Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: Open Carry Case Lost - 10th Circuit Appeal

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    108

    Open Carry Case Lost - 10th Circuit Appeal

    All,

    I know you've been following my illegal arrest outside of Alpine in Aug 2011. To update you guys, Judge Skavdahl originally granted summary judgement to the defense. We appealed to the 10th Circuit, but lost that, too.

    Basically, the 10th Circuit said that:
    - By saying "I don't consent to searches" I caused a tense situation that was worsened when the officer became surprised by my pistol.
    - I was argumentative and the officer was justified to arrest me for his safety because of the "tense" atmosphere I created. And that I was not compliant.
    - The amount of time I was held (45 minutes) was excusable because the officer needed to wait for back up.

    Here's how this plays out for you guys: There is now CASE PRECEDENT (which for some unknown reason is more important that principles and laws) before the 10th circuit court that the officers can:
    1. Stop you just based off a tip and - even if the officer says he never saw you commit a crime or do anything threatening - he is not required to establish RAS or PC.
    2. If you say "I do not consent to searches" it is, in the words of Judge Skavdahl, "an inexplicable" response to a law enforcement officer.
    3. If an officer sees or is surprised by your weapon it is grounds for arrest.
    4. Qualified immunity WILL be given to police even while violating items within the Wyoming Constitution.
    5. Neither District nor Appeals court mentioned anything of the officers threatening me with lethal force while handcuffed, addressing the statements of the officers that he was "above the law" and acting in violation of Terry v Ohio, et al, or the absence of dash cam /audio from the officers.

    Essentially, "Shut up and do what you're told. Comply and you have nothing to fear."

    These decisions - and I sincerely apologize - have actually harmed our cause greatly and will undoubtedly embolden the wayward LEO.

    Original Video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-haSWY2QWms
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by marinepilot81; 09-09-2015 at 08:52 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by marinepilot81 View Post
    Judge Skavdahl originally granted summary judgement to the defense. We appealed to the 10th Circuit, but lost that, too.
    My sympathies on your loss. Your counsel has decided that there are not grounds for further appeal?

    Thanks for the link to the decision. Are the other documents available to the public?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    It looks like the recording actually hurt you and allowed the court to rule in favor of the summary judgment.

    Would you agree OP?

    I have not heard the recording that I can recall.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    It looks like the recording actually hurt you and allowed the court to rule in favor of the summary judgment.

    Would you agree OP?

    I have not heard the recording that I can recall.
    I do not believe my recording hurt me. Over the last 2 years I've asked everyone who's watched my YouTube video the following question, "How do you think I did? Was I out of control?" I've yet to meet a single person who told me I was rude or out of control. Our "legal elite" just CANNOT understand why someone would cling to their rights and not shed their protections for the sacred cause of "officer safety."

    The court sought to protect its interests as I sought to protect mine. In this case, those two items were different.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marinepilot81 View Post
    I do not believe my recording hurt me. Over the last 2 years I've asked everyone who's watched my YouTube video the following question, "How do you think I did? Was I out of control?" I've yet to meet a single person who told me I was rude or out of control. Our "legal elite" just CANNOT understand why someone would cling to their rights and not shed their protections for the sacred cause of "officer safety."

    The court sought to protect its interests as I sought to protect mine. In this case, those two items were different.
    Well, the court did note it specifically ... just wondering. Hey, post a link .. I'll provide my opinion..if ya want.

  6. #6
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: Open Carry Case Lost - 10th Circuit Appeal

    I am sorry to hear about these (biased) rulings IMHO. So much for the right to keep & bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... Damn activists judges. Law be damned , their opinions & personal feelings seem to play into their judgements.
    Last edited by FreeInAZ; 08-27-2013 at 04:45 PM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, the court did note it specifically ... just wondering. Hey, post a link .. I'll provide my opinion..if ya want.
    Link to the video is in the original post.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    I am sorry to hear about these (biased) rulings IMHO. So much for the right to keep & bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... Damn activists judges. Law be damned , their opinions & personal feelings seem to play into their judgements.
    What a dangerous thought that they are accountable to us! I'm sure they'd rather us come grovelling before them for our rights. From where they sit, that's a much more comfortable position.

