stopped by off duty deputy at Wal-Mart

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that makes sense to me.

Realistically, though, what percentage of even the shooting public would do so even it were legal to do so everywhere?

I wonder... but I don't think it would ever be that common a sight.
 
When were his rights violated? I have the right to drive down the street, and if a cop pulls me over they are not violating my rights.

If I was in the store and someone was walking around with a gun on his hip I would be concerned.
from comn-cents post #7 and #9.

Not very common of you to say that a person carrying should 'be checked out'.

Do you get pulled over to see if you have a drivers license or have been drinking??

Maybe OC is not legal in the pacific NW (where ever that is)?? In this state one need not present ID when requested and OCing. Some LEO still like the ego trips.

The 2A applies here. Get it to apply there.
 
I was a resident of Arizona for over 3 years while working at Yuma Army Proving Ground, and I never OCd, and veeeery rarely saw anyone else doing so. So here is one witness....I had the opportunity to OC and did not.

Now, my personal choice is just that, personal....anyone legally OCing should not be singled out by LE just because they are OCing.

There's always two sides to a story, and we weren't there. No one in jail did anything wrong if you ask them, and LE almost always does the right thing if you ask them......this should have been reported through local LE channels to avoid controversy and ensure the rights of law abiding OC practitioners.
 
teeroux

You have been consistently on the side of the deputy in this thread.

So why don't state the articulable reason the deputy had for doing what he did? One that would stand up in a court of law.

Then you can prove all of us unreasonable, anti-police state folks wrong.
 
langenc said:
When were his rights violated? I have the right to drive down the street, and if a cop pulls me over they are not violating my rights.
Click to expand...
If there is no articulable reason to pull you over, they sure as heck ARE violating your rights. Specifically, the 4th Amendment of the Constitution -- unreasonable search and seizure. The police may NOT just arbitrarily pull over any vehicle they see on the road for no reason other than they felt like stopping a green Nissan Altima on Thursday. They have to have a reason. It can be small -- a burned out taillight, or a failure to signal for a lane change -- but they have to have a reason.

Likewise the situation of the OP. What the deputy conducted was an investigative stop and detention. And he had NO justifiable reason for doing so. His reason was that he saw the OP open carrying. Open carry is LEGAL in that state.

End of discussion.
 
Reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime is an awfully low bar, and can easily be manufactured after-the-fact if necessary. "I smelled marahuana smoke coming from the vehicle" (as the officer passes by going 70 mph the other direction), etc.
 
zxcvbob said:
Reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime is an awfully low bar, and can easily be manufactured after-the-fact if necessary. "I smelled marahuana smoke coming from the vehicle" (as the officer passes by going 70 mph the other direction), etc.
Click to expand...
But ... Reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts (it is NOT "reasonable articulable suspicion" -- it is the underlying facts the officer must be able to clearly articulate, not the suspicion) is not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion ONLY allows the officer to conduct a brief investigatory stop. If his initial investigation does not support the "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been committed (or is being committed), his justification ends right there and he has no probable cause to further detain the subject of the investigatory stop.

"You got a license fer thet thar pistol, sonny?"

"Don't need one, Depewty, this here's West-by-God Virginny and open carry's legal here."

"Oh ... Ummm, have a nice day."
 
"You got a license fer thet thar pistol, sonny?"

"Don't need one, Depewty, this here's West-by-God Virginny and open carry's legal here."

"Oh ... Ummm, have a nice day."
Click to expand...

Stated better than I could have.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa- I'm not done with you yet."

"Yes, you are. Goodbye."
 
IANAL, but as soon as the deputy told the OP that he was not free to leave and seized his handgun to run the serial number, I believe the deputy opened himself up to a Federal lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights under color of law.
 
I agree. "Not being detained" does not equal "Not free to leave."

This is a perfect example of why I have my attorney's numbers in my phone. I would have made an immediate call for legal advice while standing there.
 
Quote:
Do you get pulled over to see if you have a drivers license or have been drinking??


There called insurance and DWI checkpoints.
Click to expand...

Indeed, in Texas we now have "no refusal" drunk driver checkpoints that randomly appear.
 
I agree. "Not being detained" does not equal "Not free to leave."

This is a perfect example of why I have my attorney's numbers in my phone. I would have made an immediate call for legal advice while standing there.
Click to expand...

Your attorney would have likely told you to be quiet, consent to nothing, but in no way resist anything either.

I will note in general we have rights. Those rights typically help us, after the fact of the incident. One should never attempt to actively resist, run away, etc. (in general not responding to a particular poster)
 
I only read your OP but that sucks. I probably wouldn't have open carried and just avoided the attention in the first place but if your allowed to and you want to then they can kiss your glass. I would have gotten his name and badge number and then walked away. If he chased me I would have called the police and said one of their deputies was chasing me, I did nothing wrong, and he's trying to illegally stop me. Also, for everyone else saying how did the cop know that he wasn't a criminal, how many gang bangers and felons do you see walking around open carrying?
 
If you are afraid of people with guns why are you on a gun board?
Click to expand...
There's people with guns here? :eek:

... sorry, I couldn't resist. I did want to comment on this though

When were his rights violated? I have the right to drive down the street, and if a cop pulls me over they are not violating my rights.
Click to expand...
Actually they are violating your rights. That just can't pull you over for no reason and even more so, the reason to pull you over must be a primary offense (speeding, running a red light, weaving, reckless driving, ect. Secondary offense can only be addressed if they've pulled you over for a primary offense.

In Minnesota you need a permit to open carry or conceal so open carry can draw you extra scrutiny and hassles that you just don't want. In a state where no permit is required, then to me this is really out of line. There is no justification to detain or even question you. In fact you could argue the opposite is true ... who's going to open carry that isn't legitimate? If it's a bad guy, you can be sure the gun would be hidden. So now your down to he's just giving you a hard time because you are carrying. I'd complain (it's always good to push back).
 
Well the cop certainly did nothing wrong by asking for the permit and ID. Cops are allowed to approach, make conversation, and fish for information. Anything you voluntarily give, whether it is an ID or a search, is on you. A lot of this could have been avoided if you just refused to give your ID over. If he made a fuss and detained you, I would have complied to his commands but made sure as many people as I could were witness to the fact that you were detained. From there, legal action could possibly be taken.

The only thing I saw that the cop did outside of the law was to say you couldn't leave after he said you weren't being detained.
 
Indeed, in Texas we now have "no refusal" drunk driver checkpoints that randomly appear.
Click to expand...

The debate about the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints is for another thread.

However I will say, that even at a no refusal DUI checkpoint, a LEO must demonstrate probable cause as to why he believed the suspect to be under the influence. In fact the testing and standard at a checkpoint is even more rigorous than on a regular traffic stop. Before, they can even ask if you want to blow in the breathalyzer, or submit to a forced, court ordered blood sample; certain strict standards must be met.

Also, DUI checkpoints and traffic stops in general are hardly analogous to a man minding his own business in Wal-mart.

Get in through your head people, the act of OCing IS NOT probable cause for anything.
 
Quote:
Indeed, in Texas we now have "no refusal" drunk driver checkpoints that randomly appear.
The debate about the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints is for another thread.

However I will say, that even at a no refusal DUI checkpoint, a LEO must demonstrate probable cause as to why he believed the suspect to be under the influence. In fact the testing and standard at a checkpoint is even more rigorous than on a regular traffic stop. Before, they can even ask if you want to blow in the breathalyzer, or submit to a forced, court ordered blood sample; certain strict standards must be met.
Click to expand...

Actually...I don't think that is the case at this point. I think PC is there, but they also randomly pull drivers - ala Homeland Security as well.


Get in through your head people, the act of OCing IS NOT probable cause for anything.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was, but since we're there...
*I saw a person with a loaded firearm in a Walmart. This struck me as being strongly out of place.
*He did not appear to be a police officer, and I was suspicious that this might be incident to a robbery that was occurring or about to occur as has happened in several big box stores recently, so I decided to investigate. Upon further investigation I determined he wasn't. End of story.

I am not saying the OC is right. I was not there, and anything beyond a quick stop should have been sufficient. I could see the above statement being made though.
 
Last edited:
IMHO No harm no foul.
Click to expand...

If he is detained, he is out the time he is detained.

If the LE saw an armed man how does he know he isn't a restricted person??
Click to expand...

"If the LE saw a man driving on a Public street, how does he know that person has a license?"

Or, does he just pull over everybody at a whim, instead of having "articulable" probable cause?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top