Must notify law should be changed!

[Glocktogo]

As a human being in a dangerous world who happens to be a LEO, all persons are always armed until proven otherwise! For all I know, someone I'm about to conduct a field interview on to determine if they have any information about a small crime, may be a wanted serial killer who thinks I'm on to them. Therefore, the notification law is irrelevant to how I manage my safety during an unknown contact.

 

[GlockCop]

I dont know how some of you people are able to get through daily life being so paranoid. Why do you think just because a cop is talking to you we are out to "get you"? I guess maybe I should start not talking to people unless in an "official" capacity.

 

[Fatboy Joe]

The trouble is that with this approach you still cannot enter into a casual discussion with a LEO without the danger that at any moment he can decide it has gone from casual to detainment. In my opinion there should be no confusion when it reaches this point. Take any possible confusion out of it by having the LEO ask for identification when it is a detainment. That way both parties are aware, or should be, that notification is now necessary.
I personally enjoy talking with most the cops I have ever met. I should be able to do that without having to worry about breaking any law. If I am not required to notify I prefer not to. Just do not make it difficult for me to know when I have to.

Very simple, if asked for a drivers license, ID card or other official means of identification you must notify. While you are not required to carry an ID the mere asking for one would put you on notice that you are now in a must notify situation.
All I am saying here is to remove all guess work on the part of the citizen.

Michael

This is wrong.

TITLE 21 § 1290.8 POSSESSION OF LICENSE REQUIRED-NOTIFICATION TO POLICE OF GUN
A. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, an eligible person shall have authority to carry a concealed handgun in this state when the person has been issued a handgun license from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act provided the person is in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, and the license has not expired or been subsequently suspended or revoked. A person in possession of a valid handgun license and in compliance with the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall be authorized to carry such concealed handgun while bow hunting or fishing.
B. The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punishable as a criminal offense as authorized by Section 1272 of this title or pursuant to any other applicable provision of law. In addition to any criminal prosecution which may result from not carrying the handgun license and the required identification with the authorized pistol as required by the provisions of this subsection, the person may be subject to an administrative fine for violation of the provisions of this subsection. The administrative fine shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) and shall be assessed by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation after a hearing and determination that the licensee is in violation of the provisions of this subsection. Any second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be grounds for the Bureau

 

[Glocktogo]

I dont know how some of you people are able to get through daily life being so paranoid. Why do you think just because a cop is talking to you we are out to "get you"? I guess maybe I should start not talking to people unless in an "official" capacity.

You almost sound like one of those mythical "reasonable cops". Of course, I'm sure some on here will recognize you as a ruthless cop trying to set them up for an internet bust!

 

[MLR]

Fatboy Joe:
You are correct that a person in who is carrying and has a Concealed carry permit must carry proper ID. My post was referring to the fact that not everyone is required to carry ID in this State. I probably was not clear in my statement.

Michael

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

The problem comes when an officer is adept at making a person feel that they are not being interrogated or detained. When he uses ordinary conversation as a way to make you comfortable while he is actually using this as a way to makes a judgment as to whether or not you might be up to no good.
Some officers are very good at this skill. You are totally unaware of the real reason he is asking you about the weather or how your shopping trip went. Things can quickly go from how was your trip to you're being arrested for failure to inform.

This particular clause in the must notify section of the law is the only one I have a problem with. It puts the onus on the citizen to determine what the motives of the LEO befriending him actually is. I believe that this issue may have been addressed in one of the recent gun bills but it was stricken as taking to much power away from the police.

I have discussed this over the last few years with my State Reps. The responsibility of letting someone know he is being detained should be on the government not the individual. If others who feel the same way would contact their reps we could possibly get this changed.

Michael

The duty to notify the officer is activated during an arrest, detainment, or traffic stop. According to the US Supreme Court all of those are actually arrests. The common denominator is whether the person is free to go about his business or not. When in doubt, ask. If you are free to leave then you have no duty to inform the officer. if you aren't you do.

Whatever questions or pleasant comments the officer makes are irrelevant to the issue.

 

[MLR]

I dont know how some of you people are able to get through daily life being so paranoid. Why do you think just because a cop is talking to you we are out to "get you"? I guess maybe I should start not talking to people unless in an "official" capacity.

No one needs to fear an encounter from a good cop. Its the ones that are out to get you that you need to watch out for. The trouble is with determining which is which, as both types wear the same badge.

Michael

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

If as some say there is no issue here why not change or even remove the law? Why have a law on the books to control a non issue?
I am not asking to remove the law. Only to take any guess work out of the mind of a permit holder. The present law is murky on only one issue. That is the detainment issue.
What exactly would be wrong with removing any possible misunderstanding about when to notify? Asking for an ID would remove any doubt from the situation.

Michael

I don't understand where a misunderstanding is likely. If you are shooting the breeze and talking about the weather the officer may be conducting an investigation but you are not in legal custody at that point. When the lights come on or an officer issues a command, then you are under arrest, or being detained, or the subject of a traffic stop--whatever you choose to call it. At that point you have a duty to notify the officer.

As for the history of the SDA, back in 1995 SDA would never have become law if that requirement was not included. CLEET, OHP, OSBI, and the big city PDs had the stroke to derail the effort without giving them what they wanted. In a nutshell, it's politics. Politics isn't as pure as the driven snow, but it beats the alternative.

 

[MLR]

You almost sound like one of those mythical "reasonable cops". Of course, I'm sure some on here will recognize you as a ruthless cop trying to set them up for an internet bust!

I could count on one hand the number of bad cops I have come across in my life. Should that prevent a person from doing everything in his power to prevent the bad ones from ruining my life?
I have never been robbed, shot or raped. That leads me to the assumption that most people are good. A correct assumption I believe. Does that mean I should not carry a weapon because most people mean me no harm? Or should I do everything within my power to protect myself from those who mean me harm?
I do not fear people in general nor do I fear LEO's in general. To ignor that there are bad ones in both groups is burying your head in the sand.

Michael

 

[MLR]

I don't understand where a misunderstanding is likely. If you are shooting the breeze and talking about the weather the officer may be conducting an investigation but you are not in legal custody at that point. When the lights come on or an officer issues a command, then you are under arrest, or being detained, or the subject of a traffic stop--whatever you choose to call it. At that point you have a duty to notify the officer.

As for the history of the SDA, back in 1995 SDA would never have become law if that requirement was not included. CLEET, OHP, OSBI, and the big city PDs had the stroke to derail the effort without giving them what they wanted. In a nutshell, it's politics. Politics isn't as pure as the driven snow, but it beats the alternative.

Detainment is not custody. Why do most Lawyers tell you to ask if you may leave or are being detained if detainment is so clear?

Michael