Coping With Concealed Carry

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Col. Longshot

    Member
    Mar 7, 2013
    45
    carroll county
    Good read. Had MD carry permit for 20 years. After retiring I was no longer worthy. Friends on the force recomended not mentioning the carry permit unless asked during a stop. That worked well.
     

    T'Challa

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Apr 24, 2013
    2,179
    Wakanda
    As a black man, I would NEVER disclose that I am carrying. When I was active law enforcement, I NEVER disclosed that I was armed at anytime. I would give my license and registration, talk in a calm manner and show my badge and I.D. A black man, especially at night, telling a cop that he is armed via a permit or badge is asking to be shot on the spot. They will only hear that you are armed. If they don't ask, I don't tell. I just read where one person said that he was stopped and a rookie cop drew down on him. Had that been me, I would have filed a complaint. That is very dangerous and he could have killed someone.
     

    rlc2

    Active Member
    Nov 22, 2014
    231
    left coast
    Interesting...

    How much the CCW landscape has changed in some parts of the US, since this posted in 2009. And relations between leo and citizens.

    Obama's legacy...
     

    Cyndi59

    Active Member
    MoCo Police Officer asked me today if I carried. I was loud and clear in my response. "No weapons sir, No Weapons."
    **************************
    I was asked yesterday when stopped as the bulge on my side was a small waist travel pack in P.G. County.."Excuse me are you carrying a weapon..??"Answered back,"Not here,I'm not in Virginia.."..seem to p*ss the officer off..after the pat down and inspection..:innocent0
     

    shmuel2004

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 1, 2016
    140
    Pikesville, MD
    It's a bit of a read, but here is an article on this subject from my legal blog:




    Disclaimer: this article is not intended to serve as legal advice. It is merely my research notes and personal opinions.







    Maryland Code, Criminal Law §4-206 gives the police the ability to perform a “limited” search of a person for a firearm if: (1) the officer reasonable believes that the individual is carrying a firearm in violation of the law, (2) he may be a danger, (3) there is no time to obtain a warrant, and (4) in order to protect himself or others, swift measures are necessary. The law then sets up the following guidelines for the interaction. The officer may approach and announce that he is an officer, request the name and address, and if in a vehicle, ask for license and registration. The officer may also ask for an explanation to determine whether the person is in violation of the law. If the person does not provide an explanation that dispels the officer’s suspicions, the officer may frisk the person’s clothing for a firearm.



    What about the Fourth Amendment? Actually, case law on the Fourth Amendment renders this law redundant. The Fourth Amendment says that the police cannot conduct a search or seizure without probable cause. However, the Supreme Court has recognized a balance between privacy interests considered in the Fourth Amendment and the officer’s interest in safety when interacting with suspects. So, In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that an officer could briefly detain a suspect as long as he had reasonable suspicion that a crime is/was being committed[1]. The court made it very clear that once the officer had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain a person, he was then permitted to frisk him for his own safety, to make sure the suspect wasn’t carrying a weapon.



    The Maryland Court of Appeals has found that §4-206 mirrors the Supreme Court’s holding in Terry, and therefore does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment[2]. So, like I mentioned above, it’s pretty redundant. The Fourth Amendment already permits officers to question someone and briefly detain him, if they suspect a crime (such as carrying a firearm illegally). The Fourth Amendment also already allows an officer who stops someone for the above reason to conduct a limited search for their own safety. So arguably, this law adds nothing to existing case law.



    You might be pointing at the screen angrily right now and shouting that §4-206 actually adds a bunch of requirements before the officer can start patting you down. Actually, no. As noted above, section 2 of the law says that the officer “may” ask questions and then pat you down if he doesn’t like your answers. However, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that as long as the officer has reasonable suspicion, i.e., he is covered under Terry, he does not need to follow the exact procedures of §4-206[3]. As I said above, this law is pretty useless. Terry already gave officers the ability to frisk a suspect to ensure their safety, as long as they had reasonable suspicion to start with. The Court of Special Appeals also found that once the officer is covered under Terry, §4-206 doesn’t add any further requirements to the officer’s duty[4].



    Ok, so you might be thinking: if I am carrying my firearm legally, all I have to do is tell the officer that, and then I’m good. First, logically that doesn’t make sense. If you tell him you are carrying, all he knows is that you have a firearm, which he may have suspected in the first place. Second, he doesn’t know that you are telling the truth. As long he knows or reasonably believes you have a gun, he doesn’t know for sure that you are carrying it legally or that he is safe. In fact, the 4th Circuit recently ruled that that an officer is at risk from a firearm, even when the firearm is legally possessed[5]! While, this is not case law in Maryland, the logic is pretty persuasive and well supported by case law from the 4th Circuit.



    Bottom line, if the officer suspects or knows that you are carrying a firearm, it doesn’t matter that you are carrying legally within the confines of your permit. As long as he a reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a gun, he is able to frisk you and secure your firearm. Keep in mind, this permission exists for as long as the encounter lasts, so he can hang on to your gun and detain you until his investigation is reasonably concluded. Also, the opposite is true, if the officer has no cause to stop you, he cannot initiate a non-seizure stop, and then frisk you for his safety. If the officer is worried about his safety, he can choose not to approach you unless he has reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, and only then can he frisk you.



    What about traffic stops? For example, you’re driving in your car and you see the dreaded blue and red in your rear view mirror. You got pulled over for speeding. Don’t panic. Don’t reach for anything or make any suspicions movements. (This is good advice in general when interacting with a police officer, but even more important for firearm owners, as we will see below.) Ask the officer right away to identify why he pulled you over and don’t inform him that you are carrying. You certainly have no affirmative duty in Maryland to inform an officer that you are legally carrying a firearm. In fact, as we saw above, it is very likely, that once you inform an officer that you have a firearm, he will almost instinctively turn your 5-minute traffic stop into a full-blown search.



    In terms of traffic stops, under Terry, as long as the officer has legal cause to stop you, he can frisk you for his safety. Not only that, but if you are pulled over for a routine traffic stop, the officer can ask you and any of your passengers to exit the vehicle. He can then proceed to frisk you to ensure his safety. However, the Maryland Court of Appeals rejects such a broad interpretation of Terry. Instead, the Court of Appeals held in a recent case that an officer cannot frisk someone if the initial stop was based on a minor offense, such as a traffic violation,[6] or even underage drinking. Other courts have also identified similar situations where the officer cannot initiate a frisk for safety if the stop was only based on a minor offense and there are no other factors[7]. So in Maryland, an officer cannot claim he frisked you for safety if the only factor was that he stopped you for a minor offense.



    There are several exceptions. If the Terry stop leads to an arrest for the suspected crime, the officers can perform a search incident to the arrest for their safety, even if it is a minor crime. However, in a typical traffic stop, the officer has no reason to make an arrest. However, if the officer asks you to get out of the car because you are legally prohibited from driving, for example, if your license or registration is expired or you have a suspended license, then the officer may be able to search you.



    Also, if there are other circumstances present that could cause the officer to reasonably believe that you possess a weapon that could jeopardize his safety, the officer can conduct a search even if he only stopped you for a minor offense in the first place. Even in a routine traffic stop, the officer could be reasonably concerned for his safety if there are other circumstances present. For example, if you told him that you’re carrying a gun. However, the courts have recognized many other factors that could justify reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a firearm and the resulting frisk. We’ll discuss these soon.



    Picture this scenario: The officer comes over to your car and you’re sweating like crazy because you’re worried he might notice the slight bulge in your pants from your gun. The officer of course notices that you’re nervous and then he glances at your waste and his trained eye focuses on that tell-tale bulge in your belt. He asks, “Are you carrying a gun, or are you just happy to see me?” followed by, “put your hands outside the window and step out of the vehicle.” Uh-oh, bad news. Well, not really.



    Just being nervous does not give the officer reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime. Logically, that makes sense. For whatever reason, people are generally nervous around police officers. Even more so when you get pulled over and have to worry about your insurance rates going up. Not very good for the blood pressure, but also not a good cause for reasonable suspicion. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recognized this reality and held that nervousness of a driver pulled over by a State Trooper is not enough for reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot[8]. However, that can be taken into account along with other factors, as discussed further below.



