Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: office safety comes first??

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    We are currently having a dispute with our heavily medicated neighbors. Yesterday they called the police claiming that we were on their property. When the officer arrived, he immediately told our male neighbor to put his hands on his head. The officer had noticed all the things on the neighbor's belt & strapped to his leg. He normally is carrying, but wasn't yesterday. Today when the police were called again by our neighbor, after the police talked to us & discovered that our neighbors are the problem, I asked the officer about the search of our neighbor yesterday & told him that OC is legal. The officer agreed, but he said that officer safety comes first. He stated that he doesn't know the bad guys from the good guys, if he sees you with a gun, even if you have a CCW (his words, not mine!) & if you do, youhave to disclose that you are carrying,he is going to disarm you for his safety because he's going home aliveafter his shift.

    Any comments??

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent Co, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    MrsRuger45 wrote:
    We are currently having a dispute with our heavily medicated neighbors. Yesterday they called the police claiming that we were on their property. When the officer arrived, he immediately told our male neighbor to put his hands on his head. The officer had noticed all the things on the neighbor's belt & strapped to his leg. He normally is carrying, but wasn't yesterday. Today when the police were called again by our neighbor, after the police talked to us & discovered that our neighbors are the problem, I asked the officer about the search of our neighbor yesterday & told him that OC is legal. The officer agreed, but he said that officer safety comes first. He stated that he doesn't know the bad guys from the good guys, if he sees you with a gun, even if you have a CCW (his words, not mine!) & if you do, youhave to disclose that you are carrying,he is going to disarm you for his safety because he's going home aliveafter his shift.

    Any comments??
    Didn't you know? The police have more rights than just "your average citizen". I also would like to go home at the end of every police officers shift, yet I don't get to disarm them. Why do they get more rights?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    Well since the police were called for "a complaint", I "kinda" see where they are coming from in possibly wanting to disarm him/her during the investigation (just so long as he/she gets it back). But on the same hand it's a slippery slope. OC is legal, and you aren't required to disclose you are carrying when it is in the open because chances are it can be seen, and technically they aren't allowed to seize your firearm, but I guess it depends on the "complaint" that was made.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    If there is reasonable articulateable suspicion, damn right officer safety comes first. If the problem persists and reasonable suspicion is gone, and a cop decides to harass you, then there is a problem.

    I was disarmed in Arizona because a couple cops thought I was breaking into my own car. This was only fair and only right.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  5. #5
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    You also do not have to disclose if you are Open Carrying. There is a current lawsuit involving one of our members regarding this as we speak. Unfortunately, it's true that most officers will disarm you if they have even a remote suspicion that they're in danger.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    MrsRuger45 wrote:
    Any comments??
    If an officer canarticulate reasonable justification for anaction, I have no problem with the action. Can a situation, with its numerous variables and factors, exist in whichcitizens arebriefly disarmed or searched for officer safetyuntil a LEO has "sorted things out" upon arriving to a scene he is called to? Yes.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  7. #7
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    MrsRuger45 wrote:
    Any comments??
    If an officer canÂ*articulate reasonable justification for anÂ*action, I have no problem with the action.Â* Can a situation, with its numerous variables and factors, exist in whichÂ*citizens areÂ*briefly disarmed or searched for officer safetyÂ*until a LEO has "sorted things out" upon arriving to a scene he is called to?Â* Yes.
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. The RAS is something for a court to decide, and remember that the courts give pretty wide discretion to LEOs in this regard. Although handling a loaded firearm exponentially increases the danger for all involved, I would not argue the point. I would hand over my firearm.

    BTW RAS may allow a brief pat down for immediately accessible weapons, not a thorough search.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
    I would actually tend to disagree with that for one very important reason. The SCOTUS has upheld the right to resist an unlawful arrest if you know the police are intentionally arresting you or someone else illegally.

    While I think we can all agree that we should never resist unlawful arrest unless our lives are in serious danger, I think it makes it pretty clear. The difference between unlawful arrest and lawful arrest is having a warrant or RAS/PC or not. For anyone who knows these things and who believes themselves to be innocent, the only way to know if an arrest is legal or not is for the officer(s) to explain.

    It seems to me that if a cop doesn't want to be killed legally according to the nations highest court, he or she should use common sense and understand the fact that reasons behind an arrest or temporary detention need to be explained.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    If an officer canarticulate reasonable justification for anaction, I have no problem with the action.
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you.
    I didn't offer an opinionon"to whom" the LEO would have to justify. The original question asked for our general thoughts on a LEOdisarming someone for "officer safety" purposes. My answer was a general one to the general question. I was silent on "to whom", "when", etc. the justification would have to be made.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    MrsRuger45 wrote:
    Any comments??
    If an officer canarticulate reasonable justification for anaction, I have no problem with the action. Can a situation, with its numerous variables and factors, exist in whichcitizens arebriefly disarmed or searched for officer safetyuntil a LEO has "sorted things out" upon arriving to a scene he is called to? Yes.
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. The RAS is something for a court to decide, and remember that the courts give pretty wide discretion to LEOs in this regard. Although handling a loaded firearm exponentially increases the danger for all involved, I would not argue the point. I would hand over my firearm.

    BTW RAS may allow a brief pat down for immediately accessible weapons, not a thorough search.
    :what:You would not, you would say I do not consent to any search or seizure and LET the LEO take the weapon.

    Your handing it to them is consent.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    I just wouldn't hand them my firearm period. Even if stopped in a car and I disclosed I had a CPL and they wanted to take my gun during the stop (which they can do). I would let them take it from my holster. I would never place my hand on my firearm, that way there are no misconceptions on why I was reaching for it (even if they asked for it to be handed over).

  12. #12
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
    I would actually tend to disagree with that for one very important reason. The SCOTUS has upheld the right to resist an unlawful arrest if you know the police are intentionally arresting you or someone else illegally.

    While I think we can all agree that we should never resist unlawful arrest unless our lives are in serious danger, I think it makes it pretty clear. The difference between unlawful arrest and lawful arrest is having a warrant or RAS/PC or not. For anyone who knows these things and who believes themselves to be innocent, the only way to know if an arrest is legal or not is for the officer(s) to explain.

    It seems to me that if a cop doesn't want to be killed legally according to the nations highest court, he or she should use common sense and understand the fact that reasons behind an arrest or temporary detention need to be explained.
    An arrest is different than a "Terry Stop". For an arrest a leo
    needs probable cause; for a Terry Stop a leo needs RAS. These are
    two different actions. I would be VERY sure I know the difference
    before I have any dealings with a leo.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  13. #13
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    DanM wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    If an officer canÂ*articulate reasonable justification for anÂ*action, I have no problem with the action.
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you.
    I didn't offer an opinionÂ*onÂ*"to whom" the LEO would have to justify.Â* The original question asked for our general thoughts on a LEOÂ*disarming someone for "officer safety" purposes.Â* My answer was a general one to the general question.Â* I was silent on "to whom", "when", etc. the justification would have to be made.
    I didn't assume that you did ... but did not want someone to read this and think that the police were required to tell the person involved what the RAS was or what degree of "danger" the officer felt. I would probably ask, though.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  14. #14
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    I didn't offer an opinionon"to whom" the LEO would have to justify. The original question asked for our general thoughts on a LEOdisarming someone for "officer safety" purposes. My answer was a general one to the general question. I was silent on "to whom", "when", etc. the justification would have to be made.
    I didn't assume that you did ... but did not want someone to read this and think that the police were required to tell the person involved what the RAS was or what degree of "danger" the officer felt. I would probably ask, though.
    Ah, I see now. That's good to point out.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
    I would actually tend to disagree with that for one very important reason. The SCOTUS has upheld the right to resist an unlawful arrest if you know the police are intentionally arresting you or someone else illegally.

    While I think we can all agree that we should never resist unlawful arrest unless our lives are in serious danger, I think it makes it pretty clear. The difference between unlawful arrest and lawful arrest is having a warrant or RAS/PC or not. For anyone who knows these things and who believes themselves to be innocent, the only way to know if an arrest is legal or not is for the officer(s) to explain.

    It seems to me that if a cop doesn't want to be killed legally according to the nations highest court, he or she should use common sense and understand the fact that reasons behind an arrest or temporary detention need to be explained.
    An arrest is different than a "Terry Stop". For an arrest a leo
    needs probable cause; for a Terry Stop a leo needs RAS. These are
    two different actions. I would be VERY sure I know the difference
    before I have any dealings with a leo.
    Cites please.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
    I would actually tend to disagree with that for one very important reason. The SCOTUS has upheld the right to resist an unlawful arrest if you know the police are intentionally arresting you or someone else illegally.

    While I think we can all agree that we should never resist unlawful arrest unless our lives are in serious danger, I think it makes it pretty clear. The difference between unlawful arrest and lawful arrest is having a warrant or RAS/PC or not. For anyone who knows these things and who believes themselves to be innocent, the only way to know if an arrest is legal or not is for the officer(s) to explain.

    It seems to me that if a cop doesn't want to be killed legally according to the nations highest court, he or she should use common sense and understand the fact that reasons behind an arrest or temporary detention need to be explained.
    An arrest is different than a "Terry Stop". For an arrest a leo
    needs probable cause; for a Terry Stop a leo needs RAS. These are
    two different actions. I would be VERY sure I know the difference
    before I have any dealings with a leo.
    Cites please.
    Google is your friend (and if you can't do that, look to the 4th amendment).

    http://streetlaw.stanford.edu/Curric...rt_Lesson3.pdf

    http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3000/3000lect03a.htm

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Cites please.
    Google is your friend (and if you can't do that, look to the 4th amendment).

    http://streetlaw.stanford.edu/Curric...rt_Lesson3.pdf

    http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3000/3000lect03a.htm
    Thanks, Zig. I already know the law and whether the statements are true. I was asking for cites for 1) benefit of new guys and 2) remind the posters offorum rule #7 about citing an authority when stating a rule of law.

    The important thing is the cite. So, thank you.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    Cites please.
    Google is your friend (and if you can't do that, look to the 4th amendment).

    http://streetlaw.stanford.edu/Curric...rt_Lesson3.pdf

    http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3000/3000lect03a.htm
    Thanks, Zig.Â* I already know the law and whether the statements are true.Â* I was asking for cites for 1) benefit of new guys and 2) remind the posters ofÂ*forum rule #7 about citing an authority when stating a rule of law.

    The important thing is the cite.Â* So, thank you.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    DanM wrote:
    MrsRuger45 wrote:
    Any comments??
    If an officer canarticulate reasonable justification for anaction, I have no problem with the action. Can a situation, with its numerous variables and factors, exist in whichcitizens arebriefly disarmed or searched for officer safetyuntil a LEO has "sorted things out" upon arriving to a scene he is called to? Yes.
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. The RAS is something for a court to decide, and remember that the courts give pretty wide discretion to LEOs in this regard. Although handling a loaded firearm exponentially increases the danger for all involved, I would not argue the point. I would hand over my firearm.

    BTW RAS may allow a brief pat down for immediately accessible weapons, not a thorough search.
    This is true, to a certain degree.

    There may not be any precidence or law obligating the officer to divulge RAS but, RAS is a requirement to detain, and not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part, and gives raise to suspicion that the officer does not have lawful RAS for the stop in the first place. Not that it matters much any way. It's all stuff for your lawyer to use, not for you to use during the encounter. I might mention this to the officer (as an olive branch of course), but I certainly wouldn't argue with him about it.

    He doesn't have to answer, but neither do you have to stop asking, and asking, and asking ...

  20. #20
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    "not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

    Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Michigander wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
    I would actually tend to disagree with that for one very important reason. The SCOTUS has upheld the right to resist an unlawful arrest if you know the police are intentionally arresting you or someone else illegally.

    While I think we can all agree that we should never resist unlawful arrest unless our lives are in serious danger, I think it makes it pretty clear. The difference between unlawful arrest and lawful arrest is having a warrant or RAS/PC or not. For anyone who knows these things and who believes themselves to be innocent, the only way to know if an arrest is legal or not is for the officer(s) to explain.

    It seems to me that if a cop doesn't want to be killed legally according to the nations highest court, he or she should use common sense and understand the fact that reasons behind an arrest or temporary detention need to be explained.
    An arrest is different than a "Terry Stop". For an arrest a leo
    needs probable cause; for a Terry Stop a leo needs RAS. These are
    two different actions. I would be VERY sure I know the difference
    before I have any dealings with a leo.
    Cites please.
    My bad (In my defense, I wrote this on my BB so can't really "cut and paste"... I should have just waited until I got home)
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    "not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

    Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
    I was about to write that I think it is just a part of police tactics, not bad-faith from a legal standpoint.

    But, then I got to thinkin'. Hmmmm. I think Ghostrider might be onto something. Why would a cop refuse to reply? What does he gain, or more precisely, what does he maintain as far as negotiating position?

    As a related matter, I am convinced some police do not declare detentions because it lets them claim it was a consensual contact, if need be. Also,I strongly suspect they take advantage of the fact that many people will automatically cooperate with a cop, just because, well, "he's a cop." In short, they want compliance.Even when they do not have legal authorityto compel it.

    So, extending this idea that some police want to gain compliance when they do not have legal authority to compel it. It suddenly makes sense that by not revealing his RAS,the cop maintainsuncertainty about whether compliance can be compelled. Thus, thesafe route,seemingly, for the detainee, is to comply rather than just walk away.

    Another option might be that there is no point in revealing it and having it come back to bite him. If he keeps mum, he can always invent additional circumstances or even a whole new RAS when he gets to court.

    Of course, he might just be the kind that feels, "Hey, punk. I ask the questions, and you answer. You unnerstand me?"

    So, I suspect it might show bad faith on the cop's part to withhold RAS.

    If I'm right, and even if I'm not, the counter-negotiation would be topolitely back him into a corner anddeclare a detention. "AmI being detained?" "Am I freeto go?"

    Of course, since our police are paragons of virtue and never depart one jot from rigorous application of case law, their questionscould not possibly depart from the reason for the stop.Heh, heh, heh. So, when he asks about the gun, you know you have your RAS.

    Heh, heh, heh.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    "not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

    Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
    I'm not speaking on legality of the issue. It does exhibit bad faith (my experience is that they usually disclose it anyway).


    It's just like when an officer says that a person is neither detained, under arrest, or free to leave. I don't know of any cases where "bad faith" has been rulled on even though I've actually heard of it in at least one case.

    Are you suggesting that "bad faith" is a legal term requiring the officer to disclose?:?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    ...

    Another option might be that there is no point in revealing it and having it come back to bite him. If he keeps mum, he can always invent additional circumstances or even a whole new RAS when he gets to court.

    ...
    Yahtzee!

    I can understand waiting until the suspect is secure, and the officer's safety is insured before such talk, but if the officer has time to question me, then there's plenty of time and opportunity to provide me with the RAS that is required for the stop.

    BTW, I should add that that comment about it being bad faith did come from Botson T. Party. It was in his book titled "You and the Police". He claims there are court cases backing it up, but he didn't cite them, and I've not seen them, so as far as I'm concerned, I don't know that they exist. However, that still does not change that it is bad faith.

    ETA:
    Most times I've been stopped, the officer has been up front and told me the reason he stopped me. Usually the officer tells me before anything else.

  25. #25
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    ghostrider wrote:
    "not divulging it upon repeated request exhibits bad faith on the officers part"

    Why? If you know of any cases where an officer who refused to answer the question posed by a citizen exhibits "bad faith", please cite. I would love to have it.
    I'm not speaking on legality of the issue. It does exhibit bad faith (my experience is that they usually disclose it anyway).


    It's just like when an officer says that a person is neither detained, under arrest, or free to leave. I don't know of any cases where "bad faith" has been rulled on even though I've actually heard of it in at least one case.

    Are you suggesting that "bad faith" is a legal term requiring the officer to disclose?:?
    "Bad Faith" is a legal term, see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

    I would like to get a copy of any court cases where this has been decided... that "bad faith" is exemplified by not stating to the person under investigation exactly what the suspicion was. Under the law, during a "Terry Stop" or "seizure" an officer may disarm an individual "if the officer feels that the suspect is in possession of a weapon that is of danger to him or others"
    see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=392&invol=1 and
    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Terry+stop
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •