Some Code that you should know before you believe what others say.

imported post

[align=justify]Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons[/align] [align=justify]A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.[/align] [align=justify]B. When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this Article and reasonably suspects that he is in danger, he may frisk the outer clothing of such person for a dangerous weapon. If the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects the person possesses a dangerous weapon, he may search the person.[/align] [align=justify]C. If the law enforcement officer finds a dangerous weapon, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.[/align] [align=justify]D. During detention of an alleged violator of any provision of the motor vehicle laws of this state, an officer may not detain a motorist for a period of time longer than reasonably necessary to complete the investigation of the violation and issuance of a citation for the violation, absent reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. However, nothing herein shall prohibit a peace officer from compelling or instructing the motorist to comply with administrative or other legal requirements of Title 32 or Title 47 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.[/align] [align=justify]Added by Acts 1968, No. 305, §1. Amended by Acts 1982, No. 686, §1; Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 32, §1; Acts 1997, No. 759, §3, eff. July 10, 1997.[/align]

Is there any way for you to know if a LEO has been called to investigate a "person with a gun"? No.
And guess what? IF a LEO gets that call he cannot ignore it.
So, before you act foolish, you should know that the LEO may be acting within the law to demand your name.
He/she HAS THE RIGHT to stop you and ask you questions if you are in a public place or on private property.

Most OC encounters with LEOs can be simple, pleasant conversations. If you have a bad attitude or act hostile, it can escalate.

imported post

derf,

This has been posted many times before, but thanks for showing it again, as there may be some people who need to see it.

This is the Louisiana code for what's generally known as a "Terry stop," after the legal ruling in Terry v. Ohio. Unfortunately, many LEO are not trained in this simple rule. Before they begin questioning, they should articulate their "resonable suspicion" of the crime they intend to ask questions about.

In Louisiana, the State Supreme Court has refined this somewhat as concerns open carry with 2 rulings: State v Fluker, and State v Farrand. In State v. Fluker, the Court affirmed that OC was both legal and a state constitutionally protected right (note STATE, not US). In State v. Farrand, the court affirmed that OC in and of itelf was NOT a valid reason for a "Terry stop."

That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.

Also, CCRP 215.1 does not require you to show any form of ID. You may simply tell the officer your name and address; and that suffices to fulfill the requirement.

imported post

That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.

Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat here. It means that if an officer sees you OCing that in itself is not enough for a stop. But, if there is a report and the officer is investigating, then he can do the stop.
If there is a call, then the LEO must investigate. If he just glances and sees a guy OCing he has not fulfilled his duty to investigate.

My point is you don't know if a call has been made or not. So, you shouldn't be hostile and defensive if questioned. There are situations where the Terry stop is legal and warranted.

This is to contradict other's (s357poc's for example) notion that LEOs who ask questions are civil rights violating nazis that should spend time in jail.

imported post

A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.

Click to expand...

As XD said, this is just Louisiana's version of "reasonable articulable suspicion". The cop has to believe the "perp" has just committed or is about to commit a crime, and must be able to articulate the reason he is initiating the stop.

It means that if an officer sees you OCing that in itself is not enough for a stop. But, if there is a report and the officer is investigating, then he can do the stop.

Click to expand...

An MWAG call is not enough for a stop under this code, because possession of a holstered firearm is in no way indicative that a crime is about to be committed.

imported post

HungSquirrel wrote:

A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.

Click to expand...

As XD said, this is just Louisiana's version of "reasonable articulable suspicion". The cop has to believe the "perp" has just committed or is about to commit a crime, and must be able to articulate the reason he is initiating the stop.

It means that if an officer sees you OCing that in itself is not enough for a stop. But, if there is a report and the officer is investigating, then he can do the stop.

Click to expand...

An MWAG call is not enough for a stop under this code, because possession of a holstered firearm is in no way indicative that a crime is about to be committed.

Click to expand...

OK, but how can you know that the LEO doesn't reasonably suspect you are about to commit a crime?

The way the law is written the cop can stop you if.......
There is no way for you to know if...... or if not...........

The question then becomes why is there a MWAG call at all?
Unless it is understood that MWAG implies suspicious MWAG.
Suspicious MWAG should be investigated.

imported post

derf wrote:

SNIP Unless it is understood that MWAG implies suspicious MWAG.
Suspicious MWAG should be investigated.

Click to expand...

Before the argument really gets going, may I suggest y'all be very specific.

For example, what is a suspicious MWAG? This phrasing leaves the door open to alternate interpretations. Court cases are clear that hunches and so forth are not sufficient for a Terry Stop. See Terry vs Ohio. Thus, a "suspicious" MWAG, in order to legally justify a non-consensual encounter, must have connected with him also other circumstances that courts already have or would recognize as reasonable justification for a Terry Stop.

The main point being that, if y'all are specific in your phrasing, you'll avoid a needless argument. If you cite your legal authorities, people will learn stuff, too.

imported post

derf wrote:

SNIP The question then becomes why is there a MWAG call at all?

Click to expand...

This is why dispatchers learn to ask, "What is he doing with the gun? Is it in a holster? How is he acting?" Etc.

As I understand it, dispatchers in jurisdictions where OC is a little more common already know to ask this.

imported post

derf wrote:

[align=justify]Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons[/align] [align=justify]A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense [/align]

Click to expand...

And this would ever apply to an OC'er, how?

imported post

derf wrote:

That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.

Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat here.

Click to expand...

Then you really don't get the whole "civil liberties" thing. Carrying a gun. absent more, does not permit the government to ask you a single question.

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

derf wrote:

That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.

Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat here.

Click to expand...

Then you really don't get the whole "civil liberties" thing. Carrying a gun. absent more, does not permit the government to ask you a single question.

Click to expand...

Smoking,

I appreciate your zeal. But, it takes two to fight. I'm betting that if youcool it, the others will, too. Maybe I'm wrong, but its worth a try.



Separately, taking your last post literally, the police do not need reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to ask questions consensually. From a legal standpoint, they do not need any justification to ask questions consensually. I am hoping you were just being imprecise. In case not, and for the benefit of others, here is a quote that leads in that direction.

As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification. US vMendenhall. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

derf wrote:

[align=justify]Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons[/align] [align=justify]A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense [/align]

Click to expand...

And this would ever apply to an OC'er, how?

Click to expand...

Go away. We are trying to have a rational discussion here.

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

derf wrote:

That means that an LEO has no legal justification for questioning someone simply for a "man with a gun" call. The person with the gun has to be doing something else ILLEGAL for the LEO to be justified in making a stop under CCRP 215.1.

Click to expand...

I disagree somewhat here.

Click to expand...

Then you really don't get the whole "civil liberties" thing. Carrying a gun. absent more, does not permit the government to ask you a single question.

Click to expand...

Be off! You are not following the discussion.

imported post

Separately, taking your last post literally, the police do not need reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to ask questions consensually. From a legal standpoint, they do not need any justification to ask questions consensually. I am hoping you were just being imprecise. In case not, and for the benefit of others, here is a quote that leads in that direction. As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification. US v Mendenhall. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html

Click to expand...

Can refusing to answer then become RAS to escalate? I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.
If you refuse to answer, might that be suspicious?

imported post

derf wrote:

Separately, taking your last post literally, the police do not need reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) to ask questions consensually. From a legal standpoint, they do not need any justification to ask questions consensually. I am hoping you were just being imprecise. In case not, and for the benefit of others, here is a quote that leads in that direction. As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification. US v Mendenhall. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html

Click to expand...

Can refusing to answer then become RAS to escalate? I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.
If you refuse to answer, might that be suspicious?

Click to expand...

Which is why the first response to a non-consensual conversation should be:

Am I being detained? (or, Am I free to depart?)

Second question if the response is "yes."

What crime am I under suspicion of having committed, committing, or about to commit? (or similar question)

Absent RAS, the first response from LE should be NO.

