• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

if stoped oc,ing walking down sidewalk

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
If your on private property a security guard is working you must comply or you can be arrested.

You're a funny man.

You should tell that to the 'guard' who wanted to try and tell me what I could and could not have in/on my vehicle when I was in a shopping mall... the little prick even went so far as to initiate a traffic stop with his little amber lightbar...

After 2 mins. of him going on about me being lucky he wasn't on his 'day job' (@ 2pm no less, implying he was a police officer), and a call to a communications supervisor of a LEA that I'm intimately familiar with, and the security guard walked away with one less security guard license, no job, 1 charge of unlawful detention, and 1 charge of impersonating a police officer.

You can tell me or ask me ANYTHING you want, the ONLY thing you can do is ask me to leave, that's IT. You can have a huge sign up that says "PEOPLE WITH PURPLE PANTS ONLY!", and I can walk right on by with green pants and you can tell me until your blue in the face that I need to wear purple pants, until you ASK ME TO LEAVE, you can't do jack.

EDIT: Your SOLE remedy, acting as a property owners agent, is in ejecting people from the property, that's IT.
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?
 

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?


Section 338.1080 linkable printable





PRIVATE SECURITY BUSINESS AND SECURITY ALARM ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 330 of 1968

338.1080 Private security police officers; arrest powers; limitations.
Sec. 30.
A private security police officer, as described in section 29, who is properly licensed under this act has the authority to arrest a person without a warrant as set forth for public peace officers in section 15 of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 764.15, when that private security police officer is on the employer's premises. Such authority is limited to his or her hours of employment as a private security police officer and does not extend beyond the boundaries of the property of the employer and while the private security police officer is in the full uniform of the employer.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0emjuw55as1avsass2fqqy55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-338-1080
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

adam40cal wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?


Section 338.1080 linkable printable





PRIVATE SECURITY BUSINESS AND SECURITY ALARM ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 330 of 1968

338.1080 Private security police officers; arrest powers; limitations.
Sec. 30.
A private security police officer, as described in section 29, who is properly licensed under this act has the authority to arrest a person without a warrant as set forth for public peace officers in section 15 of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 764.15, when that private security police officer is on the employer's premises. Such authority is limited to his or her hours of employment as a private security police officer and does not extend beyond the boundaries of the property of the employer and while the private security police officer is in the full uniform of the employer.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0emjuw55as1avsass2fqqy55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-338-1080
I was asking for a cite for the implied consent to a search.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing.  As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search.  You just gave up your rights by entering the property.  Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies.  But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie.  I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?

He won't give you one, it doesn't exist.

By your logic, I can put a 'all women must be nude' sign on my door, and any woman that comes in I can rip her clothes off and just point to the sign? HAH!

As I said, your SOLE remedy is to ask me to leave, or, as mentioned, if a CRIME has been committed, to detain.
 

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?

He won't give you one, it doesn't exist.

By your logic, I can put a 'all women must be nude' sign on my door, and any woman that comes in I can rip her clothes off and just point to the sign? HAH!

As I said, your SOLE remedy is to ask me to leave, or, as mentioned, if a CRIME has been committed, to detain.
I can't find the cite right now, but I will find it. Thats just like a no trespassing sign if you cross are you trasspassing? If it says no smoking does that mean you can? Its the same thing you can see the sign when you pull in, and if you decide to come in anyway you just gave permission. Also if I crime has been committed its not a detain unless the security guard says it is. Read the above legislation and it clearly states the law. Besides I'm not gonna argue about it, I'm the one thats a security guard and took the classes and if you wanna think you know more about my job more power to ya.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

adam40cal wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?

He won't give you one, it doesn't exist.

By your logic, I can put a 'all women must be nude' sign on my door, and any woman that comes in I can rip her clothes off and just point to the sign? HAH!

As I said, your SOLE remedy is to ask me to leave, or, as mentioned, if a CRIME has been committed, to detain.
I can't find the cite right now, but I will find it. Thats just like a no trespassing sign if you cross are you trasspassing? If it says no smoking does that mean you can? Its the same thing you can see the sign when you pull in, and if you decide to come in anyway you just gave permission. Also if I crime has been committed its not a detain unless the security guard says it is. Read the above legislation and it clearly states the law. Besides I'm not gonna argue about it, I'm the one thats a security guard and took the classes and if you wanna think you know more about my job more power to ya.
Appreciate your taking your time to look for it. Reason I ask is that I did look for it a while back and couldn't find it.

