As I understand your post it is really completely irrelevant that a Peace Officer needs to respect any particular right as they can simply decide that they have an overriding concern and can follow-up with questions from there. Am I reading this wrong?EEllis wrote:And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted? Checking in if there were calls made isn't unreasonable so if as the officers may have approached, him tensing up or his reaction could easily made them suspicious and warrant further investigation.jmra wrote: Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.
We are not talking probable cause here but rather reasonable suspicion. Probable cause would be needed if they saw him and decided before approach to arrest. I see no sign that was the case here. Here it would be that a person (not every person or most people just that a person ) in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. There is absolutely no way you could say with certainty that, with as little we know, the officers couldn't have reasonable suspicion on approach. They then can ask questions, secure firearms, require your presence, etc. Now you don't have to answer and after a brief encounter if you don't want to stay they must decide if they feel there is probable cause to arrest to continue to hold you but they can do things like checking to see if a gun has been fired or investigate for other evidence.
I am one of those persons that has to think twice before I would say 'No' to a Peace Officer. It has been ingrained in me since childhood. But too far is too far.