Detained, no, NOT detained! St. Peters Red Lobster

Morpheus97 said:

We were next door at Bandanas for a quick dinner after having to work late last night. My wife and I were commenting on the police vehicles at Red Lobster, now we know why. Glad everything went smoothly for you. BTW, St Peters ordinance Section 210.200.C states that it is a $35 fine for failing to display a CCW permit upon the request of any peace officer.

Click to expand...

They Mirror 571.xxx, you are indeed not allowed to lie about such things, however, they must detain to demand, the contact I had with them would be "casual" not detainment which is exactly what I clarified with them when not going outside with them. If it was detainment, I would not have failed to follow a lawful order. I gave them the MO permit on purpose so they could find it in MULES and be done quick. Again, they were very polite despite interupting our meal. Once he had the permit we chatted about it, but basicly ignored them. If you live clean you know you have no wants or warrants and I have never in my adult life comitted a crime after I grew out of smoking weed 20 some years ago and I won't drink and drive either.

How did you miss the big yellow heep! If it had been my choice we would have been at Bandanna's over the sea food joint, but what the heck, she loves it.

Why not arrest the guy who called in a violent MWAG call for misuse of 911? After all they wasted their time and cost taxpayer money for nothing.

Parts of this may be specific to Washington, but I suspect much of it is applicable nationwide.
http://www.waprosecutors.org/MANUALS/search/May 2011 final SEIZURE AND CONFESSIONS.pdf
and it would appear that it was a de facto detention, although you didn't allow it to be conducted as one (for which you justifiably deserve kudos!)


Excerpted - -
...
2. Restrictions. The following conduct is beyond the scope of a social contact or consensual encounter:
• The use of coercive language to initiate a contact. "Gentlemen, I'd like to speak with you, could you come to my car?" or "Can I talk to you guys for a minute?" is permissive. "Wait right here" is coercive and constitutes a seizure. State v. Barnes, 96 Wn. App. 217, 223, 978 P.2d 1131 (1999)

• Retaining control of identification while verifying information that was given. See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 91 Wn. App. 195, 201, 955 P.2d 420, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1030 (1998) (officer, while retaining the defendant's identification, took three steps back to conduct a warrants check on his hand-held radio); State v. Dudas, 52 Wn. App. 832, 834, 764 P.2d 1012 (1988), review denied, 112 Wn.2d 1011 (1989) (deputy took the defendant's identification card and returned to the patrol car).
...

Some non-exhaustive factors that court’s will consider in determining whether officers have escalated a consensual encounter into a seizure include:
• the number of officers
• whether weapons were displayed
• whether the encounter occurred in a public or non-public setting
• whether the officer’s tone or manner was authoritative, so as to imply that compliance would be compelled
• whether the officers informed the person of his right to terminate the encounter.
• whether the officer physically touched the citizen
• whether the officer asked the citizen perform an act such as removing hands from pockets
• whether a patrol car’s overhead lights or sirens are activated
United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d 765, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2007); State v. 70 Harrington, 167 Wn.2d 656, 222 P.3d 92 (2009); State v. Beito, 147 Wn. App. 504, 195 P.3d State v. Mote, 129 Wn. App. 276, 120 P.3d 596 (2005).

Fallschirmjäger said:

Parts of this may be specific to Washington, but I suspect much of it is applicable nationwide.
http://www.waprosecutors.org/MANUALS/search/May 2011 final SEIZURE AND CONFESSIONS.pdf
and it would appear that it was a de facto detention, although you didn't allow it to be conducted as one (for which you justifiably deserve kudos!)

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that once he had the card in his hand, it was a pseudo detainment. While I could have asked for my card back immediately to confirm my legal position, I opted for compliance. Since they came to me and I politely declined to go with them, there was no “am I free to go” element as I was intent upon staying and simply wanted them to leave. If I had been done with my meal, I might well have asked for my ID back and told them we were leaving but it simply was not the case.

We are getting real close to a level of understanding in the area regarding OC and law enforcement and opting for a pleasant experience for everyone involved may well lead to far better relations in the future. I have already reached out to their leadership for an opportunity to have a meeting of the minds, they will either agree or decline, had I been a jackleg about it, no such chance would exist.

