More open carry idiots....

[Tgace]

Thanks for posting this.

All that has changed since Hiibel (2004) is that you may now possibly be charged for refusing to ID when an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime, depending on your states laws. An officer has had to have RS to even ask for the ID from at least Terry V Ohio (1968).

 

[grumpywolfman]

All that has changed since Hiibel (2004) is that you may now possibly be charged for refusing to ID when an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a crime, depending on your states laws. An officer has had to have RS to even ask for the ID from at least Terry V Ohio (1968).

I wonder how a person could prove that there was no basis for reasonable suspicion when he is alone with no witnesses, cell phone or recording device? Answer = you can't, and you better hand over your ID or risk being arrested; because if the officer asked for it, it's because he's already suspicious of you.

 

[grumpywolfman]

I apologize for my bitterness guys, it's easy for me to be nearsighted sometimes and forget what God has done for me. In all honesty, God truly makes things fit together like if it were all planned when we turn our lives over to Him. Because of that experience, I learned I have a stronger faith then I had realized, and instead of griping about the pruning along the way, I should be boasting about how gracious He has been to me throughout the years.

 

[jks9199]

I guess it depends in what state you live? Because in my state, cops can arrest people who don't produce ID, and they don't need any special reason to ask for it either. I have personally seen police draw their weapons on unarmed citizens for way less reasons then for walking around town brandishing an assault rifle like they lived in a demilitarized zone. I was very surprised that police did not draw their guns on these guys, and told them to lay down their weapons before approaching them. If the videos are legit, it seems very probable to me that the police recognize what these guys are up to, and are being extra-specially-nice to avoid bringing the negative national attention that these guys are seeking.

First -- I apologize if my earlier response seemed a bit curt. Hazard of posting on a smartphone....

Now, to address these issues...

I'm not aware of any US state that has given the police carte blanche to stop and identify ANYONE, without at least reasonable suspicion of some sort of wrong doing. Even the decision in Hiibel doesn't go that far in permitting laws to require at least some suspects to identify themselves. However, the whole discussion is moot; Officer Estes told them several times that they weren't detained, and that he was only asking -- not requiring them to provide him with info. They were not brandishing the rifle (or the pistol on his hip); they were merely carrying them.

 

[grumpywolfman]

First -- I apologize if my earlier response seemed a bit curt. Hazard of posting on a smartphone....

Now, to address these issues...

I'm not aware of any US state that has given the police carte blanche to stop and identify ANYONE, without at least reasonable suspicion of some sort of wrong doing. Even the decision in Hiibel doesn't go that far in permitting laws to require at least some suspects to identify themselves. However, the whole discussion is moot; Officer Estes told them several times that they weren't detained, and that he was only asking -- not requiring them to provide him with info. They were not brandishing the rifle (or the pistol on his hip); they were merely carrying them.

Your right, they were only carrying their guns - I was upset and exaggerated. I was thinking back in comparison to what happened to me, and got angry over the matter again.

 

[grumpywolfman]

First -- I apologize if my earlier response seemed a bit curt. Hazard of posting on a smartphone....

Now, to address these issues...

I'm not aware of any US state that has given the police carte blanche to stop and identify ANYONE, without at least reasonable suspicion of some sort of wrong doing. Even the decision in Hiibel doesn't go that far in permitting laws to require at least some suspects to identify themselves. However, the whole discussion is moot; Officer Estes told them several times that they weren't detained, and that he was only asking -- not requiring them to provide him with info. They were not brandishing the rifle (or the pistol on his hip); they were merely carrying them.

Isn't reasonable suspicion an opinion that is based on an officer's experience and training? Therefore it gives an officer the legal flexibility to ask anyone for ID a legal command as long as he could give a "reasonable" explanation of why. I highly doubt that most officers will say "May I please see your ID, but if you don't want to it's OK I'll just go away now." Or "If you let me see your assault rifle, I'll show you mine " Perhaps all that an officer would really have to say in court to establish his reason is "He looked suspicious, so I asked for his ID," and the judge thinks "Well ... that's reasonable enough, he looked suspicious." BTW reasonable suspicion was NEVER brought up when I faced the judge when I was arrested in 2004 for not showing ID, it was just simply assumed (which is probably still the norm).

