|
|
|
|
|
||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Hi gang; Unfortunately something I did not think likely in NM happened two days ago and I would appreciate some feedback on what you guys might feel is the next course of action (if any) that would be appropriate. This past Monday I was finishing my lunch and on my cell phone with my friend's widow discussing matters pertaining to the disposition of his estate when two deputies walked into the restaurant and past my booth. I assumed they sat down for lunch. About two minutes later one of them walked up to my booth and demanded my attention. I asked my friend's widow to please hang on and then spoke to the deputy and remarked that if this was about my gun, I was carrying legally and if he wanted to I would be happy to speak with him about it after I completed my business call. He insisted that I immediately give him my drivers license AND my carry permit. I reminded him that this was no such permit in the state of New Mexico and asked my friend's widow to please allow me to call her back after I attended to the sheriff's deputy. When I hung up the deputy said he did not want me to inform him about the laws in this state and he again demanded my permit and license and that if I refused to comply he would be happy to continue this matter outside. I took this to be meant as a threat of some sort. I then reached into my pocket, got out my wallet, opened it and first retrieved the driver's license which I, in the manner of revealing a poker hand flipped over onto the tabletop immediately in front of me. I also again reminded the deputy that there was no such thing as a permit to carry a gun in the open, as this was covered by the state constitution directly. The deputy then accused me of throwing my license at him. (!! He was standing off to my right of my booth and the license was in front of me on the table.) He also wanted me to "hand him" the license. He again asked for the permit. I told him a have several concealed carry permits, and then retrieved my NM one, scooped up the drivers license and then handed both to him as requested. I also reminded him that I had NOT, in fact, thrown anything at him at any time, and that I complied with his demands. He then again repeated that we could handle this outside if I so choose to. 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. He then said that he was just verifying that things were o.k., that my having a concealed carry permit allowed me to carry my gun in the fashion I was carrying it (open), and that he "...did not care about anything else because when he is on duty he will make sure people are safe." (!!) I IMMEDIATELY called the number he gave me which was not a direct line to internal affairs but merely an incoming number to "communications". Sadly it then took me 35 minutes and 8 phone calls, the last to the sheriff's admin. offices to get through to internal affairs. The Lt. that finally answered apologized for the delay and we discussed the matter. She was very insistant about wanting me to file a formal report, but I wanted to be assured that both training and discipline would be immediate and it seemed like the formal procedure would not yield as affirmative a result as an informal report. The Lt. was also clear that her understanding of the laws in NM concerning open carry of firearms where the same as mine. She did NOT however want to talk about what the department's official policy towards open carry might be !! I spoke with here again about an hour later as was informed that the officer would be disciplined later that day. The next day (yesterday) I asked and was told that the deputy still had not been disciplined and that it was hoped I would understand that the department would not be sharing ANY information with me on the outcome, and that I would not be getting any apology or feedback. I was also reminded that like many situations in NM, there are not enough smart people around and some stupid people get hired. Today I was called by a Sergeant LaBatta (sp ?) of Internal Affairs. He was calling me about the "weapons carry" in the restaurant, apparently returning my call-in from Monday during the period when I wasn't able to get a hold of anybody within his department. He was more open to trying to relay my wish to talk with the deputy's supervisor, and he offered that an informal report was the best way to get an immediate disciplinary response. I also asked for the forms to open an official complaint, should I not hear back from the deputies' supervisor. At his point I am not sure that my decision to file an informal report was correct or that it will yield any improvements in this deputy's behavior and attitude. I am also more than a little concerned that the department has not, to date, wanted to share their procedure concerning how and why and when they consider it appropriate to approach an open-carry citizen without a reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. Last edited on Wed Mar 18th, 2009 06:10 pm by para_org |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member 
|
An informal report is exactly what the police want you to file. Why, because it is just that, informal. If they decide to do nothing, then it is simply them saying "This guy called up with a gripe". Go the formal route. Get a paper trail. If nothing happens, fine. But ensure that there is a formal complaint in the deputies file. If he continues on with a pattern of ignoring the state constitution and operating under the color of law, there will be a record of it. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member 
|
File a formal complaint. |
|||||||||
|
Fallschirmjäger Regular Member
|
