CA_Libertarian unlawfully detained by Turlock PD for open carry

[dustoff31]

How about letting unknown, armed men just stand around while the police figure out if he's doing or about to do something illegal?

That seems to work out pretty well in many other states.

I agree that the police had to investigate the report, and that what they did is acceptable to the courts. But was all that really necessary?

Couldn't one of those five cops just said "Hey man, I see you are open carrying. You know I have to check for a loaded weapon so just put your hands (here) and I'm going to take the gun out of your holster."

[eaglemike]

Um, maybe you're reading the wrong story, but the one I read, linked in the first post, was exactly the scenario I wrote above.



I'll answer a valid question you have. I think your question is baited to try to paint me as someone who thinks that woeful ignorance of the law is acceptable. That's a different scenario that is at play here.



Like I said - it's a call of a "man with a gun" - From the OP's own post: "RP reports man with a gun..." and it's in a public place. So, someone called in and voiced a concern of an armed man. The police respond to these calls because of the concern of public safety.

So what part do you think was not necessary? That the officers actually responded to the call? That the officers contacted the man with a gun? That the officers disarmed the man with a gun? That the officers detained the man with a gun during their subsequent investigation into what was going on? They they released him when they determined that nothing wrong was happening?

What would you rather they do? Not respond to man with a gun calls? Not disarm men with guns when they've been called to respond to them, due to conern of another citizen? How about letting unknown, armed men just stand around while the police figure out if he's doing or about to do something illegal?



Your question is baited, and biased. Answer "yes" and I'm for gross ignorance of LEOs. Answer "no" and then it's validation that the cops are woefully ignorant.

Statements like "ignorance of the law" and implying that the court on this case is simply wrong, are not condemnations?

It's easy to pick a side when only one side of the story is given. It's easier to pick the side of a person who you supposedly know because of some relatoinship you have with them from posting on the same web forum. This argument looks like it's devolved into personal feelings vs. public safety. Even the OP has shook off the concept of public and officer safety just because it doesn't agree with his argument. No logical basis, just feelings, and poof, the other side of the argument goes away.

I have not baited anything, and I think you are missing the point in my questions. First some court opinions are simply wrong. This is simply an objective conclusion, reached without using loaded words such as "condemnation." You can easily find evidence that courts have been wrong - as there are cites on this site. I'm sure you are aware of this.

While the courts have found some activity acceptable -this doesn't mean the activity is required. As I understand the circumstances, there were multiple LEO's responding. I asked if you agreed with their handling of the situation. The only evidence present is the OP's account - yet you continue to argue there might be other accounts. I'm sure there are, but they are not in evidence. There is no dissenting account. If there was a dissenting account from a LEO, should it be given more credence than the OP?

I'm not picking any particular persons side. I'm not using inflammatory language. I asked if you agreed with how things were handled.

I did not state or imply that the court in this specific application was wrong - I asked if you would recognize they have been wrong at times.

I did not choose the words "woeful ignorance" - you did. Since you brought it up, do you think the responding officers are"woefully ignorant" of the law? Just an honest question.

I do think double standards are deplorable. It's unfortunate there is a schism between the non-LEO and LEO. This has been coming for a long time, and I think it will get worse before it gets better. I'm a former AJ major, and I've seen the situation from both sides.

There was logical basis. The OP was evidently not violating the law. This seems pretty logical to me.

Again, you are bringing a lot of other things into this that did not apply. Who said anything about LEO not responding to "man with a gun" call?

all the best,

Mike

[Decoligny]

Legally, he wasn't arrested - just detained. He was certainly seized however.

-Gene

If an officer actually tells you that you are under arrest, aren't you at that point under arrest?

Quote from the original thread on OpenCarry.org: I was then informed by Rodriguez that I was "under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon," and then read me my rights.

[audiophil2]

Couldn't one of those five cops just said "Hey man, I see you are open carrying. You know I have to check for a loaded weapon so just put your hands (here) and I'm going to take the gun out of your holster."

No, because that would make too much sense.

[Telperion]

From the OP's linked post: "The officers were all still standing around shooting the breeze, so I asked Rodriguez when they were going to go "so I can retrieve my firearm from the trunk without making you uncomfortable." He replied, "can't you just drive somewhere else to do that." So, I got in and pulled around the block (out of view) before doing so."

I'd have asked them if their resources were so limited as they alluded to, why were they sitting around instead of accruing "billable hours".

[wutzu]

Could someone make an Open Carry T-Shirt? It could have PC12025 and 12031 in big-*** letters, so if you get stopped, you could just say "Read the shirt, bro!"

[CA_Libertarian]

Um, maybe you're reading the wrong story, but the one I read, linked in the first post, was exactly the scenario I wrote above.

You are incorrect. The scenario you pose is a generic 'man with a gun' call. The RP in this instance gave a very specific description of a 'man with a gun holstered on his right side.' I think most of us will agree these are two very different things.

Either way, I think the first step in any MWAG call should be for dispatch to find out if anything illegal is being done with the gone or if there is suspicious behavior. The mere presence of a firearm does not indicate in any way that a crime has been or is about to be committed.

[hoffmang]

If an officer actually tells you that you are under arrest, aren't you at that point under arrest?

Cops get to lie to you. He was certainly seized. He may have been arrested in the common law sense. However, that he was released without being booked or charged makes his detention not a formal arrest.

-Gene

[CA_Libertarian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post

How about letting unknown, armed men just stand around while the police figure out if he's doing or about to do something illegal?

[QUOTE=dustoff31;1338861]That seems to work out pretty well in many other states.
[\quote] EXACTLY! Earlier this year I went to Nevada to have some fun before my buddy shipped out to Afghanistan. I open carried about half the trip (I opted to leave it in the car when we were in the stip clubs, which was about the other half of the time). I got some odd looks from the other tourists, but none of the casinos or shops i went into seemed to mind.

[quote]I agree that the police had to investigate the report, and that what they did is acceptable to the courts. But was all that really necessary?[\quote]

I disagree. The police did not have to investigate the report, as the report had no element of criminal activity. Further, I would argue that what they did even went beyond the very loose boundaries set by the courts.

Couldn't one of those five cops just said "Hey man, I see you are open carrying. You know I have to check for a loaded weapon so just put your hands (here) and I'm going to take the gun out of your holster."

This would be better, but not ideal. Ideally, they wouldn't even talk to you unless you were doing something wrong. Sure they have the right to check any weapon they see under 12031(e). But do they have to? Maybe they could reserve that for people actually engaged in suspicious behavior - like loitering next to the ATM at midnight.

And don't tell me that's unrealistic. It works that way in other states just fine. We gotta get pro-2A-ers to change their attitudes if we're gonna have any hope of changing the rest of the people in CA.

[CA_Libertarian]

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/13173.html

Open Carry meetup in Turlock 7/19/08. Lunch for sure. Leafletting outside the PD & city hall optional.

Edit: corrected date of meetup.

[nobody_special]

What would you rather they do? Not respond to man with a gun calls? Not disarm men with guns when they've been called to respond to them, due to conern of another citizen?

Here in New Mexico (and in much of the rest of the free world), I think the most likely outcome would be more like this:

How about letting unknown, armed men just stand around while the police figure out if he's doing or about to do something illegal?

[PatriotnMore]

Would depend on what the PR reported. Is it reasonable he "could" have unloaded the firearm prior to Officers arrival? Is it possible he "could" have brandished it? I have to ask these question because I don't have the ability to see what appeared on the Officers screen or what the RTO read during the radio broadcast. Alot depends on what the PR stated whether accurate or not. What we can agree to is the fact CA liberatarian was finally released after the investigation.

Let's assume that the poster has told us the truth. He has already stated the RTO read, and I am ad-libbing here, man with a side arm in open carry. Also, he was originally charged with a 12025 which is completely wrong.

So, again my question is, of what is he a suspect of?

[hoffmang]

So, again my question is, of what is he a suspect of?

What the senior LEO would tell you on the stand was that he was a suspect of loaded carry in a prohibited area which is illegal (though potentially constitutional.)

-Gene

[pnkssbtz]

Point is this:

-Call came in - "man with a gun in a holster on his right side"

-Officers responded, found "man with a gun in a holster on his right side".

-Officers disarmed the man and secured him while they investigated the incident.

-Officers released the man after a time period that is considered "unreasonable" when it was confirmed that no crime was committed.

-They have not acted reasonably in the eyes of the court given the information given to them.

The whole premise for whether or not they acted "reasonably in the eyes of the court" relies upon whether or not their response was justified given the information relayed to them.

Their call was not "a man with a gun", of which such ambiguity would warrant concern and would certainly call for the response given, however was that of a "man with a gun in a holster on his right side".

In the case of "a man with a gun" their is sufficient ambiguity to be concerned that an illegal action is taking place because the status of the firearm is not known (i.e. what is the man doing with it?)

Where as in the case of "man with a gun in a holster on his right side", there is no evidence to call into question that such a person is doing so illegally considering that open - unloaded carry is legal.


Further, a detention exceeding 45 minutes or more enters the area of 4th amendment violations. As numerous court cases have cited what is deemed "reasonable" to be between 15 and 30 minutes. And lastly, the search of the car is clearly a 4th amendment violation since no crime was taking place, CA-Libertarian was not arrested (so they can't take inventory) and the contents of the vehicle would serve no purpose to verify or confirm whether or not CA_Libertarian was committing a crime by open possession of an unloaded firearm.

When there is a call of "men with guns" at a bank, would you prefer that the responding LEOs assume that there isn't a crime about to be committed, and let the men just stand around at their own free will while the officers figure out if they were about to go in and rob the bank or not?

Officer and public safety necessitate disarming a person with a gun while the responding officers determine if a crime was or is about to be committed. Hindsight is 20/20, so you know better after the fact and will condemn the officers for their actions, but imagine being the officer responding to a call of a man with a gun in a public place, whom you don't know from Adam.

"Man with a gun" is quite different than "man with a gun in a holster on his right side". To then say that they acted reasonably in the eyes of the court is not true.


Is it reasonable to detain people for legally using a laptop in a public place? Afterall, laptops can be (and are used in crimes much more frequently than firearms) used for identity theft, fraud, harassment and hacking. Is it then "reasonable" to detain a person for merely using such in a public place?

Is it reasonable to detain people for legally operating a very very expensive and high performance sports car in a public place? Afterall, high-performance sports cars can and often are used in dangerous driving, racing or could be illegally modified. Is it then "reasonable' to detain a person for merely legal possession and operation of such a high-performance sport scar?

[PatriotnMore]

What the senior LEO would tell you on the stand was that he was a suspect of loaded carry in a prohibited area which is illegal (though potentially constitutional.)

-Gene

So, we have established a man was investigated for open carry of a gun, which again is completely legal, and it was found to be unloaded.

Tell me then, what is a reasonable amount of time to look at a weapon to discover if it was loaded or not?