Show ID?

[Joe Williams]

No we had not gotten a call yet the call came out after I had the guy stopped and he was charged with carrying with out a license among other things. As for weather or not carring in your hand is open carrry, yes it is.

I would like to point out I have never said not to OC nor do I think it is stuipd I do feel that people have to choose when and where to OC and they should expent to be stopped and asked for ID if they plan to do so.

Again, considering that the Supreme Court has said that you do not have the right to stop and ID based solely on open carry, why should we expect a police officer to violate the law? Why should we allow a government agent to harrass, intimidate, and attack us for engaging in legal activity, and exercising our rights?

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm thinking that the uniforms clearly identify them as being LEO. The gun is a part of the uniform. Back in the Air Force when I was LEO, there were times that I was in uniform, but I did not have my sidearm. Being in uniform carried the same weight with or without a gun.

Your authority did not extend from the uniform, it came from the UCMJ. You had the same authority regardless of whether or not you were in uniform. Besides, being in uniform in the Air Force is hardly the same as a civilian LEO being in uniform, since everybody around is wearing pretty much the same clothes, except for the beret. Pretty much like a civilian cop wearing civies, with a special hat at most to differentiate them.

 

[Joe Williams]

Can you please cite your source or case law on this?

If not, is this your personal opinion rather than fact?

At least one of the Supreme Court decisions has already been posted in this thread. The fact that people continue to insist their is no case law shows me that they are either trying to disguise the fact that they support illegal activity, or too lazy to do their own homework.

 

[Joe Williams]

No not at all. You are making claims about unreasonableness. You have nothing to back it up. The 4th Amend guarentees unreasonable search and seizure, however in regards to LTCH there is nothing in the constituion. Yes I am aware of the 2nd Amed. But we are talking very limited to the LCTH. Since it is not specifically adressed in the constituion, then you must look to case law to clarify it.

So, when you refer to unreasonable search and seizure, I ask if you have specific sources or case law to back up your position. You do not therefore it is your opinion and not fact.

There is an abundance of case law regarding Terry Stops and consenual encounters. This is why I posed the question to you.

If you are going to make claims, please make them based on fact, not conjucture or personal opinion.

There is a town in PA whose police officers behaved the same way regarding the citizens legally open carrying.

The payout to the citizens is rather large... so far the town has spent in excess of a hundred thousand dollars, to the citizens that have agreed to settle. The legal case is still ongoing, because not all the citizens have agreed to settle.

You see, the cops insisted they had the right to harrass citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights, and insisted on demanding ID and LTCFs despite the fact they had no RAS for doing so.

There is, as it happens, case law in PA state courts and state supreme court decisions that made the officers wrong. But, the citizens involved chose not to file their claims in state court. They filed in federal court, because, despite the claims of many police officers here who either do or should know better, there IS case law on this matter. The town is trying to settle because, guess what, cops cannot demand ID from people for obeying the law. It's a matter the Supreme Court has addressed, and the answer is unequivocal.

 

[bigg cheese]

Holy crap!

Look at all the pages posted since I slept!

I usually only see this in political threads on another board I'm part of.. man!

I can just sit back and watch now

 

[Joe Williams]

True. However, PC is a far cry from reasonable suspicion. PC is needed for an arrest. Reasoanble suspicion is not, though it is needed for a Terry Stop. or investigative stop. For a consensual encounter, you don't either.

You seem to be agreeing that you cannot cannot demand ID from someone simply for OC, since OC alone does not provide reasonable suspicion.

An officer walking up to me and demanding ID does not consitute a consensual encounter, unless I choose to play along. In a consensual encounter I have the absolute right to say "sorry, I'm not willing to provide my ID, have a nice day" and go about my way. Being required to provide ID means I have been detained, and at that point the officer must meet the legal requirements to have detained me. Those requirements aren't all that burdensome: simply have reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime, or am about to do so. Simply engaging in a legal act, like OC, doesn't meet that minimal burden.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Can you please cite your source or case law on this?

If not, is this your personal opinion rather than fact?

I have already cited this case law. Florida v. J. L.

 

[DKSuddeth]

If you are OC and I get a call from dispatch about a MWG, then it's a Terry Stop from the get go.

Am I on ignore here? Is this thing working? Did you not read the two case law precedents that I posted?

I also think you are either confusing what a 'terry stop' is, or you are purposefully stretching the limits on it. Just my personal opinion about it.

 

[Joe Williams]

From reading ALL 24 pages up to this point I would like to first congratulate everyone on their civility.

Ok now on to my observation. From what I have read it seems that using reasonable man thought has a lot to do with what side of the badge you are on. The LEO's believe that OC alone is a reason for asking to see you LTCH. While Non-LEO's believe quite the opposite.

Just my .02 YMMV!

That is because the police officers do not believe they are violating your rights by asking for ID and LTCH. To them, they are simply using an efficient way to satisfy themselves, along with engaging in conversation, that you probably aren't a bad guy. The citizens, though, view being stopped and having papers demanded as a confrontation with the government. There are strict controls on when the government can get in our face, and it is the duty of free citizens to demand that government agents behave within the strict limits of those controls, else the controls become ignored and fade away, along with our freedom.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm thinking that the uniforms clearly identify them as being LEO. The gun is a part of the uniform. Back in the Air Force when I was LEO, there were times that I was in uniform, but I did not have my sidearm. Being in uniform carried the same weight with or without a gun.

As stated earlier there are places for OC Uniformed Police work is one of them. The law requires they we wear a uniform for certain parts of our Job. We all know that Police carry a gun so there is not reason to hide it.
Police officers working in other capacities do conceal their guns.

Thanks for your replies. You both missed my question, though, Lawguns got a little closer to it. I've seen several LEOs make the claim that OC is just making a statement, that people should just CC, etc..ad infinitum. In part, this is because of MWG calls, that "waste the officers' (and the citizen's) time" This is not a CC vs OC thread and I don't want to make it one, but this is a related issue: If CC is better/less time-wasteful/etc., why do LEOs not all carry IWB/SmartCarry/shoulder (under jacket) rather than OC? The point I'm getting at is that no one suspects a uniformed LEO of a crime simply because he happens to have a gun on him, and however rarely it happens, LEOs DO commit crimes. (I seem to recall a stat that showed that CCW permit holders (to include LTCH) as a group commit fewer crimes than do LEOs as a group as well. I don't recall where I saw that, though, so it may not be accurate.)

I don't get it, why is this thread still going on?

It really is very simple, if a LEO asks for your permit, let him see it! Or go to jail until the computer tells him you have one.

Is the right? NO! However criminals have ruined many good things for law abiding people. That's the way it is, DEAL WITH IT! Or invent a time machine go back in time and stop every criminal act that brought about the concept of having to have or carry you LTCH with you.

THEY GIVE YOU THE CARD SO YOU DON'T GO TO JAIL AND WASTE NOT ONLY THE LEO'S TIME BUT YOUR OWN.

Here is a hypothetical situation for you to null over. Let's say you decide "I know my rights you cant ask me to show my LTCH for no reason!" so the officer takes you to the station, meaning he has left his regular patrol. Now that the LEO is gone a criminal decides it's a good time to hold up said area. Guess what YOU just caused becasue you did not take the 1 small step to avoid a conflict.

It will not hurt you to show your little pink card, I promise, I can also promise that by showing the card instead of asking why will save you a big chuck of time and a headache.

I respectfully disagree. If I'm doing nothing but going about my daily activities, in the course of which I choose to carry a firearm and I am approached by a LEO who demands to see my LTCH vs. take me to jail, *I* have not caused any departure from his patrol nor prevented anything. Look again at Denny's approach to it (paraphrased)

<sees gun> "You have a license to carry that, right?"
"Yes sir, sure do."
"Good."

Admittedly, your discretion, based on the situation or if nothing else, profiling, will dictate whether or not you believe that particular peaceable person's answer. We both know you guys get lied to all the time, that you get pretty good at telling when it's happening, and that you don't like it much. I really don't take issue with the question. I take issue with an accusation. The above question, even starting with or continuing into a discussion of one or another firearm, is a question. The assumption that I'm a criminal vis-a-vis an official "Excuse me, sir, I need to see your license for that." (not asking but demanding) is an accusation. Personally, I'll likely answer the latter very pleasantly, the latter somewhat less so, though I will show my LTCH. I'd still like to see the citation of IC (or even case law) requiring me to do so, though.

