• 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.

Terry stops in IA

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
242
Location
Iowa
Iowa Code 724.5.

Its an arguable point on open vs concealed. 724.5 says concealed, while 724.4.i states you must show a permit. I believe a man was just arrested in des moines for not showing a permit. I dont knkw what the outcome was.

I have thrown around the idea of not carrying my permit while open carrying, as we need caselaw to tell us for sure.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

That man's name is Dennis Estell and, according to Iowa Courts Online, that case is still making it through the courts. He(or someone claiming to be him) posted in the thread on that topic last fall. I thought there was another case too, but can't seem to find anything.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
General District Courts do not establish case law as a rule. Only at the appellate level does this occur.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or just disagreeing with you because that's an over simplified statement.
District courts (original trial) render decisions that are not binding on other courts, other trials; hence do not establish "case law."

Only when such a decision is appealed (appellate level or to the Supreme Court) is a precedent (case law) established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Iowa

I see nothing in the judiciary structure that would indicate other than this traditional approach to English Common law.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The traffic stop is more likely a department policy/cop personal preference thing. In Missouri a cop can arrest, without a warrant, for a busted tail light. THIS SEEMS A BIT HARSH... WOW... What is the charge and could the charge have an impact when applying for a gun permit or license etc?

OCing? Well, if you think the only thing the cop is "Terry Stopping" you for is your OC'd firearm then I would be sure that I'm recording and not speaking one word. That cop will have to articulate his RAS in front of a judge.[/QUOTE

Yes indeed, have the recorder running at all times.

My.02

Regards

CCJ
 

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
242
Location
Iowa
District courts (original trial) render decisions that are not binding on other courts, other trials; hence do not establish "case law."

Only when such a decision is appealed (appellate level or to the Supreme Court) is a precedent (case law) established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Iowa

I see nothing in the judiciary structure that would indicate other than this traditional approach to English Common law.

I was under the impression that the ruling in a District court was binding on that district. That's why there are different districts in Florida where a certain type of OC(I think fishing) is legal and another where it isn't. I get that unless a superior court says it then it doesn't necessarily apply at the equal level courts where a decision is made.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
I was under the impression that the ruling in a District court was binding on that district. That's why there are different districts in Florida where a certain type of OC(I think fishing) is legal and another where it isn't. I get that unless a superior court says it then it doesn't necessarily apply at the equal level courts where a decision is made.

Not binding at all. Doesn't even make a valid argument/defense.

Different districts as a matter of convenience for the courts only.

OC in the entire state of Florida is legal to, from, during fishing, hunting, camping, and range time.
Don't make a detour along the way though.

[SIZE=-1](h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0790.25.html[/SIZE]
 
Last edited:

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
242
Location
Iowa
Not binding at all. Doesn't even make a valid argument/defense.

Different districts as a matter of convenience for the courts only.

OC in the entire state of Florida is legal to, from, during fishing, hunting, camping, and range time.
Don't make a detour along the way though.

[SIZE=-1](h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...s/0790.25.html[/SIZE]

I've been away from non-Iowa threads for too long here on OCDO. After MKEgal had her issues dealing with LEO's bullying her settled. It appears I need to refresh my knowledge on a few things on the national level. I'm glad to hear the Florida issue I was thinking of was really just a moot point rather than a serious issue. :cool:
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
I've been away from non-Iowa threads for too long here on OCDO. After MKEgal had her issues dealing with LEO's bullying her settled. It appears I need to refresh my knowledge on a few things on the national level. I'm glad to hear the Florida issue I was thinking of was really just a moot point rather than a serious issue. :cool:
At one time I remember hearing that a person who lived 100 years could not view all the artifacts that the Smithsonian Institute has, so it boggles the mind to remember/find/understand all that the internet has on just one subject like gun laws.

That is where the team effort and sharing come into play :)

Our strength is in our numbers, our dedication, and commonality of cause
icon14.png
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,276
Location
Iowa, USA
I still argue the following point:

What authority does the officer have to assume you do not have a permit and stop you? Same goes for driving. There is no law allowing an officer to stop you in your car to make sure you have the proper government issued permission slip. And if I read Iowa Code 724 correctly, there is not a section that allows for him to stop you for that reason alone.

I could be wrong. Probably am.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
I still argue the following point:

What authority does the officer have to assume you do not have a permit and stop you? Same goes for driving. There is no law allowing an officer to stop you in your car to make sure you have the proper government issued permission slip. And if I read Iowa Code 724 correctly, there is not a section that allows for him to stop you for that reason alone.

I could be wrong. Probably am.

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

I'd argue that the government does not have the authority to demand a permission slip to carry a weapon or drive a car. Since licenses to drive and permits to carry weapons are both issued on a shall issue basis the ability of the government to deny these rights arbitrarily is largely moot. The problem I have is the violation of my Fourth Amendment rights of being required to produce such documents upon demand upon exercising my right to travel or to carry weapons. The government should not be allowed to violate one right in order to exercise another.

Oh, and officers do claim the authority to stop drivers to verify you have your papers in order.
http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-...ry=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=321K

321K.1 ROADBLOCKS CONDUCTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES.
1. The law enforcement agencies of this state may conduct
emergency vehicle roadblocks in response to immediate threats to the
health, safety, and welfare of the public; and otherwise may conduct
routine vehicle roadblocks only as provided in this section. Routine
vehicle roadblocks may be conducted to enforce compliance with the
law regarding any of the following:
a. The licensing of operators of motor vehicles.
b. The registration of motor vehicles.
c. The safety equipment required on motor vehicles.
d. The provisions of chapters 481A and 483A.
2. Any routine vehicle roadblock conducted under this section
shall meet the following requirements:
a. The location of the roadblock, the time during which the
roadblock will be conducted, and the procedure to be used while
conducting the roadblock, shall be determined by policymaking
administrative officers of the law enforcement agency.
b. The roadblock location shall be selected for its safety
and visibility to oncoming motorists, and adequate advance warning
signs, illuminated at night or under conditions of poor visibility,
shall be erected to provide timely information to approaching
motorists of the roadblock and its nature.
c. There shall be uniformed officers and marked official
vehicles of the law enforcement agency or agencies involved, in
sufficient quantity and visibility to demonstrate the official nature
of the roadblock.
d. The selection of motor vehicles to be stopped shall not be
arbitrary.
e. The roadblock shall be conducted to assure the safety of
and to minimize the inconvenience of the motorists involved.
3. A law enforcement agency conducting a roadblock in accordance
with this section may require the driver to provide proof of
financial liability coverage required under section 321.20B.

The chapters 481A and 483A mentioned are Iowa code on wildlife, fishing, hunting, and firearms. I can't find it right now but as I recall the definition of "hunting" is written broadly enough that it basically takes the word of the officer to declare that you are hunting. If the officer can claim you are hunting and you don't have the proper license then you get to go away for a while. While we're on the topic of broad definitions the law on public intoxication is quite broad, an officer's word is about all it takes to convict.

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-...=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=123.46
2. A person shall not use or consume alcoholic liquor, wine, or
beer upon the public streets or highways. A person shall not use or
consume alcoholic liquor in any public place except premises covered
by a liquor control license. A person shall not possess or consume
alcoholic liquors, wine, or beer on public school property or while
attending a public or private school-related function. A person
shall not be intoxicated or simulate intoxication in a public place.

A person violating this subsection is guilty of a simple misdemeanor.

I have heard of abuse of this part of Iowa Code. An officer can arrest someone by simply declaring the person drunk or "simulating intoxication". The charge may not stick if challenged but they will ruin your day. This part of Iowa Code is usually used to clear the streets of what police think is too many college students in one place. I can see this abused to discourage open carry. Depending on how one interprets the law a conviction of public intoxication may indicate addiction and therefore invalidate any permit to carry weapons.

As I see it the laws are written in such a way that officers can stop anyone at any time and demand "papers". They can claim you are hunting, drunk, or armed to justify the stop. If you are driving then they can take blood, urine, or breath.

321J.6 IMPLIED CONSENT TO TEST.
1. A person who operates a motor vehicle in this state under
circumstances which give reasonable grounds to believe that the
person has been operating a motor vehicle in violation of section
321J.2 or 321J.2A is deemed to have given consent to the withdrawal
of specimens of the person's blood, breath, or urine and to a
chemical test or tests of the specimens for the purpose of
determining the alcohol concentration or presence of a controlled
substance or other drugs, subject to this section.

If you are driving then the law claims you have given consent for a drug test.

So much for "land of the free".
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,276
Location
Iowa, USA
Had an interesting conversation with my attorney about this issue.

He stated, as I believe grapeshot also stated, if you have a permit, there is no need to produce. According to the constitution, an officer has to have RAS that you are carrying illegally to stop you and demand a permit. Technically, if you have a permit you dont have to show it. Doesnt make much sense, but that is his take on it. It goes along the lines of driving without a license. If an officer has no idea whether you have a license or not, he cabt just stop you to check.

I think we are on to something and all we need now is a good court case to back it up.

Edit to add...I AM NOT A LAWYER. MY LAYWER IS MINE. HIS INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO ME AT REQUEST. DONT TAKE MY 2ND HAND ADVICE AS LEGAL ADVICE.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
You can bet the farm that many officers do not have anything like this level of understanding of the law. It actually works in their behalf because they can make it up on the spot.
 
Top