    What about the bulge? The bulge may be a bigger problem, not just for driving, but for anyone who carries a gun in public. As we saw above, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are carrying a gun, he can stop and search. Even if you’re carrying it legally, the officer can detain and search you until he has ascertained that you are indeed in compliance with the law. So, if you obviously “print” or open carry, and an officer see’s it, he can stop and frisk you. However, an unidentified bulge by itself, with no other suspicious factors, is not enough to give an officer reasonable suspicion and justify a stop and frisk[9]. However, if the officer can clearly articulate some other factors that justified his suspicion, he is in the clear.



    Obviously, an officer will not find it difficult to describe reasonable suspicion when he saw the grip of your gun poking out of your pocket or the outline of the gun showing through your clothing. There is even case law from other jurisdictions that indicates that an officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is carrying a firearm if he observes related paraphernalia, like ammunition or holsters nearby[10].



    I mentioned that being nervous or exhibiting a bulge are not good enough to justify a search on their own. So what other factors will the court consider? Here is non-exhaustive list of other factors courts have considered in determining if an officer had reasonable suspicion that the suspect was carrying a firearm/weapon. Keep in mind, courts look at the totality of the circumstances in determining reasonable suspicion or whether the officer was reasonably afraid for his safety. So, they will look at the combination of factors. There are few factors that justify reasonable suspicion on their own, and there is no secret formula for which factors and which combinations do the trick. It will really come down to how well the officer can make the case at trial and whether you have a good lawyer.



    •Admitting you’re armed (this one is pretty much a slam dunk)



    •An obvious bulge (in some states any bulge big enough to fit a weapon is enough, but Maryland requires more than just an undefined bulge)



    •Reaching inexplicably for a pocket or making other sudden movements (this one combines well with the bulge. Reaching for a bulge or making a sudden move towards a pocket is usually a bad idea)



    •Making a movement consistent with adjusting a firearm (e.g., reaching into your groin area to readjust your appendix holster. In Baltimore the police call that a “dip” or “safety” check)



    •Failing to remove a hand from your pocket when doing so is normal or when asked



    •Making awkward movements consistent with concealing an item (i.e., tossing something or covering it suddenly)



    •Backing away, suggesting you are making space to draw a weapon



    •Observing the police and then abruptly walking in the other direction, or running away at the mere sight of law enforcement



    •Awareness that the suspect has a criminal record, particularly for gun related crimes



    •Anonymous tip that a suspect has a firearm



    •Awareness that the suspect previously had a firearm



    •Aggressive behavior



    •Observing another weapon nearby or other related paraphernalia



    •High crime neighborhood



    •If the police are greatly outnumbered (e.g., one officer pulls over a car with multiple people)







    Like I said above, with few exception, these factors are not problematic on their own. The Maryland Court of Appeals has even gone so far as to note that that “If the police can stop and frisk any man found on the street at night in a high-crime area merely because he has a bulge in his pocket, stops to look at an unmarked car containing three un-uniformed men, and then, when those men alight suddenly from the car and approach the citizen, acts nervously, there would, indeed, be little Fourth Amendment protection left for those men who live in or have occasion to visit high-crime areas” (Ransome v. State, 816 A.2d 901, 908 (Md. 2003). Clearly, in Maryland, the court takes a skeptical view of officers basing reasonable suspicion on even a combination of factors.







    Practical tips to avoid sub-optimal law enforcement encounters:



    1.Make sure your firearm is fully concealed



    2.Don’t adjust your holster in an obvious manner or make sure you are in private



    3.Don’t act in a suspicious manner



    4.Keep all of your range gear out of sight when travelling



    5.Make sure you license and registration are up to date



    6.Make sure your head/tail lights are working



    7.If you get pulled over, try not be nervous. Keep your hands in plain view and don’t make any sudden movements or reach for anything in your pockets.



    8.Don’t inform an officer that you are carrying



    9.If he asks anyway, say yes



    10.If he wants to frisk you and take your firearm, let him.



    11.You don't need to explain yourself to the officer, ask if you are being detained and then ask for a lawyer if he says yes.









    There’s one more sticky issue for CCW holders. You got stopped and the officer found your gun, but you have a permit, so you are not committing any crimes. The encounter must end as soon as the officer has reasonably ascertained that there is no further suspicion[11]. So, the officer can detain you as long as it takes to make sure that your permit is valid. However, what if you have restrictions? Even if you have a permit, you are in violation of the law if you are violating the conditions of your permit. Can the officer detain you until he verifies that you are not violating your restrictions? There is no case law on point, however; it would seem that if you give a credible explanation, the officer will have no reason to suspect any lawbreaking, and he would have to let you go. Once again, it would depend heavily on the circumstance and whether the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion that you are violating your restrictions despite your protestations to the contrary. Either way, it would seem that the officer could arrest you and let you explain it the jury!



    Oh no! I got pulled over! The officer found my gun, and then he arrested me for carrying a firearm. I have a permit! What do I do? Inform the officer that you want to speak to you lawyer. Don’t talk to anyone until you speak to your lawyer. Stay tuned for more on that…..



















    [1] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)



    [2] Allen v. State, 85 Md.App. 657 (1991)



    [3] Allen, at 673 (an officer's frisk of a person that is justified by reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous is unaffected by his failure to comply with the statutory language now set forth in 4-206)



    [4] Sykes v. State, 887 A.2d 1095, 1106 (Md. Spec. App. 2005) (Terry allows a police officer to perform a frisk for his own safety, and for the safety of others in the vicinity, before asking questions that might confirm or dispel his initial suspicion)



    [5] U.S. v. Robinson, 846 F.3d 694, 701 (4th Cir. 2017)



    [6] Sellman v. State, 144 A.3d 771, 791 (Md. 2016)



    [7] § LaFave, 9.6(a)Basis for initiating a “frisk”, 4 Search & Seizure § 9.6(a) (5th ed.)(for example, small quantities of drugs, prostitution, shoplifting, passing bad checks, driving under the influence)



    [8] Whitehead v. State, 116 Md. App. 497 (1997)



    [9] Ransome v. State, 373 Md. 105.



    [10] State v. Stubbs, 270 Mont. 364 (1995)



    [11] State v. Charity, 132 Md. App. 598.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    It's a bit of a read, but here is an article on this subject from my legal blog:

    While much of that reiterates many other posts/threads found here, it's never bad to have a wide-ranging, human-readable, conversational post that covers a lot of that same ground in one place. Thanks.
     

    Stoveman

    TV Personality
    Patriot Picket
    Sep 2, 2013
    27,986
    Cuba on the Chesapeake
    There’s one more sticky issue for CCW holders. You got stopped and the officer found your gun, but you have a permit, so you are not committing any crimes. The encounter must end as soon as the officer has reasonably ascertained that there is no further suspicion[11]. So, the officer can detain you as long as it takes to make sure that your permit is valid. However, what if you have restrictions? Even if you have a permit, you are in violation of the law if you are violating the conditions of your permit. Can the officer detain you until he verifies that you are not violating your restrictions? There is no case law on point, however; it would seem that if you give a credible explanation, the officer will have no reason to suspect any lawbreaking, and he would have to let you go. Once again, it would depend heavily on the circumstance and whether the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion that you are violating your restrictions despite your protestations to the contrary. Either way, it would seem that the officer could arrest you and let you explain it the jury!



    Oh no! I got pulled over! The officer found my gun, and then he arrested me for carrying a firearm. I have a permit! What do I do? Inform the officer that you want to speak to you lawyer. Don’t talk to anyone until you speak to your lawyer. Stay tuned for more on that…..


    Lots of good information but I will take issue with the bolded portion above. It is the officer's responsibility to define how you are carrying outside your restrictions, not yours. We have a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate ourselves.
     

    Texasgrillchef

    Active Member
    Oct 29, 2021
    740
    Dallas, texas
    I wonder what the gentleman would write today, now that half the nation has moved to constitutional Permitless carry! A full 25. States. With several more to come next year as well.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    Excuse me! Too Green?

    Then the FTO or whatever they're called in Maryland should NOT have an endorsed his independence.

    The "poor kid" could have shot an innocent man...one who kept saying, "I'm a retired police officer." We poor civilians can't even yell that (legally).

    No matter what the infraction, it seems more training is the answer. BS. "

    "Don't give them life and death authority until they know how to handle it."

    Oh, boy....another can of worms just opened.
    Yes, and Absolutely 100%.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,115
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom