Legality of detaining and disarming due to a 911 call...

[NavyLCDR]

There is an active thread going on in another forum and I am appalled by a few "pro-gun" and "pro-2A" members opinions, so I would like to discuss it here.

North Carolina person, we'll call him Opie (pun), writes that he was involved in a road rage incident. Both Opie and the other person performed inappropriate actions/gestures, although the other person was initially in the wrong by talking on the cell phone and turning right on red in front of Opie who had the green light, almost causing an accident. Anyway horns were blown and fingers were waved by/at each party.

Other person turns off, Opie travels on his way and a few miles down the road he sees Officer Friendly pull in behind him and start following. Offcier Friendly lights him up even though Opie violated no traffic laws from when Officer Friendly started following him.

Opie, according to North Carolina state law, informs the officer that he has a CCW permit and is carrying a firearm. Officer Friendly asks Opie to get out of the vehicle and put his hands on his head. Officer Friendly frisks Opie, finds his gun, can't remove it from the retention holster, so removes the whole holster from Opie.

Officer Friendly then questions Opie about the road rage incident, puts his gun still in the holster on the trunk lid and tells Opie that he is going to let him go with just a warning (reckless driving) this time.

So here are the questions, and we'll try to keep it more firearms related: does a single 911 call provide reasonable suspicion for a police officer to first detain a person when the police officer has observed nothing wrong? How about disarm the person? What if the 911 caller said that Opie threatened them with a gun by displaying it during the road rage encounter? Remember, Officer Friendly has actually witnessed NOTHING, he is making the stop solely based upon one 911 call.

 

[Rail Driver]

While I feel that "Opie" should have been the bigger man and either ignored "idiot driver", or noted his tag and called police reporting the reckless driving by said idiot driver, I also think the officer went a little too far in ordering "Opie" out of the vehicle and disarming him. "Opie" should find out if there are red-light cameras at the intersection in question, or other cameras that were monitoring the intersection at the time (even in the background). If there were then there is evidence that "Opie" was the one that got cut off. Filing a false police report (apparently by idiot driver) is a crime. This should have been reported and dealt with.

(all my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it)

 

[Thedub88]

well said Rail Driver. I agree with you 100%

 

[1911Jeeper]

Opie was traffic stopped, not detained. The Police can stop you for any traffic violation or equipment violation unrelated to any prior inappropriate behavior. For his safety, you should expect that a LEO may want to take control of your weapons.

The 911 call may provide probable cause for the LEO to stop and ID someone.

If your vehicle, DL, Firearms, and method of carry all meet the local legal requirements, you are free to go.

If you (or Opie) are carrying a weapon and get involved in an altercation/argument or road rage incident, I have no sympathy, you are at fault ( and stupid ) and the LEO was simply doing his job, following up on a complaint.



.

 

[NavyLCDR]

My intent was more to discuss the lawfulness of the police officer's actions rather than Opie's. Opie knows he did not handle the situation correctly.

I actually commented the same thing early on in the thread saying, "You should have just let it go. You contributed to the incident." But then I got to thinking, "Wait a minute. Officer Friendly saw NOTHING! What was the basis for the initial stop and detainment of Opie?!? One single 911 call?"

 

[Coyote3855]

I only offer an opinion. I have learned to avoid legal debates with NAVY LCDR, although such discussions are always educational.

In Wyoming, we have a program called REDDI, Report Every Drunk Driver Immediately. Although I have no personal experience, I assume that a police officer might stop a driver based on a phone call report of erratic driving whether or not the officer observed a violation.

Once Opie was stopped, rightly or wrongly, and informed the officer he was armed, I have no issue with the officer taking temporary possession of the firearm for his own safety. Who knows what the caller told the police?

I have first hand knowledge of a road rage incident where one driver displayed a firearm. The other driver called Wyoming Highway Patrol. Armed driver was stopped based only on the phone call, issued a summons (not arrested, firearm not confiscated), pled out to misdemeanor charge. Lost his job over it.

 

[Sam1911]

For his safety, you should expect that a LEO may take control of your weapons.

The "for his safety" thing is a lie, and has been refuted many, many times. It is still the excuse some officers use for that kind of dangerous and irrational behavior though.

If your vehicle, Firearms, and method or carry all meet the requirements, you are free to go.

Don't know about NC specifically on this, but I've never heard that your firearms or method of carry are required to meet any officer's "requirements." What's that about?

 

[bikemutt]

does a single 911 call provide reasonable suspicion for a police officer to first detain a person when the police officer has observed nothing wrong?

The stop doesn't seem unreasonable to me given the circumstances. An incident gets logged into 911 and the cop runs across the party whom he believes is the subject of the call. Apparently he got the subject's side of the story which must have included an admission that yes, an incident of some degree occurred, hence the warning.

The only other choice the cop had was to blow off the stop thereby assuming the 911 caller is either a liar or unimportant.

 

[Jim K]

Yes, the officer acted correctly. If police receive a call that X did something wrong, they are not obliged to spend hours or days reviewing the evidence and determining the truth of the complaint, only to check out X.

Since the officer had no way of knowing if X was the victim of badmouthing or a mass killer, his actions were appropriate. He did have an obligation to protect himself, so ordering X out of the car was necessary. He did not need to wait hours to review camera tapes or gather evidence in order to protect himself from someone who might be a danger to him and others.

Once he checked X out, and found X had no record or warrants, he made a judgement call and released X with a warning.

I see nothing wrong with that scenario; in fact the officer was quite lenient.

Question: If the officer had been white and X black, would the posters have responded the same way? If the officer had been black and X white? Both the same race?

Jim

 

[NavyLCDR]

So basically, what some people are already saying is that if I turn right on red and cut someone off, they honk and flip the bird at me, I call 911 and say this guy in this car with this license plate just flashed a gun at me in traffic....that single 911 call gives the police officer the legal ability to stop the other person and then, since I reported a gun, would also give the officer the legal ability to frisk them and search the area of their car immediately accessible - all based upon my single 911 call and NOTHING the officer observed.

 

[JERRY]

Yes, the officer acted correctly. If police receive a call that X did something wrong, they are not obliged to spend hours or days reviewing the evidence and determining the truth of the complaint, only to check out X.

Since the officer had no way of knowing if X was the victim of badmouthing or a mass killer, his actions were appropriate. He did have an obligation to protect himself, so ordering X out of the car was necessary. He did not need to wait hours to review camera tapes or gather evidence in order to protect himself from someone who might be a danger to him and others.

Once he checked X out, and found X had no record or warrants, he made a judgement call and released X with a warning.

I see nothing wrong with that scenario; in fact the officer was quite lenient.

Jim, you cant always use logic and reason on a message board. will you please edit your post and add a little hysteria about a police state or something?

 

[Rail Driver]

I see nothing wrong with that scenario; in fact the officer was quite lenient.

Question: If the officer had been white and X black, would the posters have responded the same way? If the officer had been black and X white? Both the same race?

Jim

Addressing the officer's supposed "leniency"... The officer had no reason to suspect that "Opie" did anything more than "drive recklessly", and last time I checked a moving violation is rarely reason to order a driver out of the vehicle or disarm them. All he had to do was instruct the driver to keep his hands on the wheel. Sounds to me like the officer was just exercising his power over "Opie" by lecturing him, ordering him out of the vehicle, and disarming him.

Addressing your question: Why bring race into it? Race wasn't mentioned and is completely irrelevant. Not necessary, Jim.

 

[JERRY]

So basically, what some people are already saying is that if I turn right on red and cut someone off, they honk and flip the bird at me, I call 911 and say this guy in this car with this license plate just flashed a gun at me in traffic....that single 911 call gives the police officer the legal ability to stop the other person and then, since I reported a gun, would also give the officer the legal ability to frisk them and search the area of their car immediately accessible - all based upon my single 911 call and NOTHING the officer observed.

if youre really a lt. commander you should be able to reason what was said on the 911 call right? no?

a cop doesnt have to personally see a violation to investigate an alleged violation called in to a 911 center. maybe the 911 caller said that Opie waived his gun around at him. who knows?

 

[1911Jeeper]

..The "for his safety" thing is a lie

That's one opinion. I expect if you refuse a lawful order from a LEO you may find yourself staring down a gun barrel, or spread eagle on the pavement.

If your vehicle, DL, Firearms, and method of carry all meet the local legal requirements, you are free to go.

I clarified my post a bit, I don't know the local/state NC laws about open carry, car carry, concealed carry, or permit requirements. But, if Opie was in possession of a firearm in accordance with the local and state laws, there should be no problems there.



.

 

[Telekinesis]

Filing a false police report (apparently by idiot driver) is a crime

That depends on exactly how the other (reporting) driver phrased his report. If he said that "Opie" cut him off or reported something else that "Opie" did not do, then yes the false report would be a crime. However, if the other driver only reported "I have a guy following me who is blowing his horn, making obscene gestures, cursing etc... whew, I just turned off and he's not following me anymore. He's driving down xxxx road." That is not a false report. It's not completely honest in that he was also participating and that he was apparently the cause of the incident, but it would be hard to convict him of that charge (and wouldn't being required to mention those things in a 911 call be a violation of "may not be compelled to be a witness against ones-self?)

Because a complaint was lodged with 911, I think the officer was right to investigate it. Personally, I think the officer went a little overboard in taking the guy out of the car and taking his gun, but I think that discussion has been covered before.

Question: If the officer had been white and X black, would the posters have responded the same way? If the officer had been black and X white? Both the same race?

Really? Threadjacking just to make this a racial question? Who are you? Al Sharpton?

 

[1911Jeeper]

..... I call 911 and say this guy in this car with this license plate just flashed a gun at me in traffic.....

This is probable cause for that person to get pulled over, possibly at gun point. An LEO would be negligent in his duties if he did not follow up on such a 911 call.

Making a false claim to 911 about a firearm brandishing incident is also probable cause for charges against you for filing a false Police report.


.

 

[Rail Driver]

That depends on exactly how the other (reporting) driver phrased his report. If he said that "Opie" cut him off or reported something else that "Opie" did not do, then yes the false report would be a crime. However, if the other driver only reported "I have a guy following me who is blowing his horn, making obscene gestures, cursing etc... whew, I just turned off and he's not following me anymore. He's driving down xxxx road." That is not a false report. It's not completely honest in that he was also participating and that he was apparently the cause of the incident, but it would be hard to convict him of that charge (and wouldn't being required to mention those things in a 911 call be a violation of "may not be compelled to be a witness against ones-self?)

Because a complaint was lodged with 911, I think the officer was right to investigate it. Personally, I think the officer went a little overboard in taking the guy out of the car and taking his gun, but I think that discussion has been covered before.

911 calls are all recorded. Recorded 911 calls are not covered (from my understanding of the law) by 5th Amendment protections. A lie is a lie, and a lie to a 911 operator is the same as a false police report, which is a crime. Obviously we don't know the content of the 911 call, so anything based on that is going to be conjecture of course.

 

[Bubba613]

The officer gets a 9/11 call that says who only knows what. Maybe the caller said Opie brandished his gun at him. Maybe he said he was weaving from side to side like he was drunk. Who knows?
So the officer with a minimum of information rolls up on the subject of the call. He has no idea what he's going to find. My guess is that it is SOP to disarm people in that situation temporarily.
As it is, no one was hurt, no one was charged, no one had an expense connected with it. I don't see the issue.

 

[MtnCreek]

You can call and report X for whatever you like and assuming the officer has no reason not to believe you, they will stop X (or even visit X at X’s home), to issue a citation or arrest. At court appearance, you must appear to testify, otherwise the charges will be dropped.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The officer gets a 9/11 call that says who only knows what. Maybe the caller said Opie brandished his gun at him. Maybe he said he was weaving from side to side like he was drunk. Who knows?
So the officer with a minimum of information rolls up on the subject of the call. He has no idea what he's going to find. My guess is that it is SOP to disarm people in that situation temporarily.
As it is, no one was hurt, no one was charged, no one had an expense connected with it. I don't see the issue.

The issue is the detainement and subsequent search of the subject based upon nothing other than a 911 call.

So, people have pretty much decided that a traffic stop, detainment, frisk and temprary seizure of the firearm is lawful based on the 911 call alone which provides the reasonable suspicion required and NOTHING the officer sees.

Let's expand this a little further. I call 911 and I say that my next door neighbor Bubba613, wearing a blue flannel shirt and blue jeans came over to my yard and threatened me with a firearm because my dog did #2 in his yard. Police go over to Bubba613 house and Bubba answers the door wearing a blue flannel shirt and blue jeans. Police ask Bubba, "Do you have a gun sir?" Bubba says, "Yeah, I've got a few." Police say, "Can we see your guns, please?" Bubba says, "Hell no!"

Now what? Since a 911 call about a person driving and flashing a gun provides enough reasonable suspicion to detain the subject....does my 911 call about Bubba provide reasonable suspicion for further investigation? How about probable cause to obtain a search warrant? And since Bubba could easily remove the guns before the search warrant could be obtained served, does my 911 call provide probable cause to detain Bubba to keep him from destroying evidence until the search warrant can be obtained and served?

 

[JERRY]

NavyLCDR, youre not versed with the exclusionary rules for warrantless searches are you?

The issue is the detainement and subsequent search of the subject based upon nothing other than a 911 call.

So, people have pretty much decided that a traffic stop, detainment, frisk and temprary seizure of the firearm is lawful based on the 911 call alone which provides the reasonable suspicion required and NOTHING the officer sees.

Let's expand this a little further. I call 911 and I say that my next door neighbor Bubba613, wearing a blue flannel shirt and blue jeans came over to my yard and threatened me with a firearm because my dog did #2 in his yard. Police go over to Bubba613 house and Bubba answers the door wearing a blue flannel shirt and blue jeans. Police ask Bubba, "Do you have a gun sir?" Bubba says, "Yeah, I've got a few." Police say, "Can we see your guns, please?" Bubba says, "Hell no!"

Now what? Since a 911 call about a person driving and flashing a gun provides enough reasonable suspicion to detain the subject....does my 911 call about Bubba provide reasonable suspicion for further investigation? How about probable cause to obtain a search warrant? And since Bubba could easily remove the guns before the search warrant could be obtained served, does my 911 call provide probable cause to detain Bubba to keep him from destroying evidence until the search warrant can be obtained and served?

 

[Telekinesis]

Recorded 911 calls are not covered (from my understanding of the law) by 5th Amendment protections. A lie is a lie, and a lie to a 911 operator is the same as a false police report, which is a crime.

I understand that short of someone posting the 911 tapes we'll never really know what was really said...

I would have thought that considering the 911 tapes would almost assuredly be used in court and that it would be the main basis of a prosecution (or at least the part where they explain why they stopped the guy) that you would not be required to say that you committed a crime.

The call itself may not be covered by the 5th Amendment on the basis that it seems like it would be quite difficult for a 911 operator to actually compel you against your will to admit to a crime when you could just hang up on them. But I don't think leaving out the factors leading up to the incident is grounds for prosecution under filing a false report. Especially when it is something as comparatively minor as a road rage incident.

Remember, this call was likely less than 20 seconds long involving a pretty minor incident. I don't expect a 911 operator to inquire about every situational nuance leading up to the situation. I would much rather they get off the phone, make the report to the police, and then be clear so that they can address the next issue which could be more urgent or life threatening.

 

[Shoobee]

I have been told by LEOs that their regulations require them to address the first "complaint."

Therefore the first resident who calls in a complaint to law enforcement is going to get the presumption of factuality.

The LEO himself was just following orders from the dispatcher, who would have gotten the complaint directly from the other caller.

Whenever people flip me off in traffic I just laugh. I don't respond in kind.

Whenever people cut me off (mostly FOB types that look like they don't really know how to drive) I just dodge them and stay away.

Life is too short to fight every traffic battle. Especially true when you are CCW. If you are going to CCW you need to be way more relaxed than the average yahoo out there.

By not issuing a citation, the LEO saved Pistol Pete (aka Opee) an appearance in court. The other driver (plaintiff) would also had to have appeared before the judge, and the food fight would be on. Depending on the judge's mood that day, he/she would have punished one or both of them with a fine.

I'd say this was a very kindly LEO, so don't look a gift horse in the mouth. We are not privy to what was said in the 9-1-1 call. Probably had something to do with road rage.

Apparently the LEO was troubled enough that he/she did issue a warning, rather than a citation.

 

[NavyLCDR]

NavyLCDR, youre not versed with the exclusionary rules for warrantless searches are you?

I am very familiar with the exclusionary rules for warrantless searches.

 

[JERRY]

I am very familiar with the exclusionary rules for warrantless searches.

ok....