WTK: Open carry and ID in CO

[Seamonkey]

Didn't want to hijack the other thread on the open carry guy who informs the cops of his rights but that thread raises some questions for me.

How can cops not be allowed to ask for ID yet in AZ they are supposed to check for immigration status? How can you do that? Does it come back to state laws wither or not the cops can ask for ID?

If there's an incident at my house and the cops show up I'm assuming I'd have to prove that I'm the home owner/resident. How does that tie in with open carry and the cops checking to see if you're a wanted person or someone who should NOT be in possession of a gun? You're walking down the street with a side arm and I can understand exercising your right to open carry but how does the cop know/distinguish that you're not a whack job heading into a business to gun down people who've pissed you off?

I'm not understanding the fine line between LOE doing their job, checking up on potential problems and my rights as a private citizen in CO.

[hip55]

I looked the other day on the net and can't find a definitive answer myself.

Hopefully an experienced LEO or attorney could let us know?

Another option is the forum at OpenCarry.org -

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?89-Colorado& (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forum.php)

[Mtn.man]

Ask an attorney, LEO's don't know.

[OneGuy67]

I wish this was an easy and clear situation where a one-size-fits-all answer could be used. I'm going to attempt to provide some of the statutes, case law and such regarding the issue, but it isn't clear cut nor easy. Please don't shoot the messenger; I'm only trying to provide what information I am aware of.


The Colorado Constitution
Section 13. Right to Bear Arms:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Case Law:
No absolute right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is not absolute, and it can be restricted by the state's valid exercise of its police power. People v. Garcia, 197 Colo. 550, 595 P.2d 228 (1979).

The conflicting rights of the individual's right to bear arms and the state's right, indeed its duty under its inherent police power, to make reasonable regulations for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the people prohibits granting an absolute right to bear arms under all situations. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975).

The right to bear arms is not absolute as that right is limited to the defense of one's home, person, and property. People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977).

Right to bear arms is not absolute. Douglass v. Kelton, 199 Colo. 446, 610 P.2d 1067 (1980); People v. Pflugbeil, 834 P.2d 843 (Colo. App. 1992).

Convicted felons' rights subject to limitation. Defendants cannot invoke the same constitutionally protected right to bear arms as could others where the right of a convicted felon to bear arms is subject to reasonable legislative regulation and limitation. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975).

Affirmative defense. A defendant charged under section 18-12-108 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=18-12-108&sid=168867ff.566fa6a3.0.0#JD_18-12-108) who presents competent evidence showing that his purpose in possessing weapons was the defense of his home, person, and property as recognized by this section thereby raises an affirmative defense. People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d (1977).

Trial court properly excluded affirmative defense based on this section and a proposed jury instruction where the defendant's offer of proof was insufficient to support the proposed affirmative defense. People v. Barger, 732 P.2d 1225 (Colo. App. 1986).

In considering a challenge to the validity of an ordinance regulating the exercise of the right to bear arms, a court need not determine the status of the right to bear arms under Article II, § 13. The trial court erred in reaching the question of the status of the right guaranteed under Article II, § 13, and in holding that the right is fundamental. Robertson v. City & County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994).

Ordinance is related to a legitimate government interest and is a valid exercise of police power where assault weapons are weapons of choice for drug traffickers and other criminals and where they account for thirty percent of the weapons used by organized crime, gun trafficking, and terrorists and over twelve percent of drug-related crimes nationwide. Robertson v. City & County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994).

Self-defense is not a valid defense to the crime of prohibited use of weapons. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).[/font]

C.R.S. 16-3-103. Stopping of suspect:
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.


Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation) (1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968)), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) which held that the Fourth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure) is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause) to arrest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest), if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.


Case Law:

When detention by police permissible. The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct. People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980).

Limited, temporary detention permissible though no probable cause to arrest exists. A police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigation of possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause for arrest. People v. Lucero, 182 Colo. 39, 511 P.2d 468 (1973); People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974).

There is an area of proper police procedure in which an officer having less than probable cause to arrest may temporarily detain an individual for limited purposes. People v. Marquez, 183 Colo. 231, 516 P.2d 1134 (1973); People v. Schreyer, 640 P.2d 1147 (Colo. 1982).

A temporary police detention in the nature of "field investigation" can be justified by less than probable cause for arrest. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973).

