Help With Technical Legal Line Between LEO/Peace Officer and Non Official Persons

[p238shooter]

I have been reading many posts here and have a little bit of a fuzzy line as to who I must identify and show my ID and CC identification to in some cases. ie: The guy who was spotted with his gun a bathroom stall by the kid, and approached by his dad, etc.

As I read the law it say LEO and Peace Officers. To me there are a lot of obvious LEO's ranging from FBI, ATF, OHP, County Sheriff, City Police, but after that, what about others? Does this also apply to an off duty Policeman that is working as a security guard somewhere, a security guard only, a person working covert security (anti-shoplifting) in a store or establishment, or even down to any guy that has a T-Shirt that has the words Security, even if he is directing the parking of cars at an event? Are there some entities I have missed here that if for any reason if I am asked for ID I am obligated to show my CC permit and Identify if and where I am carrying?

I am trying to have a clear picture here to be sure I do the right thing on each side of the line. Thanks

 

[Glocktogo]

I have been reading many posts here and have a little bit of a fuzzy line as to who I must identify and show my ID and CC identification to in some cases. ie: The guy who was spotted with his gun a bathroom stall by the kid, and approached by his dad, etc.

As I read the law it say LEO and Peace Officers. To me there are a lot of obvious LEO's ranging from FBI, ATF, OHP, County Sheriff, City Police, but after that, what about others? Does this also apply to an off duty Policeman that is working as a security guard somewhere, a security guard only, a person working covert security (anti-shoplifting) in a store or establishment, or even down to any guy that has a T-Shirt that has the words Security, even if he is directing the parking of cars at an event? Are there some entities I have missed here that if for any reason if I am asked for ID I am obligated to show my CC permit and Identify if and where I am carrying?

I am trying to have a clear picture here to be sure I do the right thing on each side of the line. Thanks

The answer is no, you don't have to disclose your CCW status to the bolded individuals. As for off-duty police, many agencies consider their officers to never be off duty. Their legal protections in enforcing the laws are extended to any interactions they may have on behalf of the law, even when in a non paid status. So technically, no you don't have to inform an off duty LEO. However, if they identify themselves as a LEO or ar wearing their authorized LEO uniform while working part time security, I see no valid reason to not inform them. It's just good manners in my opinion.

 

[okiebryan]

Apparently some people want to let LEO know they are carrying when they aren't required to. I'm really not sure why. You only need to notify during the course of an arrest, detainment, or a traffic stop. That's all. No other time. Not when you pass them working off duty security, not when you see one in line at the OnCue (or QT), not when 3 or 4 of them are having lunch at the same diner as you, and certainly not when someone in the bathroom starts asking about your steely appendage...lol

Notifying unnecessarily may make some of the LEOs think that they can expect it from everyone.

Why do people insist on going overboard with the notifications? There has to be some psychological need that they are trying to fill. Approval? Being part of the "cool" crowd? I just don't get it.

 

[Glocktogo]

Apparently some people want to let LEO know they are carrying when they aren't required to. I'm really not sure why. You only need to notify during the course of an arrest, detainment, or a traffic stop. That's all. No other time. Not when you pass them working off duty security, not when you see one in line at the OnCue (or QT), not when 3 or 4 of them are having lunch at the same diner as you, and certainly not when someone in the bathroom starts asking about your steely appendage...lol

Notifying unnecessarily may make some of the LEOs think that they can expect it from everyone.

Why do people insist on going overboard with the notifications? There has to be some psychological need that they are trying to fill. Approval? Being part of the "cool" crowd? I just don't get it.

Your statement I bolded is not accurate. You need to notify them any time you are in contact with them in an official capacity. I don't mean when they tell you something and your compliance immediately ends the contact (i.e., drive there, move away from the scene, etc.). But, anytime you're speaking to an officer in their official capacity, you need to notify.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

 

[Slack]

Your statement I bolded is not accurate. You need to notify them any time you are in contact with them in an official capacity. I don't mean when they tell you something and your compliance immediately ends the contact (i.e., drive there, move away from the scene, etc.). But, anytime you're speaking to an officer in their official capacity, you need to notify.

I agree with the rest of your statement.

Glocktogo do you have a source for this information? I believe okiebryan is accurately paraphrasing the OS 21 section 1290.8:

...
C. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop.
...

 

[MLR]

during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop.

The detainment issue is what concerns me. Sometimes a person is questioned on the street in a casual manner, fishing expedition, and is not aware the the LEO is actually detaining him. What the officer in this case might consider official you may be totally unaware and believe that it is just a casual encounter on the street. When actually he is looking for evidence.
This is something that I have contacted my State Reps about in person and by e-mail. I believe that it should be incumbent on the officer to make it clear that you are being detained and not up to you to ask. Simply requiring the officers to ask for an ID would make it clear that you are being detained.

Michael

 

[Glocktogo]

Glocktogo do you have a source for this information? I believe okiebryan is accurately paraphrasing the OS 21 section 1290.8:

I refer you to this post:

The detainment issue is what concerns me. Sometimes a person is questioned on the street in a casual manner, fishing expedition, and is not aware the the LEO is actually detaining him. What the officer in this case might consider official you may be totally unaware and believe that it is just a casual encounter on the street. When actually he is looking for evidence.
This is something that I have contacted my State Reps about in person and by e-mail. I believe that it should be incumbent on the officer to make it clear that you are being detained and not up to you to ask. Simply requiring the officers to ask for an ID would make it clear that you are being detained.

Michael

He's exactly right. The officer makes the judgement on whether you're being detained. This is not always readily apparent to the subject and may never be known if subsequently released. Do you want to chance it with an overly aggressive officer?

Yes, the definition in 1290.8 is overly vague. That can work for or against you, depending on who's doing the talking at the time.

 

[50Shooter]

Join OK2A and support the following bill:

HB2309 (Rep. Faught) - would repeal the requirment for a CWL holder to notify police at first contact that they have a weapon. It would be the officer's responsibility to ask if the person had a weapon.

In the meantime, if contacted advise them. If you pass them without speaking it is not required to my knowledge.

A person who is carrying and not a CWL holder has no duty to notify.

 

[50Shooter]

The Senate Bill is:

SB1947 (Sen. Shortey) - would repeal the requirement for a CWL holder to notify police at first contact that they have a weapon. It would be the officer's responsibility to ask if the person had a weapon.

A guy wearing a "security" t-shirt is normally not an on duty Commissioned Peace Officer as defined in statute.

 

[MLR]

It would be the officer's responsibility to ask if the person had a weapon.

This would be a huge improvement over what we have now.
I can think of no reason anyone would be against this improvement. Other than the fact that it could possibly make some fishing expeditions more difficult.

Michael