Evidently laws dont apply if someone feels "uncomfortable" -AKA hiker Arrested in TX

[CCHGN]

The video you posted shows a consensual encounter as I have outlined earlier. I think this video only corroborates my points.

The cop took the rifle and checked it. He explained why he stopped, he had a reason. He decided that they were not felons, I guarrantee you if they had tattoos and bandanas, he'd demand ID.You've been saying that they don't have right to even stop..

 

[bayonet_53]

Here's another from santa Ana, Ca, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lONBoO3m0tQ


Hmm , apparently all OC guns have to be empty, no ammo,,,what good is that?

I see a trend that cops say that folks call, so they have to check. Good examples of reasonable suspicion.

I did not watch this video; I am posting based off of your comments. You are 100% right. I can check out anyone as a consensual encounter where the person is free to leave. I may only detain a person based on reasonable suspicion supported by credible information, and I can only detain that person so long as to confirm or deny my reasonable suspicion. A call is not reasonable suspicion it must be credible. Why is it that the person who complains does not have to have their complaint verified; yet, the person who was complained against is automatically violating the law? The complainant is presumed innocent and person complained against is presumed guilty?

 

[CCHGN]

Your post sums up my whole reason on why I even began posting in this thread. If as an LEO we do not repudiate our own and police our own, and allow the violation of civil rights by not speaking out are we not complicit? An officer that violates the constitution....

See, the thing that bothers me is that you seem to think that you get to be the one that says what's Constitutional or not. IMO, no one person gets to do that.


No one has mentioned the Patriot Act. That changed ALOT of procedures. The recent bombings in Boston, etc.....Society wants people checked out.

 

[CCHGN]

A call is not reasonable suspicion it must be credible. Why is it that the person who complains does not have to have their complaint verified; yet, the person who was complained against is automatically violating the law? The complainant is presumed innocent and person complained against is presumed guilty?

I don't know how your'e stretching checking someone out based on calls to accusations of violating the law....btw, in ALL the videos, they say the stopped because people called......

 

[Snow Bird]

Bayonet... Thank you for your response and I will continue to follow this threard with interest

 

[bayonet_53]

I am referring to the Albany Oregon video. Skip to 6:50 in the video. Tell me what you see. That is where I stopped that video because anything after that doesn't matter and was done with consent of the persons videoing. In the St. Charles video you clearly see civil rights violations. I do not know Missouri's firearm laws, but that did not give the officer the right to pat down the other person that was not open carrying. What was his reasonable suspicion? Was it because another guy was carrying so that means anyone near him is also carrying?

Sure, We all know what they'd say on a recorded line...... let's see, I have personally been pulled over for: failing to use a signal when switching lanes( my word against his- I do a two blink signal sometimes), My license plate has 2 lights and one light was out( really?); Running a red light( I swear it was yellow); tint too dark( turns out it was not); music too loud( really?); my vehicle matched the description; I matched a description; car exhaust too loud( I have headers).....in other words, if they want to stop you, they will find something.

Why will you not call a local department and ask them the questions I posted? You said because "Sure, We all know what they'd say on a recorded line" which infers that what I am telling you is correct. Officers that are not abiding by the Constitutional information I have posted are violating the LAW! You then give a personal account of officers that do not abide by the Constitution and found something to pull you over for. Google "pretext stop." The videos I posted were to show the difference between a Reasonable Suspicion detention handled excellently by a professional officer, and a consensual encounter with a silent citizen also handled very well with in the constraints of the Constitution. If you are just going to post videos and wait for my commentary then I will reserve my comments for on topic discussion relevant to purpose of the thread.

Why would you, someone who has seen first hand abuse of police authority, defend the TX officers that self admittedly believe that they are exempt from the law?

 

[bayonet_53]

See, the thing that bothers me is that you seem to think that you get to be the one that says what's Constitutional or not. IMO, no one person gets to do that.


No one has mentioned the Patriot Act. That changed ALOT of procedures. The recent bombings in Boston, etc.....Society wants people checked out.

I do not get to say what is constitutional or not. I have to use the literal application of the Constitution before I violate someone's civil rights. I have already spelled this out on multiple occasions. Consensual Encounter; Detention based on Reasonable Suspicion supported by credible information that I can articulate in a court of law; Reasonable Suspicion is grounds to believe that a violation of the law has been, is being, or will be committed; I only detain long enough to confirm or deny the Reasonable Suspicion; If confirmed then I am developing Probable Cause based on Intent, Ability, and Opportunity; Probable Cause leads to an arrest of an arrestable offense.

Did you forget about your case law argument? The courts and ultimately the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional. The Patriot Act has no bearing in relation to the TX case.

 

[bayonet_53]

Bayonet... Thank you for your response and I will continue to follow this threard with interest

Roger that! I guess we will have to wait and see what the courts determine. I have faith in the citizens of Texas that they will come to the right determination; that this was an unlawful stop, detention, disarming, and arrest.

 

[bayonet_53]

I don't know how your'e stretching checking someone out based on calls to accusations of violating the law....btw, in ALL the videos, they say the stopped because people called......

Because if they are not violating the law I cannot detain them based on a call. I can enter into a consensual encounter where the people are free to leave at anytime without giving me any information. I agree with you 100% I can stop and check someone as a consensual encounter even with zero calls. If they do not want to comply and I do not see a violation of the law then what? Do I create a situation where I arrest them for obstruction, and just hope that I am not being recorded and hope that they do not know their rights?

 

[Fletch]

Here's a question. If we are following the literal application of the Constitution which you assert gives someone the right to openly and freely walk down the road with an AR slung on the front of their chest with one in the chamber ready to rock and roll just like a soldier or policemen does when in a potentially dangerous situation, why the mention of state law? You have stated that in a state where it is legal to do this it's a violation of civil rights to be contacted, detained, and id checked. In Florida law you cannot walk down the side of road on a "hike" with a loaded AR. If an officer such as yourself conducts a stop based off of Florida law has he not violated the individuals civil rights according to the literal application of the Constitution?

 

[bayonet_53]

Here's a question. If we are following the literal application of the Constitution which you assert gives someone the right to openly and freely walk down the road with an AR slung on the front of their chest with one in the chamber ready to rock and roll just like a soldier or policemen does when in a potentially dangerous situation, why the mention of state law? You have stated that in a state where it is legal to do this it's a violation of civil rights to be contacted, detained, and id checked. In Florida law you cannot walk down the side of road on a "hike" with a loaded AR. If an officer such as yourself conducts a stop based off of Florida law has he not violated the individuals civil rights according to the literal application of the Constitution?

Welcome back Fletch! I never stated that the Constitution gives the right to walk down the road with one in the chamber ready to rock in roll. That would be based on the State law. If you watch the TX video when Grisham is disarmed he says that he has a full magazine inserted, and there is NOT one in the chamber. Not that one in the chamber would have mattered in TX or FL. Are you getting at State laws vs. the Constitution?

Actually, in FL you can walk down the road on a "hike" with a AR. How can this be? Under 790.25 you may lawfully possess a firearm when: (h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition; (j) A person firing weapons for testing or target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law or going to or from such place. *Disclaimer* Ohh yeah make sure to ask a judge also.

Will there be complaints/calls? Sure. May I just happen upon this person? Sure. Do I have reasonable suspicion to detain this person? Yes. I would call for back-up. I would approach this person in a heightened state and tell the person "I am detaining you to determine why you are open carrying a firearm; I am going to remove the firearm from you; Do not make any movements with your hands towards the firearm or I will interpret it as a threat and I will act accordingly; Do you understand?; Do you have a lawful reason for open carrying this firearm?" If he cannot tell me a lawful reason then I am going to arrest this person. If I am told a lawful reason for the open carry then I am going to immediately end my detention. I no longer have reasonable suspicion.

 

[bayonet_53]

It seems that everyone is hung up on how belligerent Grisham was acting during the detention and post arrest (handcuffing). It is humorous that the officers get a mulligan for their statements that they are exempt from the law. The dialogue between Grisham and the TX officers has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the detention. I will agree that the officers had a right to stop Grisham under the circumstances of a consensual encounter where Grisham was free to leave at any point. In TX it is legal to open carry a Rifle or Shotgun under the Texas Penal Code. It is against the law to open carry a Pistol. So, a man walking with a rifle clipped into his hydration pack is lawful in TX. The officer had no reasonable suspicion that Grisham was in unlawful possession. The officer stated that he wanted to verify that Grisham could lawfully have a gun, and that he was allowed to be out there. That means that the officer had to have had reasonable suspicion that Grisham was unlawfully possessing the firearm and unlawfully in a public place.

No one has stated this Reasonable Suspicion yet.

 

[joeburg185]

Bayonet_53. I just saw this law a few months ago because I was wondering the legality of carrying a pistol while fishing because u never know when something might pop out of the brush. I just wonder how it would go in court since you can't open carry in Fl I hate it when there r grey areas.

To comment on constitution vs state law. The constitution is suppose to be the law of the land followed by state laws then federal laws but these days state or federal laws can stomp on the constitution when it fits the liberal agenda the same goes for federal laws supersede state law it comes down to however the liberals can swindle a new law in they will. I just can't believe conservatives wont do the same thing in reverse. They need to slide amendments to laws in piece by piece to slowly eliminate laws that violate the constitution. Why not beat them at their own game.

 

[bayonet_53]

Bayonet_53. I just saw this law a few months ago because I was wondering the legality of carrying a pistol while fishing because u never know when something might pop out of the brush. I just wonder how it would go in court since you can't open carry in Fl I hate it when there r grey areas.

To comment on constitution vs state law. The constitution is suppose to be the law of the land followed by state laws then federal laws but these days state or federal laws can stomp on the constitution when it fits the liberal agenda the same goes for federal laws supersede state law it comes down to however the liberals can swindle a new law in they will. I just can't believe conservatives wont do the same thing in reverse. They need to slide amendments to laws in piece by piece to slowly eliminate laws that violate the constitution. Why not beat them at their own game.

Lawful possession can be found here: http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2010/790.25

Places you cannot carry can be found here: FL SS 790.06 (12) No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05; any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station; any detention facility, prison, or jail; any courthouse; any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom; any polling place; any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district; any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof; any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building; any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose; any elementary or secondary school facility; any career center; any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile; inside the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

If you are going to carry under 790.25 then I would advise to print a copy of the statute. I would also call and talk with the local pd/sheriff dept./state law enforcement. You could even call them and let them know that you are going to carry openly under 790.25 Most LEO abide by the Constitution; not all of us are looking for a way to arrest someone or create situations that are favorable to an arrest. If you call a department they will give you an official answer. I am an individual posting my opinion/argument on a public forum, but while I am on duty I receive these calls all the time.

 

[Fletch]

Welcome back Fletch! I never stated that the Constitution gives the right to walk down the road with one in the chamber ready to rock in roll. That would be based on the State law. If you watch the TX video when Grisham is disarmed he says that he has a full magazine inserted, and there is NOT one in the chamber. Not that one in the chamber would have mattered in TX or FL. Are you getting at State laws vs. the Constitution?

Actually, in FL you can walk down the road on a "hike" with a AR. How can this be? Under 790.25 you may lawfully possess a firearm when: (h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition; (j) A person firing weapons for testing or target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law or going to or from such place. *Disclaimer* Ohh yeah make sure to ask a judge also.

Will there be complaints/calls? Sure. May I just happen upon this person? Sure. Do I have reasonable suspicion to detain this person? Yes. I would call for back-up. I would approach this person in a heightened state and tell the person "I am detaining you to determine why you are open carrying a firearm; I am going to remove the firearm from you; Do not make any movements with your hands towards the firearm or I will interpret it as a threat and I will act accordingly; Do you understand?; Do you have a lawful reason for open carrying this firearm?" If he cannot tell me a lawful reason then I am going to arrest this person. If I am told a lawful reason for the open carry then I am going to immediately end my detention. I no longer have reasonable suspicion.

So it's a violation of one's civil right's guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States in Texas but not in Florida? You just stated that you would approach an individual with the same reasonable suspicion that the officers in Texas did but earlier stated they had no right to do so under the U.S. Constitution. Maybe you would have given him a pass on the combative and resistive behavior but you still would have detained, disarmed, and ID'ed, which you have stated was a violation of the U.S. Constitution according to you. But now you are saying state law trumps the Literal Application of the 2nd Amendment. Either it's unconstitutional or it's not. To not backtrack on the previous statements you have made in this thread you would have to agree that Florida State Gun Laws are unconstitutional according to the "literal application of the 2nd and 4th amendment" in your words. You've been basing you argument in part on the U.S. constitution, but your last post supports the point I have been making. There is not a clear cut literal interpretation of the constitution to be applied in this situation. If there was you would have no right to stop an individual walking down a Florida road with an AR like the guy in Texas was who was not in the process of hunting, fishing, camping, or going to or returning from those activities.

No State shall infringe upon the right to bear arms but the application of that amendment varies state to state and municipality to municipality. Men have made many firearms laws that place restrictions on firearms for public safety. Some I agree with and some I don't but ultimately it is up to interpretation by men and women in state congress who make the laws. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority to decide if the law is constitutional or not if challenged and can't be decided by lower courts. The decision could swing either way depending on which president has made the appointments and how much of an activist the judges may or may not be. Depending on the make-up of the supreme court what is unconstitutional today could be constitutional tomorrow. Hopefully they don't ever go completely rogue like interpreting the 2nd Amendment to say individuals don't have the right to bear arms and it was only meant for a well regulated militia. I personally think the 300 million plus guns in the hands of Americans is a great deterrent to such a decision if they ever became so radical to even consider it and they could never find enough people to sign up for that job!

If we take the most strict and literal application of the 2nd Amendment that means anyone not in prison, felon or not, has a right to bear any kind of arms anytime anywhere in any manner which they choose. The 2nd amendment places no restrictions on the type of firearms one may own. Under the strict literal application of the 2nd Amendment one has the right to go "hiking" all around the airport with a Stinger Rocket Launcher and fully automatic M16 slung over their shoulder. Until they fire it at an airplane or person they have committed no crime according to this literal application. There are those who make this argument and it is an intellectually honest argument. It truly is a pure literal application of the 2nd amendment. But as a society we have decided that is not acceptable behavior as it would justifiably cause panic among hundreds of folks thus stripping them of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Most folks are willing to forgo their "right" to open carry a Stinger Missile to insure the plane they are on won't be shot down by a nutcase. 250 people died in a terrifying ball of fire hurling to earth but at least the guy will be arrested and prosecuted since he actually broke the law by pulling the trigger.

This is where all the far right and left wing activist have miscalculated on these extreme displays of extreme literal interpretations of constitutionally guaranteed rights. They are in the EXTREME minority and are so focused on THEIR rights they can't see that their behavior is infringing on the rights of others. It's an extremely self-centered view on ones place in this world and country in my opinion. I saw that video of CJ Grisham knowing nothing about the man and my first instinct was wow what a Narcissistic Personality Disorder he has. After doing some research on the guy it was absolutely confirmed.

The majority is always going to win this battle. The overwhelming majority of Americans supports the right to bear arms and will not accept gun confiscation or draconian laws limiting their access to them. The same majority also thinks it is completely reasonable for police officers, whom they have given the authority to enforce their laws made by their democratically elected representatives, to stop men such a CJ Grisham and make sure everything is on the up and up. If he is too self-centered to respect the authority given to them by the majority of his fellow citizens then he will be given a message that his behavior was unacceptable. He thought the world revolved around him and his views but is learning the hard way it doesn't. This may end up costing him a military retirement after 18 years of service and he has no one to blame but himself. Sorry family I lost our retirement and health benefits but at least I made sure me and the boy were protected from wild cougars, hogs, or Islamic insurgents because you know it's 50/50 at best to try that hike with only a concealed 45. Anyone else see the irony of a guy who claimed to single handily charge and take out an entire squad of Iraqi insurgents with his 9mm and a hand grenade felt the need to carry an AR-15 for a walk with his son in Temple, Texas?

He will have the right to be judged by twelve of his peers. Democracy in action as our founding fathers envisioned. Ain't America great? I feel extremely lucky to be born an American and live in a country where you are only limited by your ambition and our poor eat better than half the world, have basic health care, and roofs over their heads. I'm personally okay with the fact I can't combat carry my AR while walking the dogs. If my legally concealed Glock 19 with 15 rounds of 147gn HST and spare mag can't get me out of a life threatening situation then it was just my time and the life insurance is paid up. Would I rather have an AR if I knew the poop was about to hit the fan? Absolutely! But me walking the dogs with the AR on my chest would upset my neighbors and make them feel threatened and I respect that. On the very rare chance I encounter a life threatening situation the concealed Glock is an acceptable compromise in my book. It ain't all about me. If one wants to hike with an AR go buy a couple hundred acres or join a hunting camp and go bust up some pigs.

 

[bayonet_53]

So it's a violation of one's civil right's guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States in Texas but not in Florida? You just stated that you would approach an individual with the same reasonable suspicion that the officers in Texas did but earlier stated they had no right to do so under the U.S. Constitution.

State Laws must be in lockstep with the Constitution. If a state law was unConstitutional then it would be stricken down by the Supreme Court. I suggest that you look into Heller vs. the District of Columbia, and then read McDonald vs. Chicago. You may also want to read Article VI clause 2 of the United States Constitution. I am not going to out line these for you. You can do that for yourself. This is basic elementary level understanding of the Constitution.

But now you are saying state law trumps the Literal Application of the 2nd Amendment. Either it's unconstitutional or it's not. To not backtrack on the previous statements you have made in this thread you would have to agree that Florida State Gun Laws are unconstitutional according to the "literal application of the 2nd and 4th amendment" in your words.

I knew you were heading in this direction; that is why I asked if you are asking State laws vs Constitution. So, you make up a false argument then try to make it appear as if it is mine? Please put up a direct unaltered quote that will show anywhere that I stated that state law trumps the Constitution. You will not be able to because your made up position is based on opinion and inferences. Did you miss where I have posted several times that I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida? I do not need to backtrack from anything; see my argument is planted firmly within the confines of the Constitution.

If we take the most strict and literal application of the 2nd Amendment that means anyone not in prison, felon or not, has a right to bear any kind of arms anytime anywhere in any manner which they choose. The 2nd amendment places no restrictions on the type of firearms one may own. Under the strict literal application of the 2nd Amendment one has the right to go "hiking" all around the airport with a Stinger Rocket Launcher and fully automatic M16 slung over their shoulder.

Once again you manufactured a false argument, and then tried to make it appear as if it is mine. Please post a direct unaltered quote of mine where I stated that I follow "the most strict" application of the Constitution. You can't because I never said that again you allowed your opinion, not fact, to guide your argument. No a felon does not have a right to bear a firearm, if they do they are committing a felony. I cannot keep a bad person from doing bad things anymore than you can, But I cannot go around and presume guilt and violate a person's civil rights based on speculation, conjecture, or curiosity. I am asking (not telling you it is your position) if you are only worried about people that open carry, and if that person is legally able to possess that firearm? What about all the bad guys that conceal carry? Should I just assume that everyone is armed, and everyone is a felon? I should just go around detaining everyone to keep society safe?

This is where all the far right and left wing activist have miscalculated on these extreme displays of extreme literal interpretations of constitutionally guaranteed rights. They are in the EXTREME minority and are so focused on THEIR rights they can't see that their behavior is infringing on the rights of others. It's an extremely self-centered view on ones place in this world and country in my opinion. I saw that video of CJ Grisham knowing nothing about the man and my first instinct was wow what a Narcissistic Personality Disorder he has. After doing some research on the guy it was absolutely confirmed.

Interpretation vs Application. This just proves my above post that the opposing argument is against Grisham. It is not rooted in a Constitutional lawful 4th Amendment Seizure. You do not like Grisham, and you do not believe that he should be allowed to possess a firearm. You have already found him guilty based on having a loud mouth. My argument has always been about the Constitutionality and not about the TX officers or Grisham. My argument is based on the Constitutionality of the seizure. If you want to argue Grisham's actions, then you win. He was an ass. Now can we get to whether the seizure was Constitutional?

The majority is always going to win this battle. The overwhelming majority of Americans supports the right to bear arms and will not accept gun confiscation or draconian laws limiting their access to them. The same majority also thinks it is completely reasonable for police officers, whom they have given the authority to enforce their laws made by their democratically elected representatives, to stop men such a CJ Grisham and make sure everything is on the up and up. If he is too self-centered to respect the authority given to them by the majority of his fellow citizens then he will be given a message that his behavior was unacceptable.

We live in a Republic not a democracy. Mob rule is a dangerous thing ask the Jews or ask the Japanese-Americans that were interned during WWII. The Japanese-Americans had their civil rights interpreted for them and the majority went along with it. I do not have the authority to violate a persons civil rights unless I have a lawful reason. Grisham's hike was a lawful possession and use of a firearm. Where is the reasonable suspicion?

He thought the world revolved around him and his views but is learning the hard way it doesn't. This may end up costing him a military retirement after 18 years of service and he has no one to blame but himself. Sorry family I lost our retirement and health benefits but at least I made sure me and the boy were protected from wild cougars, hogs, or Islamic insurgents because you know it's 50/50 at best to try that hike with only a concealed 45. Anyone else see the irony of a guy who claimed to single handily charge and take out an entire squad of Iraqi insurgents with his 9mm and a hand grenade felt the need to carry an AR-15 for a walk with his son in Temple, Texas?

Again, you are judging the man. Your judgement is based on emotion and opinion. According to Texas Penal Code what law was he in violation of? None. So what then is the reasonable suspicion to violate his civil rights? None. No one has yet been able to logically spell out the reasonable suspicion based on credible information for the stop, detention, disarming, and arrest.

He will have the right to be judged by twelve of his peers. Democracy in action as our founding fathers envisioned. Ain't America great? I feel extremely lucky to be born an American and live in a country where you are only limited by your ambition and our poor eat better than half the world, have basic health care, and roofs over their heads. I'm personally okay with the fact I can't combat carry my AR while walking the dogs. If my legally concealed Glock 19 with 15 rounds of 147gn HST and spare mag can't get me out of a life threatening situation then it was just my time and the life insurance is paid up. Would I rather have an AR if I knew the poop was about to hit the fan? Absolutely! But me walking the dogs with the AR on my chest would upset my neighbors and make them feel threatened and I respect that. On the very rare chance I encounter a life threatening situation the concealed Glock is an acceptable compromise in my book. It ain't all about me. If one wants to hike with an AR go buy a couple hundred acres or join a hunting camp and go bust up some pigs.

That is your opinion, and I agree with most of it, but that does not mean that I apply your opinion while enforcing laws. I cannot violate civil rights based on opinion.

 

[CCHGN]

Because if they are not violating the law I cannot detain them based on a call. I can enter into a consensual encounter where the people are free to leave at anytime without giving me any information. I agree with you 100% I can stop and check someone as a consensual encounter even with zero calls. If they do not want to comply and I do not see a violation of the law then what? Do I create a situation where I arrest them for obstruction, and just hope that I am not being recorded and hope that they do not know their rights?

IN my mind, it all depends on what you believe when an investigation starts and what all is involved in an investigation. Not being a cop, I really don't know when an investigation starts, but imo, it's when a call comes in to dispatch....AFAIK, everything LE does, is a paper trail. If a cop responds to a dispatch call, his investigation starts( that have to write a report). I would think that an investigation gives you the right to obtain ID, and check weapons( and owner) for safety and legality. If a person refuses, they are obstructing an investigation, which could be an offense in local ordnances.

 

[bayonet_53]

IN my mind, it all depends on what you believe when an investigation starts and what all is involved in an investigation. Not being a cop, I really don't know when an investigation starts, but imo, it's when a call comes in to dispatch....AFAIK, everything LE does, is a paper trail. If a cop responds to a dispatch call, his investigation starts( that have to write a report). I would think that an investigation gives you the right to obtain ID, and check weapons( and owner) for safety and legality. If a person refuses, they are obstructing an investigation, which could be an offense in local ordnances.

A call is not Reasonable Suspicion. The call must be credible. I get calls all the time where the complaint is not a violation of the law. Case in point many waterfront property owners will put up their own sign along the waterway that states "No Wake Zone" then they will call my agency to report a vessel that came through their imaginary zone. I call the complainant and verify the complaint, then I investigate. Only the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission may post such signs that are based on Florida Administrative Code. They will even give me the registration numbers of the offending vessel. When I start my investigation and go out to the supposed zone and see a homemade or professionally made sign then I know that there was no violation. When I inform the complainant that there is no violation they usually get upset because they think it is their right to regulate state waters. Am I then going to track down the vessel owner and detain him? No, because the nature of the complaint was not a violation of the law. Grisham was in lawful possession of a legal firearm in a public place as allowed by Texas Penal Code section 46. Whether the TX officers knew that law or not does not change the fact that they did not have reasonable suspicion based on credible information to stop, detain, disarm, and arrest Grisham. Every call does not warrant a report. Ask the the other LEO's on here. An investigation does not give carte blanche for a officer to violate civil rights for the sole purpose of the investigation. To lawfully violate a person's civil rights there must be reasonable suspicion based on credible information.

What was the TX officer's Reasonable Suspicion based on credible information for the 4th Amendment violation?

Here are some good reads:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/content/pdf/lesson-14.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/content/pdf/lesson-17.pdf

 

[Fletch]

A call is not Reasonable Suspicion. The call must be credible. I get calls all the time where the complaint is not a violation of the law. Case in point many waterfront property owners will put up their own sign along the waterway that states "No Wake Zone" then they will call my agency to report a vessel that came through their imaginary zone. I call the complainant and verify the complaint, then I investigate. Only the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission may post such signs that are based on Florida Administrative Code. They will even give me the registration numbers of the offending vessel. When I start my investigation and go out to the supposed zone and see a homemade or professionally made sign then I know that there was no violation. When I inform the complainant that there is no violation they usually get upset because they think it is their right to regulate state waters. Am I then going to track down the vessel owner and detain him? No, because the nature of the complaint was not a violation of the law.

I'm going to leave the Grishman thing alone as that dead horse has been kicked enough, but are you sure you don't work in escambia county and those are my obviously bored retired neighbors in perdido you are talking about?

That's one of the many issues their little neighborhood watch meetings have overreached on. Some hilarious community emails have went out about wake zones, security cameras, and reporting vessel numbers and I remember thinking some poor officer is going to have to waste his time on this. They are cracking down on fireworks displays as well and been so kind as to email us all the state statues. And don't get me started on "Gator Gate" when the legal and permitted trapping of a nuisance gator in the canal nearly caused a neigboorhood civil war. Seems some came to think of them as friendly little pets. My dogs stand in full support of the trappers however!

 

[bayonet_53]

I'm going to leave the Grishman thing alone as that dead horse has been kicked enough, but are you sure you don't work in escambia county and those are my obviously bored retired neighbors in perdido you are talking about?

That's one of the many issues their little neighborhood watch meetings have overreached on. Some hilarious community emails have went out about wake zones, security cameras, and reporting vessel numbers and I remember thinking some poor officer is going to have to waste his time on this. They are cracking down on fireworks displays as well and been so kind as to email us all the state statues. And don't get me started on "Gator Gate" when the legal and permitted trapping of a nuisance gator in the canal nearly caused a neigboorhood civil war. Seems some came to think of them as friendly little pets. My dogs stand in full support of the trappers however!

Condo Commando's you gotta love them! I always thought it was hilarious when they would say, "but there is a Sign." I would then tell them yes, but you placed it there and you need to take it down. The best is when we would have enhanced patrol of an actual manatee slow speed zone, minimum wake zone, or no wake zone based on a high volume of calls. Most of the people that were stopped would all say "I am the one who called in the complaint, I live here." So somehow by being the complainant and a resident of the affected area the person is exempt from the zone.