Declaration when not carrying

[DaveB]

I think a permit is known by DL number, not license plate number. I could be wrong, but just because one person has a permit in a family that shares a car does not mean everyone that drives it does.

[SemperFiGuy]

I am assuming that, with a CHP, if I get stopped the LEO will already have gotten my  info from my license plate number and already knows that I have a CHP.

The link is actually to the Nebraska Operator's License through NE Department of Motor Vehicles electronic records.

If you know an LEO with a dashboard computer, you can ask him to run your NE Operator's License through the system by OL Number.   Your name will come up in RED at the top of the screen, alerting the LEO that SOMETHING IS UP WITH YOU!

Down below at the bottom of the screen will be a one line comment, also in RED.   Something like:

>Felony Warrant
>Escaped Convict
>Weapons Permit

So---the LEO may be a Bit More Alerted than as with the "Ordinary" traffic stop.

Some states outside Nebraska are also linked to this system.

sfg

[JTH]

You seem to be a reasonable fellow but YoutTube is filled with video evidence of a LOT of LEOs who are not.  If you don't mind my asking,  ...  I am assuming that, with a CHP, if I get stopped the LEO will already have gotten my  info from my license plate number and already knows that I have a CHP. Is that true for all LEOs in the state or just those in large cities?

Your CHP is not tied to your license plate.  It is tied to your driver's license.  As such, merely running your plate will not give the LEO information about your CHP status.  It isn't until he runs your driver's license that he will be informed that you have a CHP.   

IF I am NOT carrying at the moment and do not say so, isn't he right in assuming that I AM carrying and that I violated the law by not announcing that?

No.

To me, this seems like a gray area that can be exploited by over zealous LEOs and prosecuting attorneys.    So, despite you concern about someone annoucing that they are not carrying, if I am ever stopped the first words out of my mouth will be "As you many know, I have a CHP,  and/but I want you to know that I am/not carrying."

When he first comes up to your car, he won't know. If you want to tell him that you aren't carrying, that is up to you.

[GreyGeek]

Your CHP is not tied to your license plate.  It is tied to your driver's license.  As such, merely running your plate will not give the LEO information about your CHP status.  It isn't until he runs your driver's license that he will be informed that you have a CHP.   

No.

When he first comes up to your car, he won't know. If you want to tell him that you aren't carrying, that is up to you.

As SimperFi pointed out, with the LP# the LEO, IF he has a dashboard computer, can connect it to the operator license, which will flag the name in red and contain a comment, also in red, "weapons permit".   That I did not know, but assumed to be the case.   

Ergo, when an LEO approaches your car and asks to see your DL  I am going to assume that he already knows that I have a CHP.  What he does NOT know is if I am armed or not.  By law I am supposed to inform him/her immediately if I am.   If I do not then the  LEO has two choices: 1) assume that I am not armed, or 2) assume that I am armed but I have violated the law by not immediately informing him/her.

Both are assumptions.   An aggressive, anti-2A  LEO could, especially in a  jurisdiction with an aggressive district attorney,  anticipating that I am armed but negligent, ask if I am armed.   If I am, I'm going to jail and lots of other hurts will fall down on me, but that would be my own fault.  If I am not, would he/she then charge me anyway because I didn't announce such at the beginning of the contact?   That's an attorney bill and legal test I do not want to undertake.

[JTH]

As SimperFi pointed out, with the LP# the LEO, IF he has a dashboard computer, can connect it to the operator license, which will flag the name in red and contain a comment, also in red, "weapons permit".   That I did not know, but assumed to be the case.

That isn't what he said.    Specifically, he said:

The link is actually to the Nebraska Operator's License through NE Department of Motor Vehicles electronic records.

If you know an LEO with a dashboard computer, you can ask him to run your NE Operator's License through the system by OL Number.

Note that at no time did he say "license plate."  He said operator's license.  So no, when they run your license plate, they will not have information about your CHP status, as the license plate isn't linked to a driver's license number in that way.

I also note that my source for this information (which is probably every CCW instructor's source for this information) is the state patrol.

Ergo, when an LEO approaches your car and asks to see your DL  I am going to assume that he already knows that I have a CHP.

So---you are given information that says that this information isn't available to the LEO until they run your driver's license, but you are going to assume that they have it when they come up to get your driver's license so that they can run it?

What he does NOT know is if I am armed or not.  By law I am supposed to inform him/her immediately if I am.   If I do not then the  LEO has two choices: 1) assume that I am not armed, or 2) assume that I am armed but I have violated the law by not immediately informing him/her.

Both are assumptions.   An aggressive, anti-2A  LEO could, especially in a  jurisdiction with an aggressive district attorney,  anticipating that I am armed but negligent, ask if I am armed.

True.  However, the point at which they would know this (and presumably, given your hypothetical, do it) would be after they've run your driver's license.

If I am, I'm going to jail and lots of other hurts will fall down on me, but that would be my own fault.  If I am not, would he/she then charge me anyway because I didn't announce such at the beginning of the contact?   That's an attorney bill and legal test I do not want to undertake.

And again, the answer is:  No.  If you are not carrying you have NO obligation to say anything.  If he attempts to claim such, he is wrong, and it will fail in court, and it will not be any sort of "test."  The law is quite clear, and there is no grey area.

[sidearm1]

Lots of good common sense here.  But, I sort of know for a fact that some Deputies will run "driver's information" from the registered owner from the license plate ahead of the actual contact.  No all, just some.

[JTH]

Lots of good common sense here.  But, I sort of know for a fact that some Deputies will run "driver's information" from the registered owner from the license plate ahead of the actual contact.  No all, just some.

No argument.  But I will note that the ones I've talked to don't happen to do that hardly at all, primarily because the owner may not be the driver, and unless there was something particularly interest-worthy (from a "this is potentially dangerous behavior, and I haven't even talked to the driver yet" point of view) about the vehicle, they don't see the need.

It is certainly true that no matter what the LEO "knows," there is no requirement to say anything if you aren't carrying---and that isn't a grey area under the law.

[Tim McBride]

Some good info, yes CCW is tied to your OLN, not the plate.
I do not have a computer in my patrol vehicle. I call in the plate, stop, approach/greet, get paperwork/walkback, then run the person.

[GreyGeek]

Some good info, yes CCW is tied to your OLN, not the plate.
I do not have a computer in my patrol vehicle. I call in the plate, stop, approach/greet, get paperwork/walkback, then run the person.

And if you see he has a CHP will you assume that if he didn't say anything he isn't carrying?   Or, if he is carrying and didn't say so until you walked back after getting his info, is he guilty of not announcing that he is carrying?

[unfy]

I've been a bit busy, haven't checked to see if this has been posted in another thread or not...

But, SCOTUS declined to hear a challenge to a judge issuing a no-knock warrant based solely on the fact that a gun was registered at a given address.  (ie: registered gun = no knock authorized)

How does that 'decision' apply to this thread  ? Discuss. 

Maybe I shouldn't keep the gasoline next to this thread hehehehe

[Greybeard]

I think that was just wrong on all counts. Unfy, I think you are going to cause me to increase my blood pressure meds!!!

[HuskerXDM]

One of my friend's husband got pulled over tonight by LPD.  He wasn't carrying so didn't inform.  Officer told him he was required to inform even if he wasn't carrying so she texted me to check.  Second text she sent said the officer said you should always inform regardless.  Obviously the officer was wrong.  I sent him the contact info for LPD and encouraged him to make contact with reference to the statute so LPD could better train their officers. 

[Mntnman]

One of my friend's husband got pulled over tonight by LPD.  He wasn't carrying so didn't inform.  Officer told him he was required to inform even if he wasn't carrying so she texted me to check.  Second text she sent said the officer said you should always inform regardless.  Obviously the officer was wrong.  I sent him the contact info for LPD and encouraged him to make contact with reference to the statute so LPD could better train their officers. 

Thumbs up!

[GreyGeek]

Obviously the officer was wrong.

The Officer didn't think so at the time, and he is the one with the force of law, and a sidearm, behind him.  Would it really be a good idea to engage in a debate with him about his knowledge of the law?   If he/she is that uninformed about the CHP, what else does he/she misunderstand?  And after the debate heats up you'd never know exactly when various other misunderstandings of the law would be applied to you ... refusal to follow a lawful order, impeding justice, resisting arrest.  Check YouTube for a laundry list of bogus charges that people have ended up  have to hire lawyers and spend lots of money to defend against.

It would be just a lot easier to say up front "I have a CHP but I am not carrying."

[HuskerXDM]

The Officer didn't think so at the time, and he is the one with the force of law, and a sidearm, behind him.  Would it really be a good idea to engage in a debate with him about his knowledge of the law?   If he/she is that uninformed about the CHP, what else does he/she misunderstand?  And after the debate heats up you'd never know exactly when various other misunderstandings of the law would be applied to you ... refusal to follow a lawful order, impeding justice, resisting arrest.  Check YouTube for a laundry list of bogus charges that people have ended up  have to hire lawyers and spend lots of money to defend against.

It would be just a lot easier to say up front "I have a CHP but I am not carrying."

My friend was cooperative with the officer.  He explained that the State Patrol officer who taught his class told them it wasn't required to notify.  At that, the officer dropped it and said, "I won't do anything about it this time."  I simply stated that the officer was wrong and that his/her training needed to be improved.  My friend got a speeding ticket, had a civil conversation with an officer, and drove away safely.  Wasn't so bad.  I recommend, in my classes, that people notify even if they aren't carrying, but that it is their right not to notify.