| Author | Post |
|---|
tarkio
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 05:34 am |
|
I cannot seem to find this anywhere so if this is a repost I apologize.
What are the laws in MT concerning law enforcement stopping you if you are open carrying, or anything else for that matter?
In other words, if I'm stopped while OCing, do I have to provide identification? Must I answer the officer if he has no reason for stopping me otehr than to ask who, what, why
because I have a sidearm?
Any answers and citations if you have them would be greatly appreciated.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 02:58 pm |
|
tarkio wrote: I cannot seem to find this anywhere so if this is a repost I apologize.
What are the laws in MT concerning law enforcement stopping you if you are open carrying, or anything else for that matter?
In other words, if I'm stopped while OCing, do I have to provide identification? Must I answer the officer if he has no reason for stopping me otehr than to ask who, what, why
because I have a sidearm?
Any answers and citations if you have them would be greatly appreciated.
Have you searched your state's statutes for any requirement to identify your self to police generally? Most states have no such statutes and the inquiry essenitally ends there.
|
gridboy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:43 am |
|
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
Looks like they can demand name, present address and explanation of
actions. If you're driving, they can demand license, registration and
insurance.
A bunch of states have stop-and-identify statutes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify
gridboy
|
tarkio
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:53 am |
|
Thanks for the info.
However, the MCA section states that it must be a lawful stop so I guess that means that a person does not have to provide anything if the stop is a fishing expedition or the police doesn't have PC.
Thanks again.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:00 am |
|
gridboy wrote: http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
Looks like they can demand name, present address and explanation of
actions. If you're driving, they can demand license, registration and
insurance.
A bunch of states have stop-and-identify statutes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify
gridboy
wow - 24 states have some kind of stop & ID law.
Under Hiibel and the Fifth Amendment the giving of your address and explaning your actions is probably unconstitutional.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:00 am |
|
tarkio wrote: Thanks for the info.
However, the MCA section states that it must be a lawful stop so I guess that means that a person does not have to provide anything if the stop is a fishing expedition or the police doesn't have PC.
Thanks again.
Yeah - regardless of statute, Fourth Amendment requires any stop be lawful, i.e., Terry compliant.
|
tarkio
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:05 am |
|
Yes but police will sometime try to converse with you and make you feel that you are required to reply even when it isn't Terry compliant. That was my question.
From the MCA it is obvious that police here must inform you asap if it is a detention or arrest and what the stop is for.
Thanks.
|
Gunslinger
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
Mike wrote: gridboy wrote: http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
Looks like they can demand name, present address and explanation of
actions. If you're driving, they can demand license, registration and
insurance.
A bunch of states have stop-and-identify statutes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify
gridboy
wow - 24 states have some kind of stop & ID law.
Under Hiibel and the Fifth Amendment the giving of your address and explaning your actions is probably unconstitutional.
Hiibbel v NV
Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Arrest for Refusal to Identify. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld a Nevada law allowing law enforcement to arrest an individual when he refuses to identify himself, and reasonable suspicion--though not probable cause--exists that he has committed a crime. (June 21, 2004)
Let's be clear, as this is important. Reasonable articulable suspicion must exist that he has, or is about to commit a crime. The criteria are exactly the same as a Terry stop and frisk. And again, let's be clear, this is Federal Law. The SC has left it up to the states to define their own laws with respect to providing ID. Ask, why do you want to know? Are you detaining me? If so, under what reasonable suspicion? If not, adios MF. If so, tell him your name and you want to speak with your lawyer and will answer no more questions without him being present.
|
lucas_flesher
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 02:06 am |
|
The best place for MT gun laws, I think is at, http://www.mtssa.org
Go to ACLU web site to find info on being stoped as a pedestrian.
Or http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/46/5/46-5-401.htm
Last edited on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 02:08 am by lucas_flesher
|
Current time is 06:07 pm | |
|
