imported post
Landose_theghost wrote:
Well earlier today I was at my local Wal-mart. I was wearing my 6" Bootknife, and had my 3 inch Folder on my waist as I always do (In plain sight mind you). Upon exiting the Wal-mart, I was approached by an officer who says and I quote, "Sir,Sir...SIR!, If you could take a step over here with me please,I'm going to need to have a word with you."I asked him why this was happening and he continued to bark orders about how I need to keep my hands where he could see them, place your hands on your head, and the old standbye "Do you have any weapons on you" LOL. I'm on the squadcar at this point, Disarmed, and put into the backseat with cuffs on. sat there for around 10 minutes after my record came back clear with no warrants. The officer said that I was being detained as a precaution. And that me OC'n my knives, was making people "Nervous". I believe his Chief or something showed up and sent me on my way, he returned my knives and told me that I was "Just Asking" for trouble walking around armed. So I guess all in all I did get my knives back, but was any of that legal? I mean I was keeping to myself, had a cartfull of groceries, and was clearly not being a threat to anyone, but I still get treated like a criminal. idk, feel free to comment on this fiasco guys...thanks!
Was any of that legal? I don't know the law on carrying knives in your state, but based soley on what you've reported, and the assumption that you were not doing anything illegal, and on the assumption that the 911 caller did not report you were doing something illegal orreport you looked like you were getting ready to rob the place, or hurt someone, then
hell no,it was not legal for the police to detain you.
There are reams and reams of court opinions splitting split hairs on whatcircumstances do and do not justify detaining someone. Disarming that someone is a part of that stack of court opinions.
The starting point is a US Supreme Court decision called
Terry vs Ohio.[suP]1[/suP]The very abbreviated version is that police need reasonable suspicionthat a crime is, was, or is about to be committed. Police may patdown someone for weapons for officer safety, and disarm someoneof any weapons found, but there must first bereasonable suspicion of a crime.Those reams of court opinions I mentioned earlier examine, case by case, whether certain circumstances in the case under examination amount to being reasonably suspicious. So, there is more to this area of law. But the abbreviated version will get you started.
The applicable right is the 4th Amendment--the one that guarantees your right against unreasonable searches and seizures. You and your knives were definitely seized.[suP]2[/suP]
If you find out that the 911 call did not allege something illegal, I recommend a formal complaint making it very clear:
- you consider your 4th Amendment rightswere violated,
- that you will not tolerate such,
- that you want the officers involved trained, at a minimum
- that you want the dispatchers trained to ask, "What is he doing with the knife/gun? Is it in a sheath/holster?"
- that you are not interested in their editorializing ("just asking for trouble") and anything else they might have said.
- that you want to know what the department is going to do about it.
If you cannot obtain a copy of the 911 call recording, you can infer that nothing dangerous or illegal was alleged in the 911 call by the police officer's statement that "people were nervous".
Its just me, but, early in the complaint, after reciting the facts,I wouldthank them for confessing that they plan to continue violatingmy 4A rights by telling me that I am"just asking for trouble."
Use the forum search feature to find out more about writing formal complaints.
Below are excerpts from two court opinions applicable to your situation. Please take some time to read the entire opinions at the links below. Also, realize they are not the whole picture in all cases of police detaining someone.
1.
Terry vs Ohio
...It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person...
...And, in justifying the particular intrusion, 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...
...And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience... (emphasis added)
...We merely hold today that, where 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... (emphasis added)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html
2.
US vs Mendenhall
...The Fourth Amendment's requirement that searches and seizures be founded upon an objective justification, governs all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest... (emphasis added)
...We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.[suP] [n6][/suP] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. (emphasis added)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html
