OC individual sues police for false arrest

unfortunately there are fragile egos on both sides of this issue which prevent rational discussion at times.

Click to expand...

Yup. A simple, "we're sorry, we screwed up..." would go a long way to alleviating the frustrations of so many. But the departments (and individual officers in some cases) have many decades of tradition that encourages them to play fast and loose with the law. The sort of "well, whadda ya going to do about it?" attitude.

Lawsuits really are the only answer. Fortunately groups like VCDL down in VA and others around the country are starting to develop a good model for how to push back.

MErl said:

to JLR
Displaying a firearm could be considered disturbing the peace now. The police have to determine your intent in displaying which requires talking to you and they are going to ask who you are.

Click to expand...

Anything can be considered disturbing the peace. It's a catch-all for any rogue cop on a power trip. This is why these lawsuits are necessary. If open-carrying a firearm is legal, then that act alone *should not* constitute reasonable suspicion.

We had a few of these cases in Wisconsin before we got concealed carry. There were some payouts on the tax payers backs because the cops don't know the law. Open carry is legal here except in a school zone and a cop can only make causal contact and not ask you for your name or ID unless there is suspicion of a crime. Check out http://concealedwisconsin.com/blog/...or-open-carry-incident-at-culvers-restaurant/

Not necessarily.
While I was surprised to discover that the police do have a legal right in many states to ask for your name, if indeed the constitutional right was violated, the taxpayer has a right to get that right restored.

A bit of coinage to keep our rights is worth it

I too hope he wins the suit,,,

Anything can be considered disturbing the peace. It's a catch-all for any rogue cop on a power trip. This is why these lawsuits are necessary.

Click to expand...

I agree completely with this.

If the taxpayers are mad about where their money goes,,,
They should oust the cops who are wasting it.

For citizens the courts say: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Why should cops get off free when they break a law.

I for one want to see many more suits like this,,,
I'm so danged tired of local cops acting like 1930's Gestapo.

But the one thing that makes me angrier,,,
Is good cops covering up, making excuses for,,,
And perpetuating the Code of the Blue Brotherhood.

Police yourselves,,,
Then you will earn my respect.

Aarond

.

lemaymiami,

When we are having our "serious talk" about why I did not ask for identification from a citizen that had not broken any laws I would request that you put your order in writing that I am required to obtain identification from all citizens I encounter including those that have not broken any laws.

I mean as a high ranking police supervisor you know the importance of written policies so you surely will not have a problem issuing a written order requiring officers to obtain identification from said citizens?

Jlr2267 said:

Anything can be considered disturbing the peace. It's a catch-all for any rogue cop on a power trip. This is why these lawsuits are necessary. If open-carrying a firearm is legal, then that act alone *should not* constitute reasonable suspicion.

Click to expand...

I apologize the exact term is disorderly conduct which in CO has this exact language:

(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

A firearm is now defined as a deadly weapon. Before the law change there was a threat required to make a firearm a deadly weapon and trigger this.

This is why we were upset at the redefinition as an attack on open carry. It is now purely on officer judgment if you mean to cause alarm and it is surely cause for contact. How can they determine your motivation without speaking to you?

That's not cool, but it is worth remembering that the incident happened in Ohio so CO's laws are only interesting as a point of comparison.

Training & supervision....

Important components of this topic are proper supervision & training.
In 2009, a state official(Div of Licensing) at a meeting told the audience that they no longer do in-service trainings for law enforcement. The state LE agency(training board) would do seminars with the Div of Licensing to make sure the police/troopers/etc knew exactly what the statues re; guns, concealed carry, PIs, private security, and recovery agents(tow trucks) were & how to enforce the law(s) correctly.
This program was cut to save $$$.
Now, cops or troopers can honesty say; hey, no one told me or "we never had any formal training".
A + step is to request your mayor, city council, police chief, citizen review board members etc to train the LE officers in lethal force/gun issues.

Rusty
PS; Any forum members might want to review the Ohio case of the cop who went berserk on a CCW license holder(taxi driver). The video is graphic .
The cop took a plea & settled with the city/PD. He retired on a medical discharge & got a $38,000.00 check. Plus he kept his police certification & can obtain LEOSA status.

have a link for that video?

Probably because he/she was scared. It was 4:30 in the morning in a convenience store. Is it ever smart to scare people who have the right to go about their business unmolested?

Click to expand...

Given their reputation as the local "Stop and Rob" I think OCing into such a place at 4:30 AM is a rather prudent move, essentially making sure HE can go about HIS business unmolested. I'd feel sorry for the "concerned citizen" if he/she somehow wound up having a gun pointed at them or something along those lines, but them man needs to make no apologies to anyone for simply putting them in the presence of a lawfully carried firearm. Sure, he could have answered the questions differently, but I'm NOT going to question his decision to carry into such a place in the wee hours of the AM. In faact, depending on the city, I'd be hesitant to shop such a place if I WASN'T armed. As for the retired officer who thinks I should ID myself any time he asks me to, validly or not.....No thanks. I'll stick the what the law requires, not your personal belief of what constitutes the best practice...often whats "best" for the cop is NOT the "best" for the person in contact with the cop. Whats "best" for the cop(in his or her opinion) is often what allows him or her to make an arrest and not always about keeping themselves safe as they'd like you to believe.

PS; Any forum members might want to review the Ohio case of the cop who went berserk on a CCW license holder(taxi driver). The video is graphic .
The cop took a plea & settled with the city/PD. He retired on a medical discharge & got a $38,000.00 check. Plus he kept his police certification & can obtain LEOSA status.

Click to expand...

That would be Daniel Harless. For the record, he did it 3 times [threatening to execute people], also had been caught turning off the dashcam, his partner perjured himself on the witness stand, both lied on the police report (more perjury as they swore it was true).

The partner had no ramifications either.

Cops not knowing the law can be a real problem. July 1, two news laws in TN took effect that in the past would have gotten you proned out followed by a ride downtown. Switchblades are now legal and there are no more knife blade length restrictions. The other is that it is now legal to carry a loaded gun in your car without a permit. I've asked three cops from two different departments about these in the past two days, and none of them had heard anything about them.

Glad to see that many here disagree with me. That's the way it should work in our system -this will have to work its way through the courts (and, of course, the original charge has been dropped so "the case" will revolve around whether the officer -and by extension his Department and the City involved were acting properly...).

What might not be known is that many (maybe most?) jurisdictions have some form of law on the books that allows an officer to take into custody someone acting suspiciously
(in Florida it involves " in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity".

The portion I've cited is under 856.021, Florida State Statutes (but may have changed since my book is a bit dated..). That particular statute goes on to cite "takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself..." All that's needed for any citizen to avoid this particular arrest (Loitering or Prowling, 856-021) is to provide the officer with enough info to dispel any alarm.... and that's why I said what I did about the armed citizen not having the best case under the given circumstances...

Here in Florida an "L & P charge" is considered a crime prevention law and used properly it's a great tool for just that. All any citizen has to do when confronted under suspicious circumstances is provide enough info to dispel the officer's concern about the situation and there's no grounds for arrest at all.

I'll leave it to everyone else to decide if someone openly carrying a firearm outside at a gas station at that time is grounds for concern.... Can't remember how many times over the years what initially appeared highly suspicious soon resolved itself and the individual went on his/her way... Also can't remember how many times an initial suspicion did turn out to be of real concern and the guy went down for it - with no other crime involved (because they never were allowed to get down to it....).

Like I said at first - his refusal to identify himself will greatly weaken any claim of rights violated in my opinion (but that's why we have courts). Here in Florida there is no right to openly carry a firearm,FSS 790.053 - at least that was the law when I left police work...

Anyone carrying a weapon that refuses to disclose their identity to a cop on duty is hardly a citizen in my view...

Click to expand...

Yeah, how dare he exercise his constitutional rights and then get upset when he's persecuted by the people who are sworn to protect him as a result. The nerve of that "citizen".

How is an officer supposed to confirm that someone open carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check?
Or do we just give someone fresh out of prison on parole or recently released from a mental institution a pass on this one?

How is an officer supposed to confirm that someone open carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check?
Or do we just give someone fresh out of prison on parole or recently released from a mental institution a pass on this one?

Click to expand...

Why does an officer get to run checks on random people he meets just because they're there, not breaking any obvious laws?

Why does bearing arms in a non-threatening manner provide reasonable justification for an officer to detain and investigate someone?

Heck, the police can't pull you over and run your d/l just because they see you passing by. Still got to have some vehicle code violation to point to. And driving is merely a privilege, not a right like bearing arms is.

How is an officer supposed to confirm that someone open carrying is not a prohibited person (ex-con,etc.) without running an ID check? Or do we just give someone fresh out of prison on parole or recently released from a mental institution a pass on this one?

Click to expand...

He's not supposed to, unless he has a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is underway or about to be committed. A hunch isn't good enough. (how do you know *he* isn't a prohibited person, or carrying a stolen gun?)

Here are the links to some of the court documents. Interesting reading. These were linked to also on the OhioCCW forum

http://www.ohionets.com/stuff/variouscourtdocs/rcall-docket-item-9.pdf
http://www.ohionets.com/stuff/variouscourtdocs/rcall-docket-item-9-attachment.pdf
http://www.ohionets.com/stuff/variouscourtdocs/rcall-docket-item-11.pdf
http://www.ohionets.com/stuff/variouscourtdocs/rcall-docket-item-13.pdf
http://www.ohionets.com/stuff/variouscourtdocs/rcall-docket-item-14.pdf

lemaymiami said:

" ...What might not be known is that many (maybe most?) jurisdictions have some form of law on the books that allows an officer to take into custody someone acting suspiciously.
(in Florida it involves " in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity".

Click to expand...

0856.021(1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity."

Click to expand...

Loiter or prowl? Nope, it appears he went in, made a purchase and came back out.
At a time? Nope, it appears the convenience store was open for customers.
In a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals? Nope, no black mask, no hoodie, nothing at all about him suggestive of illegal conduct.

Although why we are discussing Florida law when the incident happened in Ohio is quite beyond me. Why not discuss Ohio law on the matter?

Here are the links to some of the court documents. Interesting reading.

Click to expand...

Interesting that the man is picking and choosing which law he wants to follow.

Since he is a CCW holder and Identification is Required.

tarosean said:

Interesting that the man is picking and choosing which law he wants to follow.

Since he is a CCW holder and Identification is Required.

Click to expand...

I can see your point on the ID is Required part, but are you saying that since he had a CCW he is required to conceal?

That's been a major issue here in Utah, but it has been getting better. The majority of LEOs were of the opinion that you couldn't OC if you had a CFP; you were required to conceal. Enough education has taken place that it really isn't an issue. Now the fight is about some Disorderly-Conduct-happy departments. There was a new law passed this year that makes it explicit that a holstered/encased firearm cannot be cause for a DC charge in the absence of other threatening behavior. It's more of a clarification that was directed at the aforementioned departments.

Matt

wow....just wow. People, including police officers, who believe law-abiding citizens should cast off their civil rights for the common good.

Terry v Ohio is well established. The police must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot in order to detain a citizen. Some key words to remember are, MUST have, and CRIME afoot. Courts have ruled that the mere presence of a firearm does not waive the Terry rules.

moxie said:

Dad always said, "Give a cop grief and you get a free ride downtown."

Click to expand...

I find it exasperating that the same folks who demand gun rights would so callously toss away their own, and others' privacy rights. You deserve neither.

I can see your point on the ID is Required part, but are you saying that since he had a CCW he is required to conceal?

Click to expand...

Not at all.