• 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.

Supreme court decision that Open Carry

BobR

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
391
Location
West Plains, ,
imported post

As the title says, I am sure I saw the cite to the fact that open carry is not grounds to be stopped by the police. Can someone help me out and repost it?

thanks

bob

EDIT: I found what I was looking for in the templatethread.

thanks

bob
 

TechnoWeenie

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

Machoduck wrote:
So?  Was it State vs Casad, or did you find something even better? 

MD

Better.

A complaint in of itself is of no evidentiary value short of describing criminal conduct.

Someone calling in a MWAG is NOT sufficient to detain someone, as no law is being broken, UNLESS the officer can articulate WHY he thinks a law is,has been, or shortly will be, broken.

In addition, under Terry, one may only be patted down if it's reasonably believed that the suspect is armed and DANGEROUS.

So, even IF they can articulate why a detention is necessary, they have no grounds to remove your pistol from you unless they can articulate why you're a danger, and 'he's carrying a gun and we don't know him' won't pass muster...
 

BobR

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
391
Location
West Plains, ,
imported post

This paragraph,

"A mere report of a man with a gun is not grounds for a Terry stop. Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000). Americans cannot be required to carry and produce identification credentials on demand to the police. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Washington does not have a "stop and ID" statute. However, even where a state enacts a "stop and ID" statute, stop must be limited to situations where RAS exists of a crime, and further, stop subject's statement of his name satisfies the ID requirement as Kolender, discussed supra, has not been overruled. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004). Even where a state has established a duty to carry a license for some activity, absent RAS for the stop, the license cannot be demanded. State v. Peters, 2008 WL 2185754 (Wis. App. I Dist. 2008) (driver of vehicle has no duty to produce driver's license absent RAS) (citing Hiibel). Law enforcement officers seizing persons for refusal to show identification are "not entitled to dismissal of . . . [42 USC 1983 claims] based on qualified immunity." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884, 889 (8th Cir. 2008). "

from this excellent letter which has some very good material to read. The entire letter is here http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum55/11425-1.html.

If you want some good reading, at least I thought so, do a search on the cases. The reasoning for the decisons are good info.

Here is the one to Florida v J.L.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0529_0266_ZS.html



So yes, it is much better than State v Casad.

bob
 

Crackajack

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
59
Location
O-town, Washington, USA
imported post

I remembergetting into an argument with someone over this. (Mind you we were law enforcement cadets together, he isn't currently law enforcement)

He says, "The 9-1-1 call is sufficient reasoning to detain someone for a terry stop."

I replied "So if someone called 9-1-1 and said 'hey, there's a dude outside the mall eating an ice cream cone' would that be sufficient for a terry stop?"

He just said "yeah,I guess I can see what you mean."

:lol:
 
Top