LEO GUNPOINT

[Stiletto Null]

Looks like more or less proper response...although EIGHT cops is a bit much.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I haven't posted on here in quite a while but I just had to respond to this reply.

"I wanna know where the idear that the guy is drunk or stealing cars or a criminal or something comes from."

That would be called investigating a scene. As police officers your job is to be suspicious and to not just take everything at face value. There ARE plenty of people who steal cars, and even more who are driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Ever hear the saying chance favors the prepared mind?

"They run the plates. He comes up as having a CHL. He is in his car."

How are they supposed to know that the guy in the car is the registered owner? Registration lookups don't come with pictures of the R/O, and I'm sure if someone proposed that they would be crucified by a lot of people here for invading privacy rights.

"If he was not who he was supposed to be according to running his plates, then he would either be stealing the car or drunk or a criminal or whatever, so then naturally, he would have his gun hidden so there would have been no call in the first place."

This is the one that really drives me nuts. You obviously don't deal with criminals very often because they very frequently defy the rules of logic. To say that NATURALLY a criminal or a drunk would have his gun hidden is silly and straight out dangerous. Criminals are generally criminals because they are not the brightest bulbs in the box, they don't do things the intelligent way. And someone who is drunk or on drugs....well I shouldn't even have to say they aren't thinking in a "natural" sense. I hope you have a little more situational awareness in your own daily life.

"Therefore, by natural logic it is clear to me that an unarmed person sleeping in a CHL holder's car that is not openly armed is probably the criminal. Thus, by extension, the cops should wake up the unarmed guy at gunpoint, not the armed one."

I take it back, THIS statement drives me even more nuts. So you think it was wrong to have a weapon drawn when waking a known armed subject but think it's PERFECTLY ok to draw down on someone that shows no signs of having a weapon?? Let's just say the person IS the registered owner. Do you think that EVERY person that has a CCW carries their gun with them at ALL times? I would have to say that's a big NO. And what if it's the R/O's brother, friend, or anyone else that borrowed the car?

"Better yet, for the sake of officer safety, they should awaken everyone at gunpoint. Get us used to it."

Yet another brilliant and well thought out point.

"Why not let sleeping drivers lye? (unknown correct spelling, but to lie to an officer might be a crime, so I purposfully misspelled it) I may have hit upon a revolutionary concept (there I went and did it again, revolutionarys might be criminals) ........ Don't bother the citizens unless there is PC or reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.

Maybe because this was called in by a citizen and the police have a duty and obligation to investigate calls placed to them. In the course of investigating said call and finding someone asleep in a vehicle that is visibly armed it is not prudent to simply leave without checking further for all the reasons stated already.

But I'm sure that these points, coming from someone who has been there, will fall on deaf ears as you seem to already know everything there is to know about criminals, policing, and investigating a suspicious activity. You also seem to have a book detaling the "natural" mold that all situations and people fit into.

 

[Art Eatman]

The opening post stated: "The responding units ran his plates which verified the CHL status." That post also stated that the CHL holder was in compliance with the law as to the location of his handgun.

As I said in my post #5, it seems a bit much for eight officers to approach with drawn guns in that particular situation.

Given the report of "man with gun", an investigation is required, CHL or no. And, after all, the guy might have had a heart attack or some other such health poblem. Who knows?

Prudence? Sure. "Cast of thousands"? Duh? But, IMO, a lawsuit is not warranted...

Art

 

[makarova]

update

I checked the original report on Ohioans for Concealed Carry Turns out there were only 4 Officers pointing their guns at the man. Whew! what a relief! I am providing the link(cut and paste) although I know there is technically a better way to do this, I'm not up on it.
As for the Officers reposnse, I'm retired Fire Dept not Police so I may be out of line monday morning quarterbacking somebody elses operation. I would like to offer a better scenario, In the above scenario, you take up position behind the subject vehicle and blip lights and siren after taking up a defensive position behind your car doors. If subject comes out shooting, you're in a better position than he is. If not, he doesn't wake up and reflexively reach for his weapon and get shot which I think is a possible outcome. The whole point of my post is that actually pointing a gun at somebody, is and should be a crime, with out sufficient cause...btw heres that link.........http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3488&Itemid=48
.....maybe one of you can advise a better way to post a link, it would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Car Knocker]

From the link makarova posted:

A few minutes later, I heard a knock upon the driver’s side window, and turned to see one of your officers point his .40 caliber pistol at me. He ordered my to place my hands on the dashboard, which I did immediately and cautiously. Within moments, two more Springfield P.D. cruisers arrived. Three officers disembarked those vehicles, and drew their sidearms, pointing them at me.