No white tie and tails....but definitely go Formal. Last edited on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 01:51 am by Fallschirmjäger |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
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 !! Last edited on Thu Mar 19th, 2009 05:01 pm by para_org |
|||||||||
|
snoball Regular Member
|
What city/county in NM. I can't believe it was Bernalillo County. Darren White is very familiar with open carry and I think it would have been handled differently. I think you should file a formal complaint also. LEOs need to be aware of the gun owners rights. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Well maybe Darren and his "chief deputy" don't get along so well ? Yes, it was Bernalillo county and my wife reminded me that Sheriff White got a no-confidence vote from his deputies before his last election. So, um, would it make sense to call sheriff White and/or email him a link to this discussion ? And if so, do you have a way to ensure that he will meet with me or read my email ? |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
"- 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." New Mexico is an OC state by it's own Constitution (as is Arizona). I've OC'd in NM long before I ever obtained an AZ CWP. THE CWP's got nothing to do with open carry. 'Properly trained' comes up again... as tho there's somethin' magical 'bout being armed. What if you didn't have a CCP? There's none required. What the deputy was doing was just bein' a dick. |
|||||||||
|
Nitrox314 Regular Member 
|
snoball wrote: What city/county in NM. I can't believe it was Bernalillo County. Darren White is very familiar with open carry and I think it would have been handled differently. I think you should file a formal complaint also. LEOs need to be aware of the gun owners rights. It would appear that these "law-enforcement officers" knew the law, but didn't really care about it. I highly dislike LEO's who think THEY are the law because they wear a badge. They are peons in the justice system and it is not up to them to "interpret" law for themselves. I would not have given them the permit. It's not required. Then, if they booked you, you could turn around and sue them. Not to mention it would have more media attention. LEO's don't want to be in the spotlight of a political gun-rights debate. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
I was wondering if even giving them my id was required, in NM, under the circumstances of peaceably eating my soup and quietly talking on my cell phone ? |
|||||||||
|
ImFromTheGovernmentAndImHereToHelp Banned
|
cops are criminals. |
|||||||||
|
BB62 State Researcher
|
+1 for the formal complaint route |
|||||||||
|
Venator Regular Member 
|
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. 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. |
|||||||||
|
SlackwareRobert Regular Member
|
Don't forget to cc a copy to your districts state representative. Let them know the local authorities are disregarding the laws. Won't help in a lot of areas, but there are still a handfull of good ones. When he gave you the internal affairs number you should have immediatly called them. Then you could have asked him for a more recent number when it didn't work. But think about just calling 911 next time, this way the encounter will be on the tapes. I know I would be 'fearful' with that type of encounter. Besides the look on his face when you call 911 for help will be priceless. Ask him to smile for the picture you want to send with the cell.  You can't reason with irrational individuals, so don't try. But does show why you need the voice recorder, then with the supervisors comments about how he was satisfied with the subordinates actions, you get two for one. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
SlackwareRobert wrote: Don't forget to cc a copy to your districts state representative. I did call the number he indicated. And I did stay at the scene until (finally) after repeated attempts was talking with someone from I.A. He also was there during that time, but at his table eating. As far as further intercourse with him, I.A. was specific about NOT talking further to him while at the scene. They wanted me to just get up and leave. I tended to agree. I carry a recorder at all times. That is good advise. I like the humor about a call to 911. I would NOT be surprised if someone had done exactly that when being harassed. Thanks very much for the comments. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Well I called the admin. offices three times to day to talk with the sheriff. Once before 10am, again slightly after noon, and again immediately before closing. During the second call I was told that it was not possible to schedule a meeting or a phone call with the sheriff. I was finally, with the last call at approx. 4:50 pm able to get a return call 5 minutes later from someone who said she was the sheriff's personal assistant. I appreciated being able to get a hold of someone with only a days worth of effort. However she said that she would have to know what I wanted before the sheriff would speak with me. So I told her a bit about what was going on, asked her if she would like to see my "notes" on the situation, and she offered up the sheriff's email address (which she is the 'gatekeeper' of) so I could send her a URL. Here is what I sent her; "To: sheriff Sent: Thu Mar 19 17:17:12 2009 Subject: This afternoon's phone call. Erin; Thank you and Jeanne for taking time at the end of your day to speak with me. I have outlined the specifics on my encounter with your Detective this past Monday and my conversation with Lt. Linthicum yesterday (sp?) at this URL; < http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum39/23246.html > http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum39/23246.html I am anxious to handle this as efficiently as possible, preferably tomorrow and with Sheriff White. I can be reached all day tomorrow on my cell phone; XXX-XXX-XXXX Thank you again for your attention. Very best regards;" I got this for a reply; "Sir I received the message and will make sure that the sheriff receives it as well. Erin" So I guess we shall see if the sheriff is interested enough in what is in THIS thread !! Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 03:29 am by para_org |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
I'm not sure I understand why you omitted verbally refusing consent. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Citizen wrote: I'm not sure I understand why you omitted verbally refusing consent This is actually a very good question. I will try to answer it. I refused to speak with him until I was done with my business. He ignored that. He also told me he was not interested in being informed on the law, and then after I prematurely finished my (business) call and affirmed that I could not comply with what had become his demands to produce a carry license for open carry. He made comments about taking it outside, which meant he fully understood that I was not offering consent. He did this each time I indicated my inability or desire to comply. I also took the opportunity to declare that the law did not support his intrusion AND by directly indicating that his business was not as important or as pressing as mine. Finally in NM open-carry itself is specifically protected by the state constitution. The deputy immediately "broke Terry procedures" by even approaching me in the first place without another reason. At that very instant the onus of any legality (color of law) was already upon him. And he surprised even me by indicating that he did what he did in disregard for the rules and with primary regard for public "safety". His superior surprised me even more by indicating that his deputy did NOT violate any training or procedures when violating my privacy without due consideration for the constitutional protections accorded everyone in NM as it relates to both Terry v. Ohio and open-carry within this state. I guess what I am saying is that he messed up the minute he approached me to demand compliance. He, his superior, and the I.A. all should have known that. It would stretch my beliefs to figure otherwise. More especially since he got nasty and threatening when I pointed out that I was fully legal. All the rest is just what my dad use to call 'silver-coated bull droppings'. Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 09:07 am by para_org |
|||||||||
|
jhow1nm2 Regular Member
|
well stated....quite clear....and you've officially put them on notice as they read this forum and start to imagine what action you will take next. |
|||||||||
|
codename_47 Regular Member
|
I don't think you are going to have the type of response you want. They aren't going to do anything. You should have stood up to them, and enforced your rights. Next time, carry a recorder and sue them. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Thanks for the honest comments. I appreciate these comments as much as the positive ones. And yes some would say I am tilting at windmills. I understand this. Interestingly at a neighborhood gathering a couple of weeks ago the question was asked if anyone knew a cop that wasn't an ass^*%*. NO ONE answered in favor of the police. Sadly NO ONE seemed surprised at the answers either. <- My point is that you might as well be right about the sheriff deputies not wanting to display a more positive image and behaving as we all would like to hope peace officers should act. And that is truly sad. I did have a recorder btw. Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 03:59 pm by para_org |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
I find this LEO attitude in NM disturbing. Being unfamiliar with the counties... what town/city area is this near? This isn't normal for NM... or didn't used to be. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Bernalillo County Sheriff's Dept. The restaurant this took place at has an Albuquerque address. Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 04:49 pm by para_org |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Geez... Reckon I'll steer south of there from now on. Y'all gotta get that attitude fixed. What are they hirin'... former New Jersey cops? Maybe you should have 'taken it outside'. Last edited on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 04:53 pm by Sonora Rebel |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
para_org wrote: Citizen wrote:I'm not sure I understand why you omitted verbally refusing consent This was essentially my analysis, too. You gain additional advantage by refusing consent while complying. First, it may give the cop second thoughts, especially if he already knows he's on the edge of legality or beyond. Second, it tends to erase or diminish the opportunity for any later police dodges that you didn't refuse consent, therefore it was consensual, etc. Too, I imagine cops tend to think in channels or along certain lines as much as anyone else. A refusal tells them there is a turn in the road, the usual path dictated by policy, and they have to actually decide whether to override the refusal, decide which path to take. |
|||||||||
|
Jizzzle Regular Member 
|
On a human level why do cops always worry about the safety and rights of everyone it seems but, the person with the gun? the excuses are I am bothering/being an @#$% to you is because it's for the safety/wellbeing of the "customers" or "citizens" or "public".. Just a thought here.. and I'm just spit balling. What in the hell happened to my well being? Am I not a customer of this establishment? A citizen of this country? A member of the Public? Where and when did I sign a form that stated that upon the carry of a firearm/weapon I waived that status? And another thing, where do cops get the idea that they are allowed to act different than the common citizen? They are supposed to be held to a higher standard not put on a pedestal, sheilded from critisism. I'm military and I hold myself to said standard. I take pride as I'm sure a lot of you do in being as law abiding a citizen as i can possibly be and somehow sometimes that isn't enough. (Rant over). |
|||||||||
|
Rnashwa Regular Member
|
This cop needs to become the friend of OC citizens. We who are participating in OC should be gracious and accommodating in all interactions with cops/concerned citizens. My advice is to drop it. If you have filed a formal complaint, withdraw it. LE supervisors sometimes have more potential to change behaviors of subordinates thru 'informal process' than 'formal process' when everybody 'lawyers up'. Never argue with a cop, ever. Never lecture a cop on the law. Comply graciously. Cops must come to know the OC community as friends and reasonable people. |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
Rnashwa wrote: This cop needs to become the friend of OC citizens. We who are participating in OC should be gracious and accommodating in all interactions with cops/concerned citizens. My advice is to drop it. If you have filed a formal complaint, withdraw it. LE supervisors sometimes have more potential to change behaviors of subordinates thru 'informal process' than 'formal process' when everybody 'lawyers up'. Never argue with a cop, ever. Never lecture a cop on the law. Comply graciously. Cops must come to know the OC community as friends and reasonable people. Welcome to OCDO, Rnashwa!!! We appreciate the advice. It shows a level head. We have had something over two years to examine police-OCer encounters in detail and hash out even the minutia, running to pages and pages and pages, a few hundred guys adding their brain power to look at these things from almost every conceivable angle. Its not this officer's understanding of OC laws that is at issue. Its his misunderstanding/refusal on the 4th Amendment that is at issue. And you can bet the house that he did not pick this person (OCer) as the first time to violate someone's 4A rights. |
|||||||||
|
ilbob Activist Member
|
A formal complaint is in order if you think you have been wronged. i would point out that nromally you are required to swear that the statements you have given are true when you make a formal complaint, and there could be criminal sanctions if they find so much as an iota of falsehood in what you swear to. |
|||||||||
|
Anubis Regular Member 
|
para_org wrote: I was wondering if even giving them my id was required, in NM Theoretically not without reasonable articulable suspicion (which OC is not), but NM is a "stop and identify" state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes Last edited on Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 10:05 pm by Anubis |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Anubis wrote: para_org wrote:Thank you very much for verifying this and for the link.I was wondering if even giving them my id was required, in NM Of course this brings us back to whether this detainment was made correctly under color of law as required by Terry v Ohio. It certainly was a detainment because I did not give my consent and further declared my intent and desire to finish my business **before** having a consenual contact or discussion. My wishes to continue my business were ignored. |
|||||||||
|
Sonora Rebel Regular Member
|
Rnashwa wrote: This cop needs to become the friend of OC citizens. We who are participating in OC should be gracious and accommodating in all interactions with cops/concerned citizens. My advice is to drop it. If you have filed a formal complaint, withdraw it. LE supervisors sometimes have more potential to change behaviors of subordinates thru 'informal process' than 'formal process' when everybody 'lawyers up'. Never argue with a cop, ever. Never lecture a cop on the law. Comply graciously. Cops must come to know the OC community as friends and reasonable people. This 'cop' is in New Mexico. Cops 'n deputies don't act that way in New Mexico. I dunno where this yahoo was from... but I suspect he's a recent transplant from some area where the 2A is restricted/denied. What you're suggesting is a servile attitude to an obvious and deliberate civil rights violation. First the demand for a 'drivers license'. He wasn't driving. Then... the CWP demand... he wasn't concealing. There was no probable cause for any of this. This clown is an obvious JBT onna power trip. The repeated ''Do you want to take this outside?" comments especially. (Where there are no witnesses.) This guy is a thug with a badge... 'n that's all he is. Conduct like this should be exposed and at the very least... REPORTED. I don't 'participate' in OC... I exercise the Right to bear arms (and do... and have... and will continue to). This isn't some kind'a 'novelty'... it's a way of life. "Evil triumphs when good men do NOTHING!" If the Department won't give the OP satisfation... I'd advise to 'lawyer up' and SUE their drawers off. That gets their attention. That's the only thing that gets their attention. |
|||||||||
|
Jizzzle Regular Member
|
unfortunatly that is correct. |
|||||||||
|
DustoneGT Regular Member
|
I sent Bernalillo Sheriff's an email explaining why this concerns me. I don't go into Albuquerque very often, but when I go I expect my rights to be respected. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
Here's the latest; I called today and asked where the formal complaint forms were that I asked for 14 days earlier. I was told that since I had "elected" to do an informal complaint I was not allowed to make a formal complaint. I said this was not something I was told, and the officer said he was sure I was so informed by others. (In fact this particular officer told me 2 weeks ago that I had up to a month to register a formal complaint even though I had already discussed what had happened with the Internal Affairs department and had asked for a correction to the policy and/or officer training.) I began to write down this officer's exact wording. He got upset and and said I was just baiting him by calling, that the matter was already taken care of, and that "this converstaion is obviously not going to go nowhere so it is over." And he hung up. (And yes the mistakes in the grammar are as he said them. Interestingly this particular fellow I was speaking with is a Sergeant.) |
|||||||||
|
DKSuddeth Regular Member 
|
para_org wrote: Here's the latest;go make the formal complaint. take a lawyer if necessary. |
|||||||||
|
DustoneGT Regular Member
|
Wow. What a load of manure! Do whatever it takes to make the formal complaint. Be annoying as hell. Make their lives miserable until they cave. You might also see of somebody at the state level can take a complaint. I would try DPS. They are only in charge of state police, mounted patrol and related stuff, but legally the county is a subdivision of the state and from thence gets its power. If DPS doesn't take complaints on subdivisions, perhaps they can help you find somebody in charge of law enforcement in NM. I'll keep bugging them too. It doesn't really matter if I piss them off because I rarely go into Bernalillo county. |
|||||||||
|
4sooth Regular Member
|
See U.S. v Dudley---where the Southern District Court of Indiana ruled that in a state which allows the open carry of firearms on your person or in a car, 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 truck 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. Last edited on Wed Apr 15th, 2009 04:03 am by 4sooth |
|||||||||
|
GoldCoaster Regular Member 
|
Rnashwa wrote: This cop needs to become the friend of OC citizens. We who are participating in OC should be gracious and accommodating in all interactions with cops/concerned citizens. My advice is to drop it. If you have filed a formal complaint, withdraw it. LE supervisors sometimes have more potential to change behaviors of subordinates thru 'informal process' than 'formal process' when everybody 'lawyers up'. Never argue with a cop, ever. Never lecture a cop on the law. Comply graciously. Cops must come to know the OC community as friends and reasonable people.Spoken like a true appeaser. And the next time an OC'er gets accosted they will wind up with a boot to the throat. |
|||||||||
|
RogueAussie Regular Member 
|
Do not know if this helps but I heard on the radio that the APD cops carry belt recorders |
|||||||||
|
Jizzzle Regular Member
|
deputies or DPS? |
|||||||||
|
Citizen Founder's Club Member
|
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
|
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.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
|
Echo, echo, echo, echo.  |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
lol |
|||||||||
|
RogueAussie Regular Member
|
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
|
cool. |
|||||||||
|
Jizzzle Regular Member
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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 
|
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
|
Interesting comments. Thank you for reading this missive of mine. |
|||||||||
|
smn Regular Member
|
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
|
Thank you for the link. |
|||||||||
|
agentX Regular Member
|
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. 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 
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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" ? |
|||||||||
|
agentX Regular Member
|
para_org wrote: Well that is a different thought from what I got out of your first message. BCLS is absolutely correct when he states the deputy has an ID card; on it it will have his photo and wording to the effect that the named person is acting under(in the mame of) the authority(power) of the Sheriff. I know this to be fact as it is an identical ID we carried while serving on the Sheriff's Posse(not in your area); the only difference is that our's read, "Posse', and the green shirt's reads, "Certified". Your situation is actually a pradox: A paradox because the deputy was deamdning of you an "permit' which under law does not exist; one cannot display/offer up something which does not exist. Perhaps you may wish to consider thsi; if and when a situation such as thsi were to occur again, submit to the LEO that in so far as you are aware there is not "statutory" requirement for a permit to OC, I'm unable to show/give you what the law, as I understand it, does not require of me; therefore would you please cite for me the specific "statute" that requires such a permit. You've now placed the onus on him to qaulify, legally/lawfully his contact with you. Will this make him go away, perhaps not; they do not like to lose a dog fight to the dumb citizen. However, in this phrasing, your request to him/her you've been polite(always be polite), and are requesting, respectfully, for him/her to cite the law to