Duty to inform is such that, if you are pulled over, you must inform, whether they ask or not. You have to bring it up and inform them that you are carrying in states with such a law.
Duty to inform does not deal with whether or not you have to answer a direct question regarding the presence of a firearm.
^My understanding, I am not a lawyer
New York and New Jersey are two of those states where it is a positive defense, which as @Nathan57 pointed out means arrest, probable jail time awaiting bail, lawyer fees and going to court.
While invoking your Fifth Amendment rights may be perfectly legal, I would be very cautious about doing so. In a real-world sense, invoking the 5th can open a can of particularly suspicious worms and even lead to additional investigation. Invoking can often open more doors than it slams, at least in a practical sense.
As stated above, a very important part of being a responsible gun owner is ALWAYS knowing where your gun is and where you are in relation to possession.
The SCOTUS has ruled that cannot be used for suspicion. As the “Miranda warning” states, you have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you.
SCOTUS also stated in an opinion that your silence can be taken as an indication of guilt. (Justice Alito or Scalia, maybe?) Be that as it may, I’m not talking about an academic understanding of the law. I’m talking about the practical, real-world, on-the-street possible ramifications of invoking the 5th to an officer during a traffic stop. You may eventually win the point, but it could be an expensive and time-consuming win; the very definition of a pyrrhic victory.
I have not heard that one, as the 5th makes that quite clearly wrong.
I would not expect invoking your Right to remain silent, when asked if you have firearms/weapons in the vehicle, to prevent the vehicle from being searched.
But I’m not a lawyer, that would be a good question for an attorney to talk about, I suppose.
As to the above, invoking that Right being used as a sign of guilt, that was very context specific. During questioning/interrogation, the suspect was answering questions, and then when asked on in particular, he got quiet, looked at his feet, and just didn’t say anything at all…if I recall correctly. Which isn’t quite the same situation, totality of circumstances, as actively stating you are “pleading the 5th” to use a colloquial term.
As others have stated I think regularly leaving your firearm in your vehicle is a bad idea. If you are doing that on a regular basis you should at least have a locking container attached to the car by a cable or bolts. That would make it legal in many if not most states. Though in some of those states it would have to be unloaded and the locking case can’t be in the center console or glove box.
I only leave my firearm in my vehicle in a locked case when anti self defense laws require me to leave it behind in the vehicle.
The Justice in question (in an interview?) relayed it to coming home to find a broken window and a baseball on the floor amid the glass. Upon asking his son if he did that, the son remained silent and so the Justice was sure that meant he was guilty. I don’t say this has the force of law, but that invoking won’t make any official say “Okay” and walk away.
Also, invoking your right to remain silent is totally different from invoking your rights under the 5th. Related, maybe, but not the same.
I was only addressing the issue in regard to having a firearm in one’s vehicle. However, until the officer searches your vehicle, which without justified suspicion is illegal, and silence is not legal justification, the officer would not know there is a firearm, or any other contraband, in your vehicle. Coming from a free state is also not justification for suspicion. Neither am I stating an officer would not improperly use that as a justification. The end result is to be aware of where you are heading, or even end up, and what may cause you legal trouble, so as to avoid it.
Do not travel with firearms unless you know the laws in that state and any others you might find yourself in. In no way am I suggesting lying to an officer, and unless you are required to answer the question, the wise choice is to not answer, but you do need to also invoke your right to do so at that time.
We are stepping out from main problem, but this seems to be very interesting discussion.
I’ve been always treating everyday life as extension of my nurture.
Not answering simple question is the indication of probable lie. It’s a good tactic if you have more to lose telling the truth.
But once you don’t answer and hide behind the Law, it may trigger quick process of receiving electronic search warrant.
Sometimes we have to make a wise decision.
Not in a legal sense, it is not. Remember this video from a law professor for next time:
Thank you @Dave17 for posting this video again. I was looking for it, but couldn’t recall where I first saw it. It’s an excellent presentation on keeping silent and why.
Is this the one where most of the students in the room think they heard that it was a shooting when that wasn’t what was stated? Like even people wanting to be lawyers heard one thing and repeated it as another because of what they inferred?
Yeah.
Good lesson indeed
@Alces_Americanus, you are welcome. It seems another reminder was needed.
@Nathan57, yes, it is, and it is an eye-opening video.
In the trial I was on the jury, the guy that was with the got that did the shooting never ever ever talked to the police or the prosecutor. At trial the prosecutor asked him why he never made a statement, before he could answer the judge jumped in and told us that the fact that he had not given a statement was not an admission of anything and that the guy didn’t have to answer the question.
Yes, I know that video.
I posted that we have to make wise decisions whenever we talk to LEO.
Yes from legal perspective you can, and sometimes should keep the mouth shut. But there are situations that not answering questions may cause other effect we expect.
And if the officer did something against the law, that will be an issue addressed by a lawyer or in court, if not dropped sooner. Some questions are required to be answered, so that is not what I am discussing. The video makes clear when talking is only going to get you into trouble, and that might be, as the video shows, times that you would believe your innocence would protect you. Hence the professor’s admonition about talking when you should be silent.
OK… We are definitely not on the same track… I’m not and probably will never be the person who quotes law and use it every time meeting LEOs.
So far my every encounter with any LEO was a fair and honest talk. If they saw me respecting them, they also respected me. But that is me… As I mentioned twice already - be wise and smart with your words.
It also means - keep your mouth shut if needed… but do it smart way.
I never said for you to do so. You are free to do whatever you choose. i only stated that it is prudent to be aware that talking can get you into trouble. I am sure the professor is quite knowledgeable on the topic. Ignore his advice at your own peril. In the video he did explain how talking can lead to an innocent person being charged and convicted.
You are fortunate. I have not had that same experience. I was handed a sheaf of tickets during an encounter where I strongly believe the officer that accused me of being drunk, appeared to be the drunk one. After passing all the sobriety tests - as I had not been drinking that night - he still accused me of being drunk. I told him you know I am sober, I told you I was not drinking and I passed all of your sobriety tests. At that point, it seemed to me that he either should have (falsely) arrested me for drunk driving or let me go. Instead, he then handed me several severe tickets that were pure BS - he clearly could not have legally arrested me for drunk driving.
My legal advice was that I would not win in court against a police officer, so plead to one count and likely that would be the best I could get. When my insurance company discovered the ticket, I lost my auto insurance. I then had to go into the assigned risk pool and pay several thousand more for only basic auto insurance. This as a young adult in the 80s. I was only able to get regular auto insurance after I got married and got insured under my wife’s policy. I was young and naive and believed police to be good. That is where honesty and being a law-abiding citizen got me.
There are bad officers out there. I can relate several more instances of bad policing that I or a friend have experienced, too. I am not condemning police, as I have family and friends that were police officers or became police officers.
That is what I told you, but you keep on stating the opposite, as you did in the first part of your post, which is contrary to your last statements and the advice from the professor. In my experience it was not talking/not talking that was the issue, it was bad police officers.