• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Oklahoma trooper...get a life

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
After all this time and I can't tell you how many hoops I went through....I know this for a fact that I can share.

Trooper Green was suspended for one day without pay for his actions..

I truly wish I could tell you more.......but the minute I can....I promise I will.

Z

ps....now if you found something on this and published it.....at least I didn't do it...lol

It's still a win, and it's a mark on his record that they cannot ignore. You are to be commended for your diligence in seeing that justice was done. Walk proudly, man, walk proudly!*

stay safe.

* - If you do not know the story of the Scotsman attending his first baseball game, of which the above is the punchline, PM me.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
i have decided to sue....this officer put my daughter at risk.....How dare he put her in this position!!!!

Notified today that the FOIA does not cover dashcam video or audio of the stop...must have a subpoena!!

Any lawyer u guys can recommend?

OMG FOIA does not apply? Wrong. Its a public record available under FOIA. They want to claim an exemption? They must tell you the exemption being claimed.

You currently do not have a suit filed, correct? (If you do then some states will see FOIA as complicating discovery and undermining a court's power regarding litigation ~ if not then its a moot point that you may file). Chk your state law regarding FOIA and discovery relationship.

If you are filing a suit, include the PD and town .. ask for dash cam in discovery
 
Last edited:

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,467
Location
Dallas
After all this time and I can't tell you how many hoops I went through...

From someone who doesn't mind driving from Uvalde to MO and back for Christmas, definition of a lot of hoops has to be a very large number. That's only like 1,000 miles one way. Next time you drive through Dallas, feel free to stop and I'll buy you lunch to hear more about your story. Hopefully it w/b sooner but it w/b nice to have an OC lunch in Dallas for you.
 

hrdware

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
740
Location
Moore, OK
DPS Exempt from FOIA

News channel 4 did a story about DPS (Highway Patrol) being exempt from FOIA requests last night.

Link to story: http://kfor.com/2013/11/04/controversial-exemption-from-open-records-act-for-ohp/

Apparently in 2005 they lost 2 court cases due to dash cam video and then got an exempt during a special session of the legislature. A couple of law makers are looking to reverse the law that provides the exemption.
 

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
Here is one for the record books.

Coming back from Texas I had a flat on Hwy 69 just outside of Durant OK…My son had apparently taken my jack so I could not change my tire. I was in the process of calling my service to come help me and an Oklahoma State Patrol car pulled up behind me. I was so happy, it was a very small shoulder and I had already told my 16yr old daughter to get out of the car so if we got hit she would not be in danger.

So, I am on the phone, trooper walks up to me and motioned me for my ID…WHAT???….I am on a short shoulder, and this guy wants to check my ID!!! Not fearing anything, I fumbled around, while talking to my service and gave him my DL…

After running my plates, my Dl…he came back…I am still on the phone. When he brought a jack with him I was relieved. I got off the phone after cancelling the service and told Officer Michael Green that I didn’t want to violate any laws and that I was carrying a sidearm. I thought he was going to shoot me on the spot!!!

I informed the officer that it was condition one. He still took my weapon, dropped the mag and turned it to himself to check the SN….POINTED AT HIMSELF….he then racked the slide and the chambered round came out. He yells at me…”You said that there was not one in the chamber”. I told him that I said it was condition one. He says’ You need to be more clear about that”….got to love the informed LEO’S!!

Here comes the fun part…He takes my weapon puts it UNDER a blanket on the passenger seat where my daughter was, and puts the mag and the extra round in the glove box.

I change my tire, gave him back his jack and he ask me to get in the patrol car because he has to fill out paperwork for the “assistance stop”.

He then tells my daughter to get back in car…..guess what, she sat on!!!! That is right, my unloaded weapon. She took the weapon and placed it on the dash in front of the passenger seat.

Now I am in his car and he starts to give me the right act about concealed carry and the like. Meanwhile my 16yr old daughter is in a car with a weapon and knows how to use it…..what an idiot.

Officer Green calls the DA of Bryan County and wants to know what he can charge me with because I didn’t notify him of the weapon…Basically it was told to me, that if I let him search my car for drugs, they would lower the fine…I don’t do drugs and don’t have any…so what the hell. I just want to go home.

Officer Greene, leaving me in his car, goes up to my daughter and starts giving her the right act, “ If you lie to me, and I find illegal drugs in the car, I don’t care if you’re a 16 year old little girl I will take your dad to jail and take you to a shelter and have your mom come pick you up.” my daughter told me this)…He told my daughter to get out of the car and then freaked out!!!…He couldn’t find the weapon that he put on the seat…..yelled at my daughter, which told him it was on the dash…..still…got to love these “well trained officers”

After another 45mn of ripping through all the Christmas presents and finding nothing Officer Green returns to the car….but it is not over with yet!!!

Officer Green informs me that I had been arrested for “discharging a firearm while intoxicated” and that I will have to submit to “blow” especially because I have beer on ice in a cooler.

First of all I was never arrested for anything of the sort…..but I blew because I wasn’t drinking…I just wanted out of there…

After the blow, he then starts giving me a lecture again on how I should know that I “have to notify” police officers that I am carrying a weapon. I politely told him that this is not required in Missouri and he told me that it was a “National” law….WHAT?….What the hell do they teach these idiots?..

Officer Green kept mentioning that he has a concealed carry license and that we both went to the same training and I should know better. Again I just wanted out of there, but I should have told him that the Florida license requires only a DD214 to get a license.

Here is the kicker, and no one should ever doubt that this is a money making machine. Officer Green said that if I wanted to I could go to the courthouse right now and pay the fine and I could be on my way…..I told him to write the ticket and I will handle it another way…

So he did…I got a ticket for failure to notify….$211.50 fine.

I have sent a FOI to the OK Dept of Public Safety for the Video and Audio recordings and I will keep you informed.

Just for a side note...the whole time I was wearing my "I have a gun under this shirt"...t-shirt

I apologize if I repeat something but I tend to not read many responses due to a lot of opinions that often are incorrect.

That being said Ill address the original statement. OHP does from time to time get hot heads who really should not be officers. It goes basically with any department and this is something that I wish I could change. I once got a ticket for causing an accident in Rogers county despite the fact I could prove my car had no damage and I was at work with said car and had time clock and coworkers to prove it. OHP Basically all the way up the chain stated they did not care and I ended up having to pay after going to court and the judge wouldnt even listen to my proof or evidence.

Now I am not going to bash the OHP because it was one officer who has a reputation for thinking hes God and apparently his supervisors fear him.

Having been law enforcement in some form or capacity for years I am sorry that you had a bad experience and on behalf of all LEOs who do take pride in our job I apologize that it became such a confusing and unneeded event.

When it comes to law enforcement in Oklahoma alot of people dont comprehend that we have to inform the officer when they are in the capacity of their duty such as a traffic stop and so forth we are carrying. People give bad advice in that a courtesy check is not official (Which is what you had) and therefore you would not be obligated to show I.D. Its fairly common because we dont want egg on our face that we loaned a jack to a murder suspect who had 10 warrants out on him and sent him on his way so yes we check I.D. on people we perform official capacity on.

Now with that being said outside of official capacity your not required in any way to walk in to a walmart or anywhere and see a police officer and immediately walk over and tell them because your not in capacity. Likewise this would extend to if you walked over and asked an officer for directions its not official capacity and therefore would not have to tell him.

one thing you should be very leary of and I have seen this so many times is people will come to these forums and ask advice and they get some very very bad advice and it could land the poster in jail and cause all kinds of problems. The best bet is not to macho up and try to beat the system. I am approached when traveling by a police officer who ask me out of no where for my CCW. I dont care that I have not done anything illegal and that I am legit. I simply show them the license and we both part happily and go our seperate ways. Can they arrest me for refusing? No they cant but be weary that they may find an out of date tag or tail light out (Seriously not implied I already know Ill get flamed on this)

As officers we have a difficult job and its as hard for us as it is for the CCW and people often dont realize that. We are expected to be baby sitters, referees, coaches, preachers, best friends and Einsteins. These are often unrealistic but people want us to be all of these when they need us and then let them speed any time they want, shoot any one they want, steal anything they want and do any kind of drug they want when they dont need us.

Though there are bad officers like you mentioned please understand not all are bad and everyone else should quit being so down on every leo that walks just because of a few bad apples.
 

John LeVan

New member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
3
Location
oklahoma city
I apologize if I repeat something but I tend to not read many responses due to a lot of opinions that often are incorrect.

First point of credibility lost.... Opinions cannot be incorrect. They can be wrong because they aren't in agreeance with me but that does not make them incorrect.

When it comes to law enforcement in Oklahoma alot of people dont comprehend that we have to inform the officer when they are in the capacity of their duty such as a traffic stop and so forth we are carrying. People give bad advice in that a courtesy check is not official (Which is what you had) and therefore you would not be obligated to show I.D.

This is an incorrect statement. According to the OSCN - http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69791 - Section C - "C. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed or unconcealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop. Said identification to the law enforcement officer shall be made at the first opportunity. No person shall be required to identify himself or herself as a handgun licensee when no handgun is in the possession of the person or in any vehicle in which the person is driving or is a passenger. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)."

That means "during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop." That does not mean that you have to notify the officer if he is pulling over to help you change a tire. That is not a routine traffic stop, detainment, or an arrest. It is a courtesy check. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't notify, it just means you aren't required to notify.

Its fairly common because we dont want egg on our face that we loaned a jack to a murder suspect who had 10 warrants out on him and sent him on his way so yes we check I.D. on people we perform official capacity on.

There is nothing in the law that states we are required to provide a state I.D. just because you want us to provide you with a state I.D. In general, we are required to provide a state I.D. only if we are doing something that requires us to have a state I.D. The law requires us to have a concealed carry permit and a driver's license or state photo I.D. while carrying a firearm.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69791 - Section B - "
B. The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed or concealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punishable as a criminal offense as authorized by Section 1272 of this title or pursuant to any other applicable provision of law. Any second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be grounds for the Bureau to suspend the handgun license for a period of six (6) months, in addition to any other penalty imposed.

Upon the arrest of any person for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the person may show proof to the court that a valid handgun license and the other required identification has been issued to such person and the person may state any reason why the handgun license or the other required identification was not carried by the person as required by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. The court shall dismiss an alleged violation of Section 1272 of this title upon payment of court costs, if proof of a valid handgun license and other required identification is shown to the court within ten (10) days of the arrest of the person. The court shall report a dismissal of a charge to the Bureau for consideration of administrative proceedings against the licensee."


Unless the LEO suspects some sort of criminal activity they are not allowed to disarm, detain, or arrest the individual. Just because someone has 10 warrants out for their arrest does not mean you specifically have suspicion of criminal activity. However, recognizing the individual from a mug shot or warrant paperwork may provide that suspicion.

one thing you should be very leary of and I have seen this so many times is people will come to these forums and ask advice and they get some very very bad advice and it could land the poster in jail and cause all kinds of problems. The best bet is not to macho up and try to beat the system. I am approached when traveling by a police officer who ask me out of no where for my CCW. I dont care that I have not done anything illegal and that I am legit. I simply show them the license and we both part happily and go our seperate ways. Can they arrest me for refusing? No they cant but be weary that they may find an out of date tag or tail light out (Seriously not implied I already know Ill get flamed on this)

The most important part of giving advice is to understand the law and be able to provide proof of what you are saying and explaining. Giving bad advice, such as the advice you have just provided us, is in general a bad idea. Also, if you know you are going to get "flamed" for saying something, you should do a little research on what you are posting beforehand so that you don't have a reason to be "flamed" in the first place.

As officers we have a difficult job and its as hard for us as it is for the CCW and people often dont realize that. We are expected to be baby sitters, referees, coaches, preachers, best friends and Einsteins. These are often unrealistic but people want us to be all of these when they need us and then let them speed any time they want, shoot any one they want, steal anything they want and do any kind of drug they want when they dont need us.

Though there are bad officers like you mentioned please understand not all are bad and everyone else should quit being so down on every leo that walks just because of a few bad apples.

I don't mean this as sarcastic in the least, thank you for being a part of the open and concealed carry community and thank you for your service. I appreciate what you do, as I have come from a long history of law enforcement myself.
 

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
First point of credibility lost.... Opinions cannot be incorrect. They can be wrong because they aren't in agreeance with me but that does not make them incorrect.



This is an incorrect statement. According to the OSCN - http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69791 - Section C - "C. It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed or unconcealed handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act when the person comes into contact with any law enforcement officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop. Said identification to the law enforcement officer shall be made at the first opportunity. No person shall be required to identify himself or herself as a handgun licensee when no handgun is in the possession of the person or in any vehicle in which the person is driving or is a passenger. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)."

That means "during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop." That does not mean that you have to notify the officer if he is pulling over to help you change a tire. That is not a routine traffic stop, detainment, or an arrest. It is a courtesy check. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't notify, it just means you aren't required to notify.



There is nothing in the law that states we are required to provide a state I.D. just because you want us to provide you with a state I.D. In general, we are required to provide a state I.D. only if we are doing something that requires us to have a state I.D. The law requires us to have a concealed carry permit and a driver's license or state photo I.D. while carrying a firearm.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69791 - Section B - "
B. The person shall be required to have possession of his or her valid handgun license and a valid Oklahoma driver license or an Oklahoma State photo identification at all times when in possession of an authorized pistol. The person shall display the handgun license on demand of a law enforcement officer; provided, however, that in the absence of reasonable and articulable suspicion of other criminal activity, an individual carrying an unconcealed or concealed handgun shall not be disarmed or physically restrained unless the individual fails to display a valid handgun license in response to that demand. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection may be punishable as a criminal offense as authorized by Section 1272 of this title or pursuant to any other applicable provision of law. Any second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be grounds for the Bureau to suspend the handgun license for a period of six (6) months, in addition to any other penalty imposed.

Upon the arrest of any person for a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the person may show proof to the court that a valid handgun license and the other required identification has been issued to such person and the person may state any reason why the handgun license or the other required identification was not carried by the person as required by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act. The court shall dismiss an alleged violation of Section 1272 of this title upon payment of court costs, if proof of a valid handgun license and other required identification is shown to the court within ten (10) days of the arrest of the person. The court shall report a dismissal of a charge to the Bureau for consideration of administrative proceedings against the licensee."


Unless the LEO suspects some sort of criminal activity they are not allowed to disarm, detain, or arrest the individual. Just because someone has 10 warrants out for their arrest does not mean you specifically have suspicion of criminal activity. However, recognizing the individual from a mug shot or warrant paperwork may provide that suspicion.



The most important part of giving advice is to understand the law and be able to provide proof of what you are saying and explaining. Giving bad advice, such as the advice you have just provided us, is in general a bad idea. Also, if you know you are going to get "flamed" for saying something, you should do a little research on what you are posting beforehand so that you don't have a reason to be "flamed" in the first place.



I don't mean this as sarcastic in the least, thank you for being a part of the open and concealed carry community and thank you for your service. I appreciate what you do, as I have come from a long history of law enforcement myself.

EDIT: *After reading my reply I deemed it was the correct message but not stated appropriately. What was intended to say was: I voiced what I feel was correct and you did not agree with me. It is not me who ends up in court though so anyone taking advice from this forum, any person, officer or otherwise should be aware that incorrectly stated advice may end one up in legal trouble.

It is highly recommended instead of seeking legal advice from others who get online or in meetings that you either comply within the stated realm of the law or if you seek to walk the line with the law you should seek legal counsel from an attorney.
 
Last edited:

John LeVan

New member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
3
Location
oklahoma city
as usual someone cant accept logic. I voiced what was correct and someone wants to incorrectly argue the point. Oh well it wont be me in court :)

Would you care to logically explain how you were correct and I was incorrect? According to the rules of this forum - http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules - "(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc."

I cited the law, with a link to the law. What I said was in accordance to the law. You sir, did not state the law, nor did you reference the actual law, and now you are doing the equivalent of the school yard "Nu Uh!" If you'd like to cite the law and prove to me that "upon casual contact with the law, a citizen is required to show their concealed carry ID or a state ID," I will gladly admit that I am wrong. Until such a time when you can point me to the exact paragraph of the law containing that information, I do believe you have just lost all credibility. For heaven's sake man, you didn't even follow the forums rules.
 

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
Would you care to logically explain how you were correct and I was incorrect? According to the rules of this forum - http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules - "(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc."

I cited the law, with a link to the law. What I said was in accordance to the law. You sir, did not state the law, nor did you reference the actual law, and now you are doing the equivalent of the school yard "Nu Uh!" If you'd like to cite the law and prove to me that "upon casual contact with the law, a citizen is required to show their concealed carry ID or a state ID," I will gladly admit that I am wrong. Until such a time when you can point me to the exact paragraph of the law containing that information, I do believe you have just lost all credibility. For heaven's sake man, you didn't even follow the forums rules.

No credibility was lost at all simply a person who has a different view and his is in disagreement with mine. By the same token I could reply that you have lost yours as well. Needless to say I do apologize for my short reply and have corrected my original reply to reflect such.

Have a good day sir
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...It is highly recommended instead of seeking legal advice from others who get online ... that you ... comply within the stated realm of the law...

ESPECIALLY if it is from a cop.

But those who cite the law as the reason for their opinion, instead of citing a badge, soon establish a track record of trustworthiness.

As for complying with the law, you were directing this to the cop, not the OP, right?
 
Last edited:

John LeVan

New member
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
3
Location
oklahoma city
No credibility was lost at all simply a person who has a different view and his is in disagreement with mine. By the same token I could reply that you have lost yours as well. Needless to say I do apologize for my short reply and have corrected my original reply to reflect such.

Have a good day sir

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to forfeit the information that you are carrying a firearm, and I am not saying it is a bad idea to produce the requested identification. I am saying, according to the law, it is not required, and as such, no law enforcement officer has the right to arrest someone who does not offer up or produce requested documents during a casual encounter.

I'm not here to bash you. It is however, unjust and inappropriate for someone, such as yourself, who is in a position such as LEO, to give false or uncited information. Lots of people have respect for you as law enforcement and generally expect you to be able to dictate the correct information when dealing with enforcing the law. If you can't cite the law, then you shouldn't state information in regards to a legal issue as factual. It's awesome that you want to give advice, but before you give the advice we all want you to give us, prepare yourself and back your statement up with the actual facts and citations. Whether or not someone agrees with the law does not change the law. Just because it is a "good idea" does not make it a "requirement."
 

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
ESPECIALLY if it is from a cop.

But those who cite the law as the reason for their opinion, instead of citing a badge, soon establish a track record of trustworthiness.

As for complying with the law, you were directing this to the cop, not the OP, right?

As for complying with the law it was directed at everyone. The cop was conducting a well being check which is a part of his job. He was not out of line for checking I.D. and if you ever notice it almost always happens when people are rendered aid.

There is a misconception as to what an officer can and can not do. If an officer is working security at walmart and you walk in carrying a firearm he can in his capacity as a security officer request I.D. The flip side of this is a person having no broken any law can say I dont want to shop here anyway and leave with out showing him and he can not force it.

Another example is your pumping gas and an officer pulls along side of you and sees you wearing a firearm. He can not legaly just ask you for I.D. because you are wearing one but if you do match a suspects description of say an armed robbery then her can do a field investigation and he can ask for I.D. which you must comply because it is an investigation.

See there are flips to all things which was my point but yes breaking down on the side of the highway is grounds for an officer to conduct in his official capacity a well being check. A well being check is a part of his duties so yes he can check I.D.

Now would I go as far as the trooper did? Absolutely not. I would first ask for I.D. and politely inform the person I was dealing with of my concerns and check the I.D. at this point there is no mention from the O.P. that there was a reason to do more then that so I would not push it further. Once its established he his not wanted I would simply and politely tell him I am going to sit behind him with my warning lights to prevent him from being hit.

Being a police officer is a difficult job and just as difficult for us to comply with some of the laws while being safe as it is for an individual to comply and be safe.

I dont fear anyone wearing a holstered firearm who is shopping or sitting outside smoking a cigerette because I read past the sight and look at the demeanor and how they present their self.

I am as pro 2nd amendment as they come no matter what others opinions are but I do try to advocate for both sides so there is a better understanding of why honest LEOS do what they do and then to LEOS why firearms owners are the way there are.

We can cite all day long how LEOS have lose cannons who abuse their authority but we also have 2a supporters who strap on firearms and taunt police too looking for a fight.

I dont worry about anyones opinions or what value they place on me or my credibility. I do value my rights to carry peacefully and all the while try to coexist both in uniform and out with both sides.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
As for complying with the law it was directed at everyone. The cop was conducting a well being check which is a part of his job. He was not out of line for checking I.D. and if you ever notice it almost always happens when people are rendered aid.

...

See there are flips to all things which was my point but yes breaking down on the side of the highway is grounds for an officer to conduct in his official capacity a well being check. A well being check is a part of his duties so yes he can check I.D.

Now would I go as far as the trooper did? Absolutely not. I would first ask for I.D. and politely inform the person I was dealing with of my concerns and check the I.D. ...

Show me where a "well-being check" is part of the job. What happens if a cop approaches to do a "well-being check" and I say: "Leave me the f*** alone!" Does it make a difference if I phrase it better: "Please leave me alone, officer."? It shouldn't. There is a legal difference between me being required to produce ID and a cop 'not being out of line' in asking for it. You've yet to treat it differently.

Let's say the driver hitch-hiked to town to get help and the non-driver is the one who is currently working on the vehicle. How do you, um, "request" ID from someone not required to have it? Do you no longer care about their "well-being" because they have no ID?

Your "Your papers, please!" attitude is disturbing.

EDIT: You said that the ID check "almost always happens" in these situations. What happens when it doesn't? Is the officer disciplined for not following official procedures? You've just said it doesn't always happen, so what is the penalty when it doesn't?
 
Last edited:

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to forfeit the information that you are carrying a firearm, and I am not saying it is a bad idea to produce the requested identification. I am saying, according to the law, it is not required, and as such, no law enforcement officer has the right to arrest someone who does not offer up or produce requested documents during a casual encounter.

I'm not here to bash you. It is however, unjust and inappropriate for someone, such as yourself, who is in a position such as LEO, to give false or uncited information. Lots of people have respect for you as law enforcement and generally expect you to be able to dictate the correct information when dealing with enforcing the law. If you can't cite the law, then you shouldn't state information in regards to a legal issue as factual. It's awesome that you want to give advice, but before you give the advice we all want you to give us, prepare yourself and back your statement up with the actual facts and citations. Whether or not someone agrees with the law does not change the law. Just because it is a "good idea" does not make it a "requirement."

John first let me say thank you for a thoughtful reply.

you have hit one of the most sensitive parts of the SDA and thats the difference between casual encounter and informal. Because of this very problem I think you will find MOST LEOs simply dont mess with the firearms issue because its so delicate. I dont and for this reason if there is a reason I feel I need to discuss with an individual his carrying a firearm I am very polite about it and up front inform the person of my intentions. An example would be "Sir you are not required to show me your permit as you know however would you be ok if I ask for it?" If they reply no and I have no reason to push the envelope I leave it alone. I dont try to be a butt and I dont try to show my authority.

Here is my insight though and one reason I really support anyone who carries a firearm. You (Assuming you carry) decided that you wanted to probably like most Oklahomans that you and your family mean more to you then being a victim. Its why I carry off duty honestly. So you have decided to be a part of a solution and thats if the need arises eliminate a criminal. Though we all know this is a last resort it is a reality that you would do so before losing your family.

Since you are (Assuming this is the case) proactive in making Oklahoma a safer place a good LEO would know that you are willing to assist us by giving valuable information. Despite the lefts attempts to paint firearms owners as hillbillies looking to shoot someone most never pull their firearm even in a bad situation unless its a direct threat but they do take an active role in detail. Most can tell you what a suspect looks like the car and so forth.

Firearms activist are proactive in reducing crime and LEOS know this. They may or may not agree on open carry but they do agree that if a community is made safer because criminals fear the residents then it also lessens the likely hood an officer will encounter a bad guy and risk death.

Youll read about rogue officers just like you will about rogue carriers but the truth is most officers understand why people chose to carry because most officers have a home, a family and a life they value just like carriers. But there is just like with Racism a line where there are always a few that refer to the other side as "Them and us"
 

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
Show me where a "well-being check" is part of the job. What happens if a cop approaches to do a "well-being check" and I say: "Leave me the f*** alone!" Does it make a difference if I phrase it better: "Please leave me alone, officer."? It shouldn't. There is a legal difference between me being required to produce ID and a cop not "being out of line" in asking for it. You've yet to treat it differently.

Let's say the driver hitch-hiked to town to get help and the non-driver is the one who is currently working on the vehicle. How do you, um, "request" ID from someone not required to have it? Do you no longer care about their "well-being" because they have no ID?

Your "Your papers, please!" attitude is disturbing.

Your anti LEO is also disturbing but a well being check is a part of an officers job. There are circumstances though your correct. A highway is a dangerous place and parking on a shoulder is in some cases illegal except in emergencies and case of disabled vehicles. It does then become an investigation as to if a law was broke or not (Yes some people do just stop on the side of the highway because).

Now say a well being check at your home because your family hasnt heard from you in weeks. There is no law against not wanting to talk to a family and so your not obligated to show or even answer your door. You would then not even have to say anything or produce anything. You can tell an officer to kiss your fanny and his job is complete. Your ok obviously so he simply leaves. If you decide not to answer then he can not kick the door down or anything like that.

Its just a matter of what the circumstances are.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Your anti LEO is also disturbing but a well being check is a part of an officers job. There are circumstances though your correct. A highway is a dangerous place and parking on a shoulder is in some cases illegal except in emergencies and case of disabled vehicles. It does then become an investigation as to if a law was broke or not (Yes some people do just stop on the side of the highway because).

Now say a well being check at your home because your family hasnt heard from you in weeks. There is no law against not wanting to talk to a family and so your not obligated to show or even answer your door. You would then not even have to say anything or produce anything. You can tell an officer to kiss your fanny and his job is complete. Your ok obviously so he simply leaves. If you decide not to answer then he can not kick the door down or anything like that.

Its just a matter of what the circumstances are.

What anti-LEO attitude? Why is an anti-anti-free-citizen somehow "anti-LEO" unless the LEO makes it such? I have never bashed a LEO doing his job properly. And I have "bashed" many professional when they don't do theirs. LEO's are very quick to cry LEO-bashing. Why is that?
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...I would first ask for I.D. and politely inform the person I was dealing with of my concerns and check the I.D. at this point there is no mention from the O.P. that there was a reason to do more then that so I would not push it further. Once its established he his not wanted I would simply and politely tell him I am going to sit behind him with my warning lights to prevent him from being hit.

Being a police officer is a difficult job...

Did you really just say this? I feel like it's an early Christmas present.

So "well-being check": Demand ID, do a background check, then sit in car and watch him get back to what he was trying to do before you got there to check on his well-being. Got it.

I know, I know. I'm anti-LEO for pointing out exactly what you just said you do.
 
Last edited:

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
So "well-being check": Demand ID, do a background check, then sit in car and watch him get back to what he was trying to do before you got there to check on his well-being. Got it.

I know, I know. I'm anti-LEO for pointing out what you just said you do.

Have a good day sir :lol:
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
As for complying with the law it was directed at everyone. The cop was conducting a well being check which is a part of his job. He was not out of line for checking I.D. and if you ever notice it almost always happens when people are rendered aid.
Why must a cop default to checking ID?

There is a misconception as to what an officer can and can not do. If an officer is working security at Walmart and you walk in carrying a firearm he can in his capacity as a security officer request I.D. The flip side of this is a person having no broken any law can say I don't want to shop here anyway and leave with out showing him and he can not force it.
Where is this in writing. LEA policy is not the law, and a cop's proclivity/habit is not the law.

Another example is your pumping gas and an officer pulls along side of you and sees you wearing a firearm. He can not legally just ask you for I.D. because you are wearing one but if you do match a suspects description of say an armed robbery then her can do a field investigation and he can ask for I.D. which you must comply because it is an investigation.
If? I get the "you look like a perp.... do you mind...." but cops usually toss this one out early on in the "papers please" discussions. The suspected perp pumping gas will not likely be approached in a manner that the suspected perp would think that he had any choice one way or the other, cops are good on this point. Cops don't work that way, they should not work that way because they have families that want to see them later that day.

See there are flips to all things which was my point but yes breaking down on the side of the highway is grounds for an officer to conduct in his official capacity a well being check. A well being check is a part of his duties so yes he can check I.D.
What is the point of requesting ID in this situation. If the vehicle is broken, providing a ID does not make it lawfully broken, and not providing ID does not make it unlawfully broken. Again, what is the point of requesting ID? The reason the OP stopped was due to a flat tire, unless of course a flat tire does not qualify as a legitimate reason to use the shoulder.

Now would I go as far as the trooper did? Absolutely not. I would first ask for I.D. and politely inform the person I was dealing with of my concerns and check the I.D. at this point there is no mention from the O.P. that there was a reason to do more then that so I would not push it further. Once its established he his not wanted I would simply and politely tell him I am going to sit behind him with my warning lights to prevent him from being hit.
This seems to be a example of always asking and almost always the citizen complying.

Being a police officer is a difficult job and just as difficult for us to comply with some of the laws while being safe as it is for an individual to comply and be safe.
No doubt and thank you for your service and dedication, be safe.

I don't fear anyone wearing a holstered firearm who is shopping or sitting outside smoking a cigarette because I read past the sight and look at the demeanor and how they present their self.
Are there any other observable indicators we should know about that would mitigate you requesting my ID?

I am as pro 2nd amendment as they come no matter what others opinions are but I do try to advocate for both sides so there is a better understanding of why honest LEOS do what they do and then to LEOS why firearms owners are the way there are.

We can cite all day long how LEOS have lose cannons who abuse their authority but we also have 2a supporters who strap on firearms and taunt police too looking for a fight.

I don't worry about anyone's opinions or what value they place on me or my credibility. I do value my rights to carry peacefully and all the while try to coexist both in uniform and out with both sides.
I detect a level of resentment. If some jack-leg wants to do as you have indicated he can, right up to the point that he violates the law. Unfortunately his demeanor with a gun will land him in cuffs because we have disorderly conduct laws and cops use them quite frequently for jack-leg OCers as well as peaceable OCers. I suspect that discussions here on OCDO will have little impact on your daily routine while on the clock.

Unfortunately I, nor you, can tell which of us is the loose cannon by mere observation, you will have to excuse me if I hold every cop in a suspicious light, as should every cop hold me in a similar light. When, if ever, OC is something a cop expects to see on his daily travels then my suspicious light should rightly be extinguished, the you as a cop gets to keep yours on.
 
Top