  9. #9
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Still one more court, right?
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marinepilot81 View Post
    Link to the video is in the original post.
    I had to putz with my browser to get it to work ...

    I think the ruling is a little bit off-kilter.

    But I generally rely "I'll answer any questions you have in court" ... this brings up 5th amendment rights that are well founded ~ this reply can be expected.

    Judges do what any other gov't employee does: cover their own.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    why'd you refuse consent to search before he even asked for it?

    seems like you meant to assert your 5th amendment right to remain silent...which you then proceeded to waive, waive and waive again.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    The 10th circuit is a kangaroo court and has justices who's integrity is about on par with that if a crack head.


    This same circuit was proficient in mental gymnastics when they railroaded by buddy who was the Plantiff in the Peterson case against Denver.

    Even republican appointees suck...

  13. #13
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: Open Carry Case Lost - 10th Circuit Appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    The 10th circuit is a kangaroo court and has justices who's integrity is about on par with that if a crack head.


    This same circuit was proficient in mental gymnastics when they railroaded by buddy who was the Plantiff in the Peterson case against Denver.

    Even republican appointees suck...
    For curious minds...

    http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Peterson_v._LaCabe

    Often our "justice" system is far from that.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by marinepilot81 View Post
    All,

    I know you've been following my illegal arrest outside of Alpine in Aug 2011. To update you guys, Judge Skavdahl originally granted summary judgement to the defense. We appealed to the 10th Circuit, but lost that, too.

    Basically, the 10th Circuit said that:
    - By saying "I don't consent to searches" I caused a tense situation that was worsened when the officer became surprised by my pistol.
    - I was argumentative and the officer was justified to arrest me for his safety because of the "tense" atmosphere I created. And that I was not compliant.
    - The amount of time I was held (45 minutes) was excusable because the officer needed to wait for back up.

    Here's how this plays out for you guys: There is now CASE PRECEDENT (which for some unknown reason is more important that principles and laws) before the 10th circuit court that the officers can:
    1. Stop you just based off a tip and - even if the officer says he never saw you commit a crime or do anything threatening - he is not required to establish RAS or PC.
    2. If you say "I do not consent to searches" it is, in the words of Judge Skavdahl, "an inexplicable" response to a law enforcement officer.
    3. If an officer sees or is surprised by your weapon it is grounds for arrest.
    4. Qualified immunity WILL be given to police even while violating items within the Wyoming Constitution.
    5. Neither District nor Appeals court mentioned anything of the officers threatening me with lethal force while handcuffed, addressing the statements of the officers that he was "above the law" and acting in violation of Terry v Ohio, et al, or the absence of dash cam /audio from the officers.

    Essentially, "Shut up and do what you're told. Comply and you have nothing to fear."

    These decisions - and I sincerely apologize - have actually harmed our cause greatly and will undoubtedly embolden the wayward LEO.

    Original Video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXwW2nrV0bY
    When you say on the recording that you were handcuffed for open carry, that is not true. You were handcuffed because the officer asked a simple question , did you have any weapons on you. And you responded with "I don't consent to searches". And then, shortly afer, he discovered you WERE armed, so he was faced with an armed person who he had good cause to believe warranted extra caution - an armed man who , for all intents and purposes lied (by omission and evasion) about his being armed.

    THAT is why you were handcuffed. I am 100% certain if you had answered that you were legally open carrying, there would have been no handcuffing, etc. It wasn't the statement about consent. It was the evasiveness about a subject that is very important and a question that is not designe to elicit an incriminating response, it is designed to help protect officer safety and it's a question that NO court will fault an officer for asking (again, see below. He most definitely had the "right" (well the "authority") to ask that question and no court has ruled otherwise.

    You can live in a fantasy world and think it was because of your statement about not consenting to searches, but that is simply wrong. It was because you were evasive about an important question that officers are TRAINED to ask, that they consider important for their safety, and that no court I am aware of has EVER criticized an officer for asking,and then AFTER the officer got the non-answer non sequitor... he saw your gun. He then was faced with a person he had good reason to suspect might be dangerous. If you are a gun carrier with common sense, you answer that question.

