Oregon City Inspection Provision - 9.24.020(E)

[JamesRL]

Nope it doesn't work that way - the Officer must have probable cause to make a traffic stop on you - Oregon law does not permit stopping you just to check to see if you have a drivers license - there must be a violation that was observed.

Not to pick nits, but all the officer needs to stop you and demand to see your driver's license is a "reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity", not "probably cause". They would need "probable cause" to search your car, however.


Jim

 

[python287]

I am aware. Please read all previous posts before replying. I am clearly not saying otherwise.

No but some are he message was for the others who think otherwise.

 

[python287]

Not to pick nits, but all the officer needs to stop you and demand to see your driver's license is a "reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity", not "probably cause". They would need "probable cause" to search your car, however.


Jim

No Jim the police need Probable Cause of a traffic violation before they can stop you or a belief that you have been involved in a crime ( i.e. you are driving a vehicle that was involved in a crime)

 

[decklin]

No Jim the police need Probable Cause of a traffic violation before they can stop you or a belief that you have been involved in a crime ( i.e. you are driving a vehicle that was involved in a crime)

Jim is right. They need RAS.

 

[python287]

Jim is right. They need RAS.

No Jim is not correct - Officers need PC (Probable Cause to make a traffic stop - Please SEE ORS 810.410b

Officers need Probable Cause to make a Stop

810.410 Arrest and citation. (1) A police officer may arrest or issue a citation to a person for a traffic crime at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the police offi- cer is authorized to act as provided by ORS 133.235 and 133.310.

(2) A police officer may issue a citation to a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional au- thority of the governmental unit by which the police officer is authorized to act:

(a) When the traffic violation is commit- ted in the police officer's presence; or

(b) When the police officer has probable cause to believe an offense has occurred based on a description of the vehicle or other information received from a police officer who observed the traffic violation.

 

[JamesRL]

The police can also stop you if they have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in criminal activity ("Terry stop"). That is a lower bar than "probable cause".


Jim

 

[python287]

That is a separate issue - Traffic Violations still require Probable Cause for the stop -

 

[JamesRL]

That is a separate issue - Traffic Violations still require Probable Cause for the stop -

Soooo.... if they stop you for failing to signal, they have probable cause and if they stop you because they have a "reasonable suspicion" that you were involved in criminal activity, it's a "Terry stop". In both cases, you are stopped with a police car behind you and handing the officer your driver's licence.

A distinction without a difference?


Jim

 

[python287]

It is the distinction that a stop for a traffic violation requires PC - Not reasonable suspicion - most stops are for traffic violations

 

[Pittsmaster]

Back to the original point, when you are in oregon city and officers stop you when walking while open carrying, is it RAS or PC, or just the inspection provision that allows that? And if so, I still say it's an illegal provision.

 

[JamesRL]

Back to the original point, when you are in oregon city and officers stop you when walking while open carrying, is it RAS or PC, or just the inspection provision that allows that? And if so, I still say it's an illegal provision.

As I see it, if they see someone carrying openly, then they have a "reasonable suspicion" of a crime and are justified in stopping you and asking for ID (and a CHL, if you have one).

It's a bit of a moot point whether they are stopping you for PC or "reasonable suspicion", since the effect is the same. Oregon City's law - as I understand it - allows open carry only if you have a CHL (idiotic law!). Therefore, seeing someone carrying openly would be PC of a "crime", but having a CHL would make it legal, but the officer would still have "reasonable suspicion" unless they knew beforehand that you had a CHL.... in which case they probably wouldn't stop you.

Of course, if you have a CHL, the officer doesn't NEED to inspect your gun, since it is legal whether it is loaded or not. And - curiously - if you DON'T have a CHL, they ALSO don't need to inspect it, since - as I understand the Oregon City statute - open carry without a CHL is illegal whether the gun is loaded or not.

It seems to come down to a philosophical (meaning "irrelevant") argument: is the officer stopping you for PC of a crime or "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity"? You can only tell which one it is after you produce (or don't produce) your CHL. If you have a CHL, then it was "reasonable suspicion"; if you don't have a CHL, it was for probable cause.

At this point, quantum physics starts to look logical and straightforward.


Jim

 

[decklin]

As I see it, if they see someone carrying openly, then they have a "reasonable suspicion" of a crime and are justified in stopping you and asking for ID (and a CHL, if you have one).

It's a bit of a moot point whether they are stopping you for PC or "reasonable suspicion", since the effect is the same. Oregon City's law - as I understand it - allows open carry only if you have a CHL (idiotic law!). Therefore, seeing someone carrying openly would be PC of a "crime", but having a CHL would make it legal, but the officer would still have "reasonable suspicion" unless they knew beforehand that you had a CHL.... in which case they probably wouldn't stop you.

Of course, if you have a CHL, the officer doesn't NEED to inspect your gun, since it is legal whether it is loaded or not. And - curiously - if you DON'T have a CHL, they ALSO don't need to inspect it, since - as I understand the Oregon City statute - open carry without a CHL is illegal whether the gun is loaded or not.

It seems to come down to a philosophical (meaning "irrelevant") argument: is the officer stopping you for PC of a crime or "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity"? You can only tell which one it is after you produce (or don't produce) your CHL. If you have a CHL, then it was "reasonable suspicion"; if you don't have a CHL, it was for probable cause.

At this point, quantum physics starts to look logical and straightforward.


Jim

Oregon city by law cannot ban open carry of unloaded weapons. It's covered by state preemption.

 

[decklin]

No Jim is not correct - Officers need PC (Probable Cause to make a traffic stop - Please SEE ORS 810.410b

Officers need Probable Cause to make a Stop

810.410 Arrest and citation. (1) A police officer may arrest or issue a citation to a person for a traffic crime at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the police offi- cer is authorized to act as provided by ORS 133.235 and 133.310.

(2) A police officer may issue a citation to a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional au- thority of the governmental unit by which the police officer is authorized to act:

(a) When the traffic violation is commit- ted in the police officer's presence; or

(b) When the police officer has probable cause to believe an offense has occurred based on a description of the vehicle or other information received from a police officer who observed the traffic violation.

50% of that law covers RAS.

 

[Pittsmaster]

50% of that law covers RAS.

60% of the time it works every time.... haha

 

[U201491]

This is interesting and from the Saturday the 16th NRA-ILA Aleart.

https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...such-open-carry-is-legal.197778/#post-1273108

 

[balaperdida]

The SCOTUS ruled recently that a cop need have only a belief that a law was violated to stop and detain a person, regardless of whether a violation occurred. IIRC, the situation was whether a vehicle with a single tail light was legal. It was, but the cop believed otherwise, and the SCOTUS agreed with the cop.

(It was a brake light, not a tail light.) Filling this out with a couple of links:

Cop's mistaken beliefs analysis (2014)

Another traffic stop decision (2015) that seems to contradict the above (long)

What 4th Amendment?

 

[ARKLITE881South]

I might be missing something, here, but, why, would i want to open carry when i have a conceal carry permit. I don't want to draw any attention to myself to begin with. After all, i don't walk around with my pants unzipped, or unbuttoned. Maybe that makes me a conservative.