Defensive Carry banner

Yes officer, I have weapons you need to be aware of

14K views 140 replies 61 participants last post by  Buckles 
#1 ·
Here's a common theme I see here all the time.

"They said, 'Do you have any weapons.?'" he said. "I think out of respect for officers, if an officer says, 'Hey, do you have any weapons in your truck or your vehicle?' you should tell them. It's an officer safety thing."

Despite how much you assure yourself of your legal rights, and all this concern for this nice officer's safety, think long and hard before you answer that question.

Pepper spray lands Texas man in jail on felony

by Jason Whitely / WFAA-TV

Posted on November 20, 2009 at 8:24 AM

WYLIE, Texas - A canister of pepper spray is now at the center of a Wylie dispute after a North Texas man found out what most people don't know, anyone who carries it can face a felony.

Jason Simpkins admitted he looked suspicious when a Wylie officer stopped him while he was driving his truck with a jet ski inside his lawn mowing trailer.

It happened early on the morning of August 22.

"I didn't have a problem with it at first," Simpkins said. "I gave him my drivers license. I thought, 'Okay, you know, it does look suspicious.'"

Police were curious if it was stolen, but Simpkins provided proof he owned the jet ski.

The officer then noted that Simpkins' speaker for his truck alarm positioned in his grill looked similar to a siren, though the officer never tested it to see what sound it emitted. News 8 did and heard a loud screeching sound, but no type of emergency tone.

Simpkins had what police thought were red lights in his grill, as well. But, again, no officer activated them. The "lights" don't illuminate, but are rather part of a laser detection system.

Officers also saw a police scanner and a law enforcement type light switch often used to activate emergency strobes. The scanner isn't illegal to have and no one tried switching on the lights, which would have illuminated nothing more than fog lights.

After an extensive check, police discovered Simpkins had no criminal warrants and no prior record.

But, 40 minutes and four officers later, questions continued.

"They said, 'Do you have any weapons.?'" he said. "I think out of respect for officers, if an officer says, 'Hey, do you have any weapons in your truck or your vehicle?' you should tell them. It's an officer safety thing."

Jason volunteered information that he had a four-ounce can of pepper spray he purchased legally inside his satchel in the cab of his truck. The spray is sold to the public, but marketed as law-enforcement strength.

The investigating officer, a young man named Officer Silas Hughes, said it was illegal to possess. That was something that even surprised his sergeant.

"Is that a prohibited weapon?" the sergeant asked Hughes according to a recording of the dash cam video.

"Yeah, you're not supposed to have it," Hughes said.

"Really?" the sergeant pressed.

"[You] can't have police-strength pepper spray," he said. "I can look it up in the penal code real quick. I can't remember exactly where it's at, but I know it's in there."

But, there is no such wording in the Texas Penal Code.

Simpkins, who the dash cam video showed was cooperative, said he couldn't believe what happened next, which was all captured on the dash cam video.

HUGHES: "You can carry stuff like Mace, things like that, like the little stuff you buy on TV, that kind of deal. This is a no-no. You can't do this."

SIMPKINS: "Really?"

HUGHES: "That being said, you want to turn around and put your hands behind your back?"

SIMPKINS: "Wait, wait."

HUGHES: "Put your hands behind your back."

SIMPKINS: "I'm under arrest for..."

HUGHES: "I've asked you twice. Number three time, turn around and put your hands behind your back."

Simpkins complied.

He was arrested and charged with a third-degree felony. Pepper spray, Wylie police alleged that night, is a prohibited weapon. A Collin County Grand Jury agreed to prosecute the case, but refused to indict.

John Duscio, Wylie's police chief, said the system worked.

"They didn't say the officer did anything wrong," Duscio said. "They just felt there wasn't enough to continue on because there is a lot of variance, a lot of gray in that law."

The chief admitted he has never heard of another case similar to it. But, he adamantly supported his officers as they considered the totality of the circumstances.

The exception in the law is vague, stating pepper spray is illegal to possess in anything "other than a small chemical dispenser sold commercially for personal protection."

"Is this one small?" Chief Duscio asked holding up a two ounce canister of pepper spray.

"Is this one small?" he asked holding up Simpkins' much taller four ounce black canister. "You might say it's small. I might say it's not. The law doesn't clearly state what small is or what a chemical dispensing device really is."

