Open carry declared to be 'Looking to get busted'

KIX said:

Everything I read in the case says nothing about a crime has to have already been committed.

Jonathan

Click to expand...

RAS is of a crime having been, being or about to be committed. That is the essence of the "Terry stop." If no reasonable suspicion exists, there can be no stop. Other cases have tightened the definition of "reasonable articulable."

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person>>>> has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime 'and' has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." >>>>>(392 U.S. 1, at 30.)

Rich B said:

They would still need to have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was occurring, had occurred, or was about occur. No one present that night had made any mention of a crime, only of me openly carrying a firearm. They used that as RAS and PC because they believed that open carry is illegal in CT. They stated this several times despite being informed of the opposite. We even have transcripts of their phone calls indicating this.

Even if you want to argue that I could have been detained, that is not what they did. I was immediately arrested. There was no detainment, investigation and then arrest based on totality. They heard a report that I was OCing, saw that I was OCing, and arrested me on the spot since that was all the evidence they felt they needed.

Quite simply, there should have never been any "suspicion of criminal wrongdoing".



Yes.



No. Mark Vanaman (the aggressor) was contacted later by a reporter and asked if he understood open carry was legal, he replied that he did understand this, but would do the same thing again if he saw someone OCing.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Click to expand...

Exactly on point. Disorderly Conduct is the fallback of the oppressors in slave states like CT. OC is no violation--as many other states have held, but they will try anything they can to keep their foot on your neck.

Thanks for the help with the terms.

Wikipedia states: Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

The wikipedia link for Probable_cause states: In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

So, if I have this correct, Terry stops require at least 'reasonable articulable suspicion' (RAS), and arrests require at least 'probable cause' (PC), which the Police thought they had because of their erroneous belief that OC is itself against the law. Since it is not, they are out on a limb that doesn't exist. They zoomed right past "reasonable articulable suspicion".
You say "They stated this ( open carry is illegal in Ct.[sic]) several times despite being informed of the opposite"
My question is who stated the opposite to them, and how? Did they also zoom right past asking questions of you, their superiors in the department, or legal counsel, and arrested you on the spot? How soon after they arrived did they announce that you were under arrest?

IIRC, you had a CCDL brochure with you right? And you were wearing a CCDL 'T' shirt? Did they even bother to read the brochure? Wouldn't anyone encountering such a well-prepared, highly-informed and articulate person such as yourself be given pause to consider that they may not be the authority on the law that they are enforcing? Or did they just not care?

2A

2A_Smith said:

You say "They stated this ( open carry is illegal in Ct.[sic]) several times despite being informed of the opposite"
My question is who stated the opposite to them, and how?

Click to expand...

I was stating it the entire time I was in handcuffs after I was arrested, I had tried to hand them brochures and documents showing that it was legal to OC as they approached as well but these were thrown on the ground and trampled on.

Did they also zoom right past asking questions of you, their superiors in the department, or legal counsel, and arrested you on the spot? How soon after they arrived did they announce that you were under arrest?

Click to expand...

I was arrested immediately as soon as they made contact with me. Sgt. Colavolpe removed my firearm from my holster (clearing it in the direction of my GF and towards the windows of the establishment), and Ofc Garcia had me stand up and handcuffed me. I asked if I was being arrested and what for, they said "Breach of peace". When asked why they thought I had 'breached the peace' they replied because I was carrying a firearm openly.

IIRC, you had a CCDL brochure with you right?

Click to expand...

Correct, as well as the other documents like the DPS/state police memo and the letter from the commissioner.

And you were wearing a CCDL 'T' shirt?

Click to expand...

Correct.

Did they even bother to read the brochure?

Click to expand...

Nope. They threw it on the ground and stepped on it. When I repeatedly asked them about their knowledge of the laws, they replied with things like 'when do you think the law changed?' and 'CT is a concealed carry state'.

Wouldn't anyone encountering such a well-prepared, highly-informed and articulate person such as yourself be given pause to consider that they may not be the authority on the law that they are enforcing? Or did they just not care?

Click to expand...

They were very belligerent and cocky. They laughed when I told them OC was legal (they even turned to their buddies and told them what I said and they laughed as well) and that breach of peace was not a valid charge. I challenged them to tell me the part of breach of peace they were using and they misquoted the law several times. When I questioned Ofc Garcia on it several times on the way to the police department he admitted he didn't really understand either and that someone else would have to explain it to me.

By the time I got back to the PD, the charge had been changed to disorderly conduct. The officers involved at that point acknowledged that OC was legal and that they needed to get a better understanding of the laws. I even confirmed with them that if I chose to do so, I could OC out of the PD and they would do nothing about it. (The promptly zip tied the slide on my Glock open, however). They told me the disorderly conduct charge was only because I created a disturbance. I told them if that was the case, then they arrested the wrong person, because Mark Vanaman was the person who created the disturbance. I told them I wanted to file a complaint and a statement to that effect. At that point Lt. Martino came in and gave me a huge verbal tirade about how I couldn't file a complaint against Vanaman because I caused the scene by having a firearm. I stated that I do not think that exercising my 2nd amendment right to carry a firearm negated my 4th amendment rights nor did it give another citizen the right to cause a scene at my expense. He went on and on with a bunch of vitriol about how if he caught me OCing at a K-12 he would bust me to which I mentioned that that would be a completely different kind of case since carrying at a K-12 school is illegal and at a pool hall is not.

He stormed away after telling me he didn't want to hear my 'lawyer talk'. (So now he can hear my attorney talk?)

Hey Rich,
I went over the transcript of the Wallingford Police dispatcher conversation again (via CtGunRights.com), and what stuck out in my mind was that Mark Vanaman asserted that he was/is a bail bondsman & bail enforcement agent. If that is true, then the following may be valuable.

I was recently reviewing the 'substitute' HB 6457 from 2009, section (e) draws some language out from an earlier subsection. "The commissioner shall adopt regulations in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 concerning the approval of schools, institutions or organizations offering such courses, requirements for instructors and the required number of hours and content of such courses." It turns out that this language had resided in the general statutes 29-152m subsection (b). This places it in effect at least well before 2009, and who knows how far back. The connection that I find interesting is that it places responsibility for the content of the annual 'firearms safety refresher course' required of bail bondsmen, on the Commissioner himself.
This person who made an issue of your OC in wallingford was a bail bondsman? Was he an isolated 'poor student', or an example of misinformation (or a lack of essential information ===> negligence) in the course content? If he was instructed improperly regarding the law in Ct., and the Commissioner was responsible, is the Commissioner guilty under sec. 29-152n? Penalty is a Class D felony. By the way, who approves the Commissioner's permit to carry? The Commissioner is supposed to be Ct.'s "top cop" and is in a position to assess the "suitablility" of thousands of citizens; firearms instructors, private investigators, carry permit holders etc. Is he twisting the law? If so, I think the expression 'moral turpitude' may be appropriate, and be grounds for revocation of his permit based on un-suitability.

Extending this thinking, isn't the Commissioner responsible for the training of state and local Police too? Has there been purposeful mis-information of the rank-and-file officers by their chain-of-command?

I am just starting to learn about the laws in Ct. and the Legislative process, so I have been internally conflicted on the pros / cons of open vs concealed carry. I currently don't think mandated open carry is any better than mandated (de facto) concealed carry, the best arrangement is for both to be allowed, and the citizen to choose which to do as appropriate for each particular time and place and context. The current laws, as written, allow just that. Law Enforcement in this state seems to have instigated the current 'popular resistance' by not properly educating the officers to provide guidance as to appropriate choices, but to let the people make their choices. Perhaps Law Enforcement (DPS) thinks that public sentiment is ripe for changing the law. They have proposed legislation to mandate concealed carry. But my resentment is that unless and until the law is changed, they better enforce what IS on the books, and not an ounce more. They drew 'first blood' on this topic by overly severe conduct; on the street, in the courts, and in attempted power-grabs in the legislature. As such, I wholeheartedly support your resistance to their hegemony. I don't think it is enough for you to 'win your case'. I think the local Police should publish (BIG newspaper and online article) an apology to you and every citizen in the state for their wrongful behavior. In addition, I think the DPS should require a notice to be posted in every police station in the state clearly declaring the law (similar to the April 10th Rally wording). In a public area where citizens can make sure that it stays up.

2A

Agreed.

Though I don't disagree with Gunslinger, he left out the whole point in Terry v. Ohio that I mentioned earlier.

Officer safety.

Don't agree with the vagueness, but.......

Jonathan

Absent RAS, it does not apply, as any contact would thus be consensual, and not investigative.

KIX said:

Though I don't disagree with Gunslinger, he left out the whole point in Terry v. Ohio that I mentioned earlier.

Officer safety.

Don't agree with the vagueness, but.......

Jonathan

Click to expand...

KIX said:

Though I don't disagree with Gunslinger, he left out the whole point in Terry v. Ohio that I mentioned earlier.

Officer safety.

Don't agree with the vagueness, but.......

Jonathan

Click to expand...

You keep saying this but I have no idea why you feel it relates to this incident.
The police never did an investigative stop. They arrested me immediately.

What does Terry or officer safety have to do with anything?

Rich B said:

You keep saying this but I have no idea why you feel it relates to this incident.
The police never did an investigative stop. They arrested me immediately.

What does Terry or officer safety have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

Neither applies in your case. I was just answering a question about Terry v OH. They felt they had PC as you were "caught in the act"--at least in their room temperature IQ minds.

Officer safety is external to Terry, anyway. It is not grounds for a Terry stop absent RAS, as noted. Its allowance varies state to state under their own laws. It is not considered "detainment" under precise definition and the firearm must be returned immediately after the incident ends.

The Lt you talked to sounds like the dumbest pos of the group, btw. And that's saying something.

IF "openly carrying is "Looking to get busted."
Then it appears that there are only two reasons for such conduct -
1) One must be wishing to caught committing illegal act and be punished for it
or
2) One is daring the authorities to commit an illegal act and be punished for it.

Given that 'the authorities' might be a little .... miffed, shall we say, at being "set up" or encouraged to perform an illegal act, I can see only two possible outcomes in regards to their behavior
a) They will do what they can, when they can and hope that the punishment for their acts is insignificant compared to the reward of the crime
or
b) They will look extra close at their actions and interactions with lawfully armed carriers so as to avoid punitive damages that reduce their operating budgets.


If it took advertising where I was going to be, when I was going to be there, and that I was deliberately looking to make a substantial dent in the operating budgets of the local constabulary in order for them to be wary of interfering with my normal day then I'd have only two questions - - -

"Emergency or non-emergency number, and how many times an hour do you want me to call?"