RAS, 4th amendment

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by headcase

All of this is great, except that if an officer sees a firearm on you, whether or not you informed them of it's presence, and takes offense to it, the officer will order you to assume the position, disarm you, and then decide if you are dangerous.

According to what I read in archon's post:

The officer would have to establish RAS just to "stop" you in the first place. Your scenario skipped over this too.

The officer would then have to establish RAS that you are dangerous *before* they are allowed to "frisk" you. (Though, I'm not sure I see any sense in "frisking" you if they already know you are armed... Duh! But, who knows, maybe you have a 'dirty bomb' or something stuffed in your shirt pocket.)

I am pretty sure they couldn't lawfully disarm you unless they have Probable Cause. If they have Probable Cause, they will most likely be arresting you - so disarming you at this point would be 'reasonable'.

As for the 'database', your complaints are perfectly valid too.

The Uniform Firearms Act, Title 18, PA Crime Codes:

§6111.4. Registration of Firearms.

Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any government or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership within this Commonwealth....

(emphasis is mine)

So, according to The Law, this so-called "database" cannot be used anywhere in Pennsylvania to verify ownership ("registration") of a firearm. Most simply put - they can't 'run your gun' to see if you own it; that would be against the law.
.

[Jailkeeper]

Originally Posted by DaveM55

Pa Patriot said I did good. That's gotta be a sign of the apocolypse. Everybody run. LOL LOL

Good luck Dave, I'm outta' here!

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Bruce

I am pretty sure they couldn't lawfully disarm you unless they have Probable Cause.

terry says they can temporarily disarm you based solely on RAS...they do not need PC.

Most simply put - they can't 'run your gun' to see if you own it; that would be against the law.
.

yet it seems to be a relatively common occurrence.

it also seems that many officers go way beyond what terry allows. most of the time it doesn't even end up in court. and, when it does, it seems that lower courts often side with the officer and stretch terry way beyond it's actual limits.

yet another case where practical reality and what both statutory and case law actually say seem to be two different things.

[tes151]

If I have a " mere encounter " with a LEO and decide to just ignore any questions and walk away ( which is my right at that point ), would that alone permit the LEO to escalate to an investigative detainment? Would RAS still apply? Are there any LEOs left in this country that would know the answer?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by tes151

If I have a " mere encounter " with a LEO and decide to just ignore any questions and walk away ( which is my right at that point ), would that alone permit the LEO to escalate to an investigative detainment?

my understanding is...

no. your refusal to answer questions or partake in any way in a "mere encounter" does not give rise to RAS.

if you were to, say, get a wide-eyed look on your face and turn around and *run* away, it might (as that might reasonably be construed as the behavior of someone who was expecting to be detained...and, thus, who had done something to be detained for).

but, if you calmly walk away, then no.

[Wynder]

Sorry I couldn't find any links for the two bottom cases but the top one is interesting. Appears to me the restrictions for RAS are a little tighter because of this courts opinion.

Not because of this courts' opinions -- a state courts' decision doesn't apply to anywhere outside of that state, and then only in some circumstances... It's SCOTUS cases that will affect us if the decision is incorporated.

The fact is, that is how RAS has always worked with Terry. There must be a lawful stop for a Terry frisk to take place -- this was explicitly defined in Florida v. J.L. (2000) where Ginsberg clearly stated that there is no firearms exception to Terry doctrine and that carrying a firearm, absent a reliable prediction of future criminal behavior (or RAS of a crime having been or being committed), is not grounds to detain a person.

[DaveM55]

Originally Posted by Wynder

Not because of this courts' opinions -- a state courts' decision doesn't apply to anywhere outside of that state, and then only in some circumstances... It's SCOTUS cases that will affect us if the decision is incorporated.

The fact is, that is how RAS has always worked with Terry. There must be a lawful stop for a Terry frisk to take place -- this was explicitly defined in Florida v. J.L. (2000) where Ginsberg clearly stated that there is no firearms exception to Terry doctrine and that carrying a firearm, absent a reliable prediction of future criminal behavior (or RAS of a crime having been or being committed), is not grounds to detain a person.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=98-1993

Good find Wynder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.

Holding and rationale

The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.

The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Bruce

According to what I read in archon's post:

The officer would have to establish RAS just to "stop" you in the first place. Your scenario skipped over this too.

The officer would then have to establish RAS that you are dangerous *before* they are allowed to "frisk" you. (Though, I'm not sure I see any sense in "frisking" you if they already know you are armed... Duh! But, who knows, maybe you have a 'dirty bomb' or something stuffed in your shirt pocket.)

I am pretty sure they couldn't lawfully disarm you unless they have Probable Cause. If they have Probable Cause, they will most likely be arresting you - so disarming you at this point would be 'reasonable'.

As for the 'database', your complaints are perfectly valid too.

The Uniform Firearms Act, Title 18, PA Crime Codes:

§6111.4. Registration of Firearms.

Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any government or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership within this Commonwealth....

(emphasis is mine)

So, according to The Law, this so-called "database" cannot be used anywhere in Pennsylvania to verify ownership ("registration") of a firearm. Most simply put - they can't 'run your gun' to see if you own it; that would be against the law.

LRT's remarks are basically what I was saying. What police are supposed to have in order to stop you, and what they do have when they stop you, are often two completely different things. If they see a gun and stop you, they stopped you illegally. If after they stop you, they disarm you, they did so illegally. If they run the firearm they took from you, they did so illegally. But there is no lawyer that I know of, who will waste his time pursuing this unless you are independently wealthy. Even if you are, and bring it to court, the odds are that the lower court judge will say that seeing a firearm is enough reason to stop you. If you push it farther up the appeal ladder, you may eventually get to hear someone validate your claim that the officer overstepped their bounds, but it will very likely be a hollow victory. That is the difference between law on paper, and law on the street. Cops can do pretty much whatever they want, short of physically injuring you or arresting you, for pretty much any reason they want, and chances are nothing will come of it.

Originally Posted by Wynder

Not because of this courts' opinions -- a state courts' decision doesn't apply to anywhere outside of that state, and then only in some circumstances... It's SCOTUS cases that will affect us if the decision is incorporated.

The fact is, that is how RAS has always worked with Terry. There must be a lawful stop for a Terry frisk to take place -- this was explicitly defined in Florida v. J.L. (2000) where Ginsberg clearly stated that there is no firearms exception to Terry doctrine and that carrying a firearm, absent a reliable prediction of future criminal behavior (or RAS of a crime having been or being committed), is not grounds to detain a person.

This was the exact interpretation in HAWKINS, before the issue got before SCOTUS

Originally Posted by DaveM55

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=98-1993

Good find Wynder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._J.L.

Holding and rationale

The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.

The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun

Again, this is precisely what HAWKINS stated.

[Brown-Bear]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Which would indicate RAS already existed before the statement even begins.

If there exists no reasonable suspicion of a crime - then there could not be a "valid investigatory stop".


So the officer needs RAS for the stop, then more RAS - specifically the belief that the (criminal) "suspect" is "dangerous".

The way this sounds, I would believe it was written from some place where "arms" (such as firearms) are illegal - meaning: only a "criminal" would be armed. Otherwise, why not simply state "dangerous" and leave out "armed" (which would make more sense to me).

Or, perhaps, the author simply 'believes' that firearms should signify something illegal? Either way, the way it reads, it sounds as though they are combining "firearms" and "dangerous criminal" together. If that were really the case then all cops (and all of us who carry) would actually be "dangerous criminals" by default.

In a place where the carriage of firearms is perfectly legal, like Pennsylvania, it is reasonable to assume that *everyone* is already "armed". The honest, law-abiding citizens are not prevented from carrying firearms and the criminals do not care that they are prohibited - so, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that everyone a cop might meet (in Pa.) is armed.

Therefore, in a place like Pennsylvania, it would seem more logical to me to simply remove a criminal's (excuse me - "reasonably suspected" criminal's) weaponry once there exists the valid RAS that they are, if fact, "dangerous".


So, to recap: the officer must have reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime, then even more reasonable suspicion that the "suspect" of the "crime" is in fact "dangerous".

And the officer must be able to prove the validity of these "reasonable suspicions".

All sounds pretty "reasonable" to me.
.

Reasonable yes sir.

I take the armed and dangerous as seperate issues though. As I ahev doen LE work in the past I would like to know if the person I am interacting with is ARMED, but I also believe that a person who is ARMED is not necessarliy DANGEROUS. But still it hleps to know, because you never know what they might do. I had a guy pull a gun on the crew I was working with because he did not want us to find out that he did not have enough life jackets for all persons onboard his vessel.

USCG. Semper Paratus.

Dave

[TaePo]

In the cases recently discussed, it all seems to hinge on the anonymity of the original caller.

Would it not be different if the caller gave his contact information or pointed out a person directly or if the caller is known as reliable to the police?

At the time of detainment and frisk, one would not know until afterward if the stop was legal/lawful or not. So it would seem best not to talk in any case.