LEO encounter today

youngwboi · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

I have been OCing for a few months now. I don't always OC, sometimes I CC, depends on my cloths for the day I guess, and where exactly I am going

.

Have had some interesting comments and discussions with people, mostly though good.

Have had my share of second looks and stares too.

Today I was approached by a TPD LEO.

I was picking up my niece from my sisters place in downtown Tacoma. The area is what I consider to be dangerous. Have been harrassed, etc... down there. Anyway, When Iarrived out frontof her apartments I noticed a police car parked outside (not to surprising, I thinkthere is a cop assigned to the apartments, cause I see one there often). I got out, and walked to the door to walk with my sister and her baby from the door to my car. I of course have my24/7 .40 on my hip.

I was putting my nieces car-seat base into the back seat when I seen the LEO come walking behind my truck and before I could turn around he was asking if I had a firearm. I told him yes. He asked if I had a permit to carry it and I told him yes I did have a CPL, but I wasOCing and was confusedwhy he would need to know if I had aconcealed license. He told mehe was asking because my shirt hadcovered it when I was bent over. He asked me to see my CPL, I showed him and he asked why I was not CCing, Itold him because I choose to OC for personal reasons, and today its because its not comfortable with my clothing to CC. He said okay thanks and have a nice day.And that was that. lol.

Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one. He was respectful and polite, although I don't think the part aboutit hadpartially been covered with my clothing actually made the weapon concealed, but he was polite, soI decided to be the same. I could have been dis-armed, or drawn on bya different LEO that was maybe not as well educated on the laws as this LEO seamed to be.

sv_libertarian · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

Excellent! It's about time TPD started behaving in a civilized fashion.

Derka · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

If you had just gotten out of your vehicle, and had been partially inside, as you said, that would have been a much better reason for his asking. The partially concealed thing sounds like a lame excuse to me. At least he was polite and didn't stick around to cause trouble.

amlevin · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

I think it went well. He could have waited until you got into your vehicle and then asked for a CPL. At that point you would have to show it.

Alwayspacking · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

Perfect... no harm no foul

carhas0 · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

amlevin wrote:

I think it went well. He could have waited until you got into your vehicle and then asked for a CPL. At that point you would have to show it.

He could have, but it would not necessarily have been justified (I say not necessarily because there could be other factors involved of which I am not aware, although it seems that in this case the probability of that is negligable).

I think a lot of people confuse the requirement to show the CPL when requested by a LEO with some notion that they may request it for any reason. This is not true because there is case law supporting the fact that there is no"firearm exception" to Terry, i.e. detaining for crimes relating to firearms requires reasonable suspicion just like any other crime (http://tinyurl.com/6n776c).

In other words, LEOs may not legally assume that just because someone gets into a car with a firearm that he or she does not have a CPL, and therefore the LEO cannot stop a vehicle or detain the person unless they do have RAS.

Edit: This is, of course, my personal opinion based on research and is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

Mainsail · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

youngwboi wrote:

Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.

A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.

shakul · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

youngwboi wrote:

Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.

Click to expand...

A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.

From what he wrote they don't ... The cop had no reason to ask... Just because his shirt "covered it while he was bent over" is no reason to ask someone if they have a CPL. for all intents and purposes this encounter should not have even happened.

sv_libertarian · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

No it shouldn't have happened at all, but it is a HUGE improvement over TPD's SOP.

joeroket · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

shakul wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

youngwboi wrote:

Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.

Click to expand...

A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.

Click to expand...

From what he wrote they don't ... The cop had no reason to ask... Just because his shirt "covered it while he was bent over" is no reason to ask someone if they have a CPL. for all intents and purposes this encounter should not have even happened.

I beg to differ. If an officer witnesses an article of clothing conceal a firearm then he does have the legal right to ask. Once the clothing covers the firearm we are required by law to produce our CPL upon demand to LEO.

sv_libertarian · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

Of course one could argue intent to conceal vs accidentally concealing, and if in the rather temporary nature of this encounter if it was a valid issue or not.

Mainsail · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

joeroket wrote:

shakul wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

youngwboi wrote:

Over all my LEO encounter was I think a good one.

Click to expand...

A lot of work went into your pleasant encounter. I’m glad the TPD knows the law.

Click to expand...

From what he wrote they don't ... The cop had no reason to ask... Just because his shirt "covered it while he was bent over" is no reason to ask someone if they have a CPL. for all intents and purposes this encounter should not have even happened.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. If an officer witnesses an article of clothing conceal a firearm then he does have the legal right to ask. Once the clothing covers the firearm we are required by law to produce our CPL upon demand to LEO.

