Interesting

[EEllis]

I believe we are at an impasse. Clearly we have 2 different ideologies and must agree to disagree. I believe in Terry v. Ohio, 10 minutes was considered unreasonable...

I'm not talking about what I want or believe the law should be just how it's practicably applied currently.

[EEllis]

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]

As far as I can tell, your argument is not based in law, but is based on something like: the cop can just make something up and its your word against the cop's word. Sorry, that may be how some people operate, but it is not based in the law.

The officer does have to tell you why you were stopped. Also, if you can show the officer s topped you without reasonable cause and there is some damage, you can sue them under federal law for violation of civil rights under color of law. That what they used to convict police in the south that were violating the rights of blacks, but it is equally applicable to every person's civil rights.

Further, if the police officer gets a call (recorded of course) that a person is walking around with a gun (not in violation of the law) then drives to that person and stops them (recorded on their dash cam, which you can get a copy of) then they have stopped you with no RS because walking around is not cause to stop someone.

But please, continue your arguments as to why the law doesn't work the way the law works.

As far as I can see the arguments here are based on what people want not what the law currently is. I'm sorry you dislike it but I posted a link where SCOTUS says the cops don't have to tell you why you are stopped or why you are arrested. RS is decided by courts not keyboard lawyers. The police officer must be able to give a justification for RS but here is a hint, they will be trying to convince people they were right where you in your version are trying to do the opposite. I have a feeling unless the cop is stupid as a brick the reason for RS is more than he had a gun. If not then the stop was illegal and the obstruction charge should be throw out. 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.

[Originalist]

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"

[Originalist]

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.

Report? That is basically giving him a pass to lie... How about "What specific set of facts gave him RS" because its the facts, not what he reports that matter.

[Gat0rs]

This is the Fourth Circuit... see full article linked below

Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”

http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-la ... of-seizure" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gat0rs]

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.

[Originalist]

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.

That is strictly for weapons as an Officer Safety thing... Its supposed to be cursory and non intrusive....

[EEllis]

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"

What is a "Terry Stop" referred to as such because of the aforementioned Supreme Court case? Currently know as "stop and frisk"? RS is enough to do a limited search for weapons. So yes most cases you do need warrants but Terry is the case that specifies the exceptions and since I mentioned Terry directly well I'll leave the petty oneupmanship to others.

[baldeagle]

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.

A Terry stop gives you the right to do a pat down, not to rifle through the person's belongings or remove their wallet from their pants pocket. And Terry says you don't need PC, not RS, to perform the pat down. You have to have RS. Otherwise the search is illegal.

[EEllis]

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.

Report? That is basically giving him a pass to lie... How about "What specific set of facts gave him RS" because its the facts, not what he reports that matter.

How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://youtu.be/A8r4MK3R4PI

According to his own account, the police approached him, grabbed at his rifle without warning, and then he jumped back and told them they were not taking his rifle. He then proceeds to complain for 10 minutes, insulting the police threatening to sue and so forth.

I'd say this could have been handled much better on both sides.

Yep.

[baldeagle]

How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

[EEllis]

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.

A Terry stop gives you the right to do a pat down, not to rifle through the person's belongings or remove their wallet from their pants pocket. And Terry says you don't need PC, not RS, to perform the pat down. You have to have RS. Otherwise the search is illegal.

Ok now you aren't even reading. Terry is a search if limited and I'm not equating this incident to Terry directly rather responding to a question so your whole rifling and wallet business is off point, and sorry for not writing more simple and through manner. Replace " don't need a warrant with RS" with " don't need a warrant if you have RS" . There make you feel better?

[EEllis]

How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?