Wylie police tested the flaw in the law and lost. Simpkins said he is just upset it happened at his expense. He lost $6,200 in expenses related to the arrest and hiring an attorney, he said.

Since the grand jury refused to indict, essentially dropping the charge, Simpkins wants a refund and his record expunged.

Duscio said he met with Simpkins but would not divulge what was discussed or what might happen.

A call to the Wylie city manager, Mindy Manson, was not returned as of 10 p.m. Thursday.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
This just proves, to me, that you get legal advice from a lawyer and not a LEO, of which I am considered one, much to the chagrin of some.

Also, the place to argue the validity of an arrest is not the side of the road, but rather the inside of a courtroom.

Biker
 
#5 ·
This just proves, to me, that you get legal advice from a lawyer and not a LEO, of which I am considered one, much to the chagrin of some.

Also, the place to argue the validity of an arrest is not the side of the road, but rather the inside of a courtroom.Biker
As I'm sure it will be & the law will be worded a little easier to read ! PS That's why I Love FL. concealed weapons is not limitted
to sidearms Plus I Got some OC Sray the LEO use on brother
agency ;-)

H/D
 
#4 ·
Funny, years back I bought a large container of OC marked clearly for Law Enforcement Use. Perhaps before purchase, don't recall the exact situation, I actually talked to a supervisory officer at the local dept. because the wording, For Law Enforcement Use Only, was concerning. He thought about it and replied that as far as he could tell that was merely advertising and the stuff they use isn't available on the open market, and he saw no reason why I couldn't have it.

I think what you have in the above situation is not so much that something was done wrong in possession of a 4 ounce OC can, as that the cops were clearly seeking out some excuse to hold this guy because to them he looked suspicious.

Good that the Grand Jury didn't indict. The rest of it stinks.
 
#6 ·
When I took my CC course, our instructor gave us a handout with the FL law for carrying a weapon in your vehicle without a permit. He was a retired LEO and said that Officers are the WORST at knowing the laws for carrying. The Florida law is quite clear and even has a definition of "container" so that there can be no argument. He suggested that we make copies and keep it in each of our gloveboxes, which I do (even though I now have my CCP). You can go to Handgunlaw.us and get your state's law to print and keep in your vehicle, I strongly suggest it.

When my wife took the CC class, her instructor gave another good bit of advice. He said that you tell the LEO that "I have a Concealed Carry Permit for the weapon that is on me." He said that starting off with "I have a weapon...." is not a good idea and I agree. He also said that if you have a permit, it is tied to your tags now so as soon as they run your plates, they already know.
 
#55 ·
He was a retired LEO and said that Officers are the WORST at knowing the laws for carrying.

He also said that if you have a permit, it is tied to your tags now so as soon as they run your plates, they already know.
The second statement proves the first.
CCW info in Fla is not tied to the tags. They won't know unless they are informed. I do agree that it is a good idea to tell them rather the 'surprise' them,
 
#7 ·
This is the sort of thing that makes your blood boil. Im good with officers acting in "good faith" and all, but could we not make a phone call in this case? I mean, when your sergent does not know what the law is you are in bad shape. Wylie is not a huge city, i get that, but you still have a district atty you can call and ask. Im not a big "get the cops" guy, quite the contrary, but these idiots need to be taken to task for just being stupid.

Of course I dont see it going anywhere unfortunatly :aargh4: :rant:
 
#8 ·
the place to argue the validity of an arrest is not the side of the road, but rather the inside of a courtroom
The problem with settling it in court is you will then have a felony charge on your record.
A friend of mine was charged with a DUI but he tested 0.00 so the charges were dropped. Guess what? His insurance canceled him because he was charged with a DUI. Basically, a cop can do whatever he wants and you are screwed.

In the case cited above, it seems like the Sargent should have had some common sense if the deputy didn't.
Am I to believe NONE of the cops on the scene knew the law?
And the DA went forward? What, are they all incompetent?
 
#9 ·
The problem with settling it in court is you will then have a felony charge on your record.
A friend of mine was charged with a DUI but he tested 0.00 so the charges were dropped. Guess what? His insurance canceled him because he was charged with a DUI. Basically, a cop can do whatever he wants and you are screwed.
I think the point is, the officer can do what ever he wants to do on the side of the road and there is not much you can do about it.
 
