jdholmes said:
I don't consent to this encounter...
I'll keep my hands wherever i please...
... I really think that kind of response towards officers raises tension in the situation, and helps to create an issue out of potentially nothing.
SoLasVegas said:
...when was the last time you were in a friendly conversation that started with someone barking an order of "Hey, you! Stop right there!"?
Perhaps it is the officer's tone and the officer's attitude that is creating the tension in the first place.
+100
If it's intended to be a friendly interaction, they'd better make it very clear that they're just engaging in friendly conversation & you're under no obligation to respond, or stick around.
If someone wants to chat, s/he can be friendly about it, no matter the clothes or employer.
Barking orders is NOT friendly.
So yes, that hypothetical officer caused the problem.
When you ask
why you're being detained, it puts them on notice that
you feel you ARE detained (which means that you
have been detained), which means that they must either reassure you that you are free to go & NOT being detained or come up with a good reason real fast.
When you tell them you do not consent to a conversation (or being detained, or whatever), it clearly shows that it's nonconsensual. They can't claim it is. Again, they have to come up with a reason for forcing a nonconsensual encounter.
I urge the OP to write to the Chief &/or city attorney. Inform them what happened, object to the illegal acts of the officers (including following you!!!), and point out why it's illegal for them to do what they did. Require of them that the department have updated training.
Some court cases & quotes that might help you (& jdholmes & the officers / department from the OP encounter) understand exactly WHY what happened in that store was illegal:
"
The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US
"
The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
WI v. Kiekhefer (Ct. App. 1997)
"
Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse, 1979
(By extension, stopping someone just to check for a carry license is also a 4A violation.)
"
Police conduct does not need to be egregious or outrageous in order to be coercive. Subtle pressures are considered to be coercive if they exceed the defendant’s ability to resist. Pressures that are not coercive in one set of circumstances may be coercive in another set of circumstances."
WI v. Hoppe, 2003
St. John v. McColley
"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
United States v. Ubiles, (3rd Cir. 2000):
The Third Circuit found that
an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. King, (10th Cir. 1993)
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because
the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
[HINT: that is EXACTLY what happened to the OP. The officers had no RAS of a crime, yet they detained & investigated him anyway simply because they saw he had a pistol.]
