I think you're pretty much spot on. As it is, I see no reason for a SDA permit holder to be a test case. Let someone who open carries without a permit and actually gets arrested do it instead.
RAS....?
Royal Astronomical Society?
Help me out here....definition of RAS please, I want to make sure I'm not one
Royal Astronomical Society?
Help me out here....definition of RAS please, I want to make sure I'm not one
Reasonable Amount of Suspicion maybe??
Reasonable, articulable suspicion. It's a legally defined standard that allows a law enforcement officer (LEO) to detain a person for a reasonable amount of time to investigate whether a crime has in fact been committed.
I've been reading a lot of the posts and watching the Youtubes where the people start repeating "Am I being detained?" and then start quoting case law of x vs. state of whatever etc, regarding open carry, detainment and usually end up with "you're violating my rights."
Most police officers start their careers in their early 20's.(If they stay long enough to make it a career. When I went through the academy, we were told that at least 75% of our class would leave law enforcement within two years of graduation.) Very few have any college, (especially the smaller towns) and some have just gotten out of the military. These younger officers have no idea what case law is and know only what is taught at the academy. If they learn anything about case law, it's usually from self study or as a result of a case that they have been involved in. They are not Lawyers. When I went through CLEET, the entire academy was 8 1/2 weeks. The Law block was only two weeks.
When they get a complaint, they are REQUIRED by the department to investigate. In some states they have laws that require a "duty to act." These people on Youtube are setting these officers up who know nothing about case law, creating situations that require investigation and endlessly responding to questions with "Are you detaining me?" but are there because they are being paid by the taxpayer to do the job that they themselves are making harder for them to do.
Every year a CLEET instructor, sometimes it's an Attorney travels around the state with a legal update class. This is an eight hour class and covers what the instructor believes pertains to recent updates in the laws that may involve what an officer may encounter. I've never heard case law discussed in these classes. Only updates to the laws that will be published in the new book. Officers deal primarily with Title 21 and Title 47. Criminal and Traffic.
The only way things are going to get better is with education. The person carrying, the public and the Police. When November 1 gets here, I'm sure the 911 lines will light up and hundreds of complaints will be called in. Officers will be required to investigate those complaints. Hopefully calm will prevail, a short interview and encounter and everyone can continue what they are doing and move on.
Most police officers start their careers in their early 20's.(If they stay long enough to make it a career. When I went through the academy, we were told that at least 75% of our class would leave law enforcement within two years of graduation.) Very few have any college, (especially the smaller towns) and some have just gotten out of the military. These younger officers have no idea what case law is and know only what is taught at the academy. If they learn anything about case law, it's usually from self study or as a result of a case that they have been involved in. They are not Lawyers. When I went through CLEET, the entire academy was 8 1/2 weeks. The Law block was only two weeks.
When they get a complaint, they are REQUIRED by the department to investigate. In some states they have laws that require a "duty to act." These people on Youtube are setting these officers up who know nothing about case law, creating situations that require investigation and endlessly responding to questions with "Are you detaining me?" but are there because they are being paid by the taxpayer to do the job that they themselves are making harder for them to do.
Every year a CLEET instructor, sometimes it's an Attorney travels around the state with a legal update class. This is an eight hour class and covers what the instructor believes pertains to recent updates in the laws that may involve what an officer may encounter. I've never heard case law discussed in these classes. Only updates to the laws that will be published in the new book. Officers deal primarily with Title 21 and Title 47. Criminal and Traffic.
The only way things are going to get better is with education. The person carrying, the public and the Police. When November 1 gets here, I'm sure the 911 lines will light up and hundreds of complaints will be called in. Officers will be required to investigate those complaints. Hopefully calm will prevail, a short interview and encounter and everyone can continue what they are doing and move on.
We can only hope that this will happen. I only brought this subject up as it seems to be the question most commonly brought up on forums where folks ask about the legality of open carry. This is only about the legality of a stop not what would be the polite way to handle an encounter. People already know what would be the polite way to react to a challenge, what they need to know is what is or is not legal. This works both ways. Both side need to know the law and work within it.
In some States the courts have ruled that the mere act of carrying a weapon is not on its own a reason to detain a person to ask for a license. They must have a reason to believe that the person does not have a license before he can detain them.
For me the idea that everyone who open carries is looking for a confrontation carries about as much weight as the notion that concealed carriers are all hoping for a chance to shoot someone.
Michael
From conversations that I've had with those who are responsible for making policy for a couple of different LE agencies, here's what has been said consistently:
1) They understand that they CAN demand to see a permit from anyone observed to be open carrying. They acknowledge that they are not REQUIRED to demand a permit.
2) They do not consider asking to see an SDA license to rise to the level of a detention. Once the license is provided, if the encounter ends and the permit is returned to the subject, there was no detention.
3) If the LEO asks you to wait while he runs your name and DOB through some database, now you can ask if you are being detained, and express that you wish to have your SDA license returned and to be on your way. "Am I free to go, officer?" If you don't do this, then you are consenting to them investigating you further, and wasting your time.
4) Under the law (I know, this is really silly), if the officer replies that you ARE in fact detained, now you have to notify him/her that you are armed.
Keep in mind, that you don't ever know if a LEO believes that they have RAS for an investigatory detention, and THEY DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU. If you are walking through the park with your dog, and Officer Friendly rolls up on you, you would think, "I'm doing a legal activity, and he has no reason to detain me." You might be right. What you have no way to know, is that he just took a report on an attempted sexual assault or armed robbery of someone matching your height and clothing description. He damn sure does have RAS in this case, and likely will be doing a Felony stop. It may feel like your rights are being violated, but if you don't listen to and follow instructions, you might get tazed or shot.
The place to argue this stuff is in 1) A police complaint, or 2) in court. NOT during the encounter. Do I have problems with the law saying that they can ID me absent RAS? Yes. But until the law is changed or an appellate court strikes it down, I WILL COMPLY.
If LEOs use this permit check as a tool of harassment, then OKOCA will deal with that as an organization. Understand that carrying a recorder (even secretly) to document encounters with LE is not only PERFECTLY LEGAL, it's something that OKOCA highly recommends. It's the only way to remove the "he said, she said" from the story if someone acts outside of what the law requires or allows.
The LEOs I have talked to about this (with me representing Oklahoma Open Carry Association) have expressed that they believe that open carry is not going to be a real problem. I agree with them. But people need to be smart about this on both sides of the thin blue line.
1) They understand that they CAN demand to see a permit from anyone observed to be open carrying. They acknowledge that they are not REQUIRED to demand a permit.
2) They do not consider asking to see an SDA license to rise to the level of a detention. Once the license is provided, if the encounter ends and the permit is returned to the subject, there was no detention.
3) If the LEO asks you to wait while he runs your name and DOB through some database, now you can ask if you are being detained, and express that you wish to have your SDA license returned and to be on your way. "Am I free to go, officer?" If you don't do this, then you are consenting to them investigating you further, and wasting your time.
4) Under the law (I know, this is really silly), if the officer replies that you ARE in fact detained, now you have to notify him/her that you are armed.
Keep in mind, that you don't ever know if a LEO believes that they have RAS for an investigatory detention, and THEY DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU. If you are walking through the park with your dog, and Officer Friendly rolls up on you, you would think, "I'm doing a legal activity, and he has no reason to detain me." You might be right. What you have no way to know, is that he just took a report on an attempted sexual assault or armed robbery of someone matching your height and clothing description. He damn sure does have RAS in this case, and likely will be doing a Felony stop. It may feel like your rights are being violated, but if you don't listen to and follow instructions, you might get tazed or shot.
The place to argue this stuff is in 1) A police complaint, or 2) in court. NOT during the encounter. Do I have problems with the law saying that they can ID me absent RAS? Yes. But until the law is changed or an appellate court strikes it down, I WILL COMPLY.
If LEOs use this permit check as a tool of harassment, then OKOCA will deal with that as an organization. Understand that carrying a recorder (even secretly) to document encounters with LE is not only PERFECTLY LEGAL, it's something that OKOCA highly recommends. It's the only way to remove the "he said, she said" from the story if someone acts outside of what the law requires or allows.
The LEOs I have talked to about this (with me representing Oklahoma Open Carry Association) have expressed that they believe that open carry is not going to be a real problem. I agree with them. But people need to be smart about this on both sides of the thin blue line.
That's an excellent synopsis and I agree.
This is very important. The trouble is that people to often assume that rulings in one State have standing in all States when that is not the case. I have had many people show me caes where the Courts required to police to have R.A.S. of a crime before detaining a person carrying a weapon. That carrying a weapon was not on its own reasonable cause for a stop. The trouble comes from the fact that these ruling were from other States and do not apply here. The only way to find out what is correct in this State is to ask. That is the purpose for this thread.
Michael
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[Sale/Trade] Taurus Model 460H Like New in Box with Ammo .460 S&W Mag- Latest: sushi & pistols
-
