| Author | Post |
|---|
ghostrider
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 04:45 am |
|
There have been an increasing number of newer members here the past several months, and with that, added to the growing popularity of OC here in Michigan, there have also been an increasing number of encounters (both positive and negative) with law enforcement officers of various stripe. I’ve posted on this subject before, but now decided to start my own thread on the topic.
While what follows may be legal in nature, it should not be construed as legal advice. Advice of a lawyer is advisable, and understand that the following is meant as a general guideline. There may be exceptions to how to best handle an individual situation.
People should first understand that just because OC is legal, does not mean they do not have a responsibility to understand both the laws, and their rights as they relate to OC. They should also have a good working knowledge of how to best handle any (be it LEO, or non LEO) potential encounters that may arise as a result of their personal decision to OC. It’s going to happen, so it is best to be prepared for that eventuality. Understand, that even in places where OC is more acceptable, people still run into problems with both ordinary citizens, and LEO. Please know that this isn’t to bash the police. Most of the officers out there are very professional, and deserve to be thanked for the service they provide to our communities. One must know that not all departments are knowledgeable on the law regarding OC here in Michigan (while it‘s also possible that some purposefully drag their feet). Also understand that law enforcement is just like any other profession in that it is merely a cross section of society. As such, there are bound to be officers (at any level) who are not only against OC, but also citizen ownership of firearms in general, and it is possible that some of them may use the authority of their position to try to push their personal agenda. What’s unfortunate is that, unlike most other cross sections of society, these few unprofessional individuals have the power and authority to affect one’s freedom, and financial position.
How you deal with and respond to questions by fellow citizens is up to you (as is how you respond to LEO’s). The following is simply meant as a friendly guide to help those who may chose to OC.
TERRY STOP
Today I was asked, “What’s a Terry Stop?”. This is an important question not only for anyone, but especially for those who are choosing to exercise a right that could very well place them in involuntary contact with LEO’s. I’m no lawyer, but I answered it as best as I could:
ghostrider wrote:
A "Terry Stop" is what it's called when an officer detains you. It's so named from the court decision of Terry v. Ohio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
There are different levels of interaction/investigation with police.
First is voluntary interview. This is when an officer may stop or ask you questions, but you are free to leave at any time. These are probably most common. These can last as long as either party is willing. (added): These encounters may be completely benign in nature, but it’s also quite possible that the officer is using this interview to gain evidence to justify either reasonable suspicion (RS) to detain (Terry Stop) you, or arrest you.
Second is when you are being detained. This is typically called the Terry Stop. For this to take place, the officer needs to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that a crime either has been committed, is in progress, or is about to be committed . During the Terry Stop, the suspect is not free to leave, and is under investigation. These may last up to about 20 minutes, but any longer is not viewed favorably by the courts. The officer should either make an arrest, or release the suspect. (added): It is usually a good idea to not give the officer any information during a Terry Stop, as it is you whom the officer is investigating. Talking could give him more information that could incriminate you in ways that you have no knowledge of. You can’t incriminate yourself if your mouth is shut. Keep in mind that there may be exceptions to silent rule, but you need to determine when it's best.
The next (third) step in officer interaction/investigation is arrest. This takes place when the officer has evidence (not suspicion) that you have committed a crime. (added): I’d imagine that most defense lawyers would advise that you remain silent at least by this point. Understand that I am neither a lawyer, or LEO.These are things I've found on my personal research. I believe they are solid, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do your homework.
Keep in mind that the presence of a holstered handgun is not in and of itself reasonable suspicion to justify the Terry Stop however, it can be combined with other factors to constitute Reasonable Suspicion (RS). For an officer to detain you, he must do so under suspicion of a crime, and be able to articulate that reasonable suspicion. That is why it's always best to ask, "under suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?" When that is answered, you then ask for the officers RS. If the officer gives the "you've got a gun." for his RS, then it would be good to ask for clarification if that is the extent of his RS. That doesn’t mean that you argue with the officer when he tells you that the extent of his RS is a man with a gun (MWAG) call, and a gun visible on your hip. That is when you SHUT UP. If the officer gives you MWAG as the sole extent of his RS, then you are golden. Do not muck it up by talking or arguing with the officer, which could possible give him something else to hang on you. Street encounters are not the time to educate an officer. Politely ask him for his card, and inform him that you will neither resist, nor consent. There may well be times when an individual officer is open to discussion on the topic. However, those times will never be while you are being detained, and even then I would advise caution. Don’t use your best judgment, use good judgment.
With that in mind, I have in the past posted some general guidelines which another member once referred to as “Wash, Rinse, Repeat”.
The entire post wasn't working, so this will be a two-part opening post.
TBC
|
ghostrider
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 04:48 am |
|
Part 2:
ghostrider wrote:
People who OC should strive for a short list of simple things:
1. Have a digital voice recorder with download capability, and record the whole encounter. Wal-Mart has one for about $35. Get a microphone for it for better recording quality.
2. Time the entire encounter from start to finish. (That means the second the officer approaches you. These encounters should last no more than 20 minutes. If your driving it means as soon as you see flashing lights, you start recording.)
3. Ask the following questions, and stay on those points specifically, and explicitly. Don’t waiver from them:
“Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained”? (By wording it this way, you put the conversation on establishing the officer’s lawful reason for stopping you. If the officer wants to stated that the crime is “being a person of interest”, then even better since it will make future action on your part all the more easier, providing you stick to the program. No need to argue that it isn't a crime).
“What is your reasonable suspicion?” (if the officer states to the effect that it’s the gun on your hip, then you might also ask if that is the sole basis of his RS, or if there is anything else to constitute RS. the reason for this is because a gun "in and of itself" is not RS to a Terry Stop).
“Am I free to go?”
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Be polite, professional, and don't argue or give him an attitude.
This should be all you say to an adversarial officer. Having a recording of the officer’s responses is helpful in that it gives you evidence backing up your side of the story (FIOA isn’t as important if you have the officer stating his RS on record, but may still be a good idea).
You can probably find more on the Terry Stop, but I lost most of that info long ago, so feel free to do the research.
ETA (2-24-09):
From the following thread on the Reid Method of Interrogation.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/22253.htmlMost police detectives and interrogators in Michigan are trained in the following method of interrogation. Key points to look at here, the suspect really not allowed to talk much until step 8. Another key point with this technique is that it is not concerned with voluntariness of the statement until the police are recording the statement at the end of Step 9.
The REID 9 STEPS OF INTERROGATION, IN BRIEF
Step One: Direct Positive Confrontation
A. Presentation of fact synopsis to suspect.
B. Reference to evidence, real or fictional.
C. Suspect is told that he is involved in the crime.
D. Behavioral observation of suspect.
E. Restatement of confrontation, stronger or weaker.
Step Two: Theme Development
A. Transition phases from confrontation.
B. Propose reasons that will justify or excuse the commission of the crime.
C. Behavioral assessment of suspect to choose proper theme.
D. Longest portion of 9 steps.
Step Three: Stopping Denials
A. Both guilty and innocent deny the crime at issue.
B. Starts during direct positive confrontation.
C. Absence of denials in step two indicates probable guilt.
D. Interrogator recognizes and stops denial before it is complete.
E. Progress is indicated by cessation or weakening of denials.
Step Four: Overcoming Objections
A. Suspect proposes a reason why he allegedly did not commit the crime.
B. Normally offered by only the guilty.
C. Indicates progress n the interrogation if given after denials.
D. Handled differently than denials by first listening and accepting.
E. Proper handling of objections helps overcome the subject’s defenses.
Step Five: Getting the Suspect’s Attention
A. Suspect is on defensive and is tense and confused.
B. The themes will work only is suspect is listening.
C. Interrogator reaches peak of sincerity in his speech.
D. Physical closeness and use of verbal techniques to command attention.
E. Physical gestures of sincerity are used to establish attitude of understanding and concern.
Step Six: The Suspect Quiets and Listens
A. The physical signs of surrender begin to appear.
B. The themes are shortened and lead toward alternatives.
C. Establishment of eye contact is most important at this point by verbal and physical techniques.
D. Tears at this stage positively indicate the suspect’s guilt.
Step Seven: Alternatives
A. Non-threatening to suspect they concern some minor aspect of the crime.
B. Gives choice between acceptable reason and unacceptable reason for committing the crime.
C. One alternative is stressed to lead subject to choose the positive alternative.
D. Either choice is an admission of guilt.
Step Eight: Bringing the Suspect into the Conversation.
A. The acceptance of one alternative is reinforced by the interrogator.
B. The suspect is encouraged to talk about aspect of the crime.
C. The use of realistic words is introduced by the interrogator.
D. Initial corroboration of the confession is begun.
E. Oral witnessing of admissions by two persons.
Step Nine: The Confession
A. Reduction of oral statement into written, typed, or electronically recorded form.
B. Voluntariness of statement is established along with corroboration of details.
C. Suspect’s signing of statement is witnessed by two or more persons.
Post Interrogation Interview:
A. Provides a method to determine technique effectiveness.
B. Keeps guilty suspect in proper frame of mind during typing of formal statement.
C. Allows interrogator to calm down an innocent suspect who was confronted.
This comes from Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation, David E. Zulawski, and Douglas E. Wicklander,
CRC Press, Ann Arbor, 1998.
http://faculty.law.wayne.edu/moran/The%20REID%209%20STEPS%20OF%20INTERROGATIon.htm
ETA:
Also see posts dated:
Thu Oct. 16, 2008 1:03pm
Wed May 6th, 2009 11:41 pm
Last edited on Thu May 7th, 2009 04:46 am by ghostrider
|
dougwg
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 03:06 pm |
|
|
ghostrider
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 06:03 pm |
|
While I did start this thread as an informational thread, it is still open to discussion. I am by no means perfect, and realize that it’s possible that there may have been some things that I either could have overlooked, misunderstood, or just didn’t think of. My ego isn’t so great that I’m not open to constructive criticism.
With that said (and since no one else has commented), there are some other points I think I’ll cover.
The first point stems from a comment by a member that essentially stated that, “we shouldn’t need a voice recorder to record any potential LEO encounter“. The feeling being that the individual officers should be professional enough that we should be able to rely on them for being not only truthful, but also accurate in their reports. I agree with that, to a certain extent.
Of course I believe police should be professional, just as I also believe that most of them are. I also think that we should be able to rely on the officers honesty, as well as reporting skills and memory, to get a decent record of events. Unfortunately, that just isn’t reality. Police are human just like anyone else. Some of them do have personal agendas, some of them probably shouldn’t even wear the uniform (I’m talking about a minority here), and those who do will probably slant things to make their side more favorable. Most officers are probably not like this. Most of the ones I’ve met, observed, or come in contact with are very professional. Unfortunately, just like every other cross-section of society, there are bound to be bad examples. That’s life, and that’s reality, so accept it for what it is, and determine your course of action based on that reality of life.
Another thing to consider (leaving aside the professionalism issue) is that we are relying on the officer to not only be professional and honest, but to also have an impeccable memory, as well as excellent report writing skills. These reports are not always written at the end of the shift, and in some cases have been reported to have been written almost a full week later. While we would like for them to be as factually accurate as possible, the reality is that it isn’t always going to happen. The fact is that an official report just may not be totally accurate. Therefore, a audio or video recording of the event will be helpful in eliminating any inconsistencies.
