First encounter with LEO while OCing

imported post

At midnight this morning, I was on my way home from a grueling afternoon at work. It was a clear night when I happened to be traveling at a slightly elevated rate of speed. I was startled form my, just let me make it home in one piece haze. I looked in my rear view to see what seemed to be a sleigh and 8 tiny reindeer. NOT!!! It was Arizona DPS. He woke me from my mental slumber with the quickness. The next thing I knew I had the window down and the van turned off. I hear this voice ask me from behind this bright light," How you doing tonight?". The first thing I said was " Sir , I need to inform you that I have a firearm on my side. How would you like to dispose of this situation?" His eyes lit up in amazement. He then said "Thank you for telling me that, please exit the van and walk back to my car." I complied with his order. He proceeded to give me a warning ticket, and said that informing him of my firearm in the manner I did, got me off the hook on doing 60mph in a construction 45mph zone. I thanked him and was let to go on my way. I have his badge # and will file a good report with DPS supervision on my encounter.

I now can check my undergarments for any discoloration. Talk about being caught of guard.

imported post

I'm glad your experience was a good one. Everyone should be that lucky.

imported post

Are you sure it wasn't Maricopa PD or Pinal County Sheriff's office? I can't say I've seen any DPS vehicles since I've been here.

imported post

It was DPS. Says it on the warning citation I got. They are flocking all over during the repaving project on 347. Gila River PD must not be doing their job.

imported post

Ahh yes, the 347 repaving. I'm glad they switched to evenings. I was beginning to think I was back in CA with all that traffic.

imported post


All right already, I can’t stand this any longer! I’m having WAY too much fun reading this stuff!

So I guess it’s now my turn to chime in.

I should probably start with a little background.

As a result of being very athletic and eating well all my life, I am 51, but very often guessed to be between 30 and 35 years old. And I dress the part: Short, athletic denim shorts, tank top, tennis shoes, etc.

I’ve been hitchhiking most of my adult life, having started when I was 19. And only recently got my D.L. at age 45. But I still love to hitchhike. All of that to say this: That in the 32 years of hitchhiking, I have had enough ID checks with the LEO’s to total an entire year of my life!

But only just recently have I started OC-ing.

So here I am, trying to hitch to a music store on the other side of town, minding my own business, enjoying the summer Prescott sun while hitching cross town in my shorts, tank top and tennis shoes, and my piece at my side. I’m standing on the corner trying to get a ride from the right-turn traffic, when along comes an older couple (70’s) in the turn lane. The lady in the passenger seat, upon seeing my piece not only had the bulging eyes "deer-in-the-headlights" look, but her mouth was open wide enough to swallow her head, and had they been taking the turn a little faster, she could have possibly snapped her own neck while keeping her horrified stare locked on me.

I blew it off. That’s her problem, I thought. (But inside I was laughing about the ridiculousness of her over-animated response, knowing that it HAD to be because of the gun.)

A few minutes later, a police car comes along in the turn lane. I give him a casual but polite wave and think nothing of it as he rounds the corner like everyone else.

Two minutes later, I hear a rather authoritative voice. "Excuse me, sir."

I turn to look. It’s a police officer approaching me. The one who just drove by.

"Sir, could you raise your arms up at your side like this", he said, lifting his bent arms to demonstrate.

I slowly but begrudgingly complied, while at the same time asking, "What’s up? What’s the problem?"

As he proceeds to reach and take my revolver from my hip, he explains to me that he is not confiscating my gun, but just doing it as a "safety precaution". Frankly, at that point, given the fact that this is my own home town where I’ve been tromping for the last 25 years, I felt like I was being raped (if a guy can be raped). (Turns out he was a relatively new officer in the locality which explained why he wasn’t used to seeing me regularly hitching around town.)

After unloading the bullets from my revolver, calling in my AZ ID information to all come back clean and clear, he informed me that the reason that he had to do this was because they had rec’d a call from someone who drove past, saw me and called in on their cell phone saying, "There’s a guy with a mustache hitchhiking on the corner of Sheldon and Montezuma St. And he’s got a gun!" He told me he was only responding to a call because it was necessary to do so.

I laughed when he told me about the call because immediately I knew it HAD to be that older lady who was no doubt from California or the East coast.

After realizing that he was only doing a necessary response to a call (as vs. picking on me because of my piece); and given the fact that he was relatively new to the area and unfamiliar with me as regular fixture in the community, I then understood why I was being "checked out", and I cut him a little slack in terms of being more willing to forgive him for the "rape".

The tension disappeared and we ended up having some good talk time while he gave my gun back to me -- including a comment he made that voiced his support for my right to carry a gun. That was nice to hear from an LEO.

All in all, it turned out to be a very civil and congenial encounter in the end -- though at first it was tense and I felt like I was being singled out by the LEO only because I had a piece on my hip. I was relieved to find out that was not the case!

The moral of the story: You just can’t trust those anti-gun freaks off the coast – east or west. I tell ya, they’re trouble makers!!

I do have one question: Does an LEO have the right to call in the ID/serial number off a gun that has IN NO WAY been used to commit a crime but simply is in the legal possession of a citizen that they are doing a routine check on? In other words, can they legally, at that time, do a "check" on the gun itself or simply "gather data", when NO crime has been committed? Please site reference with your answer.

imported post

Never heard of that happening out here yet(its only been 1 year) I will have to to do some research tonight.

imported post

Bonker wrote:

I do have one question: Does an LEO have the right to call in the ID/serial number off a gun that has IN NO WAY been used to commit a crime but simply is in the legal possession of a citizen that they are doing a routine check on? In other words, can they legally, at that time, do a "check" on the gun itself or simply "gather data", when NO crime has been committed? Please site reference with your answer.

Click to expand...

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

He doesn't have the right to seize (take/hold your property - gun and ID)and search (run a records checkon your gun and ID) without reasonable suspicion of a crime(Terry v. Ohio - maybe he thought you were trying to carjack someone) or your consent. I'd write his chief and say what a nice young man they hired and thengo to the station andfile a complaint over the search and seizure violation.



He would have asked for your number if you looked like this (but then again you'd already have been given a ride before he showed up):

imported post

re: bonker

i assume that every time a leo pulls over a car, the first thing they do is try to ensure their safety by asking you to turn off the car. they then will run the platesto check for any issues.

the same might be seen at their asking you to remove/empty your weapon which they might view as equally important to theirsafety as avehicle.

as long as they are professional and polite i would not have a problem. especially as it seems you dealt with soneone who knew the basics of oc.

at any rate i would tend to give most loe's the benefit of the doubt. they are the ones putting their lives on the line.

btw, is it legal to hitch-hike in AZ? i know in many states it isn't.



papasmee

imported post

FYI

I was taught when stopped by police anywhere when carrying, put the vehicle in park, turn it off and place both hands outside the vehicle (do not open your door, roll down the window). This alone will immediately inform the police to be alert and not cause alarm.

imported post

BigRick wrote:

FYI

I was taught when stopped by police anywhere when carrying, put the vehicle in park, turn it off and place both hands outside the vehicle (do not open your door, roll down the window). This alone will immediately inform the police to be alert and not cause alarm.

Click to expand...

Speaking as a former LEO, just keep your hands on the wheel. People who immediately stick their hands outside the window during a traffic stop have usually "been in the system" and this would lead me to believe that I'm dealing with a convicted felon. No reason to escalate the situation.

imported post

Odd, we were trained by a California police veteran, oh well. I'll take your advice.

By the way, LEO? Haven't heard that term and I am guessing it has to do with police. On that note I have never had more than good conversations with police about OC.

imported post

BigRick wrote:

Odd, we were trained by a California police veteran, oh well. I'll take your advice.

By the way, LEO? Haven't heard that term and I am guessing it has to do with police. On that note I have never had more than good conversations with police about OC.

Click to expand...

LEO= Law Enforcement Officer. I guess that the LEO that trained you assumes that all people he stops are felons maybe? :?

Seriously, if someone did that without my command at a traffic stop, I'd immediately assume he was a convict. Even more so if he called me boss!

imported post

Bonker wrote:

All right already, I can’t stand this any longer! I’m having WAY too much fun reading this stuff!

So I guess it’s now my turn to chime in.

I should probably start with a little background.

As a result of being very athletic and eating well all my life, I am 51, but very often guessed to be between 30 and 35 years old. And I dress the part: Short, athletic denim shorts, tank top, tennis shoes, etc.

I’ve been hitchhiking most of my adult life, having started when I was 19. And only recently got my D.L. at age 45. But I still love to hitchhike. All of that to say this: That in the 32 years of hitchhiking, I have had enough ID checks with the LEO’s to total an entire year of my life!

But only just recently have I started OC-ing.

So here I am, trying to hitch to a music store on the other side of town, minding my own business, enjoying the summer Prescott sun while hitching cross town in my shorts, tank top and tennis shoes, and my piece at my side. I’m standing on the corner trying to get a ride from the right-turn traffic, when along comes an older couple (70’s) in the turn lane. The lady in the passenger seat, upon seeing my piece not only had the bulging eyes "deer-in-the-headlights" look, but her mouth was open wide enough to swallow her head, and had they been taking the turn a little faster, she could have possibly snapped her own neck while keeping her horrified stare locked on me.

I blew it off. That’s her problem, I thought. (But inside I was laughing about the ridiculousness of her over-animated response, knowing that it HAD to be because of the gun.)

A few minutes later, a police car comes along in the turn lane. I give him a casual but polite wave and think nothing of it as he rounds the corner like everyone else.

Two minutes later, I hear a rather authoritative voice. "Excuse me, sir."

I turn to look. It’s a police officer approaching me. The one who just drove by.

"Sir, could you raise your arms up at your side like this", he said, lifting his bent arms to demonstrate.

I slowly but begrudgingly complied, while at the same time asking, "What’s up? What’s the problem?"

As he proceeds to reach and take my revolver from my hip, he explains to me that he is not confiscating my gun, but just doing it as a "safety precaution". Frankly, at that point, given the fact that this is my own home town where I’ve been tromping for the last 25 years, I felt like I was being raped (if a guy can be raped). (Turns out he was a relatively new officer in the locality which explained why he wasn’t used to seeing me regularly hitching around town.)

After unloading the bullets from my revolver, calling in my AZ ID information to all come back clean and clear, he informed me that the reason that he had to do this was because they had rec’d a call from someone who drove past, saw me and called in on their cell phone saying, "There’s a guy with a mustache hitchhiking on the corner of Sheldon and Montezuma St. And he’s got a gun!" He told me he was only responding to a call because it was necessary to do so.

I laughed when he told me about the call because immediately I knew it HAD to be that older lady who was no doubt from California or the East coast.

After realizing that he was only doing a necessary response to a call (as vs. picking on me because of my piece); and given the fact that he was relatively new to the area and unfamiliar with me as regular fixture in the community, I then understood why I was being "checked out", and I cut him a little slack in terms of being more willing to forgive him for the "rape".

The tension disappeared and we ended up having some good talk time while he gave my gun back to me -- including a comment he made that voiced his support for my right to carry a gun. That was nice to hear from an LEO.

All in all, it turned out to be a very civil and congenial encounter in the end -- though at first it was tense and I felt like I was being singled out by the LEO only because I had a piece on my hip. I was relieved to find out that was not the case!

The moral of the story: You just can’t trust those anti-gun freaks off the coast – east or west. I tell ya, they’re trouble makers!!

I do have one question: Does an LEO have the right to call in the ID/serial number off a gun that has IN NO WAY been used to commit a crime but simply is in the legal possession of a citizen that they are doing a routine check on? In other words, can they legally, at that time, do a "check" on the gun itself or simply "gather data", when NO crime has been committed? Please site reference with your answer.

Click to expand...

