• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Duty to Inform?

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
I would think (IMHO) it perfectly reasonable for the officer to issue a citation for violating RCW 9.41.050

Where is the RAS? That she could be lying and that the lie is easy and convenient are not grounds for reasonable suspicion. Even if someone were to think it probable that she were lying, that would not be grounds for suspicion, any more than a given ethnicity having statistically high crimes rates would be grounds for RAS to stop and frisk. In your scenario, the cop has *zero* specific evidence of a crime, while he *does* have specific evidence of no crime, however unreliable that evidence might be considered.

We either hold to a presumption of innocence, or we accept the Gestapo. There is no middle option. Unenforceability of a law is no excuse to disregard presumption of innocence.

Now. The cop *would* have specific evidence of a crime if the car's doors weren't locked. It would *not* be evidence of a crime committed by the woman, however, but by the person who supposedly placed the gun in the car.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Where is the RAS? That she could be lying and that the lie is easy and convenient are not grounds for reasonable suspicion. Even if someone were to think it probable that she were lying, that would not be grounds for suspicion, any more than a given ethnicity having statistically high crimes rates would be grounds for RAS to stop and frisk. In your scenario, the cop has *zero* specific evidence of a crime, while he *does* have specific evidence of no crime, however unreliable that evidence might be considered.

We either hold to a presumption of innocence, or we accept the Gestapo. There is no middle option. Unenforceability of a law is no excuse to disregard presumption of innocence.

Now. The cop *would* have specific evidence of a crime if the car's doors weren't locked. It would *not* be evidence of a crime committed by the woman, however, but by the person who supposedly placed the gun in the car.

If I'm correct, the presumption of innocence is a court of law distinction, not a law enforcement distinction. And would not a reasonable person assume, since it's one of the four safety rules of guns, that the gun would be loaded?

But it doesn't matter because as the operator of the motor vehicle, ultimately you are responsible for it.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Gun + glove box + cop sees gun in glove box + no permit = busted. A prosecutor could believe her and let her off, a jury could believe her and let her off, a judge could believe her and give her a $50 fine and a "be more careful next time."

If I read the statute correctly: gun + husband w/permit = can leave gun in locked car.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
If I'm correct, the presumption of innocence is a court of law distinction, not a law enforcement distinction. And would not a reasonable person assume, since it's one of the four safety rules of guns, that the gun would be loaded?

The presumption of innocence is a principle intrinsic to liberty. It is borne out in the Constitutional design of government. A particular manifestation of the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system of the United States puts the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal trials. In all things, however, the presumption of innocence is a fundamental predicate. The presumption of innocence is why we require RAS in the first place.

But it doesn't matter because as the operator of the motor vehicle, ultimately you are responsible for it.

Cite required.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
I wonder if there is a single lawyer out there who would advise their client to use the defense that the officer had no RAS or PC of a crime committed if the officer observed a loaded handgun in a vehicle with only one person who does not hold a CPL in the vehicle with the gun. That is certainly not the defense I would advise anyone to use.
And I don't disagree. However, it still wouldn't be a crime, and that defense would be valid, even if you think it ill-advised.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
Cite required.
You really want to play that game?

Original infraction of the proposed scenario on face value (ie, not applicable to .060 exemptions):

RCW 9.41.050(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

Once the box has been opened, part (iii) is no longer operable.

Pertaining to the responsibility of the vehicle (clarification- all reference to a private person, not commercial):
RCW 46.29 and 46.30: Financial responsibility/Insurance/Liability
RCW 46.37.010: Scope of regulations pertaining to operating an unsafe vehicle
RCW 46.32.060: Moving a defective vehicle unlawful
RCW 46.61.675: It shall be unlawful for the owner, or any other person, in employing or otherwise directing the operator of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon any public highway in any manner contrary to the law.

In all RCW, it states "person" and not "registered owner" in regards to operating the vehicle (except .61.375 where it lists both). Borrow your buddy's truck to move stuff, you get pulled over for a taillight being out. Who gets the ticket? You do, not the truck owner. Ergo, vehicle operator is responsible, not the owner.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
You really want to play that game?

I'm not playing a game. I'm about to show you why what you think backs your assertion does not. This is why this site requires cites.

RCW 46.61.675: It shall be unlawful for the owner, or any other person, in employing or otherwise directing the operator of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon any public highway in any manner contrary to the law.

