Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Excellent police conduct during an "open carry" stop

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Jdub22, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. Jdub22

    Jdub22 Vancouver, WA Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Tangent123123

    Tangent123123 Battle Ground Active Member

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    199
    I'm certainly of mixed feelings about this video. The officer handled the stop about as politely and good naturedly as you could. The person he stopped was well within his rights to do everything he did. But to me he seemed to intentionally be a bit of a d-bag. The cop was just doing his job and sometimes I think it's ok just to not rock the boat and make everyone's day easier. But then I was born in Canada and we're taught to be polite and agreeable there. *grin*

    The question "Why are you carrying it?" fromt he officer seemed a bit odd to me maybe. It's sort of a loaded question isn't it? (No pun intended)

    And what's the point of carrying a gun if it's not loaded? Pretty sure it was just to get the attention of someone who will call the police so they could make the video.
     
  3. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    In my opinion, the open carrier was a dick looking for a confrontation. While I support his right, and I'm confident I'll get flamed for this, based in the video I think he was looking for a confrontation to make a point. Say what you will, but I don't think we advance 2A rights by looking for confrontations, it just makes us look like rabid ideologues. It's all about picking your battles.

    OK. Flame retar_dant suit on.
     
  4. salmonriverjohn

    salmonriverjohn N.W Oregon coast, Gods country Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    4,305
    You wont get flamed on my account. My hats off to the LEO on this one. He, and the OC were both within the law and rights. I do believe the LEO was much better in both his reaction and response in this video. I want that officer in the small town I live in:thumbup:
     
  5. MarkAd

    MarkAd Port Orchard Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    617
    Oh my, lets not follow the law of the state because some ignorant scumbag citizen does not know the laws of the state.
    Coug your judgment is both illogical and rude. The guy followed the law of California. So what if he is a "rabid ideologue." Aren't the anti's rabid ideologues" He followed the law.
    if you follow your own thinking then carrying in Oregon makes you a rabid ideologue.
     
  6. Ben Beckerich

    Ben Beckerich NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    3,918
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    pretty sure this was posted here a few weeks ago.. my opinion remains the same now as then- i dont care how nice or "professional" you think the cop was, he's got no more right to approach and detain a man for open carrying than he does to just pull over anyone he wants, stop and detain anyone he wants on the street, etc. "reasonable suspicion" is still the SCOTUS standard, in this country- and he had NO reasonable suspicion that the subject was committing a crime.

    so screw that cop- i would have been short and irritated with him too. and before you say anything about expecting it if you're gonna carry in cali- that's his only option for exercising his pretend right. a right that should be as easily exercised as opening your flapper and carrying on a conversation.
     
  7. absoluterik07

    absoluterik07 Salem, OR Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    9
    Awesome cop! I'm surprised carrying without ID is legal in California. Anyway nice to see a nice civil cop. IMO if I was confronted by an officer as civil as this guy I would have gladly handed over my ID and acquiesced to any reasonable requests he had.
     
  8. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    sheep.jpg
     
  9. Cougfan2

    Cougfan2 Hillsboro, OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    597
    Sigh. Pretty much what I expected from folks like you. My comment is Rude? What about your reply? I said I support his right, just not the way he expressed it, but I don't expect that to sway someone like you. Rigid 2A ideologues will kill our 2A rights just as sure as rigid anti 2A's will. Look what has happened with open carry rights in CA with the pending legislation to outlaw open carry in that state. It is a direct result of open carry activists shoving their rights in the face of the anti's. I don't agree with the anti's effort to outlaw the right of open carry on CA, but the impetus to pass laws outlawing it are a direct result of open carry zealots of pushing the issue. Please provide evidence if you disagree with me.
     
  10. joeroket

    joeroket Everett,Wa. Active Member

    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    25
    What exactly is illegal or suspicious about a person walking lawfully down the street? There was nothing that I saw that even remotely looked like this was a lawful stop and anything unlawful the officer found would have been tossed. I personally think it was a piss poor job on the officers part. If he had seen something that gave him RAS then he had a lawful stop. Oceanside should be training their officers on Terry Stops as this was not a valid one.
     
    Redcap and (deleted member) like this.
  11. olydemon

    olydemon Olympia Active Member

    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    30
    That guy is a tool. Regardless of what his rights are, he IS basically doing this purely to create a confrontation,. If he had the balls and not wearing his pink underwear he should have opened fire on them...... what a p##sy.

    ... still watching the confrontation.... almost sounds like a episode of "The Trailer Park Boys" .
     
  12. absoluterik07

    absoluterik07 Salem, OR Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    9
    Oops! I forgot not everybody reads an entire post on here. Re-read it and notice the IMO standing for "in my opinion" which may differ from yours because I am NOT a sheep and have to agree with everybody else. Also read the part that says "reasonable requests". Just because I'm a nice person who doesnt care to waste my time arguing with a cop also does not make me a sheep. Just sayin'!
     
  13. U201494

    U201494 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    492
    The imbecile with the gun & camera should not be allowed to breed.
     
  14. Tangent123123

    Tangent123123 Battle Ground Active Member

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    199
    It's unfortunate that someone has to be insulting because your opinion varies from their own. I guess it's too much effort to post their own view and agree to disagree when just being a jerk is so much easier.
     
    evltwn and (deleted member) like this.
  15. baada

    baada Surprise, AZ Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    5
    While I don't necessarily agree with the stop, I want to point out some nuances of Terry vs. Ohio some readers may be unfamiliar with:

    United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), Chief Justice Burger:
    Courts have used a variety of terms to capture the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person. Terms like “articulable reasons” and “founded suspicion” are not self-defining; they fall short of providing clear guidance dispositive of the myriad factual situations that arise. But the essence of all that has been written is that the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. (449 U.S. at 417–418)

    Also:
    Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Warren:
    He [Detective McFadden] had observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation.

    The reason for stop may have been someone calling in saying "There's a weird guy with a gun walking down the street". The cop did articulate his concern was for the detainees safety and state of mind. If it is unusual for someone to walk down the street in that neighborhood sporting a .40, that in and of itself may be innocent, but it adds to the "whole picture".

    You will very rarely win a reasonable suspicion argument.

    What I would complain about, were I wont to, is the fact that the cop "seized" an unloaded handgun from a compliant citizen. When he said he was going to hold onto it for his safety, it would be hard for him to argue in court why he felt his safety was in jeopardy.
     
  16. PhysicsGuy

    PhysicsGuy Corvallis, OR Resident Science Nut

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    155
    It is illegal to open carry a loaded firearm in California, according to PC 12031 the officer has the right to inspect to insure that the firearm is unloaded. This is exactly what happened in the video, officer stopped, check to make sure it was unloaded, then "pretty much" let him go on his way.
     
  17. m1gunr

    m1gunr Tacoma Member

    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    22
    Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns - Washington DC gun rights | Examiner.com


    Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

    September 9, 10:16 PMDC Gun Rights Examiner Mike Stollenwerk


    On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

    The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states. Learn more here.

    In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

    Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

    On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

    Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that

    "t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

    Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that

    "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

    Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia, and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

    NOTE: Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com.
     
  18. Father of four

    Father of four Portland, Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    No problem. Great Officer! We need more like him. Alot more!!!
     
  19. joeroket

    joeroket Everett,Wa. Active Member

    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    25
    Correct you are. For some reason I had it in my head that this was in Oregon. I will recant my previous statement.
     
  20. RB87

    RB87 Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    228
    The officer played it smart though I laughed when he said "its not a 3rd world nation" in response to why the gentleman was video taping. Yeah, and if he wasn't taping would the officer had been as courteous as he was? Maybe, but why take the risk?