View Poll Results: Was this a violation of a citizens CIVIL RIGHTS (Multiple Choice)

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes it was a violation

    14 60.87%
  • No it wasn't a violation

    2 8.70%
  • People Who are disgusted with these incidents

    7 30.43%
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Rights - Interested in broader opinion

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    Ok me and a buddy headed out this morning to run a few errands which included going to the local firearms dealer to pick up my new lower for my AR project.:celebrate The dealer who is a friend of mine asked me to bring the upper with me so he could see how the project was going. So we headed that way with a few stops in between one of them being the Taco Bell on Scottsville Road for a bite to eat. The upper was sitting in the seat by itself. the person at the window jokingly said "Y'allgoing to kill somebody" (I hate when people make stupid irrational comments like that). We replied that no its harmless, considering it was just the upper assembly. We didn't think anything of it. and went on our way. We get down Scottsville Road about a mile and a BGPD Cruiser pulls in behind us. We were doing 5 under the speed limit. we figured we were about to be pulled over because, he passed the car behind us to get in behind us. So we flip the turn signal on to turn in and pull over which at that point he turned on the lights. So we pulled into a parking lot (later turned out to be a banks parking lot, not the best choice lol.) So at that point the officer gets out and yells to my friend the driver to put his hands out the window and another officer comes up to my side of the vehicle and ask for my ID (which I didn't feel like arguing today had stuff that needed to get done.) SoI said I did and he then asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle whichI stated there was my sidearm in the glove box, and it was loaded. He then told me to get out of the vehicle. which I did. At that point he said for "HIS SAFETY" he was going to detain me and I was then placed in handcuffs, searched without my consent, and read my Miranda rights. at which point my first question was "what amI being charged with?" the reply wasthat I was not under arrest but being restrained for "MY and THEIR SAFETY" (Another interesting thing was the driver my friend was not placed in handcuffs but was still searched without consent). They then proceeded to search the vehicle without consent. We were placed in the back of squad cars there were 2 officers and one supervisor there three (3) total. They then took all of our information and released us. I was informed that we were stopped for pointing a rifle out the window of the vehicle and yelling which we never did anybody in this area knows that it was a rainy, chilly day.We had the windows up and were never yelling at any point. We are both planning on filing a complaint with the BGPD ASST Chief Professional Standards Division and Deputy Chief Field Operations Bureau. Want to know what everybody else thinks of this.

    Helms, Thomas S
    PFC
    1/149th BSTB
    U.S. Army


    Mods Sorry for the double post jus need a broader range of views
    Thanks,

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    You really needed a poll for that? :P

    Absolutely ridiculous.

    So am I reading that right that you weren't charged with anything and nothing was confiscated? If you were, you need to get a lawyer immediately.

    Regardless, you need to file complaints. I'm not familiar with the procedure in Kentucky, but you need to file as soon as possible. Then you need to get a lawyer and file start the ball rolling for a civil case.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    "Officer Safety" and "Probable Cause" are all they need to trample the Constitution. Sickening isn't it?

  4. #4
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    If they did, in fact get a call about you pointing a gun out the window, wouldn't they have arrested you? They may have got a 'man with a gun' call, not the same as threatening people. After violating your rights they may have realized they made a mistake. If they got a brandishing call then they can justify the way your were stopped and treated and the illegal search. 'course maybe they did get a call you were pointing it out the window. However, I think if they didi you would have went to jail.

    I'd start with a FOIA request for the 911 call and all communications internally regarding the call/your stop.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Get a lawyer. False arrest, battery, violation of the 4th Amendment--and whatever the equivalent state right would be, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment. 1983 possible, depending on official condoning of this action, but a tort action against the Storm Troopers, their pos department, and the city for sure. Don't tolerate this crap. Make them pay. Next time, they stop a minority and open fire because they "got a call." See a doctor and tell him you are still highly anxious over the unconstitutional abuse of your rights, and you add to real damages. But your money will be in punitive damages, and the city has deep pockets. Fight! You don't need a poll, you know what happened to you is wrong.



