What's the diff. between refusing to consent and refusing to comply?

**BerksCountyDave** · April 23rd, 2008, 12:40 PM

Can someone clear this up for me? I've heard before that, for example, if an LEO asks me to cover up my sidearm while OC'ing, that I shouldn't refuse to comply, but I should refuse to consent. What exactly does that mean? Do I cover it up, or don't I?

Thanks for any clarification

**headcase** · April 23rd, 2008, 12:56 PM

You do not need to cover your firearm in this state anywhere you may legally carry it. That is all the answer you or they need. No confusion or ambiguity.

**NineseveN** · April 23rd, 2008, 01:07 PM

Not giving consent amounts to clearly stating in a verbal manner that "I do not consent to X", refusing to comply amounts to saying "I will not do X" and not doing it, or just not doing it without saying anything.

Consent is what you give verbally or in writing, compliance is what you do or don't do.

**angus** · April 23rd, 2008, 01:13 PM

Not a lawyer, but:

For the purposes of a "consent" search of say, your vehicle during a traffic stop, you can "comply" without giving "consent."

An officer either needs probable cause (which he doesn't have to identify or explain to you) to search a vehicle on a traffic stop, or else do a consent search. Consent searches do not require probable cause, just your voluntary consent. If an LEO pulls you over and says "mind if I search your vehicle?" and you say no, that should be the end of it, UNLESS he has PC: your console has bags of what look like cocaine sticking out of it; your vehicle matches a physical description of a car used in a crime; there is a human arm sticking out of your trunk; there is blood all over the inside of the vehicle, (a la Pulp Fiction before the Mr. Wolf cleanup). At which point the LEO says that he's searching anyways and tells you to exit the vehicle.

If you continue to refuse the LEO (verbally or physically) you are out of compliance and may get handcuffed and sat down, or arrested if you are assaulting him, or whatever.

If you say that you comply with the search but will not consent, you are saying that you will not resist the directives of the LEO, but that for the purposes of the search, it cannot be identified later as a "consent" search. Refusing to consent means that the LEO needs to have articulable probable cause to go ahead with a search. If you refuse to consent (but do comply) and later a judge does not believe that the LEO really had PC for the search, then whatever evidence is found would be excluded from trial.

I have not heard of the expression being applied to CC/OC of firearms. I am not a lawyer either. This is just my understanding of criminal procedures in this case.

**BerksCountyDave** · April 23rd, 2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by NineseveN

Not giving consent amounts to clearly stating in a verbal manner that "I do not consent to X", refusing to comply amounts to saying "I will not do X" and not doing it, or just not doing it without saying anything.

Consent is what you give verbally or in writing, compliance is what you do or don't do.

Thank you for the explnnation. Much appreciated.

**LittleRedToyota** · April 23rd, 2008, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by BerksCountyDave

Can someone clear this up for me? I've heard before that, for example, if an LEO asks me to cover up my sidearm while OC'ing, that I shouldn't refuse to comply, but I should refuse to consent. What exactly does that mean? Do I cover it up, or don't I?

nineseven (as usual) nailed the consent vs. comply thing.

imho, whether or not to comply with a friendly *request* from an LEO that you cover your firearm is entirely a personal decision...i can see the logic on both sides.

but, again imho, i do not think you should comply with a *demand* from an LEO that you cover your firearm. at this point, i think the duty of every american citizen to defend our liberty against tyrannical government comes into play. a request to act a certain way is one thing...a demand to act a certain way or take a certain action when not required to by law is something else.

just my opinion.

oh...and just make sure you have an LTCF if before you comply with either a request or demand to cover up your firearm...if you don't you will be breaking the law by covering it up.

**BerksCountyDave** · April 23rd, 2008, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

nineseven (as usual) nailed the consent vs. comply thing.

imho, whether or not to comply with a friendly *request* from an LEO that you cover your firearm is entirely a personal decision...i can see the logic on both sides.

but, again imho, i do not think you should comply with a *demand* from an LEO that you cover your firearm. at this point, i think the duty of every american citizen to defend our liberty against tyrannical government comes into play. a request to act a certain way is one thing...a demand to act a certain way or take a certain action when not required to by law is something else.

just my opinion.

oh...and just make sure you have an LTCF if before you comply with either a request or demand to cover up your firearm...if you don't you will be breaking the law by covering it up.

Sounds very reasonable. Thank you very much. I do indeed have my LTCF.