Tim Farrell - Nashua - Harassed by the Kops - detained - surveiled!!!

[leetninja]

VERY VERY interesting porc 411 attached.

I'm guessing perhaps Dave Ridley may want to contact this guy and perhaps do a Ridley Report?

Basic notes/breakdown:

Walking to bank for deposit - asked why he was carrying a firearm - he told the officer he had no ID and was walking to bank to deposit checks - he said he doesnt consent to being detained - they detained him anyhow - he gave them Name and DOB - he explained he didnt have a license - officers tried to run his name in NH and MA - 3 kops on scene and even a Sgt. -  The officers stated that the right to remain silent only applies when under arrest and that the 5th amendment only applies in court in front of a judge - Tim seems to handle it pretty well giving minimal information and asking to be released - with nothing to hold him on they let him go - he realized when he got home (after refusing to give an address) a kop in his kruiser followed Tim the whole way home and snapped pictures of him.  Tim took some "poor quality" pics of the kop and kruiser.

Raises a few questions.  How much money was wasted during this surveilence of a law abiding resident of NH - were there no other crimes or anything that required this kop's attention during the entire walk Tim had home?

[doobie]

Raises a few questions.  How much money was wasted during this surveilence of a law abiding resident of NH - were there no other crimes or anything that required this kop's attention during the entire walk Tim had home?

Better question is...how many REAL crimes went un-detected/stopped/prevented/solved because of someone whose only crime it was to be exercising his RIGHTS.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

We're having an open-carry litter pick-up on Sunday in response to this.

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17402.msg289541#new

[rmodel65]

 Got section 1983?????

In United States
v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994), the court held that a radio call alerting police to
the presence of two people in a vehicle with firearms did not provide reasonable suspicion of a
crime justifying the stop, because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime. The
court discussed in more detail the issues of firearms licensing and whether possession of the
firearm itself was a crime:


[Officer] Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him
to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of
course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you
happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not
licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have
known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these
criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the
Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawedoff
shotgun. A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in
"suspicious" activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of
crime.
The court further noted that "if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v.
Long authorizes the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the
officers reasonably fear for their safety."
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, with Northern District of Georgia Judge O'Kelley
sitting by designation, unanimously held that a tip that a celebrant at a festival was carrying a
pistol was not sufficient to justify a stop of the celebrant. See United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d
213 (3rd Cir. 2000). "For all the officers knew, even assuming the reliability of the tip that
Ubiles possessed a gun, Ubiles was another celebrant lawfully exercising his right under
Virgin Island law to possess a gun in public." Id. at 218.
This situation is no different than if Lockhart had told the officers that Ubiles
possessed a wallet, a perfectly legal act in the Virgin Islands, and the
authorities had stopped him for this reason. Though a search of that wallet
may have revealed counterfeit bills-the possession of which is a crime under
United States law, see 18 U.S.C. § 471-72-the officers would have had no
justification to stop Ubiles based merely on information that he possessed a
wallet, and the seized bills would have to be suppressed.
As with the case of the hypothetical wallet holder, the authorities here had no
reason to know that Ubiles's gun was unregistered or that the serial number had
been altered. Moreover, they did not testify that it is common for people who
carry guns in crowds-or crowds of drunken people-to either alter or fail to register
their guns, or to use them to commit further crimes-all of which would be
additional evidence giving rise to the inference that Ubiles may have illegally
possessed his gun or that criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, as with the wallet
holder, the authorities in this case had no reason to believe that Ubiles was
engaged in or planning or preparing to engage in illegal activity due to his
possession of a gun. Accordingly, in stopping him and subsequently searching
him, the authorities infringed on Ubiles Fourth Amendment rights.

[KBCraig]

Got section 1983?????

In United States
v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994), the court held that a radio call alerting police to
the presence of two people in a vehicle with firearms did not provide reasonable suspicion of a
crime justifying the stop, because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime.

The principle was later re-affirmed in Florida v. J.L., which is a good cite because the accused was actually breaking the law, but the police had no reason to believe so beyond an anonymous tip; their stop and search was not justified.

This is the case usually cited to point out that there is no "firearms exception" for a Terry stop; police don't have more authority to stop and/or search someone just because a firearm is involved. The supremes said, "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun . . ."

In this case, where no law was being broken, nor any "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a law was being, had just been, or was about to be broken, this was an illegal and unjustifiable stop the moment Tim was told he wasn't free to leave.

[KBCraig]

Tim's thread on OCDO:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum37/23008.html