To tell or not to tell ?

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

None of those would be considered "contact" (And Im not sure the cop in line behind you at the Starbucks would either. Thats a gray area where I would decide based on how "Chatty" the LEO got.... I go out of my way to NOT have contact with LEOs in uniform.... And not because I dont like them. But because they dont bother me when Im at work, I like to extend them the same courtesy. For certain, until HE says something to ME, Im not saying ANYTHING TO HIM. Hes just another dude in the Starbucks and I go out of my way not to notice him.)

I agree Starbucks is a gray area, and when there's ambiguity I'll error on the side of caution. He MAY have noticed me printing. He strikes up a conversation to see if I'm LEO. If I blow him off, in his mind I'm an unexplained civilian with a gun. In Florida or Texas he'll come across one 10 times a day. In CA a cop may go for years - maybe his entire career - without seeing a CCW, so it's not one of the explanations on his mind.

OTOH, I'd think a DUI checkpoint would NOT be a gray area. I've only been through one, but it involved rolling down the window, telling the LEO my name, where I was going, where I'd been, if I'd had anything to drink, and showing him my DL and Registration. I'd absolutely hand over my CCW with my DL.

I do wish the OC rule was more detailed. Until it is, I'll inform if there's the slightest chance that I should, under the rule. It costs me a moment of conversation with someone that I'll likely like, the benefit is I don't risk loosing the permit.

[MadMex]

I may have missed it… is there an official definition for “contact”?

More situations to consider…

You drive upon an automobile accident where an officer just arrived. He walks up to your vehicle and motions you to stop and roll down your window so he can give you whatever direction he/she feels necessary, such as “Please wait for me to tell you when it’s o.k. to make a U turn so you can take an alternate route. Traffic will be tied up here for a while.” Is this "contact"? Is the subsequent follow-up direction given by the officer consider "contact"? After all, you were told in advance you will be receiving further instruction.

You’re standing on a parade route. An officer walks up and asks only you to move your chair back a couple of feet. A communication intended only for you. Is this "contact"?

[Glock32]

RD's post makes the most sense to me so far.
I happen to spend quite some time waiting in line at Starbucks, the Car Wash, Restaurants, etc. I have never notified a LEO in any of these circumstances and I never will.
Waiting in line with a cop right behind me is not official contact. Sitting on a park bench next to one is not either. No they will not shoot me dead if they see me printing. I am not worried about it, not for one second. They do not and can not know who I am. They also don't know what is printing. Everybody and his brother carries 15 items around their waist these days. I don't. I only carry two: My .45 and my spare mag. My gun prints less than your IPod or Blackberry.
Official contact to me is not a nod with a quick 'how are you'. Being stopped by LE is a no brainer. I will notify. I will notify no mater what state I am in and no matter what the terms of the license. It is a matter of courtesy and officer safety and ultimately my own. It may also help...
The comment of 'its none of their business if I carry' does not cut it for me. It's all about attitude. Act like a professional and be treated as such. Act like a **** and get you butt kicked. End of rant.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by MadMex

I may have missed it… is there an official definition for “contact”?

Actually.... Yes. I would suspect my LEO friends may concur on this...

I would say its anytime you are ABOUT to be involved in a "Terry Stop" or involved in circumstances would ALLOW the officer to proceed under Terry v. Ohio.

if you are being stopped because you are: Suspected of committing a crime; Reporting a crime to an officer; or are being randomly selected for questioning that may go beyond a simple "Nice weather today huh?" you should stop the conversation and inform him of the CCW.

If the cop is telling you where to park your car or telling you how much he loves the double mocha espresso whip, I think blurting out "I HAVE A CCW" is a bit weird and likely to cause more trouble than OCSD has in mind. Im not going to GO OUT OF MY WAY to make up interactions with police officers so that I can tell them I have a CCW and ask how theyd like to proceed.... I mean, depending on how far I go with this I'm at some point likely to be considered "interfering with an officer in the course of his duty" (I run up to a bunch of cops who are frisking the guy on the corner and say "I HAVE MY CCW!") or at the very least, 5150.

In the end, a lot of the responsibility of having a CCW is just about having common sense and using it.

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Didn't I post a quiz on this question a while back? I thought it was covered.

[TaxMan]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

Didn't I post a quiz on this question a while back? I thought it was covered.

Deja vu.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by SierraNevadaCCW

Didn't I post a quiz on this question a while back? I thought it was covered.

I didnt see that post til just now, and I think youre dead on.... Id like to hear your (and the other LEOs) opinion on whether my threshold of Terry v Ohio as being an articulable bright line test would be correct?

If so, (Greg's turn) what are the chances of someone with JD after his name writing a brief letter to OCPSD asking for a clarification/adoption of 'interaction where a "Terry Stop" is available to the officer or is actually in progress,' as the official notification point for CCW holders and actually getting a RESPONSE?

After all, its not a LAW. Its an administrative RULE. And the penalty comes not from the officers themselves but from PSD in the form of revocation. If we write an articulable bright line and submit it to them (preferably after things calm down a bit with the leadership situation) they MIGHT give us a "Yes. That is the threshold at which point we expect A CCW holder to inform an officer he is carrying, and we wont pull a permit if the CCW holder fails to inform the officer for LESS formal interactions than that.-"

[JandJDude]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I didnt see that post til just now, and I think youre dead on.... Id like to hear your (and the other LEOs) opinion on whether my threshold of Terry v Ohio as being an articulable bright line test would be correct?

If so, (Greg's turn) what are the chances of someone with JD after his name writing a brief letter to OCPSD asking for a clarification/adoption of 'interaction where a "Terry Stop" is available to the officer or is actually in progress,' as the official notification point for CCW holders and actually getting a RESPONSE?

After all, its not a LAW. Its an administrative RULE. And the penalty comes not from the officers themselves but from PSD in the form of revocation. If we write an articulable bright line and submit it to them (preferably after things calm down a bit with the leadership situation) they MIGHT give us a "Yes. That is the threshold at which point we expect A CCW holder to inform an officer he is carrying, and we wont pull a permit if the CCW holder fails to inform the officer for LESS formal interactions than that.-"

All you would need to do is make it a requirement during "official" contact (as in the execution of the LEO's duties) and not ALL contact (talking about the weather while in line at Starbucks).

[Bombard]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I didnt see that post til just now, and I think youre dead on.... Id like to hear your (and the other LEOs) opinion on whether my threshold of Terry v Ohio as being an articulable bright line test would be correct?

If so, (Greg's turn) what are the chances of someone with JD after his name writing a brief letter to OCPSD asking for a clarification/adoption of 'interaction where a "Terry Stop" is available to the officer or is actually in progress,' as the official notification point for CCW holders and actually getting a RESPONSE?

After all, its not a LAW. Its an administrative RULE. And the penalty comes not from the officers themselves but from PSD in the form of revocation. If we write an articulable bright line and submit it to them (preferably after things calm down a bit with the leadership situation) they MIGHT give us a "Yes. That is the threshold at which point we expect A CCW holder to inform an officer he is carrying, and we wont pull a permit if the CCW holder fails to inform the officer for LESS formal interactions than that.-"

That clarity would be welcome.

[MadMex]

RomanDad & Glock32, thanks for bringing some sanity to this thread.

I wasn’t trying to be an @zz with the examples I cited. Merely trying to demonstrate that for some of us there are many shades of grey on this matter. No disrespect intended to those that feel compelled to “spill the CCW beans” regardless of the nature of the contact with an LEO. We all make choices and lived with the consequences.

Regarding “definition of contact”, I ‘m looking for something formal that is free of our speculation.

[Quietpi]

Terry! By George, I think you're on to something. It's an external standard. It's not exactly free of ambiquity and interpretation, but it is one with articulated guidelines, and experience. I would be inclined to continue to provide my CCW any time I present ID to a peace officer, even in a non-Terry situation, as, say, I was giving a statement after witnessing a T/C. But once again, that would be a clearly defined situation. (IANOC)

Back to Starbucks -- Turning the tables, placing myself in the officer's position, had I noticed him, a person not in uniform and unknown to me, printing, my first thought would have been to suspect that he was an officer of some sort, too. I would not have, as my first reaction, conducted a felony take-down in the coffee line. That does <not> mean that I would have ignored it. Being non - OC, though, the manner in which I would have handled it would have been situation-specific. (IANOC)

Darn, I sure could use a cup of coffee right now...

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Quietpi

Terry! By George, I think you're on to something. It's an external standard. It's not exactly free of ambiquity and interpretation, but it is one with articulated guidelines, and experience. I would be inclined to continue to provide my CCW any time I present ID to a peace officer, even in a non-Terry situation, as, say, I was giving a statement after witnessing a T/C. But once again, that would be a clearly defined situation. (IANOC)

Back to Starbucks -- Turning the tables, placing myself in the officer's position, had I noticed him, a person not in uniform and unknown to me, printing, my first thought would have been to suspect that he was an officer of some sort, too. I would not have, as my first reaction, conducted a felony take-down in the coffee line. That does <not> mean that I would have ignored it. Being non - OC, though, the manner in which I would have handled it would have been situation-specific. (IANOC)

Darn, I sure could use a cup of coffee right now...

Not only that, its a standard that every post certified police officer SHOULD BE WELL VERSED IN (christ, I hope they are teaching Terry?) when they leave the academy?

[SierraNevadaCCW]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

I didnt see that post til just now, and I think youre dead on.... Id like to hear your (and the other LEOs) opinion on whether my threshold of Terry v Ohio as being an articulable bright line test would be correct?

If so, (Greg's turn) what are the chances of someone with JD after his name writing a brief letter to OCPSD asking for a clarification/adoption of 'interaction where a "Terry Stop" is available to the officer or is actually in progress,' as the official notification point for CCW holders and actually getting a RESPONSE?

After all, its not a LAW. Its an administrative RULE. And the penalty comes not from the officers themselves but from PSD in the form of revocation. If we write an articulable bright line and submit it to them (preferably after things calm down a bit with the leadership situation) they MIGHT give us a "Yes. That is the threshold at which point we expect A CCW holder to inform an officer he is carrying, and we wont pull a permit if the CCW holder fails to inform the officer for LESS formal interactions than that.-"

Legal Reasoning:
Absolutely, I agree with your view on this. Since the world is complex and situations are infinitely variable - the reason your "bright line" is a good beacon for compliance, and is two fold.

1. It's a simple concept with legal background and history to fall back on. In other words, you can articulate your reasoning following a "contact" - as to why you informed or didn't inform. When faced with legal action or revocation, your standing is must more solid on the platform of case history.

2. Your agency is not providing an answer to the question which isn't vague or unclear.

It is my belief, that the "rule" OCSD has instituted, derives from this line of thought, or something similar to it.

It is unreasonable to expect your licensees to "inform" every time one sees a peace officer. It is also a hindrance for LE.

Psychological Considerations and Self Preservation:
If you want to go deeper...and read into an alternative or possibly (the real) reason your policy has no real explanation or legal reasoning and why it exists to begin with: Is it's a "cult of confession" (8-point model) relic deep seeded within the culture itself.

Self preservation by knowledge of legal history and terminology accompanied by "street-wisdom" and common sense....ie: you aren't effected by institutional psychological influences because you are aware of them...because you understand why they were instituted in the first place and because you want to survive in our complex society.

[Spicy McHaggis]

I think OCSD would be better off removing the notification requirement than trying to define it further. There are just way too many "what ifs" involved. Regular people also sometimes don't know the difference between "official" and "casual" contact. Mostly since one can turn into the other and they may not even know it.

I think they have another issue with the last part of that requirement when they just say "police officer" and don't define that by the penal code. They need to change it to say "peace officer" per Part 2, Title 3, Chapter 4.5 of the penal code. Or just list the codes from 830.x, and exclude whichever codes they want. Might be semantics to some, but PC defines them.

[G30 Steve]

I use Terry to determine if I am the object of an official LEO contact.
Even if not real sure of a Terry stop, if asked for my ID by a LEO, I hand over my DL & CCW and wait for further inquiry and/or instructions.

I do not tell every LEO who comes within spitting distance that I have a CCW. I seriously doubt that was intent of the OCSD.