If the first LE response is YES, then there should be a "RAS" response to question #2.
Absent a RAS response to question #2, the first question should be repeated.

imported post

Which is why the first response to a non-consensual conversation should be: Am I being detained? (or, Am I free to depart?) Second question if the response is "yes." What crime am I under suspicion of having committed, committing, or about to commit? (or similar question) Absent RAS, the first response from LE should be NO. If the first LE response is YES, then there should be a "RAS" response to question #2. Absent a RAS response to question #2, the first question should be repeated.

Click to expand...

OK, I can understand that. Thanks for the reasonable response.

imported post

derf wrote:

Which is why the first response to a non-consensual conversation should be: Am I being detained? (or, Am I free to depart?) Second question if the response is "yes." What crime am I under suspicion of having committed, committing, or about to commit? (or similar question) Absent RAS, the first response from LE should be NO. If the first LE response is YES, then there should be a "RAS" response to question #2. Absent a RAS response to question #2, the first question should be repeated.

Click to expand...

OK, I can understand that. Thanks for the reasonable response.

Click to expand...

Note that in my scenario, NO answers would be given. Such non-answer should not become "RAS" for any continued detainment.

imported post

derf wrote:

SNIP

Click to expand...

SNIP Can refusing to answer then become RAS to escalate?

Click to expand...

It seems to me there is a court case that expressly says refusing to answer does not furnish RAS, but darned if I can recall it. If it comes to me, I'll post it and PM you.

imported post

derf wrote:

SNIP I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.

Click to expand...

There are a couple different views on this here on OCDO.

I am in the school that thinks the smart thing is to comply while verbally, politely refusing consent.

You really have no way to know whether the LEO has genuine RAS. Remember also, that LEOs are not necessarily going to say, "there was a robbery at Main and 43rd." They are going to ask questions that do not reveal the whole picture to see if you will admit to something. The question is more likely to be something like, "Where did you come from?" Or, "Did you just come past 43rd Street?"

Also, I know of no law that requires an LEO to tell you his RAS.

And, I wouldn't trust them not to lie. Google the concept of "permissible deception." If he deliberately feeds you pieces, but not the whole picture, you might guess wrong. Remember, its not whether you think there is RAS during the encounter, its whether a court, later, will think there was RAS.

But, none of that is the real problem. The real problem is that, in order to judge correctly with a high degree of certainty, you would have to know the myraid circumstances and combinations of circumstances that courts have already ruleddo provide RAS

More importantly, you would have to know what circumstances or combinations of circumstances any given court might rule amount to RAS. Meaning, will a court rule that the circumstances that led to your detention were sufficient to provide RAS. Basically, in the final analysis, you are trying to guess, with a cop in your face, whether next month the judge will say, "Yep, that was enough to be RAS."

So, for myself, I don't plan to rely too much on prying his RAS out of him. More precisely, I'll ask, repeatedly, but I won't act on it during the encounter.

The only thing I'll be doing isfishing to get information for the formal complaint.

About the only way you can know for sure whether he had RAS is to check for a 911 call, check with store management, review a few court cases maybe. But those are all things done after the encounter as homework preparatory to a formal complaint.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

derf wrote:

SNIP I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.

Click to expand...

There are a couple different views on this here on OCDO.

I am in the school that thinks the smart thing is to comply while verbally, politely refusing consent.

You really have no way to know whether the LEO has genuine RAS. Remember also, that LEOs are not necessarily going to say, "there was a robbery at Main and 43rd." They are going to ask questions that do not reveal the whole picture to see if you will admit to something. The question is more likely to be something like, "Where did you come from?" Or, "Did you just come past 43rd Street?"

Also, I know of no law that requires an LEO to tell you his RAS.

And, I wouldn't trust them not to lie. Google the concept of "permissible deception." If he deliberately feeds you pieces, but not the whole picture, you might guess wrong. Remember, its not whether you think there is RAS during the encounter, its whether a court, later, will think there was RAS.

