MA resident with LTC searched in New Hampshire

[whacko]

Contrary to a huge LIE that keeps getting spread around (that I've since grown tired of correcting people on, it's not worth it because they just keep parroting it over and over again like the broken record player from maniac mansion) the car thing in NH has nothing to do with concealment, at all. It only has to do with whether or not the gun is loaded. To possess a loaded handgun in an MV in NH requires a license. It's literally that simple.

-Mike

Thanks for the simple breakdown. I guess Its not that hard to understand.

 

[soloman02]

Thanks for the simple breakdown. I guess Its not that hard to understand.

To be fair it is really really dumb and if elected I will work to change this part of the law.

 

[whacko]

To be fair it is really really dumb and if elected I will work to change this part of the law.

oh I never said it was a good law......just easy to understand what it requires

 

[Roxor]

He does have an attorney at this point, We will wait to hear what happens. Ill keep you guys informed after everything happens.

 

[BigDaddyAl]

Yep, I agree about the lying part. In answer to your question, a search conducted with a Terry stop is limited to a patdown of the outer garments (they can't reach inside your boxers). Anything that can be felt that is suspected of being a weapon is fair game at that point. They can also search anything that is in plain view (on the seat of the car for example).

Not quite right. In a Terry stop situation, police can only do a patdown IF they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person is "armed and dangerous." The stop and the frisk are independent of each other and each requires its own evaluation of whether it is justified. (Of course the cop is always going to say that he believed the person was armed and dangerous to justify the frisk.)

 

[n1bsbri]

Not quite right. In a Terry stop situation, police can only do a patdown IF they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person is "armed and dangerous." The stop and the frisk are independent of each other and each requires its own evaluation of whether it is justified. (Of course the cop is always going to say that he believed the person was armed and dangerous to justify the frisk.)

Yes, you are correct, I skipped over that part because it's such a low standard. As you say, all it takes is the cop's statement that he believed the subject might have been armed. That applies to everybody they stop.

 

[Matt E]

Yes, you are correct, I skipped over that part because it's such a low standard. As you say, all it takes is the cop's statement that he believed the subject might have been armed. That applies to everybody they stop.

It's such a tough job being a revenue collector

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Not quite right. In a Terry stop situation, police can only do a patdown IF they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person is "armed and dangerous." The stop and the frisk are independent of each other and each requires its own evaluation of whether it is justified. (Of course the cop is always going to say that he believed the person was armed and dangerous to justify the frisk.)

Except in NYC under Stop & Frisk.

 

[rjh200]

Interesting. First time I hear that. So concealed gun with mag in pocket is ok !
Damn this is complicated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is not complicated at all. Make a copy of your MA LTC, Fill out NH non resident application and mail it with a check in to NH. Less than a month later you will have your NH Non-Res LTC ALP. Hell while I was waiting for MA to renew mine I sent in my NH Renewal with a copy of my expired MA license and had the NH one back long before the MA one. This was critical to me as I am close the NH border and spend a lot of time in NH.

 

[Palladin]

It is not complicated at all. Make a copy of your MA LTC, Fill out NH non resident application and mail it with a check in to NH. Less than a month later you will have your NH Non-Res LTC ALP. Hell while I was waiting for MA to renew mine I sent in my NH Renewal with a copy of my expired MA license and had the NH one back long before the MA one. This was critical to me as I am close the NH border and spend a lot of time in NH.

this. I'm in NH everyday, I live 100yds from the border

 

[napoleon1815]

this. I'm in NH everyday, I live 100yds from the border

What's it like to be that close to freedom?

 

[Palladin]

What's it like to be that close to freedom?

dude, I think of that every f*cking day

 

[kingfisher]

Slight tangent, but related to some other posts here...

I thought someone had posted the name and phone number of the person who handles non-res applications in NH, but I can't find it. A friend submitted an application several weeks ago, and he can't get a real person on the phone to find out what's going on with it.

Does anyone have the direct line to the person who can resolve this for him (not 603-223-3873)?

 

[whacko]

It is not complicated at all. Make a copy of your MA LTC, Fill out NH non resident application and mail it with a check in to NH. Less than a month later you will have your***** non resident p an r****. Hell while I was waiting for MA to renew mine I sent in my NH Renewal with a copy of my expired MA license and had the NH one back long before the MA one. This was critical to me as I am close the NH border and spend a lot of time in NH.

Fify

I know it may sound petty to correct that......but I was thinking someone reading this might get back their "p and r" and think they got a license that was different from what they were supposed to get. If you are not from NH you are applying for a "p and r" not an LTCA ALP.

 

[BigDaddyAl]

Except in NYC under Stop & Frisk.

When the federal judge put the smack-down on the NYPD stop & frisk practices, she noted that one part of the frisk fail was that they frisked more than half the people they stopped, but during these frisks, they only found weapons in a very small percentage (1.5%) of cases. Presumably if the officers had a "reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous" that percentage should have been much, much higher.

 

[n1bsbri]

When the federal judge put the smack-down on the NYPD stop & frisk practices, she noted that one part of the frisk fail was that they frisked more than half the people they stopped, but during these frisks, they only found weapons in a very small percentage (1.5%) of cases. Presumably if the officers had a "reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous" that percentage should have been much, much higher.

There's a big difference between stopping pedestrians on a sidewalk, and a motor vehicle stop. The the LEO stops a car, there's a presumption that at a minimum a MV infraction has been observed. That creates a whole layer of reasonable suspicion that does not exist in a random pedestrian encounter.

 

[whacko]

There's a big difference between stopping pedestrians on a sidewalk, and a motor vehicle stop. The the LEO stops a car, there's a presumption that at a minimum a MV infraction has been observed. That creates a whole layer of reasonable suspicion that does not exist in a random pedestrian encounter.

Wait Waaaah? I'm under the impression that in America if the minumim of a motor vehicle infraction has been observe then the only suspicion that is reasonable is that.........a motor vehicle infraction has occured. How in the holy hell does someone speeding give a cop the right to make a citizen exit the vehicle and conduct a terry search? Assuming of course there is nothign else observed.

 

[n1bsbri]

Wait Waaaah? I'm under the impression that in America if the minumim of a motor vehicle infraction has been observe then the only suspicion that is reasonable is that.........a motor vehicle infraction has occured. How in the holy hell does someone speeding give a cop the right to make a citizen exit the vehicle and conduct a terry search? Assuming of course there is nothign else observed.

Try reading this case for a much better summary than I can give.

Arizona v. Johnson

The police may lawfully stop and detain an automobile and its occupants pending an inquiry into a minor traffic violation, and may conduct a pat down search of an occupant if the police reasonably suspect that the individual is armed and dangerous

During a traffic stop, the police may order occupants to exit the vehicle pending completion of the stop. A police officer may pat down a driver once he exits a vehicle if the officer reasonably believes that the driver is armed and dangerous. Passengers are seized under the Fourth Amendment once the vehicle they’re in, when stopped by the police, comes to a complete stop on the side of the road, and therefore have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the traffic stop

 

[whacko]

Try reading this case for a much better summary than I can give.

Arizona v. Johnson

OK so after reading that case summary my last sentace holds much weight "Assuming of course there is nothing else observed" in that case there was "evidence" of gang connection with the driver (at least that is what the officers claim). So......my question is how does this relate to a pedestrian vs motor vehicle? What if "Mr. Johnson" were walking down a street and was observed with the same clothing/in the same area/with the same demeanor which in the officers opinion was evidence of gang related behivior? Would tha police have a right to stop and conduct a terry search then?

Opinions?

 

[soloman02]

There's a big difference between stopping pedestrians on a sidewalk, and a motor vehicle stop. The the LEO stops a car, there's a presumption that at a minimum a MV infraction has been observed. That creates a whole layer of reasonable suspicion that does not exist in a random pedestrian encounter.

Actually, in NH at least, a MV infraction is not to be used as a fishing expedition. NHSC within the past week or two just affirmed an earlier NHSC case stating this.

The court said a traffic stop amounts to a seizure and that officers must limit its purpose to the reason for the stop and not expand it to a search for evidence of criminal activity unless they have "a reasonable and articulable suspicion" that such activity exists.

www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/247015-A-Win-for-the-4A-in-NH

This decision was affirmed on April 15th so if the stop happened after that the officer was supposed to follow this court opinion. Obviously I am no attorney and do not have all the details here but it would be wise to let the friend know that the NHSC just ruled on MV searches before the stop occurred and thus his attorney should now read this case (linked below) to see if it can apply to get the prosecution to either drop the case or to get the evidence suppressed and thus cause the case to be dropped (either way, a win for the defendant here).

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2014/2014024blesdellmoore.pdf

 

[n1bsbri]

OK so after reading that case summary my last sentace holds much weight "Assuming of course there is nothing else observed" in that case there was "evidence" of gang connection with the driver (at least that is what the officers claim). So......my question is how does this relate to a pedestrian vs motor vehicle? What if "Mr. Johnson were walking down a street and was observed with the same clothing/in the same area/with the same demeanor? Would tha police have a right to stop and conduct a terry search then?

Opinions?

In the case of NYC, the police there were stopping random people on the street and frisking them. To my mind, there's a difference in that type of encounter, and one where the police stop a motor vehicle for an infraction. In the latter case, the police have a justifiable reason to detain the subjects, and investigate. Of course, as has been stated here already, reasonable suspicion is a very low standard, and the police can claim practically anything.

Back to the original topic, and why I raised the Terry Stop scenario, is that a lot of posters were taking exception to the search that was conducted. The car was stopped for driving at a very high rate of speed, which leads in many cases to a criminal charge. So there was ample reason for the LEO to order the occupants out of the car and frisk. Someone being stopped for failure to yield, or 5 MPH over the limit, would be a different situation.

 

[terraformer]

Actually, in NH at least, a MV infraction is not to be used as a fishing expedition. NHSC within the past week or two just affirmed an earlier NHSC case stating this.



www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/247015-A-Win-for-the-4A-in-NH

This decision was affirmed on April 15th so if the stop happened after that the officer was supposed to follow this court opinion. Obviously I am no attorney and do not have all the details here but it would be wise to let the friend know that the NHSC just ruled on MV searches before the stop occurred and thus his attorney should now read this case (linked below) to see if it can apply to get the prosecution to either drop the case or to get the evidence suppressed and thus cause the case to be dropped (either way, a win for the defendant here).

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2014/2014024blesdellmoore.pdf

Doesn't matter when the ruling came down. Make sure he knows about it.

 

[BigDaddyAl]

There's a big difference between stopping pedestrians on a sidewalk, and a motor vehicle stop. The the LEO stops a car, there's a presumption that at a minimum a MV infraction has been observed. That creates a whole layer of reasonable suspicion that does not exist in a random pedestrian encounter.

In the case of NYC, the police there were stopping random people on the street and frisking them. To my mind, there's a difference in that type of encounter, and one where the police stop a motor vehicle for an infraction. In the latter case, the police have a justifiable reason to detain the subjects, and investigate. Of course, as has been stated here already, reasonable suspicion is a very low standard, and the police can claim practically anything.

Back to the original topic, and why I raised the Terry Stop scenario, is that a lot of posters were taking exception to the search that was conducted. The car was stopped for driving at a very high rate of speed, which leads in many cases to a criminal charge. So there was ample reason for the LEO to order the occupants out of the car and frisk. Someone being stopped for failure to yield, or 5 MPH over the limit, would be a different situation.

While I agree that a suspected traffic violation creates the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a stop, the standard for the frisk portion of stop and frisk is the same whether it is on the street or in a car. In a Terry Stop / Motor vehicle stop situation, police can only frisk/search you if the stop was valid and they believe you are armed and dangerous. The standard doesn't change because the person to be searched is in a car. Apologies if that isn't what you are saying, but that is how I'm reading your response.

 

[n1bsbri]

While I agree that a suspected traffic violation creates the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct a stop, the standard for the frisk portion of stop and frisk is the same whether it is on the street or in a car. In a Terry Stop / Motor vehicle stop situation, police can only frisk/search you if the stop was valid and they believe you are armed and dangerous. The standard doesn't change because the person to be searched is in a car. Apologies if that isn't what you are saying, but that is how I'm reading your response.