Police officers may make a limited stop on less than probable cause. People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974).

In certain circumstances a police officer having less than probable cause to arrest may stop an individual for identification purposes and not violate the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986).

In order to lawfully detain an individual for questioning: (1) A police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime; (2) the purpose of the detention must be reasonable; and (3) the character of the detention must be reasonable when considered in light of the purpose. People v. Stevens, 183 Colo. 399, 517 P.2d 1336 (1973); People v. Montoya, 185 Colo. 299, 524 P.2d 76 (1974); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1989); People v. Wilson, 784 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1989); People v. Sutherland, 886 P.2d 681 (Colo. 1994); People v. Rodriguez, 924 P.2d 1100 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd, 945 P.2d 1351 (Colo. 1997).

Permissible purposes for investigatory stops. Investigatory stops constitute an intermediate response by the police between nondetention and arrest. These procedures are permissible only for the purpose of questioning a suspect, who might otherwise escape, regarding his identity or observed behavior in order temporarily to maintain the status quo while seeking to procure more information regarding possible wrongdoing. People v. Severson, 39 Colo. App. 95, 561 P.2d 373 (1977).

Police may detain and require identification if reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. The police may detain and require identification of a person if they have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the person is involved in criminal conduct. People v. Archuleta, 616 P.2d 977 (Colo. 1980).

The reasonableness of an officer's suspicion is determined from the totality of the circumstances in which the suspicion arose. People v. Bell, 698 P.2d 269 (Colo. 1985); People v. Mascarenas, 726 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1986); People v. Coca, 829 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1992).

Investigatory stops. A police officer, lacking probable cause to arrest, may stop a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is involved in criminal activity. People v. Sosbe, 789 P.2d 1113 (Colo. 1990).

An investigatory stop implicates a seizure that is based on less than probable cause and so it must be brief in duration, limited in scope, and narrow in purpose. People v. Tottenhoff, 691 P.2d 340 (Colo. 1984); Outlaw v. People, 17 P.3d 150 (Colo. 2001).

Limited searches of a person for weapons during an investigative detention, when probable cause for arrest is lacking, is permissible, but there must be: (1) Some reason for the officer to confront the citizen in the first place; (2) something in the circumstances, including the citizen's reaction to the confrontation, must give the officer reason to suspect that the citizen may be armed and, thus, dangerous to the officer or others; and (3) the search must be limited to a frisk directed at discovery and appropriation of weapons and not at evidence in general. People v. Martineau, 185 Colo. 194, 523 P.2d 126 (1974); People v. Shackelford, 37 Colo. App. 317, 546 P.2d 964 (1976).

Based not on hunches and limited in scope. In order to uphold the stop and frisk as reasonable, both the initial confrontation and the subsequent search must have been prompted by the officers' reliance on particular facts, rather than on inarticulable hunches, and the scope of the frisk must be limited to that necessary for the discovery of weapons. People v. Shackelford, 37 Colo. App. 317, 546 P.2d 964 (1976).

Sufficient basis for weapons search to be excepted from warrant requirement. The reasonable apprehension of danger or injury to the police officers -- judged by objective standards -- provides a sufficient basis for a search to fall within the search for weapons exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement. People v. Burley, 185 Colo. 224, 523 P.2d 981 (1974).

[buffalobo]

More important are the laws/statutes in the town/city/municipality you happen to be in while carrying. IIRC towns/cities/muni is not supposed to have gun laws more restrictive than the state laws, but I do not open carry in Denver, Thornton or Boulder due to the fact that I believe you will be hassled, arrested and gun confiscated in those places, legal or not. They will make it illegal.

[OneGuy67]

Ask an attorney, LEO's don't know.

LEO's need to know the law and frankly, tend to know the law better than some attorneys.

[Elhuero]

The law in AZ is not a "papers please" law, though moonbats and la raza would like you to think it is. It does not give the police the ability to walk up to anyone who looks mexican and ask them to prove their citizenship.

The law simply requires police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

Lets say an illegal, we'll call him paco, doesn't have car insurance and drives over to mariscos sabrosos to get a fish taco. He doesn't have to worry about a cop pulling him over for DWM. (driving while mexican) However if paco runs a stop sign and hits another car then he'd have to worry. Because the cop would see a guy who caused a wreck who no espeak english, and no has car insurance, and under the law would have to verify his status.

