Out Rage at sbpd!

[handgun]

That is a good question. Does a 911 call constitute PC on it's own?

I don't know, lets reference a few things.

Autopsy Suggests Man Shot by NY Police Did Not Threaten Them | TightWind

Police Kill Teenager and Blame Man that Called 911 | EUR This N That | Urban Black News Blog

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITrYTm9CXcc[/ame]

Montrose Colorado News, Information, Sports, CommunityColorado Radio

9above because of a tip) maybe 911 or just to the local cops who knows..

Maybe it is.. here is an animal story to tug at your heart strings
Officer shoots man's dog after 911 caller gives wrong address - U.S. News

the above are just a few of the highlighted cases i can remember easily with in the last year or sooner..

all pretty much because of 911 calls...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Maybe when they pulled up and asked him where his weapons were and he told them that might have gave them PC to proceed since I believe the 911 caller stated that he was armed.

Good point! That is the point at which saying nothing would be usefull.

 

[serpicostraight]

Seek retribution? I think you mean "redress". You seeking retribution would only turn VERY BADLY for you. "Being mistreated" is a very broad phrase. Mistreated how? For example, if I arrest you (with PC) and you feel that I have no PC, that you are innocent, you want to legally resist me? Ain't gonna happen. You will lose and the magnitude of your loss will be based on your level of resistance. When it comes to resistors, I WIN!!! Every time. See the meaning of "probable cause" means that you "probably" did it. Does not mean you 100% did it. I does not mean you are guilty. You could be 100% innocent but PC can still exist. Your remedy to this is through the courts, not on the street.

resistance is futile subject. when the gods with badges speak drop to your knees and thank them for allowing you to live. and btw if they start questioning your dog tell him to do the same.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

PC? We are dealing with reasonable suspicion. PC is what is needed for arrest, not to detain someone for a criminal investigation. RS is a MUCH lower standard.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that? It bugs me almost as much as clip/magazine...

 

[DadOfFour]

That is a good question. Does a 911 call constitute PC on it's own?

Negative.

C'mon, as a police officer you must know that there is no IC code for such things, actions are guided by case law/court decisions. Warrantless entry is permissible for some domestic violence calls based on the facts and circumstances available at the time. Again, as a LEO you know that PC is not needed to stop,disarm, enter property...only reasonable suspicion that a crime is or has just occurred. Calls to 911 can be RS depending on information given.

Again, negative. Not in and of themselves. It's a totality of circumstances. So in this case we've got a 911 call, exact contents of which are unknown, a compliant subject at the scene (I'm taking the OPs word that he acted how he said he did), presumably no outwards signs of a struggle having taken place. Please, articulate your RS for forcibly entering the property and disarming him. (I realize you weren't the responding Officer, but put yourself in his shoes and articulate the RS)

I'm sorry, I was in a hurry while typing due to a crazy child harassing me (my 5year old kept trying to grab my gun while I typed lol) I should have included case law in my comment. If you can't cite an IC then please cite the case.

PC? We are dealing with reasonable suspicion. PC is what is needed for arrest, not to detain someone for a criminal investigation. RS is a MUCH lower standard.

True, but as stated above a 911 call in and of itself doesn't equal RS.

 

[KG1]

You are correct. RS is needed to proceed with an investigation to see if there is PC to make an arrest. I get it.

 

[DadOfFour]

Good point! That is the point at which saying nothing would be usefull.

Based on my understanding of existing law and case law, I'd say that's pretty thin grounds for PC. However that's why ANY time I inform that I'm carrying the FIRST words out of my mouth are, "My LTCH is located X (wherever I happen to be carrying my wallet) and my gun is located Y." As shown by Case Law, as soon as the LTCH is presented questions re the gun need to stop.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Based on my understanding of existing law and case law, I'd say that's pretty thin grounds for PC. However that's why ANY time I inform that I'm carrying the FIRST words out of my mouth are, "My LTCH is located X (wherever I happen to be carrying my wallet) and my gun is located Y." As shown by Case Law, as soon as the LTCH is presented questions re the gun need to stop.

I read it as RS and not PC. I was inputting it myself becuase I thought that was what he meant.

I personally never inform of my carry status, many times I am OCing so it is pretty obvious. If I was asked to hand over my gun first, then I would state I had my LTCH and they were welcome to verify it.

 

[KG1]

Based on my understanding of existing law and case law, I'd say that's pretty thin grounds for PC. However that's why ANY time I inform that I'm carrying the FIRST words out of my mouth are, "My LTCH is located X (wherever I happen to be carrying my wallet) and my gun is located Y." As shown by Case Law, as soon as the LTCH is presented questions re the gun need to stop.

Does this also apply when there is a report of possible DV perpetrated by someone who may be armed? Is someone that holds an LTCH suddenly not capable of commiting DV?

I don't think you would have much luck convincing them to drop all inquiries about the firearm just by producing an LTCH in such a case.

I do believe if they have any reason to believe you may be a danger then they are authorized to take possession of that firearm, even if you produce an LTCH, until such a time that it can be determined you are not. Which I believe happened in this case and they returned the firearm albeit sans ammunition.

EDIT: I don't see any mention in the OP of the firearm being returned just the ammunition deposited on the floorboard.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Sounds like a low-grade SWAT-ing.

 

[Tebow]

I sorry, but i don't buy this story.


So whats the end game here. last we know, they were berating your wife in front of your kids while you are being pressed against your car...ALL while in your own drive way on your way to your new job. Did they all just run off? Did they scatter like roaches? Did they rope a tornado and ride it into the sky? Did Moses show up and proclaim let my people go and the cops all got banished to the phantom zone?

Like I said, i don't buy it. Are you a troll? are you stretching your creative writing skills? Is this just a dream you had?

Not saying I believe the OP or not but..

 

[Denny347]

Negative.


Again, negative. Not in and of themselves. It's a totality of circumstances. So in this case we've got a 911 call, exact contents of which are unknown, a compliant subject at the scene (I'm taking the OPs word that he acted how he said he did), presumably no outwards signs of a struggle having taken place. Please, articulate your RS for forcibly entering the property and disarming him. (I realize you weren't the responding Officer, but put yourself in his shoes and articulate the RS)

I'm sorry, I was in a hurry while typing due to a crazy child harassing me (my 5year old kept trying to grab my gun while I typed lol) I should have included case law in my comment. If you can't cite an IC then please cite the case.


True, but as stated above a 911 call in and of itself doesn't equal RS.

Actually the 911 call is CRUCIAL to determining whether the officers were reasonable or not and if there was RS to investigate a crime. If the 911 call was anonymous and gave nothing other than male/female arguing...anything more than a drive-by and asking if all are ok is intrusive. Example, I get annon 911 call that neighbors are "fighting" and that is it. No specifics definition of fighting. Does it mean verbal only, does it mean he is beating the crap out of her. Since it is annon I cannot verify the validity of the caller. IT could be anyone. However, I still have to respond. But in this case I decide to knock on the door and ask if all are ok. I will see how they respond and without any other signs of violence, be on my way...having never entered the house (unless they invite me) and having not taken more than a minute of their time. They do not have to answer the door nor do they have to answer my questions. However, if the 911 caller gave their own address, name, contact number and gave VERY specific details of the assault, details that only a witness to the event could describe, that could very well be RS and enough to stop the parties to investigate. Now on arriving of said domestic, I hear screaming from in the house and no response at the door I can make forced entry if I believe someone is being harmed inside. In the OP, he was stopped in his driveway. No entry (that was described) to the house was made, the intrusion was minimal. If the LEWO's had a valid reason to investigate a DV report, I doubt you will find ANY judge that will poo poo the police for disarming the suspects only during the course of the investigation. I bet you didn't know I can take all the guns in the house if an officer believes the weapons place the DV victim in harms way.

