What is the common practice if you were to get pulled over from the police, would you disclose that you have a firearm in your possession of the vehicle, or not?

 

Of course I'm asking if you will disclose this information before he even would ask you this question or not.

no. dont ask dont tell.

I wouldnt bring it up unless they ask. If they ask... "do you have any weapons or firearms in the car" then answer yes.

I would not say a thing unless they ask. It does not make a difference if you are carrying groceries or rifles. Your vehicle is your sovereign property. Just make sure the stuff is not in plain sight, then it does not matter.

I wouldnt bring it up unless they ask. If they ask... "do you have any weapons or firearms in the car" then answer yes.

 

Nope, not what I would do. My answer is always no. Wanna check? Get a warrant. In this case you are not under oath so why open yourself up to problems.

You can answer something along the lines of " I have no illegal weapons or drugs in my car" if asked about weapons and drugs or other contraband....unless you happen to actually have some contraband...

You can answer something along the lines of " I have no illegal weapons or drugs in my car" if asked about weapons and drugs or other contraband....unless you happen to actually have some contraband...

 

 

that sounds like a bad idea, now you just brought drugs into the equasion.

 

a simple no sounds best to me..

As I read all of the replies I really think it is what you feel comfortable saying. You have already read my response as well as others who think differently.

 

Not all cops are pricks. While some are on a power trip. You will have to qualify the officer on the fly to determine his attitude. Just remember any attitude you give will be met 2 fold by him.

 

In the end, it is a giant crap shoot.

I am not joking here. I would kindly reply that I am not answering his question and invoking my 5th amendment rights. Using your 5th amendment rights is not justifiable cause for a search of your vehicle. Lying to a police officer is fine if you don't get caught in your lie, but if you do that can backfire on you. While you are not under oath, that does not mean that it cannot be used against you in a court of law. Here is a video that you all should watch, bookmark it to review it over and over and share with friends.

(make sure you watch part 2 as well) I'm watching it for the 20something time right now, since I had to find the link for you guys

"I wouldnt bring it up unless they ask. If they ask... "do you have any weapons or firearms in the car" then answer yes"

 

Ditto, I concur....

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Bill

I will not volunteer any information unless I'm asked. Thanks

Nope, not what I would do. My answer is always no. Wanna check? Get a warrant. In this case you are not under oath so why open yourself up to problems.

 

Spectacularly BAD idea, sir. You do NOT want to get caught lying to the cop.

Nope, not what I would do. My answer is always no. Wanna check? Get a warrant. In this case you are not under oath so why open yourself up to problems.

 

Spectacularly BAD idea, sir. You do NOT want to get caught lying to the cop.

 

Why? I'm not under oath and am not breaking any laws.

You can answer something along the lines of " I have no illegal weapons or drugs in my car" if asked about weapons and drugs or other contraband....unless you happen to actually have some contraband...

 

 

that sounds like a bad idea, now you just brought drugs into the equasion.

 

a simple no sounds best to me..

 

 

If you read my whole post I said "if asked about weapons AND DRUGS or other contraband"...I didnt say to just add drugs if asked about guns....nor did I say to add anything else to what ever you are asked about. If asked about guns...then reply about guns...if asked about drugs...then reply about drugs...if asked about guns, drugs, or other contraband...then reply in like kind.

On all of my MV stops I always inquired about nuclear weapons.

Silent. Remain silent and don't answer questions without your attorney

Ask for an attorney

Consent. Don't consent to a search

 

Don't lie! Lying to a police officer is a crime, obstructing justice.

The NJ Supreme Court took away the authority of police to conduct consent searches in a 5-0 decision in State v. Carty (2002). Police in NJ can no longer perform so-called "consent searches."

 

It would seem to me that asking what is in your trunk would constitute a consent search.

 

You can read about it here: http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/st ... ent1.shtml

 

New Jersey Supreme Court Blocks Suspicionless Searches During Traffic Stops

Commentary on: Appellate Decision NJ State v. SJ Carty

by Earth

Mar 9, 2002

Appellate Decision: State v. Carty

332 N.J. Super. 200 (App. Div. 2000)

[Decided March 4, 2002]

 

Full Decision Text

 

AP Story

 

In a 5-0 Decision on March 4, 2002, the New Jersey Supreme Court continued its nation-leading protection against police searches. The court decided, with 4 judges signing the primary decision and 1 writing a concurrence, that even with written consent police were not allowed to search the person or vehicle of someone stopped for a traffic violation without "reasonable, articulable suspicion" unrelated to the traffic violation for which the vehicle was stopped.

 

The New Jersey Court ruled on the basis of the New Jersey State Constitution and thus it is not reviewable by the federal Supreme Court. NJ has long had some of the most protective constitutional law regarding police searches during traffic stops. Until this ruling, the New Jersey police were required by the courts to have each person actually sign a consent document in order to allow traffic-stop searches. The consent documents were quite strongly worded, in an attempt to inform citizens that they had the right to refuse searches. The text of the consent document included:

"'Consent' that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all."

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429.

 

 

I have knowingly and voluntarily given my consent to the search described above.

I have been advised by [the investigating officer] and fully understand that I have the right to refuse giving my consent to search.

I have been further advised that I may withdraw my consent at any time during the search.

 

But the court ruled that even this unusually strong attempt to foster informed consent had failed to provide the protection required under the New Jersey Constitution's Article I, paragraph 7. The Court mentions a study which found that "nearly ninety-five percent of detained motorists granted a law enforcement officer's request for consent to search." They use this as evidence that even with the consent form, people do not feel free to say no to the 'request' by police officers. The NJ Court writes:

 

The cumulative effect has been that we no longer have confidence that a consent to search under Johnson truly can be voluntary or otherwise reasonable without modifying the Johnson standard. "'Consent' that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 2388, 115 L. Ed.2d 389, (1991). What can be synthesized from a review of scholarly articles, cases from around the country, and the empirical data referred to in this opinion, is that despite use of the first-tell-then-ask rule or the voluntary and knowing standard adopted in Johnson [68 N.J. 349 (1975)], consent searches following valid motor vehicle stops are either not voluntary because people feel compelled to consent for various reasons, or are not reasonable because of the detention associated with obtaining and executing the consent search. Stated differently, hindsight has taught us that the Johnson standard has not been effective in protecting our citizens' interest against unreasonable intrusions when it comes to suspicionless consent searches following valid motor vehicle stops.

 

The New Jersey Court affirmed the lower appellate court which held "in the absence of an articulable suspicion, the request to search to which the driver assented offended the State Constitution." [Carty, supra, 332 N.J. Super. at 202] The Supreme Court included the appellate's reasoning:

 

Requests to consent to an automobile search are obviously, as a matter of common experience, likely to be complied with. Consequently, baseless requests almost inevitably result in a search. It is our view that travelers on our State highways should not be subject to the harassment, embarrassment[,] and inconvenience of an automobile search following a routine traffic stop unless the officer has at least an articulable suspicion that the search will yield evidence of illegal activity.

 

The New Jersey Supreme Court goes on to be extremely clear about what they're saying and explicitly deny the use of consent-based searches without there being some evidence of a crime:

 

We agree with the Appellate Division that consent searches following a lawful stop of a motor vehicle should not be deemed valid under Johnson unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that an errant motorist or passenger has engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity. In other words, we are expanding the Johnson two-part constitutional standard and holding that unless there is a reasonable and articulable basis beyond the initial valid motor vehicle stop to continue the detention after completion of the valid traffic stop, any further detention to effectuate a consent search is unconstitutional. A suspicionless consent search shall be deemed unconstitutional whether it preceded or followed completion of the lawful traffic stop. The requirement of reasonable and articulable suspicion is derived from our State Constitution and serves to validate the continued detention associated with the search. It also serves the prophylactic purpose of preventing the police from turning a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for criminal activity unrelated to the stop. [NJ State vs Courty]

The only disagreement between the justices is on the somewhat technical grounds of whether the decision is required by the New Jersey State Constitution or whether it should be adopted as a prophylactic [protective] rule of law in order to prevent abuses by police. The majority agreed that it should be considered a Constitutional issue, but the J Stein wrote in a concurring opinion that:

<

"I would impose precisely the same condition as does the Court, but would not rely on the State Constitution as its source. Rather, based on the virtually uncontradicted evidence that some police officers in New Jersey frequently have abused the power to request consents to search motor vehicles after routine traffic stops _ and that motorists routinely accede to those requests _ I would hold that the requirement of reasonable and articulable suspicion that a search will reveal evidence of a crime is simply a prophylactic rule of law adopted by this Court for the purpose of preventing abuses of the power of law enforcement officers to request motorists to consent to searches of their motor vehicles."

 

Another heartening point in the decision is that the Court makes it clear that simply acting nervous and giving "furtive glances" at other occupants of the vehicle cannot be the sole grounds on which an officer bases his suspicion for a search: "under the New Jersey Constitution, the appearance of nervousness is not sufficient grounds for the reasonable and articulable suspicion necessary to extend the scope of a detention beyond the reason for the original stop." Simply being unsettled when pulled over by the police cannot be grounds for a search.

 

An important note, which the concurrence makes very clear, is that this decision applies only to vehicle stops and to no other area of law. As a side note, the Court also makes clear that this ruling does not change the status of searches related to roadblocks which might be required for public safety (drunk driving road blocks) or national security (terrorism-related roadblocks). "Therefore, the holding in the present case is limited in that it pertains to consent searches pursuant to a stop for a traffic infraction."

 

The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision is also notable in the collection of 4th Amendment law citations it provides. It is an excellent resource to use to research other similar case law and includes a wide variety of citations in New Jersey law, other state law, and federal 4th Amendment decisions. We hope that other state courts will consider adopting similar restrictions on the so called "consent searches".

 

The case also opens the issue of how much New Jersey police are allowed to question someone outside of the bounds of the traffic violation for which they were stopped. While the decision does not directly address this, since New Jersey police are no longer allowed to ask otherwise law-abiding motorists for permission to search their car and the NJ Supreme Court has banned 'fishing expeditions' by police during traffic stops, it seems likely that a reasonable reading of this decision includes substantially limiting the New Jersey police's power to ask questions unrelated to the stop. "[This new standard] prevent the police from turning routine traffic stops into a fishing expedition for criminal activity unrelated to the lawful stop." [NJ State vs SJ Carty, March 4 2002]

 

Decision by: Coleman J, Chief Justice Poritz DT, Long V, & Zazzali JR with Stein J concurring.

Lying to a police officer is a crime, obstructing justice

 

You have that somewhat confused. The statute is much more involved that what you have posted. If you can get access, read not only the applicable statute but the case law pertaining to it.

Lying to a police officer is a crime, obstructing justice

 

You have that somewhat confused. The statute is much more involved that what you have posted. If you can get access, read not only the applicable statute but the case law pertaining to it.

 

I have read several news stories where one of the charges invovled lying to the officer during questioning. You should consult an attorney for a professional opinion. However, silence is the best answer to an officer's question.

Hindering involves a related crime and the attempt to hide one's identity thus attempting to avoid prosecution. It in not answering a question incorrectly. Again, read the case law for a clearer view of what it involves. your theory could have one charged with Obstruction for not admitting a violation of a traffic signal. It doesn't work like that.

 

You are under no legal obligation whatsoever to describe the contents of your vehicle. If stopped, your legal obligation is to provide a valid driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of liability insurance.

I think the key involved here is doing what is right, or what is the most appropriate.

 

While I would love to tell a PO to PO, it would not be worth my time.

 

If something is really serious, you will get an attorney involved anyway, but why make a situation worse.

 

You may be right, but you have to show up to court.

 

Kind of like traffic stops, if you were, or were not speeding, if something small, almost easier to just pay the ticket and forget about it.