PTK said:
Everyone:
I would like to say, thank you all for keeping this discussion civil and on-topic. I truly do appreciate it. 
I agree.
Now in response to Surats comments in post #207.
I’ll first provide the short answer, then I’ll post a second time with a more in-depth explanation.
First, to sum things up.
I stated that the officers (according to what we’ve been told) did not have valid reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot. This is a requirement for them to have detained PTK. They didn’t have RS, and that is why he has standing for legal action (google “dan moore, Norfolk“, if you doubt). Surat (who claims (and I believe him) to be an LEO) claimed that the stop was valid, based on the info provided. I personally have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he is wrong, but as I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I asked him to articulate not only what that RS was, but also for which crime it was suspicion of. In response he stated:
Surat said:
At the very least, based on the circumstances described by the OP there would be reasonable suspiction that there was a man carrying a concealed weapon, which I amassuming is a misdemeanor if you don't have a perimt. Based on the fact no less than 12 officers showed up, I am guessing that something more "serious" was phoned in.
Here, he was stating that the crime for which the RS was incident to was “carrying a concealed without a permit (CCW)”. He is also making reference to the actions of the officers as part of that RS. When I questioned his using the actions of the officers at the scene as part of his own perceived RS, he qualified it.
Surat said:
Ok, gotcha, no my intent, just trying to "read" the scenario based on actually very little detail from the OP.
Fair enough, but still left the question of what he based his RS for CCW on. When asked, he stated:
Surat said:
I'm saying I think that MWAG (which the OP says was called in as an active shooter) call, and defendants actions (lack of "hey guy's I'm packing") all add up to resonable suspicion, which is enough to detain until the situation can be "put to bed". ..
The courts disagree with him on this being valid RS. A MWAG call (regardless whether its an active shooter call or not), combined with the suspects lack of disclosure, does not constitute RS that the suspect is carrying a concealed weapon without a valid permit. Furthermore, according to the courts, “had PTK fled upon approach by the officers, even that would not combine with the MWAG call to constitute RS, especially for CCW”.
Now, in all fairness to Surat, it’s quite probable that he is taking more than just the words of PTK into consideration. My guess is that he’s probably reading between the lines a bit, and that is not understandable considering his profession.
Something that is telling (yet not damning) is the following quote:
Surat said:
… Maybe it'll land me in civil court one day. One of the reasons I pay my FOP dues, in addition to a fine outdoor range
Surat may correct me if I am wrong (when he returns from vacation), but this is in reference to any incident where he may detain someone with invalid RS, while acting in good faith. IOW, he's saying that his stated RS may not be valid, but he believes it is, and is willing to stand by that.
However, that is not the telling part. What’s telling is that, by taking that chance, he places in jeopardy any potential case the prosecutor may have in the event that said “good faith, yet invalid” search may produce. My take on this is that (like in the event of the OP) there is no reason to worry about such evidence being dismissed on technicality, because it won’t even get that far. Therefore, he can bend the rules a little on these things (or be less concerned about valid RS), because he’s confident that he’ll get away with it. That’s his call to make. It’s his life on the line, he’s the one doing the job that most of us wouldn’t want, and he’s the one paying the FOP dues. That's not saying that I think he's willing to bend the rules, as I think he'll act on good faith. It's just saying that he's willing to risk any fallout from a potential mistake. However, I don't doubt that just like any other cross section of society, there are some who have no compunction of playing loose with the constitution.
That is also why my take is that this wasn’t done (there are other similar cases, most involving OC) to prevent, stop, or curb crime, but that it was instead done in an effort to influence the OP’s future actions. It’s also why he needs to give this information to his lawyer, and file civil action against the proper parties (be it the individual officers, the department, or whomever). They violated his civil rights under the fourth amendment against unwarranted search and seizures, and they should be taken to task for it simply as a prevention of it’s likelihood of happening to someone else in the future. We’re fortunate to live in a time when such actions (holding the authorities accountable to the law) is getting traction. Just this summer there have been two such victories, and there are more that are currently going through the system.
That’s the short version. My next post will be the long version. If that’s too much, anyone interested could read the following:
http://policechiefmagazine.org/maga...n=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005
It summarizes things, and gives references to look up if anyone is interested.
