Smith45acp
Regular Member
Then what's with all the mail I get after being charged with something? The mail is even tailored to whatever my offense was.
-
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.
-
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.
Just got kicked out of Walmart
- Thread starter Sam
- Start date
Then what's with all the mail I get after being charged with something? The mail is even tailored to whatever my offense was.
M
mattwestm
Guest
Agreed. My brother was driving at night with rain a little over a year ago. He lost control and hit a telephone pole going about 20mph. He was charged with reckless driving. I'd say within a day or two, our mailbox was filled with crap from law offices. I'm assuming they have people who get the police reports and mail out crap to the individuals. Or either the police give out addresses as a "courtesy". Either way, it shouldn't be allowed. Police records are public record though...
chiefjason
Regular Member
Anytime Terry comes up I usually end up adding JL v Florida. Not particularly relevant to THIS case, since the LEO saw him carrying. But if anyone is ever pull over because they were OC'ing in a store and someone gave them a description of your vehicle, that would be VERY unconstitutional. Or simply going straight to the Terry stop from an anonymous 911 call without the LEO observing you first should also fall under this. As always IANAL.
Held: 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: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility.
Held: 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: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility.
.275Rigby
Regular Member
Mekender,
That is why I said “as applied” and referred to what “I have seen applied.” I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that I have never seen an NC court find that the officer did have articulable suspicion of a crime, but lacked a belief that the suspect was armed and dangerous. Officers will receive all of the court’s deference, and if they say “I believed he might be armed (or in Sam’s case definitely was armed) and I believed he might be dangerous,” that is typically all there is to it. Questioned Terry stops almost always come down to the articulable suspicion, and that bar is VERY low:
“An investigatory stop must be justified by a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity.” In re J.L.B.M., 176 N.C.App. 613, 619, 627 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006). “The only requirement is a minimal level of objective justification, something more than an unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” Id. “To determine whether this reasonable suspicion exists, a court ‘must consider the totality of the circumstances-the whole picture.’ ” State v. Kincaid, 147 N.C.App. 94, 97, 555 S.E.2d 294, 298 (2001) (quoting State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994)).
State v. Huey, 694 S.E.2d 410, 412 (N.C.App.,2010) See also State v. Morton, 694 S.E.2d 432 (N.C.App.,2010)
The reason that LEOs can’t simply stop and frisk every OCer comes earlier than “dangerous” – if they don’t have articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime, they can’t stop you, and if they do, and they can see that you are armed, they are going to be credited with the reasonableness that you are potentially dangerous regardless of whether you have endangered someone already or expressed an intent to do so.
Smith45acp: “Then what's with all the mail I get after being charged with something? The mail is even tailored to whatever my offense was.”
This is admittedly on the border of solicitation, but is specifically permitted because it is not “contact” with you (i.e. “Hi Mr. Smith, we’re x law firm and we see in the public record that you were in a car accident we’d like to take your case”) it is instead "advertisement" (and must specifically state as such) (i.e. you receive mail from a firm claiming to be personal injury specialists after having been in a wreck.) And yes, accident and police reports are public records, and yes, some attorneys spend a lot of time and money on "targeted advertising." I think if this is to be discussed further it might be better done privately, or elsewhere, as I fear we are highjacking Sam's thread, but NC Rule 7.3 is posted here for those interested:
http://www.ncbar.com/rules/rules.asp?page=3&keywords=advertise
That is why I said “as applied” and referred to what “I have seen applied.” I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that I have never seen an NC court find that the officer did have articulable suspicion of a crime, but lacked a belief that the suspect was armed and dangerous. Officers will receive all of the court’s deference, and if they say “I believed he might be armed (or in Sam’s case definitely was armed) and I believed he might be dangerous,” that is typically all there is to it. Questioned Terry stops almost always come down to the articulable suspicion, and that bar is VERY low:
“An investigatory stop must be justified by a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity.” In re J.L.B.M., 176 N.C.App. 613, 619, 627 S.E.2d 239, 243 (2006). “The only requirement is a minimal level of objective justification, something more than an unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” Id. “To determine whether this reasonable suspicion exists, a court ‘must consider the totality of the circumstances-the whole picture.’ ” State v. Kincaid, 147 N.C.App. 94, 97, 555 S.E.2d 294, 298 (2001) (quoting State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994)).
State v. Huey, 694 S.E.2d 410, 412 (N.C.App.,2010) See also State v. Morton, 694 S.E.2d 432 (N.C.App.,2010)
The reason that LEOs can’t simply stop and frisk every OCer comes earlier than “dangerous” – if they don’t have articulable suspicion that you have committed a crime, they can’t stop you, and if they do, and they can see that you are armed, they are going to be credited with the reasonableness that you are potentially dangerous regardless of whether you have endangered someone already or expressed an intent to do so.
Smith45acp: “Then what's with all the mail I get after being charged with something? The mail is even tailored to whatever my offense was.”
This is admittedly on the border of solicitation, but is specifically permitted because it is not “contact” with you (i.e. “Hi Mr. Smith, we’re x law firm and we see in the public record that you were in a car accident we’d like to take your case”) it is instead "advertisement" (and must specifically state as such) (i.e. you receive mail from a firm claiming to be personal injury specialists after having been in a wreck.) And yes, accident and police reports are public records, and yes, some attorneys spend a lot of time and money on "targeted advertising." I think if this is to be discussed further it might be better done privately, or elsewhere, as I fear we are highjacking Sam's thread, but NC Rule 7.3 is posted here for those interested:
http://www.ncbar.com/rules/rules.asp?page=3&keywords=advertise
paramedic70002
Regular Member
I maintain that Terry searches of openly armed citizens is a bunch of bull feces. Terry was all about searching over the outer garments of someone suspicious to see if they had a weapon, for Officer safety, absent probable cause for an arrest.
It is obvious that an open carrier is armed, therefore Terry does not apply.
It is obvious that an open carrier is armed, therefore Terry does not apply.
Thanks for all the help everyone.
I received a letter back from Donna Lahser. "There is no dash camera video footage related.....Officer Woods nor Officer Martin has a City-issued cell phone...." and any radio traffic should be requested from the 911 Com Center on Highland st.
I got back in touch with Brafford and the investigation is over and is being reviewed by the Chief of Police.
I think I'm done with this particular issue though. I don't have the money for an attorney nor the time/any real want to pursue any legal action. I am going to continue to stay on top of Brafford until I find out what the result of my complaint is. As a matter of fact it's about time for a reminder.
On a side note I think I'm going to be using the Donate button pretty soon. OCDO is a wonderfully useful site.
I received a letter back from Donna Lahser. "There is no dash camera video footage related.....Officer Woods nor Officer Martin has a City-issued cell phone...." and any radio traffic should be requested from the 911 Com Center on Highland st.
I got back in touch with Brafford and the investigation is over and is being reviewed by the Chief of Police.
I think I'm done with this particular issue though. I don't have the money for an attorney nor the time/any real want to pursue any legal action. I am going to continue to stay on top of Brafford until I find out what the result of my complaint is. As a matter of fact it's about time for a reminder.
On a side note I think I'm going to be using the Donate button pretty soon. OCDO is a wonderfully useful site.
NCjones
Regular Member
.
Last edited:
KevlarCowboy
Regular Member
I would just state that this guy performed an illegal search and seized your weapon with out your permission, as well as lied to you about the laws, threatens arrest with no probable cause other than GATTTOTP witch he couldn't prove. All and all the guy was being a jerk to you and wasting your time, definitely file a complaint.
Last edited:
Smith45acp
Regular Member
Litigation goes much easier when you can prove damages.
Surely you did suffer some here, but you weren't arrested or assaulted.
In talking with attorneys I've been led to believe that a simple detainment is not the kind of civil rights case a lawyer will take on contingency. YMMV.
Surely you did suffer some here, but you weren't arrested or assaulted.
In talking with attorneys I've been led to believe that a simple detainment is not the kind of civil rights case a lawyer will take on contingency. YMMV.
razor_baghdad
Regular Member
Sometimes good defense lawyers take cases on PRINCIPLE.
Ask/look around, OCDO has a state list of 2A friendly lawyers.
NCjones
Regular Member
In the game of poker this is called a "bluff". That would've told me right there he was full of ****.
NCjones
Regular Member
Exactly. Like my friend who got pulled (after filing a complaint) because one of his tail lights was dim. Of course the officer noticed this while meeting him in the oncoming traffic lane. Amazing they can train them to see thru sheet metal in only 19 weeks of BLET.
One good thing about a lot of these local yocal departments is they still don't have MVT's and have to communicate everything by radio. Meaning, if I have a scanner at home with a voice activated recorder sitting by it I get everything that might be said about me if I am traffic stopped. My little digital recorder will hold 80 hours before it is full.
.275Rigby
Regular Member
It's not a defense lawyer one needs once the threat of criminal charges is past, but a good Plaintiff's Attorney.
I would be interested to see the list. I've searched a bit on this site for like-minded lawyers and haven't seen a list for NC.
Last edited:
razor_baghdad
Regular Member
You got me. Thought it was here but found it on GRNC.
My advice would be to find your area, minimize the list and/or make your own list, laminate it and carry it next to your DL.
http://www.grnc.org/gunfriendlylawyers.htm
aosailor
Regular Member
got a question that this situation has brought to mind.
when the officer just blatenly goes to remove your firearm, without any LEGAL reason to do so, could you have actively resisted him? are there any times where one can actively resist an LEO? my training teaches me that someone reaching for my firearm is a life threatening situation. this officer was acting as a bully and had no legal right to steal my firearm.
granted im not saying to pull and shoot the cop, im asking if in a situation like this could someone be able to back away or swat at the officer's attempt for my gun?
when the officer just blatenly goes to remove your firearm, without any LEGAL reason to do so, could you have actively resisted him? are there any times where one can actively resist an LEO? my training teaches me that someone reaching for my firearm is a life threatening situation. this officer was acting as a bully and had no legal right to steal my firearm.
granted im not saying to pull and shoot the cop, im asking if in a situation like this could someone be able to back away or swat at the officer's attempt for my gun?
You sure could... Course would will taste the pavement, probably get tazered and then charged with resisting arrest.
Generally speaking, you will loose every time you try to argue with an officer on the street.
KYGlockster
Activist Member
This situation really has upset me. I cant believe that NC law is so lame in that it doesnt protect its open carriers more that it does. I was wondering about maybe trying to start a fund for this guy to raise some money so he could hire a lawyer. This officer defied our constitution, and I know if it were here in KY he would defin. be in trouble for violating our state constitution as well. In KY we have a law that strictly prohibits officers from disarming Carriers unless they have previously commited a criminal offense. What do you all think? Could we find a way to get the word out to the members of this site and see if we could raise some money for this guy? over 20,000 members, if we got just a 1,000 to donate 10 bucks, that would be more than enough for what he needs........../??????
papa bear
Regular Member
interesting discussion guys and gals. it's threads like this that help everyone find out what can and can't be done. there actually was some good info..
thanks sam for your actions even if you get stone walled by the cpd, you have let them know that people are watching them, which is the very thing that bullys don't want. and you have helped others, like me, that now will know more of what to do and also will make the leo think more b4 they harass law abiding citizens. you know even if the department sides with the officer. they might tell him to cool it, and also, by putting this on the record. when (and it is when) they do this again. the next victim can show a history
just out of curiosity. what is the damages done to a black person if they are told they can not use the public water fountain?
thanks sam for your actions even if you get stone walled by the cpd, you have let them know that people are watching them, which is the very thing that bullys don't want. and you have helped others, like me, that now will know more of what to do and also will make the leo think more b4 they harass law abiding citizens. you know even if the department sides with the officer. they might tell him to cool it, and also, by putting this on the record. when (and it is when) they do this again. the next victim can show a history
just out of curiosity. what is the damages done to a black person if they are told they can not use the public water fountain?
.275Rigby
Regular Member
Thank you for finding that Razor, I think it is an important and useful piece of information.
An interesting question, and in the extremely simplified view, there is no real difference in damages. That is one reason why we have so many laws explicitly prohibiting racial discrimination and providing civil and criminal penalties for such acts; there simply isn't a good way to account financially for the damages of the violation itself. Which is one more reason why the right to Open Carry ought to be explicitly protected, rather than merely not prohibited.
After a few polite emails over the Months and only one ignored email I finally got a time frame.
"We will contact you regarding this matter by mid week."
That was last week. Perhaps he meant this week? I'll give them until next Monday. I'm interested to see what will happen. Perhaps I can get a list of names of people who are also interested in what happens? Something to include in my next email maybe? What do you think?
Dear so&so,
We respectfully and patiently ask for the results of my complaint. There is 2,048 people I have listed below I am emailing on behalf of.
Adam Adams
~~~
Zoran Zoranian.
Thanks,
Sam
?? What do you think?
"We will contact you regarding this matter by mid week."
That was last week. Perhaps he meant this week? I'll give them until next Monday. I'm interested to see what will happen. Perhaps I can get a list of names of people who are also interested in what happens? Something to include in my next email maybe? What do you think?
Dear so&so,
We respectfully and patiently ask for the results of my complaint. There is 2,048 people I have listed below I am emailing on behalf of.
Adam Adams
~~~
Zoran Zoranian.
Thanks,
Sam
?? What do you think?