looking for laws to help fight harrassment by LEOs

[LACamper]

but the law gives Leos the right to stop and frisk. causal conversation and askiing if they can check his gun and rap. then yep u are correct. hut how is that breaking the law.

The difference is the word 'asking'. George, what would happen if you asked and he said no? That's where we run into legal/not legal issues. You have no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Unless of course you count his saying 'no'...

If your answer is 'say, OK and let him move along' then you and Slow are cool, everything is fine and I'm happy.
If you would insist on running it anyway, then we're back to cops doing what they want dispite what the law says... and at that point we've got a problem.

 

[Y.T.]

edit... ^^^ he beat me to it.

 

[greg t]

The difference is the word 'asking'. George, what would happen if you asked and he said no? That's where we run into legal/not legal issues. You have no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Unless of course you count his saying 'no'...

If your answer is 'say, OK and let him move along' then you and Slow are cool, everything is fine and I'm happy.
If you would insist on running it anyway, then we're back to cops doing what they want dispite what the law says... and at that point we've got a problem.

from george's scan:

... (Art. 1, Sec. 5) However, "a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions" ...


this is the operative part of that passage (emphasis mine):
"... whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit and offense ..."

i, personally, think it's pretty straight forward.

 

[George]

The difference is the word 'asking'. George, what would happen if you asked and he said no? That's where we run into legal/not legal issues. You have no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Unless of course you count his saying 'no'...

If your answer is 'say, OK and let him move along' then you and Slow are cool, everything is fine and I'm happy.
If you would insist on running it anyway, then we're back to cops doing what they want dispite what the law says... and at that point we've got a problem.

I would never do anything to lose my job..period. If he says no then bye bye... i have no RS or PC.

this whole thing is simple and ive said it a MILLION times. If you OC then you can bet some LEO will stop you.(not me)

 

[LouisianaCarry]

from george's scan:

... (Art. 1, Sec. 5) However, "a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions" ...


this is the operative part of that passage (emphasis mine):
"... whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit and offense ..."

i, personally, think it's pretty straight forward.

What you think is one thing, what the modern body of jurisprudence says is another. One matters in court, one doesn't.

Here is the whole pertinent statute. Reasonable suspicion is a term that bears actual legal weight. It does not mean that if you or someone else personally feels that a legal activity is questionable that you can just now invoke the term 'reasonable' and do what you want.

CCRP Art. 215.1. Temporary questioning of persons in public places; frisk and search for weapons
A. A law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit an offense and may demand of him his name, address, and an explanation of his actions.
B. When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this Article and reasonably suspects that he is in danger, he may frisk the outer clothing of such person for a dangerous weapon. If the law enforcement officer reasonably suspects the person possesses a dangerous weapon, he may search the person.
C. If the law enforcement officer finds a dangerous weapon, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.
D. During detention of an alleged violator of any provision of the motor vehicle laws of this state, an officer may not detain a motorist for a period of time longer than reasonably necessary to complete the investigation of the violation and issuance of a citation for the violation, absent reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. However, nothing herein shall prohibit a peace officer from compelling or instructing the motorist to comply with administrative or other legal requirements of Title 32 or Title 47 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950.
Added by Acts 1968, No. 305, §1. Amended by Acts 1982, No. 686, §1; Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 32, §1; Acts 1997, No. 759, §3, eff. July 10, 1997.

 

[greg t]

... Reasonable suspicion is a term that bears actual legal weight. ...

can you provide the statutes which further clarify/define reasonable suspicion as it pertains to the topic at hand? i'm sorry, but what you posted really didn't explain RS.

 

[LouisianaCarry]

The statutes cannot clearly define reasonable suspicion, because no one can think of or list every scenario. However, case law HAS defined certain things that do or do not rise to RS or PC.

The case I cited earlier in the thread cited many other cases that have set precedents as to that is and is not reasonable/probable cause. LA Case law specifically says that the mere sight of an openly carried weapon by itself is NOT reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Say an LEO did actually stop the one person in the world that did have bad intentions or whatever, and managed to develop a valid PC and nab them. One more bad guy off the streets? Wrong. If the LEO actually detained him (not entered into voluntary conversation, we are talking about RS here) based on nothing more than open carry, all the guy needs is a good lawyer and any evidence obtained after the unlawful detention can be thrown out.

In that case I linked to earlier, the guy was a coke dealer, and the cop was following a tip and saw him with a gun and saw him walk inside when the cop pulled up, and the cop followed him inside and found the coke. All the evidence was supressed, because the Court (and the Appeals Court) found that open carry, even when combined with a tip from someone about drugs did not rise to probable casue. It also cited cases that explained that open carry was not justfiable as to reasonable suspicion.

 

[greg t]

The case I cited earlier in the thread cited many other cases that have set precedents as to that is and is not reasonable/probable cause. LA Case law specifically says that the mere sight of an openly carried weapon by itself is NOT reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

if an officer saw someone with an openly carried weapon who was "acting suspicious", would that give him RS to stop and frisk?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Open carry, when combined with other activities, can be RS. However, those 'suspicios actions' need to be specific an articulable. The point is that they must cause an actual concern that an actual specific law is being broken or about to be broken. Say, open carrying on the way into a stop and rob with a ski mask on. Robbery is a crime. Open carry is not, so it by itself is not at all a reason.

 

[greg t]

Open carry, when combined with other activities, can be RS. However, those 'suspicios actions' need to be specific an articulable. The point is that they must cause an actual concern that an actual specific law is being broken or about to be broken. Say, open carrying on the way into a stop and rob with a ski mask on. Robbery is a crime. Open carry is not, so it by itself is not at all a reason.

Ok, so OC+'suspicious action'=RS ... what comprises a 'suspicious action'?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Something that an LEO can articulate that points to an actual law being broken.

 

[greg t]

Something that an LEO can articulate that points to an actual law being broken.

so we're back to the officer making a judgment call based on whether or not they think a law (any law?) was broken, is being broken or is about to be broken, all with the only catch being if they can articulate it? do i have that right?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

Yes, IF we are referring to an actual law being broken. Open carry is not against any law. It is not enough by itself. Try articulating with a straight face that you thought a guy was about to commit a crime purely because he was exercising a Constitutional right in a respectful manner. That will not hold up in court, and any evidence gained from a detention based solely on that can be suppressed.

 

[greg t]

Yes, IF we are referring to an actual law being broken. Open carry is not against any law. It is not enough by itself. Try articulating with a straight face that you thought a guy was about to commit a crime purely because he was exercising a Constitutional right in a respectful manner. That will not hold up in court, and any evidence gained from a detention based solely on that can be suppressed.

please don't take this the wrong way, but i think you're getting wrapped around the axle about the wrong thing. i think you should stop paying so much attention to the OC part of the equation, and start paying more attention to the 'suspicious activity' part; otherwise, we're just going to keep going around in circles and get absolutely no where.

now, i asked what comprises a 'suspicious action'? to which you replied:

Something that an LEO can articulate that points to an actual law being broken.

as it pertains to the original post, would an officer have RS to stop and detain if he believed the OP had, for instance, just shoplifted from the convenience store?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

How does that pertain to the OP?

 

[greg t]

How does that pertain to the OP?

how doesn't it? the OP walked into the store, bought smokes, and walked out. i'm asking if one of the officers inside could articulate he reasonably suspected the OP had shoplifted, would that give the officer RS to stop and frisk?

 

[LouisianaCarry]

No, there is also jurisprudence which pertains to reasonable suspicion/probable cause to suspect/detain someone for shoplifitng, as well. Are you saying that LEOs should be able to stop whoever they want as long as they make up something?

 

[George]

The statutes cannot clearly define reasonable suspicion, because no one can think of or list every scenario. However, case law HAS defined certain things that do or do not rise to RS or PC.

The case I cited earlier in the thread cited many other cases that have set precedents as to that is and is not reasonable/probable cause. LA Case law specifically says that the mere sight of an openly carried weapon by itself is NOT reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Say an LEO did actually stop the one person in the world that did have bad intentions or whatever, and managed to develop a valid PC and nab them. One more bad guy off the streets? Wrong. If the LEO actually detained him (not entered into voluntary conversation, we are talking about RS here) based on nothing more than open carry, all the guy needs is a good lawyer and any evidence obtained after the unlawful detention can be thrown out.

In that case I linked to earlier, the guy was a coke dealer, and the cop was following a tip and saw him with a gun and saw him walk inside when the cop pulled up, and the cop followed him inside and found the coke. All the evidence was supressed, because the Court (and the Appeals Court) found that open carry, even when combined with a tip from someone about drugs did not rise to probable casue. It also cited cases that explained that open carry was not justfiable as to reasonable suspicion.

ok i had a case that went to trial for this. "unlawful detention" his att. tried to say that since i told the guy to "come here" he felt that he was unlawfully detained. not the case it was an open parking lot and he could have gone anywhere he wanted. which he tried to do by turning and running.. then throwing a gun over the fence.......... the rest is pretty funny and too much to type, more of a FTF story.

 

[Slow]

first you say this....

Personally if I see a guy with a gun on his side, HELL YES, im gonna stop hima nd run him for NCIC and Local Warrant as well as check for any Felony Convictions. plus run the gun.

then you say this...

If you OC then you can bet some LEO will stop you.(not me)

youre going to do what you what, thats obvious. the point that i am trying to get across is simple, open carrying is not reasonable suspicion. you can sit here all day long and say you have to the right to stop and frisk, but you cant. however you have already said you were going to do it anyway.

 

[George]

read art 215. if i stop some one ocing and strike up a general conversation i see Hes armed. i can disarm him. then speaking with him say can i check that gun and your background. you say thats not legal? maybe i should have cleared up how i would go about it.

i forget some people need it broken down in exact words for them to understand.