TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:
If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them

I agree with this, which was what my original point was regarding the video, which is that walking down the street with a firearm in a state that allows you to do so is not RS, neither is a bunch of people calling the police to say you are walking down the street with a firearm. If they then confront you to question you because you are walking down the street with a firearm, you cannot be arrested for obstruction, because they have no reason to question you or order you to do anything.

Now say a bunch of people call the police and say a man is walking down the street with a firearm and waving it around and pointing it at people, then you probably have RS because pointing a gun at people could be a crime, depending on the facts, which they could stop and ask you about.

As for Terry, I think you can only do a pat down, but if the police feel anything in your pockets that could arguably be a weapon, they can take it out. Pretty much anything could be a weapon when felt through your clothes.

Originalist wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote:A search based on what? Better get a warrant!!!

When I said search I was referring to Terry which also says you don't need a warrant with RS.

Um, without consent you need a warrant unless a few exigent circumstances exist... Regardless PC is needed for a search/search warrant, not RS... I believe you may have just tipped your hand as to your level of "expertise"

I think he is referring to a Terry Stop (aka, stop and frisk). You only need reasonable suspicion, but if such suspicion is not present, all evidence found is suppressible. This is a very common argument in criminal defense cases.

This is the Fourth Circuit... see full article linked below

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.”

http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-la ... of-seizure" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Originalist wrote:How can you articulate that I am being detained if you don't tell me what crime you suspect me of? Whats supposed to stop me from walking off? Just because you tell me I'm detained? How long are we going to stand there and stare at each other?

Not to you, they must be able to do so for a court. To you "stop" is considered good enough.

So your argument is an alleged RS stop would never end because you would tell me stop and I would just stand there and stare at you.... Really? And after 20 minutes of staring at you, what would you do if I walked away?

No the officer should investigate his RS and let you go on your way. He does not have to say why you were stopped or what factors make up the RS and there is no specific span of time that an officer must complete his "investigations" based on RS but he can be required to justify it to a court who would decided if it were "reasonable". I imagine it would be based on how long it took to complete the actions brought on by the stop. ie in a Terry stop it would just be the length of time to make a search not the time it would take to count nose hair.

As far as I can tell, your argument is not based in law, but is based on something like: the cop can just make something up and its your word against the cop's word. Sorry, that may be how some people operate, but it is not based in the law.

The officer does have to tell you why you were stopped. Also, if you can show the officer s topped you without reasonable cause and there is some damage, you can sue them under federal law for violation of civil rights under color of law. That what they used to convict police in the south that were violating the rights of blacks, but it is equally applicable to every person's civil rights.

Further, if the police officer gets a call (recorded of course) that a person is walking around with a gun (not in violation of the law) then drives to that person and stops them (recorded on their dash cam, which you can get a copy of) then they have stopped you with no RS because walking around is not cause to stop someone.

But please, continue your arguments as to why the law doesn't work the way the law works.

EEllis wrote:

Gat0rs wrote:

EEllis wrote:
And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.

I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.

I'm not going to argue with you but yes they can. Running down a city street a 2am in street clothes is totally legal but if the cop can articulate why he felt it was suspicious then he is allowed to briefly stop the person to investigate. Can't arrest, can't make him stop, but can investigate.

You are arguing against even yourself.

EEllis wrote:
And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.

I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.

EEllis wrote:When you are carrying a visible weapon and there is no obvious use or need for said weapon I don't think it's unreasonable for the cops to stop and talk to you.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Unless you are suspected of committing a crime, the police have no right to stop you, period. It is for this same reason police cannot randomly stop people in the ghetto and interrogate them, or run the license plate of every person leaving a liquor store, they have no reason to suspect you committed any crime.

Under Texas law a concealed carry holder may be disarmed by the police "in the lawful" conduct of their duties if they reasonably feel they need to for their or your protection. If they stop you for no reason, they are not acting lawfully, and therefor cannot legally disarm you, period.

I don't think he will need much money for legal fees if he was really arrested for rudely displaying a rife. It is not a crime to "rudely display" a rifle so I assume he has a litany of civil rights violations that will be discussed in a civil suit against the police.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/12/polic ... ood-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;