Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Obstruction of Justice discussion

  1. #1
    Regular Member ethorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    51

    Obstruction of Justice discussion

    Deffinition via legal dictionary online: n. an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence, or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime.

    I was talking to a LEO friend of mine while watching a youtube video of a guy openly carrying in Missouri. The police were called to the area via a MWAG call. The police stopped him and asked him what type of gun he was carrying (not relevent IMO) his age and name, basic "non guilt forming questions" the officer states. He was refusing to comply with those simple request because he was under the assumtion that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, and he should be left alone. The police side of that is that they were called to check out a MWAG and are trying to determine who is he and what he is doing. (He was completely legal to carry, but they state they dont know if maybe he just strongarmed robbed someone, etc...) My friend informed me that by not answering simple questions like name, birthday, etc... so they know who you are, because they have a obligation to respond to the call, is obstuction and you can be charged with that (IE: pleading the 5th ammend, because you can exercise that right in jail as well). That would mean for us in Oklahoma, being disarmed and going to jail. Any opinions. Here is the video link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g71VfyHiWPA

    I see alot of these videos where people go out on "walks" while videotaping looking for police officers. Then when confronted they are usually rude to the officers about their rights being violated. In my opinion I think that the respect should flow both ways. If a officers responds to a call (because he has a obligation to respond) about me and treats me with respect then I will return it. However if they are rude and scarstic, then I hope they understand when I am the same right back at them.

  2. #2
    Regular Member okiebryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Director, Oklahoma Open Carry Association
    Posts
    449
    I'm not really answering your question, but here are the elements of 21 O.S. 540, OBSTRUCTING AN OFFICER IN THE PERFORMANCE

    OF HIS/HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, as found in jury instructions on OSCN.

    No person may be convicted of obstructing an officer in the performance of his/her official duties unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

    First, willfully;

    Second, delayed/obstructed;

    Third, a [Specify Public Officer];

    Fourth, known by the defendant to be a [Specify Public Officer];

    Fifth, in the discharge of any duty of his/her office.
    Without taking the time to read all the relevant case law cited, it looks so vague so as to be another "contempt of cop" catchall statute.
    Last edited by okiebryan; 10-23-2012 at 01:51 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Police can arrest you for any reason. If the arrest is lawful is the question. Responding to a call is not RAS to require a person to ID himself in most states, unless that state specifically has a stop and id law or case law supporting such activity.


    The guy should not discuss the issue of the 2nd amendment with the cop. And he was right not to answer. Anything you say can and will be used against you ...

    "you must cooperate" says the cop ...hahahahaha that's funny. The state cannot compel you to do anything.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Skimming the several several decisions it seems that a false statement, later found to be false, is obstruction in OK. The several skimmed rulings did not address silence or "off topic" discussions, or countering the LEOs questions with a question(s).

    If any of you Okies get stopped for merely exercising your right then you could be a test case to set in case law your 5A right.

    You may beat the rap, but you may not beat the ride.

    The attached video is a simple case of the cops not liking to be shown the error of their ways on the side of the road. Not how i would have done it, but it was done.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...tate-Patrolman
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by okiebryan View Post
    I'm not really answering your question, but here are the elements of 21 O.S. 540, OBSTRUCTING AN OFFICER IN THE PERFORMANCE

    OF HIS/HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, as found in jury instructions on OSCN.



    Without taking the time to read all the relevant case law cited, it looks so vague so as to be another "contempt of cop" catchall statute.
    Resist unlawful misdemeanor arrest in OK.

    http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCI...sp?citeid=5943
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    SNIP Deffinition via legal dictionary online: n. an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence, or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime.

    I was talking to a LEO friend of mine while watching a youtube video of a guy openly carrying in Missouri. The police were called to the area via a MWAG call. The police stopped him and asked him what type of gun he was carrying (not relevent IMO) his age and name, basic "non guilt forming questions" the officer states. He was refusing to comply with those simple request because he was under the assumtion that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, and he should be left alone. The police side of that is that they were called to check out a MWAG and are trying to determine who is he and what he is doing. (He was completely legal to carry, but they state they dont know if maybe he just strongarmed robbed someone, etc...) My friend informed me that by not answering simple questions like name, birthday, etc... so they know who you are, because they have a obligation to respond to the call, is obstuction and you can be charged with that (IE: pleading the 5th ammend, because you can exercise that right in jail as well). That would mean for us in Oklahoma, being disarmed and going to jail. Any opinions.
    This one is a little tricky because obstruction is interpreted in different ways in different states. For example, in VA we have a state Attorney General opinion saying mere uncooperation such as not answering identity questions is not obstruction, where in other states, failing to answer identity questions is obstruction. So, your state law is going to be important. You can have case law aka court opinions. And, you can have statutes. You'll want to look into both.

    I am not a lawyer.

    In the scenario in the OP, the cop would not have legal authority to demand identity--identity given verbally or a document such as driver license.

    In general, police must first have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that their target has, is, or is about to commit an offense before they can demand identity. See Terry vs Ohio, which talks about temporarily detaining someone to investigate them without regard to identity, for the beginnings of RAS case law. See Brown vs Texas for the identity angle after the cop has RAS. Also, a state statute that compels identity cannot be unconstitutionally vague about what satisfies the statute with regard to credible documentation. See Kolender vs Lawson. And, if a statute compels for example verbal identification, it does not violate the 5A right to silence. See Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court. These last three cases seem to form the core of stop-and-identify federal case law. There are links to all the cases cited at the link below.

    So, based only on what the OP reported, the cop would not have authority to demand identity because there was no RAS in the first place.

    However, and this is a very big however, the OCer is very rarely in a position to determine with complete certainty whether cop has genuine RAS. There are numerous factors involved in this. Below, I've linked to a post where I analyze the situation of an OCer trying, while he is being detained, to determine whether a cop has genuine RAS. For this post, let me just say there are a number of things the OCer would have to get right by guesswork in order to avoid being cited or arrested for violating a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance, or obstruction.


    Court opinions: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ources-Here!!&

    Figuring out whether the cop has genuine RAS: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...e-Cop-has-RAS&



    ETA: You all are very likely to go through what many other states already went through--illegal police tempory detentions. Trust me on this next part. You want to learn all you can about the case law on this before it happens. Its too late to kick yourself after it happens. In many states there were illegal detentions as OC spread. You wouldn't ordinarily think of this because we're focused on the 2nd Amendment, but it is violations and attempted violations of 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment that you run into with cops. Some cops count on your ignorance of your rights in these areas. For example, whether you can be detained at all touches on your 4A right against unreasonable search and seizure, in this case seizure of your person. These 4A and 5A questions have come up with cops far, far more frequently than the 2A itself. So, the point I'm trying to make is that the faster you learn this stuff, the faster you can get illegal cop behavior off your back across the state.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-23-2012 at 03:32 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    In this instance you can hear the cops talking too much, making up reasons for the stop or obscure possibilities .. the cops shot their RAS down the drain with their talking ... that's why it can help to be rude .. cops get mad and start running at the mouth .. I would have gave the cops some F big boy words to see how crazy I could have sent them...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHxFS9PiYM

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Big Picture

    You guys are about to have legal OC. Great!!

    But, there are always the people who didn't get the memo or disagree with it. In this case I am referring to cops who disagree with OC and harass OCers with illegal detentions.

    You're going to run into this. I am urging being ready for it.


    OCers in other states have already gone all through this. We've had to learn the details on 4A and 5A case law. We've had to write formal complaints. We've even sued a few times. It took some fight to get cops to recognize our 4A and 5A rights so we could exercise our 2A rights without harassment. OC is pretty safe in most places where legal compared to when OC was first spreading. My point is, having fought the legislature to make it legal, you're now likely going to have some contention with individual police departments or cops. Yes, most cops will know OC is legal. But, realize cops have dozens of ways to bug and harass you even if it is legal.

    To get those cops to leave you alone, to not violate your 4A and 5A rights, you have to let them know you know that law as well. Formal written complaints and, maybe even a lawsuit or two.

    Give you an example. In VA, about five years ago, there was an incident where some cops harassed some OCers. The OCers made formal complaints and generally caused a ruckus. Before the dust settled, the word filtering back was that cops in nearby police departments were being told by commanders to leave the OCers alone because "they know more about the law than you do."
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-23-2012 at 03:24 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In this instance you can hear the cops talking too much, making up reasons for the stop or obscure possibilities .. the cops shot their RAS down the drain with their talking ... that's why it can help to be rude .. cops get mad and start running at the mouth .. I would have gave the cops some F big boy words to see how crazy I could have sent them...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHxFS9PiYM
    That works fine until you run into a cop who is borderline psychotic--they're out there. And, if you provoke a cop to violence, you are almost guaranteed to be arrested. You provoked him into illegal violence, so now he has to arrest you on fake charges and lie in court to get a conviction in order to nullify any potential lawsuit on your part.

    Read Arrestproof Yourself by Dale Carson, a cop-turned-lawyer, he talks briefly about psychotic cops doing violence to detainees.


    Lets stick more or less to the thread discussion for the new OCers in OK.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-23-2012 at 03:29 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    That works fine until you run into a cop who is borderline psychotic--they're out there. .
    But don't they do psych tests on these folks, like they did to wesley crusher on ST-TNG?

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    Deffinition via legal dictionary online: n. an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers, including threatening witnesses, improper conversations with jurors, hiding evidence, or interfering with an arrest. Such activity is a crime.

    I was talking to a LEO friend of mine while watching a youtube video of a guy openly carrying in Missouri. The police were called to the area via a MWAG call. The police stopped him and asked him what type of gun he was carrying (not relevent IMO) his age and name, basic "non guilt forming questions" the officer states. He was refusing to comply with those simple request because he was under the assumtion that there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime, and he should be left alone. The police side of that is that they were called to check out a MWAG and are trying to determine who is he and what he is doing. (He was completely legal to carry, but they state they dont know if maybe he just strongarmed robbed someone, etc...) My friend informed me that by not answering simple questions like name, birthday, etc... so they know who you are, because they have a obligation to respond to the call, is obstuction and you can be charged with that (IE: pleading the 5th ammend, because you can exercise that right in jail as well). That would mean for us in Oklahoma, being disarmed and going to jail. Any opinions. Here is the video link.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g71VfyHiWPA

    I see alot of these videos where people go out on "walks" while videotaping looking for police officers. Then when confronted they are usually rude to the officers about their rights being violated. In my opinion I think that the respect should flow both ways. If a officers responds to a call (because he has a obligation to respond) about me and treats me with respect then I will return it. However if they are rude and scarstic, then I hope they understand when I am the same right back at them.
    This is how you handle that type of encounter: (don't be snotty) Question asked by LEO: Your answer. I'm busy, am I free to leave? Cop says yes, leave and say no more. Cop says you are not free to leave...ask him for what reasonable suspician of criminal activity am I being detained? When they answer because you have an open carried firearm...you answer... That is not criminal activity per OK SDA as modified by SB???? (I forgot the number, you don't forget it), and then follow with "am I free to leave now".

    If they demand to see you CPL, show it to them, then file a formal complaint with their Jusrisdiction.

    Actually, a MWAG call should never make it past dispatch. Actual overheard telephone conversation here in WA (At the DOL in Skagit Co. to be exact)(guy on cell phone).... "but he has a gun" .... "no he's not doing anything with it...yes it's in a holster on his hip." ..."but he has a gun!" ..."oh, ok"...

    That is what should happen...does here.
    Last edited by hermannr; 10-23-2012 at 05:26 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196

    Your LEO friend is just plain wrong

    Firstly, please ask your friend to show a published court opinion or a statute that states that the police have an affirmative duty to respond to a 911 call.

