Anonymous 911 call leads to innocent man held at gun point

See JL v Florida. Anonymous tips have NO predictive value where firearms are concerned.

Also Harlow v Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800. ALL public officials are required as a matter of law to be aware of the law which governs their individual actions.

The person stopped here probably has a good case for 1983 action.

Click to expand...

This is intresting..... Around this same time a few days before or after. We were driving on Redwood Road No toward Eagle Mount, Lehi cross roads and there was a Mustang Red, from Cali. Driving erratically and almost hit a snow bank he was infront of us, when I decided I had better do something I called 911 and told of the car, they knew who I was because I had called long time ago on some one drinking a beer in there car. Anyway gave them all info and that I saw a patrol car right before Smiths had someone pulled over the 911 dispatch said "Are you willing to sign a complaint?" I said "Are you kidding me I'm on my way out to Herriman for x-mas celebrations" she said they could not do anything about it unless I wanted to sign a complaint. The Drunk kept driving about his biusness. I'm just glad he went in a different direction.Hope noone died because of him,,,,,:X

Click to expand...

The cops get a call about a man using a gun in a threatening manner. Had they reacted any other way, they'd have been way behind the curve had it been a legitimate complaint. This type of false report is becoming a new tactic of certain low lifes.

Rather than making the cops risk life and limb by screaming at them about gestapo tactics, until they respond with no show of force on "man weilding gun in a dangerous manner" calls, it looks like it's time to make the penalty for calling one like this in a straight up bad news proposition.

Click to expand...

Francis Marion wrote:

The anonymous caller committed assault with a deadly weapon using a cop as proxy and should be charged with the crime and not just with submitting a false report. Now they just have to identify the real perp.

Click to expand...

I agree

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with that law. Does it actually exist? Doesn't the cop actually have to shoot the person for it to be an assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, murder, or is just pointing a gun at someone assault with a deadly weapon. I guess I don't know the law on this one.

Click to expand...

Francis has hit the nail on the head. +1. Assault with a deadly weapon by proxy unless the report was an honest, good faith mistake.

Let me offer a counter perspective to the false dichotomy presented by kirk and 41mag. Both argue (at least implicitly) that the only choice is for police to either ignore anonymous calls, OR to make a full up felony stop every time someone anonymously reports a driver threatening with a gun.

There is a third option (and maybe a fourth or fifth). Make a stop to investigate but do so without automatically pointing loaded guns at people who may well have done nothing wrong.

Some years ago while driving to work a police officer pulled in behind me and turned on his lights. I knew I'd done nothing wrong so was a little surprised. I pulled over and as is my habit, had my license, registration, and insurance card ready as he walked up to my window.

Only then did I notice he had his hand on his holstered firearm and had stopped in a defensive position slightly behind me. He said, "Please keep your hands on the wheel where I can see them for a few moments." I complied and he proceeded to walk up to the front of my car where he quickly examined the front of my car all while keeping a close eye on me and his hand on his firearm.

He then relaxed, took his hand off his gun, walked back to my window and explained, "I'm sorry for the problem. We've had a hit and run and from the back, your car matched the description. However, from the front end it is obvious this is not the car that was involved. Thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice day." And with that he was back in his cruiser and headed out, I presume, to look for the hit and run car.

Now I recognize that a hit and run is not exactly the same as someone being armed and dangerous. My point is simply that it looks to me like a police officer can make a stop where the person may be dangerous and do so in such a way that protects the officer without needlessly subjecting the suspect to the danger, trauma, or invasion of being drawn down on and handcuffed.

I'd have been pretty upset had I been handcuffed, had a gun pointed at me, or forced to lie down in the street in any but my worst work-in-the-yard clothing. As it was, the entire stop lasted less than 2 minutes and I continue to hold in my mind an image of a consummate professional, doing his job while both protecting himself and respecting the public.

The stop in this news story did not happen on some rural road where back up was 30 minutes or more away. There were not multiple, independent calls about a mad man waving a gun around or shooting at people. The one caller refused to give his name despite following the guy for several miles.

Yes, an investigatory stop should have been made. NO, it was not justified to do so as a full felony stop, guns drawn, and forcing a man face down on the ground.

Charles

Click to expand...

kirkaroberts wrote:

I am not familiar with that law. Does it actually exist? Doesn't the cop actually have to shoot the person for it to be an assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, murder, or is just pointing a gun at someone assault with a deadly weapon. I guess I don't know the law on this one.

Click to expand...

Aggravated assault is the actual name of the crime. The definition of the crime is build up from the definition of assault, so it makes sense to start there.

Assault (76-5-102) is defined as "a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force... to do bodily injury to another". If I threaten to punch you in the nose and then cock my fist back, I have assaulted you under Utah law.

That's one part of the definition, anyway. If I actually punch you, that's also assault, under a different part of the definition.

Aggravated assault (76-5-103) is defined as Assault + use of a dangerous weapon (or force likely to produce serious injury; so a threatened kick to the head is also aggravated assault, even though no weapon is used).

So, threatening to shoot someone and showing them a gun is aggravated assault, even if you don't actually shoot them. There's also no requirement that the threat be verbal. If I point a gun at you, that's a clear threat and a show of immediate deadly force. So just pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault.

Sam is absolutely right that an argument could be made for charging the caller with aggravated assault. Technically, we could probably make the same charge against the police officers, on the grounds that they did not have a reasonable belief that the man they stopped was dangerous, and so did not have justification for pointing guns at him. But no judge is going to buy that; police get a lot of leeway.

Click to expand...

swillden wrote:

kirkaroberts wrote:

I am not familiar with that law. Does it actually exist? Doesn't the cop actually have to shoot the person for it to be an assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, murder, or is just pointing a gun at someone assault with a deadly weapon. I guess I don't know the law on this one.

Click to expand...

Aggravated assault is the actual name of the crime. The definition of the crime is build up from the definition of assault, so it makes sense to start there.

Assault (76-5-102) is defined as "a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force... to do bodily injury to another". If I threaten to punch you in the nose and then cock my fist back, I have assaulted you under Utah law.

That's one part of the definition, anyway. If I actually punch you, that's also assault, under a different part of the definition.

Aggravated assault (76-5-103) is defined as Assault + use of a dangerous weapon (or force likely to produce serious injury; so a threatened kick to the head is also aggravated assault, even though no weapon is used).

So, threatening to shoot someone and showing them a gun is aggravated assault, even if you don't actually shoot them. There's also no requirement that the threat be verbal. If I point a gun at you, that's a clear threat and a show of immediate deadly force. So just pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault.

Sam is absolutely right that an argument could be made for charging the caller with aggravated assault. Technically, we could probably make the same charge against the police officers, on the grounds that they did not have a reasonable belief that the man they stopped was dangerous, and so did not have justification for pointing guns at him. But no judge is going to buy that; police get a lot of leeway.

Click to expand...

I understand the assault definition but just not that the person making the false complaint has met the definition. I think it's a slam dunk for a false police report and malicious false police reports should have a different definition than a standard false report. One that causes this kind of response from the police should have much stiffer penalties. I believe in prevention. If someone knows that they can be tracked and prosecuted harshly for something like this, they will be less likely to do it. I would like to see the prevention of the calls, I just don't know how to identify everyone who does it.

I still owe you lunch. I am not kidding.

Click to expand...

kirkaroberts wrote:

swillden wrote:

kirkaroberts wrote:

I am not familiar with that law. Does it actually exist? Doesn't the cop actually have to shoot the person for it to be an assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, murder, or is just pointing a gun at someone assault with a deadly weapon. I guess I don't know the law on this one.

Click to expand...

Aggravated assault is the actual name of the crime. The definition of the crime is build up from the definition of assault, so it makes sense to start there.

Assault (76-5-102) is defined as "a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force... to do bodily injury to another". If I threaten to punch you in the nose and then cock my fist back, I have assaulted you under Utah law.

That's one part of the definition, anyway. If I actually punch you, that's also assault, under a different part of the definition.

Aggravated assault (76-5-103) is defined as Assault + use of a dangerous weapon (or force likely to produce serious injury; so a threatened kick to the head is also aggravated assault, even though no weapon is used).

So, threatening to shoot someone and showing them a gun is aggravated assault, even if you don't actually shoot them. There's also no requirement that the threat be verbal. If I point a gun at you, that's a clear threat and a show of immediate deadly force. So just pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault.

Sam is absolutely right that an argument could be made for charging the caller with aggravated assault. Technically, we could probably make the same charge against the police officers, on the grounds that they did not have a reasonable belief that the man they stopped was dangerous, and so did not have justification for pointing guns at him. But no judge is going to buy that; police get a lot of leeway.

Click to expand...

I understand the assault definition but just not that the person making the false complaint has met the definition. I think it's a slam dunk for a false police report and malicious false police reports should have a different definition than a standard false report. One that causes this kind of response from the police should have much stiffer penalties. I believe in prevention. If someone knows that they can be tracked and prosecuted harshly for something like this, they will be less likely to do it. I would like to see the prevention of the calls, I just don't know how to identify everyone who does it.

I still owe you lunch. I am not kidding.

Click to expand...

Every time that I have called 911 while on my cell phone to report somethingthey have asked me for my name and contact info... I guess that I just assumed they had caller ID and had my mobile number ALREADY!

Click to expand...