happybrew said:
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here. I'm not against open carry; however, suppose a police officer observes a man with a slung shotgun about to enter a bank. Does he have probable cause to stop and detain the man to determine his purpose?
Again, the police do not need probable cause (PC) to detain you; they need PC to arrest you. They need only ‘reasonable articuable suspicion’ that you are, have just, or are about to commit a crime. See,
Terry Stops on Wiki) Carrying a shotgun into a bank, if not illegal in your town/state, would not equate to PC for an officer to arrest you. Would a reasonable person seeing this behavior believe that a crime was afoot? In all likelihood, yes. A shotgun is not normally considered a ‘carry firearm’ so an officer would be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that you were about to commit the crime of bank robbery. This would probably be enough to detain you and verify what your business is at the bank in the very least.
What about a handgun? Well, is it in a holster or stuck down your pants? Is it actually being carried openly or was it inadvertently exposed from concealed carry? Were you otherwise acting suspiciously, like glancing furtively around before entering? Does the officer recognize you from a previous encounter and know you are a felon? If an officer observed you walking into the bank with a properly holstered sidearm, he would not be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that you were going to rob the bank merely because you have a gun. He cannot assume that just because you are carrying the gun that you are about to rob the bank, because there is a perfectly legitimate reason to enter a bank and many people carry guns in holsters. IOW, he cannot just add one and one and come up with four.
Suppose a person is observed walking down the street with a rifle, and the police receive phone calls from alarmed citizens saying an armed man was stalking people?
Stalking someone with a rifle would be reasonably suspicious, so yes, the responding officers would be able to detain you. In the case you mention, it sounds like the caller added the stalking element, without which the police would not have reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot (here in Washington), and thus would be violating your privacy rights against seizure by detaining you. See also,
State Vs Casad.
Suppose a man is seen walking back and forth along a busy street with a rifle with no apparent purpose?
See above. Also, if he is merely pacing about, without any apparent purpose, in other words, not walking in a straight line or following a certain path, he would appear to be stalking or selecting a victim for a crime. So in that case, the police would have reasonable articuable suspicion that a crime was afoot. If, however, he were merely walking with the rifle slung across his back (not at the ready), not glancing around furtively, and seemed to be actually going somewhere, then no. Here in Washington they look at several factors including the time and place as well.
When exactly is it okay or not okay to stop a man (or woman) with an openly carried firearm?
The only time the police can detain you for any reason, gun or no gun, (assuming for the argument that OC is legal where you live) is if they have reasonable articuable suspicion that a crime is afoot, and there is no firearms exception to the rules of Terry. There is no bright line rule; it’s all about the totality of the circumstances. Legal behavior is legal, it doesn’t matter if it’s unusual or peculiar. The police cannot legally detain you for being unusual or peculiar or weird. This is why whenever the discussion comes up, someone who is authoritive on the subject (like Dave Workman) will always advise; behave yourself. If you carry with the intent to make trouble, it will avail itself to you in a big way. If you behave in a manner of normalcy and confidence, you will do just fine.