Yes, I agree. The difference is in the reason for the initial contact. The traffic stop creates the conditions for detention, which can lead to further investigation. The exact nature and extent of that investigation is hotly contested, but Tery v Ohio has established the validy of the frisk, assuming the officer has RAS, which I maintain is a low standard. This is an area where there is a lot of controversy, so there are no clear cut answers.

 

[Bonesinium]

Back to the original topic, and why I raised the Terry Stop scenario, is that a lot of posters were taking exception to the search that was conducted. The car was stopped for driving at a very high rate of speed, which leads in many cases to a criminal charge. So there was ample reason for the LEO to order the occupants out of the car and frisk. Someone being stopped for failure to yield, or 5 MPH over the limit, would be a different situation.

There is actual specific criteria involved in a "Terry Stop", and just because there is a traffic stop does not mean that it is a "Terry Stop".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

This would hold particularly true for a passenger in a vehicle during a stop. That someone is armed alone doesn't even fulfill the requirement in Terry v. Ohio. There must be reason to believe the individual is both armed AND dangerous. This last part is key. Being a passenger in a vehicle in a traffic stop certainly does not fulfill this requirement absent other facts. No, driving fast doesn't somehow magically create "ample reason" to frisk someone.

 

[Bonesinium]

For those concerned:

Carrying without a license:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-4.htm

Places where you cannot carry:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-19.htm

Loaded long gun restrictions:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xviii/207/207-7.htm
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xviii/207/207-7-b.htm

As noted, a violation in regards to loaded handguns constitutes a misdemeanor for the first offense, and felony for subsequent violations within 7 years. A violation in regards to a loaded long gun constitutes just that, a violation.

 

[dgrafton]

For those concerned:

Carrying without a license:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-4.htm

Places where you cannot carry:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-19.htm

Loaded long gun restrictions:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xviii/207/207-7.htm
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xviii/207/207-7-b.htm

As noted, a violation in regards to loaded handguns constitutes a misdemeanor for the first offense, and felony for subsequent violations within 7 years. A violation in regards to a loaded long gun constitutes just that, a violation.

I love New Hampshire! Straight to the point and understandable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[exo]

As noted, a violation in regards to loaded handguns constitutes a misdemeanor for the first offense, and felony for subsequent violations within 7 years. A violation in regards to a loaded long gun constitutes just that, a violation.

But what does a violation of NH Fish & Game laws actually translate to?

 

[soloman02]

But what does a violation of NH Fish & Game laws actually translate to?

I asked this question here to have a discussion on this.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/214767-RSA-207-7

The summary of that discussion is that it depends on the violation. In the case of a loaded long gun, it is a non-criminal offense that carries a fine of up to $1000 and I have heard of people losing their hunting license for a few years but I don't see that as a penalty in the RSA for 207:7-b.

 

[Bonesinium]

I asked this question here to have a discussion on this.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/214767-RSA-207-7

The summary of that discussion is that it depends on the violation. In the case of a loaded long gun, it is a non-criminal offense that carries a fine of up to $1000 and I have heard of people losing their hunting license for a few years but I don't see that as a penalty in the RSA for 207:7-b.

Here is the NH RSA that specifies the maximum punishments:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/651/651-2.htm

As applicable to violations:

III-a. A person convicted of a violation may be sentenced to conditional or unconditional discharge, or a fine.
IV. A fine may be imposed in addition to any sentence of imprisonment, probation, or conditional discharge. The limitations on amounts of fines authorized in subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall not include the amount of any civil penalty, the imposition of which is authorized by statute or by a properly adopted local ordinance, code, or regulation. The amount of any fine imposed on:
(a) Any individual may not exceed $4,000 for a felony, $2,000 for a class A misdemeanor, $1,200 for a class B misdemeanor, and $1,000 for a violation.
(b) A corporation or unincorporated association may not exceed $100,000 for a felony, $20,000 for a misdemeanor and $1,000 for a violation. A writ of execution may be issued by the court against the corporation or unincorporated association to compel payment of the fine, together with costs and interest.