And that's exactly the reason the officer stopped the person identified in the complaint. He wanted to see if the person would testify against himself or if, in the process of running the person's identification, any corroborating evidence might show up.
Legality of detaining and disarming due to a 911 call...
- Thread starter NavyLCDR
- Start date
- Status
NavyLCDR
member
The reason the officer stops the person identified does not always make the stop lawful. That's one big reason cases get tossed out of court all the time - the initial detention being unlawful and then all evidence found after that is the fruit of a poison tree and dismissed.
For Example, State v. Casaad:
http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=9
911 caller reports a man walking down the street with two rifles in his arms and causing them to be alarmed for their safety. Police detain Casaad and, during questioning, determine Casaad to be a convicted felon in possession of firearms. Court tossed the conviction because the 911 call did not provide enough reasonable suspicion to stop Casaad, therefore making the detainment illegal, and the subsequent evidence had to be dismissed.
Last edited:
Salmoneye
Member
This has taken a turn for the surreal, and does not remotely resemble the premise of the OP (Original Post)...
Loosedhorse
member
Of course. Because, as JohnKSa has pointed out, whether or not we ever get the evidence that would result from the traffic stop is precisely at issue. So your original scenario was deficient...and I was happy to help it.
When you ask about "found guilty", you are asking about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard--and that standard does not apply to assessing the validity of a traffic stop.
If you look again at the references I gave, you'll find that the question you pose boils down to: is the state in question (NC) more like VA, or more like other states.
hapidogbreath
Member
If A is a CCW holder and is stopped for something he determines how the stop goes. In PA The stop would be legal and LE would for the majority would take the gun temporarily in the case of a RR incident and the Citation would be issued/filed on information received provided the complainant was willing to testify as to the facts of the case. As for court. All these incidents that get investigated are ALL HE SAID SHE SAID so the question begs who is right /telling the truth and thats why we have judges. In the case of OP why did he put himself in the situation in the fist place? Take the High Road and walk away. Most people are not worth the trouble.
Just my thoughts.
Just my thoughts.Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Where does this come from? In PA the majority of LEOs would neither know (no duty to inform) nor care.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
That is the part that got me, along with the requirement to inform and subsequent admission to having a gun when the 911 caller would really have no knowledge would be probable cause IMO. It would also be grounds for immediate surrender of your permit in many states if the caller were to file a complaint or be a witness to the act.
If the caller could describe the gun reasonably you would be sunk for sure.
If it were only a call in on aggressive driving and no gun reported then I will side with you, I am in full agreement with those (including some I think are LE) that have said that a cop following your for a short distance can find a reason to make a stop. I find that to be the biggest injustice of this whole discussion.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
If NavyLCDR already has the answer to his own question, and can cite the case law to support it....why did he ask?
NavyLCDR
member
To spark an educational discussion of an important topic...
DaisyCutter
Member
To the original question, "Does a single 911 call provide enough reasonable suspicion for an officer to detain and disarm?".
Temporarily, heck yes.
Temporarily, heck yes.
SabbathWolf
member
SabbathWolf
member
Heck,no!
Next?
Why do you disagree?
OK then. What is the basis for your assertion that a single 911 call does not provide enough reasonable suspicion for an officer to detain and disarm?
DaisyCutter and SabbathWolf, perhaps you can share with us the reasons for your answers.
I strongly suspect that the answer(s), and the reasons therefor, may vary among juridictions, so let's try to include jurisdictional factors in the discussion.
SabbathWolf
member
Sometimes,coming over here is like coming to the "Daily Kos" or "Huffpo" where "Shall not be infringed " is an archaic term.
Why do you agree, "Give up my rights", Sabbath ?
Give up your rights?
Where do you get this from?
If you "really" had rights to begin with....then you could carry firearms both open and concealed all day long in every state in the union with no permits, no paperwork and no problems. But that's not the reality of the situation at all. You've "already" given up your rights. In fact, we can thank our parents, grandparents and great grandparents going all the way back to the National Firearms Act of 1934.
If a Police Officer took your gun for no reason and refused to give it back...you'd have a complaint.
If a Police Officer responds to an emergency call and suspects firearms are involved as well...he is trained to:
1) Approach the scene with caution.
2) Secure the scene as quickly as possible.
3) Ascertain the facts.
4) Make arrests or issue tickets...or not.
5) Transport "suspects" to jail...or....
6) Let everybody go and move on.
Police Officers "DIE" in the line of duty every single year because they didn't do a well enough job of securing the scene first before moving on to the next steps.
If you are disarmed while being questioned...it's for the safety of the Officer.
The very same Officer who "might" show up at "your" house one day if you or your spouse or your children ever need one and call 911.
It's not a violation of your rights. It's a temporary inconvenience.
Two completely different things.
NavyLCDR
member
The biggest question here is NOT does the officer have the right to disarm the subject during a lawful stop. That is almost 99% percent always that they do. However, if the stop is not lawful to begin with, then the subsequent disarming of the subject is also not lawful.
SabbathWolf
member
Yeah, maybe being flat down on the old asphalt is a temporary inconvenience. No thanks.
I'll stick with the brilliant Founders. I respect all your opinions. We just have agree to disagree. We Can Work it Out.
"I have always thought,that there is no time for fussin' and fightin',my friends".
Great lyrics.
I don't "anybody" enjoys being "hassled" by cops for no reason.
Some cops have an ego the size of Texas and act like complete idiots no matter "what" the situation is. I HATE those guys.
I'm really speaking only in general terms here.
SabbathWolf
member
Phrased that way.....I don't really disagree.
At this point, I'm not sure what we are even arguing about any more......lol
SabbathWolf
member
I know. We agree.20 years working with some of those egos everyday.
20 years with LEO's is a long,long time.
We no longer are.
20 years is LONG time to do "anything."
I spent 20 years in the army before I retired.
That felt like a long, long, long time too.
SabbathWolf
member
I am a believer! 8 years in a Tank Battalion felt like 20! But,if not for my wife's spiteful hatred towards the U.S.Army, I too,would have been a 20 year lifer.
I regret to this day that I made the wrong decision. I truly loved the Army and being a soldier.There is no greater calling,IMO. You made the right choice ,SW.
But,as another Wolfe,Thomas said, "You cannot go home again". Peace.
Also, as said in song, "They can't take that away from me."
We are brothers.
Yep.
I tried to go home, but it was just not the same any more.
And the people I knew as friends long ago.....just irritated me for some reason now instead.
I can't explain it.
So I moved out in the country on some land with privacy where I can shoot guns and ride horses and not be bothered by anybody else any more.
It's weird.
NavyLCDR
member
Here's an interesting twist. In many (most?) states traffic violations are NOT criminal acts, Washington is one such state where our state law specifically says that a traffic violation is an INFRACTION, not a crime (and apparently Nevada, too). Terry v. Ohio only allows frisking and subsequent seizure of weapons for officer safety when the subject is under suspicion of committing a CRIME. So, what about when the officer observes and stops for nothing more than a traffic infraction?
Shadow 7D
Member
Bet even in the "officer safety" ones often you can aregue that there is nothing UNSAFE about the citizen being armed, and that since no violent behavior has been shown in a traffic infraction, why the disarmament, as that's more unsafe that just not touching it.
Second, and this is what sucks, many states have laws that compel you to follow the officers instructions even if they are illegal, as you can sue the department and officer later. BUT in other states, the officer attempting to disarm you (and going for your gun, violating your 4th amendment rights etc.) can be legally resisted.
it all depends on where you are.
So I wouldn't say it's legal for them to disarm you rather that you may be legally compelled to allow it. Now isn't that just not right, wonder who you submit your constitutional rights grievance to?
Second, and this is what sucks, many states have laws that compel you to follow the officers instructions even if they are illegal, as you can sue the department and officer later. BUT in other states, the officer attempting to disarm you (and going for your gun, violating your 4th amendment rights etc.) can be legally resisted.
it all depends on where you are.
So I wouldn't say it's legal for them to disarm you rather that you may be legally compelled to allow it. Now isn't that just not right, wonder who you submit your constitutional rights grievance to?
wickedsprint
Member
If you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about.
- Status