    Secondly, the police in your linked video did not have reasonable suspicion of a crime, making the detention unconstitutional and anything else found after that would be a fruit of the poisoned tree. Thompson v Oklahoma:

    http://www.state.ok.us/~oids/coca/Th...20Don%20II.pdf

    Thirdly, OK does not have a Stop & ID statute.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

    Fourth, the US Supreme Court declined to make a 'firearms exception' To the 4th Amendment in JL v. Florida.

    Finally, your LEO's theory that he can charge someone with obstruction for taking the 5th is just plain bullsh1t and attempts to do an end run around the 5th and convert the assertion of a right into a crime. Case law is clear on this matter:

    "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
    "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
    "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
    There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


    Last edited by NavyMike; 10-23-2012 at 07:49 PM.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Obstruction generally (99.354% of the time) requires an overt action on the part of the actor.
    Let's say you're going down the road and a tree falls across your path and you have to travel on the shoulder to pass it - That is an obstruction.
    Let's say you're going down the road and there's a Stop Sign which prevents you from traveling further until you've negotiated the intersection. - That Isn't an obstruction.


    Saying "Officer, I don't want to get in the way of your investigatin' this investigation so I'll just patiently wait way over there and not say a word until you're done" isn't an obstruction.
    Saying "Officer, I saw who done it, it was a witch-doctor dressed in a clown suit and he went North" when the subject wasn't a witch doctor, wasn't wearing a clown suit, and didn't head North is obstruction if you intended to mislead Officer Friendly.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Determine if a cop can "pull you over" to check your pistol license just cuz they can see your pistol. If OC is illegal without a pistol license and they see a pistol on your hip you are breaking the law, by definition. So, with this said, does the statute state in plain language that the mere presence of a OC'd firearm is not grounds to request the OCer to produce his pistol license. If the law states that then it is like driving, if it does not then your license is a defense against a crime and a cop can just ask for your pistol license just cuz he sees your pistol. Now, will they ask just to harass OCers is a different issue.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member ethorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    SNIP Police can arrest you for any reason. If the arrest is lawful is the question. Responding to a call is not RAS to require a person to ID himself in most states, unless that state specifically has a stop and id law or case law supporting such activity.
    That is exactly what he told me, not saying he is wrong and we are right just trying to get the opinion from both sides. I am a firm believe in education is the key.

    Officers respond to 911 calls, granted it may take them a while or they may be there quickly they have a obligation to respond to a 911 call. The dispatcher will dispatch from 911 calls, if dispatched the LEO should respond. If dispatched there is RS, not meaning there is RS that a crime was commited but that there is RS that "whomever" it may be matches the description of the 911 call therefore the officer is legally able to stop and ask for Identification. As long as the Officer can articulate RS or RAS then it exists regardless of how we may argue againts it. It may not be fair and people may get "butt hurt" but its still legal.

    I guess my biggest issue is people trying to go out and find police officers and videotape them and get them to "chase them down the rabbit hole" they are people just like you and me and they do have a tough job to do. My main thing is treat me with respect and you will get it back, but try to question why im OCing or anything else not relevant to the identification process and you may get the smartass side of me.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...e-Cop-has-RAS&

    ^^Thank you for the link, its what I was looking for and is well put^^
    Last edited by ethorman; 10-25-2012 at 01:36 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    That is exactly what he told me, not saying he is wrong and we are right just trying to get the opinion from both sides. I am a firm believe in education is the key.

    Officers respond to 911 calls, granted it may take them a while or they may be there quickly they have a obligation to respond to a 911 call. The dispatcher will dispatch from 911 calls, if dispatched the LEO should respond. If dispatched there is RS, not meaning there is RS that a crime was commited but that there is RS that "whomever" it may be matches the description of the 911 call therefore the officer is legally able to stop and ask for Identification. As long as the Officer can articulate RS or RAS then it exists regardless of how we may argue againts it. It may not be fair and people may get "butt hurt" but its still legal.

