• 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.

What cops need to consider about armed citizens

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,177
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Yes, laws may vary as a result of the location one is present. And for those located where the laws and Constitution of the US are in effect, I stand by my statement of MY OPINION and MY understanding of the Law and to expand on my earlier comment --- If one is NOT suspected of having violated, currently violating, or about to violate the Law--- NO MATTER WHAT ONE IS DOING, the LEO has NO AUTHORITY to interfere with the individual and therefore must, to avoid violating the person's Constitutionally protected rights--- LEAVE THEM THE "HECK" ALONE!!!!!
Not according to the supreme court.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,177
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
If there is no RAS, which is what FreedomLover seems to be intimating, where has SCOTUS decreed contrary to FreedomLover's exclamation otherwise regarding LE authority.
Consensual encounters - Voluntary encounters - Knock and talk

See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) There is no doubt that, if this same encounter had taken place before Bostick boarded the bus or in the lobby of the bus terminal, it would not rise to the level of a seizure. The Court has dealt with similar encounters in airports, and has found them to be "the sort of consensual encounter that implicat[e] no Fourth Amendment interest." Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1984). We have stated that even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, see INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984); Rodriguez, supra, 469 U.S. at 5-6; ask to examine the individual's identification, see Delgado, supra, 466 U.S. at 216; Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 557-558 (1980); and request consent to search his or her luggage, see Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion) -- as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.

Also, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411,423-24 (1976). No warrant is required to arrest someone in a public place, to fully search them incident to that arrest, including any containers they might be carrying, or to "stop and frisk" them.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
418
Location
Kentucky
Qualified immunity deals with civil matters not criminal matters. Qualified immunity does not protect a cop from being criminally charged with a crime and prosecuted for that crime.
In theory yes. In practice not so much. Correctly or not QI has been the excuse judges hang their hat on to pull a bad cops fat out of the fire when there was no other way for them to do it.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
418
Location
Kentucky
Consensual encounters - Voluntary encounters - Knock and talk

See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) There is no doubt that, if this same encounter had taken place before Bostick boarded the bus or in the lobby of the bus terminal, it would not rise to the level of a seizure. The Court has dealt with similar encounters in airports, and has found them to be "the sort of consensual encounter that implicat[e] no Fourth Amendment interest." Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1984). We have stated that even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, see INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984); Rodriguez, supra, 469 U.S. at 5-6; ask to examine the individual's identification, see Delgado, supra, 466 U.S. at 216; Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 557-558 (1980); and request consent to search his or her luggage, see Royer, supra, 460 U.S. at 501 (plurality opinion) -- as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.

Also, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411,423-24 (1976). No warrant is required to arrest someone in a public place, to fully search them incident to that arrest, including any containers they might be carrying, or to "stop and frisk" them.
Which is why one should never stop and talk to a cop unless one is being legally detained.

And IF legally detained silence is still golden. One never has to answer any LEOs questions.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Location
White Oak Plantation
Consensual encounters - Voluntary encounters - Knock and talk

See Florida v. Bostick, ...
First, this is a SCOTUS construct, like RAS and QI, created out of thin air...the ether. Decreed so as to remove cops from being held criminally/civilly accountability for clearly unconstitutional/illegal acts. Second, there can be no consent without two folks agreeing beforehand.

Cops don't approach you out of the goodness of their blessed little hearts in the vast majority of cop/citizen interactions. We always have the right to not "consent"...no?

Incidentally, your silence is considered as consent by the same court the conjured RAS and QI out of the ether.

Logic dictates, and self preservation demands, that merely ignoring the cop and walking away without "acknowledging" him is foolhardy at a minimum and potentially lethal in the worst case.

In case anyone here misremembers the drill:

Conversation
COP: “Hi, can I ask you a couple of questions?”
YOU: “Are you detaining me or am I free to go?”
COP: “I just want to talk to you.”
YOU: “I choose not to talk to you.” (you walk away)

Detention
COP: “Hi, can I ask you a couple of questions?”
YOU: “Are you detaining me or am I free to go?”
COP: “I’m detaining you. Hands against the wall.”
YOU: “Why am I being detained?” (or, “What is your reasonable suspicion?”). Memorize and report the response.
In either case the cop...uh, SCOTUS, compels us to interact with that cop so that we do not have to interact with that cop.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
418
Location
Kentucky
First, this is a SCOTUS construct, like RAS and QI, created out of thin air...the ether. Decreed so as to remove cops from being held criminally/civilly accountability for clearly unconstitutional/illegal acts. Second, there can be no consent without two folks agreeing beforehand.

Cops don't approach you out of the goodness of their blessed little hearts in the vast majority of cop/citizen interactions. We always have the right to not "consent"...no?

Incidentally, your silence is considered as consent by the same court the conjured RAS and QI out of the ether.

Logic dictates, and self preservation demands, that merely ignoring the cop and walking away without "acknowledging" him is foolhardy at a minimum and potentially lethal in the worst case.

In case anyone here misremembers the drill:

In either case the cop...uh, SCOTUS, compels us to interact with that cop so that we do not have to interact with that cop.
Actually no. One does not lawfully have to speak to a cop, period. Not even when detained.

And especially not voluntarily.
 

skin'erback

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29
Location
missouri
send a few to prison and watch the rest 'get right with the law'. The standard should be would the citizen go to jail for this, The same rules for citizens and LOE.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
This sums it up nicely about law enforcment and the policy makers.
I disagree with most of the points made in the video.

Just as most human beings follow most laws, so too most law enforcement officers do their jobs reasonably well. I've known good cops and bad cops, but I've known a lot more good cops than bad cops.

I cannot, however, say the same about most politicians. Perhaps I don't know enough, but too many of the ones I have met don't do enough to support and defend our Constitution, and far too many actively propose and support undermining legislation.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,829
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
First, this is a SCOTUS construct, like RAS and QI, created out of thin air...the ether.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sounds pretty concrete to me, at least so far as "probable cause" is concerned.

As for reasonable articulable suspicion...

As for qualified immunity... Part of the reason our founding fathers penned the Fourth to make those enforcing the law to jump through all sorts of legal hoops was to protect them. Having then crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's, presuming they did so correctly, then they were pre-authorized to execute the warrant and would not, could not be sued in the official performance of executing their lawful duties.

Members of the military encounter something quite similar. We have a respectable amount of law we must know and follow, from the Law of Armed Conflict to the Theater/Operation-specific Rules of Engagement to our General Orders and finally, the almighty Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If we follow all of these, then we can STILL be held accountable for failing to exercise proper judgement. That, however, is minor compared to what happens when someone knowingly violates these laws, particularly if it involves deaths either of friendlies, the enemy, or non-combatants.

Same goes for cops. People think QI allows them a get out of jail free card for doing wrong. That depends on what was done. I know of three cops in our city alone, out of nearly a thousand, who found themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Decreed so as to remove cops from being held criminally/civilly accountability for clearly unconstitutional/illegal acts.
Whatever you're describing, it's not qualified immunity.

Second, there can be no consent without two folks agreeing beforehand.
Consent can be reasonable implied from the circumstances. For example, if you enter an amusement park where the sign says, "All bags and backpacks are subject to search," then the mere act of entering implies consent. Did you meet with the park manager and agree beforehand? Nope.

Cops don't approach you out of the goodness of their blessed little hearts in the vast majority of cop/citizen interactions. We always have the right to not "consent"...no?
Both law enforcement as well as citizens have very similar rights and responsibilities under Colorado State Law when it comes to noticing and investigating what appears to be wrongdoing. I know it's the same in three other states in which I've lived.

Incidentally, your silence is considered as consent by the same court the conjured RAS and QI out of the ether.
Have you tried posting an "I Do Not Consent" sticker in your window?

Logic dictates, and self preservation demands, that merely ignoring the cop and walking away without "acknowledging" him is foolhardy at a minimum and potentially lethal in the worst case.
Aye.

In case anyone here misremembers the drill:

In either case the cop...uh, SCOTUS, compels us to interact with that cop so that we do not have to interact with that cop.
Reworded for clarity:

The Supreme Court of the United States opined that a reasonable person would make known their intention to have no further interaction with law enforcement.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Location
White Oak Plantation
My views on Terry are well known. There is no dispute that Terry is bad "law." There is no arguments that can justify the carnage that Terry has brought upon the innocent citizens of this country. Terry in and of itself is a violation of the 4A. Terry and QI are one and the same, interchangeable with each other.

The Tenth Circuit held that Officer White’s use of deadly force was objectively unreasonable and that it “violated Samuel Pauly’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force.” But the court still granted Officer White qualified immunity; there was no prior case with sufficiently similar facts, so the unreasonableness of his conduct was not “clearly established,” in the court’s view. What’s more, the court held that because Officer White had qualified immunity, the other two officers automatically received immunity as well, even though their own reckless conduct caused Officer White to commit the unlawful shooting.

I know exactly what QI is and where it originated. The links in the CATO article are recommended reading.

The amusement park did not approach me. Please color within the lines of this particular thread...specifically where cops approach citizens without invite.

Your sign is meaningless, just as a No Trespassing sign is meaningless...until a judge, after the violation of rights occurs, determines otherwise.

Reality sucks, cops have Terry, cops have QI, and now cops have Heien. The supremes have not been friendly to individual liberty, they be loving law breaking cops. The supremes codified that cops are to be held above the great unwashed masses in all matters great and small.

Edit to add: No prior case of cops unlawfully breaking into a home, without a warrant, unannounced? Not anywhere? Ever? Puh-lease!
 
Last edited:
Top