#10 ·
In my state, I don't have to tell an officer I'm armed, and won't. It's none of their business. Their protection? I'm not a criminal, nor will I be treated as one for carrying in this great nation.


When asked "why did you tell me you didn't have a weapon" I can say "because I'm not required to" and will fight it out in court if need be. This isn't about being a stubborn anti-establishment person. This is about further protecting my rights. I don't need to turn a routine speeding ticket in to 4 police cars and a know nothing officer trying to turn me into a criminal.

No, I'm not saying that all police officers know nothing, but a lot certainly don't know our rights or the laws they're trying to uphold.
 
#14 ·
I agree. Here we have a guy that, after already being detained for 40 minutes, "out of respect for officers," gives up incriminating information about a can of mace that's stored inside a personal bag inside his car. Even after all that respect, he's handcuffed, arrested, and ends up with $6,000 in legal fees fighting felony charges, even though he was completely innocent of any crime. Revealing that you have weapons to a cop can be incriminating any way you answer the question.
 
#11 ·
Can someone tell me the purpose of notifying if you are carrying? For the safety of the officer? How? If I tell him I'm licensed and carrying legally, it means I have no intent to harm him. The perp who shoots an officer isn't going to notify him.
"Awe, shucks, I was going to shoot that cop, but he went and asked me if I had a gun, and dang it, I couldn't lie!"
 
#12 ·
This is interesting because the police officer asked Mr. Simpkins if he had any weapons, and though Mr. Simpkins has a right not to incriminate himself, he doesn't have the right to lie to a police officer.

Let's say you are pulled over and have a can of OC and a knife on your person. You have a CPL, but you aren't carrying your pistol. The police officer at your window asks if you are carrying any weapons.

Let's assume you you are not 100% sure your OC and knife are legal (perhaps your knife is a fraction of an inch over legal limit), and also assume the police in your area have a history of arresting people for bogus weapons laws (and costing citizens $$$ in court fees).

How do you respond?
 
#16 ·
I've been through this discussion a few times before. At this point, you may be damned regardless of how you answer the question. We've seen here what can happen if you answer yes. If you say no, well especially since you have a CHL, that's suspicious. That might justify pulling you out of the car, handcuffing you, body search on the hood, search of the car, and trumped charges when he finds the legally possessed weapon. Take the fifth, and oh my goodness, then this honest cop we had so much respect for is going to yank you out of the car, throw you to the ground, gun to the head, handcuffed, body search, car search, car impounded, hauled of to jail, instantered, and brought in front of the judge on trumped up charges. Pick your evil.
 
#13 ·
But, 40 minutes and four officers later, questions continued.
This is what really gets me. They tried to find something this guy did wrong, and they failed. I repeat, failed. Yet, they kept on and kept on until they found "something". Just wore him down until he couldn't think straight.

This isn't Law Enforcement, this is a group of Storm Troopers telling this guy he's guilty until proven innocent, because they were wrong and refused to admit to it. I can see this sort of behavior in Mexico or some other country, but here? This will no doubt give the good LEO's a bad name in that area.

I hope he has some shark of a lawyer, sues the crap out of them and wins.
 
#15 ·
There is a saying that people are innocent until proven guilty....However, from my experience, law enforcement officials treat you as if you are guilty and you are left to prove your innocence in court.

When I decided to get a CHP in NC, I realized how little I knew about the State's laws. After reading the NC general statutes, I now see that the majority of our laws can easily be misused by some officials private interpretation.

I once spent several hours on the side of a road with a State Trooper that decided to get his books out in order to find an infraction that he could charge me with.
 
#17 ·
#25 ·
Exclusionary rule comment



Not a lawyer. It is not clear to me that this applies in the situation being discussed, but in any case, the rule has rather clearly not fulfilled its purpose very well.

If, instead of merely excluding evidence that was improperly obtained there were a civil or criminal penalty for the person who improperly got the evidence, we might actually have some real protection of our rights.
 
#19 ·
Hate that for him. I personally see NO problem with any law abiding person having pepper spray - it's the BG's who I don't like having that or any other weapon.

I also - from what was written - think the officer was overzealous. Myself and other LEO friends would have let the guy go as long as there wasn't something going on that I don't seee in the above reading....
 
#21 ·
That sucks...
If I were him I would get my record expunged and then see if I could go after the department.


I was watching cops the other night and they charged a guy for having a concealed weapon because he was sitting on his folding pocket knife... the guy just woke up in the car and it looked like it fell out of his pocket. :blink:

Granted they got them for drugs, but the pocket knife thing seemed way over the top... :smile:
 
#26 ·
I am probably in the minority on this but...Officers can't know everything. Seriously, look at the penal code for a city/state/county/etc. It's freaking massive. Cops arent lawyers. I understand that it is hard to enforce the law if one does not KNOW the law but they can't be expected to know ALL of the law. That's what judges and lawyers are for. That being said I think the state should have to pay the guys legal fee's without a doubt.
 
#27 ·
Agreed. They can't be expected to know, understand, or even properly apply all the laws. They should, however, have an understanding of the application of whatever law they're trying to enforce on you. The rulebook that I have to follow for my profession won't fit in most binders, and is hundreds of pages long. If I question a rule or its application, I OPEN THE RULEBOOK. The same should be expected of a LEO, IMO.

And agreed, the state should cover any/all expenses incurred in this case.
 
#28 ·
Here's a common theme I see here all the time.

"They said, 'Do you have any weapons.?'" he said. "I think out of respect for officers, if an officer says, 'Hey, do you have any weapons in your truck or your vehicle?' you should tell them. It's an officer safety thing."

Despite how much you assure yourself of your legal rights, and all this concern for this nice officer's safety, think long and hard before you answer that question.

Pepper spray lands Texas man in jail on felony

by Jason Whitely / WFAA-TV

Posted on November 20, 2009 at 8:24 AM

WYLIE, Texas - A canister of pepper spray is now at the center of a Wylie dispute after a North Texas man found out what most people don't know, anyone who carries it can face a felony.

...Jason Simpkins admitted he looked suspicious when a Wylie officer stopped him while he was driving his truck with a jet ski inside his lawn mowing trailer.

It happened early on the morning of August 22.

"I didn't have a problem with it at first," Simpkins said. "I gave him my drivers license. I thought, 'Okay, you know, it does look suspicious.'"
...
Mr. Simpkins even admits that he appeared suspicious when he was stopped. The standard for a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Even the defendant in this case seems to be agreeing that the police had reasonable suspicion.


...The officer then noted that Simpkins' speaker for his truck alarm positioned in his grill looked similar to a siren, though the officer never tested it to see what sound it emitted. News 8 did and heard a loud screeching sound, but no type of emergency tone.

Simpkins had what police thought were red lights in his grill, as well. But, again, no officer activated them. The "lights" don't illuminate, but are rather part of a laser detection system.

Officers also saw a police scanner and a law enforcement type light switch often used to activate emergency strobes. The scanner isn't illegal to have and no one tried switching on the lights, which would have illuminated nothing more than fog lights.
...
All that makes it sound like Simpkins is one of those wannabe fire or police guys. If that is the case, that probably means he was known to the police (ask a cop, we all know of these people and have dealings with them), and probably isn't either a firefighter or LEO because he doesn't qualify for one reason or another. If you think that sounds like a stretch, ask yourself "Do I have a scanner, an alarm mounted to look like a siren, and a "laser detector" mounted to look like red lights on my vehicle?". The answer is probably no. If the answer is yes, you might be a wannabe. If that is the case, it explains why he got extra attention. That doesn't necessarily make the extra attention justified, but clearly we don't have all the facts there.

... A Collin County Grand Jury agreed to prosecute the case, but refused to indict.
This particular sentence calls into question all the "facts" this reporter presented in the rest of the article. The grand jury in no way, shape, or form agreed to prosecute but refused to indict. An indictment is a check to move forward to a prosecution. A no bill (refusal to indict) is a refusal to prosecute. Clearly the reporter has no real idea what he is talking about.

Its often said here, and other places, that one should not seek legal advice from LEOs. One should not seek information on newsworthy events from media either.