    I guess my biggest issue is people trying to go out and find police officers and videotape them and get them to "chase them down the rabbit hole" they are people just like you and me and they do have a tough job to do. My main thing is treat me with respect and you will get it back, but try to question why im OCing or anything else not relevant to the identification process and you may get the smartass side of me.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...e-Cop-has-RAS&

    ^^Thank you for the link, its what I was looking for and is well put^^
    Please cite a law or published court opinion that states that police must respond to a 911 call.

    How does a 911 call about a legal activity rise to RAS of a crime? Again, please cite.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  17. #17
    Regular Member ethorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyMike View Post
    Please cite a law or published court opinion that states that police must respond to a 911 call.

    How does a 911 call about a legal activity rise to RAS of a crime? Again, please cite.
    I am not a LEO, nor do I desire to be one, however I think the common sense test would be that if you were to call 911 and need a police officer you would want them to respond. I am sure I can get off work go down to the police department and get their SOP (Standard operating procedures), if allowed, and it would be in there that they are too respond to 911 calls. I think a reasonable person can assume that police officers do not need a law (case or state) that states they must respond to a 911 call.

    Not everything needs to be in black and white and on paper, if that is your opinion NavyMike then that is fine, I am sure a officer can articulate RAS that a crime may, is or has been commited with a OCing person walking down the street. I am sure you may ask what crime, they may state the crime would be carrying outside the guidlines in SDA, no license. How does the officer know that if they do not check. Remember of course that RAS can only be determined by a court, not by you or me or anyone else but by the court, after the stop.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    1) "Common sense" and "the law" don't necessarily go together.

    2) Although the officer has an obligation to his department to respond to a call that his department dispatches him on, neither he nor his department have Any obligation to respond to your 911 call. You can be upstairs and calling 911 to report that your roommate is being raped and murdered downstairs and if they don't come you have No Legal Recourse. If they had an obligation to respond, then you would, but you don't.

    3) If it's the law, or if it's a legal procedure you can bet your bippy that it's going to be in black and white. If something is illegal it's dang well going to say "xxxx while xxx'ing is a violation of Section A, subparagraph (e)(2) of the state code.", and what's not specified as illegal is perforce legal conduct.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 10-25-2012 at 04:13 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    I am not a LEO, nor do I desire to be one, however I think the common sense test would be that if you were to call 911 and need a police officer you would want them to respond. I am sure I can get off work go down to the police department and get their SOP (Standard operating procedures), if allowed, and it would be in there that they are too respond to 911 calls. I think a reasonable person can assume that police officers do not need a law (case or state) that states they must respond to a 911 call.

    Not everything needs to be in black and white and on paper, if that is your opinion NavyMike then that is fine, I am sure a officer can articulate RAS that a crime may, is or has been commited with a OCing person walking down the street. I am sure you may ask what crime, they may state the crime would be carrying outside the guidlines in SDA, no license. How does the officer know that if they do not check. Remember of course that RAS can only be determined by a court, not by you or me or anyone else but by the court, after the stop.
    You may want the police to respond to your 911 call; however, the courts have ruled on multiple occassions that they have no duty to do so. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. District of Columbia for 2 well known examples.

    A 911 call reporting an otherwise legal but licenced activity does not rise to Reasonable Suspicion. No more than if they called and said "there's a guy driving down the road, can you pull him over just see if he has a driving licence". The police cannot just pull you over to see if you have a drivers licence.

    Remember there is no firearm exception to the 4th Amdt. Florida v JL. The police cannot detain you without reasonable suspicion of a crime. Terry v Ohio. Not knowing if you are legal is not the same as having reasonable suspicion that you are breaking a law.

    Further, even if if the LEO does have RAS I am still under no legal obligation to identify myself or answer any of his questions. Nor does my refusal rise to the level of obstruction of justice.
    Last edited by NavyMike; 10-25-2012 at 06:23 PM.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  20. #20
    Regular Member ethorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    51
    Will you agree that RAS is only determined by the courts?
    Will you agree that you have no obligation to give LEO your info but they can detain you until they determine who you are?

  21. #21
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    Will you agree that RAS is only determined by the courts?
    Will you agree that you have no obligation to give LEO your info but they can detain you until they determine who you are?
    I will agree that the courts will decide if the LEO had RAS. It does not mean that my refusal to answer questions is obstruction of justice.

    I don't agree that they can lawfully detain you indefinitely to determine who you are.

    I've given you mutliple citations to support my positions. Please return the courtesy.
    Last edited by NavyMike; 10-25-2012 at 05:24 PM.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  22. #22
    Regular Member ethorman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SW Oklahoma
    Posts
    51
    I have none I will be the first to admit, nor am I a lawyer or a LEO. I appreciate you responses and the cases you have cited are relevant and as time permits I will read thru them so I know more. As I usually say education is the key, but in that same breath on the street is not the place to argue with the LEO.

  23. #23
    Regular Member NavyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastside, Washington, USA
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    I have none I will be the first to admit, nor am I a lawyer or a LEO. I appreciate you responses and the cases you have cited are relevant and as time permits I will read thru them so I know more. As I usually say education is the key, but in that same breath on the street is not the place to argue with the LEO.

    Start with the US Supreme Court unanimous opinion in Florida v JL. It is exactly your scenario of police responding to a tip that a person was carrying a firearm.

    Maintaining your right to silence/ refusing to answer questions is not the same as arguing.
    cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt

  24. #24
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    Will you agree that RAS is only determined by the courts?
    Will you agree that you have no obligation to give LEO your info but they can detain you until they determine who you are?
    you see, the criteria is "reasonable suspicion of a crime..." Walking down the street is not a crime, walking down the street with an openly carried firearm (in OK, after 1 Nov) is not a crime, and as we are innocent until proven guilty, and we have a 4A right to unreasonable seach and siezure (detaining you is a form of siezure, asking for your CPL is a form of search), unless there is some other activity other than walking down the street...NO, it is not reasonable for a LEO top stop you and ask for your CPL just because you are walking down the street with an openly carried firearm. (MWAG call, or not)

    Idealy, the MWAG call will never be dispatched...OK, if it is in fact dispatched, the LEO should drive by and observe, but not contact the OC'r. That is the way it works. There is a section of the OK constitution that is the equivilent to the 4A...I'm not going to look it up, but I know it is there, so either way, state or Federal...smells like a federal civil rights law suit if they do detain you for no other reason than your OC. If it happens to be that particular departments policy to do so...one of the things in that civil right's suit should be for them to change their policy to fit the law.

  25. #25
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by ethorman View Post
    Will you agree that RAS is only determined by the courts?
    Will you agree that you have no obligation to give LEO your info but they can detain you until they determine who you are?
    you see, the criteria is "reasonable suspicion of a crime..." Walking down the street is not a crime, walking down the street with an openly carried firearm (in OK, after 1 Nov) is not a crime, and as we are innocent until proven guilty, and we have a 4A right to unreasonable search and seizure (detaining you is a form of seizure, asking for your CPL is a form of search), unless there is some other activity other than walking down the street...NO, it is not reasonable for a LEO to stop you and ask for your CPL just because you are walking down the street with an openly carried firearm. (MWAG call, or not)

    Ideally, the MWAG call will never be dispatched, the dispatcher will determine if the OC'd weapon is being carried in a lawful manner and explain to the caller that there is no law being broken...OK? If the MWAG call is actually dispatched, the LEO should drive by and observe, but not directly contact the OC'r. That is the way it is supposed to work.

    There is a section of the OK constitution that is the equivalent to the 4A...I'm not going to look it up, but I know it is there, so either way, state or Federal...smells like a federal civil rights "under the color of law" law suit if they do detain you for no other reason than your OC. If it happens to be that particular department's policy to do so...one of the things in that civil rights suit should be for would be to have the department change their policy to fit the law.

    May I add: It is illegal for LE to randomly stop someone driving a vehicle just to check for a drivers license, even if a license is need to operate that vehicle. Absolutely no different under the law to check for any other license for any other activity.
    Last edited by hermannr; 10-25-2012 at 07:58 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •