First Encounter with Law Enforcement

imported post

I realize that you aren't condemning anyone and I totally understand where you are coming from but someone needs to play the devils advocate here so that this is better understood andso that we don't find ourselves in a self-induced legal quandry.

B-M,
A person with anopenly carried, holstered firearm is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. There must be other exigent circumstance involved.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. BUT a phone call may have well been the exigent circumstance needed for RAS. Like I said, you need to find a way to test the waters in a LEO encounter, to find out if they have RAS.

yes I agree, but an anonymous tip is not probable cause or reasonable articulate suspicion of a crime

Click to expand...

It sure can be RAS! If a call comes in and the caller says he saw a man ofa susectsdescription threaten another with a firearm the officer indeed has RAS. It's not probable cause, no. We'll have to see what the phone call was about when BNH gets it.

I stand up and fightfor all ofmy rights, waiving any of myrights becauseI want to be seen as cooperative is something I would never do.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

Once again, I think it's important that we send the message to people on this forum that if you want to exercise your rights, you need to know them. We just have to be careful to also temper that with whether or not the police, in a certain situation, have legal grounds to interfere with them. We don't need an obstruction charge, after all.

Police can come up and talk to anyone they darn well please, just like you or I can. If you are carrying a firearm, they're that much more likely to come up and check it out. I can come up to you and ask to see your ID too, if I want. Of course, you are under no obligation to show me. With the police, you may or may not be under obligation to show them, so find out if you are obligated or not.

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote

How do you know that there was no legal reason for the police to make contact with Hubert? Did you hear the phone call?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A phone call about a man with agun is not RAS of anything. Had the caller told ANY lie about Huberts conduct and he had refused to produce ID they STILL would not have RAS to DEMAND ID. So long as Hubert knew he had not committed any crime, he had no need to take note of police officers and could have gone about his business without giving them the time of day.RAS of an officeris dependant on the observedconduct of the suspect not the caller's observed conduct of a suspect.

If the information used by officers to effect stops and frisksis faulty, the stop and frisk(or any search) is unconstitutional and inadmissible in court. The officers are still liable to the injured parties, so police rarely depend entirely on any uncorroboratedtip alone to DEMAND anything.

imported post

depuddy dawg ofcifer am i obligated yes

arent wii full of devils advocacy

whoshe justice advocato

he he well said no1 advocato dei

imported post

Here is a snippet of relevant case-law that backs up my previous statements that an anonymous tip is not valid probable cause or reasonable articulate suspicion.

The United States Supreme Court, on March 29, 2000, handed down a decision that limits the power of police in stopping (and frisking) suspects.
In a rare unanimous decision, the Court held that the mere fact that police had received an uncorroborated anonymous tip describing a person who was said to possess a gun did not justify the police from "stopping" that individual for the purpose of conducting a frisk

Full text can be found here; http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/Anonymous.html

Constitutional law has always been of great interest to me, and I enjoy civilly debatingthe intricacies of it on this forum. Thank you for giving me the ability to do so.

Sincerely,
Harold Nutczak


EDIT; (after reading Para's post)
Parabellum, what do you say about us trying to get some of the monies Obama is spending to further our education? maybe we can see if our L-Sat scores wil get us into law school on the Govt's dime (our tax money by proxy actually) You seem to have the same attitude and drive as I when it comes to constitutional law and rights.

imported post

Parabellum wrote:

Brass Magnet wrote

How do you know that there was no legal reason for the police to make contact with Hubert? Did you hear the phone call?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[snip]
If the information used by officers to effect stops and frisksis faulty, the stop and frisk(or any search) is unconstitutional and inadmissible in court. The officers are still liable to the injured parties, so police rarely depend entirely on any uncorroboratedtip alone to DEMAND anything.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that is all after-the-fact. I have no doubt that, if brought to court, the officer will come up short. And I know that you know this from experience.

And you are right, I screwed up somewhere and said "Demand ID" when I should have said that they can demand that you identify yourself with RAS.:banghead: Definitely not the same thing!

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

Here is a snippet of relevant case-law that backs up my previous statements that an anonymous tip is not valid probable cause or reasonable articulate suspicion.

The United States Supreme Court, on March 29, 2000, handed down a decision that limits the power of police in stopping (and frisking) suspects.
In a rare unanimous decision, the Court held that the mere fact that police had received an uncorroborated anonymous tip describing a person who was said to possess a gun did not justify the police from "stopping" that individual for the purpose of conducting a frisk

Full text can be found here; http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/Anonymous.html

Constitutional law has always been of great interest to me, and I enjoy civilly debatingthe intricacies of it on this forum. Thank you for giving me the ability to do so.

Sincerely,
Harold Nutczak

Click to expand...

BTW, I'm enjoying this as well.

From your link:

In White, the police received an anonymous tip asserting that a woman was carrying cocaine and predicting that she would leave an apartment building at a specified time, get into a car matching a particular description, and drive to a named motel. Ibid. Standing alone, the tip would not have justified a Terry stop. Only after police observation showed that the informant had accurately predicted the woman's movements, we explained, did it become reasonable to think the tipster had inside knowledge about the suspect and therefore to credit his assertion about the cocaine. Although the Court held that the suspicion in White became reasonable after police surveillance, we regarded the case as borderline. Knowledge about a person's future movements indicates some familiarity with that person's affairs, but having such knowledge does not necessarily imply that the informant knows, in particular, whether that person is carrying hidden contraband. We accordingly classified White as a 'close case.'

Click to expand...

Although they call it "borderline"; let's say that an anonymous tipster, said that a guy with a gun was in a McDonalds pointing his firearm at a quarter pounder with cheese. When the police come to check it out and see that the man is actually armed the anonymous tipster seems to gain enough credibility to give the police RAS. At least, that's what it looks like from this cases "borderline" example.

imported post

I'm really surprised it took a month and a half to have one of us in the LaCrosse area to have a police encounter. Any at all, good or bad. I know for sure theres 4 of us that carry on a regular basis.



Glad it went well for ya Hubert. Also glad your son and others got to see it.

imported post

they key phrase in my argument is "uncorroborated tip"

A tip means nothing until police surveillance corroborates what they tipster stated. Even if the guy stated his name and was not anonymous placing the call. the police are limited by our constitution from acting any further. They can try to coerce a person to consent to a search, but he has no obligation to allow it.

Here is another scenario, lets say a person calls the police, and hestates thathisneighbor is beating on his wife and to get over there ASAP.

The police show up, they do not hear or see any corroborating evidence to back up the callers tale.
Does the tip alone give probable cause or RAS? I say it does not!


The policecannot legally enter the residence even iffor a well being checkunless they have probable cause or RAS.
Since they do not heara woman screaming, or sounds or sights of a fight and there is no blood splattered on windows or a beaten body clearly visible through a closed door or window or any other probable cause to act, All they could legally do at this point is knock on the door and ask permission to enter the dwelling.
If the occupant denies police entry to the dwelling, it is the end of the story without any other probable cause. They can threaten to get a warrant and try to coerce the occupant to let them in. But it ends there if the occupant refuses.

But if the guy answers the door and he is covered in blood, and they can see a body laying on the floor or hear someone screaming, then that gives them probable cause.

One other instance; lets saya motorist calls to report an allegeddrunk driver on the road, the caller states the guy was weaving all over the road and not maintaining a steady speed.
the police cannot issue a ticket to this alleged impaired driver unless they actually witness him operating the vehicle and then find probable cause for a traffic stop.
So lets say they identify the vehicle described in the call, they follow it and see no signs of impaired driving, no tail-lights out, no breach of other laws. Do the police have probable cause or RAS to initiate a traffic stop? Again I say no! (I am not digging for case law right now, but will post it later if requested)
the police must witness a transgression in progress or the evidence can be dismissed as hearsay in court.

Maybe I should let this little tidbit out too in case anyone is wrongfully accused of speeding, if you are clocked by laser or aircraft with one officer clocking, and the other making the actual stop, both officers must be present in court to testify against you. Not just the ticket writer because his testimony is strictly hearsay if the operator of the speed detection equipment is not present to testify and available for cross examination. That is one of the reason unmanned speed enforcement camera's are not legal for use in WI and why other states have huge lawsuits against them for their use.
I feel that the last few non-firearm scenarios are relevant tothe typicalMWAG call when someone is O-C'ing and thelimits of power the police are supposed to adhere to when responding.
I need to run some errands, I'll check back in a few hours.

imported post

[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html
jpierce wrote:

Welcome to OpenCarry.org's discussion forum, and intrgral part of our Internet Community dedicated to helping people understand the shifting landscape of open carry laws in the US, and providing a networking base for the open carry movement which has become a major force now in the gun rights revolution. All are welcome but we do have a few rules.

Click to expand...

[ ... ]
[/font][font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]

7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Click to expand...

Our co-owner is already in law school
[/font]

imported post

In all honesty, when I am approached by LEOs someday while OCing, after they ask for my ID, I will ask them

"Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

If the answer is I am not being detained, then I will say, "then I would appreciate getting back to my business without further questioning."

bnh, I thought you handled yourself very well. And the cops knew that what you were doing was legal, even though they chose to approach you.

imported post

Constitutional law has always been of great interest to me, and I enjoy civilly debatingthe intricacies of it on this forum. Thank you for giving me the ability to do so.

Click to expand...

Ditto. If every citizen of this country took the interest in understanding and disecting the law as we do here, this would be a fantastic place!

Hubert, please don't take anything I said as criticism either. I just prefer a different approach but think everyone should go with the method they feel best at the moment. Perhaps after discussing, you might adjust your methods in the future (one way or another) perhaps not.

For me... I think the best way we can represent ourselves. The BEST thing for OUR cause, for civil rights in GENERAL, and for freedom in general is for us to be polite but OUTWARDLY demonstrate that we know our rights.

I hope every police officer that encounters an open-carrier walks away thinking "man, those guys are pleasant but DAMN if they don't know the law and their rights INSIDE and out"

I think we gain the MOST respect when we demonstrate a journeyman's knowledge of our rights and exercise them. To consent to voluntarily consent to searches or to providing information police do not have a right to, in a situation that WE do not need any service of the police who are suppose to serve and protect us, only reinforces tactics of overstepping boundaries.

I prefer not to have a "healthy relationship" with law enforcement depend on MY willingness to consentually allow police to infringe on my privacy.

I DO hope to have a "healthy" relationship with law enforcement. And I will acheive that by knowing my rights, NOT voluntarily surrendering them, and teaching law enforcement that respect is a 2 way street.


Edit: Food for thought... Do you think police officers ever think about adjusting their behavior so that WE like them more? Do you think police would limit their tactics so that they would be in good favor with we "mere" citizens? Do you think police ever sit around the campfire and say "you know if we have a little more restraint we'll be better percieved by the general public???

imported post

I'm on the same side as the guys who pointed out that you don't know what was reported to 911, nor what the LEO was told from dispatch. Thus, you can't really know for sure whether the LEO has RAS.

Do not overlook that you would also have to correctly estimate whether all the circumstances combined were sufficient for RAS. And, that its the courts that get to decide whether RAS existed, meaning when you go to court to get thrown out the citation for failing to identify yourself, it will be the judge deciding whether RAS existed. You can bet that by that by the time you get to court, there is an even chance that "the rest" of the officer's "observations" will be invented. For example, "he was glancing nervously about"or "acting suspicious".

Probably best to identify yourself if demanded, or if you request to be left alone and it is again requested.

This next is not a criticism of the OPer. Just exploring options.

I liked the idea of asking if identity was being demanded or requested. And the suggestion about attempting to extractyourself by requesting the police let you get on with what you were doing.

Another alternative is to identify yourself while refusing consent. "No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job. I will identify myself to you, however I do not consent to doing so. I'm only doing it because you demanded it." You can always investigate later whether he had RAS, and add it to a formal complaint if need be.

Same for an ID (document) demand. Myself, I take a hard line on rights. If the officer demands my ID, I'll politely refuse consent while handing it over. In that they have no authority to demand ID (document), I'll have another bullet point for a formal complaint. Since I'll probably bemaking a formal complaint anyway, it matters little to me whether the LEO learns my name during the encounter or when the formal complaint lands.

imported post

hugh jarmis wrote:

Edit: Food for thought... Do you think police officers ever think about adjusting their behavior so that WE like them more? Do you think police would limit their tactics so that they would be in good favor with we "mere" citizens? Do you think police ever sit around the campfire and say "you know if we have a little more restraint we'll be better percieved by the general public???

Click to expand...

Hugh, I would have to say yes, and no to your thoughts.
I am sure some officers that got into law enforcement for the right reasons has brought this up, but the rest of the group laughed them out of the building. Then when that person gets stuck in the ghetto dealing with feral scum every day, he quickly gets jaded and loses that idea forever.

I had the displeasure of seeing how a sherrifI knewtreats the general public during a snowmobile stop with me being the operator.He did not recognize me with my helmet on, and I saw firsthand why most people labeled him as an asshat.
I always thought he was a decent guy from our meetings and conversations and I ignored all the bad stuff I heard about him and dismissed it as "sour grapes" until that day.

Citizen, no matter what the caller said to the 911 dispatcher, it is uncorroborated until the officer gets on-site. So that does not give probable cause or RAS.
if I were to call the police and tell them that you are running around the subdivision wearing nothing but pink cowboy boots and a speedo with a KILO of cocaine and had a goofy grin on your face, and gave them your address, it does not give them authority to break into your home to check on you. they can stop by, and if they witness nothing it ends there.

imported post

*

imported post

Pointman wrote:

I think giving information depends on the officer(s) and the situation. Create a bridge if possible, but don't hang yourself in the process.

Click to expand...

Yes, depends indeed on the officer. He alone determines whether the creation is a bridge or a gibbet.

imported post

*

imported post

Pointman wrote:

http://racinenews.org/?p=30878

Apparently, if the caller provides their name, your location, and some information about you that is factual, you're guilty until proven innocent.

Let's look at this taking all persons as equal: someone calls police claiming Governor Doyle is taking bribes to award contracts. They give his home address, home phone, and when he's generally at home. Does he get arrested?

Click to expand...

Funny how that key phrase of Corroborated keeps popping up in all these cites.
"They believed that Robinson lived at the apartment because two pieces of information given by the citizen were corroborated."

So this again goes back to a tipster relaying information, and the responding officers being able to corroborate the tip with the suspects current activity. But of course we all know in some/many cases the officers may be compelled to lie about what they had witnessed just to make a solid case.

imported post

I'm back.....and axiously awaiting the 911 call that was requested. That will give us our answer.

imported post

If Attorneys can get a RE-tainer fee, the Hubert should get a DE-tainer fee!

imported post

Haven't received anything on this or my Wal-Mart encounter to date. I emailed and snail mailed on July 1, so I'll give them until the end of this week.