joeroket wrote:
NavyLT wrote:
Notice that 9.04.110 states:
(27) "Threat" means to communicate, directly or indirectly the intent
an indirect communication with the intent....
(d) To accuse any person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against any person; or
So, you don't think that a uniformed officer giving you an order to do something doesn't carry with it the indirect intent that you will be charged if you do not comply? Especially to an average citizen who is not as familiar with their constitutional right to tell the officer basically to go ____ themselves because we know they have no legal ground to stand on?
27(d) is not part of the definition of threat as used in the coercion statute. only 27 (a, b, and c) are applicable. I do not think him telling the OP to put the firearm in the car is a threat as used in 9a.36.070.
It does not appear to me that there was an indirect threat and there definitely was not a direct threat. Police tell people to do a lot of things that there is no criminal penalty for if not followed. With the description of the event as told I do not see an intent to charge of a threat.
Unfortunately we do not know the exact circumstances but I will concede that it could be coercion under the right circumstances just not this one as told.
OK. So, as soon as the individual did not comply with the officer's request, as soon as the officer restrained the individual in any way, or threatened to restrain the individual in any way, then we would have a clear case of coercion.
This is exactly the way I read the statue for it to apply. With the exception of an indirect threat, which you noted earlier. An indirect threat, to me, would be one that they officer makes some kind of comment that a reasonable person would take to mean you would be detained or arrested if you did not comply.
My response to the officer would have been (and has been in my encounter in the past), "I'm sorry, sir, I am not covering up my firearm, and, if I am not being detained, I am carrying on about my legal behavior as I intended to do before you showed up."
I agree fully with this. You have done nothing wrong therefore he has no reasonable suspicion. If he does then he had better state it to you.
One of the big questions that would have to be researched is the definition of a threat. The coercion statute mention sections 25 (a)(b)(c). Then the note says that section 25 became 26 and later 27. Well, did the original section 25 have anything beyond subsection (c), or as part of the definition, were the later subsections beyond (c) added when it moved to section 26 and then 27? If the original section (25) was only parts (a)-(c) and with the subsequent revision more subparts were added, then I believe you would have a case to add all the later subparts to the definition of coercion as well.
The way they did the revisions to this is typical when they want to add a new section in the middle of the statute. They add the new one and simply re-number the remaining sections.
