Pulled over - odd reason!

[Toro50cutter]

So the wife and I are cruising on home after a night of dinner, drinking, and dancing at our local roadhouse. Mrs lead-foot is at the wheel of her little Mitsubishi Eclipse five speed V6, but after her last ticket (#5) she finally took a lesson from me and was using cruise control, a safe 60 in a 55. We live just five minutes out of our little mountain town, and about half way home I spot a deer on the side of the road, very common in these parts, and where there is one there is usually more so I call out DEER and the lady punches the brakes. About the same time I catch a glimpse of a sheriff's car, lights out on the side of the road, but pay it no mind as we were not really speeding. A couple of minutes later we notice the car behind us has his high beams on, and again pay it no mind, until he lights us up with his blue & reds.

The deputy comes to the passenger side and I lower my window. Young guy with a 4" red beard (hey, this is Appalachia), and he couldn't be more polite. Wife passed her creds, minus her concealed carry permit as we weren't carrying since we were drinking. He says the reason he pulled us over was because he saw on his radar that we slowed by 10 mph when we approached him, and that usually means the driver has something to hide. Really? We of course said, in unison, that we saw a deer, which he understood. After chatting for a couple of minutes he was satisfied that we were not under the influence and wished us well.

Doesn't seem to me like a good reason to pull over a citizen when we were not really speeding or weaving. Is this a common practice for the law?

Is your state an absolute speed state? That means 56 in a 55 or 54 in a 55 is a probable cause.

Many folks also do not realize that in order to detain someone, whether on foot or in a vehicle, probable cause is not needed. Only reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that criminal activity is afoot.

Many would rather the officer be looking for drunks than simply handing out speeding tickets all day

 

[Owen Lucas]

they searched my car for 45 minutes with the drug-sniffing dog.

I'm curious, did you give them permission to search your vehicle?

 

[mk378]

The first sentence: "The person shall carry the permit...whenever the person is carrying a concealed handgun." The requirement to carry a permit only applies while carrying a concealed handgun. It would not be possible to demand anyone show a permit that they are not required to carry at the time. The next part: "shall disclose...that is carrying a concealed handgun" also only has meaning if carrying a concealed handgun. It doesn't say "disclose whether or not the person is carrying a handgun at the time."

 

[shortyb]

Lots of interesting opinions and points of view in this thread.

I will say this, from the LEO perspective, the officer seemingly observed what he may have felt was erratic, or suspicious, driving, and made the stop to further investigate the reason. Probably could have done without the assumptive statement about folks driving that way could have something to hide, but ok for him to think it. I've found it best practice in the nearly 40 years of fighting crime and guarding the peace, to be bluntly honest with folks and tell them the exact reason for why we are chatting. And to make absolutely sure it is a good reason for doing so. In this situation, I may have noticed the sudden slow down and used that to fuel my suspicion. Follow for a bit and make sure everything is ok, and if it is, motor on. If not, then I would make the stop. I don't use pretextual incidents on their own for detaining anyone. Again, it is merely another piece of the puzzle for me to evaluate a situation and determine if it warrants a stop or intervention on my part. Also, if someone slows down because they see a cop, thats a win. Voluntary compliance without doing anything other than mere presence is the easiest way to accomplish what we are supposed to do. One of the main reason I like driving the felon taxi with the funny lights and "police" in big letters on it.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Thanks, Right, "shall disclose".

In NC, you have to disclose to the officer that you have a CHP, and you are armed or not armed. I thought the CHP class ("NC laws on handguns and the use of deadly force" as it is actually called) for several years. In short, you have to disclose that you are a permit holder, whether you have a gun or not....

This statement is not a correct interpretation of the statute 14-415.11as stated above. Either the statute was misquoted (unlikely since it was cut and paste), the statute changed since the class syllabus was developed (also unlikely since the syllabus would have been updated), there is another law that requires it (please feel free to quote it if you can find it), or the person who originally taught the class misinterpreted the law and the misinterpretation has been passed down. I believe the last possibility is overwhelmingly the most likely.

 

[burbguy82]

This statement is not a correct interpretation of the statute 14-415.11as stated above. Either the statute was misquoted (unlikely since it was cut and paste), the statute changed since the class syllabus was developed (also unlikely since the syllabus would have been updated), there is another law that requires it (please feel free to quote it if you can find it), or the person who originally taught the class misinterpreted the law and the misinterpretation has been passed down. I believe the last possibility is overwhelmingly the most likely.

I think that this is a case of the "jailhouse lawyer"

What the statute says and how it is interpreted are two different things.

I was an instructor, not a student. In fact I never got a concealed carry permit, but taught the class. This distinction was made at the instructor's class at the NC Dept of Justice Training facility, in Salemburg, NC. This was a point in the instructor level certification that had to be taught specifically, to clarify the statute, and teach CCH holders how to act during a encounter with officers.

If you are a NC CCH holder and are stopped by police, you must hand them your DL, CCH, and state whether you are armed or not.

Included are two pictures. One, with the red and yellow booklets are given to instructors only, the binder is also given to instructors with the required academic portions you must teach to your students.

In NC, it is referred to as a CCH Permit, not CHP as erroneously stated by me before.

This is off topic anyway.

 

[KrisZ]

What is being thought and what is the actual law and two different things. It is in the states best interest to teach the would be license holders the way that is the best for the state and their police force. They have their best interests in mind, not the citizen's. Handbooks are not laws.

And police can lie to you whenever they want and can make up their own interpretations however they see fit.
It's probably best to consult an actual attorney in your state regarding these matters.

 

[M56959]

Topic has run its course.