Thanks for the help.
 

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?

He won't give you one, it doesn't exist.

By your logic, I can put a 'all women must be nude' sign on my door, and any woman that comes in I can rip her clothes off and just point to the sign? HAH!

As I said, your SOLE remedy is to ask me to leave, or, as mentioned, if a CRIME has been committed, to detain.
I can't find the cite right now, but I will find it. Thats just like a no trespassing sign if you cross are you trasspassing? If it says no smoking does that mean you can? Its the same thing you can see the sign when you pull in, and if you decide to come in anyway you just gave permission. Also if I crime has been committed its not a detain unless the security guard says it is. Read the above legislation and it clearly states the law. Besides I'm not gonna argue about it, I'm the one thats a security guard and took the classes and if you wanna think you know more about my job more power to ya.
Appreciate your taking your time to look for it. Reason I ask is that I did look for it a while back and couldn't find it.

Thanks for the help.
No problem I'll find it for ya :), thats like with OC some people just wanna know, nothing wrong with that. Knowledge is power my friend :cool:
 

Ruger001

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
20
Location
, ,
imported post

adam40cal wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?


Section 338.1080 linkable printable





PRIVATE SECURITY BUSINESS AND SECURITY ALARM ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 330 of 1968

338.1080 Private security police officers; arrest powers; limitations.
Sec. 30.
A private security police officer, as described in section 29, who is properly licensed under this act has the authority to arrest a person without a warrant as set forth for public peace officers in section 15 of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 764.15, when that private security police officer is on the employer's premises. Such authority is limited to his or her hours of employment as a private security police officer and does not extend beyond the boundaries of the property of the employer and while the private security police officer is in the full uniform of the employer.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0emjuw55as1avsass2fqqy55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-338-1080
I know this is off the original subject but, I hate it when people post incorrect information/Laws..........

The section of law above pertains to PRIVATE SECURITY POLICE, not security guards.

The only Misd. that a security guard can arrest for is retail fraud......

Currently there are 9 Private Security Police Agency's in the State of Michigan.... They have full arrest authority on the property where the are employed for one of the below.



[align=left]Detroit Medical Center, GP-Northland Center, Renaissance Center Management Co., Lansing School District,Henry Ford Health System,St. John's Detroit Riverview Hospital, St. John Hospital & Medical Ctr,Fairlane Town Center,Spectrum Health[/align]
 

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

Ruger001 wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
ghostrider wrote:
adam40cal wrote:
Yes I do have to ask you to leave, but if you don't comply I can have you arrest for trespassing. As far as the sign thing, if you come on to the property and theres a sign saying anyone coming or leaving this property can be search. You just gave up your rights by entering the property. Also you may wanna check the state laws, because you can be arrested by a security guard for misdeamors and/or felonies. But I'd also like to note that even a citizen in street clothes can make an arrest for a felonie. I agree what that security guard did to you was out of line, but acting like they can't do anything is making a mistake.
Got a cite for that statute?


Section 338.1080 linkable printable





PRIVATE SECURITY BUSINESS AND SECURITY ALARM ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 330 of 1968

338.1080 Private security police officers; arrest powers; limitations.
Sec. 30.
A private security police officer, as described in section 29, who is properly licensed under this act has the authority to arrest a person without a warrant as set forth for public peace officers in section 15 of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 764.15, when that private security police officer is on the employer's premises. Such authority is limited to his or her hours of employment as a private security police officer and does not extend beyond the boundaries of the property of the employer and while the private security police officer is in the full uniform of the employer.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0emjuw55as1avsass2fqqy55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-338-1080
I know this is off the original subject but, I hate it when people post incorrect information/Laws..........

The section of law above pertains to PRIVATE SECURITY POLICE, not security guards.

The only Misd. that a security guard can arrest for is retail fraud......

Currently there are 9 Private Security Police Agency's in the State of Michigan.... They have full arrest authority on the property where the are employed for one of the below.



[align=left]Detroit Medical Center, GP-Northland Center, Renaissance Center Management Co., Lansing School District,Henry Ford Health System,St. John's Detroit Riverview Hospital, St. John Hospital & Medical Ctr,Fairlane Town Center,Spectrum Health[/align]

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1970s/op05126.htm

In People v Eastway, 67 Mich App 464, 467; 241 NW2d 249 (1976), the court recognized the authority of a licensed private security officer to make an arrest without a warrant in the same manner as a public peace officer stating:
'. . . By statute, any such licensed private security officer in Michigan has the authority to arrest without a warrant in the same manner as a public police officer. MCLA 338.1080; MSA 18.185(30).'
Thus, the response to your first question is that a licensed private security guard as defined by 1969 PA 330, supra, Sec. 29 does have the authority to make an arrest without a warrant under the same circumstance as a peace officer may make a warrant-less arrest on the premises of his employer where the arrest is made during his hours of employment while in the full uniform of his employer.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

adam40cal wrote:
Ruger001 wrote:
adam40cal wrote:

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1970s/op05126.htm

In People v Eastway, 67 Mich App 464, 467; 241 NW2d 249 (1976), the court recognized the authority of a licensed private security officer to make an arrest without a warrant in the same manner as a public peace officer stating:
'. . . By statute, any such licensed private security officer in Michigan has the authority to arrest without a warrant in the same manner as a public police officer. MCLA 338.1080; MSA 18.185(30).'
Thus, the response to your first question is that a licensed private security guard as defined by 1969 PA 330, supra, Sec. 29 does have the authority to make an arrest without a warrant under the same circumstance as a peace officer may make a warrant-less arrest on the premises of his employer where the arrest is made during his hours of employment while in the full uniform of his employer.
Actyally (if your refering to me), my question was not about that at all, but instead about implied consent to a search. Still haven't supported that assertion yet.
 

AbNo

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,805
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
In addition, a person who is, in the opinion of an officer, carrying openly for the primary purpose of causing unrest or intimidation is brandishing the firearm even if it is holstered, and can be detained and ticketed, summoned or arrested for that offense. The person so charged must show he didn't have that intent, and/or was hunting, target shooting or displaying the firearm for sale, purchase, repair or transfer. Intent is difficult to prove or disprove; the burden should be on the prosecution but you will have to defend yourself against the officer's testimony.

So much for innocent until proven guilty.
 

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
Liko81 wrote:
In addition, a person who is, in the opinion ofan officer, carrying openly for the primary purpose of causing unrest or intimidation is brandishing the firearm even if it is holstered, and can be detained and ticketed, summoned or arrested for that offense. The person so charged mustshow he didn't have that intent, and/or was hunting, target shooting or displaying the firearm for sale, purchase, repair or transfer. Intent is difficult to prove or disprove; the burden should be on the prosecution but you will have to defend yourself against the officer's testimony.

So much for innocent until proven guilty.
Me personally I think the police are given to much authority as far as using their own judgement in saying a person is causing unrest. If that was the case you can be walking down the street with your weapon holstered minding your own business. Then a cop see's you and decides your breaking the law, and as you said then your pretty much guilty till proven innocent.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

AbNo wrote:
Liko81 wrote:
In addition, a person who is, in the opinion ofan officer, carrying openly for the primary purpose of causing unrest or intimidation is brandishing the firearm even if it is holstered, and can be detained and ticketed, summoned or arrested for that offense. The person so charged mustshow he didn't have that intent, and/or was hunting, target shooting or displaying the firearm for sale, purchase, repair or transfer. Intent is difficult to prove or disprove; the burden should be on the prosecution but you will have to defend yourself against the officer's testimony.

So much for innocent until proven guilty.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
According to the map, Michigan does not require a permit and it is generally lawful, but there are severe restrictions.

The laws as I found here: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/firearms.pdf

does not disallow open carry, but does disallow carry by those with malicious intent to commit or in commission of a crime. It also disallows unlicensed carry in certain places including banks, theaters, day cares, hospitals, etc. Finally, it prohibits brandishing a firearm, but does not define the term. The dictionary definition used in one Michigan AG opinion is "to display ostentatiously". The opinion states that a peace officer cannot be guilty of brandishing while in the course of his duties, but does not extend that to citizens.

Because there are no assumption doctrines or pre-emption, and no other laws to the contrary, a peace officer, if he is ableto articulate cause to do so,may detainsomeone carrying openlylong enough to ascertain that they are not currently or about to commit a crime, and may commence detention by asking to see ID. While checkingID, the officer mayask reasonable questions about your destination, and ifyou're headeda banned location hemay inform you to that effect, but may not detain you further as you have not demonstrated malicious intent to commit a crimenor have youactually trespassed while carrying.

In addition, a person who is, in the opinion ofan officer, carrying openly for the primary purpose of causing unrest or intimidation is brandishing the firearm even if it is holstered, and can be detained and ticketed, summoned or arrested for that offense. The person so charged mustshow he didn't have that intent, and/or was hunting, target shooting or displaying the firearm for sale, purchase, repair or transfer. Intent is difficult to prove or disprove; the burden should be on the prosecution but you will have to defend yourself against the officer's testimony.

none of this would apply if the Michigan state constitution, legal code or case laweither expressly allowed open carry with pre-emptionor otherwisedirected peace officers and others to assume that someone carrying openly is doing so lawfully if there is noreasonable suspicionto the contrary.

IANAL; I'm just calling it like I see it. In general,if an officer decides you're committing a crime, you're highly unlikely to convince him otherwise, and if same officer decides you're going to jail, you're going whether the arrest is legal or not.Whether you are in commission of a crimeand/or the arrest is legalare not expressly codified and are therefore points to be argued case by case before a judge, at least until the Michigan legislators see fit to change the law.


Where did you find this?

"Because there are no assumption doctrines or pre-emption, and no other laws to the contrary, a peace officer, if he is ableto articulate cause to do so,may detainsomeone carrying openlylong enough to ascertain that they are not currently or about to commit a crime, and may commence detention by asking to see ID. While checkingID, the officer mayask reasonable questions about your destination, and ifyou're headeda banned location hemay inform you to that effect, but may not detain you further as you have not demonstrated malicious intent to commit a crimenor have youactually trespassed while carrying.

In addition, a person who is, in the opinion ofan officer, carrying openly for the primary purpose of causing unrest or intimidation is brandishing the firearm even if it is holstered, and can be detained and ticketed, summoned or arrested for that offense. The person so charged mustshow he didn't have that intent, and/or was hunting, target shooting or displaying the firearm for sale, purchase, repair or transfer. Intent is difficult to prove or disprove; the burden should be on the prosecution but you will have to defend yourself against the officer's testimony."


Is your post a quote of the law or your opinion? A reserve peace officer may or may nothave LEO powers. If they do not they has no more powers than a citizen, thus openly carrying a handgun in a holster is not brandishing. Read the entire opinion. An excerpt below.

"Applying these definitions to your question, it is clear that a reserve police officer, regardless whether he or she qualifies as a "peace officer," when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view, is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm in violation of section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code."

Her opinion is stating in a subtle way that anyone that openly carries a handgun in a holster is not brandishing.

Open carry is legal in Michigan and you can not be convicted for brandishing just for having a handgun in a holster. This is also backed by other AG opinions, MSP legal updates to their troopers, and legislative inquires on the subject.

You can be arrested for anything, but a conviction is another matter. Lawful open carry is legal in Michigan.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

A good article on this subject.[/b]

WHEN APPROACED BY POLICE WHILE OPEN CARRYING.[/b]By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts

Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun if properly licensed, a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.[suP]1[/suP] Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,[suP]2[/suP] it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."[suP]3[/suP]

State laws vary regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms, but courts are usually sensitive to officer and public safety concerns over the presence in public of firearms. Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.[suP]4[/suP]

Anonymous Tip
In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.
[suP]5[/suP] More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.[/b][suP]6[/suP] Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.[suP]7[/suP] In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.[suP]8[/suP] The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.[suP]9[/suP]

Clearly, not every report of a citizen is worthy of belief or sufficient to justify a response by an officer. A caller could, for example, intend merely to harass someone by making an anonymous call to police and claiming someone had a gun hidden in his or her vehicle or on his or her person.

