Need Some quick help with a legal question

[Socomike]

Ok, there is the misunderstanding. If that is what happened, then awesome, good job, and assorted other accolades. What you actually wrote was:


The only person named in that entire paragraph is your supervisor, so the pronouns him that I highlighted in red refer to your supervisor. If you meant it referring to the suspect then that changes the whole meaning of your post.

Your original post saying that sounded like a man asking an anonymous group of "internet experts" how to do his job while he was trying to do it.
Your post a few hours later clearly states that now you and your supervisor were the ones hashing out what you knew and didn't know and getting some clarification, not you and the man you stopped. Apparently that is not what happened, so as far as the original encounter last night, kudos.

As far as you insulting me, and swearing at me, and mocking my reading comprehension because you can't write a clear sentence, don't sweat it. I forgive you.

While I can accept that I am not an English major, and that I am a product of public school, I am a college graduate and I understand how to write a clear sentence. If you will notice, I never named the man or my supervisor in any other way than generalities (such as supervisor, the man, him, etc). I can see how that can cause a little confusion. I only wrote it that way because I didn't ask either my supervisors or the subject of the call if I could use there name. For that I apologize.

The only person confused seems to be you. It seems that everyone else either got it on the first try or was able to retread what I typed and understood the meaning. So maybe it wasn't perfect grammar. Maybe your smarter or more studious then I am. In any event, you got it now.

If you were insulted by my post then I apologize. I would recommend thickening your skin because my post was more of a sharp retaliation to your post insinuating that I am incompetent in my job or that I would violate a mans rights to poll twitter. If you are going to make comments like that then be ready for me to ask you to remove your head from your backside.

 

[Benny]

First and foremost, thank you Socomike for actually caring enough to find out the laws that you are there to enforce.

That is pretty messed up though that you have to find out on here. Why is this sort of thing not taught while you are in the academy?

I wholeheartedly believe you are a good guy trying to make a difference in your community, but the fact that POs are out there trying to uphold laws they don't even know is very disturbing.

 

[Hotdoger]

Good job SocoMike!

Lebanon city attorney is another issue.

 

[stephen87]

Terry stop isn't based on a hunch. You need to articulate some criminal activity you believe to be afoot. Open carry of weapons in the wee hours is unusual but not criminal. If you can plausibly connect this to something else, e.g., it's 1:30 and he's carrying weapons openly outside the house of his estranged wife who has a NCO. But the problem here is his location.

You can detain briefly to check the LTCH. That's not a consensual encounter.

On the other hand, if he does consent to stop, present ID, etc., you can check that.

You can always ask. Beyond the LTCH, you can't force anything more. If in the course of the LTCH check you develop reasonable suspicion, then you can prolong the stop. But not solely on a hunch.

In your situation, I would be curious why a person, assuming he had an LTCH, would refuse to show me same, or in the alternative give me his name so dispatch could check on it. This fact is curious, assuming he believed himself to be a law-abiding gun owner... But I wasn't there.

I would be interested to hear what the prosecutor's office tells you.

Your first statement is throwing me off. You say that a Terry stop needs RAS, which is correct, you then state that open carry of a weapon in the morning is NOT illegal. In reality, carrying of a handgun is a criminal activity without a license. Therefore, he does not have to, but he is legally allowed to perform a Terry stop in this situation.

OP, good on you for following up and figuring out what is and is not needed.

LTCH=required for carrying a handgun but not transport of a handgun
long guns do not need any identification

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Posted here for quick results

Im a LEO. We just got a call of a man with a rifle slung on his shoulder walking down the main street in my town. The man also had a pistol OC on his hip. The call came out as a suspicious person call.

My question is this. When arriving, we asked for his ID and handgun license. The man didnt think he needed to provide either. Everything I have seen has been to the contrary.

While carrying both weapons is not illegal in any way (and I like that people exercise these rights) the idea of a man walking at 130 am down main street with a rifle slung is awfully suspicious around here.

The guy turned out to be a nice guy and hes sitting here at my squad car and I would like clarification for me and for him on this subject.

Thanks

It's 20:47 p.m.

Do you know where your Ben Magenheimer is?

Go go Titanium!

 

[Bunnykid68]

It's 20:47 p.m.

Do you know where your Ben Magenheimer is?

Go go Titanium!

That's just wrong, funny, but wrong

The guy you stopped is an effing idiot. How do you carry a long arm(legal) and a handgun(illegal without pink slip) and not know the damn laws. If I or any of the other of 10,000+ people here could have told you on the spot what the law was without looking it up.

 

[Socomike]

First and foremost, thank you Socomike for actually caring enough to find out the laws that you are there to enforce.

That is pretty messed up though that you have to find out on here. Why is this sort of thing not taught while you are in the academy?

I wholeheartedly believe you are a good guy trying to make a difference in your community, but the fact that POs are out there trying to uphold laws they don't even know is very disturbing.

Thanks. I should address a few things here.

The POs I work with are quite knowledgeable in the laws they enforce. Typically, what I have seen is this. Guys (POs) pick a thing they really like, whether it be traffic law, law pertaining to commercial vehicles,or whatever, and they know it inside and out. They enforce it heavily and fairly across the board. They also know the laws pertaining to the things we see day in and day out (Battery, Intimidation, OWI, Public Intox, etc).

They typically have a good idea how other things work that we dont see every day. However, they cant quote the IC code, what the level of charge it is (Misdemeanor or Felony), or what our prosecutors view on it is.

However, in cases like that we have a 24 hour prosecutor that is just a phone call away. In a situation where no one on the call is sure exactly what to do, we call the prosecutor.

So we are never enforcing anything that we dont know what we are doing. It may take a few minutes of us just "keeping the scene safe" while an Officer calls the prosecutor to see if there is anything we can do and how to do it.

I would agree that the academy should teach more criminal law. But as it is, we do a **** ton of criminal law. We do a basic overview of everything. There is so much to cover and so little time. At least our department is good about discussing things out loud and hashing issues out.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why is this sort of thing not taught while you are in the academy?

Because firearms law in a thimble in a sea of law.

Think about what cops deal with the most, right, cars. Cars, protective orders, family law, "babysitting the world", inter alia. The substantive criminal law is only given a thin slice of time.

 

[Scutter01]

I'm not trying to take away from Socomike because I truly think he's doing the right thing, but I wish people would stop throwing out the "there's just so much to knooooow!" excuse for not knowing. There are lots of professions like that, but they're still expected to know. Personally, I spend about 30-40% of my personal time keeping up to date on training for my job. That's a couple of hours per day of my own time outside of the office reading or learning and that's just to stay current. And I don't have a job where people's lives are at stake. Yes, there is a lot of law to know, just like there's a lot of medicine , or aerospace engineering, or any other profession to know, but the reason you're called a "professional" and not an "amateur" is because you're expected to spend the time to become an expert.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is not an excuse, it is an explanation.

Just presenting facts, not making an argument as to what should be.

 

[KJQ6945]

Your first statement is throwing me off. You say that a Terry stop needs RAS, which is correct, you then state that open carry of a weapon in the morning is NOT illegal. In reality, carrying of a handgun is a criminal activity without a license. Therefore, he does not have to, but he is legally allowed to perform a Terry stop in this situation.

OP, good on you for following up and figuring out what is and is not needed.

LTCH=required for carrying a handgun but not transport of a handgun
long guns do not need any identification

Driving a car on the road is illegal. It is made legal by being issued a license by the state.

Because a LEO sees a person operating a vehicle, does he automatically assume they don't have a license? Is operating a vehicle probable cause to stop? No, it's not even reasonable suspicion.

How exactly is this any different than carrying a gun?

 

[Mr. Habib]

Drivers have Delaware v Prouse on their side.

 

[KJQ6945]

Here is an article from the current "Police Chief Magazine". It deals with this very issue.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

I believe they are starting to address this issue, because they've been doing it wrong for a long time, and they're starting to get called on it a lot. Nobody wants to be in a YouTube video.

 

[Socomike]

I'm not trying to take away from Socomike because I truly think he's doing the right thing, but I wish people would stop throwing out the "there's just so much to knooooow!" excuse for not knowing. There are lots of professions like that, but they're still expected to know. Personally, I spend about 30-40% of my personal time keeping up to date on training for my job. That's a couple of hours per day of my own time outside of the office reading or learning and that's just to stay current. And I don't have a job where people's lives are at stake. Yes, there is a lot of law to know, just like there's a lot of medicine , or aerospace engineering, or any other profession to know, but the reason you're called a "professional" and not an "amateur" is because you're expected to spend the time to become an expert.

Like was said before, it is not an excuse but an explanation. I would love to know all of it. I spend a considerable amount of time learning it. But I disagree with the idea that doctors or lawyers or aerospace engineers or whoever know everything about there job. In fact, I think the idea is absurd.

Attorneys spend hours upon hours researching for cases before they go to court to present a case. If the knew everything they would take a case and just schedule court for the next day and wing it based on the fact that they already know it all.

Doctors regularly lean on their peers during operations to make the best, most informed decisions. There are specialty doctors for the situations where a "normal" doctor is out of his league.

I don't know sh*t about aerospace engineering, but I would assume that, just like any other engineering, hours upon hours of research is done for every project they undertake.

If all of this is true, then why are Police Officers required to know all laws ON TOP OF continual weekly, if not monthly, firearms training and proficiency drills and the litigation and ever changing department policies governing the use of, quarterly non lethal weapons training, combatives and hand to hand fighting techniques both defensive and offensive along with the litigation governing the use of, emergency vehicle operation drills and the litigation governing that. ETC

As you can see (and probably already knew) Police Officers are require to know and practice a much wider range of things then you average doctor etc. the fact is, I have never heard anyone require an officer to know it all. I have always been under the impression that we learn as much as we can. We really know the law that governs the things we use most often. We must know generalities of the things we don't use often. Above all we provide safety to all involved in a situation and use our resources, whether it be other police officers or city attorney, or the IC code book, etc, to resolve a situation in an acceptable and legal manner.

 

[purple72]

I wonder if the "there are so many laws I can't possibly know them all" will work for that fella that just got busted in Greenfield?

 

[Socomike]

I wonder if the "there are so many laws I can't possibly know them all" will work for that fella that just got busted in Greenfield?

I'm not sure what the greenfield situation is, but I see what your doing and I don't like it. Excuse me if I'm wrong but you are picking and choosing sentences out of what I've written and completely ignoring supporting sentences and context.

I can confidently say that there is no LEO out there that can quote you every local ordinance, state law, and federal law. My point is that even though we don't know every law on the books, with a little common sense and networking we can resolve a situation safely and concisely without violating someone's rights or doing something illegal ourselves.

If the guy in greenfield did something wrong, I'm going to guess its was a blatant disregard of common sense, the law, his department policy, his ethics, or a combination of some or all if them. Hence, he's an idiot.

If the guy made a honest mistake on an obscure law and didn't bother to double check his work or handled a situation inappropriately then I'm sure they will figure it out in court and he may very well be liable

 

[Bunnykid68]

Soco, I appreciate you trying to further educate yourself, but if one is not sure a law is being broken because of lack of knowledge one should not be bothering the alleged offender at all.

 

[Benny]

Soko, thanks for the clarification.

IIRC, you said you are relatively new to the force, so I have no doubt that one day you will know (the majority of) IC like the back of your hand.

I agree with bunnykid though. If you aren't sure if a law is being broken, you should probably find out first before trying to enforce it.

(I'm not trying to start an argument, just making conversation)

 

[Socomike]

Soko, thanks for the clarification.

IIRC, you said you are relatively new to the force, so I have no doubt that one day you will know (the majority of) IC like the back of your hand.

I agree with bunnykid though. If you aren't sure if a law is being broken, you should probably find out first before trying to enforce it.

(I'm not trying to start an argument, just making conversation)

I appreciate the conversation. Again. I was only bothering the subject because we were getting a flood of calls stating no more than a man was walking down the street with a rifle.

We responded non emergent and no guns were drawn. A conversation took place. I will admit I am only a 1 year veteran at this point. There were a few officers with 10-15 years of experience doing most of the initial interacting.

They asked for ID. He declined. That issue was dropped. He was asked for his handgun license. He declined that as well. At that point he was asked to allow an Officer to disarm him until we could I'd him. He declined. Then he was disarmed. His guns were taken off his person and handed to another Officer who was standing away from the subject.

I don't think we enforced anything we weren't sure about. Being new and never dealing with this, I can admit I was foggy on the specifics. Other officers were not.

 

[KJQ6945]

I appreciate the conversation. Again. I was only bothering the subject because we were getting a flood of calls stating no more than a man was walking down the street with a rifle.

We responded non emergent and no guns were drawn. A conversation took place. I will admit I am only a 1 year veteran at this point. There were a few officers with 10-15 years of experience doing most of the initial interacting.

They asked for ID. He declined. That issue was dropped. He was asked for his handgun license. He declined that as well. At that point he was asked to allow an Officer to disarm him until we could I'd him. He declined. Then he was disarmed. His guns were taken off his person and handed to another Officer who was standing away from the subject.

I don't think we enforced anything we weren't sure about. Being new and never dealing with this, I can admit I was foggy on the specifics. Other officers were not.

I'm playing devils advocate here.

Is responding to a suspicious person call enough to initiate a Terry stop?

When is someone required to provide id because the dept got a phone call (911)?

On what grounds was the guy disarmed?