• 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.

Devils advocate here....scenario.

Superduty

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
12
Location
Texas..soon Spokane
I'm again learning how to oc here in spokane. Still have yet to do so...probably tomorrow...but please help me on this scenario.

Lets say I'm walking outside in a parking lot or down the street and a Leo comes over and says he has a call/complaint about someone with a gun walking around. My gun has remained holstered,btw...how would you handle the situation if approached?

In my mind the Leo is doing his job. He does have a right to investigate the call right?

I have got the impression on here that the Leo does not have a right to detain me...because I'm breaking no laws,..but isn't part of a Leo investigation?

If I explain to him I am in my legal right to carry my firearm....is it over...no other contact should be involved right? What if the Leo asks for my Id? Do I have to comply? The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.

Thanks for the help.
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
A LEO can come talk to you anytime you want. That is not nessessarily a detainment. My standard response would be "Am I free to go officer?" If they say yes, then leave. If they say no, you are being detained. Use your 5th amendment right. The mere sight of a holstered firearm is not RAS, so legally they need more than just that in order to keep you there for investigation.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
You don't really give enough info to determine whether a detainment is legal, but lets assume for the moment everything you said is all the information the cop has. It is the information the cop has, and his experience with dealing with criminal behavior that will be used by the court to determine whether reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) existed at the time of the encounter and justified temporarily seizing the person for investigation. See Terry vs Ohio for the beginnings of RAS and detainment analysis. Also, your state has stronger protections in some areas than the federal bill of rights. This may be one of those areas.

So, lets assume what you have given is all there is.

Then, no, the cop has no authority to detain you. He can investigate anything he wants, but he cannot involuntarily make you stay (seize you) while he investigates. In order to detain you, he must meet the minimum requirements of RAS that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed. If all he has is a report of someone doing something both entirely legal, and moreover an enumerated right, and he then actually observes that enumerated right being exercised in an entirely legal manner with nothing else to raise valid suspicion of criminality, then, no, he cannot temporarily seize that person.

He could investigate you consensually. Meaning you could consent to answer his questions and give ID and so forth.

Personally, I view it as a total outrage if a cop contacts someone to investigate them for exercising the fundamental human of self-defense. It is absolutely intolerable to contact and investigate someone for exercising an enumerated right. If a cop contacts and investigates you for mere OC, even consensually, it means that government agent considers an enumerated right to be suspicious! No. No. No. NO!!!!

If the cop wants to investigate the report, he can observe the OCer from a distance.

You can find Terry v Ohio and a number of other federal cases here, including some videos on how to exercise your rights during a police encounter:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I'm again learning how to oc here in spokane. Still have yet to do so...probably tomorrow...but please help me on this scenario.

Lets say I'm walking outside in a parking lot or down the street and a Leo comes over and says he has a call/complaint about someone with a gun walking around. My gun has remained holstered,btw...how would you handle the situation if approached?

"Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening officer/deputy/sergeant/whatever, for what reason do we meet today"

In my mind the Leo is doing his job. He does have a right to investigate the call right?

He has the right to investigate suspicious activity for which he has RAS or a specific criminal act for which he has PC. this generally means in the case of a call/citizen complaint he would have to have a specific allegation of an illegal act (OC itself is not an illegal act) from a named complainant, anomyous reports have generally been ruled insuffecient by courts as RAS or PC. if neither of those exist he only has the right to investigate if you consent to the detention

I have got the impression on here that the Leo does not have a right to detain me...because I'm breaking no laws,..but isn't part of a Leo investigation?

To detain you for an investiation requires probable cause that you are commiting or have commited an illegal act. if the caller complainant said you were merely OCing none exists, if the complainant said you were brandishing or whathaveyou you may be in trouble, I would adopt the "name rank and serial number" approach to this. Officer My name is...... my current address is..... I am doing nothing illega.... I wish to speak with counsel prior to any further questioning"

If I explain to him I am in my legal right to carry my firearm....is it over...no other contact should be involved right? What if the Leo asks for my Id? Do I have to comply? The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.

If the call/complaint was only that you were OCing you should never have been contacted in the first place, if the officer is honest it should be over once you explain you merely OCing. The officer cannot compel ID if you are not driving.

RCW 46.61.021 said:
Duty to obey law enforcement officer — authority of officer.

(1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.

(2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.

(3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address.

technically there is no obligation to ID yourself when not driving, however if being issued a criminal citation, that citation is a promise you will appear in court, and if you don't ID yourself the officer can arrest you to insure you come to court. if they're merely detaining you no they cannot compel ID but if they are citing you for a violation of RCWs Title 9 and 9A you should ID yourself or you might go to jail. however by merely OCing you are not violating any provisions of those titles.

however it depends really on the nature of the complaint, and what you are being accused of, which is why you shouldn't argue your case on the side of the road, I give my name and address and answer all other questions in "yes" "no" or "I decline to answer" if you don't know what they're really investigation you can easily admit to something else not related or give them evidence of PC of something else. so keeping your mouth shut and saving your arguments for the courtroom is the best idea


*IANAL, you must verify all of this indepedently for your own interests, this is the law as I understand it, please do not take my word As I can very well be mistaken or incorrect about any part of this
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.

Thanks for the help.

This is your typical cop-talk designed to confuse. Let me help clarify.

Personhood cannot be suspicious. If it were, the whole human race would be subject to temporary detention for investigation. Specific actions are what are what can raise legitimate suspicions.

Did the caller report actions that raised valid suspicions? Behaviors that raised valid suspicions? Over his or her lifetime, did the caller carefully sort and evaluate his ideas about guns and self-defense so that his suspicions are raised only when genuinely valid? You see where this is going, right?

This is a little like the cop assertion about a driver or a person making a furtive movement. Huh? How can a movement be furtive. It can only be a movement. Whether it is furtive is an evaluation made by the observer. Lets first hear what the movement was Officer, the we'll hear why you considered it furtive and evaluate for ourselves. Similar for suspicous person. First lets hear what he was doing, then we'll hear why you thought it suspicous, Officer.

Basically police are trying to slip past you their evaluation about the activity so you don't evaluate it yourself. They want you to just accept it. Helps keep the questions to a minimum, don't you know.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP He has the right to investigate suspicious activity for which he has RAS or a specific criminal act for which he has PC. this generally means in the case of a call/citizen complaint he would have to have a specific allegation of an illegal act (OC itself is not an illegal act) from a named complainant, anomyous reports have generally been ruled insuffecient by courts as RAS or PC. if neither of those exist he only has the right to investigate if you consent to the detention

Cite(s) please. Forum Rule #5.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Cite(s) please. Forum Rule #5.

My apologies, here in the cite.


Florida v. JL Supreme Court of the United States said:
: An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 . Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
My apologies, here in the cite.

Thanks.

You want to be careful about using that specific case. Florida v JL was not about guns. It was about anonymous tips. And, the gun involved was being carried concealed, not OCd.

The reason we like the case is because the court expressly declined to modify standard Terry analysis of RAS just because a gun was involved. This was not expressed in the holding (the legally binding part of the opinion), it was expressed in the dicta (the discussion section where the court is giving among other things its rationale and analysis leading up to the holding. The guvthugs asked the court to loosen standards for suspicion when a gun is involved, and the court said no. But, that is all sideshow. The case was about anonymous tips. The real value to gun guys is that the court signaled its unwillingness to reduce the RAS standards if a gun is involved.

So, if a caller gives his name, suddenly it is no longer an anonymous tip. And, Flordia v JL no longer provides the protection.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Thanks.

You want to be careful about using that specific case. Florida v JL was not about guns. It was about anonymous tips. And, the gun involved was being carried concealed, not OCd.

The reason we like the case is because the court expressly declined to modify standard Terry analysis of RAS just because a gun was involved. This was not expressed in the holding (the legally binding part of the opinion), it was expressed in the dicta (the discussion section where the court is giving among other things its rationale and analysis leading up to the holding. The guvthugs asked the court to loosen standards for suspicion when a gun is involved, and the court said no. But, that is all sideshow. The case was about anonymous tips. The real value to gun guys is that the court signaled its unwillingness to reduce the Terry standards if a gun is involved.

Well my only point in that statement was that anonymous tips alone are not RAS for a terry stop. my statement was

EMNofSeattle said:
anomyous reports have generally been ruled insuffecient by courts as RAS or PC

Which is exactly what florida v JL ruled, also I know of specific rulings in state courts (Johnson versus Texas and Commonwealth versus Hawkins) in which anonymous tips were not ruled as RAS or PC either. So I had these three cases in mind to support that statement. my statement referred only that anonymous calls alone are not RAS or PC to conduct a detention.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Well my only point in that statement was that anonymous tips alone are not RAS for a terry stop. my statement was...

Oh, I see. Yes. I understand. I was working off the idea given in the OP where the call was neither anonymous nor had indicia of reliability. Then, I did not read your post closely enough to spot the narrowing to anonymous caller.

I apologize.
 
Last edited:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
A LEO can come talk to you anytime you want. That is not nessessarily a detainment. My standard response would be "Am I free to go officer?" If they say yes, then leave. If they say no, you are being detained. Use your 5th amendment right. The mere sight of a holstered firearm is not RAS, so legally they need more than just that in order to keep you there for investigation.

One thing that's worth noting here is that the officer does not need to tell you what his Reasonable Articulable Suspicion or Probable Cause is. He has to justify himself to his supervisor and maybe a judge. But not you, during the encounter (consensual or otherwise).

His failure to advise you of his reasons for his actions doesn't negate them. He may choose to do so, and he may, in so doing, reveal that he's full of crap on his reasoning. Great. Your lawyer can use the record of him saying it on his dash cam recording when you reach court, to get the charges thrown out (if it's your trial) or to prove your rights were violated (if it's your lawsuit) or both. But resisting police tends to end badly even if doing so is legally justified, since the police force as a whole has more guns than you do.
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
Invoke citizen safety under the guise of unalienable rights and demand to disarm the officer. :banana:

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
One thing that's worth noting here is that the officer does not need to tell you Your lawyer can use the record of him saying it on his dash cam recording when you reach court, to get the charges thrown out (if it's your trial) or to prove your rights were violated (if it's your lawsuit) or both.

I used to believe in the tooth fairy too.

But key moments of the arrest that should have been captured on video are missing and it was unclear whether the officer intentionally neglected to turn on the dash cam. None of the released footage shows the officer in the moments he made the stop or kicked Lawson.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/seattle-arrest-questions-cops-dash-cams/story?id=15595576

What this sort of behavior really means is "Sorry defendant, but the key evidence that would have exonerated is missing. Enjoy your time in prison." Followed by the common threat of "plead guilty to a lesser charge, or you'll face the maximum + whatever else we can tack on."
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
Superduty Are you free Saturday morning? If you are I will set up an OC meeting at The Donut Parade. That way you can come meet several of us that OC regularly and have you first Spokane OC experience in the company of others.

I have only had one problem in several years of OCing in and around Spokane, Thor80 and I had a small problem at the Spokane Convention Center during a Ron Paul rally. Just so you know no one even so much as called the Cops. Mostly OC is pretty boring in Spokane, Eastern Washington and north Idaho, mostly no one cares as long as you are behaving in a responsible manner.

I suspect that if you lived in Florida for very long you have simply become accustomed to having to conceal. It is perfectly normal to feel apprehensive at first. Once you OC for a while you won't think about it twice.

Anyway welcome to Spokane, relax and enjoy the freedom you never had in Florida.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Superduty said:
SNIP The Leo is responding to a suspicios person call.....just need some clarification,,,just in case.
Thanks for the help.

This is your typical cop-talk designed to confuse. Let me help clarify.

Personhood cannot be suspicious. If it were, the whole human race would be subject to temporary detention for investigation. Specific actions are what are what can raise legitimate suspicions.

Did the caller report actions that raised valid suspicions? Behaviors that raised valid suspicions? Over his or her lifetime, did the caller carefully sort and evaluate his ideas about guns and self-defense so that his suspicions are raised only when genuinely valid? You see where this is going, right?

This is a little like the cop assertion about a driver or a person making a furtive movement. Huh? How can a movement be furtive. It can only be a movement. Whether it is furtive is an evaluation made by the observer. Lets first hear what the movement was Officer, the we'll hear why you considered it furtive and evaluate for ourselves. Similar for suspicous person. First lets hear what he was doing, then we'll hear why you thought it suspicous, Officer.

Basically police are trying to slip past you their evaluation about the activity so you don't evaluate it yourself. They want you to just accept it. Helps keep the questions to a minimum, don't you know.
""Suspicious person"" calls are stock-in-trade for law enforcement, even when the original call doesn't allege any activity that is suspicious.
Sometimes it doesn't work out for the officer involved and he winds up being taken to court for illegal detainment.
 
Last edited:
Top