Sherrif demands I remove my firearm

[Frank Ettin]

...I'll settle for an articulable reason...So far no one has even attempted to come up with one other than it's "suspicious" that a vehicle belonging to the resident of that address was in his yard...That simply makes no sense to me...

The vehicle was sitting there with no one around and one or more doors open. So--

1. Was the driver precipitously forced out of the vehicle during the course of a robbery attempt?
   
   
2. Did the driver precipitously leave the vehicle because he became aware of an act of violence near his house?
   
   
3. Was there a medical emergency?

 

[ec4321]

The vehicle was sitting there with no one around and one or more doors open. So--

1. Was the driver precipitously forced out of the vehicle during the course of a robbery attempt?
   
   
2. Did the driver precipitously leave the vehicle because he became aware of an act of violence near his house?
   
   
3. Was there a medical emergency?

I think you could come up with such a list for just about any circumstance. Such as a garage door being open, or a sprinkler not put away.


The question is... is that a reasonable suspicion? Clearly some may think so, I would have to disagree. I would tend to believe anyone coming up with that was making up malarkey to cover their actions. I am fully aware others will disagree and think it's prudent...

Edit:
Malarkey at the worst.
Unreasonable at best.

 

[Salmoneye]

The vehicle was sitting there with no one around and one or more doors open. So--

1. Was the driver precipitously forced out of the vehicle during the course of a robbery attempt?

2. Did the driver precipitously leave the vehicle because he became aware of an act of violence near his house?

3. Was there a medical emergency?

Sorry, but I must live in a much different place...

No one here looks twice at a vehicle under a tree on a hot day..., and certainly not a LEO that has better things to be doing...

Thanks for at least trying to convince me that LEOs do this sort of thing all the time...They certainly don't here, nor do they trespass for no reason...

What's next?...Entering my house because my door is open on a hot day?...My window is open, so there must be a crime taking place?...

I know I am being hard headed about this, but nothing about this is 'right' or correct where I live...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think you could come up with such a list for just about any circumstance. Such as a garage door being open,...

A garage door might well perhaps justify a look. We had a situation a few years ago in one of our upscale suburbs where a woman was found stabbed to death in her open garage.

...The question is... is that a reasonable suspicion? Clearly some may think so, I would have to disagree....

And of course you disagree because it suits your preconceived notions.

Of course, if the officer is charged with misconduct, she'll have the opportunity to state exactly what her reason for investigating the situation was. And whether her reason was reasonable will be up to her superiors, or hearing officer, or, if it goes that far, a judge.

The vehicle was sitting there with no one around and one or more doors open. So--

1. Was the driver precipitously forced out of the vehicle during the course of a robbery attempt?
   
   
2. Did the driver precipitously leave the vehicle because he became aware of an act of violence near his house?
   
   
3. Was there a medical emergency?

Sorry, but I must live in a much different place...

No one here looks twice at a vehicle under a tree on a hot day..., and certainly not a LEO that has better things to be doing...

[1] It wasn't just parked under a tree. It was standing with one or more doors open and unattended. Is that also common in your neighborhood?

[2] And whether or not an LEO has better things to do at the time than have a look at a situation she perceives as worth a look, is really up to her -- not you. And if her actions were inappropriate, that will ultimately be up to her boss, or a hearing officer, or a judge, if it goes that far.

...What's next?...Entering my house because my door is open on a hot day?...

And if the house is regularly on the LEO's beat, and he has never before seen the door standing open at that time of day?

 

[ec4321]

And of course you disagree because it suits your preconceived notions.

You're implying here your opinions are not based in preconceived notions, yet mine are. Not shooting straight there.

A garage door might well perhaps justify a look.

I know certain courts and individuals will think so, I even conceded the fact in my post. For me, that's a scary world. If that is allowed to pass as RS, there is essentially no protection from LEO entering one's home.

It's kind of like the saying in police academy, "If can't find a reason to pull a car over, you're not looking hard enough...".

 

[Frank Ettin]

You're implying here your opinions are not based in preconceived notions,...

I know certain courts ... will think so,

There, in a nutshell, is the difference. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a lawyer -- gauging how a court is likely to view the question.

A garage door might well perhaps justify a look.

...I know certain courts and individuals will think so, I even conceded the fact in my post. For me, that's a scary world. If that is allowed to pass as RS, there is essentially no protection from LEO entering one's home. ...

[1] I said an open garage door might (not "will") justify a look.

[2] And of course there's protection. If there's a disagreement about whether there was a reasonable suspicion, the decision will be made by a judge. That's how things work in our world. If you're looking for absolutes, you won't find them; and I suspect a lot of folks wouldn't want them, at least absolutes you'd find acceptable.

