Decision: Police can search person suspected of carrying illegal firearm for ID

[NavyLCDR]

4th Amendment

It doesn't violate his 4th amendment if he consents. Lighten up. We are or should be on the same side.

Let me explain the danger of that thinking:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81293-Harrassed-by-4-sheriffs-in-STARBUCKS!

Tom Brewster was standing in line at Starbucks in WA state, where open carry of a firearm is legal with no license required. A Sheriff deputy in line behind him for coffee, NOT even in response to a 911 (not that a 911 call would have made any difference at all), asks Tom for ID to verify that he is not a person prohibited to possess firearms. Tom was doind nothing different than every other person in the Starbucks, he was ordering coffee in the middle of the morning, that's what normal Americans do...

Tom asks the officer if he is being detained. Officer says no. Tom says then this conversation is over. Deputy leaves, Tom gets his coffee. Deputy calls three of his buddies and they return. Tom now finds himself facing 4 officers. Again they request that he produce ID to prove that he is not a prohibited person. Again, Tom's only action was ordering a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Tom again asks if they are detaining him. They reply no, but they must verify his identity to determine if he is prohibited or not.

Now, let me ask you, at this point, if you were Tom, would you feel completely free to leave Starbucks with no further harrassment?

After 8 full minutes of 4 officers harassing him, Tom "consents" and hands over ID to get the 4 officers to leave him alone. There is a full audio recording the of the encounter with the 4 officers.

In my personal opinion, these actions are the result of people condoning actions on the part of police in asking people to ID themselves when they have no legal basis to do so (no RAS of any crime being committed). The police get so used to consent being given to them to violate your rights that they begin to demand it when someone does not consent to their request. A right not exercised is a right lost. We see a very fine example of that principle right here.

 

[NavyLCDR]

And let's not forget about the 5 men in Madison, WI.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open...awsuit-against-madison-police-department.html

5 men doing nothing but eating dinner in a restaurant. Their "crime"? Carrying firearms in the only manner legal to do so in WI. A lady calls 911 ONLY to ask about the legality of their firearms. 911 dispatcher informs here everything is legal. Lady expresses to 911 that there is NO problem, NO indication of anything going to happen, she was just curious and apologized for calling.

8 police officers show up and "request" the 5 men to identify themselves. 3 "consent" and 2 refuse. The 2 that refused are given tickets for obstructing a police officer. The police department, under pressure, determines that the 2 committed no crime in refusing to ID themselves because their was no legal basis for the demand to be made by the officers AND THEN issues citations to ALL 5 people for "disturbing the peace"! Because a curious lady called 911, not even complaining about their guns or anything, just asking if it was legal!

Actions like these need to STOP! And we are not going to get actions like these to stop until we stand up for our rights, exercise our rights, and not "consent" to officers violating our rights!

 

[Birdmang]

A consent to a search is not a violation of a right.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I'm not sure how this MN case impacts lawful citizens carrying who aren't suspected of a crime. Anyone?

 

[Guillermo]

A consent to a search is not a violation of a right

true

it is giving up a right, the right to privacy.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why do we condone willfully waiving our rights? Don't we have enough problems trying to keep our rights protected? Why should we fight for protection of our rights if all we are going to do is hand them over the minute an officer asks us to? Or is the "feeling" that you can refuse to "consent" enough for you?

I'm not sure how this MN case impacts lawful citizens carrying who aren't suspected of a crime. Anyone?

I don't think that it does, EXCEPT on a perception level. I think it is going to cause more people to believe that they must show ID or identify themselves to police officers upon request anytime - cause people to "consent" to waiver of their rights through ignorance. That perception is the reason why I won't waive my rights upon the request of a police officer.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

A consent to a search is not a violation of a right.

exactly.
It's the voluntary surrender of your rights. That's why you're asked for consent.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Actions like these need to STOP! And we are not going to get actions like these to stop until we stand up for our rights, exercise our rights, and not "consent" to officers violating our rights!

I agree.
It's been my experience that most law enforcement like to go after the low hanging fruit. Making an interaction with a 2nd amendment activist more like petting a porcupine is probably a better way to handle it than rolling over to show the yellow on your belly.

People died and bled for our rights. Now many are petrified at the idea of inconveniencing a public servant to assert those rights. I don't get that. Not even a little.
His or her time or mood is very low on my list of worries.

 

[Guillermo]

It's the voluntary surrender of your rights.

That was put much more eloquently that I did

 

[Birdmang]

Right to privacy? That right was made out of thin air by the supreme court.

I'm not going to show my I.D. to anyone unless I legally have to, which I believe would be a bad law and should not be followed...but being a young college student, I sadly don't have the defense funds to stand up for all my rights.

Either way I do think we need people to stand up, and the ones that stand up need support, mostly legal and monetary, to push the agenda and keep the movement rolling.

 

[NavyLCDR]

with a 2nd amendment activist

Part of the problem we are facing, though, is the minute the word "firearm" is mentioned, it all of a sudden becomes a 2nd amendment issue. I think it is important when dealing eith the issue of unlawful detainment and demands for ID that we keep it focused on the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment has much more court precedent and support behind it than the 2nd amendment.

When arguing a case of a detention for legal firearms possession, if it were me, I would request that my lawyer refrain from using the term "right" associated with the firearm in any way. I would ask him to define it as "lawful behavior not indicitive of criminal activity". In other words, no RAS. I think when you start using the word "right" in association with the word "firearm" we are going to lose some support right up front.

Right to privacy? That right was made out of thin air by the supreme court.

Ummm..... no. Do you recognize this quote?:

"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."

The bold and underlined portion is "the right to privacy" and it was not made up out of thin air by the Supreme Court.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

You're right, LT. I tend to stick with the 2a when talking about it here because of the mod hammer in these parts. Staying relevant to THR mission and all that.

It's important to bring as many as one can into the discussion, I think. Prioritize yes, but not leave any behind that could help.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You're right, LT. I tend to stick with the 2a when talking about it here because of the mod hammer in these parts. Staying relevant to THR mission and all that.

I think we can still discuss the 4th amendment issue here because the 4th amendment issue we are discussing occurs only because of the possession of a firearm. In this particular group of people (here on thehighroad), though, I think we need to attempt to point out that the 4th amendment is just as important to us and our rights as the 2nd amendment is.

It funny, the same people that would holler and clammour over police requesting that they give up their firearms to them for no lawful reason have no problems at all with the police requesting ID from them for no lawful reason.

 

[Art Eatman]

This has wandered miles away from the original subject of the thread...

Time to end the wandering.