Question for Cal LEOs

[Eightythree]

I came across this video on another forum I frequent and wanted to get some insight from LE. Obviously this event took place in Portland, Maine so the laws might be different.



Story behind this video is a person calls the police about a man with a gun. The police officer finds the guy and the video shows the rest. Two questions.

A. Was the officer within his rights to ask for ID?

B. Was the officer within his rights to temporarily hold the guys gun?

Thanks in advance!

[Patrick Aherne]

What's the law in Maine? You need to know what Maine law is before we can answer any questions.

[Notorious]

Yep, different law, different policies molded to fit those laws, and different practices for the department to handle those calls. We can't really tell.

[Patrick Aherne]

ETA: a call to the station does NOT give you the RIGHT to investigate a complaint when there are no laws being broken.

You have no clue when a person may be detained. The officer cannot know that no crime is being committed until he makes contact and confirms it's just some guy out exercising his rights.

[hitman13]

You have no clue when a person may be detained. The officer cannot know that no crime is being committed until he makes contact and confirms it's just some guy out exercising his rights.

I actually do have a clue, seeing how I live (and work in LE) in a state where open carry is legal, just like it is in Maine. There was no apparant crime being broken, therefore the detention was not legal, and was in infringment on his rights. A consentual encounter would have been good, but the person made it clear that he did not want to be detained, or to give additional information to the police.

So please, instead of telling me that I don't know when a person may be detained, tell me how a detention in this case was good. I will eat my words if I'm wrong....


ETA: this was not some slapstick out waving a gun around or pointing it at people. He simply had a holstered pistol.

[LibertyDeath]

I am really getting sick of these open carry d-bags trying to get the police to violate their rights just so they can sue or become famous on Youtube. The sole purpose is to start conflict and that type of crap is exactly why you cannot even unloaded open carry in CA.

[IA300]

I am really getting sick of these open carry d-bags trying to get the police to violate their rights just so they can sue or become famous on Youtube. The sole purpose is to start conflict and that type of crap is exactly why you cannot even unloaded open carry in CA.

Exactly, they are taking their fight to the wrong people. Their beef is with the law makers, not the law enforcers. That's the part that pisses me off.

[Eightythree]

I think I'm more interested in the LEO holding the guys gun. It seems common sense to me that a police officer has the right to temporarily disarm someone for officer safety.

Isn't officer safety laws pretty homogenous across states?

[RedVines]

[QUOTE=hitman13;10638357] There was no apparant crime being broken, therefore the detention was not legal, and was in infringment on his rights. [QUOTE]

I assume you mean there's no apparent law being broken. An LEO does not need a law to be broken to detain someone, that would actually constitute probable cause for an arrest. A detention only requires a reasonable suspicion that a crime MAY be afoot based on the totality of the circumstances. That's national policing standards set by the Supreme Court across all 50 states.

So from watching the video it seems like 1) some citizen called about someone carrying a gun. 2) Officer arrives and finds exactly that. 3)The man appears to be standing in front of a gas station in video. That is all the information I could gather from the video. There may be something else that the officer observed that led him to form his reasonable suspicion. Maybe he saw the guy looking around as if he was casing the gas station. Maybe the guy in the video had tattoos similar to gang tats. Maybe he saw some other behavior from the guy that helped him form his reasonable suspicion. I don't know. I wasn't there. Therefore, we really can't sit here and Monday morning quarterback the officer.

I would further argue that based on 1,2 and 3, that the officer HAD reasonable suspicion to detain the man to investigate whether or not he was a felon in possession of a firearm. The man asked if the officer suspected him of being a felon and the officer replied I don't know you. In my opinion, not knowing right away that the man is NOT a felon justifies a Terry stop to investigate. My reasoning is that the crime being suspected and investigated is not whether the man is a felon, but whether or not the man is suspected of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Since the man is openly carrying a pistol, 50% of the elements of the crime is already present. And since felons come in all shapes sizes and colors, the only reasonable way to determine that is by making contact with the man and investigating. The relevant question the man should have asked the officer is do you suspect me being a felon in possession of a firearm, to which I would answered with a resounding yes.

Now that the man is, in my opinion, legally detained. The officer is well within his rights to both ask for ID and temporarily seize the weapon. If the man refuses at that point to give his ID or further cooperate with the investigation, he may run into some legal problems. In CA there are laws against delaying a police investigation, to which refusing to provide ID during a legal detention would fall under.

There's my argument for why the detention is good.

[pepsi2451]

Remember just because the magazine is out of the gun doesn't mean that there still isn't a round in the chamber or that he's not concealing any other loaded magazine's.

I believe it was legally loaded. Some text pops up at the end saying "FINALLY! The supervisor said I am free to leave. My gun was handed back to me, I loaded it and left without issue"

Remember legal loaded open carry is legal in a lot of states.

Exactly, they are taking their fight to the wrong people. Their beef is with the law makers, not the law enforcers. That's the part that pisses me off.

Apparently he wasn't breaking any laws, at least that's how it seems since they let him go. I haven't seen anyone post any laws that he might be breaking in this thread or the other. The officer was enforcing laws that don't exist. In this case, how was his beef with the lawmakers?

I assume you mean there's no apparent law being broken. An LEO does not need a law to be broken to detain someone, that would actually constitute probable cause for an arrest. A detention only requires a reasonable suspicion that a crime MAY be afoot based on the totality of the circumstances. That's national policing standards set by the Supreme Court across all 50 states.

So from watching the video it seems like 1) some citizen called about someone carrying a gun. 2) Officer arrives and finds exactly that. 3)The man appears to be standing in front of a gas station in video. That is all the information I could gather from the video. There may be something else that the officer observed that led him to form his reasonable suspicion. Maybe he saw the guy looking around as if he was casing the gas station. Maybe the guy in the video had tattoos similar to gang tats. Maybe he saw some other behavior from the guy that helped him form his reasonable suspicion. I don't know. I wasn't there. Therefore, we really can't sit here and Monday morning quarterback the officer.

I would further argue that based on 1,2 and 3, that the officer HAD reasonable suspicion to detain the man to investigate whether or not he was a felon in possession of a firearm. The man asked if the officer suspected him of being a felon and the officer replied I don't know you. In my opinion, not knowing right away that the man is NOT a felon justifies a Terry stop to investigate. My reasoning is that the crime being suspected and investigated is not whether the man is a felon, but whether or not the man is suspected of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Since the man is openly carrying a pistol, 50% of the elements of the crime is already present. And since felons come in all shapes sizes and colors, the only reasonable way to determine that is by making contact with the man and investigating. The relevant question the man should have asked the officer is do you suspect me being a felon in possession of a firearm, to which I would answered with a resounding yes.

Now that the man is, in my opinion, legally detained. The officer is well within his rights to both ask for ID and temporarily seize the weapon. If the man refuses at that point to give his ID or further cooperate with the investigation, he may run into some legal problems. In CA there are laws against delaying a police investigation, to which refusing to provide ID during a legal detention would fall under.

There's my argument for why the detention is good.

RedVines, are you an LEO? I'm not an LEO or a lawyer but I'm pretty sure there is quite a bit wrong with what you posted. Perhaps an LEO could clear it up?

[RedVines]

Yes I am an LEO. What do I have wrong?

[urbancommando]

Bottom line if open carry is legal in that state he was not breaking a law and there was no reasonable suspicion based simply on a radio call that there was a man w a gun since that is not illegal in that state.

[xrayoneone]

Though not illegal, when a call comes in it should be investigated. Cops in those states need to be aware that there are many types of ambushes, that guy ambushed them with a camera. Know the laws, go in prepared for a fight. There are a few videos out there where cops were prepared for this. End result the open carry guys usually looked like a tool.

I'm on the fence regarding open carry. Many people do it because they can, others do it to cause problems. We saw how it worked out in this state and now you can't do it. All it takes is one bill outlawing it because some d-weed caused a scene and it's ruined for all.

[RedVines]

True. But assuming it is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm in Maine, how does an officer distinguish between a citizen legally open carrying and a felon illegally possessing without making contact?

[hitman13]

Yes I am an LEO. What do I have wrong?

Detaining someone for not breaking a law, when there is no indication that they WILL break a law.