Like BE (I think) said: Many people have given their lives. "This infringement" or "that infringement" upon our rights being "acceptable because it's so minor" can be summed up in but one word. That word is:

Incrementalism.

I do not wish to make further incrementalism any easier. It is for this reason that I fight it.

"The Bill of Rights (c) 1791 All rights reserved"

is kind of a "funny", but it has basis in the truth.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Ness2k]

I did not read all 25 pages of bickering but:

When I'm pulled over in my vehicle, unless I know the officer, I crack my window slightly, and I ask to see his identification.

I would extend this same courtesy to an LEO who stopped me on foot. Maybe because of my military background I don't need the officer to have suspicion before I'm willing to show my I.D. I'm polite, but I'm only compliant after I know the person I'm talking to is an LEO.

 

[Fenway]

Third shift crew is asleep right now

 

[bigg cheese]

*yawn*

 

[ATM]

Sleep is overrated.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Must have coffee and bacon.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I have already cited this case law. Florida v. J. L.

Florida v. J.L. has to do with someone that was carrying concealed, not open ...so IMO that case does not apply to this discussion. They had no right to detain him because they didn't corroborate the anonymous tip before taking enforcement action. We are talking about open carry, whether it be as a result of a call for service or an officer-initiated encounter. I am still waiting for case law allowing or preventing an officer from investigating OPEN carry.

On a side note, I open carried today. I was on my way to court and had to stop in a bank downtown. I was wearing khaki pants and an IMPD polo shirt that unless you were familiar with the IMPD flag, you wouldn't know it was a police department shirt. I got a couple looks from other customers in the bank, but no one freaked out about it. I could tell one guy was staring at my piece and I wanted to ask him if he was going thinking about perpetrating on me.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

When I'm pulled over in my vehicle, unless I know the officer, I crack my window slightly, and I ask to see his identification.

I would extend this same courtesy to an LEO who stopped me on foot. Maybe because of my military background I don't need the officer to have suspicion before I'm willing to show my I.D. I'm polite, but I'm only compliant after I know the person I'm talking to is an LEO.

Even if the LEO is in uniform?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Florida v. J.L. has to do with someone that was carrying concealed, not open ...so IMO that case does not apply to this discussion. They had no right to detain him because they didn't corroborate the anonymous tip before taking enforcement action. We are talking about open carry, whether it be as a result of a call for service or an officer-initiated encounter. I am still waiting for case law allowing or preventing an officer from investigating OPEN carry.

The case wasn't about the gun, it was about the suspect being detained after no criminal action had been observed by police. The gun is only important afterwards because the USSC refused to carve out any weapons exception, therefore, an openly carried handgun is not considered reasonable suspicion of a crime. Since Open Carry is considered a lawful act in IN, how does reasonable suspicion come in to play?

 

[Denny347]

Excuse me if this has already been asked.( I haven't made it through all 17 pages yet) But with all the LEOs we have on this forum I am curious how many people have been arrested for OC without a license? I'm not talking about concealed carry that was exposed accidently, I'm talking about true OC.

I've never seen it. In fact, I usually see the reserve. We find that you are carrying but forgot your license. If you have valid ID and we can get a hold of ISP to confirm that you do have one, you will be on your way. I, as well as most of my co-workers handle it in this manner. However, I have never heard of someone going to jail that was OCing and has never had a license. Ther are almost always in the pants/glovebox/under a seat.

 

[Denny347]

I did not read all 25 pages of bickering but:

When I'm pulled over in my vehicle, unless I know the officer, I crack my window slightly, and I ask to see his identification.

I would extend this same courtesy to an LEO who stopped me on foot. Maybe because of my military background I don't need the officer to have suspicion before I'm willing to show my I.D. I'm polite, but I'm only compliant after I know the person I'm talking to is an LEO.

In full uniform I keep my wallet in my car. I cannot sit on it for 8.5 hrs w/o causing pain. I understand wanting ID if I am in plain clothes but in full uniform it seems a bit confrontational. Once I am up at your door, I'm not going back to my car to retrieve my ID if I'm in full uniform. You are just going to have to assume that a fully uniformed officer in a fully marked car is legit. Heck, just the shirt/pants cost me 120.00. The leather is about 400.00, pistol 500.00, boots 100.00, radio 3,000.00, taser 800.00. If I can afford all of that I can afford a BS ID.