cato
Newbie
imported post
The felony stop in danbus' case by the responding officers would be justified if the reporting person (RP) left his name and contact information and communicated information (even if discovered later to be false) of a serious criminal nature to warrant a felony style stop and detention for investigation of the alleged acts.
That being said I see nothing in the tape to justify the 1st responding officers felony style (gun drawn) response.
From an officer safety point of view, I seriously question the 1st officer's tactics. Absent an immediate threat (RP telephoned or officer observed) why did the first officer act alone, without back up? He put himself and the 2nd officer (not arrived)at risk if there was a serious threat (which there wasn't)by exposing himself unnecessarily. If something, like an ambush, was in place, and the 1st officer was "down" the 2nd officer is now approaching blind.
It would have been better tactically and constitutionally to sit back, observe, wait for back up, call for more back up if contact (even consensual) was planned or wanted by the officers.
I can understand the elevated risk/threat perceived by officers when responding to any "gun" call as the majority of such dispatched calls are in fact negative in nature. However, fake, inaccurate, and incomplete information from an RP or dispatcher must be weighed against the responding officers observations.
All police, from any state,would be served by reading the following regardinggun calls and considering the legal ramifications to acting without proper authoritywhich risks both the successful prosecution of actualcriminal acts and being on the wrong end ofviolating a constitutional right:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/supreme/opinions/0497pdf/k00jiz95.pdf
[align=left]The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a...gun in Pennsylvania, it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution...would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not -- such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.[/align]
[align=left]Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them by...the Constitution...and this court's relevant caselaw.[/align]
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magaz...ue_ id=122005
Chief's Counsel
Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports
By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun..., a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."
From The Police Chief, vol. 72, no. 12, December 2005.[/i]
The felony stop in danbus' case by the responding officers would be justified if the reporting person (RP) left his name and contact information and communicated information (even if discovered later to be false) of a serious criminal nature to warrant a felony style stop and detention for investigation of the alleged acts.
That being said I see nothing in the tape to justify the 1st responding officers felony style (gun drawn) response.
From an officer safety point of view, I seriously question the 1st officer's tactics. Absent an immediate threat (RP telephoned or officer observed) why did the first officer act alone, without back up? He put himself and the 2nd officer (not arrived)at risk if there was a serious threat (which there wasn't)by exposing himself unnecessarily. If something, like an ambush, was in place, and the 1st officer was "down" the 2nd officer is now approaching blind.
It would have been better tactically and constitutionally to sit back, observe, wait for back up, call for more back up if contact (even consensual) was planned or wanted by the officers.
I can understand the elevated risk/threat perceived by officers when responding to any "gun" call as the majority of such dispatched calls are in fact negative in nature. However, fake, inaccurate, and incomplete information from an RP or dispatcher must be weighed against the responding officers observations.
All police, from any state,would be served by reading the following regardinggun calls and considering the legal ramifications to acting without proper authoritywhich risks both the successful prosecution of actualcriminal acts and being on the wrong end ofviolating a constitutional right:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/supreme/opinions/0497pdf/k00jiz95.pdf
[align=left]The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a...gun in Pennsylvania, it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth's fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution...would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes -- which it does not -- such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.[/align]
[align=left]Contrary to the Commonwealth's view, the public will receive its full measure of protection by police who act within the restraints imposed on them by...the Constitution...and this court's relevant caselaw.[/align]
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magaz...ue_ id=122005
Chief's Counsel
Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports
By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts
Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun..., a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."
From The Police Chief, vol. 72, no. 12, December 2005.[/i]