Yes, we all know it's bull@#$%, but it's a HUGE improvement over their attitude only a year ago. I was told by a supervisory police sergeant that a firearm pretty much nulled all the requirements and restrictions of a Terry stop. I was told by a police sergeant that the TPD could stop anyone at any time for any reason.I was told that if I carried openly they would take my firearm and I could try to get it back from a judge.

No, this wasn't perfect, but then the OP didn't ask if he was being detained either. If you don't ask they can talk to you as long as they want, ask you for anything under the sun, and it's all consensual.

Reposting since there are some new folks around here that don’t seem to know their rights:

SNIP

First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established. Second, KNOW the laws in your state and KNOW your rights. Study Terry stops as well as what the limitations are on the police if you are stopped, detained, or arrested. Confidence is your best tool. Remember, if they could arrest you – they would. They wouldn’t waste time giving you a stern lecture, they would talk to you enough to get you to incriminate yourself and then just slap the cuffs on.

We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question. The rules and limits are different for a simple conversation, a detainment, and an arrest. You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and WALK AWAY. If the officer says yes, that he or she is detaining you, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” There is, after all, the possibility that their actions are justified and there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If you are being justifiably detained and you can help the officer, do so. If a guy wearing the same color shirt as you just robbed the 7-11, your cooperation can help the officer get back to looking for the real culprit.

If they cannot articulate a real crime for which they suspect your involvement, you need to begin objecting to their seizure. I say “real crime” because I once was told that I was being detained “because you’re carrying a gun”. Well, that’s not, all by itself, a crime. Feel free to point that out while you ask for a supervisor. If the law in your state does not require you to produce a concealed weapon permit or license when you are not carrying concealed; don’t. Are you worried he may arrest you or cite you for not doing so? Eh, so what. This is why it’s important to KNOW the law. It would be best if the supervisor arrives and defuses the situation before it comes to arrest, but don’t be so intimidated by the possibility that you waive your other rights. If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING. From the point they tell you you’re under arrest, say absolutely nothing other than the information they need for your booking sheet (name, address, etc.) until you receive competent legal advice. It’s unlikely it will come to that though. Think about it, the officer is so antagonized that he’s being verbally abusive to you, but he’s willing to “do you a favor” by not arresting you if you would just comply. Recognize it for what it is; a bluff.

deepdiver · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.

Bear 45/70 · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.

How can the cop be acting on good faith and be breaking the law at the same time? The cop stepped over the line and had no PC to even approch the op.

adamsesq · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

Reposting since there are some new folks around here that don’t seem to know their rights:

SNIP

First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established. Second, KNOW the laws in your state and KNOW your rights. Study Terry stops as well as what the limitations are on the police if you are stopped, detained, or arrested. Confidence is your best tool. Remember, if they could arrest you – they would. They wouldn’t waste time giving you a stern lecture, they would talk to you enough to get you to incriminate yourself and then just slap the cuffs on.

We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question. The rules and limits are different for a simple conversation, a detainment, and an arrest. You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and WALK AWAY. If the officer says yes, that he or she is detaining you, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” There is, after all, the possibility that their actions are justified and there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If you are being justifiably detained and you can help the officer, do so. If a guy wearing the same color shirt as you just robbed the 7-11, your cooperation can help the officer get back to looking for the real culprit.

If they cannot articulate a real crime for which they suspect your involvement, you need to begin objecting to their seizure. I say “real crime” because I once was told that I was being detained “because you’re carrying a gun”. Well, that’s not, all by itself, a crime. Feel free to point that out while you ask for a supervisor. If the law in your state does not require you to produce a concealed weapon permit or license when you are not carrying concealed; don’t. Are you worried he may arrest you or cite you for not doing so? Eh, so what. This is why it’s important to KNOW the law. It would be best if the supervisor arrives and defuses the situation before it comes to arrest, but don’t be so intimidated by the possibility that you waive your other rights. If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING. From the point they tell you you’re under arrest, say absolutely nothing other than the information they need for your booking sheet (name, address, etc.) until you receive competent legal advice. It’s unlikely it will come to that though. Think about it, the officer is so antagonized that he’s being verbally abusive to you, but he’s willing to “do you a favor” by not arresting you if you would just comply. Recognize it for what it is; a bluff.

Click to expand...

Mainsail - as I asked in another thread a few minutes ago, and in accordance with the ideals of opencarry.org, can you please provide some cites to back this up/support it.

-adamsesq

Mainsail · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.

Slack? I disagree, it’s not an ‘us vs them’ situation. They MUST have, at minimum, a reasonable specifically articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. They cannot merely be suspicious because you are carrying a gun. If you are willing to yield some of your rights to keep others [the ones authorized by the police], you have no rights at all. We should all cooperate with the police whenever we can, but we can cooperate without sacrificing or rights.

Mainsail · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

adamsesq wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

Reposting since there are some new folks around here that don’t seem to know their rights:

SNIP

First, remember that arrest is very rare in any of the anchor states (PA VA WA UT NV AZ etc) where OC is established. Second, KNOW the laws in your state and KNOW your rights. Study Terry stops as well as what the limitations are on the police if you are stopped, detained, or arrested. Confidence is your best tool. Remember, if they could arrest you – they would. They wouldn’t waste time giving you a stern lecture, they would talk to you enough to get you to incriminate yourself and then just slap the cuffs on.

We shouldn’t see so many posts in these forums where the conversation with the police officers are so long. It’s futile to argue with them! They are not going to “learn” anything from you, even if you have the entire volume of firearms laws printed and in your pocket.

The FIRST thing out of your mouth in any police encounter (that you didn’t initiate by calling them) should be, “Am I being detained?” Everything hinges on the answer to that question. The rules and limits are different for a simple conversation, a detainment, and an arrest. You need to establish, right from the start, what the officer is doing so you know what your obligations and the officer’s limitations are.

Remember, the officer can only legally seize you if he has reasonable articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime. He cannot rely on you giving him the articulable part during the conversation; he has to have that first. If you are not being detained, politely wish the officer a nice day and WALK AWAY. If the officer says yes, that he or she is detaining you, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” There is, after all, the possibility that their actions are justified and there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that you were involved in a crime. If you are being justifiably detained and you can help the officer, do so. If a guy wearing the same color shirt as you just robbed the 7-11, your cooperation can help the officer get back to looking for the real culprit.

If they cannot articulate a real crime for which they suspect your involvement, you need to begin objecting to their seizure. I say “real crime” because I once was told that I was being detained “because you’re carrying a gun”. Well, that’s not, all by itself, a crime. Feel free to point that out while you ask for a supervisor. If the law in your state does not require you to produce a concealed weapon permit or license when you are not carrying concealed; don’t. Are you worried he may arrest you or cite you for not doing so? Eh, so what. This is why it’s important to KNOW the law. It would be best if the supervisor arrives and defuses the situation before it comes to arrest, but don’t be so intimidated by the possibility that you waive your other rights. If they’re foolish enough to actually arrest you, STOP TALKING. From the point they tell you you’re under arrest, say absolutely nothing other than the information they need for your booking sheet (name, address, etc.) until you receive competent legal advice. It’s unlikely it will come to that though. Think about it, the officer is so antagonized that he’s being verbally abusive to you, but he’s willing to “do you a favor” by not arresting you if you would just comply. Recognize it for what it is; a bluff.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mainsail - as I asked in another thread a few minutes ago, and in accordance with the ideals of opencarry.org, can you please provide some cites to back this up/support it.

-adamsesq

Cite of what? Google 'Terry Stop'

deepdiver · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

While it may be possible to argue that it shouldn't have happened in the first place, had it been me, I would have handled it as youngwboi did. I think the LEO was acting in good faith and doing his job as well as he could, as politely as he could. Obviously this is a problem area if LEOs park there regularly. There are some times I think we just need to cut the LEOs some slack. We all have at some point committed some violation of a law and if caught would appreciate a little slack from the LEO such as in a minor speeding situation. I think we also can reasonably cut the LEOs some slack in an encounter such as this.

Click to expand...

How can the cop be acting on good faith and be breaking the law at the same time? The cop stepped over the line and had no PC to even approch the op.

Per law.com, the legal definition:

[font="arial, helvetica, swiss"]good faith
n. honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.[/font]

So yes, I maintain that my impression is that the LEO was acting in good faith.

bcp · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

He told me he was asking because my shirt had covered it when I was bent over.

If he only sees it for a short time--hard to tell if it is CC sometimes exposed or OC sometimes concealed.

Bruce

adamsesq · Oct 28, 2008

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

adamsesq wrote:

Mainsail - as I asked in another thread a few minutes ago, and in accordance with the ideals of opencarry.org, can you please provide some cites to back this up/support it.

-adamsesq

Click to expand...

Cite of what? Google 'Terry Stop'

What you wrote here goes WAY beyond Terry. It may all stem from there but it is not all included in Terry.

In fact you just wrote "They cannot merely be suspicious because you are carrying a gun." That may actually be contradictory to what Terry says.

I want you to be right and am not disagreeing with you,but it is a lot of legal assertions that I haven't seen any cites to back up. I could be wrong but I thought cites were required with an legal assertions here?

-adamsesq

LEO encounter today

New member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member