In the second video, the officer requests for their IDs to check and see if they have the legal right to carry their firearms (background check for felonies); which sounds like a reasonable suspicion - they could be unregistered or felons. However they refuse to showing their IDs, so now the officer cannot verify their legal right to carry. It is at this point that I do not see why the officer could not arrest them if he wanted to, because he already established a reasonable explanation for his suspicion. He could easily say "We received several calls from alarmed citizens of Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson who have been seen walking around town carrying assault rifles. When I approached the suspects and asked them to provide IDs to verify their legal right to carry they refused; which made me suspicious of their reasons for carrying openly in public. Throughout my years serving as an officer, I commonly come across felons who are in illegal possession of firearms; therefore, after they continued to refuse to comply and provide their IDs after several more attempts, I placed them under arrest to ensure the public's safety."

 

[Tgace]

Isn't reasonable suspicion an opinion that is based on an officer's experience and training? Therefore it gives an officer the legal flexibility to ask anyone for ID a legal command as long as he could give a "reasonable" explanation of why. I highly doubt that most officers will say "May I please see your ID, but if you don't want to it's OK I'll just go away now." Or "If you let me see your assault rifle, I'll show you mine " Perhaps all that an officer would really have to say in court to establish his reason is "He looked suspicious, so I asked for his ID," and the judge thinks "Well ... that's reasonable enough, he looked suspicious." BTW reasonable suspicion was NEVER brought up when I faced the judge when I was arrested in 2004 for not showing ID, it was just simply assumed (which is probably still the norm).

In the second video, the officer requests for their IDs to check and see if they have the legal right to carry their firearms (background check for felonies); which sounds like a reasonable suspicion - they could be unregistered or felons. However they refuse to showing their IDs, so now the officer cannot verify their legal right to carry. It is at this point that I do not see why the officer could not arrest them if he wanted to, because he already established a reasonable explanation for his suspicion. He could easily say "We received several calls from alarmed citizens of Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson who have been seen walking around town carrying assault rifles. When I approached the suspects and asked them to provide IDs to verify their legal right to carry they refused; which made me suspicious of their reasons for carrying openly in public. Throughout my years serving as an officer, I commonly come across felons who are in illegal possession of firearms; therefore, after they continued to refuse to comply and provide their IDs after several more attempts, I placed them under arrest to ensure the public's safety."

No.

Reasonable Suspicion is a defined legal term:

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

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.2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 889,

An officer has to be able to testify at a hearing the specific articulable reasons for why he/she believed a contact reached the RS stage. You cannot manufacture RS by assuming every gun owner you approach is a convicted Felon and use that to demand ID.

If you are truly interested in this topic read this:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Wum9J0&sig=AHIEtbQh0M4uo0pwPr2MABGFVqWP9ianUQ

The thing to remember with police encounters and RS is that "you" (the person being contacted) rarely know all the details regarding the WHY'S of the police contact. RS isn't something you debate or run a hearing on in the street. An officer demanding ID when he doesn't have the right to may indeed happen. You can try schooling him on RS on the roadside but I don't know how wise of a choice that would be. RS comes into your favor in pre-trial hearings (called a DeBour hearing in NY). I have seen numerous cases dismissed outright at DeBour...officers who violate RS open up their departments for lawsuits and themselves for civil rights cases....

 

[jks9199]

Isn't reasonable suspicion an opinion that is based on an officer's experience and training? Therefore it gives an officer the legal flexibility to ask anyone for ID a legal command as long as he could give a "reasonable" explanation of why. I highly doubt that most officers will say "May I please see your ID, but if you don't want to it's OK I'll just go away now." Or "If you let me see your assault rifle, I'll show you mine " Perhaps all that an officer would really have to say in court to establish his reason is "He looked suspicious, so I asked for his ID," and the judge thinks "Well ... that's reasonable enough, he looked suspicious." BTW reasonable suspicion was NEVER brought up when I faced the judge when I was arrested in 2004 for not showing ID, it was just simply assumed (which is probably still the norm).

In the second video, the officer requests for their IDs to check and see if they have the legal right to carry their firearms (background check for felonies); which sounds like a reasonable suspicion - they could be unregistered or felons. However they refuse to showing their IDs, so now the officer cannot verify their legal right to carry. It is at this point that I do not see why the officer could not arrest them if he wanted to, because he already established a reasonable explanation for his suspicion. He could easily say "We received several calls from alarmed citizens of Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson who have been seen walking around town carrying assault rifles. When I approached the suspects and asked them to provide IDs to verify their legal right to carry they refused; which made me suspicious of their reasons for carrying openly in public. Throughout my years serving as an officer, I commonly come across felons who are in illegal possession of firearms; therefore, after they continued to refuse to comply and provide their IDs after several more attempts, I placed them under arrest to ensure the public's safety."

