Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 81 of 81

Thread: Open Carrier Arrested in Iowa for not showing Permit

  1. #76
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,810
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    So, according to your way of thinking, a police officer can stop every car on the road and demand to see all drivers licenses without ever seeing a violation of any law. Driving without a license is a violation, so just being behind the wheel is enough RAS for a stop. Is that the way it works in your mind?
    Not the person being asked, but....
    No. Because that is not the way the traffic law is written for driver's licenses but it is the way the law is written as regards to firearms.
    321.174 Operators licensed — operation of commercial motor vehicles.
    1. A person, except those expressly exempted, shall not operate any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless the person has a driver’s license issued by the department valid for the vehicle’s operation.
    .....
    3. A licensee shall have the licensee’s driver’s license in immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same upon demand of a judicial magistrate, district associate judge, district judge, peace officer, or examiner of the department. However, a person charged with violating this subsection shall not be convicted and the citation shall be dismissed by the court if the person produces to the clerk of the district court, prior to the licensee’s court date indicated on the citation, a driver’s license issued to that person and valid for the vehicle operated at the time of the person’s arrest or at the time the person was charged with a violation of this section. Upon dismissal, the court or clerk of court shall assess the costs of the action against the defendant named on the citation.
    versus
    724.4 Carrying weapons.
    1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
    The key here*, and I'm NOT saying that I agree with it is that an officer becoming aware that someone is armed with a dangerous weapon has an articulable suspicion that said person is in violation of 724.4 until some other evidence proves otherwise. With 321.174, the suspicion would have to be that said person was unlicensed before they could be stopped (unless they were seen performing something against the traffic code.)

    * Also note that I'm speaking in generalities and not specifics, in order Not to waste everyone's time getting every 't' dotted and 'i' crossed.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-20-2015 at 09:16 PM.

  2. #77
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    242
    The law clearly states that carrying a concealed weapon or firearm in a city is a crime. It says that if someone carrying it concealed then they have to present their permit to the officer on request/demand. It states that a person won't be convicted of the crime if they present a permit that was valid at the time and their conduct fell within the constraints of that permit. Simply because the law states someone will not be convicted of a crime does not mean the act itself is not a crime. Only once a person has presented a peace officer with a permit does the exemption apply. Before that, just like when someone doesn't get caught for committing any other crime, it is merely that they didn't get caught committing a crime. It seems stupid that the law was written this way, but that's what it is. You can't stop someone for driving because they haven't committed a crime by driving that they become exempt from by presenting a license. They aren't committing a crime by driving with a license. Everyone who carries a firearm is committing a crime. It is only a question of whether that person can be convicted of that crime. Whether they can't be convicted because they are exempt by behavior and presenting their permit on request/demand or at trial or by mere chance is irrelevant to the courts. Simply not convicting people of crimes does not mean crimes are not being committed. How many people are drinking underage at any given time? How many low value items are shoplifted everyday? Nobody is going to argue those acts aren't crimes. They just aren't crimes that people are being convicted and sentenced for committing. Carrying a firearm(a crime) and driving(not a crime) are different. Carrying a firearm by itself is RAS if not outright PC.

  3. #78
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Darkshadow, I agree with what you are saying just not precisely how you got there. This thread has dragged on already with the back and forth over splitting legal hairs so I won't go into where I disagree. I agree that the way the law is written and interpreted does allow a LEO to stop any armed person to ask for a permit. It sucks but that is how it is until we get a law or court case that states otherwise. Same goes for public intoxication laws, the way it is written an officer can declare someone intoxicated and then the accused must argue innocence before a judge.

    When it comes to stopping people while driving to check for licenses I've been stopped for no cause before for law enforcement to check my license. I was pissed. Court cases have ruled again and again that roadblocks to check for licenses and drunk drivers is a violation of constitutional protections. However, Iowa State Patrol has somehow avoided getting this challenged. I checked the law and the ISP is allowed to stop people without cause so long as it is to enforce traffic safety (they can check for license and registration and for proper vehicle operation) and game laws (all taken game is in season, within take/possession limits, properly tagged). In spite of this I saw drug dogs during the roadblock where I was stopped.

    We have a lot of laws in Iowa that empower LEOs to effectively harass the law abiding if they so choose. They can stop anyone that they believe to be armed, that is sufficient cause in law. They can stop anyone they believe to be intoxicated, again that is cause. They can stop anyone driving to check for licenses so long as they stop everyone else. What constitutes "enough" drivers stopped for it to be not considered discriminatory would be an interesting little factoid to find out.

    I'd suggest that rather than going back and forth on whether or not this arrest was lawful that we discuss how we go about changing the law to avoid this from happening in the future. We've had permitless carry get proposed in the state legislature before, let's try again.

  4. #79
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    Darkshadow, I agree with what you are saying just not precisely how you got there. This thread has dragged on already with the back and forth over splitting legal hairs so I won't go into where I disagree. I agree that the way the law is written and interpreted does allow a LEO to stop any armed person to ask for a permit. It sucks but that is how it is until we get a law or court case that states otherwise. Same goes for public intoxication laws, the way it is written an officer can declare someone intoxicated and then the accused must argue innocence before a judge.

    When it comes to stopping people while driving to check for licenses I've been stopped for no cause before for law enforcement to check my license. I was pissed. Court cases have ruled again and again that roadblocks to check for licenses and drunk drivers is a violation of constitutional protections. However, Iowa State Patrol has somehow avoided getting this challenged. I checked the law and the ISP is allowed to stop people without cause so long as it is to enforce traffic safety (they can check for license and registration and for proper vehicle operation) and game laws (all taken game is in season, within take/possession limits, properly tagged). In spite of this I saw drug dogs during the roadblock where I was stopped.

    We have a lot of laws in Iowa that empower LEOs to effectively harass the law abiding if they so choose. They can stop anyone that they believe to be armed, that is sufficient cause in law. They can stop anyone they believe to be intoxicated, again that is cause. They can stop anyone driving to check for licenses so long as they stop everyone else. What constitutes "enough" drivers stopped for it to be not considered discriminatory would be an interesting little factoid to find out.

    I'd suggest that rather than going back and forth on whether or not this arrest was lawful that we discuss how we go about changing the law to avoid this from happening in the future. We've had permitless carry get proposed in the state legislature before, let's try again.
    Getting permitless carry would be great, but we need to be aggressive and productive on all fronts. We need to hound the legislature, in civil and productive ways, to get them to see us as more than just a small group of people. We need to recruit more people by asking the right questions, being good examples to the public and being inviting rather than abrasive. We need to call out BS/lies when we see it and do it as often as we can so the liars are seen for their true colors and reason and liberty prevail. The legislature is going to do what the legislature thinks is going to be most beneficial for its members. They always have and they always will. It's about the dollars. The candidate who spends the most or has the most spent on them wins nearly every time. There are article galore about that topic.

    I don't really have a problem with gutshot. He and I may disagree, but I've been wrong about what he's said before(and lots of other things too, that's life) and learned quite a bit from him. In this case, if he's right and I'm wrong, it's a +1 for liberty and the people and a -1 to tyranny. I don't see that as a bad thing. I would really just rather be sure because if I'm right and he's wrong we will only come to know that at the cost of someone's precious resources and possibly their ability to continue exercising all the freedoms/liberties they have now.

  5. #80
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    532
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    Yes, I read that very section myself. According to the article (again, looking to an article for details is often problematic, as I have referenced in, for example, their misstatement OF the law), the man HAD a permit on him but refused to show it

    So, he was arrested - a legal arrest per Iowa law.

    Apparently, if he shows the permit at trial, he won't be convicted. Groovy. But he has to SHOW the permit. So, the "point of the whole exercise" iow the arrest is TO GET HIM TO SHOW HIS PERMIT. If he doesn't want to comply with the law (and note: I don't agree with the law as a matter of policy), he gets arrested. then, if he wants to not get convicted, he shows the permit at trial. The point/goal is reached - getting the man to show his permit. If he wants to spend some time in jail, and deal with all the hassle etc. then he can refuse to show his permit.

    Generally speaking, most of the time I have PC for arrest, no arrest is made . Either a criminal cite is issued or a warning given. Just because I *can* arrest, doesn't mean I will. I look at a host of metrics to make that decision.

    In this case, the officer sees a guy carrying, and if in a incorporated city, the officer is vested with authority ot demand production of the person's permit

    So he does so. The POINT of the arrest is to

    1) get the guy to show his permit. And note, upon arrest, the officer would be justified in searching the man incident to arrest. So, he may be able to find the permit then, since the guy said he DID have the permit on him, this would likely be the case. He will still be arrested, because the arrest isn't for carrying without a valid permit having been issued, but for the crime of refusing to show the permit which he still has PC for. In fact, his PC is BETTER upon finding the permit since he now knows the guy was refusing to show it (vs not having it on his person

    2) disincentivize the guy from breaking the law. The guy now recognizes - if I break this law I get arrested. Most people would prefer not to get arrested, so at least NEXT time he is so approached , he will comply with the law

    If the officer didn't arrest the guy, he would be sending the message that it's ok to disobey this law and the officers lawful order to produce the permit, since there is no negative consequence of doing so. Not only would this person be so incentivized, but others he told about the non-arrest would be so incentivized.

    So, in (not so brief), the point of the arrest is to get the guy to show his permit and demonstrate to him that there are consequences for refusing to do so.

    I am glad we have no such law in my state. I see open carriers, I don't bother them. If and when I lawfully stop an OCer (has never happened) or a CCWer for some other offense, I will of course check to see if they are a valid carrier. In the former case, when I run his name, I can check to see if he's a convicted felon, a subject of a DV protection order, and in some cases I can also see if he has a mental health adjudication forbidding carry. In the latter case, I can check on the above listed things + check to see if he has a valid permit, which is required to CCW (apart from in one's abode or business)

    Groovy

    I;m not sure what the person's reason(s) in this case were for not showing the permit, but it's his responsibility to comply with the (imo stupid) law. He made a conscious choice to disobey the law, and thus he has nobody to complain about his arrest, but himself - and maybe the legislators who passed this dumb law.
    Palo, good info and research too, however I must also remind people of Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176. (1803)
    "All laws which are repungent to the Constitution are null and void".

    Also Miranda vs. Arizona 384 US 436 p. 491

    Also Norton vs.Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    The "Officer" is NOT bound to follow an unconstitutional law, but rather support and defend the Constitution which includes
    the Bill of Right since DEC/15/1791.They are bound to protect our rights.
    The "Officer " swore an oath of office to "We the People" not the oath breaking Politicos.

  6. #81
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Palo, good info...snippp.
    uh, Robin, you are responding to a five (5) year olde inital post which started the thread where the the last active post was over three (3) years ago!!
    There are none so blind as those who will not see. Jonathan Swift 1713.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •