The only thing missing (I hope!) is payoffs by unscrupulous competitors to ensure a 'less rigorous', shall we say, inspection regimen for their vehicles/drivers. That situation is ripe for corruption
I think I'm reading this right. Assuming this is in IN, someone called and bssically states that someone was walking down the street doing something that is legal. An officer is called out and sees that not only is he not performing that legal act, but actually carrying a stick.
So now it's just a guy with a bag and a stick. And he (the low) thought that was enough to detain, question, search, and run the guys info. and after 10min or so of his life that he will never get back. Along with making a scene, he gets to go on his way while feeling good about it because he didn't get tazed, arrested, his a$$ kicked, shot, or all the above.
Pretty much it in a nut shell right?
I think I'm reading this right. Assuming this is in IN, someone called and bssically states that someone was walking down the street doing something that is legal. An officer is called out and sees that not only is he not performing that legal act, but actually carrying a stick.
So now it's just a guy with a bag and a stick. And he (the low) thought that was enough to detain, question, search, and run the guys info. and after 10min or so of his life that he will never get back. Along with making a scene, he gets to go on his way while feeling good about it because he didn't get tazed, arrested, his a$$ kicked, shot, or all the above.
Pretty much it in a nut shell right?
No, considering the "town" he was in he now has to worry for weeks if some "detective" will swear out a false warrant.
What was the legitimate reason? It was obvious that he wasn't carrying a rifle.I would say stopping people for the sole purpose of checking ID would be across the line. Asking for ID any time an officer has a legitimate reason for stopping someone is considered normal procedure and how many people with warrants are located.
What was the legitimate reason? It was obvious that he wasn't carrying a rifle.
and of course we all know even if he was, it's not illegal.
I understand driving by and having a look, I just don't think there was any nessesity to stop him, ecspecially with four or five officers.It was a call for service. When people call the police with a concern they expect to have it addressed. The fact that he didn't have a rifle in his hand when the officer arrived doesn't mean he didn't have one when the caller called. A call for service is a legitimate reason for an officer to investigate. Some people go through their daily lives searching for reasons to get their feelings hurt or be pissed off, some don't.
Fixed.Yes, if a citizen calls for the police they will USUALLY respond.
Frank_N_Stein ... clear your inbox. I have something for you.
What town? And what false warrant?