Interesting

[baldeagle]

Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly.

I have never claimed that. I didn't claim that in the post you quote. In fact I gave you SCOTUS cites for all four cases that address what officers can do without a warrant in the field in the circumstances that surround this case.

Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others.

All of which I gave you above - unless you're contending there is one I didn't address, in which case please cite the case and precedent.

That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption. The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so.

Officers may disarm you during a stop if they feel threatened. The rifle was slung across his chest in the normal manner of carry. At no time did he threaten the officers, which he pointed out. The officer didn't even know about his .45 until he told him about it. Or are you contending that the mere presence of the rifle is threatening? If so, that's an interesting claim, because that seems to be precisely the reason the officer chose to disarm him.

After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction

Precisely at what point did he obstruct the officers? Please be specific.

and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.

So you consider a law abiding citizen asking an officer why they are being detained and disarmed obstruction?

And BTW, he was not charged with obstruction. He was charged with interfering with public duties.

Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:

(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

Please describe where the criminal negligence occurred.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are a LEO. (No offense meant to the many fine LEO members of this forum, for whom I have the greatest respect.)

[EEllis]

Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly.

I have never claimed that. I didn't claim that in the post you quote. In fact I gave you SCOTUS cites for all four cases that address what officers can do without a warrant in the field in the circumstances that surround this case.

Oh but you did when you said

So you think RS gives the police the right to seize your property and search your person without a warrant. You're wrong, but you clearly don't think so, so there's not much point in arguing any further.

But you did contradict yourself later and admit that RS could justify some search and seizures without warrants, but then you try and link Terry with this stop and since it doesn't fit Terry you say is legal. The fact that it doesn't fit Terry means That it doesn't fit Terry, that is not an indicator of it's legality.

Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others.

All of which I gave you above - unless you're contending there is one I didn't address, in which case please cite the case and precedent.

Are you honestly saying you think you addressed every case possible or acceptable? And how would it matter? I say I'm using Terry as an example and you say "I gave a buch of examples!" So?

That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption. The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so.

Officers may disarm you during a stop if they feel threatened. The rifle was slung across his chest in the normal manner of carry. At no time did he threaten the officers, which he pointed out. The officer didn't even know about his .45 until he told him about it. Or are you contending that the mere presence of the rifle is threatening? If so, that's an interesting claim, because that seems to be precisely the reason the officer chose to disarm him.

I don't know and I fail to see how you could. Unless we go back to the internet mind reading thing. SCOTUS has said that RS is entirely subjective and it matters what the cop know or believes more than what the actual facts are. Until the RS for the stop is expressed, to a court not an aside by an office at the scene, pretending you know what an individual judge will decide about it is absurd. I wouldn't call slinging a rifle across your chest "The normal way to carry a rifle" I would of thought that slinging over the shoulder would be though I have no idea if it had any effect on the officers RS. I never said he threatened the officers but he doesn't have to if they have RS. I don't care about the .45 because at the time I think the cops had decieded they had PC for an arrest and thus could do a full and complete search.

After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction

Precisely at what point did he obstruct the officers? Please be specific.

The whole time on the tape he was being as disagreeable as possible. He yells, physically resist , fails to follow orders, the whole video I saw.

and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.

So you consider a law abiding citizen asking an officer why they are being detained and disarmed obstruction?

And BTW, he was not charged with obstruction. He was charged with interfering with public duties.

Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:

(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

Please describe where the criminal negligence occurred.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are a LEO. (No offense meant to the many fine LEO members of this forum, for whom I have the greatest respect.)

[/quote]

You do realise that criminal negligence is an amazingly low bar right? It sounds bad but in legal speak it actually shows the lowest level of culpability in a crime. That you don't have to intend to violate a law but you do so thru negligence, ignorance, or recklessness not direct intent. So yes he impeded the officers the whole time.

[Originalist]

You keep muddying the waters between RS and PC... RS is needed for a Terry Stop (including a simple frisk for weapons for Officer safety). However PC is needed in every circumstance (other then a consent search). Whether that PC has to be relayed to a judge for a warrant is excepted in few circumstances called exigent circumstances BUT they have to be executed in good faith and within reason. One's reason would be left up to a judge to decide and an appeals court to consider (no doubt).

Searches incident to apprehension have even been limited in scope since 2009. They must meet one of a two part test... To search me, my belongings, etc. One would need PC that I committed a crime BUT if the detention is ruled a detention without RS then EVERYTHING is a wash. If the detention is ruled a consenual encounter, then you get what you get and you dont throw a fit. That is why the first question should always be "Am I being detained" followed by "What crime am I suspected of committing" and lastly "I do not consent to this encounter and I do not consent to any search or seizure of my person or property" After you establish your lack of consent, anything further to limit your free movement is a detention and RS is needed.

If the cops did get the call, the correct thing should be to drive by, maybe even engage in a consensual encounter, but given his actions hadnt violated any law, there isnt much more the cop could do... Do we not live in a society where I am considered lawful unless I demonstrate otherwise? Why should I, who never committed a crime, be forced to give up my rights (while I am performing lawful activities) because of other peoples crimes?

[jimlongley]

Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly.

I have never claimed that. I didn't claim that in the post you quote. In fact I gave you SCOTUS cites for all four cases that address what officers can do without a warrant in the field in the circumstances that surround this case.

Oh but you did when you said

So you think RS gives the police the right to seize your property and search your person without a warrant. You're wrong, but you clearly don't think so, so there's not much point in arguing any further.

But you did contradict yourself later and admit that RS could justify some search and seizures without warrants, but then you try and link Terry with this stop and since it doesn't fit Terry you say is legal. The fact that it doesn't fit Terry means That it doesn't fit Terry, that is not an indicator of it's legality.

Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others.

All of which I gave you above - unless you're contending there is one I didn't address, in which case please cite the case and precedent.

Are you honestly saying you think you addressed every case possible or acceptable? And how would it matter? I say I'm using Terry as an example and you say "I gave a buch of examples!" So?

That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption. The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so.

Officers may disarm you during a stop if they feel threatened. The rifle was slung across his chest in the normal manner of carry. At no time did he threaten the officers, which he pointed out. The officer didn't even know about his .45 until he told him about it. Or are you contending that the mere presence of the rifle is threatening? If so, that's an interesting claim, because that seems to be precisely the reason the officer chose to disarm him.

I don't know and I fail to see how you could. Unless we go back to the internet mind reading thing. SCOTUS has said that RS is entirely subjective and it matters what the cop know or believes more than what the actual facts are. Until the RS for the stop is expressed, to a court not an aside by an office at the scene, pretending you know what an individual judge will decide about it is absurd. I wouldn't call slinging a rifle across your chest "The normal way to carry a rifle" I would of thought that slinging over the shoulder would be though I have no idea if it had any effect on the officers RS. I never said he threatened the officers but he doesn't have to if they have RS. I don't care about the .45 because at the time I think the cops had decieded they had PC for an arrest and thus could do a full and complete search.

After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction

Precisely at what point did he obstruct the officers? Please be specific.

The whole time on the tape he was being as disagreeable as possible. He yells, physically resist , fails to follow orders, the whole video I saw.

and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.

So you consider a law abiding citizen asking an officer why they are being detained and disarmed obstruction?

And BTW, he was not charged with obstruction. He was charged with interfering with public duties.

Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:

(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

Please describe where the criminal negligence occurred.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you are a LEO. (No offense meant to the many fine LEO members of this forum, for whom I have the greatest respect.)

You do realise that criminal negligence is an amazingly low bar right? It sounds bad but in legal speak it actually shows the lowest level of culpability in a crime. That you don't have to intend to violate a law but you do so thru negligence, ignorance, or recklessness not direct intent. So yes he impeded the officers the whole time.[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your quotes seem to have lost sequence, so it's a little confusing, but I think above you state that carrying a rifle across the chest is not normal. I ask, considering the wealth of picture in the media showing people doing just that, how is it not normal?

And even if it was not "normal" it still doesn't rise to the level of RS, which means there was no PC, which means even if he was resisting, which the video shows no real evidence of, he was not only well within his rights to do so, but the cops in this case need to be arrested. Being disagreeable about an illegal stop, search, and seizure, is pretty much a natural reaction.

Do you ever actually just answer a question presented to you?

[baldeagle]

Do you ever actually just answer a question presented to you?

Oh, that's easy. No. He's right and everyone else is wrong, and if you don't interpret the law the way he does you're stupid, but he'll do his best to educate you.

[EEllis]

You keep muddying the waters between RS and PC... RS is needed for a Terry Stop (including a simple frisk for weapons for Officer safety). However PC is needed in every circumstance (other then a consent search). Whether that PC has to be relayed to a judge for a warrant is excepted in few circumstances called exigent circumstances BUT they have to be executed in good faith and within reason. One's reason would be left up to a judge to decide and an appeals court to consider (no doubt).

Searches incident to apprehension have even been limited in scope since 2009. They must meet one of a two part test... To search me, my belongings, etc. One would need PC that I committed a crime BUT if the detention is ruled a detention without RS then EVERYTHING is a wash. If the detention is ruled a consenual encounter, then you get what you get and you dont throw a fit. That is why the first question should always be "Am I being detained" followed by "What crime am I suspected of committing" and lastly "I do not consent to this encounter and I do not consent to any search or seizure of my person or property" After you establish your lack of consent, anything further to limit your free movement is a detention and RS is needed.

If the cops did get the call, the correct thing should be to drive by, maybe even engage in a consensual encounter, but given his actions hadnt violated any law, there isnt much more the cop could do... Do we not live in a society where I am considered lawful unless I demonstrate otherwise? Why should I, who never committed a crime, be forced to give up my rights (while I am performing lawful activities) because of other peoples crimes?

I'm not muddiying anything. I will say that almost everything you say here about RS and PC I've said in one form or another except where you said that PC is needed in every circumstance. I don't understand how people are assuming there is no RS. We have idea what the officers RS was. Maybe someone reported shots, threats, etc. the cop could of been getting out of the car to approach and observed behavior that gave RS. We don't know so saying there isn't proper RS is an obvious intellectual dishonesty. Mind you at least one of the cops comes off like an idiot and there could very well be an issue with the RS and I'd have to eat a bit of crow. As to proper behavior for the police officers legally they don't have to be professional. I have never said that I approved or agreed with this stop or how it ended up, just on the legality as I see it. I don't see the benefit to pretending that the courts think like we do. Now that someone would attempt to make a case changing some or any of the generally accepted standards is fine by me, we need some things rolled back, but even there it seems common sense to acknowledge that is what one is doing, attempting to change precedent, rather than pretending precedent favors you.

[bdickens]

I submit that a man wearing nail polish is not normal, definitely suspicious, but hardly presents justification for the police to stop him.

[The Annoyed Man]

I submit that a man wearing nail polish is not normal, definitely suspicious, but hardly presents justification for the police to stop him.

Well it depends......is it on his toes or fingers?

[EEllis]

Your quotes seem to have lost sequence, so it's a little confusing, but I think above you state that carrying a rifle across the chest is not normal. I ask, considering the wealth of picture in the media showing people doing just that, how is it not normal?

Actualy I think that I said if someone said a person was carrying a rifle slung in a "normal manner" I would assume it was slung over the sholder. The pictures of people carrying rifles across the chest are of people using what I would consider combat rigs and I have no idea if it played any part in the officers RS

And even if it was not "normal" it still doesn't rise to the level of RS, which means there was no PC, which means even if he was resisting, which the video shows no real evidence of, he was not only well within his rights to do so, but the cops in this case need to be arrested. Being disagreeable about an illegal stop, search, and seizure, is pretty much a natural reaction.

I never said it played any part in the RS so the fact that it doesn't effect RS does not mean there is no RS. I also think you are stuck on viewing RS thru your own eyes which isn't how it works. If the officer can articulate to the court an explanation for RS that a judge believes a reasonable person would believe then there is RS. You are right though if there is no RS then everything after is done because without RS then there is no legal police action for him to obstruct. As to arresting the cops, even if the court finds the RS insufficient that does not automatically that the cops did something legally actionable.

Do you ever actually just answer a question presented to you?

I try but most have been statements not questions and a lot of the questions are of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of deal.

[jimlongley]

Your quotes seem to have lost sequence, so it's a little confusing, but I think above you state that carrying a rifle across the chest is not normal. I ask, considering the wealth of picture in the media showing people doing just that, how is it not normal?

Actualy I think that I said if someone said a person was carrying a rifle slung in a "normal manner" I would assume it was slung over the sholder. The pictures of people carrying rifles across the chest are of people using what I would consider combat rigs and I have no idea if it played any part in the officers RS

And even if it was not "normal" it still doesn't rise to the level of RS, which means there was no PC, which means even if he was resisting, which the video shows no real evidence of, he was not only well within his rights to do so, but the cops in this case need to be arrested. Being disagreeable about an illegal stop, search, and seizure, is pretty much a natural reaction.

I never said it played any part in the RS so the fact that it doesn't effect RS does not mean there is no RS. I also think you are stuck on viewing RS thru your own eyes which isn't how it works. If the officer can articulate to the court an explanation for RS that a judge believes a reasonable person would believe then there is RS. You are right though if there is no RS then everything after is done because without RS then there is no legal police action for him to obstruct. As to arresting the cops, even if the court finds the RS insufficient that does not automatically that the cops did something legally actionable.

Do you ever actually just answer a question presented to you?

I try but most have been statements not questions and a lot of the questions are of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of deal.

Considering the slings available, and the inconvenience of wearing a rifle slung over the shoulder or across the back, these days I would consider across the chest to be as normal as any other manner of carrying slung.

If the cops did not have RS, then they didn't have PC, which I would consider to be legally actionable.

So, are you a LEO?

[puma guy]

Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that, if you have RS, then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can only be done after an arrest has been effected.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?

Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly. Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others. That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption. The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so. After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction, and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.

What I can discern in your various arguments is that the police had RS suspicion for a stop where a citizen in full accordance with his statutorily protected right and ability to openly carry a long arm in Texas and then PC to take it away, remove his personal property, and then handcuff and arrest him. I can't wait for open carry in Texas. I can only hope you are a proponent of OC, then do so, if it passes, and are near the Temple Police so you can allow them to exercise on you all the legal magic you've been spouting. I guess we have a new legal standard: pass laws that provoke and provide "RS" and "PC" for illegal police stops when the citizenry abide by them.

[EEllis]

What I can discern in your various arguments is that the police had RS suspicion for a stop where a citizen in full accordance with his statutorily protected right and ability to openly carry a long arm in Texas and then PC to take it away, remove his personal property, and then handcuff and arrest him. I can't wait for open carry in Texas. I can only hope you are a proponent of OC, then do so, if it passes, and are near the Temple Police so you can allow them to exercise on you all the legal magic you've been spouting. I guess we have a new legal standard: pass laws that provoke and provide "RS" and "PC" for illegal police stops when the citizenry abide by them.

Well I think it's very possible that the police would be able to give a RS for the stop and that assuming they can't have RS is more wish fulfillment than based on any objective reasoning. If they did have RS then I believe the man's own actions in response to a legal stop would have provided PC for an arrest. At the time of an arrest of course the man would be searched and weapons seized. There would've been no other PC for seizing the gun before the PC for the arrest, except it's my belief that most courts would view it acceptable for the police to temp remove even legal firearms in a legal police stop. It is also fair to note that to word seizing would technically fit even a 5 second exam of a firearm to check to see if it had been recently fired, and this is just as an example, but courts have acknowledged there are different degrees to stops, searches, custody, etc. They generally tend to require more proof the more obtrusive an activity is. Since allowing officers a quick check of a firearm is less obtrusive than it being removed from you control for days at end and requiring a legal battle to recover it, well I think the burden on the police will be lower. What might prevent this is a law that states the exercise of the right to open carry where legal to do so cannot in and of itself be used as RS for a stop but even with such a law the RS for this stop may have been possible without having anything to do with the rifle. As to open carry, yes I would be for it and would be happy if it passes and as to Temple PD I have a feeling I would've walked away about 5 min after the initial stop. I understand he might be upset but his failure to control himself is what cause his arrest from my viewpoint. Not that I am giving the cops a pass exactly but you can control yourself you can't control others actions.

[jmra]

[JSThane]

Whew, ten pages (and counting!) of back and forth.

I sincerely doubt the notion that EEllis is a Law Enforcement Officer. The thing is, while the courts do recognize the subjectivity of an officer's observations on a stop, and take them into account during deliberations of what is reasonable or not, it remains that the officer has to have a little thing called "articulable facts" to back up Reasonable Suspicion. A man standing on a street corner with a rifle in hand or slung counts as an articulable fact. I, as the responding officer, can articulate that we received a call of a man with a rifle, and I observed a man with a rifle.

Now, if openly carrying a rifle is NOT a crime, then I have an articulable fact that goes nowhere. The fact supports a legal conclusion. Legally, I can do nothing against him. As a gunnie, I may walk up to him to ask what it is, and keep my eyes/ears open just in case he -might- be doing something, but I have absolutely zero justification to detain him, place him in cuffs, take his gun, or search his pockets. If he says he doesn't want to talk to me, and walks away, I can legally do nothing, no matter how rude or confrontational his attitude may be, no matter whether or not I think he's showing "contempt of cop."

If I receive a report that he aimed the rifle at someone, that would warrant a more serious investigation, request for ID, what is he doing, etc. A report that he fired the weapon would step it up another notch. Him aiming the weapon at me takes it even further. But none of this happened.

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.

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.

[mojo84]

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