One cop initially responded and had his gun drawn and pointed at the driver when he woke him up. The 3 cops in the assisting vehicles drew their guns when they got on the scene and saw the first cop holding someone in the car at gunpoint.

Looks like decent procedure to me. Or should the assisting cops have just shoved their hands in their pockets and casually wandered over to see what's up?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

There I go again, being a dim bulb.

Sometimes I just can't wrap my brain around getting thowed down on by a bunch of cops for committing a lawful act.

I thought open carry was legal in Ohio.

So how come the dispatcher can't just tell the blissninny on the phone that?

Could I call up and report a "Man with a lawnmower?"

That's legal too isn't it? You could get your toe cut off with one of those things.

Hey, I can imagine a few headlines too.

SWAT TEAM ENGAGES "MAN WITH A LAWNMOWER" WITH HAPPY ENDING.

SLEEPING DRIVER AWAKENED FOR HIS OWN GOOD, HE WAS RELEASED WITH NO CHARGES FILED

FOUR OFFICERS WOUNDED IN CIRCULAR GUNFIGHT AROUND SLEEPING DRIVER


3 to go

 

[XDKingslayer]

As for the lawsuit, If one of us does this( pointing a gun at someone and not merely unholstering their weapons, the charge would be aggravated menacing, since it is a crime to threaten with lethal force without cause.

That is because it's not our job to point or guns at people. However, it's is the police's...

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I'm retired Fire Dept not Police so I may be out of line monday morning quarterbacking somebody elses operation. I would like to offer a better scenario, In the above scenario, you take up position behind the subject vehicle and blip lights and siren after taking up a defensive position behind your car doors. If subject comes out shooting, you're in a better position than he is. If not, he doesn't wake up and reflexively reach for his weapon and get shot which I think is a possible outcome.

This is not a correct action for this scenario. When you are up by the door of the car you are in a tactically superior position and have the subject in your line of sight. If you stand back behind the A-pillar as if in a car stop you will have a straight line of sight on the person in the car but he will have to turn around in order to shoot at you. Once you are in that position you don't want to back up and lose visual contact with the subject.

In your positioning, if the man in the car were a criminal you would have just given him the opportunity to get his bearing, draw his weapon, and react to your actions without you being able to completely see what he was doing.

When I was in the police academy and we were given different scenarios during traffic stops one of mine was walking up to a car where the driver had a gun in his lap. I was eventually able to talk the man into giving me the gun but the action that got me the most praise was the fact that I stayed right by the window and did not back away from the car. I'll always remember that.

 

[Vex]

In Ohio, if you run a license plate, you get the registered owner's name and address, and a description of the vehicle the plates are registered to. Period. You don't get the CHL status of the driver. You don't get a LEADS report.

Yeah, when you run the on LEADS, you get the owner's name, address, past criminal history, CHL status, and if you have a mobile data terminal no older than a few month, you can get the driver's license picture.

However, I still side with the cops in this instane, merely because officer safety is the prime directive. So you think it's wrong for the cops to approach the vehicle with their guns drawn? Well, first off, it's the same way they approach any car that is known to have a guy with a gun in it, whether the guy is a "certified good guy" CHL holder (i laugh at this terminology.... to assume just because someone has a CHL they're automatically a good guy is utter crap and severely irresponsible) or the most hardened criminal.

And as for the driver, he was folloowing the rules of CHL? Then I disagree with the law.... I say they need to put a provision to the law that states if you fall asleep while carrying a gun, you should be charged with negligence! How responsible is this guy, sleeping in his car, gun out in the open? A part of me wishes this guy got shot so I could see his name on the Darwin Award website....

So the officers should be charged with menacing, eh? Why don't you do some research on the use of force continuum. It clearly states to meet force with force, or go one step above to avoid serious physical harm or death. The guy had a gun readily available. So did the cops. This is another case of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.... nobody on this forum was present, nor did we witness the officers' conduct and prematurely demand for charges of "Menacing" to be placed on our civil servants. Get real.

The "Good Guy" CHL holder, who was negligently sleeping while displaying a loaded firearm, should be charged with Disorderly Conduct and with Inducing Panic... and his CHL revoked for failure to use common sense while posessing a firearm in a public place.

 

[insidious_calm]

Once again...

would those saying this response was acceptable please justify your position in light of Florida v. J.L. Unless a specific crime has been alleged and the tip can be deemed reliable the the law does not allow anything more than a consentual encounter. Once again the officers appear to be the ones crossways of the law.

After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment.


Held : An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 30 . Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White , 496 U. S. 325, 327 . The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. The facts of this case do not require the Court to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great-- e.g., a report of a person carrying a bomb--as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability.

Now IANAL. However, I can read, and the words above have meaning. Unless the caller alleged a crime was being committed, and the caller's credibilty on the issue was verified. The officers would have to make their own justification for a "terry stop". Seeing as the victim was in compliance with the law, and the the officers were seemingly able to determine this before a seizure of the victim was attempted, it is reasonable to persue compensation for physical and mental trauma, and the termination of employment for the officers involved. Unless, of course, someone can provide CASELAW that refutes the above.

As for those of you saying that the victim should not sue, then what do you propose as a reasonable alternative that will have a punitive effect in order to prevent re-occurrence? And get it while it's hot folks. This'll be locked before sunset. Do your own reasoning as to why.


I.C.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Seeing as the victim was in compliance with the law, and the the officers were seemingly able to determine this before a seizure of the victim was attempted, it is reasonable to persue compensation for physical and mental trauma, and the termination of employment for the officers involved.

It really seems to me that certain people in this thread have selective reading skills. That's all great that you can search and quote caselaw. Unfortunately for you that has absolutely nothing to do with this scenario. Terry v. Ohio was a case with a CONCEALED firearm. Seeing a man in a vehicle who is unconcious and has a firearm VISIBLY present is far beyond resonable suspicion to investigate.

I would like you to please tell me how the officers were "seemingly able to determine" that the man in question was in compliance with the law before they made contact. It has already been explained that there is no way to know who the man in the car is by simply running a registration lookup. Do you have any idea how many cars I've stopped that were not being driven by the registered owner?

Physical and mental trauma? Give me a break. Show me a doctor's report of how this man was physically hurt. Mental trauma? Now you're sounding like some anti-gun wacko who claims to be shocked and traumatized for life at the mere sight of a gun!

Termination of the officers? Laughable. When you invent the magic crystal ball that can tell a police officer just who is dangerous and who isn't then perhaps they can approach an unknown, armed, individual without having their weapons drawn. Until that day, however, they did exactly the right thing.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I do not know if there is any cure for the PRNJ. Maybe back there they think a firearm is evil. Maybe the state is full of gun grabbers, I don't know.

But.....

As mandated by Ohio law which requires, that a CHL holder who is armed in a motor vehicle must have the firearm in a holster "In
Plain Sight" attached to their person. The CHL holder did so with his firearm in plain sight. A passerby apparently spotted him and made a "man with a gun call"

I think I can figger out a cure for the problems that they are having in Ohio because of the dumb concealed hand gun laws.

Like they did before the .gov permitted it. They took a bunch of "Open Carry Parades".

Seems like if a group wanted to start sleeping in their cars in a particular area and an accomplice was to call in a "Man with a GUN" report, say, like 8 or ten times a day for a few weeks, well, then maybe the local leos could figger it out.

You know, kinda like rote.

If they get to respond enough times, they will eventually ge desensitized and maybe leave the citizens alone.

We could try it here in MO, but our rulers thoughtfully allow us to conceal our firearms in our cars.



one left.

 

[insidious_calm]

Yeah, when you run them on LEADS, you get the owner's name, address, past criminal history, CHL status, and if you have a mobile data terminal no older than a few month, you can get the driver's license picture.

As reported by the original poster, and the quote above - seemingly from someone with first hand knowledge of the actual conditions in this specific state, they did in fact know or were able to determine his compliance with the law before the seizure occurred. In any case, the law is the law. Police cannot seize a citizen outside the auspices of the governing caselaw. In general, Terry V. Ohio is used (often abused) to justify seizure and search/investigation of citizens who, absent initial evidence of crime, are suspected of being involved in crime based upon the officers inferrences made on the foundations of reasonable articulable facts and his/her background in law enforement. Anonymous tipsters or tipsters in general who are not leos can not make the inferrences necessary to justify a terry action because they don't have the requisit law enforcement experience upon which to base the inferrences. See Florida v. J.L.

You are mistaken in your assumption that the police had business seizing the man to begin with. Based upon what has been posted here no such authority existed. I understand that for years officers have been trained that they are the "cock of the walk" and officer safety trumps all, but the caselaw is what it is. Feel free to post some superceding caselaw of your own. I'm willing to listen to well reasoned arguments based upon caselaw why I'm wrong in this instance. It wouldn't be the first time. But the argument that they have to investigate every call, and all the other standard arguments profferred by those who support these types of police abuses don't cut any ice with regards to the governing case law.


I.C.

 

[Vex]

You know you have problems when you live your life off case law, and not common sense.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Insidious Calm,

If you read the quote that you had posted you will see that ONLY if you have an MDT that is practically brand new will you get the picture of the registered owner. Let me give you some insight on most police depts.....they don't get brand new equipment every week. Most depts around my area don't have MDT's at ALL let alone ones that are a few months old.

You keep using the word "seizure" in regards to this encounter. There really is no such thing. We don't "seize" people. They are either arrested, or detained for investigation. In this instance the subject in question was detained until it could be verified that he was not a threat and did not violate any law. I know I'm in NJ but I can't imagine that even in OH a police officer is supposed to simply ASSUME that anyone seen with a firearm is in possession of a CCW. Sure the fact that the registration came back to a CCW holder would make it probable, but there are no 100% certainties in this world.

There have been countless officers killed by people whom they have dealt with time and time again and figured it would just be another "routine" encounter. You can never let your guard down, and it really surprises me whenever I see people on here, who fight for the right to carry a firearm to always be prepared, act like officers should assume that armed people pose no threat until they are actually shooting at them.

 

[carebear]

Common Sense should go both ways.

Since it often doesn't, things like Bills of Rights and Case Law become necessary.

 

[insidious_calm]

By all means Vex, please expound on the common sense of initiating armed contact with with a citizen who is not suspected of committing any crime and who has not requested your presence. As for relying on caselaw, what else should we rely on if not the law? It would seem you are suggesting that exceptions to the law be made for police officers if "common sense" could be demonstrated in their actions. I couldn't disagree more.

Like it or not the law enforcement mission has experienced significant "creep" over the last few decades to the point where it is diametrically opposed to liberty and justice for all. As a direct result of this the enforcement and subsequent penalties for the encroachment of ones rights should be more severe not less. Otherwise there is no incentive to remain on the right side of the law. I offer as a perfect example of this the recent link to an audio file of the torture of a suspect to obtain his signature on a confession and a consent to search. Those officers got 5 years. A normal person would have been lucky to get away with 15-20. I don't believe the punishment given was sufficient to serve as a deterrent to other officers. Is that one of these common sense exceptions of which you speak?

Those who support this action are unilaterally supporting a police state. The court has said specifically that there is no "gun exception" to the reasonable suspicion requirement of Terry. Yet here you are claiming a "common sense" exception to constitutional rights which I believe is reflective of what's wrong not only in this case but with law enforcement in general. People should not be subject to being acosted by men with guns in the name of the law unless they are actually suspected of breaking the law. You do not have the right or authority to threaten my safety because you feel like it, or because some training officer with a sever case of HUA told you that you could.

I.C.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I.C.,

You are completely misinterpreting the Terry ruling. All that law stated was that an annonymous tip cannot be the complete basis for a stop and search of a person. In that case the officer's received a call that a drug dealer was on the corner wearing a red shirt and carrying a gun. The officer's arrived and found a man with a red shirt on the corner and subsequently searched him and found a gun. It was decided that they needed more than just that call to stop and search that person, they needed an articulable suspicion. Well had they arrived on the scene and the man had a handgun visibly sticking out of his waistband that would have changed the situation entirely.

In this scenario there was no question that the subject in question was armed. Now, if it is your contention that a police officer that sees an armed man should simply walk away and not investigate then we are going to have to agree to disagree. So again I will ask is it your belief that when an officer sees a person with a firearm they are to assume that person also holds an appropriate license to carry that firearm?

Edit: I'm going to add that the law is incredibly stupid requiring a firearm to be in the open while in a vehicle. That should be changed immediately to prevent further instances such as this.

 

[carebear]

I think the argument being made is that if both "sleeping in your car" and "open carry" are absolutely legal, and if in fact open display in that circumstance is required by law in Ohio; that simple possession of an openly carried firearm while sleeping forms absolutely no cause to believe any crime at all has been or is going to be committed.

If there is zero reason to believe a crime is involved, why are they bothering the guy?

I could buy a health and welfare check if there were some articulateable reason the officer(s) thought one was necessary but, otherwise, why not just look in the window, see he's breathing and not ostensibly breaking the law and move along. Worst case, stand in the "safe" position and tap on the window and ask if he's ok and then move along.

There's no need to cater to frightened people ignorant of their own state's laws.

If you want to throw common sense in, the "Officer Friendly" who checks if the guy is ok might remind the guy he's putting himself at risk of robbery or worse by choosing a public spot to nap. Which doesn't rise to the level of "negligence" by any legal definition I'm aware of.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I am sorry. I was not addressed but I must......

In this scenario there was no question that the subject in question was armed. Now, if it is your contention that a police officer that sees an armed man should simply walk away and not investigate then we are going to have to agree to disagree. So again I will ask is it your belief that when an officer sees a person with a firearm they are to assume that person also holds an appropriate license to carry that firearm?

Ohio, like Missouri is an open carry state.

As hard to believe as it may seem to you, open carrying is not a crime. I have open carried innumerable times in the presence of leos. There is no license or registration required.

It is not a crime.



next one goes to 4 digits

 

[insidious_calm]

Dbl0Kevin,

From Terry v. Ohio

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

And..

Our first task is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. That is, we must decide whether and when Officer McFadden "seized" Terry and whether and when he conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. 12 We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime - "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure [392 U.S. 1, 17] performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." 13 It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. 14
The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search" is two-fold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. 15 This Court has held in [392 U.S. 1, 18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. [392 U.S. 1, 19] United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356 -358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586 -587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e. g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 -368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30 -31 (1925).

The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment - the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. "Search" and "seizure" are not talismans. We therefore reject the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a "technical arrest" or a "full-blown search."

In this case there can be no question, then, that Officer McFadden "seized" petitioner and subjected him to a "search" when he took hold of him and patted down the outer surfaces of his clothing. We must decide whether at that point it was reasonable for Officer McFadden to have interfered with petitioner's personal security as he did. 16 And in determining whether the seizure and search were "unreasonable" our inquiry [392 U.S. 1, 20] is a dual one - whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.

A small snippet of a large decision. One that totally refutes your insistence that "their is no such thing as a seizure". The court has unequivocally ruled that anytime a citizen is not free to go of his own accord, even if his restraint not physical but merely one of imposition of authority, he has been "seized" as defined by the fourth amendment. Any seizure is subject to the fourth amendement and it's protections. Any leo should know that, and those who don't deserve no sympathy. More likely, those who make such claims are simply trying to prevent scrutiny under the law and evade being held accountable for the violations of peoples rights that they engage in.

The only questions of any relevancy are not ones of "common sense" or any other buzzword diversionary catch-phrase, but ones proscribed by law that set the minimum threshhold for intrusion into a citizens life. In this case, the court has set that minimum standard as "We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot..." Specifically the officer must have "reasonable, articulable facts, that a crime has been or is about to be committed". Based upon what was posted here that threshold was not met. The officers therefore were in violation of the citizens rights and should be punished accordingly.

The court further addresses what happens if those standards are not observed by police officers. Saying -

"...in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [392 U.S. 1, 22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 -97 (1964). 20 Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e. g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959). And simple "`good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be `secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97.

We know in this case that the officers knew the car was registered to a CHL holder. We also know that the car had not been reported stolen. Is it reasonable to assume that everyone in a vehicle is unlawfully in possession of that vehicle until proven otherwise? Certainly not. There was no justification under the law for the seizure.

I.C.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

In this scenario there was no question that the subject in question was armed. Now, if it is your contention that a police officer that sees an armed man should simply walk away and not investigate then we are going to have to agree to disagree. So again I will ask is it your belief that when an officer sees a person with a firearm they are to assume that person also holds an appropriate license to carry that firearm?