No, they can not. See U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona V Hicks. If the gun leads to any criminal conduct if it is discovered in a manner that you state, then the evidence will be supressed just as what happened in Arizona v Hicks.

imported post

There are are 2 issues with that situation.... 1. In a very recent, last 6 weeks the Incompetent SUPREME Court of The US.... Bush people.... just ruled that incident to an UNLAWFUL stop and seizure... any information that is obtained... records check, gun serial check.. or ANY incidential unlawful act is NOW admissable for a incidential or subsequent arrest and prosecution.... 2. The Patriot ACT, [Bush] once invoked any info, obtained can be used for a prosecution... With that said, most LEO's don't like the Patriot anymore than we do... an simply resfuse to use it ... [good thing]

As a Fed LEO, I refuse to use the Act, unless forced... Just don't be Middle Eastern, my partner has this thing ...

imported post

BigAZBob wrote:

SNIP 1. In a very recent, last 6 weeks the Incompetent SUPREME Court of The US.... Bush people.... just ruled that incident to an UNLAWFUL stop and seizure... any information that is obtained... records check, gun serial check.. or ANY incidential unlawful act is NOW admissable for a incidential or subsequent arrest and prosecution....

Click to expand...

Cite and quote please.

Are you talking aboutVirginia vs Moore?

On theface of it what youare saying seems to meanthat SCOTUS just dumped the admissability rule against the 'fruits of an illegal search" which seems unlikely. I'm not a lawyer, but that would have raised such a huge ruckus, nobody could have missed it.

In case it is Virginia vs Moore that someone told you about, here is what SCOTUS said:

But the arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone, and as we have just concluded, it is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law. That Amendment does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained from a constitutionally permissible arrest. http://tinyurl.com/6dtcvd

That's not the entire opinion of course. If, however, this is the case someone referenced to you, then really all SCOTUS was saying was that the 4th Amendment doesn't protect against police violations of state statute. The 4th Amendment protects against violations of the the 4th Amendment. The officers didn't violate the 4th Amendment by arresting Moore, they violated statestatute by arresting Moore--he was supposed to only receive a summons. As SCOTUS pointed out, VA does not have a rule for inadmissibilityfor police violation ofthe statute against arresting for a misdemeanor summons.

Basically none of the other rules of evidence admissability were affected by Moore.

Do read Moore if you have any questions. I'm not excited by it, but its not the end of the world either. Nothing really changed. VA didn't disallow evidence obtained in statute-violating misdemeanor arrest previously, so Mooredidn't change anything in VA.

Or, are you thinking of a different case?

imported post

that is exactly what I am saying.. I am a lawyer, and a FED LEO. We are waiting for the upper pay grades to send us just what it means.. and from what I hear, fruits of the poisonious tree doctorine is HISTORY... right now all we have is speculation on how it will affect the field officers. It is simply the continuous errosion of your and my rights... by the anti gunners, the idiots that unfortunately have the control. There will be an Attorney Generals opinion on the case.... once that is published, a more accurate assessment of the decision will be available.. Bad cases make bad law...it gives the Sup Ct liberty to change even the bases of the case... I can think of a number of bad cases.... one comes to mind... which the US Sup Ct refused to hear. In Ca. if you have a public defender, [pretender] ... all he or she has to be is licensed... In Inyo Co. a guy was on trial for Murder 1. and the Pub def was appointed, had been practicing for less than 2 yrs.. and NEVER a murder trial....the guy, he is still in prision thank God it was not a death penalty, case... for some reason...

just think..if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had say,,,, a simliar build, same brown hair, wit says "it could be him" and got arrested for this, even though you had nothing to do with it ... would you want that atty defending you??? Keep in mind most def attys get $100k for a murder defense... This happened to a friend, a Fed LEO.. he was finally cleared.... with a real lawyer, the Pub Def that interviewed him wanted him to plead out... go figure....

.. Since it is the US Sup Ct.. where and who do you appeal to??? This is more of the Patriot Act, and another uncurrent of Skull and Bones mentalitly the name [which escapes me] how G Bush Senior wanted to create the "king" if the US.... I simply can't remeber the term they used, Arnnie, Gov of Ca.. was in on it.. There so much _hit that is done every day that I am in overload.. BB

imported post

BigAZBob wrote:

SNIP that is exactly what I am saying.. I am a lawyer, and a FED LEO. We are waiting for the upper pay grades to send us just what it means.. and from what I hear, fruits of the poisonious tree doctorine is HISTORY... right now all we have is speculation on how it will affect the field officers.

Click to expand...

Well, lets see how the opinion is used, which includes by default what the upper pay grades say.