First -- reasonable suspicion is a legal standard. It's a vague definition, but it's more than a mere hunch or mere suspicion. It must be based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts based on an officer's training and experience which would give rise to a belief that crime may be afoot. (See Terry v Ohio for a starting point.) So, the mere possibility that these guys may be felons isn't enough; the officer needs some reason to believe that they are felons. That reasonable, articulable suspicion may be based on things that wouldn't mean anything to an ordinary citizen, like the way that they stand, details about their dress, recognizing tattoo styles, or even knowing the person. Simply being on the street, legally carrying a gun isn't enough.

Now... I'm going to share a "secret"... I use people innate habits of compliance against them a lot. A whole lot. Let's look at this sort of incident. In Virginia, it's generally legal to openly carry a gun. There are a few odd limits in specific places, and a property owner has the right to tell someone carrying a gun to leave... but that's the general rule. So, let's say I see a couple guys walking around with an AR. OK... I'm going to go see if they'll have a chat. I walk over, and I don't block their line of travel. I say "Hi, guys... Mind talking for a minute?" If they say "yes" and walk away -- that's as far as I can go. Most people won't, though. Then I'll ask "Do you have ID?" Most people will then voluntarily present it... but notice I haven't asked for it. I've only asked IF they have it. If they say "yes" and that's it -- I may ask for it ("May I see it?" or "Do you mind letting me look at it?"... notice, not a demand... just a request) and I might explain that it just saves me asking them things... or I may just ask for their name... Again, most people voluntarily comply. If I take their ID -- I only hold on to it long enough to either copy info or run it directly (I'll usually ask if they mind if I take it to my car...) either in my car or over the radio, because as long as I hold onto their property, they're not free to leave. After that, I'd explain my concerns and roll with things. There's a bit of an art to maintaining a consensual encounter -- but unless I have or develop reasonable suspicion to authorize more, I have to work it that way.

 

[Tgace]

The thing with these "open carry types" is that they WANT you to contact them..they WANT you to ask for ID so that they can refuse. And they WANT you to put yourself into a @#$%%#$ that may cost you your job. Fortunately, the word is getting out to most officers the game these guys are playing.

I think the thing that sticks in my craw the most with these games is that they depend on scaring passing citizens into calling 911 so that they can get a "victim cop" to show up on the scene. These officers are rarely just coming across an OC person during patrol. So the officer is being dispatched to deal with these turkeys.

 

[grumpywolfman]

I'm sorry guys but I've had mostly bad experiences; it just not worth the risk in my opinion to believe in what your saying is true off the paper that its written on, and I would urge people to assume that an officer could and would fabricate reasonable suspicion if they felt like it. Once you get arrested, those charges can only come off your public record - not your criminal record, and that can be a lifetime scar that can affect you future. Good luck trying to convince a judge that you were a victim in an arrest scenario. What is going on in those videos is not the norm that I have seen practiced on the street, this is being done purposefully (and rightfully so) to avoid negative national attention that could cause escalation. Hopefully, the guys walking around with their AR-15s will stop showcasing before somebody else on the street feels threatened enough to pull out a gun on them and a real situation happens.

 

[arnisador]

The thing with these "open carry types" is that they WANT you to contact them..they WANT you to ask for ID so that they can refuse. And they WANT you to put yourself into a @#$%%#$ that may cost you your job.

Yup. Just being jerks for the sake of it.

 

[Tgace]

I'm sorry guys but I've had mostly bad experiences; it just not worth the risk in my opinion to believe in what your saying is true off the paper that its written on, and I would urge people to assume that an officer could and would fabricate reasonable suspicion if they felt like it. Once you get arrested, those charges can only come off your public record - not your criminal record, and that can be a lifetime scar that can affect you future. Good luck trying to convince a judge that you were a victim in an arrest scenario. What is going on in those videos is not the norm that I have seen practiced on the street, this is being done purposefully (and rightfully so) to avoid negative national attention that could cause escalation. Hopefully, the guys walking around with their AR-15s will stop showcasing before somebody else on the street feels threatened enough to pull out a gun on them and a real situation happens.

It only stays on your record if you agree to take a plea to a lesser charge or get convicted. I know that often times people are convinced to take a plea vs the time/expense of a trial. But if you REALLY believe that an officer just walked up to you for no reason, demanded ID and arrested you, you can get a dismissal after a suppression hearing. Hell, I've seen what I believed to have been slam dunk cases dismissed..but much may depend more on the DA's office in your jurisdiction...

 

[celtic_crippler]

Regardless of any "law" written after the fact, it is unconstitutional to stop and search a person without justification. And, I know many of you disagree and hate the idea... but carrying a weapon is not justification because it is another protected constitutional Right.

