DreQo wrote:
This same theory should be able to be applied to openly carrying where a permit is required, as well. If one is breaking no laws, therefore not giving a LEO RAS, then there should be, under almost all circumstances, no reason for you to be stopped and asked for said permit. This obviously is NOT suggest because, again, if you happen to fit the description of a suspect, or there is another issue, you might very well be arrested and charged.
Anyway I've also heard that there is a law that says something to the extent of any evidence that is collected illegally cannot be used against you. If this is correct, and you were illegally stopped and asked for your permit (or drivers license) at which time you didn't have one, couldn't you then argue that that fact was collected illegally and therefore cannot be held against you?
Just some random thoughts I thought I'd share....
There is a flaw with your logic. You are making three very unhealthy assumptions.
1. Cops will obey the law and leave you alone, not make up the rules as they go along. (this goes hand-in-hand with the assumption that cops know the law)
2. Cops will be honest in their reports, and won't try to make you look like the bad guy.
3. Cops will be punished by their department or sued by you if they don't obey the laws.
OK, so let me break these down for you. From my personal experience, all three above statements are false. In the Tukwila incident (washington forum) I was harrassed by police officers who knew that they weren't supposed to, because they knew OC was legal. In their police reports they lied and tried to make it sound like I was acting like I was a drug addict going through withdrawls that tried to attack them (this is all imaginary, I was polite and stood still the whole time). Their reports made me sound like a super-criminal, and them sound like heros. The police reports flat out lie about the situation. Now I'm trying to sue them, but it's hard. There are basically no lawyers out there willing to sue police departments over gun rights. the ones that are won't do it on contingency, because they don't expect you to win more than a couple hundred dollars from the department. It is very difficult to sue a police department and win enough money to cover your legal fees, unless you were severely injured or killed because of the officers' actions.
So again, all three of those assumptions are false. We don't live in the nice pleasant world of honest cops that we used to. Todays cops know that if they arrest you, they can write up a report about how horrible of a person you were, and how you threatened them, etc. they know that the legal system will force you to get a lawyer, and that it is easier (and generally the only financial option) to accept a plea deal, and your "illegal evidence" will never be brought up in court. Another win for the good guys, huh?
When you file your complaint with internal affairs, you will get a letter in the mail, like I did, about how they have determined that the officers did not violate the law. They will make this determination by reading the officers' reports, and nothing else. When you speak with a supervising officer, he will support his officers' actions and tell you that you are wrong.
I hate our justice system. It is very dirty, and it is not about justice anymore. Our police are not held accountable. This is an illusion.