    You needlessly, imprudently escalated what most likely would have been a pleasant encounter into a tense situation. We are taught to look for cues and to gauge veracity and somebody who does the next worse thing to lying, about such an important question - that's going to raise MAJOR RED FLAGS. Your ignorance of case law (see below) didn't help either

    Note: I am NOT saying the arrest was valid or that you should have been found guilty. I'd have to know the relevant penal codes in that state and have some access to court documents. I also stopped listening at 8:38 after you made an incredibly boneheaded factually incorrect statement (see below). In attempting to school the officer on the law, you just made yourself look ridiculous (hint: officers can and do use handcuffs in many non-arrest situations where the facts and circumstances support it, PC is most definitely NOT required, and courts have upheld that GIVEN sufficient reasons, it's entirely acceptable and does not make a constructive arrest. that's a fact. It's case law you are woefully uninformed on. Again, see below). By arguing that point you just made yourself look absurdly ignorant. I've been a cop in three states, attended two police academies, and probably had several dozen incidents where the facts and circs warranted handcuffing short of having PC and I have never had a suppression because of it, because I know the law And you, if you think PC is *required* for handcuffing and that it equals a constructive arrest , do NOT understand case law


    Asking you if you have any weapons has nothing to do with searches and imo you were the one who first escalated the encounter by avoiding the question, and then the cop later saw you had a gun. You are not required to tell a LEO that you are carrying a gun in your state. But if an LEO asks you that question, you should answer. It's not legaly required but you do a disservice to yourself and the officer by not answering. You are open carrying . He's going to see it eventually. And I will bet you if you answered that question, none of this would have happened. No arrest, no handcuffing, no gun seizure. You practically guaranteed a bad encounter when you effectively lied (by omission and evasion) about a important officer safety question and KNOWING that it was likely he was going to see it later on.

    There are tons of things that are not legally required that you should do. Similarly, there are tons of things you shouldn't do that are not legally prohibited.

    You aren't protecting ANY right by being evasive about that question. You are OPEN CARRYING for pete's sake. You are fine with broadcasting to the world that you are carrying a gun, but then when asked that question on a traffic stop, you evade it?

    Absurd.

    You tell him he doesn't have the "RIGHT" to ask that question. That's ridiculous. I have never once seen a judge dismiss anything based on the officer asking that question. Iow, they DO have the right to ask that question. Anything not prohibited by the law is permissible right? and when he tries to explain it to you, you wank about "I don't consent to any searches". Again, totally nonresponsive and THAT is why the stop escalated. It's not a question designed to incriminate you. It's a valid question officers ask for their safety. They are taught to do in the police academy in every state I am aware of. And he is well within his "authority" to ask it.

    You then wank on and on with your belief that he has no right to ask the question, no reason to ask it , etc. etc.

    There is also ample case law, and again this is TAUGHT in the academy that handcuffs don't automatically = (custodial) arrest. Based on your evasiveness about the question and then discovering the gun, he handcuffed you for his safety.

    And I am sure the court upheld his "right" (authority) to do so. Being evasive about THAT question is beyond astronomically stupid. It's EXACTLY the type of behavior that benefits you not at all, but that creates a tense situation NEEDLESSLY and practically guarantees the officer puts you in the "dangerous until proven otherwise" category. Again NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSENT statement and everything to do with your evasiveness, functional equivalent of ... lying about it
    I am entirely certain had you simply answered the question, a question has asks for his safety, NOT to violate your rights, I am near certain the stop would have been pleasant and he would have been fine with you having the gun. When you established yourself as evasive, dishonest and unconcerned about his safety, you screwed the pooch.

    He wasn't searching you, and you responded with a non sequitor about not consenting to searches

    You also say later on "you need probable cause to detain me". WRONG.

    Whenever I hear a horror story about some encounter with the cops, I consider the cop may truly have been a *******, OR you are leaving out the salient detail that made the encounter go downhill.

    This is the PERFECT example of how and why some people practically guarantee they are going to have a negative experience with police.

    Again, it's not illegal. But it's stupid, disrespectful of the officer's concerns for his safety, does not provide you ANY benefit or protect ANY right.

    It's like if upon the officer approaching, you quickly bent over and reached for something under the seat. Illegal? No. Colossally stupid? Yes. And a similar situation that would guarantee some actions on his part (like "frisking" the area beneath the seat after removing you from the vehicle, and possibly handcuffing you. and yes, I HAVE found guns under the driver's seat and I have frisked there upon seeing somebody fiddling around under the seat upon my traffic stop and yes, the protective frisk held up in court. (ample case law that one can "frisk" the area in the car within the span of reach of the driver, given sufficient facts and circ's to warrant fear there is a weapon there. )

    The officer is going to view your behavior, that you evaded the question, as the behavior of a dishonest, evasive person, and dishonest and evasive about something that is very important (his safety and "control" of the stop)- yes the presence of a gun is important


    Sorry. I'd love to see some stuff from the case. I am not at all certain the arrest or verdict was just. I stopped listening at 8:38 when you made the incredibly inane statement about him needing PC to detain you. Sorry. Black letter law. Not true. What is required of a seizure is that it is reasonable, and it doesn't even always have to be based on RAS. Example: during the execution of a search warrant, we handcuff everybody until the scene is made safe. Even w/o particularized suspicion of some of the house occupants, it is JUSTIFIED for "officer safety" in court after court. Once the scene is made safe, THEN generally speaking the handcuffs come off all in the house that don't have warrants.

    You think you know the law, but you don't. Anybody who thinks a cop needs PC to detain you, and/or that handcuffs automatically equals arrest is not familiar with very basic case law

    Anybody who thinks the cop does not have the "right" , in other words that he is doing something WRONG by asking a simple question during a traffic stop about do you have any weapons is again WRONG. It's taught in the academy and no court has ever chastised an officer or suppressed evidence etc. because an officer asked that question. Find me ONE example where an officer was found not justified in asking that question at a traffic stop.

    You could have completely protected your rights vis a vis consent searches by making that statement AFTER you informed him you had a lawfully carried openly pistol. It did not violate your rights to ask that question and you screwed yourself by choosing to evade it. Evading questions about officer safety is also going to make it more likely that violence will ensue because instead of putting the cop AT EASE "yes, I have a gun openly carried on my hip", you startled him and established yourself as a de facto liar (by evading the question), somebody not to be trusted. Why would somebody lawfully carrying lie (effectively - by omission and evasion) about it to a police officer who asked that question? It's reasonable to suspect, that's because he is either lawfully prohibited from carrying (felon etc.) or planning to use the gun against the officer. That's not paranoid. It's common sense. Because a person lawfully carrying has no valid reason to evade that question. It benefits him in no way, and again for an OPEN CARRIER to do it is patently absurd.

    I chat with defense attorneys all the time. Great people, on the whole. I am confident the vast majority, if not nearly all would tell you when a cop asks you that question, to answer it. You are in no way, shape or form losing any rights by doing so. You are carrying openly (presumably on the other side of where the cop was standing because he didn't see it initially? and by carrying openly you have no problem with people SEEING your gun so why is it a big deal to answer the question in the affirmative? Open carry, according to many advocates is more 'honest' than CCWing etc. So, what possible reason would you have not to answer the question EXCEPT to escalate the encounter

    Study some case law. I have handcuffed MANY times short of arrest and even without RAS (such as during a warrant). JUSTIFIED every time.

    Whether he is justified in doing so is based on the totality of the circ's . And the totality of the circ's are - he's alone, he hasn't run warrant checks on you or anything so you are an "unknown" at this point, and you have shown yourself to be dishonest about a question the officer holds as vital and that the academies TEACH and that judges UPHOLD over and over again.

    There's a reason why some people seem to always have bad encounters with cops. In some cases, it's because the cop was bad. In more cases than not, ime (and thanks for the audio since it established for me why he did what he did) it's people like you who needlessly escalate the encounter by engaging in boneheaded things, like evading a question officers consider vital.

    Again, I am very interested in the case, and once I have read the relevant statutes for the jurisdiction, and the legal arguments made etc I very well may agree that you should have been found not guilty.

    But I very much know that it was entirely your fault that the stop spiraled downhill. And if you are going to rely on the law to protect your rights, at least STUDY a little about seizures (yes, handcuffs are allowed on many seizures short of custodial arrest), and about allowable police conduct, such as asking the question about weapons.