IC 35-33-1-1.5
Crime involving domestic or family violence; duties of law enforcement officers; confiscation of firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon
Sec. 1.5. (a) A law enforcement officer responding to the scene of an alleged crime involving domestic or family violence shall use all reasonable means to prevent further violence, including the following:
(1) Transporting or obtaining transportation for the alleged victim and each child to a designated safe place to meet with a domestic violence counselor, local family member, or friend.
(2) Assisting the alleged victim in removing toiletries, medication, and necessary clothing.
(3) Giving the alleged victim immediate and written notice of the rights under IC 35-40.
(b) A law enforcement officer may confiscate and remove a firearm, ammunition, or a deadly weapon from the scene if the law enforcement officer has:
(1) probable cause to believe that a crime involving domestic or family violence has occurred;
(2) a reasonable belief that the firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon:
(A) exposes the victim to an immediate risk of serious bodily injury; or
(B) was an instrumentality of the crime involving domestic or family violence; and
(3) observed the firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon at the scene during the response.
(c) If a firearm, ammunition, or a deadly weapon is removed from

the scene under subsection (b), the law enforcement officer shall provide for the safe storage of the firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon during the pendency of a proceeding related to the alleged act of domestic or family violence.
As added by P.L.133-2002, SEC.60.


http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Excerpt from the dissension:
The dissent also notes that “a respectable argument could be made that police response to a report of domestic violence is an exigent circumstance justifying entry into a home without a search warrant.” However, since no domestic violence charges were filed, that exigent circumstance is without merit. In addition, once the officers saw that there was no domestic violence, only a domestic dispute, they had no grounds for remaining on the scene.


http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpub
Excerpt from the article:
The emergency aid doctrine permits
police officers, in their communitycaretaking function, to make warrantless entries and searches when
they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate
aid because the need to protect or
preserve life or avoid serious injury
is justification for what would be
otherwise illegal absent an exigency
or emergency. Mincey v. Arizona,
437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978). The
emergency circumstances doctrine
is viewed by some as independent
from exigent circumstances, and by
others as a subcategory of the exigent circumstances doctrine.
The rationale for the emergency aid
doctrine is that because officers
who act under the doctrine are not
conducting a law enforcement mission, the officers may do so without
either obtaining a warrant or
demonstrating the presence of probable cause or exigent circumstances. The doctrine attempts to
strike a balance between the rights
protected by the Fourth
Amendment and the interests of
government to access a dwelling to
safeguard the well-being of citizens


http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/exigent_circumstances.pdf

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Actually the 911 call is CRUCIAL to determining whether the officers were reasonable or not and if there was RS to investigate a crime. If the 911 call was anonymous and gave nothing other than male/female arguing...anything more than a drive-by and asking if all are ok is intrusive. Example, I get annon 911 call that neighbors are "fighting" and that is it. No specifics definition of fighting. Does it mean verbal only, does it mean he is beating the crap out of her. Since it is annon I cannot verify the validity of the caller. IT could be anyone. However, I still have to respond. But in this case I decide to knock on the door and ask if all are ok. I will see how they respond and without any other signs of violence, be on my way...having never entered the house (unless they invite me) and having not taken more than a minute of their time. They do not have to answer the door nor do they have to answer my questions. However, if the 911 caller gave their own address, name, contact number and gave VERY specific details of the assault, details that only a witness to the event could describe, that could very well be RS and enough to stop the parties to investigate. Now on arriving of said domestic, I hear screaming from in the house and no response at the door I can make forced entry if I believe someone is being harmed inside.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Excerpt from the dissension:
The dissent also notes that “a respectable argument could be made that police response to a report of domestic violence is an exigent circumstance justifying entry into a home without a search warrant.” However, since no domestic violence charges were filed, that exigent circumstance is without merit. In addition, once the officers saw that there was no domestic violence, only a domestic dispute, they had no grounds for remaining on the scene.


http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpub
Excerpt from the article:
The emergency aid doctrine permits
police officers, in their communitycaretaking function, to make warrantless entries and searches when
they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate
aid because the need to protect or
preserve life or avoid serious injury
is justification for what would be
otherwise illegal absent an exigency
or emergency. Mincey v. Arizona,
437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978). The
emergency circumstances doctrine
is viewed by some as independent
from exigent circumstances, and by
others as a subcategory of the exigent circumstances doctrine.
The rationale for the emergency aid
doctrine is that because officers
who act under the doctrine are not
conducting a law enforcement mission, the officers may do so without
either obtaining a warrant or
demonstrating the presence of probable cause or exigent circumstances. The doctrine attempts to
strike a balance between the rights
protected by the Fourth
Amendment and the interests of
government to access a dwelling to
safeguard the well-being of citizens


http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/exigent_circumstances.pdf

Oh come on, you can't cite the effing DISSENT in a case as primary authority of law! It's dissent because it's a minority opinion which holds no weight. It's dicta. Does not count. Also, you are stretching the **** out of the purpose and scope of Mincey v. Arizona - the SCt. ruled that the exemption that Arizona WISHED to scribe out of the air IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MY CITATION IS MORE PERTINENT AND RELEVANT (BETTER) THAN YOURS; THEY'RE LIKE, 'IT'S BETTER THAN YOURS' - I COULD TEACH YOU BUT I'D HAVE TO CHARGE

 

[KG1]

Actually the 911 call is CRUCIAL to determining whether the officers were reasonable or not and if there was RS to investigate a crime. If the 911 call was anonymous and gave nothing other than male/female arguing...anything more than a drive-by and asking if all are ok is intrusive. Example, I get annon 911 call that neighbors are "fighting" and that is it. No specifics definition of fighting. Does it mean verbal only, does it mean he is beating the crap out of her. Since it is annon I cannot verify the validity of the caller. IT could be anyone. However, I still have to respond. But in this case I decide to knock on the door and ask if all are ok. I will see how they respond and without any other signs of violence, be on my way...having never entered the house (unless they invite me) and having not taken more than a minute of their time. They do not have to answer the door nor do they have to answer my questions. However, if the 911 caller gave their own address, name, contact number and gave VERY specific details of the assault, details that only a witness to the event could describe, that could very well be RS and enough to stop the parties to investigate. Now on arriving of said domestic, I hear screaming from in the house and no response at the door I can make forced entry if I believe someone is being harmed inside.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Excerpt from the dissension:
The dissent also notes that “a respectable argument could be made that police response to a report of domestic violence is an exigent circumstance justifying entry into a home without a search warrant.” However, since no domestic violence charges were filed, that exigent circumstance is without merit. In addition, once the officers saw that there was no domestic violence, only a domestic dispute, they had no grounds for remaining on the scene.


http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpub
Excerpt from the article:
The emergency aid doctrine permits
police officers, in their communitycaretaking function, to make warrantless entries and searches when
they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate
aid because the need to protect or
preserve life or avoid serious injury
is justification for what would be
otherwise illegal absent an exigency
or emergency. Mincey v. Arizona,
437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978). The
emergency circumstances doctrine
is viewed by some as independent
from exigent circumstances, and by
others as a subcategory of the exigent circumstances doctrine.
The rationale for the emergency aid
doctrine is that because officers
who act under the doctrine are not
conducting a law enforcement mission, the officers may do so without
either obtaining a warrant or
demonstrating the presence of probable cause or exigent circumstances. The doctrine attempts to
strike a balance between the rights
protected by the Fourth
Amendment and the interests of
government to access a dwelling to
safeguard the well-being of citizens


http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/exigent_circumstances.pdf

Specifically relating to the OP do you think they had RS to proceed the way they did based on the 911 call alone?

 

[Denny347]

resistance is futile subject. when the gods with badges speak drop to your knees and thank them for allowing you to live. and btw if they start questioning your dog tell him to do the same.

Resistance with me is futile. I act within the law and a person resists my lawful actions will regret it. I am not some fat ass, doughnut eating, law breaking, flatfoot. I take my job seriously, I do a good job, and I arrest those who have earned it. You fight me while doing so will only make your life harder, I will be the only winner.

 

[Denny347]

Specifically relating to the OP do you think they had RS to proceed the way they did based on the 911 call alone?

Without knowing what the 911 caller said, I do not know. I am being 100% honest here. I am not trying to "cover" a brother in blue. I honestly do not have enough info one way or another. I believe the OP. I will certainly not question his credibility since I have no reason to. I do think the OP's story can bee 100% factual and the police still be within their rights. There are 2 perspectives involved here and when neither party understands where the other is coming from it causes distrust and beliefs of illegal actions.

 

[Sureshot129]

Based on my understanding of existing law and case law, I'd say that's pretty thin grounds for PC. However that's why ANY time I inform that I'm carrying the FIRST words out of my mouth are, "My LTCH is located X (wherever I happen to be carrying my wallet) and my gun is located Y." As shown by Case Law, as soon as the LTCH is presented questions re the gun need to stop.

I read it as RS and not PC. I was inputting it myself becuase I thought that was what he meant.

I personally never inform of my carry status, many times I am OCing so it is pretty obvious. If I was asked to hand over my gun first, then I would state I had my LTCH and they were welcome to verify it.

Gentlemen, I understand the questioning about the gun needs to stop but this was not the main issue as I saw it. Would you not, if it was your job to enter a potentially deadly situation and figure out what if ANY crime is being committed control the obvious means to your injury or death? (take control of the "suspect's" firearm) until you know what is going on? Once you have found out that no crime has been committed then return the gun to the owner. Being a prick about it "well you don't know me but I'm angry and you can't take my gun" is not going to help the overall situation. They are not trying to take you gun and say your a bad person but control the situation and find out if there is a bad guy you just don't know from there position right away. Did the officers handle the situation poorly? Don't know I wasn't there.

 

[dsells13]

Without knowing what the 911 caller said, I do not know. I am being 100% honest here. I am not trying to "cover" a brother in blue. I honestly do not have enough info one way or another. I believe the OP. I will certainly not question his credibility since I have no reason to. I do think the OP's story can bee 100% factual and the police still be within their rights. There are 2 perspectives involved here and when neither party understands where the other is coming from it causes distrust and beliefs of illegal actions.

 

[DadOfFour]

Actually the 911 call is CRUCIAL to determining whether the officers were reasonable or not and if there was RS to investigate a crime. If the 911 call was anonymous and gave nothing other than male/female arguing...anything more than a drive-by and asking if all are ok is intrusive. Example, I get annon 911 call that neighbors are "fighting" and that is it. No specifics definition of fighting. Does it mean verbal only, does it mean he is beating the crap out of her. Since it is annon I cannot verify the validity of the caller. IT could be anyone. However, I still have to respond. But in this case I decide to knock on the door and ask if all are ok. I will see how they respond and without any other signs of violence, be on my way...having never entered the house (unless they invite me) and having not taken more than a minute of their time. They do not have to answer the door nor do they have to answer my questions. However, if the 911 caller gave their own address, name, contact number and gave VERY specific details of the assault, details that only a witness to the event could describe, that could very well be RS and enough to stop the parties to investigate. Now on arriving of said domestic, I hear screaming from in the house and no response at the door I can make forced entry if I believe someone is being harmed inside. In the OP, he was stopped in his driveway. No entry (that was described) to the house was made, the intrusion was minimal. If the LEWO's had a valid reason to investigate a DV report, I doubt you will find ANY judge that will poo poo the police for disarming the suspects only during the course of the investigation. I bet you didn't know I can take all the guns in the house if an officer believes the weapons place the DV victim in harms way.

IC 35-33-1-1.5
Crime involving domestic or family violence; duties of law enforcement officers; confiscation of firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon
Sec. 1.5. (a) A law enforcement officer responding to the scene of an alleged crime involving domestic or family violence shall use all reasonable means to prevent further violence, including the following:
(1) Transporting or obtaining transportation for the alleged victim and each child to a designated safe place to meet with a domestic violence counselor, local family member, or friend.
(2) Assisting the alleged victim in removing toiletries, medication, and necessary clothing.
(3) Giving the alleged victim immediate and written notice of the rights under IC 35-40.
(b) A law enforcement officer may confiscate and remove a firearm, ammunition, or a deadly weapon from the scene if the law enforcement officer has:
(1) probable cause to believe that a crime involving domestic or family violence has occurred;
(2) a reasonable belief that the firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon:
(A) exposes the victim to an immediate risk of serious bodily injury; or
(B) was an instrumentality of the crime involving domestic or family violence; and
(3) observed the firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon at the scene during the response.
(c) If a firearm, ammunition, or a deadly weapon is removed from

the scene under subsection (b), the law enforcement officer shall provide for the safe storage of the firearm, ammunition, or deadly weapon during the pendency of a proceeding related to the alleged act of domestic or family violence.
As added by P.L.133-2002, SEC.60.


http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Excerpt from the dissension:
The dissent also notes that “a respectable argument could be made that police response to a report of domestic violence is an exigent circumstance justifying entry into a home without a search warrant.” However, since no domestic violence charges were filed, that exigent circumstance is without merit. In addition, once the officers saw that there was no domestic violence, only a domestic dispute, they had no grounds for remaining on the scene.


http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpub
Excerpt from the article:
The emergency aid doctrine permits
police officers, in their communitycaretaking function, to make warrantless entries and searches when
they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate
aid because the need to protect or
preserve life or avoid serious injury
is justification for what would be
otherwise illegal absent an exigency
or emergency. Mincey v. Arizona,
437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978). The
emergency circumstances doctrine
is viewed by some as independent
from exigent circumstances, and by
others as a subcategory of the exigent circumstances doctrine.
The rationale for the emergency aid
doctrine is that because officers
who act under the doctrine are not
conducting a law enforcement mission, the officers may do so without
either obtaining a warrant or
demonstrating the presence of probable cause or exigent circumstances. The doctrine attempts to
strike a balance between the rights
protected by the Fourth
Amendment and the interests of
government to access a dwelling to
safeguard the well-being of citizens


http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/exigent_circumstances.pdf

As other have said, the Dissent has no legal baring, it carries no weight.

In that statue you quoted you failed to highlight the most important parts,

(1) probable cause to believe that a crime involving domestic or family violence has occurred;

AND

(B) was an instrumentality of the crime involving domestic or family violence; and

Note that the word at the end of subsection B is AND, not OR, therefore in order to confiscate the firearm there must be PROBABLE CAUSE (reference subsection 1) that the weapon was involved in the commission of a crime of DV, AND observe the weapon at the scene.

The emergency aid doctrine doesn't apply to this situation in any way shape or form, so I'm not sure why you included it in your post?

I never said entry was made into the house, however entry WAS made onto private property, without warrant or cause.

 

[KG1]

Without knowing what the 911 caller said, I do not know. I am being 100% honest here. I am not trying to "cover" a brother in blue. I honestly do not have enough info one way or another. I believe the OP. I will certainly not question his credibility since I have no reason to. I do think the OP's story can bee 100% factual and the police still be within their rights. There are 2 perspectives involved here and when neither party understands where the other is coming from it causes distrust and beliefs of illegal actions.

I understand it's difficult to provide an answer if you were not an actual responding officer and not privy to any personal knowledge of the particulars. I was just basing my question on what the OP stated.

I appreciate your response nonetheless.