The argument here seems to be that the police were wrong to make the arrest. They might have been, but the real problem is the statute being unclear. The legislature wrote the statute knowing that it would have to be interpreted on the side of the road by LEOs, who are not lawyers. There doesn't seem to be a disagreement that clearly the Texas legislature intended some kind or size of OC spray to be illegal, the problem is that they failed to define clearly what that kind or size should be. That leaves it open to interpretation. The grand jury in this case clearly felt it wasn't in violation. Given the same facts, another grand jury might feel differently. The solution is for the legislature to clearly define what constitutes a violation.

The cops, or course, get blamed for the bad laws they are expected to enforce. Could the cops have made a better decision here? Maybe, it doesn't sound like a situation where I would make an arrest, given the facts presented. Of course, I don't have all the facts, and neither does anyone else responding to this thread. The reporter clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, so where does that leave us?
 
#64 ·
All that makes it sound like Simpkins is one of those wannabe fire or police guys. If that is the case, that probably means he was known to the police (ask a cop, we all know of these people and have dealings with them), and probably isn't either a firefighter or LEO because he doesn't qualify for one reason or another.
And this provides probable cause or suspicion for what crime? Are you saying that wanting to be a police officer or firefighter looks suspicious?
 
#33 ·
I'm with you Pastor. PC is the jet ski. Oh, the jet ski is yours. Have a good night/day whatever.

I also fail to see where the argument is from the driver. Yeah he asked him 3 times. But I think I would be too dumbfounded to comply for the first time or two. There would be a few reallys? and Are you seriouses? coming from me first.

And how did you become a senior officer if you refuse to take control of a situation that you know is going in the wrong direction? Pull someone to the side and tell them to make the phone call.

My guess is it was a hot shot kid looking to advance his career. Think I'm being to harsh? Talk to my mom who has to call them down on a regular basis for doing things that could get the PD in trouble. In communications she deals with them daily. I usually get a lot of the stories. So and so wants to be a trooper and spends all day under the bridge shooting radar, watch out for him. so and so is trying to make a name for themselves, he wants to be FBI, SBI, Marshal, Trooper, etc. Sad but true sometimes.
 
#32 ·
Sounds like the LEOs in this scene all need a common sense transfusion. Quite sad indeed. Makes for very little respect of the LE profession.
oldogy
 
#34 ·
I think Landric made some pretty good points in his post as I too wondered about a car so "done up" and what that possibly says about the driver.

Landric is somewhat correct too, that the Texas legislature clearly intended for there to be some unspecified quantitative limit on OC. And, that really needs to be fixed because that ambiguity is one reason I long ago stopped carrying either OC or a knife-- the law on both just isn't clear and won't be till our Texas CHL becomes a CWP.

Still, looking at the overall picture I have to stand on this one with Pastor P and the others; including the Grand Jury.

I have a question for the LEs here, and actually specifically for Landric as I really like the way he thinks.

When LEs make an arrest that goes nowhere (for whatever reason), is there ever any supervisory hindsight applied to gain an understanding of what went wrong with case with the purpose of improving performance in the future? Or, do the suits in the dept. just grumble about the DA and the jurors and the judge?

Kinda curious because my dad made his living as a designer. When stuff didn't sell he and the salesmen pointed fingers at each other. He grumbled that the salesmen stank, and they grumbled that he made lousy designs.

When a case like this one goes south, what happens in the dept. to avoid a similar thing in the future, or does everyone just grumble?
 
#35 ·
Our police are very good about the suspicion stop. However, once they have the drivers license and run it, they let people go. At that point they have all the information needed to find the individual in the future.

I got a compliment from a farmer who dropped off his visiting brother-in-law to drive the farmer's tractor home from the shop. The evening man saw a stranger driving a tractor that he knew had been parked at the shop earlier. He stopped the guy and ran his license. Listened to his story and let him go, even though he was from out of town. The farmer called the next day and asked me to thank the police for doing a good job. Now if they had messed with him for four hours and then taken him to county jail, the call would have been a little different.

In the USA we have local control of the police. I am not conceding the newspaper article is accurate, but if it is, then the mayor and city council are at fault for not hiring a good chief. A well run department would not have the problems apparent in this story.
 
#42 ·
A well run department would not have the problems apparent in this story.
The issue that's a mystery is the obvious question: how many are well-run?

