Obstruction of Justice discussion

ethorman said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

ethorman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ethorman said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

ethorman said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

hermannr said:

SNIP 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.

Click to expand...

You may, but you need to cite.

Cite, please.

Citizen said:

You may, but you need to cite.

Cite, please.

Click to expand...

I'll help:
U.S. Supreme Court - Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)

"Accordingly, we hold that, except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

NavyMike said:

I'll help:
U.S. Supreme Court - Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)

"Accordingly, we hold that, except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

Click to expand...

Thanks: I'm having internet ISP problems. The link is at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0440_0648_ZD.html

Another quote from the same decision:

As the Court correctly points out, people are not shorn of their Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalks

Click to expand...