Requirement of Disclosure

[this_is_nascar 162]

Months ago, this was talked about a bit, but I'm not sure if there ever was an outcome. In Alaska, upon being pulled over for a traffic stop, there is a "requirement of disclosure" that you immediately notify the officer that you have a firearm either on your person or in you vehicle. Is there any such requirement in NJ?

[this_is_nascar 162]

No one?

[Dan 177]

None. In fact discretion is your best friend. If the police ask "do you have any weapons in your car", you are not obliged to answer that question. You cannot lie if you choose to answer as that is obstruction. You; however, can simply state that it is your consistent practice to not answer any questions without your lawyer present, period.

[reloaderguy 30]

If I am not asked. I will not volunteer information to any cop if I am pulled over in NJ. My guns are usually carried locked in the trunk and I have my FID card. NJ basically has no CCW so if you are carrying on your person unless you are LE or retired LE you have a problem if you are asked

[this_is_nascar 162]

That's what I thought. Thanks.

[Mr.G 8]

What if you said "no" and during inspection (if this escalates) they find firearms locked (in accordance to legal transport to and from) in your trunk?

Technically you are not "carrying" which you answered correctly but transporting to and from the range and followed all transportation guidelines.

[this_is_nascar 162]

What if you said "no" and during inspection (if this escalates) they find firearms locked (in accordance to legal transport to and from) in your trunk?

Technically you are not "carrying" which you answered correctly but transporting to and from the range and followed all transportation guidelines.

 

 

They'd get you for some kind of charge that has to do with lying to an officer. Not sure why you'd ever want to lie about this. I can certainly understand not volunteering the info if not required, but once asked, you have to admit to having it.

[GRIZ 3,369]

No requirement to notify if you are transporting the guns legally in your vehicle, if you have any kind of carry permit, or you're a LEO carrying off duty or under LEOSA. May be a good idea if you were carrying on your person even though not required. If LEO asks you if you are transporting in vehicle you can answer truthfully or plead the 5th Amendment but lying to him is a crime (18USC1001 under Federal law).

 

How does an "inspection" escalate to him looking in your trunk.

[this_is_nascar 162]

I don't care what it is, I'd never advocate lying in general, but definately not to an officer of the law. It's too risky and a risk I'd never be willing to take.

[PeteF 1,044]

Don't lie but don't answer either.

 

Officer: Have any firearms in the car?

You: Why would you ask that?

 

No lie and no acknowledgement.

Nappen and GFH radio just had this question

[rdsmith3 19]

If you are pulled over for, say, a traffic violation, and the LEO gets your drivers license and checks for outstanding warrants or whatever else they look for on their computer, will it show that you have an FID card?

[BlueLineFish 615]

If you are pulled over for, say, a traffic violation, and the LEO gets your drivers license and checks for outstanding warrants or whatever else they look for on their computer, will it show that you have an FID card?

 

No

[mrjam2jab 9]

Months ago, this was talked about a bit, but I'm not sure if there ever was an outcome. In Alaska, upon being pulled over for a traffic stop, there is a "requirement of disclosure" that you immediately notify the officer that you have a firearm either on your person or in you vehicle. Is there any such requirement in NJ?

 

There are 10 states that require notification when you are carrying a loaded firearm.

AK, AR, LA, MI, NC, NE, OH, OK, SC, TX

 

 

AK doesn't require one to have a permit to carry....is different than the rest in that the other States' laws say "when you are carrying a firearm with a permit." So carrying unloaded in the trunk there is no requirement to notify.

 

NJ has no such statute.

[Soju 153]

If I were to be asked at a traffic stop, I would simply hand the officer the required documents, DL, insurance card, registration, and ask if he needed anything else. If I'm asked again, I again would ask if he had everything or if I forgot something. I'd try not to be too blunt, as that could come off confrontational, but I wouldn't give up any information I don't need to. Under no circumstance does it benefit you to tell more than you need to, as much as they might insist otherwise. People often don't realize the intent of the 5th Amendment. You are extremely more likely to talk yourself into an arrest than talk yourself out of one, or even a ticket. Don't push it.

[this_is_nascar 162]

I continue to hear people, not just in this thread, but all across NJGF suggest different ways to approach questioning. For the life of me, I can't see it ending in a good way if 1) you refuse to answer an officer's question, 2) tell him you're not answering anything without a lawyer, 3) denying him the ability to search your vehicle, etc. I just cant' image any of those situations ending well for the person, I really can't.

[Soju 153]

And you see voluntarily giving up your constitutional rights ending better? I guess if you hate liberty and love the idea of a police state that would make sense.

[this_is_nascar 162]

And you see voluntarily giving up your constitutional rights ending better? I guess if you hate liberty and love the idea of a police state that would make sense.

 

 

Rather than being condescending, how about explaining to me why I'm incorrect in feeling that way? Are you saying that there's not an issue if an officer asks to search your vehicle and you say no? Are you saying if he asks what that case is on your back seat or back floor is and you refuse to answer that there won't be an issue? Not trying to be a pr*ck, but at least help me understand why they're nothing to fear. I do everything in my power to abide by the laws (with the exception of speeding). That being said, I never want to give up any of my rights, so please help me understand and educate me in a positive way. Thanks in advance.

[leahcim 680]

I continue to hear people, not just in this thread, but all across NJGF suggest different ways to approach questioning. For the life of me, I can't see it ending in a good way if 1) you refuse to answer an officer's question, 2) tell him you're not answering anything without a lawyer, 3) denying him the ability to search your vehicle, etc. I just cant' image any of those situations ending well for the person, I really can't.

If you can answer in a polite and non-confrontational way you should be okay--you may end up getting the ticket (if that is why you were stopped) vs. leniency within LEOs discretion. I know if you become confrontational you may win the argument, but drive away with maximum tickets for whatever else the LEO can find beyond your primary offence.

 

When I am stopped I keep my hands visible at all times, and respond only with "yes sir" or "no sir" and that seems to help. I try to imagine it from the LEO perspective, where any traffic stop could potentially go very bad.

 

That being said, I would (respectfully) never allow a search of my car on a traffic stop without PC and a warrant. AND I have NEVER had an LEO request to search my car--They know the law and I really do not think they would ask unless they have PC.

[Soju 153]

Rather than being condescending, how about explaining to me why I'm incorrect in feeling that way? Are you saying that there's not an issue if an officer asks to search your vehicle and you say no? Are you saying if he asks what that case is on your back seat or back floor is and you refuse to answer that there won't be an issue? Not trying to be a pr*ck, but at least help me understand why they're nothing to fear. I do everything in my power to abide by the laws (with the exception of speeding). That being said, I never want to give up any of my rights, so please help me understand and educate me in a positive way. Thanks in advance.

 

I didn't mean to come off condescending. I apologize. I didn't intend to mean that there couldn't be repercussions, or nothing to fear as you put it but rather that nothing good comes from giving up your rights. Certainly negative things can still happen. They do in fact happen with disturbing frequency. I am always in favor of exercising your rights, and with not letting people in a position of authority push you around or scare you into doing something you have no obligation of doing. Nothing good comes from that.

 

I guess I am saying is you shouldn't be afraid of exercising your rights just because a police officer says you shouldn't. Or says you are better off doing something else. Or threatens you or coerces you. When you begin to give up your rights they will simply be taken away from you. In fact, they already are, and that is why you need to fight against it.

 

I hope that better explains my position.

[matty 810]

Seems to me you need to chillax & go with the flow & don't worry so much.

[this_is_nascar 162]

Thanks. I can understand that and I appreciate the response. I guess it's like everyone's been saying. Obviously, being respectful goes without saying. Answering only the questions being asked without adding any fluff, in addition to having a compression of what you must do and not have to do based on your rights.

[johnp 45]

I found this the other day, it's interesting to read. http://flexyourrights.org/faq Not enough people are fully aware of their rights. And because of this are scared of cops.

 

On a side-note, out of curiosity does it specifically say in nj law, that your vehicle is not an extension of you personal property? I know some states it is, and you can carry in your property(vehicle), but is it a law in nj?

[Fishpaw 17]

You could just reply with "...Oh no...I dont have any prohibited items in my car"

[Qel Hoth 33]

I continue to hear people, not just in this thread, but all across NJGF suggest different ways to approach questioning. For the life of me, I can't see it ending in a good way if 1) you refuse to answer an officer's question, 2) tell him you're not answering anything without a lawyer, 3) denying him the ability to search your vehicle, etc. I just cant' image any of those situations ending well for the person, I really can't.

 

1) You can't be convicted of any crime for refusing to answer any question you are not legally obligated to answer. You CAN be convicted of a crime if you lie, and any information you volunteer is fair game as far as RS/PC and court.

 

2. You can't be convicted of any crime for refusing to answer any question you are not legally obligated to answer. You CAN be convicted of a crime if you lie, and any information you volunteer is fair game as far as RS/PC and court. You cannot be interrogated (interrogation is defined as custodial questioning) without a lawyer present, unless you waive this right.

 

3. An officer cannot legally search a vehicle without PC and/or a warrant. There is an established exemption for warrantless searches of vehicles due to their mobility, but the officer still must have PC to obtain a warrant for the search to be valid. If an invalid search finds a ton of weed, a loaded M16 you just stole from the nearest army base complete with flash hider, bayonet lug, and M203 underneath (also loaded), a crate of grenades (also stolen from the army base), google maps to the White House, and written threats against the President, you cannot be charged with any crime, nor can any of that evidence be used as RS/PC to initiate an investigation into you for any crimes. If you consent to the search, you're SOL. Obviously you won't be getting any of that back though.

 

While you may be temporarily inconvenienced and have your rights violated anyway, if you do not consent to the violation of your rights any evidence cannot be used against you.

 

On a side-note, out of curiosity does it specifically say in nj law, that your vehicle is not an extension of you personal property? I know some states it is, and you can carry in your property(vehicle), but is it a law in nj?

 

Your car is your property, you have a degree of privacy to be expected inside your car, though not nearly the degree that is to be expected inside your home. This is SOCTUS ruling and based in the Constitution, therefore any possible NJ law to the contrary (though I am not aware of any) is irrelevant. The state does not have the power to say that your car is or is not your property. Your car IS your property and that cannot be disputed. However, a state can require a search warrant for a vehicle search, thus giving the car a greater degree of expected privacy than SCOTUS, but to my knowledge none do.

 

EDIT -

 

If I am ever asked by an officer if I have anything (weapons, drugs, Furbies) in the vehicle, my answer will be "Sir/ma'am, I would prefer not to answer that question." Unless of course I am legally obligated to do so. Refusal of consent to search or answer any question one is not obligated to answer CANNOT be used as PC to initiate a search.

[Silent Service 7]

If you can answer in a polite and non-confrontational way you should be okay--you may end up getting the ticket (if that is why you were stopped) vs. leniency within LEOs discretion. I know if you become confrontational you may win the argument, but drive away with maximum tickets for whatever else the LEO can find beyond your primary offence.

 

When I am stopped I keep my hands visible at all times, and respond only with "yes sir" or "no sir" and that seems to help. I try to imagine it from the LEO perspective, where any traffic stop could potentially go very bad.

 

That being said, I would (respectfully) never allow a search of my car on a traffic stop without PC and a warrant. AND I have NEVER had an LEO request to search my car--They know the law and I really do not think they would ask unless they have PC.

 

I agree with everything said here except "They know the law and I really do not think they would ask unless they have PC".

 

They all don't know the law, some abuse it and some think they are above it. I know this from experience. When I was 21, my friend and I were pulled over by (2) cops who said I was doing 15 over (Not, I was doing 5 over) and ordered to exit the truck after I produced all my documents (which were valid). They proceeded to search my truck. As they were digging around, I pulled out my PBA card and gave it to the JO on my side. He was surprised and said " Why did'nt you give that to me with your license", I told him I did'nt think I needed it until they started digging through my stuff. As I was talking to him I noticed a little baggy with a red stripe on it sticking out of his pocket (It was either a dime or nickel bag), he noticed I saw it and he quickly shoved it back in his pocket. THANK GOD FOR THAT PBA CARD! These two pri cks would have ruined my life. Oh, and they were later busted for planting evidence.

 

They will ask to search you and your vehicle, if you say yes, you just gave up your right. I would say no and ask if I was free to go.

 

I love the question, "Where are you going?". Never say "None of your business" or "Yo, I'm going to hook up with little Mo, get some ho's, some smack and a 45". I say something like "To the auto parts store (or mechanic) to get a bulb for one of my lights that I was having trouble with this morning, gee officer is that what you pulled me over for?"

 

Keep your weapons, ammo, range gear etc out of sight. That will help you avoid those rascally questions.

 

Btw, I know those two POS that tried planting that stuff on me are an exception.

[Silent Service 7]

I found this the other day, it's interesting to read. http://flexyourrights.org/faq Not enough people are fully aware of their rights. And because of this are scared of cops.

 

On a side-note, out of curiosity does it specifically say in nj law, that your vehicle is not an extension of you personal property? I know some states it is, and you can carry in your property(vehicle), but is it a law in nj?

 

+1 for the link

[johnp 45]

Your car is your property, you have a degree of privacy to be expected inside your car, though not nearly the degree that is to be expected inside your home. This is SOCTUS ruling and based in the Constitution, therefore any possible NJ law to the contrary (though I am not aware of any) is irrelevant. The state does not have the power to say that your car is or is not your property. Your car IS your property and that cannot be disputed. However, a state can require a search warrant for a vehicle search, thus giving the car a greater degree of expected privacy than SCOTUS, but to my knowledge none do.

 

EDIT -

 

If I am ever asked by an officer if I have anything (weapons, drugs, Furbies) in the vehicle, my answer will be "Sir/ma'am, I would prefer not to answer that question." Unless of course I am legally obligated to do so. Refusal of consent to search or answer any question one is not obligated to answer CANNOT be used as PC to initiate a search.

 

You confused me a lil bit, so could I legally carry a gun on my persons, while I'm driving around in my vehicle? ONLY in my vehicle, I will not get out at all, am I within the law?

 

Also should be noted, if a leo really wants to search your vehicle, "I smell marjiuana" is all the pc that is needed. If anyone is interested in protecting your personal rights, look over the link I posed. There's some good info., they're trying to sell a dvd but still some good info. on the site itself.

[Mr.G 8]

Why not just admit when asked that you have a firearm and being transported in accordance to NJ law to or from range? You are not breaking the law and there is nothing to hide. That way you can be on your way. No? Or would that mean PC to ask further questions and search your vehicle?

I understand you can either fully exercise your right or just tell the truth and intention b/c you are not breaking the law anyway and no need to complicate matters.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I don't even know where to begin. First off,lying is never a good idea. That is correct. Secondly vehicle stops are the most deadly part of an officers job so any form of evasive or ambiguous answer is gong to arouse suspicion. The pc needed to search a vehicle changes constantly as NJ is based almost solely on case law. If I m going to search a car it is limited to the grabbable area of whoever I suspect is hiding anything or is deemed a threat. Anything locked is off limits unless consent is given or I get a warrant. " I smell weed" really isn't all that valid anymore. I think I can speak for most officers when I say honesty goes a long way.

[johnp 45]

I don't even know where to begin. First off,lying is never a good idea. That is correct. Secondly vehicle stops are the most deadly part of an officers job so any form of evasive or ambiguous answer is gong to arouse suspicion. The pc needed to search a vehicle changes constantly as NJ is based almost solely on case law. If I m going to search a car it is limited to the grabbable area of whoever I suspect is hiding anything or is deemed a threat. Anything locked is off limits unless consent is given or I get a warrant. " I smell weed" really isn't all that valid anymore. I think I can speak for most officers when I say honesty goes a long way.

 

Could you elaborate on what this statement (in bold) means please?