    If people want to flame away, fine. All the legal point I am making are sound. If anybody disagrees, then you disprove that 1) officers can handcuff short of custodial arrest (CArrest requiring PC) based on the totality of the circ's or 2) that officers have no rights to ask you if you have any weapons

    Again, I *know* the law. If you want to fully protect your rights, I suggest you study it some more so you won't have such critical holes in your base of legal knowledge. And to make this crystal clear - yes, you are legally entitled to evade the weapons question. You broke no law by doing so. But it was stupid, and needlessly escalated the encounter. There is no reason not to answer that, especially as a OPEN CARRIER - a person who is perfectly fine with all and sundry knowing he is armed, it doesn't diminish your rights in any way, shape or form to answer the question, and you have ONLY yourself to blame for escalating what probably would have been a routine traffic stop, INTO an arrest. You are wrong on the law (the 2 points I made above), but you are especially wrong on common sense

    If you treat people with respect, you will have better encounters, whether with cops or anybody else. I always treat suspects, witnesses and victim with respect and that is why I get cooperation, I don't get complaints hardly ever (I've had less than 6 in over 20 yrs of police work and they were extremely minor - one example a woman claimed I was not empathetic enough to her being afraid of her husband. Seriously. THAT was a complaint. unbelievable) and I find that people almost always treat ME with respect .

    People want to be shown basic courtesy and that does not mean bowing and scraping. I call all men I encounter "sir" for example. I don't care if they are convicted murderers and rapists. That's basic human decency. And it goes a LONG way. I am sure the officer had a major pucker moment when he saw your gun AFTER you had not answered the question whereas it would have been no biggie if you had.

    I believe that it's a MORAL duty for every person to treat others with basic decency and respect. It's not a legal requirement. It's a moral requirement. And I believe the reason why I don't get complaints, why I get massive respect from defendants (I've had two defense attorneys actually tell me if I ever wanted to work as an investigator for them, they'd love to have me - maybe after I retire.Can't do it now, conflict of interest obviously), defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges etc. I'm not saying that to toot my horn. I';m saying it to give an example of what you can expect to get FROM others - respect and kindness IF you give respect and kindness to them

    I'll also tell you as a firearms instructor myself, that most firearm instructors would agree that if you are on a traffic stop, and armed with a weapon, that if asked "are you carrying weapons", you tell the truth. And again, for an OPEN CARRIER to be evasive about that question, from a person who believes that it's best that people KNOW you are carrying vs. hiding it away, in the situation where it' most important they are NOT evasive, is the height of absurdity.

    Sorry for wanking on so long, but all I have to say is if you are pulled over in the future, asked if you are armed, and you play the same game with the cop AGAIN, you will have nobody to blame but yourself if the stop goes sour.

    I will also suggest that if you consider treating people with basic human dignity and kindness, you will find the world (your world especially) is a much happier place, with little dischord and negative incidents.
    Last edited by PALO; 09-04-2013 at 05:02 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Jamesm760's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    When you say on the recording that you were handcuffed for open carry, that is not true. You were handcuffed because the officer asked a simple question , did you have any weapons on you. And you responded with "I don't consent to searches". And then, shortly afer, he discovered you WERE armed, so he was faced with an armed person who he had good cause to believe warranted extra caution - an armed man who , for all intents and purposes lied (by omission and evasion) about his being armed.

    THAT is why you were handcuffed. I am 100% certain if you had answered that you were legally open carrying, there would have been no handcuffing, etc. It wasn't the statement about consent. It was the evasiveness about a subject that is very important and a question that is not designe to elicit an incriminating response, it is designed to help protect officer safety and it's a question that NO court will fault an officer for asking (again, see below. He most definitely had the "right" (well the "authority") to ask that question and no court has ruled otherwise.
    What if he would have chosen to go with "am I being detained, Am I free to go" or better yet, what if he just didn't feel like talking to the LEO at all. (5thA) Would you feel the same way? Or do you believe that would have changed the out come.
    SIC VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM

    μολὼν λαβέ - molṑn labé - ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - COME AND TAKE!!!!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesm760 View Post
    What if he would have chosen to go with "am I being detained, Am I free to go" or better yet, what if he just didn't feel like talking to the LEO at all. (5thA) Would you feel the same way? Or do you believe that would have changed the out come.
    he would have made more sense and he would have been on his way sooner...provided he identified himself and provided his vehicle paperwork (whatever was required by law).

    didn't he get pulled over because of unsubstantiated reports from other drivers? sounds like a terry stop. all the officer gets is a protective patdown for weapons. no obligation to cooperate...except this is a traffic stop and generally speaking paperwork is part of the deal. CERTAINLY no obligation to answer any questions or be submitted to any search. there was never any PC for arrest and that's why he wasn't arrested.

    when the guy became combative and upset/agitated WITH a gun on his hip...that's when the cuffs come out. that's a legit response when an officer is in the middle of nowhere with a pissed off armed man. you see it all the time, particularly when an officer is outnumbered/alone/at night/remote areas on a PC or RAS/Terry stop.

    if you wanted the stop to be over, knock off the orson welles bit and assert your 5A and 4A, provide the minimum mandatory info and you'll be on your way...to home or to jail based on whatever the officer finds on his own (without your help).

    can't be arrested for shutting up.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 09-04-2013 at 10:13 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    <snip>
    Not sure what your very very lengthy post has to do with the conclusions the OP provided as to what he contends are the consequences of the decision.

    What I gather from this particular incident:
    1. This was a traffic stop, cop is right you are wrong, right then and there. Later a court may say to that cop, nope, you blew it.
    2. When asked the question "are you armed", say yes...or no, then keep your hands in plain view and move like molasses in January. (I knew this already)
    3. Let the cop(s) do all the talking.
    4. Provide proper documents as required, if required.
    5. Keep the "conversation" to simple yes or no answers if possible.
    6. Get permission to exit the encounter as quickly as possible, then do what is required to gain redress later.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Sorry to hear about this marine, it doesn't surprise me.

    PALO-what a load of horse hoey. I don't consent is a perfect answer to those questions, the OP was under no obligation to talk to the officer and offer him any information.

    Your cop apology is becoming more and more harder to dismiss.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Before anyone gets all upset (too late?)...the very first page qualifies the decision by stating that it is NOT BINDING AUTHORITY.

    It can be cited for persuasive purposes, but does not bind any other courts.

    They declined to hear the case at oral argument.

  20. #20
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    For curious minds...

    http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Peterson_v._LaCabe

    Often our "justice" system is far from that.
    What can we expect when we rely on a branch of the government to protect from the government.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    What can we expect when we rely on a branch of the government to protect from the government.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,881
    Marinepilot...unsolicited offer...do you have a fund set up as this vet and 2A supporter will contribute a c-note to at least help!!

    pls advise

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    The cop was out of line completely. Wyoming has ALWAYS, been an open carry state with no restrictions on where you can openly carry any type of weapon or firearm. This is nothing new.

    Even up until 1994, when Wyoming was may-issue and permits were given by the county sheriff for concealed carry VALID ONLY FOR THAT COUNTY..... Wyoming was still a gold star open carry state.

    This cop was out of line.

    He knew damn well what was legal and he should have been suspended without pay.

    More proof that LEO's are held to a lower standard than the average person.

  24. #24
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Re: Open Carry Case Lost - 10th Circuit Appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    Marinepilot...unsolicited offer...do you have a fund set up as this vet and 2A supporter will contribute a c-note to at least help!!

    pls advise

    ipse
    +1 - I would chip in also. This would make a great SCOTUS case IMHO. :thumbup:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    The cop was out of line completely. Wyoming has ALWAYS, been an open carry state with no restrictions on where you can openly carry any type of weapon or firearm. This is nothing new.

    Even up until 1994, when Wyoming was may-issue and permits were given by the county sheriff for concealed carry VALID ONLY FOR THAT COUNTY..... Wyoming was still a gold star open carry state.

    This cop was out of line.

    He knew damn well what was legal and he should have been suspended without pay.

    More proof that LEO's are held to a lower standard than the average person.
    And then there is the judges who enable their actions......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •