|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Minnesota > Cuffed and Caged For Open Carry
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Minnesota > Cuffed and Caged For Open Carry
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
madrevar Regular Member
|
3-2-09 12:30pm Coon Rapids (Riverdale Crossing) For reference, I begin this story carrying a CZ82 9x18mm in an all but unused Czech leather police holster, with thumb-break. I am wearing nothing but shorts/tshirt/sandals with only wallet/gun on me, with keys in left hand and beverage in right. My girlfriend and I had just eaten at Chipotle and were leaving to pay my phone bill at the adjacent TMobile. After leaving Tmobile, we proceeded across the lot to my truck. I got as far as the rearend of my truck, when a Coon Rapids Police Department marked car flew in and stopped a few parking spots to the left and opposite my side, approximately 15 yards away. The Officer commanded, "Hey, you! Get over here!" Then, "Now turn around, up against the car!" This car was to my left parked next to my truck. I complied with all demands up to this point. As the Officer approached me with his pistol drawn, "DO YOU KNOW WHAT FRICKEN' CONCEALED CARRY MEANS?" As he puts my hands behind my head I reply, "Yes Sir." Then he asks, "Then why are you carrying out in the open like that?" I chose my words carefully, "Well, Officer my permit says 'Permit To Carry' not 'Concealed Carry'." He says, "I DON'T CARE WHAT THE FRICKEN PERMIT SAYS! ITS CALLED 'MINNESOTA CONCEALED CARRY LAW' FOR A REASON!" After disarming me and handing my pistol to his partner to be secured, he immediately started cuffing me. I ask, "Officer, may I ask why we are cuffing?" To which he replies, "So I can frisk you and put you in the car." At this point I am not sure what is going to happen, but start thinking a "Disorderly Conduct/Distubing The Peace" charge is in my future. After putting me in his squad, he and his partner and another officer deliberate on what to charge me with and if open carry is legal. After about ten minutes he comes back and starts asking me the rudimentary questions for his report, where I live, phone number, etc. After that he lets me out of the car, uncuffs me and gives me my keys and wallet back, but no gun yet. First he gives me the speil about how open carry is not the best idea, sheeple will call MWAG, and how if enough sheople would have been disturbed he would have charged me. He also told me that when and if I have law enforcement respond again I should be fine if I do as I did that day. He also admitted that he didn't have much experience with carrying off-duty much so he hasn't had to deal with it himself. All in all the Officers were polite and professional, even if a bit excessive with the detainment. He had me and the girlfriend get in my truck, hands my pistol and mag back to me through my window. I notice my previously-chambered round is missing, so I asked him to get that for me. We shook hands and I asked for his card. Then he went on his way. No particular agenda on my part, just looking for comments and contructive criticisms from all. Thanks Last edited on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 05:34 pm by madrevar |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member 
|
Where does one begin?! A good digital recorder would have been of obvious benefit. Apology, retraining, illegal detainment, color of law, civil suit et al. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
The Officer commanded, "Hey, you! Get over here!" Then, "Now turn around, up against the car!" This car was to my left parked next to my truck. I complied with all demands up to this point. As the Officer approached me, "DO YOU KNOW WHAT FRICKEN' CONCEALED CARRY MEANS?" As he puts my hands behind my head I reply, "Yes Sir." Then he asks, "Then why are you carrying out in the open like that?" I chose my words carefully, "Well, Officer my permit says 'Permit To Carry' not 'Concealed Carry'." He says, "I DON'T CARE WHAT THE FRICKEN PERMIT SAYS! ITS CALLED 'MINNESOTA CONCEALED CARRY LAW' FOR A REASON!" All in all the Officers were polite and porfessional The two quoted statements from your post are in direct conflict with each other. |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
madrevar wrote: snip.... Porfessional = poor-fessional? More a Freudian slip than a typo perhaps.  Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
madrevar Regular Member
|
I decided to purchase one that evening. Also, there may be something to your analysis of my typo |
|||||||||
|
madrevar Regular Member
|
NavyLT wrote: The Officer commanded, "Hey, you! Get over here!" Then, "Now turn around, up against the car!" This car was to my left parked next to my truck. I complied with all demands up to this point. As the Officer approached me, "DO YOU KNOW WHAT FRICKEN' CONCEALED CARRY MEANS?" As he puts my hands behind my head I reply, "Yes Sir." Then he asks, "Then why are you carrying out in the open like that?" I chose my words carefully, "Well, Officer my permit says 'Permit To Carry' not 'Concealed Carry'." He says, "I DON'T CARE WHAT THE FRICKEN PERMIT SAYS! ITS CALLED 'MINNESOTA CONCEALED CARRY LAW' FOR A REASON!"All in all the Officers were polite and porfessional Its my understanding that an officer is trained to assert authority with aggression while doing the actual detaining, just to keep the suspect in control. During the "afterglow", he and his partners were respectful and understanding once they figured the law out. Their behavior was inconsistent; not so much my description of it. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
Maybe it's my advanced age, but posts are much harder to follow when they don't contain paragraph breaks. Please, PLEASE use paragraphs. |
|||||||||
|
LRS76251 Regular Member
|
madrevar wrote: 3-2-09 |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Since OC is legal in MN with a permit, according to the Map Page here on OCDO, it sounds to me like your 4th Amendment rights were abused. I am not a lawyer. Exactly how bad the cops misbehaved will depend on what the police were told in the 911 call, or however they found out about you. If they were given some false report, the law may view their actions as legal. I kinda doubt they were given a false report based on the cop's early question as to whether you knew what concealed carry meant. If your state has an Open Government Law/Sunshine Law/Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), you may be able to get a copy of the 911 call and radio traffic to and from the patrol car. In your shoes, once I exhausted the FOIA possibilities and knew for sure the police were not given a false report, I'd write a real no-nonsense formal complaint. Polite, civil, but leaving no room for any doubt about how I viewed such a ridiculous and inexcuseable violation of basic rights. I'd include recommendations for training, and make it clear I wanted a response as to what the department planned to do about it. Calling a lawyer might not be a bad idea to get a fuller picture of all your options. |
|||||||||
|
Gunslinger Regular Member 
|
NavyLT wrote: The Officer commanded, "Hey, you! Get over here!" Then, "Now turn around, up against the car!" This car was to my left parked next to my truck. I complied with all demands up to this point. As the Officer approached me, "DO YOU KNOW WHAT FRICKEN' CONCEALED CARRY MEANS?" As he puts my hands behind my head I reply, "Yes Sir." Then he asks, "Then why are you carrying out in the open like that?" I chose my words carefully, "Well, Officer my permit says 'Permit To Carry' not 'Concealed Carry'." He says, "I DON'T CARE WHAT THE FRICKEN PERMIT SAYS! ITS CALLED 'MINNESOTA CONCEALED CARRY LAW' FOR A REASON!"All in all the Officers were polite and porfessional Agreed. The SS were often polite as they helped the infirm into the gas chambers. |
|||||||||
|
Gray Peterson State Researcher 
|
Just noticed the thread over at TwinCitiesCarry. Last edited on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 12:42 pm by Gray Peterson |
|||||||||
|
cato Regular Member 
|
madrevar wrote: I decided to purchase one that evening. It usually takes an event to motivate some of us to buy one. Recorders are perhaps the best tool we have to proactivly defend liberty in general (and not just "gun" rights). They're great on traffic stops too. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE GET ONE TODAY AND USE IT (and know the laws of your state regarding audio recording in public) send this picture to the officer  :Attached Image (viewed 1955 times): Last edited on Wed Apr 1st, 2009 03:55 am by cato |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
cato wrote: madrevar wrote:I decided to purchase one that evening. Priceless would be carrying the way JMB designed 'em to be carried - condition 1! Good luck with that.  Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
pkbites Regular Member
|
Citizen wrote: Since OC is legal in MN with a permit, according to the Map Page here on OCDO, it sounds to me like your 4th Amendment rights were abused. Minnesota's Department of Public Safety has a "frequently asked questions" page that says this: 22. If I have a permit to carry a pistol do I have to conceal the pistol? No. Minnesota’s Personal Protection Act is a permit to carry law, not a conceal and carry law. The pistol does not need to be concealed, but can be concealed. This isn't coming from a pro-gun web site or some blog. This is coming directly from the states Department of Public Safety, for kripes sake! Find out who those cops are and email this link to them and their supervisors! http://www.dps.state.mn.us/bca/CJIS/Documents/CarryPermit/FAQs.html Last edited on Tue Mar 24th, 2009 06:08 am by pkbites |
|||||||||
|
smithman Regular Member
|
madrevar, many things here are out of line. The LEO pointing his weapon at you, unlawful detaintion, unlawful arrest (when he cuffed you an put you in his car you were legally arrested), etc... I would pursue legal options since your rights have been violated. The fact that he realized his error is good, however he went way too far and was one finger movement away from killing you for your OBEYING THE LAW. |
|||||||||
|
vote_no Regular Member
|
At least you weren't in Golden Valley. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
madrevar wrote: 3-2-09 Follow up with as minimum, formal complaint - by formal, I just mean somthing written (even email or web form) , short, concise, to the chief or other official channels - follow up, make sure it won;t happen again. |
|||||||||
|
IdahoCorsair State Researcher 
|
And you think this was a good/professional encounter?  It seems we have to re-educate even ourselves as to what the cop should have done... NOTHING! Or if he was in doubt about the legality of OC, he should keep an eye on you while calling it in to check. Or if he was really gung-ho, he should ask you to stay put (not cuff you, and not disarm you)... while he calls it in... your reaction would tell him a lot about you and the legality of what you're doing. All in all a rookie/overzealous, badge-heavy response.  I'd file a complaint for harassment, unlawful arrest (cuffs=arrest), non-policy use of firearm, abuse of position, and waste of your time among others. No need to sue in this case, but I'd definitely file a complaint. |
|||||||||
|
romma Regular Member 
|
If the nice Mr police man seemed polite and professional, then he did a superb job at some serious back tracking and white washing his initial behavior in this encounter. Smart cop with some serious survival skills. I love the term a lot of them use: "Ignorance is no excuse of the law". Except for them... Not to knock all cops as there are some good ones out there. Oh, "Porfessional"... That made my day worth it! I will never forget that word and will use it often as needed. |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
romma wrote: snip.... Difference between a professional and an amateur - the professional gets paid for his mistakes - it's true in all trades/professions. Yata hey |
|||||||||
|
Pagan Regular Member 
|
Those LEO's are suppose to know the law, "ignorance is no excuse", show them no mercy, for if they had found one minor thing illegal in your conduct you WOULD have been charged, and we all know this! They violated your rights as an American citizen and as a citizen of your state, perhaps you don't have an agenda, and don't want to get rich, but you should look into some serious legal action, and if you get money and feel guilty about it, then donate it to a fellow OC'er that has been violated and needs funds for legal fees. Point is, these guys know the law, and make a living from YOUR taxes enforcing those laws, and will bust your balls every chance they get, and tell you "ignorance is no excuse" show the same respect that they show you. Glad you were not arrested ,but violated; you were. |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
I know I posted this in another thread, but again I believe this is what you are looking for. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/attachment.php?id=6603 |
|||||||||
|
thefarce Regular Member
|
I'd file a complaint for harassment, unlawful arrest (cuffs=arrest), ... I agree with your comments, but I do take exception to your comment that "Cuffs=arrest". Being placed in cuffs is simply a restraint method; at most, he was detained - not arrested. Otherwise yes, I agree - a complaint at the least is in order; the officer did do a nice job of realizing his mistake, but this is something that the department should at least be aware is a problem, if nothing else... the officers should be educated as to the proper method of dealing with someone OCing. Last edited on Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 05:17 pm by thefarce |
|||||||||
|
Fallschirmjäger Regular Member
|
Legal explanations.com (v) Arrest is the action by which a person is stopped from his normal activities by virtue of a legal authority or sanction, either by detaining him or by stopping his external accesses. By an arrest, a person is deprived of his liberty. So the law contain many provisions like requirement of a warrant, adherence of Miranda rights, arraignment within the statutory limit etc. dictionary.reference.com verb (used with object) 1. to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody: The police arrested the burglar. noun 5. the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law. 6. any seizure or taking by force. 7. an act of stopping or the state of being stopped: the arrest of tooth decay. Perhaps the best, they go quite deeply into the matter. thefreedictionary.com A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge. ... An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest. BusinessDictionary.com To detain a person and keep him or her in custody by lawful authority. Arrest may be made with an arrest warrant or without one (called 'summary arrest') in case of an arrestable offense, or where it is authorized by a statute. YourDictionary.com transitive verb
LEOTraining.com [excerpted by me] Q -- Handcuffing People During Frisks An officer stops a vehicle with multiple occupants and develops reasonable suspicion to search for weapons (let’s assume he does have reasonable suspicion). Can an officer handcuff the occupants of a vehicle on reasonable suspicion alone only to search for weapons? I guess the case doesn't necessarily have to deal with passengers of automobiles. But if an officer fears someone is armed, can he/she handcuff the person to simply search for weapons or have the courts ruled that once a person is handcuffed they are in custody. I remember you lectured about this very topic but I don’t recall your opinion. Answer First off -- your safety is most important. If you feel that you must handcuff people present to go home at night, then do it. BUT -- you must remember that handcuffing looks like "custody" or "arrest" to a court / judge and that requires probable cause -- so let me give you some legal advice. 1. Prior to handcuffing, tell the people they are not under arrest or in custody. 2. As soon as you have frisked, unhandcuff the people, if possible. 3. If you discover important evidence as a result of this procedure YOU must convince the court of the unusual circumstances that made it necessary to handcuff. This is not easy in lots of courts, so be prepared to tell the story to make the judge feel as if he / she were there. And be prepared to explain that whenever you have found it necessary to do this, you ALWAYS and immediately unhandcuff the people when you determine that nobody has a weapon that can hurt you. There are three levels (tiers) of interaction with the police as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, we all know what they are. Tier 1 ... Voluntary Interaction Tier 2 ... Detention Tier 3 ... Arrest. Ask yourself what tier of interaction you are having when you are are involuntarily placed into restraints and your freedom to go about your normal activities is halted until such time as you are released. Last edited on Wed Sep 23rd, 2009 07:29 pm by Fallschirmjäger |
|||||||||
|
NavyLT Regular Member
|
thefarce wrote: I'd file a complaint for harassment, unlawful arrest (cuffs=arrest), ... Even a traffic stop is considered an arrest. |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
madrevar wrote:
If he "didn't have much experience with carrying....hadn't had to deal with it himself." why is he arresting you? What law did he think you had broken? This jerk is just enforcing his own personal feelings. |
|||||||||
|
HankT State Researcher 
|
It is clear that the officer made errors in his handling of OP. Using this case as an example, what would the damages be from a legal standpoint? And how would the damages be quantified? Anyone know? I usually have this question whenever there is a post about being treated badly and unlawfully by cops is introduced here. When people suggest suing (e.g. Pagan), I suspect its suing for damages. But what are they, using this case as an example? I'm sure if the cop would have beat up or shot the OP, then the physical injuries and cost for treatment of those would serve as the basis for damages. But is the false arrest (if it is an arrest) in this case worth, say, $200, if one were to spend $5000 to run it through the court system? Or, are there no damages, since the LEO corrected his error in thinking that OP was violating the law? |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
HankT wrote: It is clear that the officer made errors in his handling of OP. Using this case as an example, what would the damages be from a legal standpoint? And how would the damages be quantified? How does one "correct" the violation of another's rights? How much money does it take to replace abused liberty? A person's ability to come and go as he sees fit and to be secure in his own person is one of the fundamental tenants of liberty. The seizure of a person is a serious violation, as serious as kidnapping. The amount of money to compensate for that loss is uncountable. |
|||||||||
|
thefarce Regular Member
|
I think it would be disproportionate and downright excessive to sue in this instance. Yes, he was detained. BUT, to be realistic, police officers cannot be expected to know every obscure statute in the state they work in. Yes, these laws may seem "common sense" to those of us on this forum, but keep in mind that this sort of situation is not one that an officer comes across often - indeed, I'd bet many officers never come across this even once throughout their career. Yes, I think he should file a complaint - that's more than reasonable. However, given that the officer released him immediately upon learning he was not in violation of the law should give the officer some credit. Also, keep in mind that while in the courtroom, the laws state "innocent until proven guilty", for a police officer in a potential confrontation with an unknown individual with a (presumably loaded) weapon, the best course of action would be to do exactly what this officer did. Remember: a police officer's number one concern is making sure he goes home at night. Everything else is secondary, as it should be when someone is risking their life potentially daily. This situation could be "what ifed" to death as far as "why didn't he ask if he had a permit or just stand there" but keep in mind, the officer sees a loaded gun, and his first instinct is to make sure that he isn't going to get shot, and the best way to do that is for him to take possession of it. Just try to remember that cops aren't "bad guys" - they're just trying to, like all of us, do a job and make a living. Just think about how you'd like it if somebody came to your desk and started telling you how to do a job you've done for x years... clearly a mistake was made here, but it was rectified as immediately as possible, and I think that deserves some credit. |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
thefarce wrote: I think it would be disproportionate and downright excessive to sue in this instance. Yes, he was detained. BUT, to be realistic, police officers cannot be expected to know every obscure statute in the state they work in. Cops don't have to know the ins and outs of every law. They only need to know that the 4th amendment says no illegal search and seizures, no Terry stops without RAS, and no gun exception to Terry. That's it. If they can't or won't do that they need to go home from other employment. After a trip to court to let a judge decide what is "disproportionate and downright excessive". Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:41 am by gutshot |
|||||||||
|
thefarce Regular Member
|
Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law. |
|||||||||
|
Grapeshot Founder's Club Member
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law. It is definitely NOT too much to expect that every department that has had an incident, advise their officers of the legality of OC. Two, three or more incidents is not a "whoops - sorry" incident, it starts to border on training deficiency and neglect. Yata hey Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:47 am by Grapeshot |
|||||||||
|
thefarce Regular Member
|
Grapeshot: Oh absolutely, I agree. However in this case, it does not appear to be a recurring incident - it seems like this could even be the first time this department has had to deal with this. EDIT: For the record, I'm not trying to be a troll or anything of that nature - I fully support OC and individual citizens' rights. I just also have a certain empathy for individuals who risk their lives every day for a living and more often than not simply receive ridicule for their (ordinarily) selfless service. Last edited on Thu Sep 24th, 2009 04:51 am by thefarce |
|||||||||
|
HankT State Researcher
|
gutshot wrote: HankT wrote:It is clear that the officer made errors in his handling of OP. Using this case as an example, what would the damages be from a legal standpoint? And how would the damages be quantified? This last thing is highly unlikely to be true. There is most definitely a way to "count" the amount of money to legally compensate for losses. It's one of the first classes that lawyers take. Compensation Maximization:Theory and Practice, I think it's called. One of those jumbo classes...  They can definitely "count" it.... |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
HankT wrote:
If so, it needs to be counted in a court of law by a judge and jury. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law. Bullsnort! Any moderately competent post officer should KNOW w/o hesitation the primary types of illegal activity he is liable to encounter on his post and within his sector. It's called 'Law Enforcement'... not 'Opinion Enforcement'. Drawing his weapon put the OP in immediate danger, when there was no causative overt action on the part of the OP to justify doing so. 911 Operators are also at fault as is the Police Dispatcher for not asking the proper questions of the MWAG alarmist. This is just another reactionary JBT with a badge. Yes... I've been a sworn LEO... before somebody accuses me of cop bashing. This was a false arrest... PERIOD! Half-assed 'understanding' of a law is incompetence. I'd sue the bastards. |
|||||||||
|
gutshot Regular Member
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law. Please post a link to or cite of this exception. |
|||||||||
|
NightOwl Regular Member
|
thefarce wrote: Keep in mind there's also a plain sight exception to the Terry ruling, so unless the officer knows off the top of his head that OC is legal in the state of MN, which we both agree is asking a lot for every officer to know, the officer was still acting reasonably and, according to what he knew at the time of the incident, within the breadth of the law. Everything is legal unless there is a law specifically against it. So I don't find it to be asking a whole lot for officers to not make up laws based on assumption or guesses. |
|||||||||
|
patrick james Regular Member
|
Yeah, Minnesota has a "Carry Law" Not Conceal and Carry. Although it is legal to conceal your firearm. And i find it hard to believe that cops in our state[most if not all]are not aware of this law. Crazy if you ask me. Cops like that [unprofessional] just bug me out. I think they feel or their egos feel threatened when they see someone with a firearm other than them. |
|||||||||
|
NightOwl Regular Member
|
I think something that has been overlooked is the dispatcher in this event. Call comes in, mwag. Is he doing anything illegal? He has a gun! Yes sir/ma'am, I understand that, but is he committing any crime? Well, he has a gun! I understand the man is armed, but if he's not committing a crime I won't be dispatching an officer on a call of 'citizen not breaking the law', have a nice day. The officers respond to the calls they get. Setting aside the ignorance of his basic job duties which this officer displayed, the initial problem lies with dispatch. It doesn't seem excessive to me for the dispatcher to have a basic knowledge of firearm laws, since they need to screen the calls that come in. Knowing OC is legal is pretty basic as far as from a law enforcement angle, I can't imagine that gun crimes were never covered in their training. Next thing you know, they'll be dispatching people to calls of 'man with a hamburger' or other equally intelligent calls. |
|||||||||
|
madrevar Regular Member
|
vote_no wrote: At least you weren't in Golden Valley. What would happen in Golden Valley? |
|||||||||