Right Let's just treat gun owners like second class citizens and automatically assume that anyone who is known to own a firearm is also a criminal. We should just lock them all away...

Owning and bearing arms is a right guaranteed to us by the Founders of this country and directly linked to an inheriant right of man to defend himself and determine his own destiny. So yes, as one who has found themselves held at gunpoint by LEOs while being fully within the bounds of law and moral integrity, I absolutely believe officers should require a lot more than ownership of a weapon to draw suspecion, esp if that suspecion is to warrant being held at gun point. My guess is that you've never been spread eagled on the sidewalk with a 12 gauge pointed at your head, so you have no idea how fast the event ruins your day--esp when you have done nothing wrong or illegal--and are thusly unprepared to make the arguement you are making.

So here's a refreshing concept--let's assume that when the Founders said "innocent until proven guilty," that is what they meant. Let's also assume that having a gun pointed at you is having a gun pointed at you and is just as disconcerting regardless of whether it is an officer or someone else, and because of this, require police officers to use the same discretion and responsibility in employing their firearms as you would anyone else.

Unless the guy in the car was believed to have carried out a specific crime, he should have been allowed to finish his nap--and no, I'm sorry, but possession of a firearm does not constitute a specific crime worthy of being awaken at gunpoint.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. insidious_calm.

Yer good, man, you're good.

+72

 

[Vex]

I think the argument being made is that if both "sleeping in your car" and "open carry" are absolutely legal, and if in fact open display in that circumstance is required by law in Ohio; that simple possession of an openly carried firearm while sleeping forms absolutely no cause to believe any crime at all has been or is going to be committed.

If there is zero reason to believe a crime is involved, why are they bothering the guy?

In Ohio, you must have a CCW license and have it on your person to be in a vehicle with a loaded handgun. open carry does not apply to vehicles. There was reason to detain this guy and ensure he has his CCW on him, that it was valid, and that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Unless the guy in the car was believed to have carried out a specific crime, he should have been allowed to finish his nap--and no, I'm sorry, but possession of a firearm does not constitute a specific crime worthy of being awaken at gunpoint.

See my above response. There was ARTICULABLE reason to check the guy out and detain him to make sure everything was kosher.

By all means Vex, please expound on the common sense of initiating armed contact with with a citizen who is not suspected of committing any crime and who has not requested your presence. As for relying on caselaw, what else should we rely on if not the law? It would seem you are suggesting that exceptions to the law be made for police officers if "common sense" could be demonstrated in their actions.

Common sense, sir, is something you shouldn't need to find in a history book or law book to learn. Common sense is this: Would you disregard your own personal safety and proven police tecnhiques in order to avoid possibly inconveniencing a citizen? No, you wouldn't. Because when you're on the street, the only thing that matters is your own personal safety.

Did they have reason to have their guns ready in case this guy was a crazy, maniacal, drug and alcohol influenced gun weilding loonie? You bet your butt they did. Common sense.

I don't even think you understand the Terry law. The guy was stopped because him and his friends were suspected of attempting to break into a building. It just so happened that the gun was found on him. Terry vs Ohio was whether the gun was admissable in court and chargable, and whether or not police have the right to do a pat down check for weapons. It had nothing to do with a law abiding citizen sleeping in his car, in the middle of a Denny's parking lot, in a car that was 6 counties away from home, with a gun clearly visible. Quote Terry all you want, you're clearly missing the point....

Common sense should have told this moron not to be irresponsible with the CCW license. Go back and read his letter on the followup story. He's not angry at the police for DOING THEIR JOB. You are! Why? Why are you fighting a fight that you weren't involvd in?

 

[insidious_calm]

In this scenario there was no question that the subject in question was armed. Now, if it is your contention that a police officer that sees an armed man should simply walk away and not investigate then we are going to have to agree to disagree. So again I will ask is it your belief that when an officer sees a person with a firearm they are to assume that person also holds an appropriate license to carry that firearm?

Dbl0Kevin,

My contention is that the officers are bound by the governing case law. There is no gun exception to the reasonable suspicion requirements of Terry.

Specifically,

This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.

Possession of a firearm is not grounds for a seizure unless it is a violation of that specific state's law. In this case it was not. The officers were acting outside the scope of their authority and as the court has stated, "good faith" is no excuse. The officers should be punished.


I.C.