More open carry idiots....

[grumpywolfman]

Yes...how someone is standing:

X-RAY VISION? Cool ....

BTW I usually carry a travel-sized Bible in my pocket, so I'm glad you posted this in case I'm stopped for looking suspicious while I'm standing in line next to the guy carrying his AR-15

 

[Tgace]

Are you interested in a serious discussion? Or circular questioning based on your seemingly preset opinion?

Again:

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/59

Reasonable Suspicion

"Reasonable Suspicion:" Less than "probable cause," but more than no evidence (i.e., a "hunch.") at all.
back to top
Defined

Defined: "Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity." (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 27 [20 L.Ed.2nd 889, 909].)
"Because the ‘balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security,' [Citation] tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in such cases, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity ‘"may be afoot,"' (United States v. Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7 [104 L.Ed.2nd 1, 10]; quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, at p. 30 [20 L.Ed.2nd at p. 911].)
back to top
Articulable Objective Suspicion

Articulable Objective Suspicion: A detention, even if brief, is a sufficiently significant restraint on personal liberty to require "objective justification." (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 498 [75 L.Ed.2nd 229, 236-237].)
Reasons which an officer feels give him or her reasonable suspicion to detain must be articulated, in detail, in an arrest report and later recounted in courtroom testimony.
An officer's inability to articulate those suspicious factors that give rise to the need to stop and detain a suspect is one of the more common causes of detentions being found to be illegal.
back to top
A Hunch

A Hunch: An officer's decision to detain cannot be predicated upon a mere "hunch," but must be based upon articulable facts describing suspicious behavior which would distinguish the defendant from an ordinary, law-abiding citizen. (Terry v. Ohio, supra.)
"A hunch may provide the basis for solid police work; it may trigger an investigation that uncovers facts that establish reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or even grounds for a conviction. A hunch, however, is not a substitute for the necessary specific, articulable facts required to justify a Fourth Amendment intrusion." (Italics added; People v. Pitts(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 881, 889; quoting United States v. Thomas (9th Cir. 2000) 211 F.3rd 1186, 1192.)
A stop and detention based upon stale information concerning a threat, which itself was of questionable veracity, and with little if anything in the way of suspicious circumstances to connect the persons stopped to that threat, is illegal. (People v. Durazo (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 728: Threat was purportedly from Mexican gang members, and defendant was a Mexican male who (with his passenger) glanced at the victim's apartment as he drove by four days later where the officer admittedly was acting on his "gut feeling" that defendant was involved.)
Seemingly innocuous behavior does not justify a detention of suspected illegal aliens unless accompanied by some particularlized conduct that corroborates the officer's suspicions. (United States v. Manzo-Jurado (9th Cir. 2006) 457 F.3rd 928; standing around in their own group, conversing in Spanish, watching a high school football game.)
Observing defendant sitting in a parked motor vehicle late at night near the exit to a 7-Eleven store parking lot, with the engine running, despite prior knowledge of a string of recent robberies at 7-Elevens, held to be not sufficient to justify a detention and patdown. (People v. Perrusquia (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 228.)
back to top
The Totality of the Circumstances

The Totality of the Circumstances: The legality of a detention will be determined by considering the "totality of the circumstances." (United States v. Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 273 [151 L.Ed.2nd 740, 749]; see also People v. Dolly (2007) 40 Cal.4th 458.)
"All relevant factors must be considered in the reasonable suspicion calculus-even those factors that, in a different context, might be entirely innocuous." (United States v. Fernandez-Castillo (9th Cir. 2003) 324 F.3rd 1114, 1124, citing United States v. Arvizu, supra, at pp. 277-278 [151 L.Ed.2nd at p. 752].)
back to top
The Officer's Subjective Conclusions

The Officer's Subjective Conclusions: Whether or not an officer has sufficient cause to detain someone will be evaluated by the courts on an "objective" basis; or how a reasonable person would evaluate the circumstances. The officer's own "subjective" conclusions are irrelevant. (Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 [135 L.Ed.2nd 89].)
back to top
A Seizure

A Seizure: Although a detention is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment (Terry v. Ohio, supra, at p. 19, fn. 16 [20 L.Ed.2nd at pp. 904-905].), it is allowed on less than probable cause because the intrusion is relatively minimal and is done for a valid and necessary investigative purpose.
And note P.C. § 833.5, providing a peace officer the authority to detain for investigation anyone who the officer has "reasonable cause" to believe illegally has in his or her possession a firearm or other deadly weapon.
back to top
Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion


Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion: The occasional inarticulate judicial references to the need to prove "probable cause" (e.g., see United States v. Willis (9th Cir. 2005) 431 F.3rd 709, 715, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 [135 L.Ed.2nd 89].) was not intended to raise the standard of proof from one of needing only a "reasonable suspicion." (United States v. Lopez (9th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3rd 1101-1104.)

 

[Tgace]

"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity."

"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity."

"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity."

 

[grumpywolfman]

I never said they'd be committing a crime. I said that they would be detained; a reasonable person would not feel free to leave as long as a cop was holding onto their property, especially an ID.

So they would be detained if they had some other place to go, and got tired of talking to you if you chose to hold onto their ID; because in your opinion, that would be unreasonable of them to be upset with the encounter and want to leave? Could you define "detained"? Because it seems to me that word implies that it would be against their will. What if I said "keep the ID, I got stuff to do, I'll get another one." Makes me remember back to when I said no to the officer who requested mine, and then blocked my car door when I said that I'll be leaving now.

 

[grumpywolfman]

Are you interested in a serious discussion? Or circular questioning based on your seemingly preset opinion?

I guess I'll be leaving now

 

[jks9199]

One of the most important skills for an officer is articulation: being able to explain, to an outside, objective observer, what you did and why you did it. It's something I practice constantly; if something raises my hackles, I ask myself why? If something makes me stop and look twice -- I practice explaining it. If something makes me change lanes unexpectedly -- I figure out what I saw, heard, or felt that made me do that. And so on. I like how Rory Miller explains this: if you practice it regularly, you develop a superpower as you learn to listen to your intuition, and it learns that you trust it -- so it tells you more.

So, what does that mean?

It means that, when I walked out of a stop and rob a few months back, and a kid stopped to finish his smoke before he went in, I waited for him to commit a crime... and he did.

What told me that he would? His wide-eyed stare at me. His use of a trash can as a barrier between us. The way he didn't enter the store until I left. His lack of response to my casual greeting as I passed him. The nervous way he sucked on his cigarette. They way he walked in, skirting the register, moving to hidden areas, pausing as if working on a lottery ticket without having grabbed the form... Then, when he exited, the way he was walking, almost running... All of that is something that anyone could have seen -- but only had meaning because of my experience and my training.

 

[jks9199]

So they would be detained if they had some other place to go, and got tired of talking to you if you chose to hold onto their ID; because in your opinion, that would be unreasonable of them to be upset with the encounter and want to leave? Could you define "detained"? Because it seems to me that word implies that it would be against their will. What if I said "keep the ID, I got stuff to do, I'll get another one." Makes me remember back to when I said no to the officer who requested mine, and then blocked my car door when I said that I'll be leaving now.

No. It means that, in the eyes of the law, I have effected a detention as long as I hold their property, because a reasonable person would not feel free to leave without that property being returned. I am saying that I have functionally detained them -- even if I didn't say a word about not being free to leave. Even if they don't think they're detained.

Maybe I can explain this with kind of a timeline and list of actions for a consensual contact:
An officer stops someone, and asks them to speak voluntarily. This isn't a detention; they haven't obstructed their travel and they haven't been physically restrained.
As they talk, the officer asks the person for their ID, and they voluntarily surrender it. This might be a detention; depends on how long the officer holds the ID and how the officer asks for it. There's a big difference between "give me your ID" and "do you mind if I look at your ID?" But -- in Virginia -- as long as that officer has possession of the ID, a court is going to find that the person was detained -- even if they didn't know it at the time.
The officer quickly returns the ID, and continues to talk. No detention; the subject is free to leave at any time. The officer hasn't done anything to restrain them, and has returned their property after the stated purpose. A consensual encounter may end at anytime from this point on...

Or it may become a non-consensual encounter. Let's say that, while talking to the subject, the officer notices something that raises their suspicions. Let's just pretend it's something that everyone agrees is an indication of possible criminal activity, but let's not be specific to avoid a whole mess of argument. The suspect decides to walk away, and the cop says "no, actually, I need you to stay." Detained. Even if the cop doesn't touch the suspect.

One thing leads to another, and the cop develops probable cause to believe that the offense in question is happening. On go the cuffs; arrest. Most definitely detained.

Probably clear as mud... Let me give another example.

I was on patrol recently, and I noticed an occupied car sitting on the side of the street at a late hour. There aren't many houses on the street, and none on the side where the car is parked. There were two people in the car. Now, there's a whole host of things that could be going on here. Anything from a couple winding up a date to a drug deal going down or some burglars waiting for the owner of a small business to return home with the day's receipts. (Yes, that's happened. A lot in our immigrant community, because they don't always trust or use banks.) So... I made contact. Turned out to be a guy and a girl finishing up a date. Consensual at first, since had they driven away and I didn't really have grounds to stop them. One problem... as he rolled down the window to make contact, I noticed an odor of marijuana. I asked him, and he volunteered a search. (I was going to anyway... look up the Carroll Doctrine) They were detained as soon as I smelled the weed; I wasn't going to let them drive away.

 

[grumpywolfman]

Probably clear as mud...

Yes. My ways and the way that I move are not most people's ways, and I would look suspicious to most cops; therefore, I now try to look at it from an officer's perspective instead of my innocence. In conclusion, based on my opinion formed from personal experiences, my advice to anybody reading this is to allow an officer to prove your innocence to himself; because you may have done something that set off his intuition and made him suspicious of you. If an officer asked for your ID its because he is already suspicious of you, and has the authority to detain or arrest you.

 

[grumpywolfman]

So, can I go now LOL

 

[grumpywolfman]

"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity."

"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity."

"Reasonable suspicion" is information which is sufficient to cause a reasonable law enforcement officer, taking into account his or her training and experience, to reasonably believe that the person to be detained is, was, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity. The officer must be able to articulate more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch' of criminal activity."

Haha, circle questioning is frustrating on the receiving end isn't it?

 

[Skpotamus]

Are you sure this is right? If I'm walking down the street minding my own business and a cop ask for ID and I refuse/am unable to comply, it's off to jail I go? Because "Let me see your papers" isn't really the system here.

Unfortunately, we ARE required to do so. Officers are given a LOT of leeway with the "good faith" clause. They could stop you for suspicion of Jay walking to check your ID.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar28/ch5.html


IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

 

[Tgace]

Everyone is an armchair expert in law enforcement....

 

[Skpotamus]

Everyone is an armchair expert in law enforcement....

If that is directed at me, I posted the actual code for the state of Indiana. The state arnisador and I both live in. I have also been asked to show ID by police officers before and informed of the consequences if I did not. I consulted the officers I worked with about it as well. They were the ones that informed me that they could, in good faith, stop me for pretty much anything they wanted to check my ID (infraction or ordinance violation, in IN we have ordinances and laws against spitting on the sidewalk for instance).

Are the officers incorrect? If I refuse to show ID when an officer asks me, can't they arrest and charge me with a class C misdemeanor as the Indiana Code says? Or is the state law incorrect?

 

[jks9199]

I'm not intimately familiar with Indiana law, but I suspect part of that "believes in good faith" is the same as I would describe as having probable cause to believe that an individual committed an offense. What that code section seems to be describing is the equivalent of releasing a suspect on a summons or written promise to appear in Virginia. We're required by law to release most misdemeanors and traffic infractions on the accused written promise to appear, unless there are other circumstances that justify a custodial arrest.

 

[arnisador]

I'm not intimately familiar with Indiana law, but I suspect part of that "believes in good faith" is the same as I would describe as having probable cause to believe that an individual committed an offense.

This is my guess too--certainly, I hope so.

 

[Tgace]

This is why we can't have nice things:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/18/starbucks-guns-unwelcome-but-not-banned-from-stores/

Idiots.

I'm ALL for protecting our Second Amendment Rights...but just like I'm against the "down your throat" political shenanigans the left plays, I'm against stupid political theater for causes I support as well.

 

[wimwag]

I think in the second video the officer may be too nice? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all that officer has to say is "let me see your ID", and if they refuse, then he could arrest them for disobeying a lawful order? It makes me wonder if these videos were arranged (ie B.S.)? Because to be honest, this is what I'm used to seeing: here I guess those guys with the AR-15s were lucky they didn't get caught Jaywalking?

No. A man walking with an openly carried firearm is not probable cause for a police officer to demand ID, just like driving a car is not probable cause for a stop to check if the driver is licensed. The fifth amendment protects everyone. If you are not suspected of having committed a crime, you have no legal requirement to present ID. If a cop has to ask, then they have no right to that information. They will try to make you feel guilty by saying things like "how do I know you're not a criminal?" If you volunteer information, you will likely be detained. If you walk away and are detained, sue and get rich. In Wisconsin, Act 35, which is law, states that the mere presence of a firearm is not justification for a stop or detainment by police officers. Most open carry states have similar provisions. You can take my experience while out hunting, as proof that these laws do exist. On November 25th, I was stopped (while wearing blaze orange, with a deer rifle slung over my shoulder and valid deer tags on my back) walking home from hunting. The first officer (city LEO) asked for ID, I politely declined, citing that I was within my rights to carry a firearm and have no legal requirement to provide ID. The city cop observed my rights and wished me well. A few minutes later, a county deputy demanded ID, which I did not provide, and continued to harass me all the way home. She was disciplined.

The link to my story:http://www.newrichmond-news.com/content/deputies-question-hunter-walking-home

I assume that you are wary of openly carried firearms because of the actions of a few morons. Please try to remember that gun owners are far more law abiding than police officers, and that to condemn all gun owners for the actions of a few is like blaming every cell phone owner for the death of a child hit by a texting teenager. Also, an AR15 is just a tool, just like martial arts. It's not the weapon, it's the person who uses it. Let's not blame the object, please.

 

[wimwag]

If that is directed at me, I posted the actual code for the state of Indiana. The state arnisador and I both live in. I have also been asked to show ID by police officers before and informed of the consequences if I did not. I consulted the officers I worked with about it as well. They were the ones that informed me that they could, in good faith, stop me for pretty much anything they wanted to check my ID (infraction or ordinance violation, in IN we have ordinances and laws against spitting on the sidewalk for instance).

Are the officers incorrect? If I refuse to show ID when an officer asks me, can't they arrest and charge me with a class C misdemeanor as the Indiana Code says? Or is the state law incorrect?

No. You being in public is not a RAS that you have committed a crime. File a complaint. Or let them arrest you and sue.

Edit: In the link to the news article I provided, you can read my story. In an exercise of "editorial privelage," it was not reported that I was threatened with many many things by the deputy, but yet nothing happened. They are much less likely to try to violate your rights if you are armed, but will likely run off at the mouth for a while and leave if you stand your ground. (I'm not saying all cops, just the ones who use their position to force their political beliefs on others.) In my case, I was told "We are fielding a lot of complaints" and "If we continue to field calls about you, we are going to do something." which she later elaborated as "You will go to jail." I told her that I would not be going to jail, to stop violating my constitutional rights, leave me alone and walked away. All this occurred after she acknowledge to me that I was breaking no laws and was within my constitutional rights. Tell them to leave you alone. You have that right. This is not a police state. Never ever surrender your constitutional rights. If people keep doing it at large, these rights will be denied to us regardless of who we vote for.

 

[wimwag]

This is why we can't have nice things:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/18/starbucks-guns-unwelcome-but-not-banned-from-stores/

Idiots.

I'm ALL for protecting our Second Amendment Rights...but just like I'm against the "down your throat" political shenanigans the left plays, I'm against stupid political theater for causes I support as well.

I agree. By holding those rallies, they implied that Starbucks was taking a side. That's why the CEO didn't ban open carry or firearms, he just "asked" people not to bring them. He was trying to say, "leave Starbucks out of it!"

There's a huge difference between exercising a pre existing right and carrying to intimidate political opponents.

 

[Tgace]

Please try to remember that gun owners are far more law abiding than police officers, and that to condemn all gun owners for the actions of a few is like blaming every cell phone owner for the death of a child hit by a texting teenager. Also, an AR15 is just a tool, just like martial arts. It's not the weapon, it's the person who uses it. Let's not blame the object, please.

Im with you except for that. You say that all gun owners cant be condemned based on the actions of a few (and cell phone users) but say pretty much that cops can be....