• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

office safety comes first??

M

MrsRuger45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
110
Location
Flint, Michigan, USA
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??
 
S

sevenplusone

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
397
Location
Kent Co, Michigan, USA
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??
Click to expand...
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?
 
T

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
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.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
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.
 
malignity

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
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.
 
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

MrsRuger45 wrote:
Any comments??
Click to expand...
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.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

DanM wrote:
MrsRuger45 wrote:
Any comments??
Click to expand...
If an officer can articulate reasonable justification for an action, I have no problem with the action.  Can a situation, with its numerous variables and factors, exist in which citizens are briefly disarmed or searched for officer safety until a LEO has "sorted things out" upon arriving to a scene he is called to?  Yes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
Click to expand...
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.
 
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
DanM wrote:
If an officer canarticulate reasonable justification for anaction, I have no problem with the action.
Click to expand...
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
DanM wrote:
MrsRuger45 wrote:
Any comments??
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

: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.
;)
 
T

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
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).
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

Michigander wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
imported post

DanM wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
DanM wrote:
If an officer can articulate reasonable justification for an action, I have no problem with the action.
Click to expand...
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you.
Click to expand...
I didn't offer an opinion on "to whom" the LEO would have to justify.  The original question asked for our general thoughts on a LEO disarming 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DanM

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see now. That's good to point out.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
Michigander wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Cites please.
 
Z

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
Michigander wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the police articulate their reasonable suspicion to you. .
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Cites please.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend (and if you can't do that, look to the 4th amendment).

http://streetlaw.stanford.edu/Curriculum/Short_Lesson3.pdf

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

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

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

http://streetlaw.stanford.edu/Curriculum/Short_Lesson3.pdf

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3000/3000lect03a.htm
Click to expand...
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.
 
Z

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

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

http://streetlaw.stanford.edu/Curriculum/Short_Lesson3.pdf

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3000/3000lect03a.htm
Click to expand...
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 of forum rule #7 about citing an authority when stating a rule of law.

The important thing is the cite.  So, thank you.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
G

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
DanM wrote:
MrsRuger45 wrote:
Any comments??
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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 ...
 
DrTodd

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top