Actually, I'm trying to settle an argument with a friend about whether it violates 4th amendment rights or not. I don't think it does cuz probable cause is what you can see in plain view, right?
Actually, I'm trying to settle an argument with a friend about whether it violates 4th amendment rights or not. I don't think it does cuz probable cause is what you can see in plain view, right?
MWC is just engaging in official "chest beating"....erring on the side of caution, public safety, and a little bit of empire syndrome.
The merits of that are arguable, but I expect they will settle down as long as everyone keeps a cool head during the adjustment period.
the way I see it..the way they wrote 1733 eliminates the Terry Stop trap --- or that was the intent.
Terry Stops get a bad rap - the cop's can read a crystal ball and stop you if they THINK your up to no good.
Sometimes thats good police work- but it can be abused.
The other OC states have this problem. Many allow OC and that's the way you can carry legally without a CCW card from the state.
So the officers sees a person strapped... contacts... and asks for ID ( like DL). The carrier asks "am I arrested, what am I doing wrong?" and refuses to surrender ID. The officer may be on his way to a shots fired call and the guy may be the shooter (good Terry Stop) or he could be a guy minding his manners packing a gun legally (bad Terry Stop).
Most of these show downs end up in a circular argument. A smart citizen may simply elect to walk away. "If your not detaining me or arresting me- have a nice day". OK law has always short circuited that...you have to show a card.
Now--- if an agency gets the reputation of pulling people out with CARDS over and OVER again... maybe that's systematic harrasment and a AR violaton--- but that would take some court time to prove. I we are eating and 4 cops walk in over the hour and each checks us... that may be legal . but is it right?
We have always had to inform CC here... and I think the logic was to extend what we always did to what we are about to do. To protect A4 rights...if you can produce a SDA Card and ID on demand-that officer cannot go any further unless he has probable cause that connects you to a crime.
Read the law.. they don't leave much to argue about as long as everybody does what it says.
Hell, I need to stop worrying about open carrying and see if I have to have a permit for the donkey and the sombrero!
A State cannot take away the Federal Rights we are afforded in the USCON.
I could see were a Cop sees a person he's suspicious about using the OPEN gun as a reason to make the contact... and that evolves into a Terry Stop for the actual suspicion.
Example... a SDA guy snaps... beats up his wife... is found in a public place.
The cop sees a gun... and a guy with a ripped shirt, blood , etc who fits the broadcast descriptions for the battery.
I am no lawyer but it seems one would have to tread lightly in this example... and frankly I think you could argue it either way.
Are we saying we Terry Stopped you for the description or got lucky checking your gun?
I could see were a Cop sees a person he's suspicious about using the OPEN gun as a reason to make the contact... and that evolves into a Terry Stop for the actual suspicion.
Example... a SDA guy snaps... beats up his wife... is found in a public place.
The cop sees a gun... and a guy with a ripped shirt, blood , etc who fits the broadcast descriptions for the battery.
I am no lawyer but it seems one would have to tread lightly in this example... and frankly I think you could argue it either way.
Are we saying we Terry Stopped you for the description or got lucky checking your gun?
A State cannot take away the Federal Rights we are afforded in the USCON.
I could see were a Cop sees a person he's suspicious about using the OPEN gun as a reason to make the contact... and that evolves into a Terry Stop for the actual suspicion.
Example... a SDA guy snaps... beats up his wife... is found in a public place.
The cop sees a gun... and a guy with a ripped shirt, blood , etc who fits the broadcast descriptions for the battery.
I am no lawyer but it seems one would have to tread lightly in this example... and frankly I think you could argue it either way.
Are we saying we Terry Stopped you for the description or got lucky checking your gun?
But then we run the same peril... get stopped for a moving violation... DL check gets the outsanding warrants... and you go to jail for those...
I could see were a Cop sees a person he's suspicious about using the OPEN gun as a reason to make the contact... and that evolves into a Terry Stop for the actual suspicion.
Example... a SDA guy snaps... beats up his wife... is found in a public place.
The cop sees a gun... and a guy with a ripped shirt, blood , etc who fits the broadcast descriptions for the battery.
I am no lawyer but it seems one would have to tread lightly in this example... and frankly I think you could argue it either way.
Are we saying we Terry Stopped you for the description or got lucky checking your gun?
But then we run the same peril... get stopped for a moving violation... DL check gets the outsanding warrants... and you go to jail for those...
Correct.
This scenario is not really a "Federal right" question. Officers do not have a right to make a stop, they have authority to make a stop, subject to the rights of the subject. In Terry, the court held that an officer performing a brief frisk does not violate the suspect's rights so long as there is some reasonable suspicion to believe he has done something nefarious. If a state wants to put a restriction on the officer's authority to do so, such restriction in no way steps on anybody's rights, nor would it offend the Court's ruling: it's the state saying "even though the feds say your authority may extend this far, we're not going to give you that much power." (Note that such a state rule would only apply to state and local agents; Federal authorities would not be subject to such restrictions.)
As to your scenario, it skips right over reasonable suspicion and hits probable cause pretty cleanly: torn clothes and blood suggest an altercation, and matching the description puts him in a specific altercation. The gun is almost irrelevant at that point, and if the officer is using the gun as the primary reason, instead of the torn, bloody clothes, well, he needs to go back to school on criminal procedure.
Did we not have the Second Amendment lets say in the era of Dodge City Kansas many years ago. If history is correct you had to check your hogleg when entering town. So maybe Midwest City might have the right to do what they are saying. In my judgement it should take a mature critical thinking person to carry a instrument of death. The true way of the Gun.
Is serious business. Not to be taken lightly. To organize a open carry show of force in Midwest City. To confront the Police is madness in my judgement. Some of the post I have been reading make no sense to me. To open carry in this day and time is going to be hard work. You best not have your head in your ass. Good Luck.
Is serious business. Not to be taken lightly. To organize a open carry show of force in Midwest City. To confront the Police is madness in my judgement. Some of the post I have been reading make no sense to me. To open carry in this day and time is going to be hard work. You best not have your head in your ass. Good Luck.
Similar threads
