Monroe County Sheriff R. Lutz -1

[Destro]

Correct, saying that the only way you'll see satisfaction is through suit and saying to file said suit are two different things.

why would you care about the complaint process if the only way he will get "satisfaction" is in court?

 

[Destro]

Rights were violated here in case you missed that.

still tryiing to figure out what rights were violated

 

[Kutnupe14]

... yours is replete with so many cites and I.C. items that it could be the basis for another wallet tri-fold for instances such as this. THANK YOU, sir for your excellent job! Another question: any LEO can ask us for all sorts of information on our citizen status. So, do LEOs have I.D. cards we can ask for in order to prove that the LEO is really an LEO? What are the State / County names / numbers for tis proof? Thanks. EBG

Yep, and I have been asked exactly that before.

 

[pearlman1966]

why would you care about the complaint process if the only way he will get "satisfaction" is in court?

Be careful. You are about to be number 5 on TJ's ignore list.

 

[jon5212]

still tryiing to figure out what rights were violated

Most likely an illegal stop. Once the OP produced his LTCH the sheriff should have shut his pie hole and let the citizen go about his business.

 

[Hotdoger]

Yep, and I have been asked exactly that before.

So disobeying a police order is not illegal?

 

[sharkey]

So disobeying a police order is not illegal?

A legal police order, or an illegal police order?

 

[Hotdoger]

A legal police order, or an illegal police order?

What would it matter at the time?

 

[Hotdoger]

A legal police order, or an illegal police order?

Also with the LEO having immunity the chances of what he did in this case being declared illegal is nonexisitant.

 

[GBuck]

So disobeying a police order is not illegal?

A legal police order, or an illegal police order?

What would it matter at the time?

The "Failure to Obey a Lawful Order" charge applies to traffic instances. There is not a law otherwise. What you would end up getting into is resisting law enforcement, and he at no point did that. Now, if the officer says you're under arrest, you best cooperate and sort it out in court later.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

why would you care about the complaint process if the only way he will get "satisfaction" is in court?

Well if you can't figure out how to build a case, that's not my problem.

 

[jgreiner]

I approve of this post

then why are you here? Forums have enough trolls.

 

[CX1]

The police are allowed to lie when questioning someone correct?
They use it as a tool to get people to confess or otherwise incriminate themselves.
So it seems to me the officer simply telling you that you should cover up your weapon because it is illegal to OC is not a Rights violation. He simply lied, which he is allowed to do.
Now had the officer demanded that you comply and threaten you with arrest if you did not it might be different. But it doesn't really seem like that was the case here. It seems more like he was seeing how much he could talk you into doing.
He asked you for your LTCH and your DL and you complied. You were not operating or even in your vehicle. How would he know you even had a car? He got you to easily give up your 4th amendment right (the DL) so why not try for the 2nd as well?
I don't believe he can get in trouble for trying to trick you. There were no cuffs or 'safety checks' or any of any multitude of things he could have done to really mess up your day. He fished a little (which is a legitimate way some crime is prevented, just look at the 'routine traffic stop yields big bust' type stories) you nibbled but didn't bite and so you were free to swim away.

 

[SideArmed]

The police are allowed to lie when questioning someone correct?
They use it as a tool to get people to confess or otherwise incriminate themselves.
So it seems to me the officer simply telling you that you should cover up your weapon because it is illegal to OC is not a Rights violation. He simply lied, which he is allowed to do.
Now had the officer demanded that you comply and threaten you with arrest if you did not it might be different. But it doesn't really seem like that was the case here. It seems more like he was seeing how much he could talk you into doing.
He asked you for your LTCH and your DL and you complied. You were not operating or even in your vehicle. How would he know you even had a car? He got you to easily give up your 4th amendment right (the DL) so why not try for the 2nd as well?
I don't believe he can get in trouble for trying to trick you. There were no cuffs or 'safety checks' or any of any multitude of things he could have done to really mess up your day. He fished a little (which is a legitimate way some crime is prevented, just look at the 'routine traffic stop yields big bust' type stories) you nibbled but didn't bite and so you were free to swim away.

Prior to July 1st of last year, I might be inclined to say that you are right. But if you go back and read everything that has been posted here about the state preemption laws, you might change your opinion on that subject.
The police officer insisting that he cover his firearm is regulating the carry of said firearm, which as pointed out earlier, is against the law.

 

[Destro]

Most likely an illegal stop. Once the OP produced his LTCH the sheriff should have shut his pie hole and let the citizen go about his business.

but he was never detained, by the OP's posts, im inclined to believe he was free to leave at any time. You can't let the cops in you house and then yell about your 4th amendment

 

[Destro]

Well if you can't figure out how to build a case, that's not my problem.

what does that even mean?

 

[Destro]

then why are you here? Forums have enough trolls.

this is the interwebs....serious business

 

[Destro]

The police officer insisting that he cover his firearm is regulating the carry of said firearm, which as pointed out earlier, is against the law.

but cops can't make laws/policy/code/etc., For preemption to even be a factor, the rule would need to come from a body with the power to make such a rule.

under your arguement, we would have to assume police officers have the power to make their own laws and unless some type of preemption statute is in place, it is valid

 

[Titanium_Frost]

but cops can't make laws/policy/code/etc., For preemption to even be a factor, the rule would need to come from a body with the power to make such a rule.

Please cite your source for this information. Or at least your reasoning as to why the agents of a political subdivision are somehow not capable of making or enforcing rules and policies of that sibdivision.

under your arguement, we would have to assume police officers have the power to make their own laws and unless some type of preemption statute is in place, it is valid

Um... there IS a very specific preemption statute in place that covers this exact thing as I have posted and cited several times. They do not have to power to MAKE laws, they CAN however enforce policies by their actions. These do not need to be written down or approved by any governing body to infringe on a citizen's rights therefore they are included in the preemption.

 

[japartridge]

Update

Called in to the Sheriff's office to get a status update, was transferred to Chief Deputy Mike Pershing, of course I received no answer so I left a VM with both my cell number and email requesting a status update. Let's see where that gets me.


Jason