It looks pretty clear to me that illegally obtained fruits are still protected, but that doesn't mean some idiot power-grabber won't try to "stretch" things.

imported post

BigAZBob wrote:

There are are 2 issues with that situation.... 1. In a very recent, last 6 weeks the Incompetent SUPREME Court of The US.... Bush people.... just ruled that incident to an UNLAWFUL stop and seizure... any information that is obtained... records check, gun serial check.. or ANY incidential unlawful act is NOW admissable for a incidential or subsequent arrest and prosecution.... 2. The Patriot ACT, [Bush] once invoked any info, obtained can be used for a prosecution... With that said, most LEO's don't like the Patriot anymore than we do... an simply resfuse to use it ... [good thing]

As a Fed LEO, I refuse to use the Act, unless forced... Just don't be Middle Eastern, my partner has this thing ...

Click to expand...

That "incompetent Supreme Court" will shortly make the first statement confirming the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the history of this country. They also will rule no government--not state, city or federal, can abrogate that right. Maybe you'd be happier with Obama bin ladin in the White House and that pos Schumer on the Supreme Court. Having been in "black" ops while working for the Air Force, I've dealt with a lot of Federal agencies. Your opinion is not mainstream, among those with enforcement authority, although you're certainly entitled to it.

And, as a fellow lawyer, I have heard nothing in any way changing the "fruit" doctrine--nor any others of the Miranda v AZ or Gideon v Wainwright ilk. If you have substantive information to the contrary, I would certainly appreciate hearing about it.

imported post

First, an attack on me will not change the facts. Second, I can only beleive that you are referring to the Washington DC case. Which a good thing IF the plaintiffs/petitioners prevail. Until the S.Ct. rules, it too is speculation. As for mainstream, I am not paid to "think inside the box" so mainstream thinking is not part of my job discription. Geo. W. may can in the favors, as he did to be Pres the 2nd time. You just never know..

Your reference to "black ops" I was at Na Trang, and Kontum, RVN and two tours later as a Marine. If you know anything then I have said enough. Not in A/C buildings, and other creature comforts the Air Force enjoyed. I never experienced those as a combat Marine. So your reference to black ops is suspect at best. Most people that were.... don't talk about it, particularly on a open message board.

As for Obama Bin Ladin, my personal opinion is that on the ballot there should be a box for "none of the above". I hope your not uninformed enough to vote for McCain, a Bush Clone because he's a home town boy. It is a shame too, because I was originally voting for him. Clinton is more Bill and she as first Lady is NOT qualified vicariously. People seem to forget that there are 5 suspiciuos MURDERS surrounding Bill, Hillary, and company. One good example was; If you watched the hype Hillary in Ohio, in front of hundreds of blue collar workers, said "she would look into Nafta" because of the jobs being outsourced... she voted in favor of NAFTA, every time.... against the people that need jobs. You know she's lying, because her mouth is moving. So yea we need her....

You may not know that the KKK gave Obama, someone I would not vote for either, $250k FOR HIS CAMPAIGN.

Since how we are precieved is how the world hates us, I propose that we Dig up Ronald Regan, and make him President because the Muslims would then think we are crazy enough to nuke them. Also, lets dip every single bullet, bomb, or missle in PIGS BLOOD, so the muslims can't get to heaven. I suspect that the war would end quickly. I am personally tired of US troops being blown up, shoot, or shot down and our troops aren't even equipted .... Mom and Dad are buying bullet proof vests for their sons and daughters because Bush won't pay for them... Yet, his father can make 3Billion dollars a year for Charro, [OPEC types] to keep diesel, and gas to near $4.00 and $5.00 a gal. Now you know what I think....in part.

So as for you reference to the S.Ct recent decision, you should spend some time in the advance sheets, you know the Shepards Yellow books that your office should have, and read the case before you think someone is wrong. I have read the case and as I said before I am waiting for the AG's OP. and then how it will be implimented at the field level...IT may be decided that it applies to VA only.... but the lanuage is not specfic to that fact....Just so you understand, I retired as a Calfornia Deptuy Sheriff, I worked in Tucson, for 2 yrs as a LEO, and now a Fed.. Being an Attorney is incidential and I am licensed to practice. I have been around to long to jump to conclusions about the winds of change..... I personally hope that the decision becomes state specific.