Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A completely reasonable way to deal with the new wave of open carry morons.....
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1878193" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I agree, the cop was very professional... you could tell he was a practiced public speaker, as well as having good interpersonal skills. </p><p></p><p>BUT, I don't think there was reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed to allow a stop. I don't think there was there reasonable suspicion of the subject being armed and dangerous to allow the seizure of the gun. I don't think the gun had an immediately apparent incriminating character to allow it's seizure under the plain view doctrine. And obviously there was no warrant to allow the seizure and search of the gun for full auto parts, nor the probable cause that it was an illegal unregistered full auto that such a warrant would require. </p><p></p><p>I think it is ridiculous to base reasonable suspicion purely on the fact that there are some full auto guns in existence which look like the one in question, when the officer is aware of no other specific facts supporting a reasonable belief that there is a full auto trigger group in a gun. If that were the case, a cop could go to the range and detain everyone shooting an AR-15, to investigate whether it is an unregistered full auto. Or he could stop everyone open-carrying a Glock or Beretta, based on the possibility of it being an unregistered Glock 18 or Beretta 93. </p><p></p><p>Also, basing reasonable suspicion that a person doesn't have the required tax stamp and documentation, based on their apparent age and type of clothes they're wearing, is pretty iffy too. Not everybody who owns a $10,000 toy always goes around in a tweed suit with a monocle carrying a bag of money. </p><p></p><p>Now even if there WAS reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, as the cop believed, that only gets the officer the authority to detain the suspect for a sufficient time to investigate the suspected crime. By itself, it doesn't give him the power to search or seize anything except the suspect himself. The cop didn't explain his justification for the seizure of the gun from the suspect, but if it were true that he had RS of him carrying an illegal full auto, I believe that would also give rise to a reasonable suspicion of the suspect being armed and dangerous (which ought to be met any time you have RS of a guy with a gun walking around with a gun committing a felony). This would allow the cop to seize and secure the gun for his own safety, which implies that he can unload it and put it where no one can get to it for the duration of the encounter, or until the RS is dissipated. However, it doesn't give him the authority to tinker with it in order to find out what kind of parts are inside it. A seizure under <em>Terry</em> is not for investigative purposes -- it is purely for officer safety. </p><p></p><p>The cop might try to justify the seizure under the plain view doctrine, but that has a higher requirement than just reasonable suspicion -- it requires that the object in question must have an immediately apparent incriminating character (along with being observed from a place the cop has a right to be, and something for which the cop has lawful access to). This is not met for the same reasons I stated with regards to reasonable suspicion. Also, for the plain view doctrine to apply, the object cannot be manipulated. It's unlawful character must be immediately apparent based purely on sight. The fact that the cop tinkered with the gun to see whether it was FA or not negates this. </p><p></p><p>The way the situation should have been handled is this: The cop rolls up, steps out of the car, and greets the subjects. He says, "we got a call from a concerned citizen saying someone is walking around with a machine gun. That gun isn't a full auto, is it?" The armed subject says "I don't want to talk about it." The cop says, "well, seeing how I have no reason to suspect that it is, or that it is unregistered if it is, have a nice day." The cop then goes back and tells the concerned citizen that open carry is legal, and that since he has no evidence that the gun is possessed illegally, there is nothing more he can legally do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1878193, member: 4235"] I agree, the cop was very professional... you could tell he was a practiced public speaker, as well as having good interpersonal skills. BUT, I don't think there was reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed to allow a stop. I don't think there was there reasonable suspicion of the subject being armed and dangerous to allow the seizure of the gun. I don't think the gun had an immediately apparent incriminating character to allow it's seizure under the plain view doctrine. And obviously there was no warrant to allow the seizure and search of the gun for full auto parts, nor the probable cause that it was an illegal unregistered full auto that such a warrant would require. I think it is ridiculous to base reasonable suspicion purely on the fact that there are some full auto guns in existence which look like the one in question, when the officer is aware of no other specific facts supporting a reasonable belief that there is a full auto trigger group in a gun. If that were the case, a cop could go to the range and detain everyone shooting an AR-15, to investigate whether it is an unregistered full auto. Or he could stop everyone open-carrying a Glock or Beretta, based on the possibility of it being an unregistered Glock 18 or Beretta 93. Also, basing reasonable suspicion that a person doesn't have the required tax stamp and documentation, based on their apparent age and type of clothes they're wearing, is pretty iffy too. Not everybody who owns a $10,000 toy always goes around in a tweed suit with a monocle carrying a bag of money. Now even if there WAS reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, as the cop believed, that only gets the officer the authority to detain the suspect for a sufficient time to investigate the suspected crime. By itself, it doesn't give him the power to search or seize anything except the suspect himself. The cop didn't explain his justification for the seizure of the gun from the suspect, but if it were true that he had RS of him carrying an illegal full auto, I believe that would also give rise to a reasonable suspicion of the suspect being armed and dangerous (which ought to be met any time you have RS of a guy with a gun walking around with a gun committing a felony). This would allow the cop to seize and secure the gun for his own safety, which implies that he can unload it and put it where no one can get to it for the duration of the encounter, or until the RS is dissipated. However, it doesn't give him the authority to tinker with it in order to find out what kind of parts are inside it. A seizure under [I]Terry[/I] is not for investigative purposes -- it is purely for officer safety. The cop might try to justify the seizure under the plain view doctrine, but that has a higher requirement than just reasonable suspicion -- it requires that the object in question must have an immediately apparent incriminating character (along with being observed from a place the cop has a right to be, and something for which the cop has lawful access to). This is not met for the same reasons I stated with regards to reasonable suspicion. Also, for the plain view doctrine to apply, the object cannot be manipulated. It's unlawful character must be immediately apparent based purely on sight. The fact that the cop tinkered with the gun to see whether it was FA or not negates this. The way the situation should have been handled is this: The cop rolls up, steps out of the car, and greets the subjects. He says, "we got a call from a concerned citizen saying someone is walking around with a machine gun. That gun isn't a full auto, is it?" The armed subject says "I don't want to talk about it." The cop says, "well, seeing how I have no reason to suspect that it is, or that it is unregistered if it is, have a nice day." The cop then goes back and tells the concerned citizen that open carry is legal, and that since he has no evidence that the gun is possessed illegally, there is nothing more he can legally do. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A completely reasonable way to deal with the new wave of open carry morons.....
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom