• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A question - a LEO orders someone preforming a perfectly legal function to stop..

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
If a police officer orders someone preforming a perfectly legal function (such as OCing) to stop, under color of law where he has no right to issue such an order....what law has he broken?

I'm getting ready to rattle a cage or two.:lol:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I'm watching this thread. Hopefully to learn something useful.

It's going to be complicated Bowes, because even if Civil Rights violations occurred the Federal Courts in Va have a Boys will be Boys attitude toward LE.

I'm not sure about the State.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
From what "user" indicates, while the Federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals seems to be content to let the police do what they like unless the violation is very flagrant, the state is much less tolerant of such bad behavior. I believe he offered that very opinion in regard to the Roanoke man who was detained and bad-mouthed by a Roanoke cop when the man didn't give him notice that he was carrying a gun (supposedly in violation of a "pre-empted" Roanoke ordinance). This particular cop already had stains on his reputation from time with another department in Pennsylvania, I believe. Unfortunately the Roanoke man took his issue (without representation of an attorney) all the way to the 4th Circuit, where the judges opined that they believed the policeman had qualified immunity for a civil rights claim, despite the fact that he was clearly attempting to enforce an invalid statute in violation of state law.
 
Last edited:

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
If a police officer orders someone preforming a perfectly legal function (such as OCing) to stop, under color of law where he has no right to issue such an order....what law has he broken?

I'm getting ready to rattle a cage or two.:lol:

Well, logically speaking, if they only ordered (I'm sure they really only meant to politely request :rolleyes:) you to stop, I don't think they have broken any law. What they do after you refuse to comply with their non-authoritative order (I mean request), on the other hand, would be a different story.
 
Last edited:

ryan7068

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
185
Location
Chesapeake, VA
While not 100% sure, I am pretty certain the best way to respond is to ask if your being detained. While I don't think they are specifically required to inform you immediately, they are required to articulate reasonable suspicion to a magistrate. So I think they follow up would be to ask what their reasonable suspicion is. If they don't tell you then ask why you are being detained. I'm sure the basic detention question will clear things up pretty quick. They would probably pull that "I'm just trying to talk to you" B.S.! In that case go on your way:cool:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
While not 100% sure, I am pretty certain the best way to respond is to ask if your being detained. While I don't think they are specifically required to inform you immediately, they are required to articulate reasonable suspicion to a magistrate. So I think they follow up would be to ask what their reasonable suspicion is. If they don't tell you then ask why you are being detained. I'm sure the basic detention question will clear things up pretty quick. They would probably pull that "I'm just trying to talk to you" B.S.! In that case go on your way:cool:

I'm not talking about response rayan and the response I gave them won't pass for flowers. They left me alone after that but I did video a less outspoken photographer being ORDERED to stop citing an non applicable law, then when I asked the cop about it later, he cited the same law but said I was OK.:lol:

This really is a piece of a much larger puzzle with the Capital Police enforcing unfinished, inapplicable and or nonexistent laws...including no OC in the GA Building.
I don't want to get much more detailed now because they read this site.
 

ryan7068

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
185
Location
Chesapeake, VA
I figured I was misunderstanding you. The way I read it seemed too simple a question coming from you.(just from reading prior posts) I havn't been around too long so I havn't made the oppurtunity to head up to the capitol. I find it pretty ironic that they would read this site and then try and badger you knowing full well the people on here are much more informed than most.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
This is somewhat similar to the big beef I have with a local business posting a sign on their entrance that essentially makes up a law, in an effort to wield the power of the State to influence private citizens' behavior on their private property.

I can't seem to find anyone who will agree with me that this is wrong, so I'm forced to conclude that you (or anyone else, including LEOs) are perfectly free to make up any cockamamie "law" you want to, and use it however you see fit to influence other people's behavior.

Show me I'm wrong.

TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I figured I was misunderstanding you. The way I read it seemed too simple a question coming from you.(just from reading prior posts) I havn't been around too long so I havn't made the oppurtunity to head up to the capitol. I find it pretty ironic that they would read this site and then try and badger you knowing full well the people on here are much more informed than most.

Actually, they don't badger me rayan. Sort of the other way around. People who wear guns at the Capital are probably members of VCDL and are left alone more or less. VCDL and some of the other lobby groups make a lot of noise they don't want.

The Capital Police are not gun friendly but know they can't really push their agenda past the Lobby's. For instance, for the last few years bills have been introduced to keep even CHP's from carrying in the GA building as well as forcing Lobbyists and media to go through screening. They have been soundly killed in committee.

They do badger other people though which gives me ammunition to work with.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I'm not sure that any law has been violated such that you can go to the Magistrate and ask for a warrant charging them. However, there are a number of civil torts that you might proceed to complain of, and most of them do not need to rely on any violation of Constitutional rights under color of law.

Having just said that, a search of the Code of Virginia yields Obstructing free passage of others http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-404 and Use of profane, threatening, or indecent language over public airways or by other methods http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-427 although this is going to be a stretch as the writing specifically limits it to radio and telephone. As User has taught us, the captions/headers have no meaning in the law (unless a judge wants them to have meaning). You might consider Disorderly conduct in public places http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-415 id you subscribe to the notion that their behavior
ha a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed.


I'll leave you the pleasure of perusing Blackstone for a deeper and finer examination of the various torts I allude to above. http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
This is somewhat similar to the big beef I have with a local business posting a sign on their entrance that essentially makes up a law, in an effort to wield the power of the State to influence private citizens' behavior on their private property.

I can't seem to find anyone who will agree with me that this is wrong, so I'm forced to conclude that you (or anyone else, including LEOs) are perfectly free to make up any cockamamie "law" you want to, and use it however you see fit to influence other people's behavior.

Show me I'm wrong.

TFred


http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-481 Look specifically at Section 3.

Tell me that making up your own laws is not an attempt to establish another government.

Of course, then comes the chore of convincing a judge.

stay safe.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
I'm not talking about response rayan and the response I gave them won't pass for flowers. They left me alone after that but I did video a less outspoken photographer being ORDERED to stop citing an non applicable law, then when I asked the cop about it later, he cited the same law but said I was OK.:lol:

This really is a piece of a much larger puzzle with the Capital Police enforcing unfinished, inapplicable and or nonexistent laws...including no OC in the GA Building.
I don't want to get much more detailed now because they read this site.

Skidmark had some discussion with the Capital Police regarding OC in the GA building when I showed up there one day for a committee hearing. Since skidmark involved himself, I stayed in the background, but later e-mailed the chief. I got no response, and failed to follow up afterward.
 

Bowesmobile

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
204
Location
Powhatan, Va
It's going to be complicated Bowes, because even if Civil Rights violations occurred the Federal Courts in Va have a Boys will be Boys attitude toward LE.

I'm not sure about the State.

That's fine. If I feel lost I'll simply ask for information. But so far this has been good. I like the responses!
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Skidmark had some discussion with the Capital Police regarding OC in the GA building when I showed up there one day for a committee hearing. Since skidmark involved himself, I stayed in the background, but later e-mailed the chief. I got no response, and failed to follow up afterward.

This is a touchy area for the CP Tess and every time I try to contact the Chief I get the same silence you did. In essence, they have no authority to prevent OC in the building. I'll get into that at a later date. There was a resolution but it was never completed.

Finally, I have a portal that will force the Chief to fish or cut bait, not only in the Carry issue but in many things. It's taken a long time to get it in beautiful 1080P.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
....

Finally, I have a portal that will force the Chief to fish or cut bait, not only in the Carry issue but in many things. It's taken a long time to get it in beautiful 1080P.

Put me down for an autographed copy. I'll give you the cash for the preorder* at the picnic, where you will give me a receipt that also promises to deliver.

stay safe.

* Just how does one order a "preorder" anyhow. It's almost as bad as a "gun buyback" for assaulting the language.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
If a police officer orders someone preforming a perfectly legal function (such as OCing) to stop, under color of law where he has no right to issue such an order....what law has he broken?

I'm getting ready to rattle a cage or two.:lol:

The way the law is now in Virginia (and has been for the last thousand years or so) is that the individual is expected to know the law, and what he can and cannot do. What a cop says about that has no greater force than anyone else's opinion, unless the order is within the scope of his official duties and authorized by law. For example the cop can tell you not to bring your gun into the courthouse, or order you to assist him in the capture of a fleeing felon. He can order you to get away from the crime scene, or if you're operating a motor vehicle, demand that you produce a permit. He's got to be involved in criminal investigation or some matter of public order, and the order he gives has to be consistent with his duties in that regard.

So the simple answer is, "none", any more than you would have broken a law if you tell the dog-hunters not to drive their pick-em-up trucks on the public highway adjacent to your property. Only once have I had to tell a cop that I thought his order to me was not lawful. And I ignored it. But he didn't violate any law by telling me what he did.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
If he "orders"... well, that term is fraught with possibilities, isn't it?

Does he give the order as a condition for being released from detention, or to avoid being taken to jail? That, arguably, would be Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law, a criminal (not civil) violation of 18 USC 242.

Ordinarily that would be a misdemeanor, with imprisonment not to exceed one year. But in the case of police, where "such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon", it's a felony, which can result in up to 10 years imprisonment.

Enforcement? Good luck. I've certainly seen many cases over the years, but generally they were excessive use of force cases, where police or corrections officers "got their rec on" with someone who was already in restraints. That's a clear cut case, contemptible, and should be prosecuted.

Merely "ordering" you to desist from a constitutionally protected activity, though, is pretty much like User said. You'll have a hard time finding a prosecutor who gives a damn.

Now, if you can make a case that it's not just the activity itself, but that you're being picked on because of "being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race," you might get some attention if you squawk loudly enough.
 
Top