TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote: You keep saying we don't know if the cops had RS or not but I submit, if they had RS of a violation of law, when asked why would they not indicate what section of law tehy suspected him of violating? Why would they blurt out "rudely displaying a firearm?" I mean doens't that go to credibility and them trying to justify there actions after the fact??

Being in LE, I can tell you that my RS would be based on an actual statute to make our encounter legally sustainable and I would articulate, if asked BUT I wouldn't make something up.

First we know one officer did say something like that but I don't know if that was the original officer, the one that would have needed the RS, do you know? If it wasn't then the whole question is moot. Two while it may be considered correct by you, heck by me, there is no legal obligation for an officer to give RS and as a point of fact I'm not aware of any obligation in Texas for a person to be informed of a charge when being arrested. SCOTUS has even said it doesn't matter what you are told you are being charged with if in fact there is PC for an arrest on any charge. Clearly it shows it isn't required by SCOTUS to be informed of PC so certainly that must also hold for RS. I don't know of any reason in Texas that an officer must give RS and while that officer statement very well be used by the defence to attack RS is it really that different form being told you are arrested for "stupidity" or other comments that have been made many times by officers everywhere? As to why why wouldn't an officer inform CJ in this case. Well maybe he was trying to give him a dumbed down version, because lets face it police and courts tend to use jargon and phrases that are not part of everyday speech, but by that time any officer could have articulated PC for an obstruction charge based on what I viewed. Now that doesn't mean he is or will be found guilty of obstruction or interference or whatever the charge might be, but that isn't the standard for PC for an arrest so him being able to beat the charge doesn't mean PC isn't there.

mojo84 wrote:JSThane,
Well said. I hope you'll stick around contribute more in some of our other discussions.

EEllis wrote:

JSThane wrote: But none of this happened.

And you know this how? You know exactly what was reported?These cops should be familiar with the area judges and know what they accept as RS and are trained to be able to "articulate" RS should easily be able to justify RS. Or they ignored what is truly a low standard and will not be able to come up with RS that anyone who has TCLOSE cert should be able to do in their sleep.

By the way, a Terry frisk is indeed a frisk for weapons, if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for his safety. A man with a rifle, engaged in legal, lawful activity, is not reasonable justification. Nor, since he's HOLDING A RIFLE, is that justification to search for a pistol! I already know he's armed, and if he was going to do something, would he waste time with drawing a pistol when the rifle's already out and ready? No, of course not. Therefore, if I cannot justify drawing my own gun and pointing it at him while he drops the rifle, I cannot justify a Terry search; I'm obviously not all that worried about the rifle.

Terry frisks are not intended to find identification. It's not a search for contraband, or a wallet, or money. Yes, these are found during Terry frisks, but that's incidental to the search; a NAA Mini revolver is a lot smaller than a wallet, so if I pat someone down looking for a gun that tiny, or a pocketknife, of course I'm going to find the wallet. But a pat-down for a wallet isn't kosher.

Therefore, with this guy in question, if the officer didn't have reason to draw his gun for the rifle the guy was holding, there was no reason to go through his pockets, and no reason to go through his wallet.

I everything you say is accurate then fine but obviously the officer making the contact would disagree that is the case. You are assuming things that you can't know, stating possibilities as fact. For one thing who said anything about this being a Terry stop? You use that as an explanation as to why this incident isn't "Kosher" but I see no reason to believe any of this has to do with a Terry stop.

For the record, yes, I am an LEO. Yes, rude confrontations with people displaying "contempt of cop" drive me nuts. No, I can't, and won't, do anything about it except wish them a good day, and move on. I certainly won't make up any fake "laws" or "charges," or declare that the law doesn't matter. I've been on the bad end of a bogus search as a teenager. I've been the guy staring at the badge of an arrogant or overconfident cop who thought he had a "sure thing" arrest, when all he had was straw, and no wrongdoing or crime ever committed. I've also been the guy with a bit of a bad attitude toward said cop, and laughed in his face when he found nothing where there was nothing.

Any officer who is unable to act courteously in the face of contempt, or who believes "badge makes right," needs to leave this line of work yesterday. Anyone who supports that kind of officer, well, I can fairly well guarantee your support for them will fade if you ever wind up the recipient of said officer's tender courtesies, and you'll realize there's a reason for the restrictions placed upon us, the authority we wield, and how we can - and cannot - use it.

The law doesn't require professionalism, respect,or courtesy. Hopefully the department sort that out.

Gat0rs wrote:

Originalist wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote:A search based on what? Better get a warrant!!!

When I said search I was referring to Terry which also says you don't need a warrant with RS.

Um, without consent you need a warrant unless a few exigent circumstances exist... Regardless PC is needed for a search/search warrant, not RS... I believe you may have just tipped your hand as to your level of "expertise"

I think he is referring to a Terry Stop (aka, stop and frisk). You only need reasonable suspicion, but if such suspicion is not present, all evidence found is suppressible. This is a very common argument in criminal defense cases.

EEllis wrote:Everyone who thinks thats what the cop will report as his RS, that the guy was "walking with a gun" and that's it needs to get a grip.

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote:A search based on what? Better get a warrant!!!

When I said search I was referring to Terry which also says you don't need a warrant with RS.

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote:How can you articulate that I am being detained if you don't tell me what crime you suspect me of? Whats supposed to stop me from walking off? Just because you tell me I'm detained? How long are we going to stand there and stare at each other?

Not to you, they must be able to do so for a court. To you "stop" is considered good enough.

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote:

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you. There never should have been an opportunity for the officer to gauge attitude because there never should have been a stop.
Or maybe you don't have have a problem with "let me see your papers".

No, wrong, massively wrong. First the cop is free to walk up and make contact with anyone so they easily could of gauge many things. Second they don't need probably cause they need reasonable suspicion to investigate and SCOTUS has said , and I repeat myself, that the cops need to be able to articulate a reason that a reasonable person could believe. That's it. And when stopped he could of told them that he refused to give ID, except for his CHL, refused to say squat, let them check his gun out and if they didn't quickly let him leave then I would say the cops were totally wrong.

Therein lies the problem.. In Terry v. Ohio, in order for the cops to lawfully detain you, they must have RS. RS of a crime that has occurred, is occurring or will occur. In this case, rudely displaying a gun in not a crime therefore the detention is unlawful. Someone calling to report a man with a gun, when it is lawful activity, without some other information, does not give RS to a cop to make a detention. We dont surrender our rights because someone feels icky or uncomfortable. If the detention is unlawful then so is the search (running of numbers, looking the gun over) as well as the seizure of property (disarming) however, Texas does allow a cop to disarm a CHLer given some broad, easily manipulated circumstances (I say that because what judge isn't going to err on the side of officer safety, regardless). Now, since it doesnt appear they asked for ID, there was no duty to show CHL even if the lawful demand is in question. Traffic stop = lawful detention, this situation does not appear to be, IMHO.

Now, had the cop been a tad smarter, here is what I would have said... Some called and reported a man with a gun, I drove by to check you out and I noticed that the gun is an AR style rifle and if it was select fire, would be subject to the NFA. I am lawfully detaining you until I determine that the rifle you are carrying is semi auto only or that you have the required paperwork if it is select fire. BAM! RS explained and disarming to determine ok... I will say, the 2A proponent that I am, I would never pursue a course such as this. That is also why I will most likely never OC a AR like that because I dont want any cop to have any reason to come talk to me. I do OC a handgun in Virginia and Pennsylvania (where it is legal to do so) because then that NFA bug cant bite me.

Well the problem with that is that there is nothing in the law that makes the cop tell the person they stopped why they are doing so. The cops must be able to articulate it to the court but not on the street, by law policy may be different. All it takes is one clever, articulate, cop and it's a good stop. We don't know why they stopped him so it is not possible to make a pronouncement on the RS involved.

EEllis wrote:

Gat0rs wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Gat0rs wrote:

EEllis wrote:
And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.

I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.

I'm not going to argue with you but yes they can. Running down a city street a 2am in street clothes is totally legal but if the cop can articulate why he felt it was suspicious then he is allowed to briefly stop the person to investigate. Can't arrest, can't make him stop, but can investigate.

You are arguing against even yourself.

Let me rephrase then to make it more direct while you ignore facts for pedantic nonsense, "can't prevent him from continuing the actions after the stop."

sjfcontrol wrote:

Originalist wrote:[ That is also why I will most likely never OC a AR like that because I dont want any cop to have any reason to come talk to me. I do OC a handgun in Virginia and Pennsylvania (where it is legal to do so) because then that NFA bug cant bite me.

Really? Handguns can be full-auto too. Glock 18C for example...
So if that's all it takes for RS, then it could apply to anybody with a firearm -- well, other than a revolver, I guess.

[youtube][/youtube]