Doobie Harassed for open carrying "two pistols"

[BillKauffman]

These open carry abuses will continue until someone files a lawsuit against the cops and the cities where they happen.

I don't know if consent is implicitly implied when one is stopped, but I never consented for him to remove my sweater so he could see my "other pistol" (flashlight).  He only cared about that because it was concealed.  My openly carried pistol he didn't care about.

Wouldn't their physical observation of what they thought was a concealed weapon (your flashlight) under your sweater be reasonable suspicion something was amiss when you were also open carrying or do you feel this was just a pretense to stopping you and asking you a series of questions that would trick you into consenting to be searched?

However he refused to let me get my wallet and got it for himself.  And then after I told him I didn't want him opening my wallet he said he wasn't going to give it to me.  I should have stated then he can put it back in my pocket, but I think I kept quiet (something about 3 cops standing around you in a threatening manor).  Luckily it was the top thing and all he was about to see was my library card, but still.  I felt my 4th amendment rights were violated. 

In court, wouldn't this just be your word against the three with you having "consented to" previous requests to comply?

[rmodel65]

These open carry abuses will continue until someone files a lawsuit against the cops and the cities where they happen.

I don't know if consent is implicitly implied when one is stopped, but I never consented for him to remove my sweater so he could see my "other pistol" (flashlight).  He only cared about that because it was concealed.  My openly carried pistol he didn't care about.

Wouldn't their physical observation of what they thought was a concealed weapon (your flashlight) under your sweater be reasonable suspicion something was amiss when you were also open carrying or do you feel this was just a pretense to stopping you and asking you a series of questions that would trick you into consenting to be searched?

However he refused to let me get my wallet and got it for himself.  And then after I told him I didn't want him opening my wallet he said he wasn't going to give it to me.  I should have stated then he can put it back in my pocket, but I think I kept quiet (something about 3 cops standing around you in a threatening manor).  Luckily it was the top thing and all he was about to see was my library card, but still.  I felt my 4th amendment rights were violated. 

In court, wouldn't this just be your word against the three with you having "consented to" previous requests to comply?

I doubt it in JL v FL the individual was concealing and an anonymous call didnt give rise to a stop, because isnt not RAS or PC http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1993.ZS.html

[FTL_Ian]

Interesting interview.

Rich, as an aside, I went to look for their website, couldn't find it, and did a google search.  Looks like Lyon and the other guys from SORCE have been indicted and Lyon has pled guilty:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2989
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:omdcLAiLY-kJ:unaleinable.com/%3Fp%3D48+Casternovia+lyon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us



Have you heard anything about this?

[J’raxis 270145]

[Reposted from the NH Tea Party thread.]


Yay, another police department that needs to be nailed to the wall... right next to the Manchester PD. :evil:

The paper says pistol / revolver license...

Indeed, the license itself is titled a "PISTOL/REVOLVER LICENSE" and states that "In accordance with Chapter 159 of New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 1955, as Amended 1979, a Licence to Carry a Pistol or Revolver is issued to the Following Individual".

RSA 159:6 similarly refers to it as simply a "License to Carry", and only in RSA 159:4 are conditions laid out when this so-called license is required: "No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided."

That's clever. So technically the license is indeed to carry but only becomes a requirement when one is carrying concealed or carrying in a vehicle. This also means that in-vehicle carry isn't just some bizarre form of concealed carry as many people seem to think (including myself, until I just read these RSAs in detail), it's actually a completely separate act for which the State requires a "License to Carry".

I'd wager they wrote the RSAs like this so if they ever want to add more acts for which a license is required, they just amend RSA 159:4, and they don't have to reprint all the licenses, forms, and so on, with new titles.

Everyone keeps telling me to remove the bit about the kel-tec from the posts.

Why? You have the carry license.

[MTPorcupine3]

Interesting interview.

Rich, as an aside, I went to look for their website, couldn't find it, and did a google search.  Looks like Lyon and the other guys from SORCE have been indicted and Lyon has pled guilty:
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2989
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:omdcLAiLY-kJ:unaleinable.com/%3Fp%3D48+Casternovia+lyon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us



Have you heard anything about this?

Well, now I know more than I did. The company folded over a year ago, and before that they were raided by the alphabet soup gang, no charges filed. As Mark said in the interview, the Police State is here, folks. He told me once that he feared for his security being what a monstrous tyrannical leviathan the government has become. This is not good news. We are in Hell on earth if people get arrested for telling the truth about the government... in the "Land of the Free".

[Firewall99]

One has to be smart in picking a fight with the gov't.  Fighting the IRS or the Treasury is about the stupidest place to start.  The burden of proof is reversed--the defendant has the burden, not the prosecution--and they start the process with confiscation of assets before the trial.

Fighting the towns for illegal stops by ignorant clowns would be a lot easier.

[doobie]

[removed]

[doobie]

Ok, after picking up the $12 half page report (mostly just officer arriving/dispatched), I think my original compliant is mainly going to be an inquiry to the CLEO:

Why didn't the officers say I was free to go after they id the "second pistol" as a flash light, and the first as a legally open carried pistol.
If I had asked if I was free to go would I have been let go at this point?
Why did they demand ID when I told them I didn't have any.
Why did they open my wallet after I told them I didn't want to.
Am to expect this to happen any time I or any one else open carries?
If the caller stated I had two pistols, then they were clearly visible.  Why was I stopped?  Why couldn't the officers drive-by and see the open carried pistol and realize a flash light isn't a pistol?

My new complaint is:

A) WHY the FUCK is my SSN on this report?
B) Where the FUCK did they get my SSN?

I checked the "do not keep my SSN" when I applied for my drivers license and did not add it on my pistol license application.

All the call log says is: "Has permit out of Derry, Verified ID, it's an open carry issue".

I'm trying to determine if "issue" is meant in a good or bad way for our Rights.

[Moebius Tripp]

My new complaint is:

A) WHY the FUCK is my SSN on this report?
B) Where the FUCK did they get my SSN?

I checked the "do not keep my SSN" when I applied for my drivers license and did not add it on my pistol license application.

All the call log says is: "Has permit out of Derry, Verified ID, it's an open carry issue".

I'm trying to determine if "issue" is meant in a good or bad way for our Rights.

Cuz the "Master Cylinder" wants to enslave us all.  Felix!?! Where is that damn cat...

I'd presume issue means "legal" war.

[Firewall99]

"Why didn't the officers say I was free to go after they id the "second pistol" as a flash light, and the first as a legally open carried pistol?"
BECAUSE THEIR JOB IS TO FIND A WAY TO ARREST YOU, CONVICT YOU, AND PUT YOU IN JAIL.  DO NOT EXPECT THEM TO HELP YOU IN ANY WAY.
If I had asked if I was free to go would I have been let go at this point?  PROBABLY, AFTER TRYING FIRST TO SQUEEZE YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION.
Why did they demand ID when I told them I didn't have any?  BECAUSE YOU DID NOT TELL THEM YOU DON'T HAVE TO PRODUCE ID WHEN WALKING.  YOUR JOB IS TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CANNOT BAMBOOZLE YOU INTO GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS.  WHEN PRACTICAL, LEAVE *ALL* YOUR ID IN THE CAR IF YOU CAN.
Why did they open my wallet after I told them I didn't want to.  BECAUSE YOU DID NOT EXPLICITLY REFUSE CONSENT TO BE SEARCHED, NOR DID YOU MAKE THEM SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE (A CRIME COMMITTED) BEFORE CONDUCTING THE SEARCH.
Am to expect this to happen any time I or any one else open carries?  YES, UNTIL YOU LEARN WHAT TO SAY AND WHAT NOT TO SAY.
If the caller stated I had two pistols, then they were clearly visible.  Why was I stopped?  Why couldn't the officers drive-by and see the open carried pistol and realize a flash light isn't a pistol?  THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A CONCEALED WEAPON, HOPING THAT YOU HAD NO LICENSE TO CARRY.  (THE SEARCH COULD HAVE PROBABLY BEEN THROWN OUT IN COURT.)

My new complaint is:

A) WHY the FUCK is my SSN on this report?
B) Where the FUCK did they get my SSN?

I checked the "do not keep my SSN" when I applied for my drivers license and did not add it on my pistol license application.

I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM.  EVEN ASKED AT THE COUNTER TO HAVE IT REMOVED.  THEY REFUSED, SAYING THE FEDS REQUIRE THEM TO KEEP IT.  IT WILL TAKE A FORMAL COMPLAINT OR LAWSUIT TO MAKE THEM OBEY NH LAW.  BEEN WANTING TO DO THAT EVENTUALLY.  IF ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED, WE CAN CUT OUR COSTS AND DO IT ALL AT ONCE IN A SINGLE ACTION.  I WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT.

[Tom Ploszaj]

  Did they ask you for ID when you paid/received the report?  If not, then this may be good place that sells someone's information for $12.

[MTPorcupine3]

I checked the "do not keep my SSN" when I applied for my drivers license and did not add it on my pistol license application.

All discussion aside about whether one should apply for a drivers licence or CWP (right--not privilege--to travel, right--not privilege--to bear arms), all discussion aside about whether that assigned SSN is really your SSN, all discussion aside about whether the gov't should be trusted not to "keep your SSN":

There is no reason that I know of to give such a number when making such an application. I've got a passport and voter registration (two States) with no SSN. A simple "None; religious objector" does the trick. If they insist, stand your ground until they back down. I know it's possible, as I haven't used or claimed any SSN since January 2002. Progressive Direct insurance does not require a SSN, by the way.

[rmodel65]

Our gun rights group here in ga called GCO sued over SSN and employer info

it is located here: http://georgiacarry.com/camp/ there are quite a few PDF but they are interesting reads

[grasshopper]

  Ok, how about these nuisance searches?  If there's a complaint and there is a "victim", which would be probable cause, wouldn't the police have to show this complaint in court or an inquiry?  I say an other avenue to go is to get the original complaint and if it is known to be a false call, then the person that complained should be libel for that false report, and all other actions by the police or other law enforcement.
  There is a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse for braking it, and it is clear to me that calling in a false alarm that involves the potential target of that complaint to have his life endangered, or threatened by force to comply, should be good enough to press charges on the original person or persons that file the complaint.
  I call it third person assault.  The same as having your older brother take care of that bully in the school yard when you were 4.

[rmodel65]

Chief's Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

By John M. Collins, Esq., General Counsel, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts






Because it is legal in most states to carry a handgun if properly licensed, a report that an individual possesses a handgun, without any additional information suggesting criminal activity, might not create reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or will be committed.1 Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,2 it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."3

State laws vary regarding both open and concealed carrying of firearms, but courts are usually sensitive to officer and public safety concerns over the presence in public of firearms. Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.4

Anonymous Tip
In a 1990 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that, through corroboration of its detail, an anonymous tip can be enough to give rise to the reasonable suspicion required for a stop.5 More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.6 Similarly, in another 2000 Supreme Court case, an anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion.7 In that case the Court ruled that it was irrelevant that the defendant fled when the officer got out of his car and ordered the defendant to approach him.8 The tipster need not deliver an ironclad case to the police to justify an investigatory stop; it suffices if a prudent law enforcement officer would reasonably conclude that the likelihood existed that criminal activities were afoot and that a particular suspect was probably engaged in them.9

Clearly, not every report of a citizen is worthy of belief or sufficient to justify a response by an officer. A caller could, for example, intend merely to harass someone by making an anonymous call to police and claiming someone had a gun hidden in his or her vehicle or on his or her person.

The ultimate issue on the report's usefulness is whether the contents (and other attendant circumstances) create a reasonable suspicion that a dangerous situation exists, creating authority to detain or frisk or both. It certainly helps if the report contains particular facts that do one or more of the following:

    * Create a suggestion of threats of violence in this situation

    * Are themselves acts of violence

    * Indicate impending criminal activity

    * Raise a reasonable concern for public safety

Of course, in the many jurisdictions where carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, this analytical step may be obviated and inquiry will proceed to the next issue, the likely veracity of the information source. In the case of an anonymous tip, the question will be whether corroboration of detail goes beyond the mere description of a person already in public.

Examples of Appropriate Police Actions
Examples may be helpful here. Police officers would be acting reasonably in stopping and frisking an individual after receiving information on the street from a known bystander that the person was displaying a handgun on a street corner in a high crime area at 5:30 in the morning, or if it reasonably appears that a suspect is not only armed but also dangerous, as would be the case if the individual appeared to be reaching for his or her weapon. The possession of a firearm by a minor in many states may be viewed as presumptively illegal, and thus sufficient to justify an investigatory stop of the minor by the police, again provided the information source is sufficiently credible. A constitutionally reliable report of the sighting of someone carrying a sawed-off shotgun-especially in states where this is illegal-would likely justify an immediate investigatory stop. Loading a weapon in public, especially where there is no clearly lawful reason for doing so (to begin hunting or target shooting, for instance), and especially in a high crime area at night or during early morning hours, could provide the extra information some courts require in order to allow police officers to conduct an investigatory stop and frisk of a person reportedly in possession of a firearm.

Enforcement Guidelines
Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:

    * Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.

    * If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.

    * If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.

    * If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview.

    * If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon.

    * Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason      to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter
      .


1 See, for example, Com. v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
2 Id.
3 See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
4 Com. v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998).
5 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
6 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
7 Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
8 Id.
9 Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 1105 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); U.S. v. Diallo, 29 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998).


Top