• 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.

First stop Canton

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
DeBerry turned into a Terry stop based on the cops observing DeBerry making a "movement". Bostick thought he was detained cuz he thought he was not permitted to leave the bus. Both cases the perp got it wrong. Though, in DeBerry IL being a no CC state the cop had RAS it seems regardless of the credibility of the MWAG call.

Casual contact is a detention and everyone knows it even the courts. What the courts have stated, essentially, is that a cop can not be gigged on a 4A violation if you decline to engage and he lets you walk. If he don't let you walk you are seized and now the cop is on the hook to justify the seizure regarding the 4A. The courts never said I have to respond verbally to a cop wishing to just chat it up for no good reason.....casual contact.

No, you are mistaken, casual contact is not a detention. Police may approach (acost as the justices discussed in the DeBerry case) and question a person about his identity and activities without effecting a stop or infringing in ANY WAY upon the person's 4th Amend. rights. If a person refuses to answer any questions and wishes to leave, a LEO can take NO FURTHER steps without RAS. A LEO CAN approach, and ask questions as long as it is not a demand or application of force, see US v Drayton (US Supreme Court ruling). In Drayton, people were sitting on a bus with LEO in the aisle! And the US Supreme court deemed it NOT a detention. An LEO is also NOT required to inform you, you are free to leave. See Ohio v Robinette. Read the cases, I don't make the laws they are there for you to read and understand. It's clear in all the cases I have listed that casual, consensual contact where a LEO asks questions and makes no demands or application of force, as in this case, you are not detained.
 

JSlack7851

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
291
Location
, Ohio, USA
Its up to the individual to refuse the casual contact, or maybe a few minutes of answering questions, with questions, b/4 walking away. Now, I wouldn't suggest this just to bait a, say security guard @ Giant Eagle, but if he does detain after your rude, and start walking, like it says above, he' on the hook.

Matt Cart (friend of mine) was once detained for OC and was moved into a room, where he suggested a lawyer be present during any questioning..from what I understand this set the security guard and the off duty LEO, back to where they just let him go. More food for thought.

I read Ohio vs. Robinette, it was Robinette's fault for consenting to a search, especially if he knew he was carrying contraband.

Here is a hour video that you new guys should see, over and over. I made my family see it too:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en
 
Last edited:

Garystarcher

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
26
Location
Canton
That is a very good video I have watched it before and I have told
My family the same thing do not under any circumstances talk to the police without a lawyer present.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
Its up to the individual to refuse the casual contact, or maybe a few minutes of answering questions, with questions, b/4 walking away. Now, I wouldn't suggest this just to bait a, say security guard @ Giant Eagle, but if he does detain after your rude, and start walking, like it says above, he' on the hook.

Matt Cart (friend of mine) was once detained for OC and was moved into a room, where he suggested a lawyer be present during any questioning..from what I understand this set the security guard and the off duty LEO, back to where they just let him go. More food for thought.]

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about the security guard? Security guards are private citizens with no police powers.

Their is case law on being led to a room where a LEO speaks to you. Again, LEO asks questions, no show of force or demands, and the room is not locked, it is not a detention.
 

JSlack7851

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
291
Location
, Ohio, USA
Security guard = off duty police officer.

I'm not to familiar with Matt's case, just that he asked for a lawyer and that pretty much ended the encounter.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

Officers were educated on ID'ing, were polite and professional and admitted they were wrong on video

Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html
The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.
The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.
I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.
At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).
This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.

This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1226046509410140751&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
"Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."


In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

“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.” St. John v. McColley

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.
United States v. King (1993)

“The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances.” WI v. Kiekhefer (1997)

An anonymous tip is not RAS

ID'ing yourself discussion




How to Remain silent when questioned by Police

Don't Talk to Cops (PLEASE WATCH, Important for any and all Law Enforcement Encounters)

DUI Refusal

Another DUI refusal

How to refuse a Police Search

How to keep Police from Searching
 

bigbird776

New member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
1
Location
Tampa
I find it amazing how everybody jumps on the bandwagon supporting Mr Starcher when they know nothing about him. I did a check on online records and found he was convicted of theft in Massillon Ohio on 7-23-12.

http://www.starkcountycjis.org/mas_...ase_type=CRB&pass_case_no=01929&start_range=1

Now if Mr Starcher had applied for a concealed weapons permit a month after being convicted of theft do you think they would give him one? And if not, even though it may be technically legal, do you really think he should be walking around with a gun on his hip?