But, none of that is the real problem. The real problem is that, in order to judge correctly with a high degree of certainty, you would have to know the myraid circumstances and combinations of circumstances that courts have already ruleddo provide RAS

More importantly, you would have to know what circumstances or combinations of circumstances any given court might rule amount to RAS. Meaning, will a court rule that the circumstances that led to your detention were sufficient to provide RAS. Basically, in the final analysis, you are trying to guess, with a cop in your face, whether next month the judge will say, "Yep, that was enough to be RAS."

So, for myself, I don't plan to rely too much on prying his RAS out of him. More precisely, I'll ask, repeatedly, but I won't act on it during the encounter.

The only thing I'll be doing isfishing to get information for the formal complaint.

About the only way you can know for sure whether he had RAS is to check for a 911 call, check with store management, review a few court cases maybe. But those are all things done after the encounter as homework preparatory to a formal complaint.

Click to expand...

While I think viewing every encounter with LEO as a potential formal complaint is a little pessimistic, I do agree with your overall message of the fact that the cards are stacked against you at the scene and after the incident is the time to take action.

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

Citizen wrote:

derf wrote:

SNIP I'm saying how do you know the LEO does not have RAS unless you speak with them? You can't know unless there is a conversation. You can know you are not doing anything wrong, but you can not know why the LEO is asking.

Click to expand...

SNIP There are a couple different views on this here on OCDO...

Click to expand...

While I think viewing every encounter with LEO as a potential formal complaint is a little pessimistic, I do agree with your overall message of the fact that the cards are stacked against you at the scene and after the incident is the time to take action.

Click to expand...

I understand.

Just to clarify and ensure we are talking about the same thing, I'm not here referring to the casual hello from a cop across the coffee counter at 7-Eleven. I am talking about a detention wherein the OCer is asking about RAS.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, something is left out of the above discussion:

Citizen's standard procedure for a police encounterinitiated by police is to say three things at inception:

1. Officer, no offense, I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to this encounter.
2. I do not consent to any searches or seizures.
3. I will not answer questions without an attorney.

If the LEO does not immediately disconnect, I then know, based on the very first statement, that I am being detained. Having refused consent to the encounter itself, if the officer asks even one question over top of my refused consent, it is a detention.

Thus, if I am fishing for RAS later in the encounter, I have already been detained.

Afterward, its just a matter of verifying the legality or illegality of the detention.

Do realize that if the officer is completely professional and in-bounds of 4A case law, he has little to worry about.Its the unprofessional police officer I'll be purposing to correct. And any others who hear about it.

About the only way Iwould be legally detained over my OCd gun is if someone made a false report to 911.

But, to be honest, I kinda doubt the police officer will escape unscathed from even a legal detention.I have read so many reports of police demanding ID in a nation where they have no authority to demand an ID document[suP]1[/suP], I'm guessing that even a legal detention will result in a formal complaint. Especially since I mainly live, work, and travel in jurisdictions that do not have even a stop-and-identify statute or ordinance. Basically, police seem to have gotten so used to being able to get away with making such ID document demand without authority, them seem to have completely forgotten they don't have the authority.



1. There is no law requiring citizens to carry ID. The US Supreme Ct. has ruled in effect that police may demandsomeone identify themselves (which is different than a demand to"lemme see some ID") only if two sets of circumstances exist:

• there is a stop-and-identify statute (or presumably ordinance)
• the officer has RAS

Brown vs Texas, Kolendar vs Lawson, Hiibel vs 6th Judicial Distric Ct. Here is a link to Hiibel

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

BIG NOTE. All you new guys, don't extend the rationale discussed in this footnote to anything except foot encounters where you have not been arrested yet. I am not a lawyer. And I am not trying to cover all circumstances--driving a car, entering a secure building, after arrest, etc., etc., etc.

Also, I have paraphrased what the court said.

And. Very important. Police have reported on this forum that if you refuse toshow ID when being cited, they will treat it as evidence you plan to skip the court date and arrest you.