The ultimate issue on the report's usefulness is whether the contents (and other attendant circumstances) create a reasonable suspicion that a dangerous situation exists, creating authority to detain or frisk or both. It certainly helps if the report contains particular facts that do one or more of the following: [/b]

  • Create a suggestion of threats of violence in this situation
  • Are themselves acts of violence
  • Indicate impending criminal activity
  • Raise a reasonable concern for public safety
Of course, in the many jurisdictions where carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, this analytical step may be obviated and inquiry will proceed to the next issue, the likely veracity of the information source. In the case of an anonymous tip, the question will be whether corroboration of detail goes beyond the mere description of a person already in public.

Examples of Appropriate Police Actions
Examples may be helpful here. Police officers would be acting reasonably in stopping and frisking an individual after receiving information on the street from a known bystander that the person was displaying a handgun on a street corner in a high crime area at 5:30 in the morning, or if it reasonably appears that a suspect is not only armed but also dangerous, as would be the case if the individual appeared to be reaching for his or her weapon. The possession of a firearm by a minor in many states may be viewed as presumptively illegal, and thus sufficient to justify an investigatory stop of the minor by the police, again provided the information source is sufficiently credible. A constitutionally reliable report of the sighting of someone carrying a sawed-off shotgun-especially in states where this is illegal-would likely justify an immediate investigatory stop. Loading a weapon in public, especially where there is no clearly lawful reason for doing so (to begin hunting or target shooting, for instance), and especially in a high crime area at night or during early morning hours, could provide the extra information some courts require in order to allow police officers to conduct an investigatory stop and frisk of a person reportedly in possession of a firearm.


Enforcement Guidelines
Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:


  • Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.
  • If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.
  • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.
  • If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview.
  • If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon.
  • Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter.

[suP]1[/suP][size= See, for example, [i]Com. v. Couture[/i], 407 ][/size][size=Mass.][/size][size= 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
][/size][suP]2[/suP][size= ][/size][size=Id.][/size]
[size=
][/size][suP]3[/suP][size= See [i]Terry v. [/i]][/size][size=Ohio][/size][size=, 392 ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= 1, 88 ][/size][size=S. Ct.][/size][size= 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
][/size][suP]4[/suP][size= [i]Com. v. Alvarado[/i], 423 ][/size][size=Mass.][/size]
[size= 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998).
][/size][suP]5[/suP][size= ][/size][size=Alabama][/size][size= v. White][/size][size=, 496 ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= 325, 110 ][/size][size=S. Ct.][/size]
[size= 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
][/size][suP]6[/suP][size= ][/size][size=Florida][/size][size= v. J.L][/size][size=., 529 ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= 266, 120 ][/size][size=S. Ct.][/size]
[size= 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
][/size][suP]7[/suP][size= ][/size][size=Pennsylvania][/size][size= v. ][/size][size=D.M.][/size][size=, ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= 120 ][/size][size=S. Ct.][/size]
[size= 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
][/size][suP]8[/suP][size= ][/size][size=Id.][/size]
[size=
][/size][suP]9[/suP][size= ][/size][size=Alabama][/size][size= v. White][/size][size=, 496 ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= 325, 1105 ][/size][size=S. Ct.][/size][size= 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= v. Diallo][/size][size=, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); ][/size][size=U.S.][/size][size= v. ][/size][size=Taylor][/size][size=, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998). ][/size]
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
imported post

gridboy wrote:
Here's what wikipedia says, and backs it up with cites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes


Looks like Michigan has no stop and identify, so you don't
have to give your name or show id.

gridboy
You might want to check up on current laws. I don't know if anything has changed, but Wikipedia says: "As of 2004 (except where noted), the following states had stop-and-identify laws:"

So, that info might be out of date.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

Big Gay Al wrote:
gridboy wrote:
Here's what wikipedia says, and backs it up with cites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes


Looks like Michigan has no stop and identify, so you don't
have to give your name or show id.

gridboy
You might want to check up on current laws. I don't know if anything has changed, but Wikipedia says: "As of 2004 (except where noted), the following states had stop-and-identify laws:"

So, that info might be out of date.
I still think this is correct in Michigan. I was stopped by Michigan Capital police for openly carrying in the capital building and when he asked me for ID I told him I didn't have to give him any unless it was a terry stop and he seemed to know this as he didn't insist I give him any. This was in April 2008.
 
Top