Can You Correctly Determine Whether the Cop has RAS?

[carolina guy]

looks good...

but the missing spaces betweensome wordsis a littleannoying.

 

[OC for ME]

MWAG call, cop rolls up and sees man with gun (holstered on hip) and dog (on leash). Cop does not see embellished acts, what does the cop do? Hard to say, but in his mind he has RAS.....right? In my state the cop does not have to witness a felony to detain/arrest. For a misdemeanor he has to witness the unlawful act. It all depends on what law the officer's RAS is "attached" to.....or what he to attach his RAS to (tin foil hat comment).

Not arguing, just pointing out the practicality, as correctly pointed out, of even trying to determine if the cop has or does not have RAS. My view; "what's the point", let the cop do or not do and let the judge educate the officer when he gets it wrong regardless of how he got it wrong. Comply without consent and clam up, takes longer to gain redress but redress is what will usually happen because the cop likely did have it wrong when you know that you are law abiding.

 

[Citizen]

but the missing spaces betweensome wordsis a littleannoying.

I understand. For some reason it seems to happen only when the post is composed off line, and then copied and pasted into the reply box. I've already hunted down and respaced a bunch of them. I have a sneaky suspicion the forum software is adding more after each time I find and correct some.

 

[davidmcbeth]

MWAG call, cop rolls up and sees man with gun (holstered on hip) and dog (on leash). Cop does not see embellished acts, what does the cop do? Hard to say, but in his mind he has RAS.....right?

In such a scenario, there is not RAS ... the cop may think so, but his thinking does not make it so. In most states, such a detention would be unlawful .. one does not have to comply if desiring not to.

Just giving people the factual options ... you can not object and sue later or take immediate action ... its up to the person at that time ...

 

[Yard Sale]

But, what if there was a 911 call and radio dispatch about a man with a gun and a dog in a park? A 911 call that was just a little bit hysterical or ambiguous? Or, maybe contained some embellishment or exaggeration? Or, maybe the dispatcher misreports by honest mistake to the cop. (Its what the cop observes or is told by dispatch, not what the OCer thinks).

Florida v. J.L.: 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.

 

[Citizen]

In such a scenario, there is not RAS ... the cop may think so, but his thinking does not make it so. In most states, such a detention would be unlawful .. one does not have to comply if desiring not to.

Just giving people the factual options ... you can not object and sue later or take immediate action ... its up to the person at that time ...

You've missed the whole point of the thread, McBeth. You can almost never know for sure. The OCer who sees "the cop roll up" has no idea what the cop was told by radio.

Just because the cop does not see a reported embellishment does not mean it evaporates from his possible RAS. [This gets into reliability of the informant. There is a raft of court opinions about reliability of informants and the indicia (indicators or signs) of reliability.] One such case that touches on guns is Florida vs JL. OCers like to cite this case because SCOTUS declined to accept a lower standard for RAS when a gun was reported to be involved. But, that was not what the case was about, that was only a side note by the court. The case was about the reliability of an anonymous caller. An anonymous caller had reported to police that JL was at a bus stop with a concealed gun. Police searched him, found the gun, and arrested him. The court said that an anonymous tip alone was not enough to justify a stop-and-frisk. Meaning the anonymity of the caller made the tip too unreliable to justify a detention. Notice the court did not say the RAS would still evaporate if the caller happened to give their name and address.

The point is not whether you know the cop doesn't have RAS. The point is whether you arrived at that know correctly. The difference is the difference between knowing and only thinking you know. The know is really just the OCers conclusion. No reason at all a person can't conclude wrongly. Especially if he draws his conclusion without taking all the possibilities into account, otherwise known as jumping to a conclusion. Get it wrong and the OCer could be in big trouble if he tries to just up and walk away.

Also, you didn't try to just walk away from the police encounter you reported above; you engaged the cop until it was clear he was going to let you leave. Please keep your examples on the subject.

 

[davidmcbeth]

You've missed the whole point of the thread, McBeth. You can almost never know for sure. The OCer who sees "the cop roll up" has no idea what the cop was told by radio.

And the cop may not know ... cops just assume that they can do what they want. The point of the thread is can one determine of RAS is present & one can at times. People look at facts all the time and come to conclusions -- sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

 

[Citizen]

And the cop may not know ... cops just assume that they can do what they want. The point of the thread is can one determine of RAS is present & one can at times. People look at facts all the time and come to conclusions -- sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

Tell you what, McBeth. You go ahead and be the test case. I promise I will write at least two letters of support--one to the judge, and one the editor of the newspaper with the largest circulation in that area.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

To add to the confusion...
What the cop is responding to may not even be what was telephoned in/reported to the police station.

There's a case I'm kind of familiar with where a security guard called the police department to ask if firearms were legal in public parks and to have an officer answer his question. Somehow that got sent out as a "suspicious person" call to the responding officers even though the caller stated "he's .... just walking" when asked for specific actions.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Tell you what, McBeth. You go ahead and be the test case. I promise I will write at least two letters of support--one to the judge, and one the editor of the newspaper with the largest circulation in that area.

I have already refused to be detained when no RAS was there ... oddly enough, I'm still a free man..cops will back down when they know they have an indefensible set of circumstances.

I appreciate your support though .. I may call on you later

Keep the faith brother !

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I have already refused to be detained when no RAS was there ... oddly enough, I'm still a free man..cops will back down when they know they have an indefensible set of circumstances.

I appreciate your support though .. I may call on you later

Keep the faith brother !

I have too.

The point Citizen is making though is can we correctly determine Whether the cop has RAS? T

I think sometimes if we get an admission from the cop of why he is detaining us. I have done that.

Some cases I read where courts ruled they couldn't detain had to do with passengers walking away after the driver of the car they were in were pulled away. The problem is even if you determine there is RAS, you have to see how far you want to take it tactically at that moment. You might have to post bail too.

 

[BB62]

Maybe a direction to take this thread is "How does one most effectively pursue an answer to the question 'Can you correctly determine...'"

Am I being detained?
Why are you detaining me?

 

[F350]

I guess I am kind of confused. What difference does it make at the scene if the police officer has RAS or not and whether or not I believe they have RAS or not? IMHO, the only thing that matters at the scene is if I am being detained or not. Officer approaches me and says, "Can I speak to you for a minute?" or some such question. I ask, "Are you detaining me, officer?" If the answer is yes, then they are detaining me. What difference does it make at the scene if they have RAS? If the are detaining me, I am not free to leave, regardless of if I think their stop is legal or not. It seems to me it is of utmost importance at the scene to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that a detainment is occurring. At the scene, I could not care less if the officer has RAS or not.

If being unlawfully harassed it is important for this reason...... I carry a recorder, I want the cop to talk as much as possible, I want to find different stories he tells, I want to find differences from the truth in what happened and his report, claiming a 911 call when FOIA request shows none, I want him to get pissed at my questions; cause to paraphrase the ole Maranda warning "Everything you say can and will be used in a federal lawsuit, the purpose of which is to destroy your career and the rest of your life".

It is much more important to establish if you are being detained or not, because that is the first thing you will have to prove in court. Were you detained? If the answer that the court finds is "No, the encounter was voluntary" then you have the first strike against you in court. If the answer that the court finds is, "Yes, the police did detain you" then the police/prosecutor have the first strike against them and now the burden of proof falls upon them to prove the detainment had legal grounds.

If in a situation where I believe I am being unlawfully harassed I won't answer any questions but I will be asking as many as I can think of and being a general PITA to get the LEO to step in the deep dodo.

 

[Xulld]

If your goal is to avoid at all costs a conviction of really any charge, then when stopped do not challenge RAS. Ask if you are being detained. Concluding incorrectly that the officer has no RAS, and acting upon that conclusion can lead to lawfull charges and a conviction.

That is the point. The best actions to avoid charges and or a conviction are contained within a set that does not include acting upon any conclusions of if the officer has RAS, up and to the point he is going to harm, or kill you.

That is the point I take away from what citizen is saying.

Good read.

 

[Marco]

If in a situation where I believe I am being unlawfully harassed I won't answer any questions but I will be asking as many as I can think of and being a general PITA to get the LEO to step in the deep dodo.

1+ ignore all questions that aren't general social questions (how did you like yesterday's game etc... example).
I continue about my business I don't stop to talk to them.
Ask questions to any questions posed that are fishing expeditions (is that gun registered, where are you headed etc...)
Am I be detained, am I under arrest?????!!!!!!

Maybe not your cup of tea but it's worked for me.

The officer has a job, it's to supposed to be arresting criminlas. If their talking to you they think you're their pry, don't feed them.

If the officer has RS/PC you will know it soon enough if you ignore/ask questions and continue to walk/go about your business.

 

[Roverhound]

Based on this what is the proper response when stopped by police?
1. Am I being detained? If not...
2. Am I free to go? If not...
3. What is the reason for holding me?
Then, shut up and request your attorney.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

1+ ignore all questions that aren't general social questions (how did you like yesterday's game etc... example).
...
Ask questions to any questions posed that are fishing expeditions (is that gun registered, where are you headed etc...)

Very true. Answer questions that you want, don't answer those that you shouldn't, sow seeds of confusion where you can.

Ocf. Bell,"What’s your date of birth?"
CAP, "Twelve… May… Nineteen Fifty-eight."
Ocf. Bell,"May 12th, 1958? What’s your last name?"
CAP, "Same as it shows on my Georgia Weapon’s License. I don’t have a pen, any of you guys have a pen for the gentleman?"
Ocf. Bell,"l I have a pen."
CAP, "You are prepared."
Ocf. Bell, "I’m a professional… You live around here? Do you live around here? … In the immediate area?"
CAP, "You’ve got the cutest eyes."

You might note that Officers are quite aware of the dictum "don't get stuck making admissions that you just walked right into" as shown here - -

Sgt. Chapel, "You know, your permit is a privilege as well as a right. It can be taken away from you as well.
Cap: By the Probate Court Judge, would you like the number?"
Sgt. Chapel, "We have the number. And when you’re given a permit you’re expected to cooperate a little bit with law enforcement."
CAP, "Actually, I’m required to cooperate; as required by law.

Sgt. Chapel, "Why aren’t you?
CAP, "What am I not doing that’s required?
Sgt. Chapel, (silence)

CAP, "What Am I Not Doing That’s Required, Sergeant Chapel?
Sgt. Chapel, (silence)

Sgt. Chapel, "Did you drive here, sir, or did you walk here?"
CAP, "What...Am...I...Not...Doing...That’s...Required,...Sergeant Chapel"
Sgt. Chapel, (silence)

Sgt. Chapel, "Did you drive here, or did you walk here?"
CAP, "What...Am...I...Not...Doing...That’s...Required,...Sergeant Chapel?"
Sgt. Chapel, ""There you go, right there.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

In my particular case, the question was asked. And answered in the affirmative.
"Messing around" with the officers prompted them to admit, and or give testimony On Tape, that A) the detention was illegal, B) the ranking officer on-scene knew open carry was legal, C) that certain statements in their official reports may have been .. 'less than factual', and D) that an officer may have put his signature to a document alleging facts he knew to be fraudulent at the time he put his signature to it.

Had those admissions not been recorded, it would be my word as a lowly serf with "nothing to gain by being truthful" against the testimony of sworn law enforcement officers with "nothing to gain by lieing."


In short, if the officers are goin' fishin', then I might as well bait a hook and see what admission I can reel in as well.

 

[eye95]

Why is it so difficult to just ask, "Are you detaining me?"

If the answer is NO, then walk away.

If the answer is YES, then simply provide the minimum information required by state law and answer all other questions with, "I am not required by law to provide that information?"

Why is there a need to mess around with the officer and be a smarta$$?

I prefer, "Am I free to go now?" Almost every lawyer I have read on the subject suggests that precise question. Even if the officer thinks you are not detained, he may also think that you are not free to go. The key is your ability to leave, so directly ask if you can go. Just my take.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

I prefer, "Am I free to go now?" Almost every lawyer I have read on the subject suggests that precise question. Even if the officer thinks you are not detained, he may also think that you are not free to go. The key is your ability to leave, so directly ask if you can go. Just my take.

I dont like the way "am I free to go now?"
sounds like Im asking for his personnal permission,
and it seems too easy for him to say No, without an actual rights violation!

I prefer "why are you detaining me?"
It shows I think he is detaing me, but he doesnt want me to think that Yet...
It gives him an oppertunity to do 1 and/or 2 things...
He might say " Im not detaining you", at which point Ill say good day, turn, and start walking...
Or he might say "because you are carrying a gun" at which point I will stop talking, ask for a lawyer, and start planning a civil suit!!