Tweet
@ pepsi2451
you are correct when you say that you don't see how 1,2 and 3 doesn't add to the officer's suspicion that the man is a felon. it doesn't. but it does add to the officer's reasonable suspicion that the man MAY be a felon in possession of a firearm. big difference, because he actually sees the man in possession of a firearm. the crime isn't a being a felon, the crime is being a felon in possession of a firearm. 1 and 2 have more to do with the officer's duty to act based on the totality of the circumstances than reasonable suspicion, i'll explain my reasoning for that a little later.
to give you a short answer to your question pepsi2451, i believe that 50% of the elements of a crime being present constitutes reasonable suspicion. Most DAs i've spoken with about this seem to agree with me. Reasonable suspicion is a relatively low standard to fulfill. Let me give you an example that does not involve firearms.
The crime of trespassing in CA paraphrased is entering and occupying someone's property without permission or a right to do so. A man travels to his uncle's house to surprise him for his birthday. His uncle wasn't home so the man sit down on his uncle's front porch. Meanwhile, the neighbor notices the man sitting on his neighbor's front porch. The neighbor does not know the man but knows that he is not the property owner. the neighbor calls police and reports what he sees. An officer responds and sees the man sitting on the front porch. The officer approaches the man, tells him that he is being detained and asks for his ID. This scenario is very similar to the video in question. The officer responds to a report of a man sitting on someone's front porch, which in and of itself is not a crime. But the officer arrives and finds the described man sitting on the front porch. there's 50% of the elements of the crime of trespassing present. Do you think it would be wrong for the officer to detain the man and investigate further? I think most reasonable people would say that the officer was within his rights to detain the man and investigate. In fact, i think most reasonable people would say it is the officer's duty to investigate further.
Now to address your other points. you are under the impression that officers need to have further suspicion that the man was a felon to detain. i would argue that if being a felon in and of itself was a crime, than your line of thinking would be correct. Like i mentioned before, an officer can't tell the difference between a citizen legally open carrying and a felon illegally possessing. This would differ greatly from being pulled over by an officer without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to check if you have a license, reason being the differences in public interest between someone driving without a license vs a felon carrying a firearm in the streets is huge. This goes back to 1)the fact that the citizen called the police. the officer was not arbitrarily stopping this man for carrying his firearm, he is doing so because a citizen had called 911 regarding this man, therefore it adds to serve the public interest aspect of the detention. Point 2), the fact that the officer arrived on scene and saw the man carrying the gun, is important because now the officer has independently confirmed what the caller had reported and he is now not relying solely on third party information in forming his reasonable suspicion.
Now does this mean you can be stopped anywhere at any time when you're carrying firearms. Not necessarily. When you're out in the middle of no where the public interest aspect of a detention decreases significantly since, well, you're in the middle of now here with nobody around. Same principal goes for the shooting range, since it is a supervised place to shoot firearms. See how each scenario is different? Reasonable suspicion is VERY fluid concept and is really a case by case basis. Every officer/lawyer you ask will have a different opinion on what constitutes reasonable suspicion, but ultimately the Supreme Court has the final say. It is always up to the individual officer to form and articulate his reasonable suspicion, and every time he does he is betting his career that he is right.
you are correct when you say that you don't see how 1,2 and 3 doesn't add to the officer's suspicion that the man is a felon. it doesn't. but it does add to the officer's reasonable suspicion that the man MAY be a felon in possession of a firearm. big difference, because he actually sees the man in possession of a firearm. the crime isn't a being a felon, the crime is being a felon in possession of a firearm. 1 and 2 have more to do with the officer's duty to act based on the totality of the circumstances than reasonable suspicion, i'll explain my reasoning for that a little later.
to give you a short answer to your question pepsi2451, i believe that 50% of the elements of a crime being present constitutes reasonable suspicion. Most DAs i've spoken with about this seem to agree with me. Reasonable suspicion is a relatively low standard to fulfill. Let me give you an example that does not involve firearms.
The crime of trespassing in CA paraphrased is entering and occupying someone's property without permission or a right to do so. A man travels to his uncle's house to surprise him for his birthday. His uncle wasn't home so the man sit down on his uncle's front porch. Meanwhile, the neighbor notices the man sitting on his neighbor's front porch. The neighbor does not know the man but knows that he is not the property owner. the neighbor calls police and reports what he sees. An officer responds and sees the man sitting on the front porch. The officer approaches the man, tells him that he is being detained and asks for his ID. This scenario is very similar to the video in question. The officer responds to a report of a man sitting on someone's front porch, which in and of itself is not a crime. But the officer arrives and finds the described man sitting on the front porch. there's 50% of the elements of the crime of trespassing present. Do you think it would be wrong for the officer to detain the man and investigate further? I think most reasonable people would say that the officer was within his rights to detain the man and investigate. In fact, i think most reasonable people would say it is the officer's duty to investigate further.
Now to address your other points. you are under the impression that officers need to have further suspicion that the man was a felon to detain. i would argue that if being a felon in and of itself was a crime, than your line of thinking would be correct. Like i mentioned before, an officer can't tell the difference between a citizen legally open carrying and a felon illegally possessing. This would differ greatly from being pulled over by an officer without reasonable suspicion or probable cause to check if you have a license, reason being the differences in public interest between someone driving without a license vs a felon carrying a firearm in the streets is huge. This goes back to 1)the fact that the citizen called the police. the officer was not arbitrarily stopping this man for carrying his firearm, he is doing so because a citizen had called 911 regarding this man, therefore it adds to serve the public interest aspect of the detention. Point 2), the fact that the officer arrived on scene and saw the man carrying the gun, is important because now the officer has independently confirmed what the caller had reported and he is now not relying solely on third party information in forming his reasonable suspicion.
Now does this mean you can be stopped anywhere at any time when you're carrying firearms. Not necessarily. When you're out in the middle of no where the public interest aspect of a detention decreases significantly since, well, you're in the middle of now here with nobody around. Same principal goes for the shooting range, since it is a supervised place to shoot firearms. See how each scenario is different? Reasonable suspicion is VERY fluid concept and is really a case by case basis. Every officer/lawyer you ask will have a different opinion on what constitutes reasonable suspicion, but ultimately the Supreme Court has the final say. It is always up to the individual officer to form and articulate his reasonable suspicion, and every time he does he is betting his career that he is right.
Comment