Badger Johnson
Regular Member
From my VCDL newsletter:
Mr VanC was walking along the street at midnight, not breaking any laws, when a plainclothes cop rolled up on him and stopped him and made him show ID. He got an anonymous email from an alleged LEO explaining the action of the LEO who stopped him. I think it's interesting because there is a discussion of tactics which I've not seen before. I've added some bolding on those comments. I did get permission from Mr VanC to repost this here. Sorry about the length.
"Mr. Van Cleave,
On your recent encounter, I thought I would shed some light on why things may have gone the way they did. The courts have ruled that merely by turning on the flashing lights of a police car that an officer has effected a seizure in which a reasonable person might not feel they are free to leave. In your case there would have been no reason to turn the lights on as you were engaged in fully lawful activity and doing so would have put the officer in the position of having made an illegal seizure.
Additionally even things like volume and tone of voice can be considered a seizure rather then a consensual encounter. Which probably explains why you couldn't hear him. Too loud a voice or too strong a tone and again he would have effected an illegal seizure. The difference between, "Sir." and " SIR!" is sometimes a subtle intonation or slight volume change. If he had used the PA system even with a mild request, the volume alone may have been enough to be considered a seizure, aside from violating noise ordinances or departmental prohibitions on using the PA for certain encounters.
"Tactically speaking" it wouldn't have been wise to turn on his interior light as that would have highlighted him and made him vulnerable if you turned out to be a bad guy. *Not only would it have lit him up for an aggressor's fire, it would have temporarily reduced his ability to see you, either from glare on interior glass or reduction in night vision. So turning on his interior light to help identify himself would have put him at a dangerous disadvantage. *Something I don't think the general population would choose to endure if they were in his shoes.
It sounds like you encountered an officer who actually knew what he was doing. But I am glad to see that it ended well, despite raising your alert level.
One of the things I have found is that a lot of people who can and should carry, don't. When encountering a CHP holder on a traffic stop I often ask them, "Are you carrying today?". *I would say that 9 times out of 10 they tell me they are not. To which I usually reply "Why not?" *This seems to surprise a lot of people, and while some say they were coming from the communist state of Maryland or DC (my words not theirs) the rest will usually reply, "I didn't think I would need it today." *Or something to that effect. *I'd say another third have prohibitions against weapons at work and so they leave their guns at home.
It is a shame really that people have to choose between keeping a paycheck and potentially saving their own lives. Perhaps the VCDL should launch a campaign about gun safes in cars? *Then perhaps more people would be able to avoid having to make that choice."
Mr VanC was walking along the street at midnight, not breaking any laws, when a plainclothes cop rolled up on him and stopped him and made him show ID. He got an anonymous email from an alleged LEO explaining the action of the LEO who stopped him. I think it's interesting because there is a discussion of tactics which I've not seen before. I've added some bolding on those comments. I did get permission from Mr VanC to repost this here. Sorry about the length.
"Mr. Van Cleave,
On your recent encounter, I thought I would shed some light on why things may have gone the way they did. The courts have ruled that merely by turning on the flashing lights of a police car that an officer has effected a seizure in which a reasonable person might not feel they are free to leave. In your case there would have been no reason to turn the lights on as you were engaged in fully lawful activity and doing so would have put the officer in the position of having made an illegal seizure.
Additionally even things like volume and tone of voice can be considered a seizure rather then a consensual encounter. Which probably explains why you couldn't hear him. Too loud a voice or too strong a tone and again he would have effected an illegal seizure. The difference between, "Sir." and " SIR!" is sometimes a subtle intonation or slight volume change. If he had used the PA system even with a mild request, the volume alone may have been enough to be considered a seizure, aside from violating noise ordinances or departmental prohibitions on using the PA for certain encounters.
"Tactically speaking" it wouldn't have been wise to turn on his interior light as that would have highlighted him and made him vulnerable if you turned out to be a bad guy. *Not only would it have lit him up for an aggressor's fire, it would have temporarily reduced his ability to see you, either from glare on interior glass or reduction in night vision. So turning on his interior light to help identify himself would have put him at a dangerous disadvantage. *Something I don't think the general population would choose to endure if they were in his shoes.
It sounds like you encountered an officer who actually knew what he was doing. But I am glad to see that it ended well, despite raising your alert level.
One of the things I have found is that a lot of people who can and should carry, don't. When encountering a CHP holder on a traffic stop I often ask them, "Are you carrying today?". *I would say that 9 times out of 10 they tell me they are not. To which I usually reply "Why not?" *This seems to surprise a lot of people, and while some say they were coming from the communist state of Maryland or DC (my words not theirs) the rest will usually reply, "I didn't think I would need it today." *Or something to that effect. *I'd say another third have prohibitions against weapons at work and so they leave their guns at home.
It is a shame really that people have to choose between keeping a paycheck and potentially saving their own lives. Perhaps the VCDL should launch a campaign about gun safes in cars? *Then perhaps more people would be able to avoid having to make that choice."
Last edited:
