Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: oc is reason to be suspected of a crime

  1. #1
    Regular Member mark5019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    atlanta ga
    Posts
    135

    oc is reason to be suspected of a crime

    Last edited by mark5019; 10-31-2013 at 06:10 PM.
    ar15 sbr glock 19 beretta m9
    Proud Lifetime georgia carry member
    nam vet

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Why is a FUQ so hard?
    ...A federal judge ruled recently that carrying a firearm openly in a park entitles responding officers to detain an individual for investigation, including disarming, questioning, and identification. ...
    So what is the jurisdiction of this federal court?
    Last edited by MAC702; 10-31-2013 at 06:29 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    If the actual opinion (by the court) says what the article says it does, it is wrong on so many basic points of constitutional that the judge should be removed from the bench. Hopefully the person appeals. Judge is probably an anti-gun asshat.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mark5019's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    atlanta ga
    Posts
    135
    Ga
    ar15 sbr glock 19 beretta m9
    Proud Lifetime georgia carry member
    nam vet

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Leesburg VA
    Posts
    160
    Papers, please.

  6. #6
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    I took the time to read the opinion (which is here).

    In granting summary judgement for the officers (against the plaintiff's 1983 civil rights claim) much of the justification for the detention and arrest is due to the security guard allegedly having told the guy to leave and his refusing to do so (resulting in the suspected crime being criminal trespass). Personally I have an issue with the entire concept of being trespass warned to leave public property if you're not damaging the property, or committing some other crime, but that's another matter.

    I think the judge made a bunch of errors in his ruling. I'm not going to bother elaborating on every detail, but for one he said that failure to provide ID was a basis for the detention, but the failure to provide ID occurred after the detention had already occurred (according to the judge's own ruling). I think the guy has a less-than-stellar case, so it may not be worth appealing (for him) but I wish he would since this was in the 11th Circuit (which covers where I live) and I think there's a bunch of errors that shouldn't be allowed to stand.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Court says that "carrying a gun out in the open" should result in detention, questioning, and disarming. original

    Fascists says that "carrying a gun out in the open" should result in detention, questioning, and disarming.
    fixed

    I don't like fascists ....

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    ...I'm not going to bother elaborating on every detail, but for one he said that failure to provide ID was a basis for the detention, but the failure to provide ID occurred after the detention had already occurred...
    I'll have to go read it again, but I got that the gun is cause for detention and the failure to provide ID was cause for arrest.

    After all, asking for ID is already detention.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I'll have to go read it again, but I got that the gun is cause for detention and the failure to provide ID was cause for arrest.

    After all, asking for ID is already detention.
    Negative..... TAKING the ID from someone is detention. You can show them your ID and not be detained...

    Detention is when you no longer feel free to leave. So if the cop TAKES your ID then you wouldn't leave your ID behind, so your detained. If he says, "Can i see your ID?" And you just hold it up, then your not detained. If he says "You can't leave until I see your ID" Then your detained.

    This is why guys yell " AM I BEING DETAINED!!" on camera. So if the officer says Yes, they can't leave. If the officer says no, then you just turn and walk away.

    So.... "Hey what's your name?" No detention. "Hey give your ID" Detention. Courts have already ruled the s*** out of this.

    In MA, if your involved with someone involved with anything while armed, you can demand to see their ID, based on the fact they need the ID. Kind of like driving. If you get stopped, you get demanded to see license. Refuse to provide DL or basic info, jail.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Negative..... TAKING the ID from someone is detention. You can show them your ID and not be detained...
    Okay, when I said "asking for ID" I should have said "demanding ID."

    If a cop is demanding your ID, you are being detained.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Negative..... TAKING the ID from someone is detention. You can show them your ID and not be detained...

    Detention is when you no longer feel free to leave. So if the cop TAKES your ID then you wouldn't leave your ID behind, so your detained. If he says, "Can i see your ID?" And you just hold it up, then your not detained. If he says "You can't leave until I see your ID" Then your detained.

    This is why guys yell " AM I BEING DETAINED!!" on camera. So if the officer says Yes, they can't leave. If the officer says no, then you just turn and walk away.

    So.... "Hey what's your name?" No detention. "Hey give your ID" Detention. Courts have already ruled the s*** out of this.

    In MA, if your involved with someone involved with anything while armed, you can demand to see their ID, based on the fact they need the ID. Kind of like driving. If you get stopped, you get demanded to see license. Refuse to provide DL or basic info, jail.
    Cites, please. Forum Rule #5.
    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.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    If a cop is demanding your ID, you are being detained.
    US vs Mendenhall.

    Separately, Brown vs Texas laid out the requirement that the fuzz needs RAS before stop-and-identify laws can be applied.
    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.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I hope few people take Ed Stone's (Examiner article author) comments seriously:

    I take the opportunity to declare right here and now that I will not answer questions, I will not produce identification, and I will not voluntarily surrender my firearm to officers who attempt to detain me merely because I carry a pistol "out in the open" as a matter of routine and habit. Carrying a pistol is not a crime in this state, and Georgia Weapons Carry License holders deserve better then to be treated as nothing but a class of criminals.

    Ed can do what he wants, but rabble-rousing without disclosing the legal ramifications is just plain dangerous to his readers.
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I'll have to go read it again, but I got that the gun is cause for detention and the failure to provide ID was cause for arrest.
    I think much of the opinion is poorly reasoned crap. This is what I was thinking of when I wrote the above.

    The Court assumes that Plaintiff was detained shortly after Bell arrived at the Park when Bell, in response to Plaintiff’s question whether he was being detained, stated that he was. Plaintiff argues that when this detention occurred, Bell did not have a reasonable suspicion to detain.
    He asked if he was being detained more or less immediately, so the detention occurred way before the cops ever asked for ID.

    Bell was advised by a police dispatcher that a security guard had reported a suspicious person in the Park who was “carrying a gun out in the open” as he walked near a playground, who, when Bell arrived at the Park, did have a visible weapon, and who evaded Bell’s questions and requests for identification bearing a photograph, provided more than a sufficient basis constitutionally to detain Plaintiff.
    Since he was already detained by the time he evaded questions and requests for identification, what the heck does it have to do with anything?

    All that said, if the guy was told to leave by the security guard, offensive though it may be, he should have left and filed a complaint. Staying after being told to leave is handing them a too-easy trespassing arrest.

    I still don't think it should be legal to trespass someone from public property unless they are committing a crime, but I have no idea what the case law on that (if any) may be.
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    This ruling runs smack into Florida vs JL where SCOTUS expressly declined to set aside standard Terry doctrine just because a gun was involved.

    The only thing I can't tell is whether GA requires a permit to OC. If that was the case, the detention would have been legal as to determining whether he was a permit holder.

    Otherwise, this opinion is all screwed up.

    Since the decision seems to be mainly about qualified immunity, I'm not sure whether the court's abusive pronouncements are binding in criminal proceedings. Certainly, they'll make it tougher to win in a 1983 case. But, I'm not sure the ruling opens the door to police detaining OCers without something more, and seizing the gun to check for stolen.

    I think this case is a good lesson in how cops can lie. Anybody wanta bet that the plaintiff's so-called evasive and confusing answers were deliberate ploys to play with the cops, that the cops knew it at the time, and those answers didn't give rise to concerns about the plaintiff's mental state until much later when the government was casting about for a defense to a lawsuit? The plaintiff had a recording device going; he wasn't a total OC rookie.

    Note to self: just invoke the 5th, and keep repeating that, asking whether free to go, etc. Don't play with the cops--they'll look for a way to twist things.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-31-2013 at 09:44 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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    For those who may be unaware or who do not frequent the Georgia sub-forum, the original incident is Exercising in Public Park while Armed "Suspicious"



    We should not forget that Officer Bell's first official act was to make a Terry Stop of an individual that all he knew of was talking on a cellphone.

    CAP: Okay. Damn that guy’s got legs. (Referring to the arrival of an officer driving a police pickup truck with a bicycle on the back.)
    Bell: I worked really hard for that.
    Bell: How’s everything
    Cap: ‘Morning.
    .....
    Bell: Hey, sir, I need you to get off the phone, you can call them back.
    .....
    CAP: (To Bell) Am I being detained?
    Bell: Do you have any I.D. on you?
    CAP: Am I being detained?
    Time-stamp 31:12 … (1m:12s) after contact by Ofc Bell
    Bell: What’s that? Yeah, you’re being detained. Do you have any ID on you?

  17. #17
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Although I am relieved that this case was not in a federal district wherein Kentucky resides, but either way, to what effect would this ruling have, if any, on a state that explicitly gave mention to OC as constitutionally protected? I'm not sure on which state has constitutional carry, or if any does excepting my own home state. However, another question is begged to be asked. Does the full faith and credit clause give this 11th dist. case ruling any legal cause in the 6th? and if so, how would that conflict with Kentucky's constitutional Open Carry?
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The only thing I can't tell is whether GA requires a permit to OC. If that was the case, the detention would have been legal as to determining whether he was a permit holder.
    Georgia does indeed require a permit to either carry openly or concealed.
    HOWEVER...
    As the law is written, it is similar to the requirement to possess a driving license while driving and does not presume that the act itself is illegal. It is no more legal to stop someone with a firearm 'just to make sure they are licensed' than it is to stop someone 'just to check their license' because they are seen driving in a legal manner on a public street.

    Prior to about 2010(?) it was an affirmative defense, but SB208 (passed about 2010) completely rewrote that section of the law.


    On topic... While the GA traffic code requires one to have a license while driving and to present said license when requested by an officer (OCGA 40-5-29 License to be carried and exhibited on demand) the applicable Code regarding firearms provides no penalty for not having the license on one's person, nor does it authorize an officer to demand such license as 40-5-29 does.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 10-31-2013 at 10:35 PM.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Georgia does indeed require a permit to either carry openly or concealed.
    HOWEVER...
    As the law is written, it is similar to the requirement to possess a driving license while driving and does not presume that the act itself is illegal. It is no more legal to stop someone with a firearm 'just to make sure they are licensed' than it is to stop someone 'just to check their license' because they are seen driving in a legal manner on a public street.

    Prior to about 2010(?) it was an affirmative defense, but SB208 (passed about 2010) completely rewrote that section of the law.


    On topic... While the GA traffic code requires one to have a license while driving and to present said license when requested by an officer (OCGA 40-5-29 License to be carried and exhibited on demand) the applicable Code regarding firearms provides no penalty for not having the license on one's person, nor does it authorize an officer to demand such license as 40-5-29 does.

    Excellent!

    So, the judge was blowing repressive smoke when he asserted that walking "agitatedly" with a completely legal gun "near a playground" justified the stop--without bothering to mention what crime was suspected. (Note the "protect the children" card heaved in by the judge without further elaboration.)

    Notice also the guard's report of a "suspicious person". Pretty vague. Wide-open to subjective interpretation.

    Now that I think about it, where was the articulable criteria? The circumstances read like a hunch prohibited by Terry.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-31-2013 at 11:30 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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Cites, please. Forum Rule #5.
    Detention cases. http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/cc...1450-20000.htm

    Like I tries explaining... officer must make overt action to make you believe you can't leave.... take ID, turn on blue lights, say STOP, stand in your way, etc. etc.

    For example.... A cruiser pulls up behind you while you are parked. He turns WHITE lights on, NO DETENTION.... he turns Blues on... DETAINED.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Excellent!

    So, the judge was blowing repressive smoke when he asserted that walking "agitatedly" with a completely legal gun "near a playground" justified the stop--without bothering to mention what crime was suspected. (Note the "protect the children" card heaved in by the judge without further elaboration.)

    Notice also the guard's report of a "suspicious person". Pretty vague. Wide-open to subjective interpretation.

    Now that I think about it, where was the articulable criteria? The circumstances read like a hunch prohibited by Terry.
    Are you allowed to carry in school zones there? If he was on or near the playground sounds like he might have been within a school zone?

  22. #22
    Regular Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    We should not forget that Officer Bell's first official act was to make a Terry Stop of an individual that all he knew of was talking on a cellphone.
    Since it seems like this ruling is so flagrantly bad, are you planning to appeal?
    NRA Certified Instructor
    NRA Chief Range Safety Officer
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)
    If you CCW, consider the benefits of joining CCWSafe.com.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Detention cases. http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/cc...1450-20000.htm

    Like I tries explaining... officer must make overt action to make you believe you can't leave.... take ID, turn on blue lights, say STOP, stand in your way, etc. etc.

    For example.... A cruiser pulls up behind you while you are parked. He turns WHITE lights on, NO DETENTION.... he turns Blues on... DETAINED.
    I'm going off on a tangent for a moment.

    Readers,

    If you read enough court opinions on cases where a/the question before the court was whether a detention occurred, you come to realize the reason the question comes before a court in the first place.

    Current government fallacious doctrine holds that the 4A only protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. A part of this picture is that if you consent to a search or seizure, it automatically becomes reasonable.

    In large numbers of these cases, the court has to sort out whether the person consented to the encounter. The whole reason the existence of the standard about whether a reasonable person would feel free to go is because the courts are trying to figure out whether the encounter was consensual. The reason the court is trying to figure it out is because the citizen did not make his consent or refusal clear at the time.

    Thus, the solution is too easy--the citizen just needs to openly declares his consent/refusal.

    "No offense officer, I know you're just doing your job; but, I do not consent to an encounter with you."
    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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Case law not withstanding, the concept that a cop can ask for your ID in the first place is a false premise. Does a reasonable person believe that a cop would display his ID upon request. I can check him out on the Interwebs via a pay service for conducting criminal background checks. Employers do it, why not we citizens. Especially if I witness a cop violating a traffic law and thus "RAS" is present.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Case law not withstanding, the concept that a cop can ask for your ID in the first place is a false premise. Does a reasonable person believe that a cop would display his ID upon request. I can check him out on the Interwebs via a pay service for conducting criminal background checks. Employers do it, why not we citizens. Especially if I witness a cop violating a traffic law and thus "RAS" is present.
    Technically... it's not that false. An officer has every right to ask your name, your address, whether or not his uniform makes his ass look fat, or even if you want to come back to his place for a little Naked Twister®.
    Whether he has the statutory authority to demand is quite another matter.

    Certainly an officer might display his ID upon request, but dollars to doughnuts it's going to be a department issued ID and one that any half decent teenager could whip up a better looking copy during his lunch break. Ask for a Government issued identification and he's going to flat out deny you; he knows that a state issued ID will have his home address whereas his department issued ID won't.

    But, you are in the main correct (I'm just picking on ya), as far as I know there is NO state that mandates you produce ID for just 'walking around' and not being at least suspected of criminal intent.

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
  •