Must notify law should be changed!

[MLR]

3) Am I being detained? If yes, then stop here. You must notify immediately. If unsure, then ask, "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"

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

 

[ExSniper]

Has anyone on this forum been arrested for failure to inform? Ticketed? Given a stern look? Asked where they were going?

Seems like a non-issue in Oklahoma. I make official contact with lots of folks every work day and this has yet to be a problem.

 

[MLR]

Has anyone on this forum been arrested for failure to inform?

It has happened in other States, although I know of no cases in Oklahoma. Even without know cases it puts an honest citizen at a disadvantage. Although I never notify when in casual conversations with police there is the possibility that one might decide to make an example of me.

Can you tell me why an ordinary citizen should be in the position of having to guess when he is required to notify? Is this LEO being friendly and just shooting the breeze with me. In which case I am not required to notify. Or, is he on a well disguised fishing expedition in which I am ignorant of the fact that I am being officially questioned. In which case I am required to notify.

I am probably around more cops on a regular basis than most folks. Most my friends an some family are cops. Only a few know I am armed.

Michael

 

[KOPBET]

"have a nice day officer, good bye" ...

 

[Honeybee]

Just let them know you want to be a cop when you grow up.

 

[MLR]

"have a nice day officer, good bye" ...

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

 

[ExSniper]

I still think you are arguing a non-issue. If a LEO asks you to stop and talk, just assume it is an investigative detainment, even if it probably is not. Unless you are doing something pretty unreasonable this should never be a problem.

If it gets to the point that an officer asks you to turn around, you should inform!

 

[twoguns?]

I think it was M Ayoob..Ill be corrected if Im wrong...that posed the question,"am I free to go"...at that point the decision is made.
Agreed if your in the Quick Stop and an officer standing in line strikes up a conversation, no need.
If it will make the Officer more comfortable to just be informed, thats fine.
I work around Police Officers and Fire Officals every day...I cant carry there ,we talk about guns sometimes.
Ive never felt the need to inform them that I have a CWL. I will try and bring the subject up to see what they think,
just dont want the ......I carry a gun just like you.... to become an issue.
I get the feeling that some of them carry just because its ...required for their job.
Im new there, so we'll see what its all about
edit: and this If it gets to the point that an officer asks you to turn around, you should inform!

 

[MLR]

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

 

[David2012]

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.

Michael

MLR-- here is a passage from a article on 'Police Link' that addresses what you are writting about... it is a recommended approach for police...

Police Link- "....officers should recognize that in cases where the officer has done nothing – either through words or conduct – that has implied that the citizen has no choice but to comply with the officers, the contact is consensual. Consensual contacts do not need to be supported by any level of suspicion whatsoever. In this age of mobile video recorders and body microphones, officers should approach situations in a consensual manner whenever possible. Even in cases where the officer has every intention of stopping the individual should the person refuse to cooperate, an approach that does not give away the officer’s intention, and indicates that the person must comply, would keep the contact consensual. Remember, it is how a reasonable (innocent) person would perceive the officer’s words or conduct that turns a consensual stop into a seizure. Where an officer uses a consensual approach, he or she may create a non- seizure. Anything that comes out of a consensual contact is admissible in court. [Emphisis mine.] Even a frisk can be consensual if the request to frisk is properly framed. Again, the officer’s subjective intention to conduct the frisk regardless if the person refuses consent is irrelevant. The only issue is whether the reasonable (innocent) person would feel as if they had no option but to comply with the officer’s request. The words or conduct of the officer in the approach makes all the difference."