knew you had a OR CCW before he walked up to your car. He got that info when he ran your plates. But knowing you had a CCW still does not give him PC to ask if you had a gun.

You did not have to answer his question about you having a gun. A mistake on your part. Just keep your spread hands on the wheel and say nothing. You also did not have to give him your CCW. You are not required to under OR court rulings. Do I have any of this wrong? Possibly. If sosss, my apologies. Most respectfully.

In Oregon the permit is called a CHL......Concealed Handgun License
 
I usually am sitting on my wallet with my ID etc inside my hip pocket. I can imagine a cop freaking out when I got to do gymnastics in the car seat to retrieve my wallet. Should I be in the habit of not sitting on my wallet. And risk forgetting it when I exit the car.
 
I usually am sitting on my wallet with my ID etc inside my hip pocket. I can imagine a cop freaking out when I got to do gymnastics in the car seat to retrieve my wallet. Should I be in the habit of not sitting on my wallet. And risk forgetting it when I exit the car.

training just like shooting I automatically take it out put my wallet on the dash and put back in my back pocket when I leave my truck. Takes practice but things are simpler when your prepared.

Ok I forget once in a while. ;)
 
I am a firm believer in treating law enforcement with respect and a wide degree of discretion, even if they don't deserve it. In 46 years and dozens of encounters with law enforcement I have only met with one who didn't. I was much younger then and had a different idea about how to interact with law enforcement. That other "way" landed me in a jail cell with a bloody forehead where it was bounced off the car door jam as I was being stuffed in the back. As I was trying to tell the assaulting (arresting) officer he made a mistake. The next day all the charges were dropped as it really was a mistake. I still ended up in jail and still had a gash on my head. When it was shown I was in the right and the officer arrested me because he did not understand the difference between a social security number and a drivers licence number (I had a valid Washington Drivers licence which at the time like many states had your SS number on it. He ran my SS number rather than my DL number which came back as surrendered in Idaho, which it was because you have to surrender your licence in one state to get it in another, so he arrested me for driving without a licence even though he had my valid Washington licence in his hand. I argued with him, told him he was wrong. He called that resisting) I ask for an apology. The response was a chuckle and "no"

In any case. I would let them be wrong these days even if it means going to jail for a few hours. I would rather things get sorted out by a lawyer later than by a aggressive cop on the spot.
There are a few, very few, police officers that should never have been given a badge. Most of them don't last long in law enforcement. I have worked with a few and yep, there are complete a**holes. Anyone ever been in a job where there is a total jerk working with you? You bet, a**holes in every line of work. You do have recourses, sue the police department if they won't respond to your concerns. The city fathers don't like it and police administrators are a dime a dozen. If anything, make a formal written complaint as it becomes public record.

Lastly, police are human and just like everyone else, sometimes have a bad day, maybe because of a previous call or dealing with an irate foul mouth citizen. As law enforcement officer, you sometimes wish you could just walk away and let someone else handle a call. Law enforcement has to handle a situation, no matter how bad it is.
 
I got pulled over for speeding once for speeding. The cop had already run my plate, so he already knew I had a chl. It didn't phase him too much when I told him that I left my wallet at home. He asked if I was carrying. I said yes. He went back to his cruiser, came back with the ticket, and he warned me that failure to "present" is a felony. He went back to his cruiser and drove away I thought he was quite charitable.
 
Consider yourself blessed for not having to worry and/or get shot! Philando Castile did not give the cop a reason to pull out, aim and shoot his gun. I'm surprised the NRA hasn't came out with a concern about that murder.
 
This. ^^

I once had a city cop pull me over because I had stickers on my helmet that he did not like. The first one was "capable of evading high speed pursuit", the other was "legalize freedom" - both of which he gave me a ration of **** about and then when he asked where I was employed (none of his business, but I didn't say that) and told him I was currently unemployed, he then started to lecture me about why I should be out looking for a job instead of joy riding on my murder-cycle. :rolleyes:

LEOs are pulled from the same pool of people as any other profession and a few of them just can't resist lording their authority over others, especially those people they don't like. View attachment 375405

I've been pulled over in my drive way by lonely cops just wanting to chat.
I've been pulled over and questioned because I had teen girls in the car.
I've been pulled over by a cop who was trying to meet my daughter when I drove her car once.
And once I had a cop threaten to shoot me cause my hands were clearly visible and he wanted to know where the F*ck the gun was.

One of the most dangerous situations you'll be in is when a cop pulls you over. By the time they walk up, they've already profiled you and knowing you have a CCL they have a plan to kill you and you don't know what their intent is.
 
One of the most dangerous situations you'll be in is when a cop pulls you over. By the time they walk up, they've already profiled you and knowing you have a CCL they have a plan to kill you and you don't know what their intent is.

Now, see, I don't quite get that. I've always understood that CHL holders were among those that the police needed to worry the least about. There are a few spotty incidents of a CHL holder doing something stupid or illegal, but it's a very small number. If anything, based on the LEO's I've asked about this, they don't typically think of a CHL holder as a threat - they tend to be law-abiding folks. Not to say they won't be on their guard, but "plan to kill you"?? That may be overstating things just a bit.

I would think you could approach a CHL holder differnently simply because you already know they have a gun. Whereas the non CHL folks, well they may have a gun, they may not. I honestly would be much more concerned about the folks I don't know are carrying than those I know who are, and have been vetted through the BGC system to get the CHL in the first place.
 
Now, see, I don't quite get that. I've always understood that CHL holders were among those that the police needed to worry the least about. There are a few spotty incidents of a CHL holder doing something stupid or illegal, but it's a very small number. If anything, based on the LEO's I've asked about this, they don't typically think of a CHL holder as a threat - they tend to be law-abiding folks. Not to say they won't be on their guard, but "plan to kill you"?? That may be overstating things just a bit.
The Conversation I was in started with threats about shooting me in the back of my head if he saw a gun, where is it.
I gathered they had just been trained about how dangerous armed people typically have an arm out the window and on the wheel and he was trying to provoke some sort of reaction.
 
What with That many Traffic Stops going on you must display a Very interesting "Profile". I don't think I'd like to be a passenger in the same vehicle with You!
 
The Conversation I was in started with threats about shooting me in the back of my head if he saw a gun, where is it.
I gathered they had just been trained about how dangerous armed people typically have an arm out the window and on the wheel and he was trying to provoke some sort of reaction.

I've only been pulled over a handful of times since getting my CHL some 23 years ago. In each case I didn't get the kind of reaction you got. Maybe he was one of the bad ones?

Each officer I encountered was relaxed and respectful, which I gave them back in return. I would expect most stops would go this way. I would hope what happened with you is a rare occurrence.
 
In 2021 I will have had my CPL for 50 years with out a miss but I've been carrying since I was 19 and Yes I've found a few good reasons during those years. Not to mention that I carried a Badge for 8-1/2 of those years. Even while I was a LEO of one kind or another I just didn't see a reason to drop the CPL.

It's what I bought.y Bride for her 21st. She does come in handy every once in a while!
 
State of Oregon vs J. L. Jimenez. 2015. Oregon State Supreme Court Ruling.

Here's the actual ruling- http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S062473.pdf

It looks like the court still give a LEO a lot of leeway to ask about a weapon (underlined below).........

SCOTSOO said:
In this criminal case, an Oregon state trooper stopped defendant for jaywalking and asked him if he had
any weapons on him. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution 1
does not permit a law enforcement officer to make such an inquiry as a matter of routine and in the absence of circumstances
that indicate danger to the officer or members of the public. In contrast, when an officer has probable cause to detain an
individual and conduct a traffic investigation, and the officer has reasonable, circumstance-specific concerns for the officer's safety, the officer may inquire about the presence of weapons. In that instance, the officer's inquiry is reasonably related to the traffic investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it, and therefore does not violate Article I, section 9.
Because that standard was not met in this case, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, State v. Jimenez, 263 Or App 150, 326 P3d 1222 (2014), and reverse the judgment of the circuit court.

A person gets pulled over for whatever traffic violation, all the LEO has to say is that he/she noticed a bulge that looks like a weapon is being concealed/the tattoo looked like a known gang tattoo/thought they had seen an ammo boxes/he had a sticker on his helmet...... (J/K on the helmet one). I believe that 9 times out of 10, something like that would satisfy the "circumstance-specific concern" that the court raised.


SCOTSOO said:
The officer's testimony is lacking for two reasons.
First, not only did the officer not explain why the circumstances of this stop concerned him, but he explained that he always asks about weapons in every pedestrian stop without regard to the circumstances of the stop. Second, the officer testified that he asked the question "obviously for officer safety reasons." "Officer safety" explains the nature of the officer's concern. It does not identify the facts that, in his mind, gave rise to that concern.

As I read the majority's opinion, it holds that, for a question regarding weapons to be reasonably related to a stop, an officer must explain why the facts or circumstances surrounding a stop caused the officer to have reasonable concerns for the officer's or other persons' safety.

They pretty much ruled the way they did because the LEO stated "which I do with all contacts on the street with pedestrians, just for—obviously for officer safety reasons", had he not said that this was his "routine" (as noted above), this case may have gone the other way.


Ray
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top