you. When you speak there language one generally will gain a bit more of their attention, and hopefully they'll stand down a bit and become less of a "belligerent" and a bit more civil. They are to accustomed to the willing, complacent citizen. On a side note, everyone speaks about "probable cause"; many stops/contacts with LEOs' now take place under "probable suspicion", thats their new excuse to harass. Were this deputy dragged into court the defending county counsel would ask him, on the witness stand, why he dealt with you, and his response would relate to some gobbly-gook probable suspicion....guy's got a gun...most folks don't carry guns around in a civilzed society..., ect., and so I felt compelled to check him out, AND, most juries will buy that line; you lose; go home; and have spent a lot of money on an attorney for nothing, UNLESS one is competent enough as a pro-se to deal with it by one's self. However if one does file a civil suit, the sheriff must also be named, in addition to the deputy, because the deputy acts ONLY under and in the name of the sheriff; the deputy is his, sheriff's, agent. This is what is referred to in alw as the "principle and agent"; the priciple, sheriff, is responsible(laible) for the act(s) of his agent(deputy). The deputy does not hold or exercise a constitutional office, only the sheriff does. |
|||||||||
|
para_org Regular Member
|
I was quite clear about the OC, as I indicated that I knew this was legal activity. Anyways, the interesting (to me) situation is that while this deputy said he did not care about the "rules" when he was on duty. Further his superior was quite clear that he did NOT agree with my accessment that the deputy was NOT within RAS guidelines to have detained me. This deputy's superior felt it was sufficent RAS because the deputy was not use to seeing someone OCing. He was quite clear about that. And you are quite correct that this **IS** exactly wherein the ENTIRE issue rests. Of course, as we have already discussed in this thread, this begs the issue itself of whether a constitutional right remains a right if it is subject to either police approval or inspection. More especially because a municipality may not create an ordinance restricting this protection of the right to keep and bear arms (while engaged in OC) as specifically worded in Art. 2 Sec. 6 of the NM State Constitution. (2007 printing) The jury stuff is interesting, but I would imagine a decent lawyer could make a mess of any RAS suppositions in this case based on an appeal to common sense and proper exposition of the NM State Constitution. (I also reject the idea that a sheriff's deputy would ever stoop so low as to lie in court, so I will not bring up such an occurance as it relates to making up some RAS that was not really there.) I *am* curious about the filing of a restraining order with the DA against this particular deputy. The earlier message that ventured this idea was both ironic AND an intriguing thought. Last edited on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 08:11 pm by para_org |
|||||||||
|
agentX Regular Member
|
para_org wrote: I was quite clear about the OC, as I indicated that I knew this was legal activity. para_org; A decent attorney might, and again he/she might not be able to make a good case here: When I say a good case I'm not referring to the facts as you know them, but what can be presented to a jury. having said that, let us address the issue of someone suggesting you file a restraining order. Such an order is filed with and through the court; I seriously doubt a judge would permit the order, at least not under the circumstances as you describe them; the judge will very likely side with the deputy and view it, the incident, as nothing mre than the deputy doing his job. Were you sleighted, yes; might you have cause that at some future time you may encounter this deputy again, yes; do you feel that perahps any future encounter with him might be less pleasant, yes; but a restraining order against another suggests that one is in probable and/or clear fear of his/her person and injury to same by the party so restrained. under the specific circumstances you describe the court would not view/perceive you as being in iminent danger. I would draft and file an Affidavit of Fact; have done so myself, not against a LEO, but a private citizen who threatened me..nothing came of it(the threat). Will not go into specifics here on such a document, to detailed to begin with; however if you wish to contact me off-site feel free to do so at rwtast1@yahoo.com.; however, you may want to give this some serious thoguht before even doing that; there are otehr mehods by which you can deal with this. In closing I offer you one fianl thought; always make any communiques' you ahve with anyone in government in real paper; not even email. Best regards |
|||||||||
|
Pace Regular Member
|
A deputy does not have a right to detain you because you are doing something LEGAL. For example, he can't say that he detained you because you had tattoos and he thinks all people with tattoos are criminals. HE can only detain you because he thinks you may be committing a crime, for example. Carrying a gun, on your hip is not a crime. Period. If it was, when he is out and about, he could get stopped equally. |
|||||||||
|
Jizzzle Regular Member
|
ya, there are many many cases that clearly outline what constitutes a leagal stop/questioning/detainment. terry vs ohio is the main one. you shoud probably read it and see what you think. |
|||||||||
|
ixtow Founder's Club Member
|
I would have chosen to ignore him and stay on the phone. |
|||||||||
|
Jizzzle Regular Member
|
hindsight is what? 20-20. sometimes even better. |
|||||||||