Stopped by Beloit Police Dept...

Citizen · Mar 12, 2010

imported post

Optimus Prime wrote:

SNIP I'm sure that any of the officers he dealt with today will treat him, and other OCers courteously in the future.

Courteous would be to leave the OCers the heck alone unless there was RAS for a detention.

Running ID to see if someone is a prohibited possessor is not a courtesy. It is an indication of an investigative contact. Nothing courteous about it.

Same for demanding or requesting ID.

Alternatively, courteous would be a smile in a 7-Eleven, or a hello across the coffee counter. Or, just walking up to a randomly met OCer and asking for a couple minutes to find out more about OC in a totally social context. Driving the patrol car directly to someone who is out walking is indicative of an investigative contact, not a courtesy.

A real courtesy would be to ask the 911 caller what the man was doing with the gun, whether it was holstered, etc. And telling the caller that it was perfectly legal, and no we can't go bothering someone exercising a constitutionally protected right. Now, that would be a real courtesy.

Packer fan · Mar 12, 2010

imported post

That is good to hear about Beloit. I'll be in Beloit at the end of June (family reunion). I'll even be on Grand Ave. or was that Garden St? (Story of my life.I get invited to the family reunionsbut they never tell me where it is.)

I would like to meet up with you if you have the time.

I will say this, I did have a Beloit LOE pull his gun on me and three others. I can tell youhis barrel was clean, but we weren't OC at the time.

I do not have a School map so I won't be walking the streets. May go to Woodman's.

What's funny is my family thinks I'm crazy for OC in the Beloit/Janseville area, but after moving away I don't see how you don't.

oak1971 · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

oak1971 wrote:

It's called a Terry stop. It's legal. See Terry Vs Ohio.

Click to expand...

Oh really? And what were the officer's grounds for a reasonable suspicion that gunguy2009 may have been engaged in criminal activity?

Ask the officer. I said it was legal, I didn't say I liked the idea. I do know that is how he would rationalize it if need be.

Master Doug Huffman · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

oak1971 wrote:

It's called a Terry stop. It's legal. See Terry Vs Ohio.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=392&invol=1

Cliff Notes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Thank you for the legal conclusion, counselor, incompetent though it may be.

J.Gleason · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

Never talk to cops!

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum57/30752.html

oak1971 · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

Here is a qutoe from our attorney general, JB Van Hollan.

¶8. Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or Terry stop) if he has “reasonable suspicion,” based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Arvizu, 544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming “totality of the circumstances” test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop).

Listen to "the master" if you wish, but he is WRONG!

Master Doug Huffman · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

oak1971 wrote:

Here is a qutoe from our attorney general, JB Van Hollan.

¶8. Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or Terry stop)

if he has “reasonable suspicion,” based on articulable facts, of criminal activity.

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Arvizu, 544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming “totality of the circumstances” test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop).

Listen to "the master" if you wish, but he is WRONG!

Thank you counselor.

logan · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

I'd say gunguy2009 handled this well, and everything went good for both parties. We don't want the police hating OCers after they stop us. But instead, I'm sure they'd rather have a nice conversation with us.

I found this link on DefnsiveCarry.com:
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/85326-my-negative-encounter-ocer-today.html

We don't want officers thinking of us like this. So if they have a good encounter with us, they will like OCers a lot more.

Just my opinion though.

Citizen · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

logan wrote:

We don't want the police hating OCers after they stop us. But instead, I'm sure they'd rather have a nice conversation with us.

I found this link on DefnsiveCarry.com:
http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-144/85326-my-negative-encounter-ocer-today.html

We don't want officers thinking of us like this. So if they have a good encounter with us, they will like OCers a lot more.

And I don't want officers think of us as men and women without constitutionally protected rights. Including, 4A (search and seizure) and 5A (right to notaccuse oneself).

Most sour police encounters are not about violations of the 2nd Amendment. They are about violations andattempted violationsof the 4th and 5th Amendments.

If a cop hates any citizen who knows his rights in-depth and exercises them, it is first his problem. Not ours.

Cops are Americans, too. Rights belong to them, too.

Something over a million Americans have died in combat defending the freedom protected by theBill of Rights. Cops who would throw away those sacrifices by being contemptuous of rights need to become unemployed.

MadisonRebel · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

I think gunguy handled the situation perfectly. Isn't one of the endgames of OCing eventually to get the police to be unafraid of OCers, and hopefully knowledgeable enough to know how to handle the situation? That's going to take patience on both sides. This is something which is gaining a lot of momentum in a short amount of time. If people want to complain about an officer taking as simple a measure as telling someone to keep their hands where they can see them, it makes me think some people either really want a serious confrontation, or else they unreasonably expect police officers in this state to just wake up with a different paradigm.

From what gunguy said, this encounter turned out very positively. We should be glad that we're making progress, rather than bemoaning minor precautionary steps taken by people in a highly dangerous job, particularly in a high crime city like Beloit.

Good work, OP.

Citizen · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

oak1971 wrote:

Here is a qutoe from our attorney general, JB Van Hollan.

¶8. Finally, several law enforcement agencies have asked whether, in light of Article I, § 25, they may stop a person openly carrying a firearm in public to investigate possible criminal activity, including disorderly conduct. We say yes. An officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes (known as an investigative or Terry stop) if he has “reasonable suspicion,” based on articulable facts, of criminal activity. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the information known to the officer and any reasonable inferences to be drawn at the time of the stop. United States v. Arvizu, 544 U.S. 266 (2002) (reaffirming “totality of the circumstances” test). Even though open carry enjoys constitutional protection, it may still give rise to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. It is not a shield against police investigation or subsequent prosecution. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990) (police officers not required to first eliminate the possibility of innocent behavior before making investigatory stop).

Listen to "the master" if you wish, but he is WRONG!

The AG's opinion is mostly in line with court opinion.

The problem is that he mentions but does not focus sufficiently on the key element of reasonable suspicion of a crime. Essentially, he fogs up the issueby leaving outa clarificationor two that would erasethe opportunity for misunderstanding.Since OC is not illegal (not a crime), mereOC alone cannot be the sole articulable fact ofa crime. See Terry v Ohio[suP]1[/suP] as the starting point and foundation for the court's rationale about reasonable suspicion.

Another element is that the AGdoes not make law. The legislature and courts do. The case law (court opinions)is the actual sourceof the law, the exact place it is written. Read the law at the source to learn what it is.

So, ultimately, Doug Huffman is right. No reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) means illegal detention. Meaning, unless there is more than just OC, the cop may not detain you investigatively under current 4th Amendment case law. The AG touches on this when he mentions "totality of circumstances." The cop needs more. For example, OCing while wearing a ski-mask in front of a bank or liquor store, would probably be considered legitimate grounds by a court for a police investigative detention.

Whether you have any way to know the cop does or does not have genuine RAS during the detention is a whole different matter. For example, you might think he does not have RAS, when maybe he actually does.If he does have genuine RAS, and you mistakenly think he does not, and youresist physically, the least you can expect is lumps or bruises. Depending on how you physically resist, you might also get an obstruction charge, or a charge of assaulting a police officer.

After long consideration, reading an awful lot of posts, strategizing with other OCers, and reading plenty of court opinions, I have decided to comply with all orders while politely, verbally, refusing consent. By verbally withholding your consent, you throw the burden onto the cop to have all his legal points in perfect apple-pie order. See the video mentioned below.[suP]2[/suP]

1. Terry v Ohio Realize this is just the first in a long string of cases refining the legal concept of RAS. There is more to it that just this case. This one is just the foundation of Terry stops.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

2. Video: Busted: A Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

MadisonRebel · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

Citizen wrote:

If a cop hates any citizen who knows his rights in-depth and exercises them, it is first his problem. Not ours.

If you're referring to the linked post, assuming the OP was truthful, there was nothing hateful displayed by the LEO in that situation. It is always important to exercise your rights, but there is also such a thing as flexing your rights unnecessarily. If we want to get the police community to understand our position, instantly leaving if they so much as breathe even a neutral or friendly word to use is not helping.

Gunslinger · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

Citizen wrote:

gunguy2009 wrote:

SNIP No complaints at all toward the Beloit Police.

Click to expand...

You are more tolerant than I would have been.

A free man approached bythe government, the encounter opening with the government saying, "Please put your hands where I can see them." (emphasis added). ??? There is nothing, not one thing, civil about a cop saying that to someone. It screams the cop feels potential danger. No reasonable person would feel free to disregard that remark and walk away.

And, they knew or suspected who your were? Yet, still decided to even contact you. I don't care whether some court has said police can consensually contact anybody. The mere fact they are contacting an OCer, especially one they think they know, over the exercise of a fundamental human right is to me intolerable. It proves they consider something inherently suspicious and/or criminal about a fundamental human right.

Separately, the true test would have been how nice the officer was if you exercised your rights politely. Anybody can be friendly and professional when they are getting what they want. The real test is when you thwart their desire by politely exercising your rights.

For myself, that opening comment would be the subject of a formal complaint, with some pointed questions: "Is this how you initiate a consensual encounter?" "Are your cops so faint-hearted that they feel they have to say that at the inception of a consensual encounter?"

What are they gonna say? "Uh, it wasn't a consensual encounter"?Which gives one a new target,"What was your RAS (reasonable, articulable suspicion) for a detention?"

Everybody has to decide how tohandle the cop in front of themin the exact circumstances they find themselves. But, I don't know that it helps things overall to forego some rights (silence, search and seizure) while exercising another (2A).And, I definitely disagree with later declaring that everything went smooth, while the smoothness might only have been achieved at the expense of 4A and 5A rights (search, seizure, and silence).

A genuinely professional cop would be just as respectful if you had said things like:

"Officer, no offense, but I do not consent to an encounter with you today. Why am I being detained.

"You want to see my ID? Why am I being detained?"

"You want to see my ID? Oh, officer, you and I both know you have no authority to compel me to show my ID,* and no authority to compel me to identify myself unless you have RAS of a crime.* Why am I being detained? I'm not? Oh, good. Then, no offense, but the ID stays in the wallet."

If he won't respect politely, verbally refused consent, then you really know whether you have a government agent who needs correction. Genuinely professional cops will respect it.

* If true legally in your state.

'Papier, bitte. Oh, you are not a Jew (Black, Cherokee Indian fill in the blank.) You may continue on your way.'

"We must take the guns away from the people to make the streets safe for the SS."

Mr. Hitler

First verses, second stanza of Der Horst Wessel Lied says it all.

"DIe Stasse frei mit brownen battleonin. Die strasse frei fur sturmabteilundmen."

"The streets are free (safe) for the Brown Battalion. The streets are safe for Sturmabteilundmen (SA--Storm Troopers)"

Citizen · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

MadisonRebel wrote:

SNIP I think gunguy handled the situation perfectly. Isn't one of the endgames of OCing eventually to get the police to be unafraid of OCers, and hopefully knowledgeable enough to know how to handle the situation? That's going to take patience on both sides.

Your sentiments do you credit.

But, think longer for just a few moments. Police encounters with OCers do not implicate the 2nd Amendment very much. Police encounters with OCers are really about the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Police are already supposed to know how to handle 4A and 5A situations. Terry Stop doctrine is over 40 years old. No patience is required, especially from the citizens. It does not matter whether the encounter involves a gun, or cotton candy. Police may not detain someone without RAS of a crime. Until there is RAS of a crime to justify the non-consensual intrusion the presence or absence of the gun has no bearing on the situation.(I am talking about criminal investigative contacts here. Not possible suicides, or psychotics ranting about aliens while waving a knife or gun.)

Police do not even need to know whether OC is legal. All they need to know is that they do not know it is illegal. Unless the LEO knows to a dead moral certainty that the OC is illegal (or he has additional circumstances giving rise to RAS), he has no authority for a detention.

Shotgun · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

My feeling is that there's enough gray area in what constitutes RAS that the best definition of RAS is whatever convinces the judge or the jury that it was reasonable. I think in the case we're discussing the officer failed to take into consideration the totality of the circumstances.

If for example, you spot another person walking down the street at night carrying a TV, while wearing a ski mask and gloves in mid-summer you'd have RAS to stop and have a chat. Each element of the scenario is perfectly legal, there's no law against walking the street, carrying a TV, or wearing a ski mask and gloves during summer. But even a stupid person ought to be able to connect the dots and suspect the possibility of criminal activity.

Now consider gunguy2009's scenario. What did the officer see? He saw a man, a woman, a child and a dog out for a walk-- a common and ordinary sight. He saw, or had a report, that the man was wearing a holstered firearm as he walked. Period. Okay, that was outside of the officer's ordinary experience, perhaps... But there are no other dots suggesting something illegal to connect officer! Presumably he did not see gunguy2009's companions unwillingly being forced to walk. Presumably he didn't see the dog foaming at the mouth. The officer obviously knows about the concept of legal open carry, since he asked the rather obvious question, "are you open carrying?" Given the totality of the circumstances he ought to have a difficult time convincing a reasonable person that he had RAS.

I don't think this was a horrible encounter in the grand scheme, and I have no problem with how gunguy2009 chose to handle it from his end.

I do have a problem with the officer starting a "consensual conversation" with "put your hands where I can see them."

I think it would be fun (and funny) if we all initiated conversations with police officers by telling them to keep their hands where we can see them. I'd love to see the looks on their faces. Right then they'd realize that it is not a proper way to start a casual or consensual conversation. Much better if they said "Hey, got a minute?" Or, "Mind if I ask you something?"

"Keep your hands where I can see them" is just another way of saying "I don't trust you."

Citizen · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

MadisonRebel wrote:

SNIP It is always important to exercise your rights, but there is also such a thing as flexing your rights unnecessarily. If we want to get the police community to understand our position, instantly leaving if they so much as breathe even a neutral or friendly word to use is not helping.

I have not advocated being impolite. My suggestions carry the preface: "Officer, no offense. I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to..."

Separately, how are you going to determine you have a good cop or bad cop until it is possibly too late? We have heard the police car audio recording (obtained by FOIA) of the female cop who was polite and friendly to the OCer, but upon return to the car conspired with another cop for ways they could arrest the OCer.

Read that last sentence again. Even the seemingly good cop can screw you. In fact, the really competent cops are going to be the smoothest and friendliest because they know they need you to talk in order to convert from a consensual encounter to a detention, or to convert RAS into probable cause for an arrest. They know they need your voluntary and consensual participation and answers to questions. From another angle, if the cop only has RAS at the beginning of the encounter, and you supply no other information, it isalmost impossible for him to develop probable cause for an arrest. If a cop contacts you consensually to investigate you, and you supply him no information, it isalmost impossible for him to develop RAS to detain you.

Every single time you are contacted by a police officer, you are in legal jeopardy. It may be slight; it may be huge. Odds are good that you will not know the degree of jeopardy fully. As to "unnecessarily flexing rights", you are advocating that OCers risk citation and arrest by being unnecessarily conversational with police. Police who they may not judge dangerous until too late to escape the trap. Police who may behiding their hostility byputting up a friendly front. These are the betterofficers--better fromthe standpoint of competencein giving a friendly facadeto disarm the suspects wariness--these are the better officers who go on to be detectives who succeed at getting confessions from crooks.

hunter9mm · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

I agree that all-in-all gunguy & the Officer handled the encounter well and the end result was very positive.

Shotgun says it best (just above) the opening line from the copshould have been a bit more trusting, but having some understanding of what cops deal with on a daily basis they have more of a fear of being shot during their normal work day than most of the other general public.

Maybe a "Excuse me, can I speak with you for a minute, and (then the infamous) please keep your hands where I can see them"

As we all know it is our right to go in several different directions from there. I would have to say, I hope my first encounter with a LEO goes that well... All-in-all

Just my Opinion

Citizen · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

hunter9mm wrote:

SNIP Shotgun says it best (just above) the opening line from the copshould have been a bit more trusting, but having some understanding of what cops deal with on a daily basis they have more of a fear of being shot during their normal work day than most of the other general public.

A generalized fear is just a propensity or state of mind. Quite comparable to a propensity to suspect wrongdoing or bad motives like a cynical person might.

The courts have foreclosed the power of police to act on incomplete suspicions or hunches by requiring articulable facts for a reason. Objective criteria, not subjective "feelings."

The same concept applies to havinga fear of being shot without also using objective criteria. The courts may not require it, but that in no way makes it less an imposition of the officer's subjective "feelings". Also, police are trained to recognize danger signals. "Pre-assault behavior cues" they are called. So, it is not like police have not had the benefit of rational thought on the subject.

If the cop had to ask if the OPer was open carrying, he can't possibly have even seen the gun yet.This amounts to mighty slimobjective indications of dangerousness. "Please put your hands where I can see them" was an imposition of almost wholly subjective fear unjustified by observed circumstances.

Think about it for a minute. Even if the cop saw the gun on the OPer, on any peaceable OCer,is there really a justification for being nervous in the absence of even one other indicator of dangerousness?

Excusing the LEO's nervousness is no, or perhaps barely, less thanexcusing anti-gunners' irrational fear ofpeaceable armed citizens. A fearbased on novisible indications of dangerousness save the presence of the gun itself isirrational, whether by cop or anti-gunner.

We'll all get a lot further if we weigh police actions in light of rights and freedom, instead of finding ways to excuse or justify mistakes. The courts do plenty of that already.

And, best of all,if you really support police, you will be helping them be better cops and better Americans if you demand they rise to the occasion andobserve rights carefully.

KBCraig · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Police do not even need to know whether OC is legal. All they need to know is that they do not know it is illegal. Unless the LEO knows to a dead moral certainty that the OC is illegal (or he has additional circumstances giving rise to RAS), he has no authority for a detention.

To quote the old line used by Reagan (and others): "It's not what they know that makes them dangerous, it's what they think they know, that isn't so."

Nutczak · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

I am agreeing with citizen on this one, the OP's rights were not forcibly violated in this encounter, because those rights gotvoluntarily waived by the OP.

You werewith the family exercising your rights, you were not committing or about to commit a crime,

And I think carrying a map of the school zones is just asking for trouble, if you were to accidentally enter a GFSZ, you would have no viable defense, justbecause you had that map with you.

Sorry for the harshness, but if people justkeep rolling over and voluntarily waive their rights at the whim of law enforcement, all we are doing is reinforcing that we will allow them to continue. It is like training a dog, do not tolerate bad behavior, because if you do, you are actually encouraging it.

Cops around here do not like me too much, I have never been arrested or in trouble with them, it is just that I do ot waive my rights at their request and it pisses them off to no end.

Stopped by Beloit Police Dept...

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member