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country where nobody would have thought twice about somebody else walking around with a rifle... unless they had blood all over them... then that would be a different story. In fact, most people exercised their 2nd Amendment Right daily and carried... either in the "open" or "concealed." The idea was not nearly as "alien" as it is today as it was a "given" that you had the right to protect yourself and your property.

Remember, the police aren't there to protect you; that's your responsibility. LE here on MT have admitted to that fact in other threads.

Kudos to the cop though. I echo his praise as he was a true professional in handling this situation.

 

[Tgace]

Im not ignorant of the differences between how things are supposed to go and how things actually go with SOME police officers/departments. The fact remains that the way the law is written is clear...a police officer cannot just walk up to you and demand ID simply because he has a "hunch" or because he simply wants to.

 

[jks9199]

The thing with these "open carry types" is that they WANT you to contact them..they WANT you to ask for ID so that they can refuse. And they WANT you to put yourself into a @#$%%#$ that may cost you your job. Fortunately, the word is getting out to most officers the game these guys are playing.

I think the thing that sticks in my craw the most with these games is that they depend on scaring passing citizens into calling 911 so that they can get a "victim cop" to show up on the scene. These officers are rarely just coming across an OC person during patrol. So the officer is being dispatched to deal with these turkeys.

Yep... that's their game. And my return game is to know my job and the law better than they do, so that they're frustrated. Officer Jim Estes did a fantastic job of that, no doubt about it.

 

[jks9199]

Regardless of any "law" written after the fact, it is unconstitutional to stop and search a person without justification. And, I know many of you disagree and hate the idea... but carrying a weapon is not justification because it is another protected constitutional Right.

Believe it or not, there was a time in this country where nobody would have thought twice about somebody else walking around with a rifle... unless they had blood all over them... then that would be a different story. In fact, most people exercised their 2nd Amendment Right daily and carried... either in the "open" or "concealed." The idea was not nearly as "alien" as it is today as it was a "given" that you had the right to protect yourself and your property.

Remember, the police aren't there to protect you; that's your responsibility. LE here on MT have admitted to that fact in other threads.

Kudos to the cop though. I echo his praise as he was a true professional in handling this situation.

I don't think you'll find anywhere that I've said anything about making any sort of detention SOLELY on the basis of someone carrying a gun. In my jurisdiction, a suburban bedroom type community with no legal hunting within its bounds, I may well have a chat if I see someone strolling about with a rifle. And if they tell me to pound sand, they walk away unless they break the law. Couple months back, I notice a guy who doesn't fit the neighborhood. I start chatting with him, and learn a few things that raise more concerns -- but don't equal reasonable suspicion. I ask him if he has any ID, and he says he doesn't want to give it to me. Or tell me his name. OK... Off he went. If I'd really wanted to be persnickety, he crossed a street illegally and I could have then detained him -- but I didn't. Would have been a little too much like manufacturing cause...

I think you'll find that most cops do their level best to do their jobs properly and within the law and Constitution. In some places, a guy walking around with a gun is a normal sight. In others... it'll get a bit of attention.

 

[grumpywolfman]

#1 That reasonable, articulable suspicion may be based on things that wouldn't mean anything to an ordinary citizen, like the way that they stand, details about their dress, recognizing tattoo styles, or even knowing the person.

#2 If I take their ID -- I only hold on to it long enough to either copy info or run it directly (I'll usually ask if they mind if I take it to my car...) either in my car or over the radio, because as long as I hold onto their property, they're not free to leave.

Thank you for posting this.

#1 Profiling based on fashion and the way people stand?

#2 What crime would they be committing if they left while you had something that belonged to them?

VERSUS

 

[Tgace]

Yes...how someone is standing:

 

[jks9199]

Thank you for posting this.

#1 Profiling based on fashion and the way people stand?

Yes. If I see a couple guys standing in a way that I recognize as being something people develop and learn in a prison environment, or in a way that is consistent with someone carrying a concealed weapon or other contraband, or a style of dress consistent with gang members, or see the precursors to an attack, I can certainly consider that information as part what makes up my reasonable, articulable suspicion and decide whether I've crossed the line between mere suspicion and reasonable suspicion. We all profile. It's illegal to take action solely upon a profile based upon race... but a profile based on other behaviors is perfectly acceptable and has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

#2 What crime would they be committing if they left while you had something that belonged to them?

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. Hey, a cop can slap the cuffs on someone without any reason or justification, and effect an arrest. It'd be illegal as all hell, and the cop would be held liable for it... but they have the ability to do it.

 

[grumpywolfman]

So its an opinion then?