Personally, if my front door is sitting open with neither me nor my wife visibly around in the front yard, I'd be happy for our beat cop to have a look. We don't leave our front door open like that; and if it is, something's amiss.

 

[oneounceload]

Around here, with all of the old folks, ANYTHING out of the norm warrants a look by the cops or the Sheriff citizen watch, and many have been saved because the cops stumbled across someone who fell

A car sitting under a tree with the door open? It sure does deserve a closer inspection - why didn't the OP just roll all the windows down? It would have cooled it off faster anyway and avoided a confrontation. Walking out to uniformed officer wearing a gun? How STUPID is that idea? Now you seem like you are trying to bait the cop into an escalation and confrontation.

Simply put, the OP was WRONG in his actions and should be thankful he has a LEO who cared enough to investigate something that appeared to be out of the norm.

And no, your 2A rights were not trampled, get over it

 

[danez71]

Originally Posted by ec4321
You're implying here your opinions are not based in preconceived notions,...

No... he's not implying that at all.

He said this:

And whether her reason was reasonable will be up to her superiors, or hearing officer, or, if it goes that far, a judge.

 

[ec4321]

There, in a nutshell, is the difference. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a lawyer -- gauging how a court is likely to view the question.

Perhaps. Even the SCOTUS can't agree on the plain meaning of simple laws. Law is highly subjective, and your opinion, as a lawyer, on what RS is, is only as valuable as it concerns technical guidance. At least to me. I think that attorneys are prohibited from making predictions about how courts may rule for their clients, I could be wrong.

[1] I said an open garage door might (not "will") justify a look.

Okay? I didn't make a claim to the contrary.

[2] And of course there's protection. If there's a disagreement about whether there was a reasonable suspicion, the decision will be made by a judge.

That doesn't protect them from entering, that's a review after the fact. Extreme example is OP being killed by the officer. Court decisions about RS after the fact neither protect nor save him.

Personally, if my front door is sitting open with neither me nor my wife visibly around in the front yard, I'd be happy for our beat cop to have a look.

Would you want them to come into your house, point their gun at you and order you on the ground in front of your kids?

We don't leave our front door open like that; and if it is, something's amiss.

Nor do you, apparently, leave your car doors open. But the OP does, with nothing amiss, and he doesn't want the intrusion.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

Unfortunately law enforcement has evolved over the years from the point of protection and service to a us against them attitude. Back in my time you stopped to help someone just because,more than a few times I got out of my cruiser and shot some hoops or skateboarded with the local kids. We would get calls to remove a bat(flying kind) from some old ladys house or respond to a call to check on a sick person that didn't answer their phone.I didn't need to write you a ticket just because I had a quota. More than once your dog got a ride home in my cruiser when he escaped and on occasion I even tied your horse to my back bumper and brought him home. Your kids knew me and waved when I passed.I waved back and even flashed the lights or blew the siren for them.
I'd stop on adark rainy night and change a tire for your mom or dad before the advent of cellphones.I held you sons hand and told him he'd be just fine as the rescue crew tried to get him out of a mangled wreck. I possibly even delivered you first born in the back seat of my cruiser because it was time.
I knew the people in my town,they were my extended family.

Later in my career I moved on to a major city in the northeast.I still treated people the way I'd want my mom treated.The criminals got to know me and me them.they learned not to take my kindness for weakness.I wasn't the biggest guy on the block(5'6") but knew how to carry myself .Plenty of times I was scared but learned not to show fear.Criminals are good at reading people and wouldn't try you if you appeared to know what you were doing.
A smile and a friendly hello went a long way wherever you worked. Most peoples dealings with LEO's is usually not at a good time,you were either a victim or being arrested for something you did. I wasn't your enemy ,just trying to do my job.I got respect by giving respect.
I can say it's very rare to find a officer today that will smile, wave to your kids or even say "hi" as you pass. the mentality of the job has changed. I blame that on how they are taught.I'm not impressed with the shaved heads and BDU uniforms and standing with your hand on your gun while talking at me.
Don't tell me things have changed that much, I know better I've worked robbery/stakeout, swat and in pro active anti-crime units. A bit of common sense ,proper training and the right attitude works.
Yes I do believe as someone said "our objective is to go home safe to our families at the end of every shift" , there is a lot of BS on the street out there and if you don't want to do your job to the best of your ability and it's only about the gun,badge and money......you might think about changing careers

JMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think that attorneys are prohibited from making predictions about how courts may rule for their clients, I could be wrong...

Yes, you are wrong. A lot of the practice of law involves trying to predict how courts will rule on matters that concern one's clients.

...your opinion, as a lawyer, on what RS is, is only as valuable as it concerns technical guidance....

The term "reasonable suspicion", as being discussed here, has no meaning in a vacuum. It has meaning only insofar as it has real world consequences. And it has real world consequences, in the context of this thread, only insofar as whether or not a given set of circumstances is likely to be found by a court to constitute a reasonable suspicion justifying, or not justifying, an LEO's actions. And that is a technical, legal question.

There is no metaphysical meaning for "reasonable suspicion." There is no Platonic Ideal "reasonable suspicion."

...Would you want them to come into your house, point their gun at you and order you on the ground in front of your kids?...

I'd want our local cop to investigate a visible, suspicious condition on my property. My front door being open with no one around would be a suspicious condition.

 

[2zulu1]

If I were the deputy's supervisor I'd seriously chew her butt out, but for reasons other than have previously discussed here. In that 'would-be' discussion we'd talk about the difference between curiosity and exposing herself to a possible ambush situation by entering the property. The deputy made a number of stupid rookie mistakes that defy logic as we examine the OP's narrative.

It would have been better for the deputy to stay back and observe, take a picture or two and ascertain how many people are/were on the property and/or in the house.

If a crime were in progress she'd have access to her carbine and the ability to direct backup, if any, to appropriate positions. Examining the narrative we see that she not only placed herself in an untenable position by entering the property in an unprotected manner, but her actions also increased the risk for responding deputies if a crime was in progress.

Ordering a possible felon to access their weapon defies logic, it's assumed that just about everyone who lives along the International border carries, as the OP was in this case. She needs to adapt to this part of Arizona's old West culture. It would have been more prudent on her part to have the OP keep both his hands away from from his piece.

If I were the OP I'd ask to speak with the deputy and her Sgt for the reasons stated above, makes for a win-win situation for everyone involved.

 

[zxcvbob]

I think I'd want to have a friendly talk with The Sheriff rather than a sergeant or a supervisor -- the one who wants my vote every couple of Novembers. a "formal complaint" shouldn't be necessary.

 

[Frank Ettin]

[2] And of course there's protection. If there's a disagreement about whether there was a reasonable suspicion, the decision will be made by a judge.

That doesn't protect them from entering, that's a review after the fact. Extreme example is OP being killed by the officer. Court decisions about RS after the fact neither protect nor save him.

There is no way to protect against entry except to absolutely prohibit it. As long as entry is permissible based on some standard, there will always be an argument over whether that standard (1) is appropriate; and (2) has been met in a given situation.

 

[ec4321]

The term "reasonable suspicion", as being discussed here, has no meaning in a vacuum. It has meaning only insofar as it has real world consequences. And it has real world consequences, in the context of this thread, only insofar as whether or not a given set of circumstances is likely to be found by a court to constitute a reasonable suspicion justifying, or not justifying, an LEO's actions. And that is a technical, legal question.

There is no metaphysical meaning for "reasonable suspicion." There is no Platonic Ideal "reasonable suspicion."

No I think Reasonable Suspicion does have a meaning and has been defined. You and I will, apparently, disagree about what how that definition applies in a lot of circumstances. And it's possible how you define it more closely resembles how courts are likely to define it. That, however, does not mean, how you (or they) define it is any more right than how I define it. Meaning I may have an opinion on whether this circumstance meets the standard of RS and your opinion may differ. Even the jurists of the SCOTUS have differing opinions on such subjects. We're all apparently on a razors edge of whims.

And while your prediction as to how the court with jurisdiction may rule may be more valuable to someone seeking such advice than my opinion - however, a lot of these discussions are really debates about what is right and wrong - not necessarily about how a court may rule.

That's the way I take it anyway.

I'd want our local cop to investigate a visible, suspicious condition on my property. My front door being open with no one around would be a suspicious condition.

Clearly you would, but I don't think you'd disagree that the OP considers it an unwanted invasion and an unnecessary indignity to be ordered to disarm and have his life put in danger.

What you want may not be symbolic of what others want, being the point. Of course it could be just as true for the OP's position, but the OPs position is how I would feel about it, and I am simply throwing my hat in that ring.

 

[zxcvbob]

I don't think entry to the property to investigate is the big issue, it's how she acted once she and OP got there. Absent some probably cause that a crime was underway she needs to be little more "Andy" and a little less "Barney".

 

[cyclopsshooter]

My folks returned home one evening, Mom parking halfway in the garage to take my ailing father in the house more easily through the front door. With the complicated task of getting him to bed, she had forgotten about the car and turned in too.. Four hours later the doorbell rang, a local LEO apprised her that the one year old Lincoln Towncar was still idling half in the garage with both the driver and passenger doors open..

Police are supposed to snoop, I just hate to see them shy away from trying to help because of overreactions of those they are trying to help.

Just goes to show that when you try to do the right thing, you often end up taking it in the butt

 

[BJ Orange]

I say you should submit a complaint -- not to get this officer in trouble, but to encourage your local law enforcement to have their officers review their protocol.

 

[Agsalaska]

Excellent post PBR strretgang. I am 35 and grew up in a mid sized town. I can remember an older police officer that patrolled our neighborhood. He gave my granddad a bullet to give to me. I cant remember if I kept it or just got to hold it. It was probably a .38, but when your 5 it was as big as an artillery shell. Can you imagine that today?

Point is the attitudes have changed, and I too blame it on training. Most police departments are almost para military in their training and tactics today. We, and the OP, have had a very negative defensive reaction to that. If that cop back when I was a kid saw our car door or front door open he would have stopped. He would have because he cared. And we would not have questioned his presence on our property for a second. But now the police have changed, and so has our attitude towards them.

As for the specific circumstances, I can see both sides.


And, last but not least, if you think you have problems with your police, check out Vegas some day.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ec4321: Clearly you would [(want our local cop to investigate a visible, suspicious condition on my property)], but I don't think you'd disagree that the OP considers it an unwanted invasion...

While the OP initially asserted without substantiation "she was tresspassing my property without good cause or reason", he or she later said "I didn't necessairly have a problem with her stopping by to check on things, quite nice of her to show concern".

But whether one considers an investigation that may be for cause as "unwanted invasion" may or not matter.

...and an unnecessary indignity to be ordered to disarm and have his life put in danger.

Whether or not s parson who has been asked to put down a weapon suffers an "unnecessary indignity" will necessarily be decided after the fact. And when it comes down to whose life may be put in danger, it has already been explained competently and clearly that danger to the person who has the sworn duty to investigate will trump potential danger to the a person who has the option to go back into the house.

 

[ec4321]

... danger to the person who has the sworn duty to investigate will trump potential danger to the a person who has the option to go back into the house.

I doubt OP had the option to go back in the house after the officer ordered him to disarm.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it's possible how you define it more closely resembles how courts are likely to define it. That, however, does not mean, how you (or they) define it is any more right than how I define it...

In a real life sense it does. How a court would define it, actually apply the principle to a given set of facts, will have consequences in real life. Your opinion has no consequences in the real world; it's just academic.

My opinion has value insofar as it's a qualified, professional opinion as to how a court is likely to rule on a particular question under certain circumstances. But what really matters is what the court might think.

...What you want may not be symbolic of what others want, being the point. Of course it could be just as true for the OP's position, but the OPs position is how I would feel about it,..

Sometimes we don't get exactly what we want. And we are limited in our ability to effectively control the acts of others.

If an LEO sees something that he or she believes warrants his or her concern, action will be taken. One who may be unhappy with that action may later legally challenge it. But it's possible that the LEO's actions were within the law, so the unhappy person might just wind up having to live with that.

It's also possible that the action taken by the LEO was legal, but perhaps not the wisest action under the circumstances. But that's another question.

 

[wickedsprint]

Sometimes I feel that people look for reasons to be offended.

 

[ec4321]

My opinion has value insofar as it's a qualified, professional opinion as to how a court is likely to rule on a particular question under certain circumstances.

If that's what is being asked for. Some of these topics seem to be 'this happened, what do y'all think?'... Frank's professional opinion is part of that here, obviously.

But it's possible that the LEO's actions were within the law, so the unhappy person might just wind up having to live with that.

With out a doubt.

It's also possible that the action taken by the LEO was legal, but perhaps not the wisest action under the circumstances. But that's another question.

Not really another question, IMO. I think that's part of the question. Whether it is or not, it's certainly part of what's being debated.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ec4321: I doubt OP had the option to go back in the house after the officer ordered him to disarm.

Of course not.

This is the key point: "At the same time I noticed her, she noticed me and that I was wearing my gun. As I began to walk out to her to see what she needed,...".

An officer is checking out something that appears suspicious. An armed man approaches.

Did the officer have any way of knowing that the man walking toward her with a firearm was the resident who owned the car? Did the officer have reason to be concerned for her safety until the forearm had been secured? Did the OP think about any of these things?