OC Encounter - West Haven Police

[CT Barfly]

Rich, I will respectfully disagree. This thread is about a bad encounter with LEO due to OC. Seems like a perfect time to talk about how to minimize the chances of having this occurr.

My analysis of the BOP statute lands it firmly in the "bad charge" category for mere OC. I prefer OC. I also understand that you will RARELY come out on the winning end of a discussion with a police officer...there are too many egos and too many public image concerns to counsel individuals to "stand up for their rights" in front of police/public...not until someone gets a straight answer on what constitutes "suitability." Even so, it's not worth the expense of hiring an attorney or enduring the potential incidental harms (job loss, google fame anyone?) that come with this course of action. the court of public opinion isn't going to be on your side, and many concealed carriers won't be, either. as OC as I am, and do, there's more to the calculation than simple "statute + constitution", the BFPE still has enough discretion to make a case-by-case determination and they are backlogged enough so you will be without your rights until they get to you.

i'm with you guys in spirit, but I think the "battleground" is not sufficiently defined for people to go "standing up for their rights" in police encounters.

I stand by my earlier comment regarding children, anybody who says that aspect doesn't matter hasn't dealt with judges in this state...and they certainly haven't been paying attention to the fact that the recent legislation was passed under the mantle of "saving the children." The landscape has changed, despite what our collective legal minds might think/conclude. Act according to the reality, not the theory and you should be fine.

I am not advising anyone to "knuckle under" and go 100% concealed, it's slower, less comfortable and there are other concerns that make OC preferable...I am merely suggesting that some common sense and flexibility will go a long way. An understanding of the statutes involved is KEY for anyone who intends to OC.

Has anyone here had experience with "going silent" after providing ID/Permit to an officer? It would seem to me to be the safest bet as the BOP statute requires "intent". Any sort of conversation, answering questions, etc can only be used AGAINST you.

Anyways guys, I hope you all continue to OC safely and without hassle. I understand the full-OC camp, I just think that it has the potential to go sideways in a big way for individuals who do not understand what's in play here. Suitability is NOT legally defined by any reliable measure...the BFPE has a great deal of sway (and will have more anti-gun members shortly, if not already). There is a risk here that you will not "skate to the win" unless it is crystal clear (and proven) that you exercised discretion and caution in deciding when/where to OC.

i'm just SHARING my OPINION here...if you disagree, fine, that's the spice of life. just remember we are all on the same team here.

 

[CT Barfly]

CT Barfly,

I understand where you're going with this, I get the whole thing about avoiding dissension BUT you're probably going to catch a lot of heat. I think most people here who OC believe that they don't have to justify it or play the 'cover up' game when they're well within the limits of the law. And I loosly disagree with your 4th point about dress. I'm black and my pants sag a little BUT not to rediculous laughable degree that we've seen lately. And I'd like to believe that my ability to OC isn't based on my color or clothes, but my demeanor and behavior while OCing

So would I....So. Would. I.

But that isn't the truth of the matter...you're subject to the whims of the BFPE, at minimum. If someone's having a bad day or doesn't like your story, that's a real problem.

 

[Rich B]

Rich, I will respectfully disagree. This thread is about a bad encounter with LEO due to OC. Seems like a perfect time to talk about how to minimize the chances of having this occurr.

I can answer your question definitively, but I will not derail the thread. This is an entirely separate topic.

 

[CT Barfly]

I can answer your question definitively, but I will not derail the thread. This is an entirely separate topic.

OK Rich, I posted a separate thread. Please do (or provide a link).

Love ya, bro.

 

[Rich B]

OK Rich, I posted a separate thread. Please do (or provide a link).

No such thread exists.

 

[Motofixxer]

My analysis of the BOP statute lands it firmly in the "bad charge" category for mere OC. I prefer OC. I also understand that you will RARELY come out on the winning end of a discussion with a police officer...there are too many egos and too many public image concerns to counsel individuals to "stand up for their rights" in front of police/public...not until someone gets a straight answer on what constitutes "suitability." Even so, it's not worth the expense of hiring an attorney or enduring the potential incidental harms (job loss, google fame anyone?) that come with this course of action. the court of public opinion isn't going to be on your side, and many concealed carriers won't be, either. as OC as I am, and do, there's more to the calculation than simple "statute + constitution", the BFPE still has enough discretion to make a case-by-case determination and they are backlogged enough so you will be without your rights until they get to you.

i'm with you guys in spirit, but I think the "battleground" is not sufficiently defined for people to go "standing up for their rights" in police encounters.


Has anyone here had experience with "going silent" after providing ID/Permit to an officer? It would seem to me to be the safest bet as the BOP statute requires "intent". Any sort of conversation, answering questions, etc can only be used AGAINST you.

Don't enter the game. Nothing wrong with being polite. But simply refuse to play with them.
I have more vids and info at http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI


[video=youtube;1n1BHJs5V5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n1BHJs5V5c[/video]

More examples:

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

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