Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

[ColtShooter]

Kinda my point. If that was a RAW as it appeared to be, then there must have been multiple RAWs since the cameraman had one too.

[bohoki]

reasonable suspicion is a finger, probable cause is the whole fist

[cacop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity;

Above is pretty much the meat of reasonable suspicion.

I would suspect the courts would probably be okay with what happened out there if an illegal AW was found out there. I would have to look for case law on point but it may not exist or it might not be close enough to the facts in this case.

I would think that while on federal property where the conditions of use require that weapons be legal to posses people using firearms could be detained to determine the legal status of those weapons. Once detained the weapons could be inspected to determine their status. Once that check is concluded in a reasonable time and no crime has been discovered the detention must stop.

For comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[2] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[3]

Reasonable suspicion allows officers to detain people on the belief a crime may have occured. Probable cause allows officer to arrest people for crimes that have occurred.

[cindynles]

Kinda my point. If that was a RAW as it appeared to be, then there must have been multiple RAWs since the cameraman had one too.

You are correct. My group had several LEGAL RAW's.

[TheKlawMan]

Too big a minefield.

You nailed it there. Absent further info, it looks to me like the officer had a right to be there on public property. Hence there is no search if something is in plain view. I am not sure, though, if the officer had the right to turn a weapon over to see the serial number.

I am thinking about Arizona v Hicks where the officer's entry into a cheeaply furnished apartment to investigate a shooting was proper, but while there sees expensive strereo equipmment that he suspects is stolen. LEO moved the components to get a look at the serial number. It was held to be a search for which he lacked PC. While there wasn't PC to was there RS?

This is a little different. In Hicks there was no PC until LEO searched and saw the serial number, Here there is an issue of whether the LEO had RS or PC since possession or use of the AW was a crime. unless it was registered. LEO could only determine that by looking at the number.

[ColtShooter]

This is my main question. Does the fact that, what appears to be, an AW is present give PC/RAC to seize (even for a moment) the weapon in question and conduct an inspection? Remember that AWs are not illegal (only un-registered AWs are illegal) so the mere presence of a firearm in this configuration is not evidence that a crime has been or is about to be committed.

I think your question got answered. Yes, a firearm appearing to be an AW gives the LEO enough reasonable suspicion to inspect further. Again, the law states they are illegal unless registered. First step is to determine if it is an AW through inspection of the firearm (what you called seizure). If it's not, then you're done. If it is, then it must be registered. No, you're not required to carry proof but verification must take place and the easiest way is just to carry it - like you did.

[cindynles]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this incident. I'm glad to see that this thread has not exploded like the orginal one.

Yes, a firearm appearing to be an AW gives the LEO enough reasonable suspicion to inspect further.

All I can say is that the "right people" disagree. To quote Gene the USFS LEOs will be given "options". Hopefully this incident will lead to a greater understanding regarding what is and is not allowed in the future.

[ColtShooter]

Fair enough. I'll be eager to see what happens.

[ColtShooter]

And yeah, the first one turned south for sure. The nasty comments towards the officer and each other don't shed good light on us for sure.

[TheKlawMan]

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this incident. I'm glad to see that this thread has not exploded like the orginal one.

All I can say is that the "right people" disagree. To quote Gene the USFS LEOs will be given "options". Hopefully this incident will lead to a greater understanding regarding what is and is not allowed in the future.

You raise an interestig issue regarding moving the gun to see the serial number even if the gun was in plain view of where the officer had a right to be. See Arizona v Hicks , which is a PC case involving serial numbers on stereo components.

Edit: I would add a major difference between Hicks and the Bee Canyon matter is that stereo components generally are legal to have but AWs are not and that goes to the reaonableness of the officer's belief that she had RS or PC.

[SVT-40]

reasonable suspicion is a finger, probable cause is the whole fist

I'll have to consult with my wife about that..................












She's an LEO.........you guys have dirty minds.