| Author | Post |
|---|
Jizzzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Holloman AFB, USA |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 06:05 am |
|
| deputies or DPS?
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 07:03 am |
|
4sooth wrote: See U.S. v Dudley---where the United States Supreme Court ruled that in a state which allows the open carry of firearms there is no probable cause to approach someone on the basis of his/her carrying a firearm.
I'm having a little trouble finding it. Could you post a link?
|
para_org
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 07:11 am |
|
4sooth wrote: See U.S. v Dudley---where the United States Supreme Court ruled that in a state which allows the open carry of firearms there is no probable cause to approach someone on the basis of his/her carrying a firearm.
This case is one of two convicted felons who had their car searched because someone saw a firearm in their vehicle.They were in possession of NFA wepons as well as common firearms.The whole case was tossed out because there was no PC to approach them.
Get a copy of this and keep it with you.And you might send a copy to the chief as well.He will be very surprised to see this.
Thanks for this.... although I am having a devil of a time finding this case. Do you have a link ?
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 07:19 am |
|
Echo, echo, echo, echo. 
|
para_org
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 07:23 am |
|
| lol
|
RogueAussie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 03:39 pm |
|
Jizzzle wrote: deputies or DPS?
Mate I think it was Deputies they said on the radio that they have cameras in there cars and Belt recorders I'll try and see if I can find the link to it
|
Jizzzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Holloman AFB, USA |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 05:06 pm |
|
| cool.
|
Jizzzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Holloman AFB, USA |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
| i was just curious if it was a requirement for LEOs in NM to carry them or just deputies or it was county specific.
|
Ohio Patriot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
I'm a bit confused.
It's obvious there was an encounter. But was it elevated to detainment?
An LEO is allowed to make an encounter with you for any reason. Heck, anyone is allowed to make an encounter with you for any reason. But detainment is another animal. Did you specifically ask if you were being detained? Did you specifically ask if you were free to go?
|
Jizzzle
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | Holloman AFB, USA |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 11:27 pm |
|
| he's not talking about a suit. he's pretty much saying that the LEO involved was an ass for no reason and that it needs to be taken care of. if someone at mcdonalds is an ass to you wouldn't you complain to the managment? and if the management was an ass about it wouldn't you upchannel it?
|
para_org
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 12th, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
Perhaps I can try to explain it this way. I told him I was busy (with personal business) and I wanted to continue on with what I was doing. I was quite specific. I also informed him that what I was doing was legal as per the NM constitution. I even offered to have a consensual visit AFTER I concluded my business (later in other words).
If he insists on continuing the "encounter" immediately with this knowledge of my lack of consent he does so as a detainment. Therefore he must have a 'specific' RAS to do so under Terry rules. More especially because open carry is a protected right under the supreme law of this state (our constitution) and thereby cannot be used as the basis for RAS.
More bluntly, I did not give my consent to any such discussion at that time. He had no RAS and he cannot 'stop and id' me outside of Terry rules without also so doing this id check with every other patron of the restaurant. And although he did 'id check' me he did NOT so do it with any other patron of the restaurant.
If you have any court rulings to suggest that he has a right to bother me the way he did, against my consent and wishes; it would be helpful for you so cite them herein as the 'open carry movement' would necessarily need these to review.
I would like to think that policemen are under our employ and have to conform to Terry rules in order that we are not subject to living in a 'police state'.
|
Thos.Jefferson
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 08:06 am |
|
| Why didn't you just refuse to speak to him? You do have the right not to talk to anyone you choose not to talk to. If the guy grabbed you up for refusing to speak to him you would be on the road to riches albeit there would have been some hassle involved but it would've been agreat story for the grand-kids!
|
para_org
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 08:17 am |
|
Interesting comments. Thank you for reading this missive of mine.
|
smn
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 92 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 01:23 pm |
|
US v. Dudley is here: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=6173
The cop can't get RAS for a stop from a phone call. More importantly is Florida v. JL where there's no gun exemption to the 4th Amendment. We're familiar with Terry, so no RAS, no stop. Everything else is unlawful if the cop pushes it further.
Being curious is OK for the cop. You have the right to refuse the cop's intrusions into your lawful activity. A seizure of your person is pretty well defined in case law. Keep your SA up. Ask "Am I free to go?" and "Am I being detained" over and over before the cop walks away or tell you to stop. If you get a favorable answer tell him the cop to have a nice day and you wish to end this tier one encounter.
Being prepared is key and the voice recorder will help keep the facts straight as long as it can hear.
|
para_org
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 20th, 2009 02:29 pm |
|
Thank you for the link.
|
agentX
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:56 am |
|
Venator wrote: para_org wrote: Well here's an update. I got a call this afternoon from the Chief Deputy. And he told me that he was the one to speak to the deputy that I had my "incident" with.
The call was about 30 minutes wherein I learned the following;
- The officer was NOT disciplined for any infractions. The "chief" felt that while his deputy did not handle things well, he had not broken any rules as the "chief" encourages his deputies to be "curious". And my "carrying a handgun" was a good enough cause to approach me because it certainly was unusual.
- I asked about whether the deputy had been able to articulate a reasonable suspicion to his superior. I was told that he had done so, but the "chief" was not able to articulate any such details to me. I was told by the "chief" that he simply could not recall what those may have been, but that they were sufficient.
- I was further informed that both the "chief" and his deputy were fully aware of the laws in New Mexico and that it was merely my opinion that seeing someone with a holstered weapon was NOT sufficient as a "reasonable cause of suspicion of criminal behavior".
- The "chief" also told me that a formal/official complaint would NOT be kept on file past a year or so. They do NOT keep these.
- I was told that deputy that I "met" on Monday was just trying to be sure that I was properly trained to carry a firearm and that was why my concealed carry permit was demanded.
- The last question I asked was what I could do to prevent raising this or any deputies suspicions relative to being demanded id and so forth when I go about my personal business while open carrying. I was told "nothing".
I am going to refrain discussing any personal thoughts about all of this, at least for the time being, but ya' all please feel free to make your own thoughts known with comments !!
*** P.S. The "chief" also told me that he did NOT want me to send him ANY information about state law or whether carrying a holstered gun was considered "reasonable suspicion...", as he already knew "everything" he needed to know about this. He again was specific that all of this amounted to "opinions".
He also reiterated this when I asked if he wanted me to send him court rulings or sheriff association documents.
However YOU guys and gals are certainly free to do so yourselves !!
He can't stop you from sending it to his boss. I would send it all to the sheriff and voice your concerns there. You can also write a letter to the editor of the local or state papers about this and explain that OC is legal in NM and mention in passing some of the problems you have with this County SD with the Sheriff's email address.
You're expecting the superior to/of this rogue cop/deputy(??) to side with you AGAINST one of his own??!! File the formal complaint, BUT, attach with it an Affidavit of Fact(affidavit is sworn and notarized); affidavit adds & carries a bit more legal punch along with your complaint. I too would, and am speaking purely for myself here, draft and additional affidavit stating/outling specific facts surrounding this matter and deputy and that I am in fear of my safety and consitutionally protected rights from this deputy; i then file that with the District Attorney's office. The affidavit to the DA serves several purposes, not the least of which is, should you EVER again have cause to deal with this deputy and you standup to him, AND he decides to become heavy handed, your affidavit, on file with the DA will serve as additional supportive evidence of possible abuses(s), biases, and "intent" on this deputie's part towards and against you.
Can aid you with such an affidavit; format is relatively simple; am not an attorney but don't need to be to proterct myself in court and with/against the public corruptors.
If you're entertaining the thought of filing a civil action(lawsuit) against the deputy(?) you're facing an uphill battle; priamrily because you have NO witnesses to substantiate your charge(s); it will become a he said, she said issue and the coruts, and jury, IF you even were to get that far, would beleive the cop. Those recommending you sue the deputy have the ehart's/emotion(s) in the right palces, but may not full udnerstand/rasp the intricasies of a civil action, even if you were capable of filing it and litigating it yourself. I'm willing to take a guess here, the cop was young, had one of those Joe Rambo, I wanna be a Seal buzz hair cuts, and may have even been wearing those nifty tough guy looking fingelrss leather gloves.
On a closing note; be aware that according to the Constitution for New Mexico, at Article XXII, Sect. 19, and supported under New Mexico Statutes Annotated(NMSA) 10-2-9 a public officer, this includes County Sheriff, is REQUIERD to "give' a surety " bond" (commonly referred to as a faithful performance bond); and said bond, pursuant to the statute cited, Ibid, that bond MUST be recorded(filed for record) and until it is the public officer is barred from discharging his/her duties. To date, this writer has NOT been able to find, or have delivered/presented to him ANY such bond(s) by any state public officers. County officers are included in the bonding requirement IF the office they hold, and exercise the powers of is a constitutionally established office.
|
BCLS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 09:28 am |
|
I don't know if anybody will read this since this started awhile back. You ask for his card and he wouldn't give it to you. How about asking for his ID? PO have to have ID not just a badge I was pulled over by supposedly a NMSPO he said I was going 6 over the speed limit and asked for my drivers lic ins and reg and so I asked him to see his ID and man he got pissed. This happened late around 10pm in the fall it was dark out in Valencia County. He said can't you see the marked police car behind you! I said nope sure can't its dark. That mad him even madder by this time I had my info out but he still wasn't producing anything and asked if I wanted to step out of the vehicle. I did only because I was stoped in front of a city cops house just a few doors down from my friends house (who was in my truck). We then walk back to his car and I stood by the front while he went back and talked on the radio I guess came back and gave me my stuff and said I was free to go.
Also in the state of New Mexico it is legal to cc with out a permit if the gun is unloaded and no clip is in it.
|
para_org
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:56 pm |
|
This from the very first message;
" He looked at my license and permits for a very brief moment, and then placed them on the table. I then asked for his card. He refused to give one to me, but then told me his name and his "man number". He then (without my asking) gave me a phone number he said was for "internal affairs" and told me he would be o.k. if I called them. ................... "
So I got his "badge" number, (which for the Sheriff's office is a "man" number). And because I "asked" for the information.
|
BCLS
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
| ya but still they have ID's like a military ID and they r to show them if asked for and they r not able to do anything if they can't show that they are for real and not just a impersonator. Because we all know there are police impersonators out there and anybody can get uniforms badges and cop cars.
|
para_org
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 06:33 pm |
|
Well that is a different thought from what I got out of your first message.
Let me clarify; The deputy in question was clearly not an imposter as I could see his badge. And if he could "fake" a badge, he could also easily fake an "id". More to the point, it was clear to me that he really was a deputy from demeanor, his badge, his demonstrated attitude, and from the follow-up on my part after the encounter.
But you have an interesting point about their having to show ID. Is the clearly visable badge suffcient for a court of law when I ask for their "card" ?
|
Current time is 09:25 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