For most people, as well as for most people who OC, none of this is really going to happen to us. Most of us probably won’t have a negative experience with an officer that we’ll think it prudent to have recorded. It’s also true that most of us who chose to carry a firearm on a daily basis will never have to use it in defense of ourselves or loved ones, just as most of us will not get into an auto accident in which the seatbelt plays an important role, …etc. Most OC’ers go through their daily with little problems from law enforcement. Nevertheless, it’s going to be a bad feeling the next day when you start thinking that you wish you’d had a recording of what an officer told you while he was detaining you for OC’ing.
Another good site to look at is
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
Some of their videos can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
Other good videos to view:
These are well regulated on the net, but I'll put them here anyway.
First one is a Law Professor, second one is a LEO who basically reiterates what the Prof said. (both links should be same, just different viewing methods)
http://steinski.com/blog/on_not_talking_to_the_police_about_anything_ever_under_any_circumstances/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en
Last edited on Thu May 7th, 2009 05:10 pm by ghostrider
|
THway
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 06:21 pm |
|
Thanks for the topic. This kind of knowledge is VERY helpful. In hindsight I wish I had used "wash,rinse,repeat". Thanks for this tidbit of information.
|
Gosirr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 09:14 pm |
|
TTT
Can we sticky this?
|
warlockmatized
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 03:18 am |
|
Gosirr wrote: TTT
Can we sticky this?
Great thread.
+1 for getting it stickied. (pm John or Mike)
|
Gosirr
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 30th, 2008 10:56 pm |
|
warlockmatized wrote: Gosirr wrote: TTT
Can we sticky this?
Great thread.
+1 for getting it stickied. (pm John or Mike)
done.
|
taxwhat
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 1st, 2008 12:34 am |
|
ghostrider wrote: Part 2:
ghostrider wrote:
People who OC should strive for a short list of simple things:
1. Have a digital voice recorder with download capability, and record the whole encounter. Wal-Mart has one for about $35. Get a microphone for it for better recording quality.
2. Time the entire encounter from start to finish. (That means the second the officer approaches you. These encounters should last no more than 20 minutes. If your driving it means as soon as you see flashing lights, you start recording.)
3. Ask the following questions, and stay on those points specifically, and explicitly. Don’t waiver from them:
“Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained”? (By wording it this way, you put the conversation on establishing the officer’s lawful reason for stopping you. If the officer wants to stated that the crime is “being a person of interest”, then even better since it will make future action on your part all the more easier, providing you stick to the program. No need to argue that it isn't a crime).
“What is your reasonable suspicion?” (if the officer states to the effect that it’s the gun on your hip, then you might also ask if that is the sole basis of his RS, or if there is anything else to constitute RS. the reason for this is because a gun "in and of itself" is not RS to a Terry Stop).
“Am I free to go?”
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Be polite, professional, and don't argue or give Police an attitude.
Last edited on Wed Nov 5th, 2008 07:04 pm by taxwhat
|
DanM
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 04:19 am |
|
Last edited on Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 02:56 pm by DanM
|
warlockmatized
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 05:37 am |
|
Last edited on Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 06:32 am by warlockmatized
|
ghostrider
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 2nd, 2008 05:43 am |
|
Folks,
The mods were kind enough to make this thread a stick because people thought that it was an important topic. I, think it's an important topic. As such, I believe it would be better served if we not allow this thread to dwindle into an off topic discussion about creative writing, and grammar.
|
ghostrider
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 26th, 2009 04:34 am |
|
Per request, the the Reid Method of Interrogation has been added.
|
Mississippian
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 3rd, 2009 08:37 pm |
|
Even though I am not in MI, I feel it is good "IANAL" advice and can be used in other states as well.
Thanks for taking the time to post that, now I need to get the "wash, rinse, repeat" burned into my head.
|
UnSeen UnKnown
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 8th, 2009 09:16 am |
|
Man wish i had spotted this a few hours earlier....
|
ghostrider
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu May 7th, 2009 04:41 am |
|
I am adding these two videos.
The first one is important for people because it demonstrates how what is said on the street (by you as well as the officer) can be twisted by the officer in the courtroom.
Here's an interesting youtube to listen to. The video had problems for me downloading, and kept reloading. However, the video wasn't all that long, and the courtroom audio is played afterward. No problems with the courtroom audio.
It was interesting listening to how the officer and prosecutor tried to twist things around to get a conviction. It was almost so wild I'm not even sure to believe it's true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ2bnNHQuIA
The second one is a good example of someone who was in a tense situation (to say the least) while being detained and questioned by TSA agents who desperately tried to intimidate. Listen/watch all of it, because Judge Napolitano’s comments are worthy of audience.
I'm sure this has been covered before on other areas of this baord, but I'm posting here because it is a follow up to the initial fox news coverage.
I think it's good for people to hear what kind of antics the authorities will use to intimidate, coerce, and infringe upon peoples rights. Having such knowledge will help preparation for eventual encounters.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-09/steve-bierfeldt-on-freedom-watch/
This is the story of Steve Bierfeldt. He is the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty, which is Ron Paul's group IIRC. He was detained by TSA because he had a bit of cash while trying to fly.
All he did was ask them if he was legally required to answer their questions. Listen to Judge Andrew Napolitano’s comments on this incident, and other's like it. Chilling.
|
Tishhouse
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri May 8th, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
| Thanks!
|
stephgrinage23
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat May 9th, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
oh the guy detained by the TSA man, we saw that a couple weeks ago!!!
|
DarKRaceR
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 09:25 am |
|
ghostrider wrote: I am adding these two videos.
The first one is important for people because it demonstrates how what is said on the street (by you as well as the officer) can be twisted by the officer in the courtroom.
Here's an interesting youtube to listen to. The video had problems for me downloading, and kept reloading. However, the video wasn't all that long, and the courtroom audio is played afterward. No problems with the courtroom audio.
It was interesting listening to how the officer and prosecutor tried to twist things around to get a conviction. It was almost so wild I'm not even sure to believe it's true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ2bnNHQuIA
The second one is a good example of someone who was in a tense situation (to say the least) while being detained and questioned by TSA agents who desperately tried to intimidate. Listen/watch all of it, because Judge Napolitano’s comments are worthy of audience.
I'm sure this has been covered before on other areas of this baord, but I'm posting here because it is a follow up to the initial fox news coverage.
I think it's good for people to hear what kind of antics the authorities will use to intimidate, coerce, and infringe upon peoples rights. Having such knowledge will help preparation for eventual encounters.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-09/steve-bierfeldt-on-freedom-watch/
This is the story of Steve Bierfeldt. He is the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty, which is Ron Paul's group IIRC. He was detained by TSA because he had a bit of cash while trying to fly.
All he did was ask them if he was legally required to answer their questions. Listen to Judge Andrew Napolitano’s comments on this incident, and other's like it. Chilling.
Man, this is crazy, whats wrong with these LEO's?
|
Mungo
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
Great thread!
Two of THE best pieces of advice I have seen out here! Expect confrontation if you are going to OC and handle the encounter as if you were setting up the courtroom trial.
Yes it's a right, but it is a rarely used right and too many people are not accustomed to seeing a civilian with a sidearm in public. The probability of an encounter of some sort is relatively high depending on the community.
It's court case rulings that help protect the second amendment, not street arguments that escalate. Be calm, and gather evidence against your opponent.
I was in a firearm shop the other day and a gentleman who had just purchased a sidearm was nervous and had to ask how he could get the firearm home! It's not just 2nd amendment opponents who will be shocked to see you open carry, it is people who are pro-2nd amendment too.
Be calm, know your rights and the rights of the person confronting you, and you'll be well on your way to educating and creating precedent for something that should be a more well known right.
|
Current time is 01:29 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