Emphasis on "knowingly". Waaaaait for it...

In all RCW, it states "person" and not " registered owner" in regards to operating the vehicle (except .61.375 where it lists both). Borrow your buddy's truck to move stuff, you get pulled over for a taillight being out. Who gets the ticket? You do, not the truck owner. Ergo, vehicle operator is responsible, not the owner.

This is quite different. To operate the vehicle, you are required to ensure the safety characteristics. That's why you would get a ticket for the busted taillight, because you are "knowingly" operating the vehicle with a broken taillight. The contents of the glove box are not part of the safety characteristics of the vehicle.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Woman stopped for speeding at 7:45am, alone in the vehicle. Officer approaches vehicle and asks, "Where you headed this morning in such a hurry?" Woman replies, "I'm late for work." Officer asks for registration and insurance. Woman opens glove box and both the officer and the woman are surprised by the gun sitting in the glove box. The gun is determined to be loaded. Woman driver does not have a CPL. While I certainly do NOT agree with the law that requires the CPL for the loaded gun in the vehicle, I would think (IMHO) it perfectly reasonable for the officer to issue a citation for violating RCW 9.41.050 regardless of if the woman says, "it's my husband's gun and he has a CPL" and the officer verifies the husband has a CPL.

1. The loaded gun in the glovebox with the woman without the CPL being the only occupant of the vehicle driving to work is probable cause to indicate that RCW 9.41.050 was violated without there being an exception contained in RCW 9.41.060 to cover it justifying the issuance of a citation.

2. The woman's testimony that it was the husband's gun and he placed it there was not given under oath.


Part of the big brother problem.

The only reason there would be RS in that scenario if the officer had reason to believe she had no CPL. There was no reason for her to volunteer the information. Yet because of the sharing of "public" information, if he realizes she had no CPL do to info sent immediately to his computer by running the plates or her license. (which flies in the face of the 4th to me), he may react how you portray (right or wrong).

You are correct in how it "is". But is from a constitutional and lawful point is it correct to assume, she is lying. Nope, not in IMHO. Justice isn't a two way street. Lying to cops or to government agents who are constitutionally restricted is not the same as cops lying to the public.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Very easy solution for the police officer. "Ma'am, I am demanding to see your CPL and according to RCW 9.41.050 you are required to display it to me."

According to recent state rulings a cop cannot assume she is not a CPL owner. The rule of lenity should apply.

The only way I can see for him to demand is the PC or RS by her info being linked his computer in his car.

The only real way I can see that law being an infraction is where she is being lawfully searched for another crime.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Woman in car...

The way I read 9.41.050, it is a "strict liability" statute, the offense of which does not require "intent" in order to find the woman guilty. She's the only one in the car; she has no CPL; the loaded gun is in the car. I think the better defense is that the LEO has no PC to check to see if it is loaded.

Officer: Is that pistol loaded, ma'am?
Woman: I have no idea.
Officer: Will you check it, or may I check it, for my own safety?
Woman (not having reached for or touched the pistol): No.

No probable cause (she neither reached for nor touched it). No exigent circumstance. "The presence of a firearm alone is not an exigent circumstance." United States v. Gooch, 780 F. Supp. 725, 732 (E.D. Wash. 1991); United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 680 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158, 1167 (6th Cir. 1984).

My $.02
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
The way I read 9.41.050, it is a "strict liability" statute, the offense of which does not require "intent" in order to find the woman guilty. She's the only one in the car; she has no CPL; the loaded gun is in the car. I think the better defense is that the LEO has no PC to check to see if it is loaded.

Officer: Is that pistol loaded, ma'am?
Woman: I have no idea.
Officer: Will you check it, or may I check it, for my own safety?
Woman (not having reached for or touched the pistol): No.

No probable cause (she neither reached for nor touched it). No exigent circumstance. "The presence of a firearm alone is not an exigent circumstance." United States v. Gooch, 780 F. Supp. 725, 732 (E.D. Wash. 1991); United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 680 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158, 1167 (6th Cir. 1984).

My $.02

What about the fact that she did not place the pistol in the car? Since she was not carrying it the first part would be a moot point would it not?

2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and (snip)

Now the person that did place it could be in trouble due to

"the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there,"

And then what if the pistol was locked in the glove box and the woman did not place it there.

the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

My doors lock automatically on all three vehicles so I am thinking it would be lawful to have a loaded pistol locked in a vehicle that was locked as long as you were not the one that put the pistol in the vehicle.

OK fire away, LOL
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Some of you guys are working on different levels here. Remember.... RAS, PC, and then beyond reasonable doubt...

PC she has the pistol in the car. Go to court introduce its not hers it hers husband's he put it there... Then no beyond reasonable doubt dismissed/not guilty etc.etc.

Add: I would submit that if the gun was locked out of her reach then she never had possession. It was being stored in said vehicle. But that's just my take.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Some of you guys are working on different levels here. Remember.... RAS, PC, and then beyond reasonable doubt...

PC she has the pistol in the car. Go to court introduce its not hers it hers husband's he put it there... Then no beyond reasonable doubt dismissed/not guilty etc.etc.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

All the Cop knows is that there is a loaded firearm in the vehicle since it could be there lawfully several ways how does he arrive at PC to write the ticket?
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Woman stopped for speeding at 7:45am, alone in the vehicle. Officer approaches vehicle and asks, "Where you headed this morning in such a hurry?" Woman replies, "I'm late for work." Officer asks for registration and insurance. Woman opens glove box and both the officer and the woman are surprised by the gun sitting in the glove box. The gun is determined to be loaded. Woman driver does not have a CPL. While I certainly do NOT agree with the law that requires the CPL for the loaded gun in the vehicle, I would think (IMHO) it perfectly reasonable for the officer to issue a citation for violating RCW 9.41.050 regardless of if the woman says, "it's my husband's gun and he has a CPL" and the officer verifies the husband has a CPL.

1. The loaded gun in the glovebox with the woman without the CPL being the only occupant of the vehicle driving to work is probable cause to indicate that RCW 9.41.050 was violated without there being an exception contained in RCW 9.41.060 to cover it justifying the issuance of a citation.

2. The woman's testimony that it was the husband's gun and he placed it there was not given under oath.

All the Cop knows is that there is a loaded firearm in the vehicle since it could be there lawfully several ways how does he arrive at PC to write the ticket?

Navy LCDR already explained this well. Reread his post.

The facts he presented builds probable cause that she was in possession at the time of a loaded firearm without a CPL.

Noe COULD the gun have gotten there by some other means? Yes.

Aliens could do it... Husband could do it... Gremlins could do it.... Etc. etc.

But the facts presented would lead a reasonable person to believe she was in possession of said firearm and it was loaded. That's PC (the jist of it)

Now if she gets the ticket she goes to court and presents her side. "Your honor my husband has a cpl and he left it in there".

Well then the state has to prove BEYOND reasonable doubt that she. Lying or that the defense doesn't work.

See why I said some guys here are working with RAS others are working with PC and some such as yourself (maybs?) Are focusing on beyond reasonable doubt.

The cop is going to work with PC regardless of what we work with...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Navy LCDR already explained this well. Reread his post.

The facts he presented builds probable cause that she was in possession at the time of a loaded firearm without a CPL.

Noe COULD the gun have gotten there by some other means? Yes.

Aliens could do it... Husband could do it... Gremlins could do it.... Etc. etc.

But the facts presented would lead a reasonable person to believe she was in possession of said firearm and it was loaded. That's PC (the jist of it)

Now if she gets the ticket she goes to court and presents her side. "Your honor my husband has a cpl and he left it in there".

Well then the state has to prove BEYOND reasonable doubt that she. Lying or that the defense doesn't work.

See why I said some guys here are working with RAS others are working with PC and some such as yourself (maybs?) Are focusing on beyond reasonable doubt.

The cop is going to work with PC regardless of what we work with...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I get what you aresaying I really do, but none the less there are lawful ways that firearm could have been there. There is no maybe in

(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

If the Cop did not see her place the firearm in the vehicle and she was not carrying it how can he develop PC or RAS that she was committing a crime. The law is clear she was not carrying the firearm and he did not see her place it in the car. You and several others seem to hung up on a loaded firearm in the car that in its self is not unlawful unless she placed it there or was carrying it.

The charge has to be carrying a loaded weapon in the car or placing it there since the Cop did not see her place it there asnd she waas not carrying the loaded forearm no crime occurred, how can he in good conscious effect an arrest? All of this is assuming the woman does not admit to placing the loaded forearm in the car or in some other way say something that gives the Cop PC or RAS for the arrest. The mere presence of the loaded firearm is not unlawful in and of its self.
 
Top