Contact was made because trooper either saw print of the gun or possibly bottom of gun. He carries a compact 1911 owb under untucked button up shirt. This is what made him question the trooper. If I haven't misread the law, they can not ask for ccl just because of seeing it. They must have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Is that correct? He pumped gas and pulled to the front of store. Never entered store so no possible reason there. Was waiting for wife to exit the store when trooper knocked on window.
He wasn't driving an ambulance was he??
Here's the real crux of the problem. If an officer can articulate a reason for asking to see a license, then he can ask to see a license. Now ... whether this is right or wrong, whether we agree with it or not, whether this particular officer was an ******* or not, is not pertinent to the fact that if he can articulate to a judge a reason for asking to see your friend's ccl then he was within the law to ask for it. For all your friend knows he matched the description of someone the officer had a BOLO on ... I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm saying who knows?? There very well could have been a valid reason for the officer's request and it wasn't just the officer was being a dick to your friend because he felt like terrorizing citizens that night.
It honestly seems to me that the most reasonable course of action for your friend to have taken (and the one I would have chosen) was to show the officer my ccl and be done with it, but that is just me ...
You neglected to include that part in your OP.
I suspected it but I shouldn't have had to.
The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punishable as a criminal offense as authorized by Section 1272 of this title or pursuant to any other applicable provision of law.
http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2012.pdf
http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2012.pdf
Thanks Rod ...
Thank you guys very much, that was the answer I was looking for. Maybe not the answer my friend would like but answered the question. They can ask and you show, pretty cut and dry.
Not so fast... there's a SCOTUS decision that says that a visible handgun is NOT RAS for a stop. Given the facts presented in this thread, this man appears to me to have a case under 42 USC 1983. I've seen settlements lately in the 15K-22K range. Get a lawyer.
SCOTUS decision > Oklahoma State Law...we've talked about this since this language appeared last year. Also... why was he arrested and disarmed AFTER showing his handgun license?
I, too would love to see the OHP incident report. And for this guy to talk to Doug Friesen.
somebody needs to file a FOIA request for the dashcam video......I'll bring the popcorn(we'll take bets on probable cause).
Agreed. IF, it went down as stated, he could request a review of the dashcam video with the troop commander. If it shows a violation of policy or objectionable action taken by a state LEO, that could be used as a bargaining chip to have the misdemeanor dropped.