    If you are active duty, see your JAG and your Army doctor. They will advise you for free and perhaps recommend a civvie attorney.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Well, substitute "you're in a high drug/crime area" for "pointing a rifle out the window" and I've seen this story before...

    As far as I'm concerned, they MAY be entitled to perform Terry pat-downs of you and maybe the passengers persons, but a full search of the car and contents and your pockets and such, no. Lawyers will tell you, however,that "officer safety" trumps the 4th amendment, especially if you admit to having weapons. Had the identical thing happen to me. Be glad you weren't charged, with all your stuff impounded. Do not answer them when they ask if you're armed, unless you're obliged to as a part of your concealed carry license. Silence is not an admission. You see what "cooperation" got you.

    -ljp

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Get a lawyer. False arrest, battery, violation of the 4th Amendment--and whatever the equivalent state right would be, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment. 1983 possible, depending on official condoning of this action, but a tort action against the Storm Troopers, their pos department, and the city for sure. Don't tolerate this crap. Make them pay. Next time, they stop a minority and open fire because they "got a call." See a doctor and tell him you are still highly anxious over the unconstitutional abuse of your rights, and you add to real damages. But your money will be in punitive damages, and the city has deep pockets. Fight! You don't need a poll, you know what happened to you is wrong.



    If you are active duty, see your JAG and your Army doctor. They will advise you for free and perhaps recommend a civvie attorney.
    As a note of caution, you may want to avoid seeing a doctor for fabricated mental health reasons... the media and Big Brother are on a witch hunt for mentally "unstable" people with guns, and it's only bound to get worse.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post


    So at that point the officer gets out and yells to my friend the driver to put his hands out the window and another officer comes up to my side of the vehicle and ask for my ID (which I didn't feel like arguing today had stuff that needed to get done.)

    I did not read that they drew downon you or conducted a felony stop. Hearing you pointed a gun out the window could allow this.


    SoI said I did and he then asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle whichI stated there was my sidearm in the glove box, and it was loaded. He then told me to get out of the vehicle. which I did.

    The police arelegally allowed to remove you from the vehicle inany case and to also obtain the weapon for the safety of everyone involved. This is a complaint of a gun being pointed out thewindow.

    At that point he said for "HIS SAFETY" he was going to detain me and I was then placed in handcuffs, searched without my consent, and read my Miranda rights.
    at which point my first question was "what amI being charged with?" the reply wasthat I was not under arrest but being restrained for "MY and THEIR SAFETY" (Another interesting thing was the driver my friend was not placed in handcuffs but was still searched without consent).

    Reading you Miranda was not necessary. Only when you are under arrest does it apply.He can pat you down for weapons. You do not describe howdeep the search goes. Does he go into your pockets?

    They then proceeded to search the vehicle without consent. We were placed in the back of squad cars there were 2 officers and one supervisor there three (3) total. They then took all of our information and released us.


    They do not need to ask permission. The vehicle can be checked for any place a weapon could be stored and accessed by the occupants. They could not go into a trunk without asking.

    I was informed that we were stopped for pointing a rifle out the window of the vehicle and yelling which we never did anybody in this area knows that it was a rainy, chilly day.We had the windows up and were never yelling at any point."


    It seems rather odd that you had the upper for a rifle and someone complained that you pointed it out the window. The only person that saw it was the cashier who talked to you but I hardly think she had time to stop taking orders to call the police on you. And then.... why would she call and say you pointed it out the window?

    The police were responding to a report of YOU and YOUR FRIEND in a car YOU BOTH were in that was reportedto bepointing a RIFLE out the window that WAS in the car!

    Sounds like the police did not violate any of your rights for stopping you for checking you, your friend, and the car for weapons.

    I am surprised you were not charged.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Get a lawyer. False arrest, battery, violation of the 4th Amendment--and whatever the equivalent state right would be, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment. 1983 possible, depending on official condoning of this action, but a tort action against the Storm Troopers, their pos department, and the city for sure. Don't tolerate this crap. Make them pay. Next time, they stop a minority and open fire because they "got a call." See a doctor and tell him you are still highly anxious over the unconstitutional abuse of your rights, and you add to real damages. But your money will be in punitive damages, and the city has deep pockets. Fight! You don't need a poll, you know what happened to you is wrong.



    If you are active duty, see your JAG and your Army doctor. They will advise you for free and perhaps recommend a civvie attorney.
    False Arrest? They were not arrested or charged.

    Battery? Where exactly did you read that happening?

    4th Amendment violation? He has not posted enough to even determine that yet.

    Nice try!!


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    As a note of caution, you may want to avoid seeing a doctor for fabricated mental health reasons... the media and Big Brother are on a witch hunt for mentally "unstable" people with guns, and it's only bound to get worse.
    I agree I don't want any reason for a court to adjudicate that i am "mentally unfit" to be able to own firearms. I do not have a CCDW so it was in the glove box as statedin Kentucky Revised Statutes.

    I will do my best to provide as much information about the incident if any one needs any thing else just ask and i will provide to the best of my ability.

    I did not read that they drew downon you or conducted a felony stop. Hearing you pointed a gun out the window could allow this.
    They might have drawn down on us I didn't look back to see. and My friend confirmed that it was a felony stop. He asked the officer that wasdetained with him and he said yes it was.

    Reading you Miranda was not necessary. Only when you are under arrest does it apply.He can pat you down for weapons. You do not describe howdeep the search goes. Does he go into your pockets?
    the search of my personal being did include the pockets as well as my wallet.

    They do not need to ask permission. The vehicle can be checked for any place a weapon could be stored and accessed by the occupants. They could not go into a trunk without asking.
    The vehicle was a SUV and they searched the entire vehicle.

    It seems rather odd that you had the upper for a rifle and someone complained that you pointed it out the window. The only person that saw it was the cashier who talked to you but I hardly think she had time to stop taking orders to call the police on you. And then.... why would she call and say you pointed it out the window?
    As stated in the OP I had the upper because I was headed to pick up the lower for it and the dealer my friend asked me to bring it to show him the progress. I agree there was no one else that was able to have seen it. and that last one is a very good question which I do not have the answer to.

    The actual wording on the copy of the report under reason for contactthat i was given at the incident is
    "Detained on a weapon complaint in possible road rage incident"

    I am in the process of filing a FOIA request as well as a formal complaint. with the BGPD

    I would be interested in hearing what LEO229 or any other LEO in the forum has to say on this. (LEO229 actually posted as i was writing this)

    I really don't have the pockets to pay for a lawyer so I don't know what I could do on that end.

    I am also not trying to seek any "damages" or money. I would just like an apology in writing from the officers involved.

    The actual wording on the copy of the report under reason for contact wasthat i was given at the incident is
    "Detained on a weapon complaint in possible road rage incident"

    Battery? Where exactly did you read that happening?
    I didn't see where battery came into it either.

    I wasn't arrested. but placed in handcuffs That is where i think my rights were violated. because i was detained without reason. As i stated in the OP the driver my friend wasn't placed in cuffs. we are both KYARNG. He is a MP and I am a Tanker.

    I also agree that we can be removed from the vehicle but it was the fact that not only was i removed but placed in handcuffs that bugs me

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    PFC Helms wrote:
    Only when you are under arrest does it apply.He can pat you down for weapons. You do not describe howdeep the search goes. Does he go into your pockets?
    the search of my personal being did include the pockets as well as my wallet.
    LEO 229 Says: They should not have gone into your pockets. They can only pat down the outer clothing and snatching your wallet was wrong too. A complaint may be in order here.



    They do not need to ask permission. The vehicle can be checked for any place a weapon could be stored and accessed by the occupants. They could not go into a trunk without asking.
    The vehicle was a SUV and they searched the entire vehicle.

    LEO 229 Says: They should not have gone that far back into the vehicle. Only to the point where you could both reach at the front seat.



    It seems rather odd that you had the upper for a rifle and someone complained that you pointed it out the window. The only person that saw it was the cashier who talked to you but I hardly think she had time to stop taking orders to call the police on you. And then.... why would she call and say you pointed it out the window?
    As stated in the OP I had the upper because I was headed to pick up the lower for it and the dealer my friend asked me to bring it to show him the progress. I agree there was no one else that was able to have seen it. and that last one is a very good question which I do not have the answer to.

    LEO 229 Says: If neither of you were pointing it out the window or holding it up to admire it... someone says you did it. I would submit the FOIA and see exactly what was reported.



    I wasn't arrested. but placed in handcuffs That is where i think my rights were violated. because i was detained without reason. As i stated in the OP the driver my friend wasn't placed in cuffs. we are both KYARNG. He is a MP and I am a Tanker.
    LEO 229 Says: Being placed in cuffs during an investigative detention is permitted and will not be a violation of your rights. The police received a complaint so it is not like they just decided to pull you over and do it. As I recall... you stated he told you that you were not under arrest and you were beingrestrained [Detained???]



    I also agree that we can be removed from the vehicle but it was the fact that not only was i removed but placed in handcuffs that bugs me
    LEO 229 Says: The officers are dealing with a knownweapon involved.... Check out the video and see what happened to this officer when he tried to pat down a guy who was not cuffed.



    [flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/baix0Xa9x3o&hl=en[/flash]




  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    Get a lawyer. False arrest, battery, violation of the 4th Amendment--and whatever the equivalent state right would be, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment. 1983 possible, depending on official condoning of this action, but a tort action against the Storm Troopers, their pos department, and the city for sure. Don't tolerate this crap. Make them pay. Next time, they stop a minority and open fire because they "got a call." See a doctor and tell him you are still highly anxious over the unconstitutional abuse of your rights, and you add to real damages. But your money will be in punitive damages, and the city has deep pockets. Fight! You don't need a poll, you know what happened to you is wrong.



    If you are active duty, see your JAG and your Army doctor. They will advise you for free and perhaps recommend a civvie attorney.
    False Arrest? They were not arrested or charged.

    Battery? Where exactly did you read that happening?

    4th Amendment violation? He has not posted enough to even determine that yet.

    Nice try!!
    I'm amazed that a cop would ask those questions.

    Anytime you impede my right to peaceful passage and the enjoyment of my right to liberty, you "arrest" me. You have detained me against my will. If you put me in handcuffs, you have arrested me and committed battery by touching me without my consent. If the cop doesn't state he is searching your car--and only in areas where a weapon could have been readily accessible, and by numerous court rulings, essentially out in the open, only for weapons it is an illegal search. The Gestapo 'arrested' people, as did the NKVD, because they were denounced, supposedly, by someone for a 'crime.' This kid did nothing. These cops were pos throwing their weight around. I'd take this case in a minute--and against a United States soldier. I would venture there is a pattern of this type of activity in a department with scumbags like this wearing badges. That makes it a 1983, and as I believe I have stated in other postings, 42 USC 21 ~1983 means they can shove their badges up their asses. NO immunity. If the PFC is a minority, then Title 18 comes into play, as well. Get real, Leo
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    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
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    If they did, in fact get a call about you pointing a gun out the window, wouldn't they have arrested you? They may have got a 'man with a gun' call, not the same as threatening people. After violating your rights they may have realized they made a mistake. If they got a brandishing call then they can justify the way your were stopped and treated and the illegal search. 'course maybe they did get a call you were pointing it out the window. However, I think if they didi you would have went to jail.

    I'd start with a FOIA request for the 911 call and all communications internally regarding the call/your stop.
    +1
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    PFC Helms wrote:
    Only when you are under arrest does it apply.He can pat you down for weapons. You do not describe howdeep the search goes. Does he go into your pockets?
    the search of my personal being did include the pockets as well as my wallet.
    LEO 229 Says: They should not have gone into your pockets. They can only pat down the outer clothing and snatching your wallet was wrong too. A complaint may be in order here.



    They do not need to ask permission. The vehicle can be checked for any place a weapon could be stored and accessed by the occupants. They could not go into a trunk without asking.
    The vehicle was a SUV and they searched the entire vehicle.

    LEO 229 Says: They should not have gone that far back into the vehicle. Only to the point where you could both reach at the front seat.