I myself have a problem with a guy who was convicted of theft just one month prior walking into, a grocery store of all places, with a gun strapped to his hip. In this case I think the officer should be commended for approaching and questioning this knucklehead about the gun. When it gets to the point that officers cant even approach and question subjects with a gun then well,,,,,we are screwed.

Now before you guys start jumping all over me about gun rights, understand that I support gun ownership and own several myself. I legally and responsibly carry concealed. But seriously think about this for a minute. Would you want to be with your family, shopping in a grocery store with a recently convicted thief shopping right next to you with a gun strapped to his hip?

And Mr Starcher, please get over it. Its really not a big deal that a police officer approached you about your gun. You werent arrested, beat up or ticketed. Remember, few things in life are somethings, most are nothings. This sir is a nothing.
 

carsontech

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
529
Location
Anderson, SC
When it gets to the point that officers cant even approach and question subjects with a gun then well,,,,,we are screwed.

I think police should pull over every vehicle they see pass by to check for driver's licenses.

I think police should stop every person walking down the street to make sure they are a US citizen.

When it gets to the point that officers cant even approach and question subjects walking their dog,,,,,we are screwed.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
No, you are mistaken, casual contact is not a detention. Police may approach (acost as the justices discussed in the DeBerry case) and question a person about his identity and activities without effecting a stop or infringing in ANY WAY upon the person's 4th Amend. rights. If a person refuses to answer any questions and wishes to leave, a LEO can take NO FURTHER steps without RAS. A LEO CAN approach, and ask questions as long as it is not a demand or application of force, see US v Drayton (US Supreme Court ruling). In Drayton, people were sitting on a bus with LEO in the aisle! And the US Supreme court deemed it NOT a detention. An LEO is also NOT required to inform you, you are free to leave. See Ohio v Robinette. Read the cases, I don't make the laws they are there for you to read and understand. It's clear in all the cases I have listed that casual, consensual contact where a LEO asks questions and makes no demands or application of force, as in this case, you are not detained.
I am not mistaken. You presume too much.

Of course a cop can approach, just as any citizen can approach you, and the cop can say anything he wants. What a cop may not do is “force” you to respond without RAS. If he "forces" a response you are seized/detained under the 4A. My entire point is that you are detained if the cop "forces" you to respond even if he calls it a "casual contact." If you ignore the cop and he does nothing after being ignored who cares.

Your fixation on the presumption that any accosting by the cop requires a response by the citizen is a false premise. You are not legally required to even acknowledge his existence.

There is a link around here somewhere to a video of a citizen that refused to respond verbally to a cop who "casually contacted" him. The cop said a few things then accepted the fact that the OCer was not going to say a word and the cop stated that the OCer was free to go. 30 seconds in duration? Maybe a little longer?

The mistake the OCer made was to even acknowledged the existence of the cop. The cop likely knew that he did not have RAS for a detention. The cop would have had to force the OCer to stop and acknowledge the cop there by officially detaining the OCer without RAS.

Ignore the cop and see what happens. If he "insists" you are detained officially.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip> Would you want to be with your family, shopping in a grocery store with a recently convicted thief shopping right next to you with a gun strapped to his hip? <snip>
How would you or anybody, by mere visual observation know that the person next to you with a properly holstered firearm on their hip is a recently convicted thief? Base on this comment you appear to associate citizens who lawfully exercise their 2A by the open carry of a firearm are to be considered convicted felons.

Your premise is wrong and anti-liberty. Being a convicted thief, or being convicted of anything does not automatically make you a prohibited person.

Your anti-OC rhetoric is typical of those who reside in the CC only camp.

Good day to you Sir.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
I am not mistaken. You presume too much.

Of course a cop can approach, just as any citizen can approach you, and the cop can say anything he wants. What a cop may not do is “force” you to respond without RAS. If he "forces" a response you are seized/detained under the 4A. My entire point is that you are detained if the cop "forces" you to respond even if he calls it a "casual contact." If you ignore the cop and he does nothing after being ignored who cares.

Your fixation on the presumption that any accosting by the cop requires a response by the citizen is a false premise. You are not legally required to even acknowledge his existence.

There is a link around here somewhere to a video of a citizen that refused to respond verbally to a cop who "casually contacted" him. The cop said a few things then accepted the fact that the OCer was not going to say a word and the cop stated that the OCer was free to go. 30 seconds in duration? Maybe a little longer?

The mistake the OCer made was to even acknowledged the existence of the cop. The cop likely knew that he did not have RAS for a detention. The cop would have had to force the OCer to stop and acknowledge the cop there by officially detaining the OCer without RAS.

Ignore the cop and see what happens. If he "insists" you are detained officially.

I never said that a citizen has to say anything to a cop, detained or not. I merely said that a casual encounter between a citizen and a LEO is not a detention.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
I think police should pull over every vehicle they see pass by to check for driver's licenses.

I think police should stop every person walking down the street to make sure they are a US citizen.

When it gets to the point that officers cant even approach and question subjects walking their dog,,,,,we are screwed.

Police can not do the above without RAS, it is a violation of that citizen's rights. They can have a consensual encounter with a citizen at any time without violating that citizens rights.
 

CornfedinOhio

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
39
Location
A, A
Originally Posted by bigbird776
When it gets to the point that officers cant even approach and question subjects with a gun then well,,,,,we are screwed.

I think police should pull over every vehicle they see pass by to check for driver's licenses."


Police don't need to pull someone over to check their license. They check plates randomly all day long without RAS. They need RAS to make a stop but not to check your plate.
 
Last edited:

carsontech

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
529
Location
Anderson, SC
I think police should pull over every vehicle they see pass by to check for driver's licenses."


Police don't need to pull someone over to check their license. They check plates randomly all day long without RAS. They need RAS to make a stop but not to check your plate.

True... but how do they know the person driving the vehicle is licensed. The owner of the vehicle could have lent it to someone who was not licensed.

My previous post was just sarcasm anyway. I get your point, though.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I never said that a citizen has to say anything to a cop, detained or not. I merely said that a casual encounter between a citizen and a LEO is not a detention.

It is also possible for a person to be seized per the 4A, without the police saying a word, casually or not. "Overwhelming physical presence" is one of the checks for when a person reasonably believes he has been seized.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
I think police should pull over every vehicle they see pass by to check for driver's licenses."


Police don't need to pull someone over to check their license. They check plates randomly all day long without RAS. They need RAS to make a stop but not to check your plate.

Right. Also, you have to remember it is a privilege to drive a car not a right. That's why you need that license plate, insurance and driver's license.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
It is also possible for a person to be seized per the 4A, without the police saying a word, casually or not. "Overwhelming physical presence" is one of the checks for when a person reasonably believes he has been seized.

Yes, also known as a use of force through presence.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
I am not mistaken. You presume too much.

Of course a cop can approach, just as any citizen can approach you, and the cop can say anything he wants. What a cop may not do is “force” you to respond without RAS. If he "forces" a response you are seized/detained under the 4A. My entire point is that you are detained if the cop "forces" you to respond even if he calls it a "casual contact." If you ignore the cop and he does nothing after being ignored who cares.

Your fixation on the presumption that any accosting by the cop requires a response by the citizen is a false premise. You are not legally required to even acknowledge his existence.

There is a link around here somewhere to a video of a citizen that refused to respond verbally to a cop who "casually contacted" him. The cop said a few things then accepted the fact that the OCer was not going to say a word and the cop stated that the OCer was free to go. 30 seconds in duration? Maybe a little longer?

The mistake the OCer made was to even acknowledged the existence of the cop. The cop likely knew that he did not have RAS for a detention. The cop would have had to force the OCer to stop and acknowledge the cop there by officially detaining the OCer without RAS.

Ignore the cop and see what happens. If he "insists" you are detained officially.

Yes, the video is a consensual or casual encounter. A LEO with or even without RAS can not force you to respond, yes, it's called the 5th Amend. The OCer did make a mistake and he stopped on his own. The problem with just ignoring the police is that you really don't know why they are there. Yes, OCing is legal in of itself and in most cases people call for invalid reasons giving the LEO no RAS so all he is left with is a consensual encounter. The risk the OCer takes is that if a citizen makes a complaint (or the LEO observes on his own) that a person is OCing AND is doing something else illegal. So, now the OCer is met by the police thinking I am just going to ignore this cop and walk by. Now the OCer puts himself at risk of being arrested because he assumes that the LEO has no RAS. The unknown is what could get you in trouble and this unknown is probably why an OCer would stop instead of just ignoring the LEO and walk by.
 
Top