Police Detainment for Non-Crimes

TCA 39-17-1351 (f)

...Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

Click to expand...

Whether the officer believed a crime was occurring or not, by law he can disarm a permit holder. He was called to the location and was following up on the call. If you went through the TN HCP class, it should have been mentioned.

SgtScott31 said:

Whether the officer believed a crime was occurring or not, by law he can disarm a permit holder. He was called to the location and was following up on the call. If you went through the TN HCP class, it should have been mentioned.

Click to expand...

As far as that part goes I don't think his complaint was that he was disarmed, but that the weapon was left unattended and in no one's direct control for a period of time.

SgtScott31 said:

Whether the officer believed a crime was occurring or not, by law he can disarm a permit holder. He was called to the location and was following up on the call. If you went through the TN HCP class, it should have been mentioned.

Click to expand...

Fallguy said:

As far as that part goes I don't think his complaint was that he was disarmed, but that the weapon was left unattended and in no one's direct control for a period of time.

Click to expand...

Any such complaint should have also mentioned a lack of "reasonable belief that anyone was in danger."

...when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals

Click to expand...

Sure it's a question of reasonableness, but that's the issue for the officer to decide when given the facts presented to him at the time of the call. He was called to investigate a man with a firearm who walked into a place that had a sign prohibiting them. Now it's a possibility that the signage was not up to the standard that the state has outlined, but I think enough was there to have him disarm the OP until he firgured out what was going on. I don't agree with leaving any firearm unattended if that's the focus of the complaint in the first place, but I think it was reasonable given the circumstances to disarm him. The business had prohibited "deadly" weapons. Because they may have erred in the signage, the OP wanted to take advantage of it and carry on private property anyway. He even says he looked on other doors even after he had seen the sign. To me that's looking to cause a problem that could have been avoided and it defeats the purpose for others trying to carry legally and without provoking altercations with business owners and/or law enforcement.

SgtScott31 said:

Sure it's a question of reasonableness, but that's the issue for the officer to decide when given the facts presented to him at the time of the call. He was called to investigate a man with a firearm who walked into a place that had a sign prohibiting them. Now it's a possibility that the signage was not up to the standard that the state has outlined, but I think enough was there to have him disarm the OP until he firgured out what was going on. I don't agree with leaving any firearm unattended if that's the focus of the complaint in the first place, but I think it was reasonable given the circumstances to disarm him. The business had prohibited "deadly" weapons. Because they may have erred in the signage, the OP wanted to take advantage of it and carry on private property anyway. He even says he looked on other doors even after he had seen the sign. To me that's looking to cause a problem that could have been avoided and it defeats the purpose for others trying to carry legally and without provoking altercations with business owners and/or law enforcement.

Click to expand...

It isn't a question of "it is reasonable to disarm." It is a question of whether "..the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals." If there was no "reasonable belief" of danger, it was not "reasonable" to disarm.

The business was not posted to the requirement of law, thus was not a prohibited place.

The agent of the business denied a "trespass."

The rest is made up by the cop.

Actually it's the officer's decision to decide what is possibly a safety issue and what isn't. Not yours or the OPs at the time the call was made. It is an objective (reasonable person) standard. Guy ignores sign and comes in armed, employees call = officer responds and likely disarms to investigate. Given the fact that the OP doesn't mind ignoring signs, I think most LEOs would likely disarm the individual in this situation.

As far as the signage, what would be more productive? Ignoring it and pissin the management/employee off, hence the call to LEOs, or explaining to the owner/employee that the sign is not outlined as what is required by law? Now you have an employee/manager who is definitely going to fix the sign and hold a grudge against HCP holders because his only interaction with one is a person who doesn't mind blowing the rules of the establishment off because of a bs technicality that it lacked a picture of a gun with a slash through it. Many here fail to look at the bigger picture.

SgtScott31 said:

Actually it's the officer's decision to decide what is possibly a safety issue and what isn't. Not yours or the OPs at the time the call was made. It is an objective (reasonable person) standard. Guy ignores sign and comes in armed, employees call = officer responds and likely disarms to investigate. Given the fact that the OP doesn't mind ignoring signs, I think most LEOs would likely disarm the individual in this situation.

Click to expand...

No, it is subjective. And in this case, given accurate information, there was no danger to others. In fact, by LE placing a firearm outside of any custody, it can easily be interpreted that the LE act increased danger.
A person lawfully armed is not "reasonably" a danger to self or others. A person lawfully armed, in a place where legally able to remain, is not "reasonably" a danger to self or others.

As far as the signage, what would be more productive? Ignoring it and pissin the management/employee off, hence the call to LEOs, or explaining to the owner/employee that the sign is not outlined as what is required by law? Now you have an employee/manager who is definitely going to fix the sign and hold a grudge against HCP holders because his only interaction with one is a person who doesn't mind blowing the rules of the establishment off because of a bs technicality that it lacked a picture of a gun with a slash through it. Many here fail to look at the bigger picture.

Click to expand...

You fail to see the "bigger picture." When LE are allowed to infringe beyond that contact explicitly spelled out by statute, Rights are trampled upon.

LE missed the mark.

OP handled it well.

A person lawfully armed is not "reasonably" a danger to self or others

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. There have been plenty of "lawfully" armed people who have caused harm to themselves and/or to others, including DUIs, drug arrests, and murders involving spouses and others. The OP intentionally walked into a place armed where there was a sign prohibiting it. Just because the sign did not have the required picture doesn't mean he can trample on the property owner's rights to satisfy his own. I'm sure the issue has been corrected and if permit holders want to leave foul tastes in the mouths of any property owner about concealed/open carry, be my guest. You're defeating your own cause.

where legally able to remain,

Click to expand...

Again, to the property owner the OP wasn't legally able to carry there. The error in the sign is a small technicality.

You fail to see the "bigger picture." When LE are allowed to infringe beyond that contact explicitly spelled out by statute, Rights are trampled upon

Click to expand...

.

He didn't "infringe" upon anything. Permit holders can be disarmed when the officer has reason to believe there was a safety issue. A guy blatantly and intentionally ignoring signs and waltzing in armed is enough to warrant disarming until the officer and those involved (specifically the employees) know for sure there was not any ill intentions by the OP. Once they realized he just wanted to showboat a bit because he knew the sign didn't have the necessary statutory picture (wow what an accomplishment), then he was left alone.

If his rights were so violated, I'm sure he could file a successful federal civil rights action against the officer and his agency.

SgtScott31 said:

I beg to differ. There have been plenty of "lawfully" armed people who have caused harm to themselves and/or to others, including DUIs, drug arrests, and murders involving spouses and others.

Click to expand...

Um, if someone gets a DUI while carrying a firearm, they were most likely NOT "lawfully armed."

SgtScott31 said:

The OP intentionally walked into a place armed where there was a sign prohibiting it.

Click to expand...

No, the OP intentionally walked into a place that was his next in a line of errands that he was doing during that day.

SgtScott31 said:

Just because the sign did not have the required picture doesn't mean he can trample on the property owner's rights to satisfy his own.

Click to expand...

He did not do what you accuse him of doing. In fact, he did ask the agent of that property if he had to leave. If asking if he had to leave is "trampling on rights," you sure have a very different definition than I do.

SgtScott31 said:

I'm sure the issue has been corrected and if permit holders want to leave foul tastes in the mouths of any property owner about concealed/open carry, be my guest. You're defeating your own cause.



Again, to the property owner the OP wasn't legally able to carry there. The error in the sign is a small technicality.

.

He didn't "infringe" upon anything. Permit holders can be disarmed when the officer has reason to believe there was a safety issue. A guy blatantly and intentionally ignoring signs and waltzing in armed is enough to warrant disarming until the officer and those involved (specifically the employees) know for sure there was not any ill intentions by the OP. Once they realized he just wanted to showboat a bit because he knew the sign didn't have the necessary statutory picture (wow what an accomplishment), then he was left alone.

If his rights were so violated, I'm sure he could file a successful federal civil rights action against the officer and his agency.

Click to expand...

You have a much different understanding of "reasonably believe a safety danger" than I do. To claim a lawfully armed person is a safety danger is quite a stretch. Given that criteria, the LE was as much of a safety danger as the OP.
"Showboat?" He was awaiting his companion, who was there for an appointment.

Um, if someone gets a DUI while carrying a firearm, they were most likely NOT "lawfully armed."

Click to expand...

Obviously by "lawfully armed" I assumed you meant a HCP holder.

No, the OP intentionally walked into a place that was his next in a line of errands that he was doing during that day

Click to expand...

Ummm...he walked into a place carrying his firearm after he read a sign on a front door that prohibited it. That's intentional. The reason for his visit there doesn't matter.

He did not do what you accuse him of doing. In fact, he did ask the agent of that property if he had to leave. If asking if he had to leave is "trampling on rights," you sure have a very different definition than I do

Click to expand...

The property owner makes the rules on his property. A sign was posted prohibiting weapons. The OP chose to flex a little bit and violate the sign, because in his opinion, it wasn't the right sign outlined by law. He knew it was a technicality, but figured he would push the envelope. He got the attention he wanted.

To claim a lawfully armed person is a safety danger is quite a stretch.

Click to expand...

A lawfully armed person who doesn't have a problem breaking the rules regarding gun carry on someone else's property. If he's so quick to break rules, especially when it concerns weapons, I'm not going to assume he's Mary Poppins and neither did the officer. The number one cause of death among LEOs is gunfire. I'm responding to a call involving a person who is carrying a gun who feels it's his perrogative to carry where he wants, specifically in a facility that had signs posted prohibiting them. Why should I be so hasty in assuming he's no danger when it's obvious he was going to carry somewhere it's not allowed? Sorry, but any officer is going to act the same in that officer's shoes. The OP carried where it was prohibited, the police were called, and they acted appropriately. You won't find an attorney or judge that's going to disagree with those facts.

"Showboat?" He was awaiting his companion, who was there for an appointment.

Click to expand...

I like how you bend the facts of the post a little to fit the agenda. He was waiting for his companion while open carrying when he intentionally decided to ignore a sign prohibiting firearms. Let's not leave things out shall we?

SgtScott31 said:

Obviously by "lawfully armed" I assumed you meant a HCP holder.

Click to expand...

Then you just as obviously assumed incorrectly.

SgtScott31 said:

Ummm...he walked into a place carrying his firearm after he read a sign on a front door that prohibited it. That's intentional. The reason for his visit there doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

He entered a building that was not posted according to statute. In other words, he was conducting lawful activity.

SgtScott31 said:

The property owner makes the rules on his property. A sign was posted prohibiting weapons. The OP chose to flex a little bit and violate the sign, because in his opinion, it wasn't the right sign outlined by law. He knew it was a technicality, but figured he would push the envelope. He got the attention he wanted.

Click to expand...

Absent the specific posting statute in TN, you do know that such a sign is not a statement of lawful vs unlawful, right?

SgtScott31 said:

A lawfully armed person who doesn't have a problem breaking the rules regarding gun carry on someone else's property. If he's so quick to break rules, especially when it concerns weapons, I'm not going to assume he's Mary Poppins and neither did the officer. The number one cause of death among LEOs is gunfire. I'm responding to a call involving a person who is carrying a gun who feels it's his perrogative to carry where he wants, specifically in a facility that had signs posted prohibiting them. Why should I be so hasty in assuming he's no danger when it's obvious he was going to carry somewhere it's not allowed? Sorry, but any officer is going to act the same in that officer's shoes. The OP carried where it was prohibited, the police were called, and they acted appropriately. You won't find an attorney or judge that's going to disagree with those facts.

Click to expand...

This is once again where you are trying to claim that he broke a rule. He did follow the directions of the property owner (or agent). That agent chose to allow him to remain. Had his presence been unwanted, the agent easily could have had him leave. The agent allowed him to remain on the property, armed.

-SgtScott31 said:

I like how you bend the facts of the post a little to fit the agenda. He was waiting for his companion while open carrying when he intentionally decided to ignore a sign prohibiting firearms. Let's not leave things out shall we?

Click to expand...

What facts have I bent? None. He entered a building that was not properly posted according to statute. He was not trespassed by the agent of the property owner.


A sign prohibiting firearms has no weight of law. Unless there is a law giving it that weight. In this case, it had no weight of law. Any claims you attempt to make up based upon that are frankly, irrelevant.
You sir, are the one who is "bending the facts" to fit an agenda. He was conducting himself lawfully.

SgtScott31 said:

Whether the officer believed a crime was occurring or not, by law he can disarm a permit holder. He was called to the location and was following up on the call. If you went through the TN HCP class, it should have been mentioned.

Click to expand...

Even for an unlawful detention. Man I would get that statute corrected. It gives too much power to LEOs. So they can disarm any permit holder for anything, anytime, anywhere? Man that seems very unconstitutional, I'm surprised you all haven't challenged this.

Even Terry states during a lawful detention with RAS and PC, i.e a traffic stop.

SgtScott31 said:

Obviously by "lawfully armed" I assumed you meant a HCP holder.



Ummm...he walked into a place carrying his firearm after he read a sign on a front door that prohibited it. That's intentional. The reason for his visit there doesn't matter.



The property owner makes the rules on his property. A sign was posted prohibiting weapons. The OP chose to flex a little bit and violate the sign, because in his opinion, it wasn't the right sign outlined by law. He knew it was a technicality, but figured he would push the envelope. He got the attention he wanted.

A lawfully armed person who doesn't have a problem breaking the rules regarding gun carry on someone else's property. If he's so quick to break rules, especially when it concerns weapons, I'm not going to assume he's Mary Poppins and neither did the officer. The number one cause of death among LEOs is gunfire. I'm responding to a call involving a person who is carrying a gun who feels it's his perrogative to carry where he wants, specifically in a facility that had signs posted prohibiting them. Why should I be so hasty in assuming he's no danger when it's obvious he was going to carry somewhere it's not allowed? Sorry, but any officer is going to act the same in that officer's shoes. The OP carried where it was prohibited, the police were called, and they acted appropriately. You won't find an attorney or judge that's going to disagree with those facts.



I like how you bend the facts of the post a little to fit the agenda. He was waiting for his companion while open carrying when he intentionally decided to ignore a sign prohibiting firearms. Let's not leave things out shall we?

Click to expand...

You are not going to win your argument here officer. Say all you want, but that law stinks and is too broad and infringes on the 4th amendment. The law needs to be corrected.

Venator said:

Even for an unlawful detention. Man I would get that statute corrected. It gives too much power to LEOs. So they can disarm any permit holder for anything, anytime, anywhere? Man that seems very unconstitutional, I'm surprised you all haven't challenged this.

Even Terry states during a lawful detention with RAS and PC, i.e a traffic stop.

Click to expand...

Nope. He is misrepresenting the applicable statute. What he is claiming is that such an LE will assume that the citizen and his firearm is a "reasonable safety problem for the citizen or others." The statute requires a reasonable impression that there is a danger.

Venator said:

Even for an unlawful detention. Man I would get that statute corrected. It gives too much power to LEOs. So they can disarm any permit holder for anything, anytime, anywhere? Man that seems very unconstitutional, I'm surprised you all haven't challenged this.

Even Terry states during a lawful detention with RAS and PC, i.e a traffic stop.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the whole situation...just a couple of things in this post and TN law.

The law really doesn't say what sort of interaction the LEO can disarm you in, just that he can. One could argue though that during an unlawful detention that any subsequent actions are also unlawful.

In TN though you must have a permit to carry period OC or CC. And as the law is written (TCA 39-17-1307) it is unlawful period to carry a firearm in general. Having a Handgun Carry Permit is only a defense to 39-17-1307. So if an officer sees someone armed, as far as he knows, that person is violating the law until he can determine if they have a permit or not and the status of it.

Fallguy said:

I'm not talking about the whole situation...just a couple of things in this post and TN law.

The law really doesn't say what sort of interaction the LEO can disarm you in, just that he can. One could argue though that during an unlawful detention that any subsequent actions are also unlawful.

In TN though you must have a permit to carry period OC or CC. And as the law is written (TCA 39-17-1307) it is unlawful period to carry a firearm in general. Having a Handgun Carry Permit is only a defense to 39-17-1307. So if an officer sees someone armed, as far as he knows, that person is violating the law until he can determine if they have a permit or not and the status of it.

Click to expand...

Actually, it does.

TCA 39-17-1351 (f)

...Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals.

Click to expand...

It is just about the same, but as an example, if an off-duty LE were open carrying with a permit, another LE could disarm him, with a 'reasonable' belief it is necessary for the protection of ....?

That statute (and LE) must assume that the otherwise LAC is a danger that must be disarmed. I suppose that some LE feel this way. It appears SgtScott feels this way. It is quite obvious that the LE who responded to the OP felt this way.

wrightme said:

Actually, it does.
It is just about the same, but as an example, if an off-duty LE were open carrying with a permit, another LE could disarm him, with a 'reasonable' belief it is necessary for the protection of ....?

That statute (and LE) must assume that the otherwise LAC is a danger that must be disarmed. I suppose that some LE feel this way. It appears SctScott feels this way. It is quite obvious that the LE who responded to the OP felt this way.

Click to expand...

Ah, you are correct. Been a little since I looked it up and read the whole thing.

But in the OPs case I think the contact was lawful, whether there was a resonable fear is subjective apparently.

Fallguy said:

Ah, you are correct. Been a little since I looked it up and read the whole thing.

But in the OPs case I think the contact was lawful, whether there was a resonable fear is subjective apparently.

Click to expand...

Yep. Now the statute does say "disarm the permit holder at any time," but it does include qualifiers. It is likely used as a blanket "disarm the permit holder," under an LE assumption that the permit holder will simply allow it.

The problem I have with this is that each time an LE simply disarms "because he can," it becomes a de-facto procedure. In the same vein, "Stop and Identify" is frequently stated as if LE can require a LAC to show an Identification Card, when in reality, there are strong limitations against that, unless statute specifies it correctly.


In this specific case, the OP had a choice to make at the door. He chose a lawful course of action, and stood and took the results. I commend him for that. Sure, as SgtScott states, he could have chosen to turn around and not enter, but he did not break laws acting as he did, and from his narrative, he did his acts in a rational and calm manner. The LE contact was unnecessary. The agent of the property could have trespassed him. Instead, the agent of the property tried to impersonate a Law Enforcement Officer, and attempted to bully the OP. When that didn't work, the agent of the property could have simply 'trespassed' the OP, ending the encounter. Instead, the agent of the property chose to call LE, initiating an unnecessary contact, with the appearance of asking LE to "bully the OP" into leaving, or to charge the OP with something.


And yes, I do agree that the contact was likely 'lawful,' it was not necessary. But, once contact was made, was the detention lawful. They were not investigating a crime. That should have been immediately clear to the LE upon arrival and determination that the OP was lawfully carrying.

wrightme said:

Yep. Now the statute does say "disarm the permit holder at any time," but it does include qualifiers. It is likely used as a blanket "disarm the permit holder," under an LE assumption that the permit holder will simply allow it.

The problem I have with this is that each time an LE simply disarms "because he can," it becomes a de-facto procedure. In the same vein, "Stop and Identify" is frequently stated as if LE can require a LAC to show an Identification Card, when in reality, there are strong limitations against that, unless statute specifies it correctly.


In this specific case, the OP had a choice to make at the door. He chose a lawful course of action, and stood and took the results. I commend him for that. Sure, as SgtScott states, he could have chosen to turn around and not enter, but he did not break laws acting as he did, and from his narrative, he did his acts in a rational and calm manner. The LE contact was unnecessary. The agent of the property could have trespassed him. Instead, the agent of the property tried to impersonate a Law Enforcement Officer, and attempted to bully the OP. When that didn't work, the agent of the property could have simply 'trespassed' the OP, ending the encounter. Instead, the agent of the property chose to call LE, initiating an unnecessary contact, with the appearance of asking LE to "bully the OP" into leaving, or to charge the OP with something.


And yes, I do agree that the contact was likely 'lawful,' it was not necessary. But, once contact was made, was the detention lawful.

Click to expand...

Can't really argue with any of that....

Fallguy said:

Can't really argue with any of that....

Click to expand...

hehe, now that is a 'reasonable belief.'


Don't worry, I am sure there are those who would disagree with that reasonable belief.