    It seems rather odd that you had the upper for a rifle and someone complained that you pointed it out the window. The only person that saw it was the cashier who talked to you but I hardly think she had time to stop taking orders to call the police on you. And then.... why would she call and say you pointed it out the window?
    As stated in the OP I had the upper because I was headed to pick up the lower for it and the dealer my friend asked me to bring it to show him the progress. I agree there was no one else that was able to have seen it. and that last one is a very good question which I do not have the answer to.

    LEO 229 Says: If neither of you were pointing it out the window or holding it up to admire it... someone says you did it. I would submit the FOIA and see exactly what was reported.



    I wasn't arrested. but placed in handcuffs That is where i think my rights were violated. because i was detained without reason. As i stated in the OP the driver my friend wasn't placed in cuffs. we are both KYARNG. He is a MP and I am a Tanker.
    LEO 229 Says: Being placed in cuffs during an investigative detention is permitted and will not be a violation of your rights. The police received a complaint so it is not like they just decided to pull you over and do it. As I recall... you stated he told you that you were not under arrest and you were beingrestrained [Detained???]



    I also agree that we can be removed from the vehicle but it was the fact that not only was i removed but placed in handcuffs that bugs me
    LEO 229 Says: The officers are dealing with a knownweapon involved.... Check out the video and see what happened to this officer when he tried to pat down a guy who was not cuffed.








    Posted before I saw this from LEO. He is spot on in where they violated your rights, in re illegal Terry search, if that's what it was, except that when you are held against your will, you are arrested, or in some states, falsely detained. Also, he overlooks the battery committed when you are touched--handcuffed or searched, without consent. I agree, now that I have calmed down--I despise affronts to the liberties many of us have fought to protect, if there was a call making said claim and the cops found nothing, the citizen, and I use the term lightly, filed a false accusation. That, in every state, is a crime--in many states, don't know KY specifics, false accusation of a felony is a felony. The PFC needs to follow up and have charges brought against the complainent. LEO, have a doughnut on me.:P
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Springfield, Va, , USA
    Posts
    354

    Post imported post

    Evil Ernie wrote:
    "Officer Safety" and "Probable Cause" are all they need to trample the Constitution. Sickening isn't it?
    Might I remind us all how the SCOTUS ruled in Terry v. Ohio:

    "[W]here a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken." [392 U.S. 1, 30, 31].

    Also a Terry pat for weapons may be applied to a vehicle.

    "The search, of "frisk," of an automobile's passenger compartment is limited to those areas and any containers in which a weapon may be placed or hidden. The officer must possess reasonable suspicion that the person is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. The frisk of a car is limited to those areas where a weapon might be, unlike a SILA search of an automobile that allows the officer to search anywhere in the passenger compartment, regardless of whether the area searched may contain a weapon or destructable evidence." (pp. 345-346
    Garland, Norman M., and Gilbert B. Stuckey. Criminal Evidence for the Law Enforcement Officer: Fourth Edition. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998.)

    Were the officer's actions illegal based upon the PFC's Post? No. Do I like what happened to the PFC? No. Would I be mad if it happened to me? Yes. Would I follow up with the FOIA requests? Yes!


    Happy Carrying,



    Jason

    Edited for Citations

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post


    A detention is NOT the same as an arrest. Charges must be placed for it to be an arrest.

    Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution a police officer is permitted to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion, that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The ability to detain an individual under these circumstances is typically referred to as investigative detention.

    Under the United States Constitution, a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest (State v. Lipscomb, 258 Conn. 68, 75, (2001); Terry v. Ohio, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

    The police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. A court reviewing the legality of such a detention must look to the whole situation when determining whether detention is justified and consider if the detaining officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity (State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (2006)).

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:

    A detention is NOT the same as an arrest. Charges must be placed for it to be an arrest.

    Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution a police officer is permitted to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion, that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The ability to detain an individual under these circumstances is typically referred to as investigative detention.

    Under the United States Constitution, a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest (State v. Lipscomb, 258 Conn. 68, 75, (2001); Terry v. Ohio, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

    The police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. A court reviewing the legality of such a detention must look to the whole situation when determining whether detention is justified and consider if the detaining officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity (State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (2006)).
    Res ipsa loquitur, by your definitions--to which I affirm, this was a false arrest. An unsubstantiated call by someone who could be a lunatic, have a grudge, or just likes to call cops is not enough. A quick visual search would have established no rifle in the car. The cops, unless they were gutless pos, could have asked the guys to stand over there and had one watch them while the other quickly established there was no rifle and therefor no possibility of crime. End of situation. They exceeded--by your citations, and I could provide a dozen that support my take, reasonable detention. When that is exceeded, it is false detention or false arrest--and those are the same in a tort action. And there is nothing, not a f*&*&*&gword in the Constitution that allows a cop to violate someone's rights. It is case law you're talking about. The 4th amendment prohibits what you're saying, not allows it. Only crypto-fascist ******* judges have given the cops too much power to act like stormtroopers, NOT the Constitution.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Springfield, Va, , USA
    Posts
    354

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:

    A detention is NOT the same as an arrest. Charges must be placed for it to be an arrest.

    Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution a police officer is permitted to detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion, that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The ability to detain an individual under these circumstances is typically referred to as investigative detention.

    Under the United States Constitution, a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest (State v. Lipscomb, 258 Conn. 68, 75, (2001); Terry v. Ohio, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

    The police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. A court reviewing the legality of such a detention must look to the whole situation when determining whether detention is justified and consider if the detaining officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity (State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (2006)).
    Res ipsa loquitur, by your definitions--to which I affirm, this was a false arrest. An unsubstantiated call by someone who could be a lunatic, have a grudge, or just likes to call cops is not enough. A quick visual search would have established no rifle in the car. The cops, unless they were gutless pos, could have asked the guys to stand over there and had one watch them while the other quickly established there was no rifle and therefor no possibility of crime. End of situation. They exceeded--by your citations, and I could provide a dozen that support my take, reasonable detention. When that is exceeded, it is false detention or false arrest--and those are the same in a tort action. And there is nothing, not a f*&*&*&gword in the Constitution that allows a cop to violate someone's rights. It is case law you're talking about. The 4th amendment prohibits what you're saying, not allows it. Only crypto-fascist ******* judges have given the cops too much power to act like stormtroopers, NOT the Constitution.
    I do not like it one bit, however this was not an arrest. However in a quick visual search, the officer probably would have seen the AR upper on the dashboard and therefore upon further investigation and the statement by the OP of their being a sidearm in the glove compartment and it was loaded. This all happened prior to the OP being detained and handcuffs, then the OP was Mirandized (the officer was covering his ass incase he needed to start questioning the OP*) A person in handcuffs that has been stopped by the police does not have to be Mirandized until there is custody (when a police offier restrains a person in a manner consistent with a formal arrest) and an interrogation (express questioning or its functional equivalent, that is, any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect.*).

    A violation of the 4th amendment is only going to restrict evidence collected via an unlawful search or seizure from being admissable in court (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). In another thread i found:

    Gunslinger wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    Can you fix speeding tickets?
    When you say "Fix" Do you mean the miles were too low and need to be increased on your ticket?

    I cannot give legal advise.... but I can tell you privately where you stand based on the details. I did save a OC member from a ticket last month.

    My history of speeding tickets is: win 5, lose 1 (reduced to 5 over), 1 'tie.' (took driving school when I was 21) Having a JD comes in handy!

    Congrats on your 'promotion.' Now go out and buy a nice gun with your raise!
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=10758&forum_id=65&jump_t o=174974#p174974

    What I gather is that you have a JD also known as Juris Doctor and therefore have graduated from a law school. Please correct me if i am wrong or incorrect in assuming you have a Juris Doctor. I also gather that you have received seven speeding tickets? But you ask LEO229 in the same post if one can "fix speeding tickets." Certainly someone with a JD would know how to expunge items on their driving/criminal records. Perhaps chasing too many ambulances/police cars although if you follow LEO229's cruiser too close you will probably end up hearing "Press Hard, 5 Copies."

    What I might be suggesting is taking a more objective stance and while I can share in the irritation of the circumstance the OP was placed in, I see no unlawful arrest or battery.

    Happy Carrying,



    Jason

    *pp 522, 524 (Garland, Norman M., and Gilbert B. Stuckey. Criminal Evidence for the Law Enforcement Officer: Fourth Edition. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998.)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    What I gather is that you have a JD also known as Juris Doctor and therefore have graduated from a law school. Please correct me if i am wrong or incorrect in assuming you have a Juris Doctor. I also gather that you have received seven speeding tickets? But you ask LEO229 in the same post if one can "fix speeding tickets." Certainly someone with a JD would know how to expunge items on their driving/criminal records. Perhaps chasing too many ambulances/police cars although if you follow LEO229's cruiser too close you will probably end up hearing "Press Hard, 5 Copies."

    What I might be suggesting is taking a more objective stance and while I can share in the irritation of the circumstance the OP was placed in, I see no unlawful arrest or battery.

    Happy Carrying,


    Yes, I do, Northwestern, although being employed as a Program Manager for the Air Force, I don't practice, except de facto for you tax payers. And I would have thought my joking about fixing traffic tickets was obvious! I was welcoming LEO to his exhalted position with some kidding around. BTW, there is no need to expunge, by motion or petition, a simple violation like speeding. They disappear in a statutory time from your driving record. And my ticket count goes back to when I was a boy with a GTO back in the day. Recent history finds only two, one for a radar detector violation in VA which I beat--and they are supposedly impossible to beat, yet there is a gaping hole in the statute which I walked the cop and judge through, and a reduced to 5 over while driving an 'arrest me red' Trans Am.

    In re the op, I don't agree with you. I believe there is standing for a tort action, based only upon what op has said and the fact that a rifle is not easily concealed. The loaded pistol in the glovebox, notwithstanding, I refer only to the complaint-response, over-reach of a Terry stop. However, this has run it's course, the reasonable man would think, so enough said.



    PS I should add, my posts are not intended as a personal, or otherwise,attack on LEO, simply my outrage that a member of our armed forces has, ostensibly, had the rights denied that he serves to protect.

    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Springfield, Va, , USA
    Posts
    354

    Post imported post

    I doubt we will agree on everything, so perhaps we will agree to disagree? Thank you for serving and thanks for joining in on the spirited debate. If i may say i am sorry for some of the rude statements i made in my post. Last night i was cranky and had been up for 26 hours...stupid work


    happy carrying,


    jason

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Reasonable men, especially those who agree on the most important issues, always have room to disagree. No offense taken, as my favorite jokes are about lawyers: What would you call the Titanic if it had been full of lawyers? A good beginning. As to my service to our country, it was my pleasure, but you're welcome.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Bowling Green, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    61

    Post imported post

    Everybody who is interested I am going today 19MAY2008 Monday to file the complaint and the FOIA request and I will update with what I find out.

    Thanks for the Interesting point of views. I really appreciate the broad scope of view that everyone has to offerand will do my best to convey the OC crowd as one of respect, responsible, and understanding people. I treat every time I wear my weapon as one that I am wearing my Uniform. Acting in a manner that will bring no dishonor upon Myself, My fellow Soldiers, The Army, or The United States. Just as when I wear my weapon Iact in a manner that will bringno dishonor upon Myself, My fellow OCer's, or the United States.

    Thanks Again for the support.



    Helms, Thomas S.
    PFC
    1/149th BSTB
    U.S. Army



  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    PFC Helms wrote:
    I treat every time I wear my weapon as one that I am wearing my Uniform. Acting in a manner that will bring no dishonor upon Myself, My fellow Soldiers, The Army, or The United States. Just as when I wear my weapon Iact in a manner that will bringno dishonor upon Myself, My fellow OCer's, or the United States.
    Honor is a virtue oft forgotten in our modern age, and a virtue perhaps never more needed. Your phrasing touched me. God's speed and best of luck with today's mission to assert your rights.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •