Santa Fe Police Confront Man for Open Carring Legally

[level.eleven]

It's wrong when a cop screws with a citizen going about their business. It's just as wrong when a citizen screws with a cop going about theirs, and I think this guy was doing just that.

Rot-roh. Recording enforcers is "screwing" with them? In addition, the screwing started when the citizen was detained for using a handheld device. Actually, its very similar to the one the enforcer used while driving along and calling in to ask what to do about the video recorder. No one had complained, not one was injured, no ones civil rights had been violated, there was no victim. the initiation of force began with the enforcer.

 

[dross]

It's wrong when a cop screws with a citizen going about their business. It's just as wrong when a citizen screws with a cop going about theirs, and I think this guy was doing just that.

You know, Joe, that damned ride-a-long sure dulled your incisors.

Was the guy screwing with the cop? No doubt. The "however" is that when someone screws with a cop, it's up to the cop to make sure that as the enforcer of our laws, and as the party with the power of the benefit of the doubt and the power of the presumed lawful order behind him, it is his job to walk the delicate path of what's legal. Too much of the time, we require the citizen to know exactly what's legal, while we allow the cop to err in good faith.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse for a citizen, it should certainly be no excuse for a cop.

 

[HICKMAN]

i see your sig, so obviously you served. i dont know if you were in a combat zone or not, and yes combat is different than on the street in america, but over there if someone other than a coalition soldier walked up behind me while i had a vehicle stopped, theyd be getting the butt of an m4 to their dome, no questions asked, and it would be justified.

so here in america, if someone UNANOUNCED walks up to a cop while hes doing a traffic stop then i think his equivilant to my "hit to the dome" would be for him to ask for AT LEAST an LTCH. and i think hed be right in doing that. im usualy not a supporter of cops, but in this case i support the cop to at least have seen a LTCH or in that state since he didnt need one, his drivers lisence or just a good butt chewing.

Nope, I got out in 96 before everything kicked off... other than the first Gulf War and guarding the borders in Germany. Your time over there has little to nothing to do with a cop in the US, where our Constitution is law and not UCMJ and ROE over there.

The guy walked up with a camera, and a holstered pistol. Neither of which in that state are you required to "show your papers". Sure, if we were in Indiana, I'd show them my LTCH, as it's required.

The guy didn't sneak up on the cop and complied with the orders given. As I said before, if the officer felt threatened in any way, he would have dealt with it immediately.

 

[Joe Williams]

You know, Joe, that damned ride-a-long sure dulled your incisors.

Was the guy screwing with the cop? No doubt. The "however" is that when someone screws with a cop, it's up to the cop to make sure that as the enforcer of our laws, and as the party with the power of the benefit of the doubt and the power of the presumed lawful order behind him, it is his job to walk the delicate path of what's legal. Too much of the time, we require the citizen to know exactly what's legal, while we allow the cop to err in good faith.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse for a citizen, it should certainly be no excuse for a cop.

I haven't gotten the ride along yet.... but looking forward to it!

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

The guy was definitely trolling for some confrontation. The first officer should have reacted better, but that's training - I wouldn't let someone get the drop on me, either. I think the points the guy made were interesting, and I understand where he's coming from, but he would do much better to regain liberties by making the police at ease, instead of getting their collective hackles up. The second officer did a much better job at being impartial, and I'm of the 'you don't automatically get to know who I am just because you don't like how I look' crowd. This guy could have just as easily observed from the wide open dash of his RV. No need to put someone with a pistol on edge and defensive/aggressive toward you. That's a bad idea no matter what your intended purpose was in doing so.

I wonder what the result would have been had he not interfered in a lawful traffic stop, particularly as to whether they would have stopped him just for OCing.

I'm opposed to aggressive police force, but when you bring the scrutiny of the law down on yourself, don't surprised when - hey - you bring its wrathful eye down upon you. This could have been handled about 10,000 times better by the initiator and about ten times as well by the police.

 

[level.eleven]

I'm opposed to aggressive police force, but when you bring the scrutiny of the law down on yourself, don't surprised when - hey - you bring its wrathful eye down upon you. This could have been handled about 10,000 times better by the initiator and about ten times as well by the police.

Didn't the enforcer initiate the interaction in an attempt to extract FRN's (for safety of course) from the peaceful citizen who was just looking to make it home to see her family?

 

[bigiron]

yep, the guy poked the officer with a stick but the officer acted about 4 years old by following him around. just give it up man! remember boys, the officer is representing something bigger than himself and sometimes we just have to be the bigger man. i kept waitng for the officers to prone him but i could make it past 7 minutes in the video. blah....blah, norhing to see here. move along.

 

[HICKMAN]

It's wrong when a cop screws with a citizen going about their business. It's just as wrong when a citizen screws with a cop going about theirs, and I think this guy was doing just that.

that's a fair statement Joe, but I think the officer went in to "I'm gonna teach him a lesson" mode. It just back-fired when the guy walked away at the end, with the law on his side.

Don't get me wrong, some of these "copbuster" guys are just looking to F with cops, I'm not for that.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Didn't the enforcer initiate the interaction in an attempt to extract FRN's (for safety of course) from the peaceful citizen who was just looking to make it home to see her family?

FRN?

I'm not saying he couldn't have seen her through the stop and home safely - that's fine and I'd want to do the same thing if I were told of it with enough notice to make it to her location. But he could have just as easily observed in a way that did not alert the officer to his presence or antagonized the officer's sense of paranoia/safety. I wouldn't want to get wedged between two people like that, either. That would have put me on HIGH alert, especially not knowing the intent of the guy approaching me. The officer did the right thing in asking him to stay back and the wrong thing in following him - the instigator did the right thing the wrong way from the instant the camera started rolling.

 

[mrjarrell]

FRN?

Federal Reserve Notes. Lucre. Moolah.

 

[level.eleven]

I wouldn't want to get wedged between two people like that, either. That would have put me on HIGH alert, especially not knowing the intent of the guy approaching me. The officer did the right thing in asking him to stay back and the wrong thing in following him - the instigator did the right thing the wrong way from the instant the camera started rolling.

I don't want to take the thread any more off the tracks than I already have, this being the 2A forum. PM me if you want.

For what its worth, this isn't my flavor of activism as well. Not to say it doesn't have its place, but I prefer a more academic* approach to getting your point across.

*I couldn't think of a better word...

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

In Hiibel v. Nevada SCOTUS ruled in 2004 that you must identify yourself to police IF police have a reason to question you. We do NOT have an absolute right to privacy as long as there seems to be a "compelling interest" (my words) in determining who you are.

As I read it (just skimming) the court ruled that the police must have some "reasonable suspicion" to stop and detain someone before demanding ID. This seems reasonable to me as long as it is not abused. Yeah, no one would ever abuse authority.

I actually have no problem with this decision in and of itself, except for the fact that I know it will be abused.

Consider the following hypothetical: Doug is getting old and feeble. After shopping in the mall for several hours he decides to sit on a bench and rest. Some incident occurs elsewhere in the mall (knife attack, terrorist bomb, two mothers in fight over last toy on shelf, whatever).

Police come and question Doug. Doug has broken no law NOR is he even suspected of breaking a law. Doug has not even witnessed anything as where he is sitting in the mall is quiet and tranquil. The police demand ID for later use in court. I see this demand as reasonable because I can be called as a witness by the state that nothing happened where I was, thus narrowing potential bogus defense arguments. I can state with absolute certainty that nobody ran by me, that nobody dialed a telephone to set off the bomb, etc. I believe that we all have an obligation as Americans and as a fellow member of society to be responsible to one another as best we can. Thus, my doing nothing and witnessing nothing does not shield me from the need for LE to identify me for use in later legal proceedings.

That said, I do not believe that LE should be able to demand my ID if nothing has happened and I have broken no laws nor am I suspected of breaking a law. I believe my right to anonymously sitting on the mall bench can only be breached by some outside need by society, personified by LE investigating "an event."

Also as an additional note SCOTUS did say that IF I have a warrant out for my arrest I may have 5th amendment protection and thus would not have to identify myself. They did not lay any foundation for how this would be played out, "Gee, officer, I refuse to identify myself on the grounds that it may incriminate me." I honestly wonder someday how that little exchange will play out in the court system.

In this particular case I don't think the chap should be legally required to identify himself as there was no compelling need for LE. He broke no laws and being obnoxious (point of view) is not a crime. He did everything the officer told him to and complied with what was asked of him during the routine traffic stop.

In all fairness to the officer if I were him it would certainly raise some suspicion. I suspect LE had better learn to be more tolerant of a society where everyone has some sort of recording device.

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyBeerman]

Personally, I think the whole da*n thing was full of fail.

Blessings,
Bill

Yes BoR it was. Fail on both sides, but most of the fail falls on the activist camera man for approaching the officer instead of just standing on the other side of the street.With him standing on the other side of the street in full view this would have probably prevented this whole episode from happening.

But by crossing the street his actions did become confrontational, and while OC is legal there, an officer has the right to fear for his safety for an unannounced person to encroach his traffic stop.

That said, my feelings he should have stayed on the opposite side of the street, announced his intentions to the officer of what he was going to do and stay within eye contact.

That should have done the trick and probably nothing would have happened after that.

 

[SedahDrol]

IANAL

Well good for this guy standing up for his rights. Most people would have given in out of fear (not respect). BTW he was video taping this cuz his girlfriend was pulled over and he wanted to capture the incident on tape. It doesn't appear he wanted to make a political statement about OC'ing, just the BS of getting pulled over for violating some city ordinance.

I say shame on the first cop. When the guy walked away, the police officer chose to escalate the situation by following him. If he were truly concerned he should have detained him immediately for interfering with an investigation. I'm guessing the cop didn't even realize he had a gun until after he dealt with the girlfriend. That's when the oh **** factor kicked in.

BTW in Indiana there needs to be suspicion of a crime before a police officer can detain you. Since the state shall issue licenses they can't just detain you for having a gun. It's just like driving a car. They can't just pull you over for driving a car, because it's illegal to drive one without a license. They have to assume you have a license. So you shouldn't have to produce your LTCH when asked for by a cop. But you have to ask yourself do you want to be a test case. If you are arrested for a crime and you aren't carrying your LTCH, they can charge you with possession without a license, upon you producing your license those charges must be dropped.

 

[Astrocreep]

Law enforcement officers do not need probable cause to stop you and demand ID.

A 'Terry Stop' for identification has been standard procedure for many years.
See: Terry_v._Ohio (1968)

Extended in 2004 with: Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
The court found that requiring identification does not violate 4th or 5th Amendment rights. Interesting stuff.


Being hot-headed or obnoxious (even covertly) to or near police is a very bad idea for a number of obvious reasons.
Why on earth would someone EVER want to approach an officer while he was performing a traffic stop?
Make your political point somewhere else, to someone else who isn't working a difficult and dangerous job while armed.

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

Should have busted his a$$ for J-walking... lol not sure if he was really J-walking just thought that it sounded funny.

 

[Indy317]

To All,

In Hiibel v. Nevada SCOTUS ruled in 2004 that you must identify yourself to police IF police have a reason to question you. We do NOT have an absolute right to privacy as long as there seems to be a "compelling interest" (my words) in determining who you are.

This is not exactly what they ruled. In Nevada, they have a state law that mandates a person ID themselves basically anytime a police officer has a reason to ID the person. The court help held that kind of law is legal. Indiana doesn't have such a broad base law. The only close comparison is failure to ID after being stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation (this does NOT include felonies and misdemeanors, ie: Criminal acts). If a suspect doesn't want to ID themselves, they can either be booked as John Doe or you can take them down to IDENT (in Indy) and see if their prints are in the system.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Whenever a LEO wants to talk to you, as in "Hey you I want to talk to you", make sure you determine if the encounter is CONSENSUAL or NON CONSENSUAL. If it is consensual, say "No thanks, I don't want to talk to you, good bye" and walk away. If they respond non consensual, politely ask what reasonable suspicion s/he has that a crime is (has) being (been) committed.

If they can't articulate it, politely press the matter and ask if you are being detained. If not, WALK AWAY. If you are being detained and they can't articulate it, request a supervisor who can articulate it. Most cases the LEO will send you on their way. Don't be afraid to call for a watch commander either.

I've heard that a LEO doesn't have to tell you the RAS, at least not in IN. They have to have it but they don't have to tell the suspect. They just have to be able to articulate it in court if it comes down to that. Any LEOs or ATTN that can answer that? Although I think all but one time that I have been stopped the officer has told me.

This is not exactly what they ruled. In Nevada, they have a state law that mandates a person ID themselves basically anytime a police officer has a reason to ID the person. The court help held that kind of law is legal. Indiana doesn't have such a broad base law. The only close comparison is failure to ID after being stopped for an infraction or ordinance violation (this does NOT include felonies and misdemeanors, ie: Criminal acts). If a suspect doesn't want to ID themselves, they can either be booked as John Doe or you can take them down to IDENT (in Indy) and see if their prints are in the system.
[/font]

Thank you for posting that, I was going to ask but you answered it. I thought that is what the ruling said but wasn't sure.

 

[fwacfred]

The guy is an idiot! You walk up on an officer in the middle of a traffic stop with a camera and gun and expect not to be talked to. He made himself part of the investigation by inserting himself at the beginning. At that point the officer had every right to ask for his info. Play stupid games with stupid prizes.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i would have just liked to have seen the guy start beat boxing and then break dancing in the middle of the street and see what the cop would have done. i personaly would have kicked the crap out of the guy if i was the cop