A recent decision of the 4th appellate court in Georgia established that open carry alone does not constitute probable cause for detaining a citizen.
http://www.steakleylawfirm.com/inde...a-firearm-isn-t-pc-to-detain-says-4th-circuit
This is a fairly recent decision, as best I can determine, but it establishes that the officers in this instance were required to have some indication that the man was about to commit a before they were justified in detaining him. Since the only probable cause they had, as far as we can see, was the OC, they violated the law.
The key statement sin the decision, as I understand it, are:
“Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.” (Emphasis mine).
Further,
"the Supreme Court has ‘consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.’ "
Finally,
"For these reasons, Mr. Black’s seizure was not reasonable. Accordingly, the decision to deny Mr. Black’s suppression motion was reversed. Rather than remand for further proceedings, the court of appeals vacated Mr. Black’s sentence.
This case, United States v. Black, can be found here."
http://www.fedagent.com/columns/cas...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
IANAL and I do not know the the date of this recent decision. The ruling may be new and the officers in question may not be fully informed of its application, but the ruling certainly applies to situations like this—at least in an Open Carry state, which I think Indiana is.
http://www.steakleylawfirm.com/inde...a-firearm-isn-t-pc-to-detain-says-4th-circuit
This is a fairly recent decision, as best I can determine, but it establishes that the officers in this instance were required to have some indication that the man was about to commit a before they were justified in detaining him. Since the only probable cause they had, as far as we can see, was the OC, they violated the law.
The key statement sin the decision, as I understand it, are:
“Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina, which permit its residents to openly carry firearms . . . Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government contends that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. . . . We are not persuaded. Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.” (Emphasis mine).
Further,
"the Supreme Court has ‘consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.’ "
Finally,
"For these reasons, Mr. Black’s seizure was not reasonable. Accordingly, the decision to deny Mr. Black’s suppression motion was reversed. Rather than remand for further proceedings, the court of appeals vacated Mr. Black’s sentence.
This case, United States v. Black, can be found here."
http://www.fedagent.com/columns/cas...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
IANAL and I do not know the the date of this recent decision. The ruling may be new and the officers in question may not be fully informed of its application, but the ruling certainly applies to situations like this—at least in an Open Carry state, which I think Indiana is.
Last edited:
I'm pro carry of course and as it's been said. Be smart. With the way things have been lately with all the shootings, bombings and bad press on firearms we need to be dignitaries not rebels and represent our cause in a positive way.