If we get a dialog going, perhaps we can develop into a situation like other areas have where it is handled at the 911 level and all Missourians may carry as they choose instead of having to fear encounters with officers. That is my hope and what I am working for, if we can get it done we are on the path to taking our country back from the government and can develop it as intended where they REPRESENT us, not try and rule us.

You are failing to answer my questions about weapon retention,Why?

Overall, I agree with Citizen.
The only thing I saw that mitigated their interference is:

LMTD said:

it is a muni with an oc only with ccw

Click to expand...

So yes, simply carrying is RAS.
That needs to be fixed, in many states.

MKEgal said:

Overall, I agree with Citizen.
The only thing I saw that mitigated their interference is:

So yes, simply carrying is RAS.
That needs to be fixed, in many states.

Click to expand...

I am not SURE in MO that is the case. It is indeed a licensed activity, but just like driving, they may not stop "just to check" here. As with anything else, in the words of so many "just follow until they screw up" aka weaved out of lane etc. They can develop a reason to satisfy RAS pretty quick and it does not take much of a lie to make that trip if they are dishonest.

Again, I along with several others are fairly well known in the region now and it IMHO was better to work with them so I could reach out to them and their polite demeanor indicates it might well be a possibility. If we get our laws passed this year, while not our responsibility to train them, it certainly is going to need to be done and if not us then who?

I look forward to the day every non-incarcerated citizen may make his/her own self defense choices and walk around un-accosted by the government for their choices, it is that simple. Some of the work has to be hard and mean, some has to be nice and pleasant, the latter seemed the better step all around last night.

Don’t worry, warm and fuzzy did not creep in, I still got a few “morons” and “clues” to pass out before I am done

If OC is OK w/CCW, why push it in those localities. He is gunna ask for ID anyway whether he knows or not to ask for the CCW. The only thing I do not like is the checking you out. It should be, holds the ID up to see if man matches picture and a friendly Thank you Sir, hands CCW back and off the LEO goes.

Oh, by the way, why assume that they did not observe for some amount of time before making contact? Ya would think that folks, around here anyway, would not make a determination about the LEO(s) conduct absent any facts to confirm the conclusion alluded to.

Thanks for the short Rich.....Red Lobster....just reading the words gets me to itching and scratching.

P.S. I singularly liked the below.

Lady who asked about gun earlier: No, it is really stupid, there is three of them and several cars, what a waste of money, you have been here over an hour, what kind of idiot calls the police when nothing is going on.
Me: (I turn a look and sure enough there are three officers) Such is life, they are being nice and just doing their job, I do not blame them, it is just the world we live in now.
Her Husband: Well it is no different than the one I have under my shirt, MO is an OC state, I don't understand what the big deal is.

Click to expand...

LMTD said:

Leo: You probably expected us to be here
Me: (some what startled, he snuck up between us when I was not looking, I actually looked down before I realized it was a Leo) uhm, no I certainly did not but I see you are here,

Click to expand...

LMTD, you are a very wise man. I think that opening statement by them was an attempt to get you to say something incriminating against yourself and you didn't fall for it.

Responding to that with a "yes" is basically saying you did something wrong even though you didn't.

Good for you for keeping your cool.

Since OC is only legal there with CCW isn't carrying alone RAS to ask for ID just like a checkpoint when driving which also obviously requires a license? I have been through several middle of the day stop and check DL/Insurance run by the MOSP, especially when I used to run by Arcadia with some frequency. Over the years I've had to stop in that area at least half a dozen times in the middle of a day for a stop and check for DL/Ins.

Or am I just missing something?

I think it was handled well, especially the here's my ID - I'm going to finish dinner part.

deepdiver said:

Since OC is only legal there with CCW isn't carrying alone RAS to ask for ID

Click to expand...

That is where it becomes a matter of how much hassle you want to go through IMO .

deepdiver said:

Since OC is only legal there with CCW isn't carrying alone RAS to ask for ID just like a checkpoint when driving which also obviously requires a license? I have been through several middle of the day stop and check DL/Insurance run by the MOSP, especially when I used to run by Arcadia with some frequency. Over the years I've had to stop in that area at least half a dozen times in the middle of a day for a stop and check for DL/Ins.
Or am I just missing something?
I think it was handled well, especially the here's my ID - I'm going to finish dinner part.

Click to expand...

Typically, the "license/safety/seatbelt" pretext checkpoint has procedural rules that must be followed such as:
Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

Remember, Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. However, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks.

If I ever have an officer ask to see my license or identification when we're "just havin' a little consensual conversation" I think my reply is going to be along the lines of "Oh, not a problem at all, Officer Friendly, I'll just need to see two pieces of photo ID first, and it's all yours. You don't mind do you?"

LMTD said:

How did you miss the big yellow heep! If it had been my choice we would have been at Bandanna's over the sea food joint, but what the heck, she loves it.

Click to expand...

Somehow I guess I missed it, but in my defense the Red Lobster parking lot was pretty full and I was looking at the cop cars anyway

We eat at Bandanas pretty frequently. Aside from good food and generally great service, we never have to wait to be seated. I ended up CCing that night instead of OCing because we had such a late start to the evening and I didn't want to get delayed too much in case of an incident like you experienced. I'm not a fan of the "Show me your papers just because..." mentality, but under the circumstances I think you did the right thing.

Glad it went well (though I agree with Citizen)!

Glad it went well Rich. I still have a problem with this though. 3 units now tied up for a nonsensical MWAG call. The statistics illustrate that less than 3% of criminals will ever risk OC'ing. No CCW permit is required to OC in most locations that honor OC, Bolivar being one of those exceptions. They obviously ran your CCW/ID with absolutely no cause to do so.

I'm thinking the Mayor owes you and your accompaniment a dinner at a minimum.

Again, I'm glad it went well and they didn't give you any static. I have to wonder if someone complained to the on-duty manager simply because they saw your sidearm. I just don't understand the security-factor people seem to have when there's a thin piece of clothing covering a firearm. It seems that many anti's and anti-OC'ers will flat out say: well just cover it up. What they often don't realize is that if that person does not have a CCW permit that they would then be breaking the law. More over is that the CCW permit should not be motivation to suggest that someone cover it up. It should be the choice of the individual, especially those that can afford to be taxed to have both options.

any clues to who called it in?

Fallschirmjäger said:

Typically, the "license/safety/seatbelt" pretext checkpoint has procedural rules that must be followed such as:
Decision making must be at a supervisory level, rather than by officers in the field.
A neutral formula must be used to select vehicles to be stopped, such as every vehicle or every third vehicle, rather than leaving it up the officer in the field.
Primary consideration must be given to public and officer safety.
The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving.
Limitations on when the checkpoint is to be conducted and for how long, bearing in mind both effectiveness and intrusiveness.
Warning lights and signs should be clearly visible.
Length of detention of motorists should be minimized.
Advance publicity is necessary to reduce the intrusiveness of the checkpoint and increase its deterrent effect.

Remember, Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion that DUI sobriety checkpoints do, in fact, constitute a "seizure" within the language of the Fourth Amendment. However, it's only a little one, and something has to be done about the "carnage" on the highways caused by drunk drivers. The "minimal intrusion on individual liberties," Rehnquist wrote, must be "weighed" against the need for -- and effectiveness of -- DUI roadblocks.

If I ever have an officer ask to see my license or identification when we're "just havin' a little consensual conversation" I think my reply is going to be along the lines of "Oh, not a problem at all, Officer Friendly, I'll just need to see two pieces of photo ID first, and it's all yours. You don't mind do you?"

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but when did warrantless stops become illegal?? I never consent to ID or discussions when stopped at a checkpoint. Even if, ESPECIALLY if, the stops are "neutral" like every third car, this violates my 4th and 5th amendment protected rights. I know that it seems smart and safe to "get along" but it is the slippery slope and you only need to step one foot onto it to start the long fall down. I just go into "Am I being detained" mode and expect to be delayed while they debate how many more of my rights to violate.

And Rhenquist was wrong on this one. If you want to deter drunk driving, prosecute drunk drivers. Real jail time. Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 people every year, injuring over 30,000, including over half of the drunk drivers themselves. If it is such a big deal, deal harshly with the violators and leave the rest of us alone.

Funny, since I started standing up to the local LEO's, respectfully but firmly, they treat me with respect and never bother me. They don't come to my Quik Trip nearly as much as they used to. One of the QT employees said that my presence and one other OCer that I have not met yet has LEO's believing that "bad guy" traffic has dramatically decreased and they don't feel as much of a need to be present. 3 QT employees and about a half dozen regulars that I know on sight have told me they have armed themselves and one QT employee OC's when he is not at work. 2 independent cab drivers that Ihave spoken to there now OC also. Every employee knows my whole family now as "the cop looking guy and his gun toting family"... lol. And they all seem very comfortable about it. They continuously refuse to charge me for fountain drinks, even over my protestations... lol. I keep telling them I am not a cop and one guy who never charges me says "Yeah, you're better".... never asked him to explain that.

Never give an inch. They might, and often do, take more.

But to each his own Isn't that the point??

I cannot find it in my heart do disagree with you.
The whole "drunk driving is causing such carnage" pretext is just that .... pretext.


IF it should ever come about that drunk driving ceases to exist, what does everyone expect to happen?

1) There will be no more warrantless, suspicionless stops because the problem has ceased to exist
OR
2) Some other problem will be the next "but, it's for the children" excuse to continue this sort of government behavior?

peterarthur said:

Excuse me, but when did warrantless stops become illegal?? I never consent to ID or discussions when stopped at a checkpoint. Even if, ESPECIALLY if, the stops are "neutral" like every third car, this violates my 4th and 5th amendment protected rights. I know that it seems smart and safe to "get along" but it is the slippery slope and you only need to step one foot onto it to start the long fall down. I just go into "Am I being detained" mode and expect to be delayed while they debate how many more of my rights to violate.

And Rhenquist was wrong on this one. If you want to deter drunk driving, prosecute drunk drivers. Real jail time. Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 people every year, injuring over 30,000, including over half of the drunk drivers themselves. If it is such a big deal, deal harshly with the violators and leave the rest of us alone.

Funny, since I started standing up to the local LEO's, respectfully but firmly, they treat me with respect and never bother me. They don't come to my Quik Trip nearly as much as they used to. One of the QT employees said that my presence and one other OCer that I have not met yet has LEO's believing that "bad guy" traffic has dramatically decreased and they don't feel as much of a need to be present. 3 QT employees and about a half dozen regulars that I know on sight have told me they have armed themselves and one QT employee OC's when he is not at work. 2 independent cab drivers that Ihave spoken to there now OC also. Every employee knows my whole family now as "the cop looking guy and his gun toting family"... lol. And they all seem very comfortable about it. They continuously refuse to charge me for fountain drinks, even over my protestations... lol. I keep telling them I am not a cop and one guy who never charges me says "Yeah, you're better".... never asked him to explain that.

Never give an inch. They might, and often do, take more.

But to each his own Isn't that the point??

Click to expand...

I am by nature not a confrontational person, but I agree with this wholeheartedly. I have to consciously think about respectfully declining when dealing with LEOs. It is difficult, but I think it is also correct.

LMTD said:

--snip--

I did not ruin our evening, people such as yourself have indeed trained the general public that guns are bad and must be hidden and you have done it so long and thoroughly that the popo now tend to believe it as well. This is a webspace of persons dedicated to changing that back the way it was and it is frequented by persons interested in doing just that, not morons. <+====== likely to have hate mail from grapeshot for that, but I call em like I see em and I left it neutral

Best I can offer you, run along now, this is a place where big boys and girls play and whining and blathering on render one ignored.

peace

Click to expand...

Glad you enjoyed your Valentines Day celebration - You did good on both counts.

I don't send hate mail - think of them as little post-it notes w/reminders.