With ~900K cops on the street at roughly ~50 cops per precinct, on average, that's over 18K police departments across the country. I'd be willing to bet a good number of them aren't in the "stellar" range, in terms of quality of leadership, training. Even if only 1% of them are in serious need of improvement, that's still ~180 departments. I am sure that all of us, both inside and outside the profession, have seen one or two that could use some cleaning up.

There is probably an annual study done to attempt to quantify these sorts of things. Does anyone know if such a thing is done, and whether it's publicly published?

That being said, my experiences have been great, almost to a "T". One was a bit cranky and high on the power of rousting people on "Harley Davidson Weekend" where I lived at the time, but everyone else has generally been professional and straightforward. Not that I've had many occasions beyond the norm. But I've got a couple buddies in uniform, in various capacities, have taken the time to get to know folks from most of the departments where I have lived. Most are family people, looking to make a difference, sad that the pay isn't what it should be, but overall enthused about the ability to improve things. I would like to think that's typical for most folks in "blue."
 
#36 ·
This smells familiar...
:bs2: :bs2: :bs2:
:bs2: :bs2: :bs2:
:bs2: :bs2: :bs2:
:hand1::banned::ziplip:
 
#37 ·
Well, it never hurts to have an attorney on speed dial. And it never hurts to ask the questions "Am I under arrest?" and "Am I free to go?" At some point when it becomes obvious to you that a fishing expedition is in progress, then you should call your attorney, even from the side of the road and then shut up. It is never helpful to talk to the police, only harmful.

If you are not free to go, then you are being detained, and you can have your attorney step in at any time. People get in the most trouble just "answering a few questions" or "explaining what happened".
 
#38 ·
I had an officer draw his weapon on me at a roadblock even after I presented him with my CC license. He asked if I 'had it with me' and when I said yes he unholstered his glock and aimed it at my door and called for his supervisor. I was let go without further incident but I admit I was scared out of my mind I was about to be shot for nothing.
 
#39 ·
I had an officer draw his weapon on me at a roadblock even after I presented him with my CC license. He asked if I 'had it with me' and when I said yes he unholstered his glock and aimed it at my door and called for his supervisor. I was let go without further incident but I admit I was scared out of my mind I was about to be shot for nothing.
This officer need some additional training, and quickly...:yup::aargh4:
 
#43 ·
I am not impressed with their sergeant. He is suppose to know the law, not the young guy.

One of my young guys took a spring assisted opening knife from a motorist during a stop and then tried to tell me that it fit under the defiinition of a switch-blade, at which point I told him to give it back to the guy and send him on his way.

Not a good scene, I can only tell you what the courts look for is: what was the officer's action based on? Good faith or gross negligence. I would lean on good faith but real close to negligence. That sergeant should have known the law. Not good supervision.
 
#44 ·
- Ugh. I'm also in CT and there's no way that I'm going to inform the Police Officer that I am armed. I don't see the point in doing it. I'd rather not incriminate myself or have a gun pulled on me.

The cops in my town aren't exactly role models either with one being convicted of rape and another being suspended for using a taser on another cop while fooling around.
 
#48 ·
Yes and no about an Ohio LEO being on the hook; you would have to prove a malicious intent to go after him personally. I've been sued plenty of times, but never successfully. Admittedly, each case was pure garbage and thrown out rather quickly.
 
#51 ·
Is it really malicious intent or is it being outside of the normal scope of your duties?

Arrest the wrong person for a real crime because of mistaken identity, reasonable belief due to circumstances, etc. - Normal scope

Arrest somebody for something that you know or SHOULD know is not a crime - Not normal scope

Of course a lot of the gun related false arrests seem to involve statements against penal interest by the cops involved, "I don't CARE what the law says!", "I'll make something up!", etc. Cops can talk themselves into a bind too, especially in states that only require one party consent for recording.

Police arrest the wrong people for real crimes all of the time. The ONLY excuse for arresting somebody for something that's NOT a crime is not knowing and asking a superior who orders a false arrest. If you do that, you've still committed a false arrest, but you took what APPEAR to be reasonable steps to avoid the harm to the victim.

Simply not knowing or not caring isn't an excuse. It certainly isn't for a citizen. "I didn't know I couldn't carry into Chipotle." won't last five seconds in criminal court.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top