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

[Telekinesis]

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.

I don't think this is quite it. I can't speak for the others here, but from what I have heard on this site and others, in certain parts of the US when you are stopped for any traffic violation you are likely to be treated this way. People have been detained, frisked, and relieved of their firearm for no more than a speeding ticket.
I view the call leading up to the traffic stop and the treatment of the gun owner during the stop as two separate issues. For all we know the LEO could treat anyone carrying that way regardless of the reason they were stopped.

Navy, I also think your second scenario is a bit different than the first. "Opie's" car wasn't searched, he was just relieved of a gun he was wearing while an officer was conducting a traffic stop. Arguments to the effect of officer safety can be made and refuted all we want, but the fact is that sometimes it happens at traffic stops. In the second scenario, being at home and Bubba not having the gun in his immediate possession are pretty distinct differences. And even if he was carrying at the time, I don't know of anyone who's been detained/disarmed because police came to their door asking questions.

 

[JERRY]

for all those who have been detained and disarmed then let go, please file a law suit so case law can be made.

 

[Rail Driver]

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.

I wasn't implying that the operator compels anyone to admit to anything... The act of calling 911 with a false report is the crime itself, and the tape of the 911 call is evidence of such (assuming the report is actually false). Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I used to be a "hot head" and discipline and trainning took that out of me. When I came back to NC and applied for my CCW the instructor (formerSBI) explained remotely similar situations. He said you kind of have the resposibility to be the bigger person. Does this always happen? No. But it is officers discretion on how things go.

 

[X-Rap]

If 911 gets a call on someone brandishing a weapon during a road rage incident I guess the police need to make the stop and address the situation given the info they have. If that means someone waved a gun they must address the possibility of dealing with an armed individual who has shown his willingness to pull his gun.
It is unfortunate that our society has deemed itself entitled to having LE officers be the arbitrators of simple traffic and neighborhood quarrels but that is the current situation and no one asked for my vote on it.

 

[JERRY]

cops get in more trouble for blowing off 911 calls than they do for investitgating them and letting a "suspect" go.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

X-Rap you sir could not be more correct... Agree 100%

 

[dprice3844444]

officer was responding reference an altercation of some kind.driver admitted he was armed.cop has the right to protect his own safety,as well as others in the area,by removing the weapon from drivers possession and safely securing it untill it can be determined what the problem is,and if the driver is impaired,or a nutcase.less paperwork,everybody goes home safely in 1 piece.the cop shoulda said after the fact,sorry for removing your weapon from you,but untill we determined you were not a threat or wanted,we had to.

 

[Bubba613]

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.

People have not decided it. IT is the established case law.
But then why do you want to deflect to another case? But let's take that one. Officer is called on 911 call and goes to house. Now, what is he supposed to do? Ignore the call? Let's say the complaint is loud verbal abuse and the house in question is actually a crack house. Should they just say, well no one is getting hurt currently so we'll let that go. Or, we'll stake an officer out there so he can visually witness illegal behavior before we get a warrant.

 

[JERRY]

People have not decided it. IT is the established case law.

please, if youre not going to babble about a police state or something, please refrain from all logic and reason.

 

[Salmoneye]

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.

It is my understanding that no citation can be issued by the LEO unless they themselves witnessed an infraction...

A stop can be made, and driver checked for intoxication etc., but it is the callers 'word' against the person being stopped, and unless it is a criminal infraction where the 911 caller can press charges, the stop is simply to make a 'check' on driver impairment...

Someone correct me if I am wrong, please...

 

[JERRY]

yes, generally a traffic violation must be observed by the officer for a citation to be issued. there are exceptions based on deductive reasoning like from a wreck.

and a citation isnt always a traffic charge. many municipalities can issue a citation (which is just a summons to appear) for many minor misdemeanors including: poss. less than an Oz., disorderly conduct, disorderly house, dog running at large...et cetera.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I assume that 2nd Amendment rights are important to everyone here, otherwise you probably would not be reading/posting here. I personally feel that our 4th Amendment rights are equally, if not more, important than the 2nd Amendment.

In Opie's situation (OP as in Opening Post or Original Poster) the traffic stop made by the police officer based only upon one 911 call and the subsequent frisk and seizure of the firearm violated the 4th Amendment and was illegal. This is important to us who carry guns because many times we are the subject of 911 calls, especially if we open carry.

I would suggest everyone read this article in Police Chief Magazine written by a lawyer for the Massachusettes Chiefs of Police Association:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=757&issue_id=122005

In order for an anonymous tip to be legal grounds for the detention of a subject, and the subsequent actions which become lawful due to a lawful detention of a subject, the tip must be corroborated by some evidence either known or observed by the officer.

In Alabama v. White, the US Supreme Court says,

(b) Standing alone, the tip here is completely lacking in the necessary indicia of reliability, since it provides virtually nothing from which one might conclude that the caller is honest or his information reliable, and gives no indication of the basis for his predictions regarding White's criminal activities.

In this case, the police OBSERVED the subject and because they OBSERVED behavior which then lent credence to the anonymous tip, their OBSERVATION in addition to the anonymous tip provided reasonable suspicion under which to stop the subject.

(cont'd)....

 

[theCan]

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.

I do. It opens the door to the not insignificant portion of corrupt lawmen who go about detaining people with no cause.

By my libertarian ideals no person shall be searched in anyway unless arrested or issued a citation. Now, that said, it is perfectly ok to follow a suspicious individual in the public space...

 

[NavyLCDR]

In Illinois v. Gates, a similar condition exists:

3. The judge issuing the warrant had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause to search respondents' home and car existed. Under the "totality of the circumstances" analysis, corroboration of details of an informant's tip by independent police work is of significant value. Cf. Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307. Here, even standing alone, the facts obtained through the independent investigation of the Bloomingdale police officer and the DEA at least suggested that
respondents were involved in drug trafficking. In addition, the judge could rely on the anonymous letter, which had been corroborated in major part by the police officer's efforts. Pp. 462 U. S. 241-246.

Again, police received an anonymous tip in the form of a letter. The tip, by itself, was insufficient for police to detain the subjects. However, after police OBSERVED behavior which CORROBORATED the information in the tip, the police observations created the probable cause to issue the search warrant.

In Adams v. Williams, we see another method of corroborating the information provided by an anonymous tip:

Applying these principles to the present case, we believe that Sgt. Connolly acted justifiably in responding to his informant's tip. The informant was known to him personally, and had provided him with information in the past. This is a stronger case than obtains in the case of an anonymous telephone tip. The informant here came forward personally to give information that was immediately verifiable at the scene.

In this case the fact that the tip came from a known informant with known reliability provided the corroboration necessary to lawfully justify the stop.

(con'td)

 

[JERRY]

Navy brings up some good points.

without knowing all that transpired with the 911 call we on this board are only able to speculate....

 

[NavyLCDR]

A single, anonymous report (and by anonymous we mean that the reporting person's reliability or report cannot be verified) does NOT provide reasonable suspicion under which to detain a person. I can obtain the description of a vehicle, license plates, and description of a driver by observing them parked in a Wal Mart parking lot. I can use that info to then call 911 and make up any story I want to about that person.

When the officer's receive my report - unless there a special relationship that exists between myself and the police such as a known informant or being a police officer myself, it is then up to the police to obtain corroborating evidence that the 911 report is truthful. That evidence can be obtained by observation. The police officer's can even approach the subjec in a VOLUNTARY and CONSENUAL encounter and ask questions. What is ILLEGAL for the police to do in order to obtain corroboration of the 911 report is to DETAIN the subject and/or perform a search. Stopping a person driving a vehicle with blue lights IS and immediate DETAINMENT of that subject. When the blue lights are on, the subject is not free to ignore them and go on his merry way.

This is also important for us to understand when WE call 911. Just because we call and report something does NOT allow the police to lawfully detain anyone. They must corroborate our report first before they can lawfully detain the subject of our call.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Look at it this way. You are sitting in McDonald's eating lunch with a gun in a holster on your belt in a state such as Washington where open carry is perfectly legal without a license required. Police come in and say, "Sir, we need to see some ID, please. We need to verify that you are not prohibited from possissing that firearm. We must also hold on to your gun for a few minutes while we do our check. If you don't provide us with your ID and relinquish your gun, we must arrest you under suspicion of unlawful possession of a firearm until we can verify your identity."

Would anyone here say the police officers were correct or justified in their actions?

Now.... add one single 911 call by Joe Citizen that he saw you in McDonald's waving your gun around and the felt like you were going to shoot up the place. Now there a bunch of people here that claim that changes everything. Fortunately, for Joe Citizen, the single, uncorroborated 911 call changes NOTHING. The only LAWFUL actions that police can perform are to OBSERVE you and watch for an action that would create reasonable suspicion. Or they can approach you and ask you to VOLUNTARILY speak with them.

 

[mdauben]

Would anyone here say the police officers were correct or justified in their actions?

IMO, no they were not. The act of open carry was legal, the LEO had no reason to suspect that the subject was a "prohibited person". This would be the same as randomly stopping a driver for no reason other than to check if he had a driver's licence.

Not saying that exactly this does not happen all the time, just that IMO it isn't legal. Unfortunatly, as someone else said if you try and stand on your rights in such a situation, you are likely to just end up face down on the ground with a gun in the back of your head.

 

[T Bran]

Just lucky he wasnt in Fl here if you are stopped for a traffic infraction and inform the officer that you are a CCW holder you will be handcuffed for your protection while they disarm you [and drop your mag in the dirt].
This happened to my cousin. Oh and they will wait for backup before removing you from your vehicle in the dead of summer with your kids in the car ignition off of course.
Sorry sir but this is our policy. What they dont get is the ones who wish them ill dont announce that they are armed.
T

 

[MacPelto]

Are we certain that the 911 call was anonymous? It makes a difference.

 

[Bubba613]

In Opie's situation (OP as in Opening Post or Original Poster) the traffic stop made by the police officer based only upon one 911 call and the subsequent frisk and seizure of the firearm violated the 4th Amendment and was illegal. This is important to us who carry guns because many times we are the subject of 911 calls, especially if we open carry.

A 911 call is not the same as an anonymous tip from an informant. It is a complaint and call for immediate action.
THere was a specific complaint of something that rose to the level of crime. We don't know what that was. But it was enough for an officer to investigate.
The gun was not seized under any legal meaning of the term.
There is no legal precedent that would make what happened unlawful. If you have case law to that effect then post it.

 

[X-Rap]

If you were at McD's and someone called 911 and said you met the description of a guy who just robbed the bank down the street would the cops have to wait until you robbed another before they questioned and temporarily disarmed you?

 

[bikemutt]

The only LAWFUL actions that police can perform are to OBSERVE you and watch for an action that would create reasonable suspicion. Or they can approach you and ask you to VOLUNTARILY speak with them.

If that's the case then why even bother having 911? Or Block Watch?

Not everyone who reports suspicious or threatening behavior is an idiot.

 

[NavyLCDR]

A 911 call is not the same as an anonymous tip from an informant. It is a complaint and call for immediate action.
THere was a specific complaint of something that rose to the level of crime. We don't know what that was. But it was enough for an officer to investigate.

A police officer does not have to detain anybody in order to investigate.

The gun was not seized under any legal meaning of the term.

A police officer removes an object from a person and you say it wasn't seized?!? REALLY? What kool aid have you been drinking?

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/03601.htm

C. A peace officer may question the persons who are present to determine if a firearm is present on the premises. On learning or observing that a firearm is present on the premises, the peace officer may temporarily seize the firearm if the firearm is in plain view or was found pursuant to a consent to search and if the officer reasonably believes that the firearm would expose the victim or another person in the household to a risk of serious bodily injury or death. A firearm that is owned or possessed by the victim shall not be seized unless there is probable cause to believe that both parties independently have committed an act of domestic violence.

---

There is no legal precedent that would make what happened unlawful. If you have case law to that effect then post it.

I already provided the case law. In my posts. In all of the cases that I posted the court ruled that there must be corroborating evidence of a single report in order to provide reasonable suspicion in order to DETAIN a person. That corroborating evidence can certain come from police investigation not involving detention of the subject.