Ironically, the federal immigration laws (that are not enforced) require that legal residence keep their proof on them at all times and DO allow police or ICE to walk up to anyone they want and say "papers please"

The AZ law that everyone is bitching about is actually less restrictive than the federal law.

Colorado has a "papers please" law for everyone.

A police officer can stop you, ask you for id and if you refuse that is considered an obstruction and you can be arrested. Carrying or not.

With open carry, cops often use the "well we have to make sure you're allowed to carry" line. Open carriers don't like it because open carry is legal. To them, simply carrying a firearm is not probable cause and they feel harassed for exercising their rights.

If your walking down the street with a sidearm, be prepared for an encounter with police. They will ask for ID, and will most likely radio in to check for warrants. Be polite and honest and things should go fine.

With our laws, if the guy in the youtube vid had been in Colorado, he'd have been arrested for refusing to identify himself.

[Byte Stryke]

http://victimsoflaw.net/Stanley.htm

tell this guy that

[OgenRwot]

yet in AZ they are supposed to check for immigration status?

Wrong...
Research before posting [Bang]

[hollohas]

If your walking down the street with a sidearm, be prepared for an encounter with police. They will ask for ID, and will most likely radio in to check for warrants. Be polite and honest and things should go fine.

With our laws, if the guy in the youtube vid had been in Colorado, he'd have been arrested for refusing to identify himself.

BIG +1

[hip55]

Colorado has a "papers please" law for everyone.

A police officer can stop you, ask you for id and if you refuse that is considered an obstruction and you can be arrested. Carrying or not.

With open carry, cops often use the "well we have to make sure you're allowed to carry" line. Open carriers don't like it because open carry is legal. To them, simply carrying a firearm is not probable cause and they feel harassed for exercising their rights.

If your walking down the street with a sidearm, be prepared for an encounter with police. They will ask for ID, and will most likely radio in to check for warrants. Be polite and honest and things should go fine.

With our laws, if the guy in the youtube vid had been in Colorado, he'd have been arrested for refusing to identify himself.

What statutes or "laws" are you referring to?

[Byte Stryke]

What statutes or "laws" are you referring to?
it was posted above...


C.R.S. 16-3-103. Stopping of suspect:
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

you, with the hands, got any ID?

now what wasn't posted was, After the officer pats you down for weapons and you have them is he allowed to confiscate them and plant them on a felon to justify a dirty shoot at a later time??

[Mad]

(Actually happened to me in KY)

[OneGuy67]

http://victimsoflaw.net/Stanley.htm

tell this guy that


Watch out about defending Stanley, Byte. He is a wing nut and some of his actions align with the militias.

[hip55]

That statute applies only to -

"any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime"

Walking down the street, being somewhere and breaking no laws does not entitle a LEO to ask for my "papers".

If that was the case, we would be required to carry our "papers" with us at all times, which we are not.

[BigBear]

That statute applies only to -

"any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime"

Walking down the street, being somewhere and breaking no laws does not entitle a LEO to ask for my "papers".

If that was the case, we would be required to carry our "papers" with us at all times, which we are not.


Give it a few years. lol [Beer]

[Byte Stryke]

Watch out about defending Stanley, Byte. He is a wing nut and some of his actions align with the militias.

I would gladly go on record as stating that I firmly believe that the Denver and Arvada ordinances against open carry and possession of a firearm for personal defense is in direct contradiction of the 2nd Amendment.
So the Initial arrest was, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
When a Judge is sworn in they swear or affirm to uphold and protect/defend that same Constitution. These things are pretty much undeniable fact.

beyond that it gets crazy and fuzzy political this, Corruption that...

As far as the militias, please do not stereotype as not all militias are nutcases preparing to overthrow the government by force, just as not all Law officers punk teenage kids for their pot and are on the M-13 Payroll

Thank you

:)

[ronaldrwl]

LEO's need to know the law...

It would seem to be necessary to have a basic idea of what they can and can't do.


... frankly, tend to know the law better than some attorneys.

Evidence would indicate otherwise

[OneGuy67]

That statute applies only to -

"any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime"

Walking down the street, being somewhere and breaking no laws does not entitle a LEO to ask for my "papers".

If that was the case, we would be required to carry our "papers" with us at all times, which we are not.


Unfortunately, if someone calls on you, it is the cops responsibility to contact you and determine no crime is being or will be, committed.

Can you imagine if the cops didn't respond or do anything after being notified of it and someone is killed, due to that person who was reported carrying?

You are putting the cops in a no-win situation and that opens the door to lawsuits.

[OneGuy67]

I would gladly go on record as stating that I firmly believe that the Denver and Arvada ordinances against open carry and possession of a firearm for personal defense is in direct contradiction of the 2nd Amendment.
So the Initial arrest was, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
When a Judge is sworn in they swear or affirm to uphold and protect/defend that same Constitution. These things are pretty much undeniable fact.

beyond that it gets crazy and fuzzy political this, Corruption that...

As far as the militias, please do not stereotype as not all militias are nutcases preparing to overthrow the government by force, just as not all Law officers punk teenage kids for their pot and are on the M-13 Payroll

Thank you

:)

You may have that belief; it doesn't make it law anymore than my belief. Prior to March 18, 2003, it was a legal and lawful municipal ordinance and he violated it. It doesn't matter that now, it is legal; it wasn't then and he was convicted and that conviction was upheld. Your opinion it was unconstitutional. You certainly have that right to think that; it doesn't change the fact that others wearing black robes don't have that same opinion.

I don't like militias, I'll be up front with that. However, Stanley is involved with those who believe that the Sheriff is the only lawful authority in the county, that they can serve subpoenas to a private court and put liens on your property for millions of dollars, that they don't want to put license plates on their vehicles, etc, etc.

[OneGuy67]

It would seem to be necessary to have a basic idea of what they can and can't do.



Evidence would indicate otherwise

You must not spend a whole lot of time in court...

[hip55]

Investigating a crime is different than investigating a report of "a citizen that is open carrying".

And open carry is not a crime in any way (unless there is a specific statute that prohibits it).

This is a slippery slope.

LEOs get put in very difficult positions all of the time, from routine traffic stops to ungodly scenes of mayhem. I respect what they do very much.

But they have their limitations just like every other public servant (or private employee for that matter) and have to operate within the law.

I much prefer dealing with "Peace Officers" than "LEOs" any day of the week.

[Byte Stryke]

Unfortunately, if someone calls on you, it is the cops responsibility to contact you and determine no crime is being or will be, committed.

Can you imagine if the cops didn't respond or do anything after being notified of it and someone is killed, due to that person who was reported carrying?

You are putting the cops in a no-win situation and that opens the door to lawsuits.


I am not trying to start anything, The following is an actual question I have long held.

So if John Citizen calls the police on me and leaves an "anonymous tip", Johnny Law comes and "detains me" for 3 days pending investigation, what happened to my right to face my accuser?
So I spend 3 days in lockup, thus lose my job, My Home, Wife leaves and takes the kids because someone accused me of some horrible crime, The evening News paints me out to be some deviant monster all because of this "report of a man (doing whatever)?"

I Honestly believe that the "Suspicion' by law should be backed with some evidence.

Call comes in to 911 "Man with Gun threatening homeowner"
Police show up and there's a man at the address with a firearm Drawn
By All means, "detain" him

report of a man waving a gun in a Blue SUV in Arvada.
You see a woman alone in a Blue SUV in Northglenn 2 minutes later (evening traffic)
get a warrant.

Seriously my Elderly Aunt had her vehicle stripped down on the side of the road and was left there to reassemble it herself.
Unable to do so she had to walk home, suffered frostbite and had all of her shit stolen.
Northglen PD Told her that if she pursued it there would be "repercussions."

[hip55]

She allowed them to search her car without a search warrant.

[Byte Stryke]

She allowed them to search her car without a search warrant.

Forced because they claimed "reasonable suspicion"

I was actually driving tow-truck at the time and picked the hull up for her.

[hip55]

if you tell them that you do not concede to a search then they will have to impound the vehicle and get a warrant.

This is what the 4th amendment is all about.

[Byte Stryke]

You may have that belief; it doesn't make it law anymore than my belief. Prior to March 18, 2003, it was a legal and lawful municipal ordinance and he violated it. I am pretty sure that the Constitution of the United States was written before that.


Now if the State of Colorado declined to observe the 2nd and then 4th Amendments then made their own laws in contradiction to it claiming that they were legal, then they have in fact violated the law.

Just because you make a law and it hasn't been challenged yet, doesn't give it validity if it is later found to be unconstitutional. Many Many cases are overturned on this argument.

Once again, we agree to disagree I guess.


[Dissed]

[Byte Stryke]

if you tell them that you do not concede to a search then they will have to impound the vehicle and get a warrant.

This is what the 4th amendment is all about.


in Theory, you are correct.

"we have probable cause because we have a report..."

[Seamonkey]

Lots of good info, thanks.

I didn't realize that it's actual law that you must show ID to LOE, good to know.
As for the other stuff, I'm guessing it comes down to "reasonable suspicion" which is flawed, a huge gray area and open to interpretation by the actual officer.

If you are in open carry near your vehicle fueling up and it's packed full of camping gear that's one situation as opposed to waving the gun around and yelling/screaming at people with a brown bag in the other hand as opposed to calls of "shots fired" and your seen running away from the area. Where you involved in the shooting or just running for cover?

From the LOE's point of view they get a call about an armed person. They have no clue WTF is going on, the situation, the mental state of the person yadi yadi yadiya

Thanks for the loads of info with references "OneGuy67"

[hip55]

There is no theory involved at all, that's the law.

If you get pulled over and asked to get out of your car, you comply.

As you step out you put your keys in your pocket, lock the doors and close the door.

This (being a habit that you are used to doing) keeps your personal property secure from everyone, especially from warrantless searches.

[hip55]

Lots of good info, thanks.

I didn't realize that it's actual law that you must show ID to LOE, good to know.


Only if you have been informed by the LEO that you are under suspicion of committing a crime.

If you have done nothing illegal you don't have to show an ID or say a word.

That's the kind of fishing that is done all the time.

[Byte Stryke]

There is no theory involved at all, that's the law.

If you get pulled over and asked to get out of your car, you comply.

As you step out you put your keys in your pocket, lock the doors and close the door.

This (being a habit that you are used to doing) keeps your personal property secure from everyone, especially from warrantless searches.

well, Police officers, being human, are sometimes scumbags too...

Gun and a badge attitude.
"WTF you gonna do, I will lock your ass up and say I Saw you doing [whatever]."

Think it doesn't happen? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVb7lww9J1I

[hip55]

Sure, there has to be a few bad apples out there, but I believe that most LEOs are professionals and act accordingly.

[ronaldrwl]

well, Police officers, being human, are sometimes scumbags too...

Gun and a badge attitude.
"WTF you gonna do, I will lock your ass up and say I Saw you doing [whatever]."

Think it doesn't happen? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVb7lww9J1I

The worst kind of scumbag is one that has been intrusted with authority.

[hollohas]

if you tell them that you do not concede to a search then they will have to impound the vehicle and get a warrant.

This is what the 4th amendment is all about.

My Dad, who is a retired 20 veteran of the AZ Highway patrol in addition to time served in other LE agencies has always told me to refuse any request by police to search my car on the side of the road. Advice from someone who spent a lot of time in the business...

[OneGuy67]

Investigating a crime is different than investigating a report of "a citizen that is open carrying".

And open carry is not a crime in any way (unless there is a specific statute that prohibits it).

This is a slippery slope.

LEOs get put in very difficult positions all of the time, from routine traffic stops to ungodly scenes of mayhem. I respect what they do very much.

But they have their limitations just like every other public servant (or private employee for that matter) and have to operate within the law.

I much prefer dealing with "Peace Officers" than "LEOs" any day of the week.


"Investigating a crime is different than investigating a report of "a citizen that is open carrying." Way too simplistic statement, my friend. How does that cop know what is going on when the call comes in? How does he know it is someone "open carrying" or if it someone who should not have a firearm, may had a concealed weapon that got exposed (this happens A LOT), may be just prior to some other concern, etc. How does that cop know? Are you recommending to have the dispatcher tell the caller it is legal to carry openly and see if there is additional information, or does the fact that this open carry so concern the person who called and expects an officer to come and make sure all is ok? Believe me, a lot of the calls received are similar to these types of calls in which the caller wants an officer to check out something and make sure it is ok.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between a peace officer and a LEO? I'm curious, so I'll know which one I'm supposed to be.

[Byte Stryke]

Sure, there has to be a few bad apples out there, but I believe that most LEOs are professionals and act accordingly.

Sure, there has to be a few bad apples out there, but I believe that most Gun Owners are peaceful citizens and act accordingly.

;)

[hollohas]

"Investigating a crime is different than investigating a report of "a citizen that is open carrying." Way too simplistic statement, my friend. How does that cop know what is going on when the call comes in? How does he know it is someone "open carrying" or if it someone who should not have a firearm, may had a concealed weapon that got exposed (this happens A LOT), may be just prior to some other concern, etc. How does that cop know? Are you recommending to have the dispatcher tell the caller it is legal to carry openly and see if there is additional information, or does the fact that this open carry so concern the person who called and expects an officer to come and make sure all is ok? Believe me, a lot of the calls received are similar to these types of calls in which the caller wants an officer to check out something and make sure it is ok.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between a peace officer and a LEO? I'm curious, so I'll know which one I'm supposed to be.

Good point.

[TFOGGER]

That statute applies only to -

"any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime"

Walking down the street, being somewhere and breaking no laws does not entitle a LEO to ask for my "papers".

If that was the case, we would be required to carry our "papers" with us at all times, which we are not.

Easily bootstrapped in Colorado, all he needs is someone to call in a "man with a GUN!! OMFG" and cite with "disturbing the peace". Then he has reasonable suspicion that you are that "man" and can stop you, ask for ID, pat you down, cuff you, disarm you, and generally make your life miserable until he ascertains you have no wants or warrants, then fills out the report, eats lunch, and converses with his supervisor about their fantasy football league. Then he can send you peaceably on your way, all without actually charging you with anything or actually arresting you. Many if not most cops will NOT grind this scenario out to the bitter end if you are not a jerk, but they have a lot of discretion in how to handle it. Denver, Arvada, Lakewood, and Breckenridge have ordinances against open carry, and they can enforce them without conflicting with state law. CRS18-12-201 ONLY covers the supremacy of state law over local ordinance in regards to concealed carry, not open carry.

[OneGuy67]

There is no theory involved at all, that's the law.

If you get pulled over and asked to get out of your car, you comply.

As you step out you put your keys in your pocket, lock the doors and close the door.

This (being a habit that you are used to doing) keeps your personal property secure from everyone, especially from warrantless searches.


(Sigh)...I dunno. The ongoing argument is getting tiring.

It is a simple thing. You don't have to give consent if you are asked. If they see something unlawful in the vehicle, they don't need consent, nor a warrant. There is a motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. It deals with the ability to move the vehicle. If you lock the vehicle and they saw something inside it, they can break the window to get in...and they won't be required to pay for the repair (just to cut that argument off at the pass).

My law book states this:

4 Ways to Search a Vehicle
1. Consent
2. Probable Cause
3. Impound Inventory
4. Search Incident to Arrest

Additional Ways
5. Plain View
6. Exigency
7. Search Incident to Detainment
8. Search Warrant

#4 was recently successfully challenged in court and is in the process of appeal to the Supreme Court. We'll have to see if the Supremes are willing to hear the case.

[OneGuy67]

Once again, we agree to disagree I guess.


[Dissed]

Yep. I respect you and all our discussions here have been good ones and we've agreed more than we've disagreed. On this topic, we do disagree.

[OneGuy67]

I am not trying to start anything, The following is an actual question I have long held.

So if John Citizen calls the police on me and leaves an "anonymous tip", Johnny Law comes and "detains me" for 3 days pending investigation, what happened to my right to face my accuser?

You can't be held for 3 days, pending an investigation. You can only be arrested if there is probable cause to believe you commited a violation of state law. Anonymous tips cannot be used alone to make an arrest. Case law supports that. Case law allows it to make a contact, but needs to be supported by other facts to warrant an arrest. Two examples: A 911 call reporting a drunk driver is not probable cause to make an arrest; it is reasonable suspicion to make a stop and the subsequent investigation determines probable cause for an arrest. Second, a 911 call saying a black male on 3rd and Wood streets is carrying a gun. Cops cannot go and arrest said black male based on that call. They would need to develop some other evidence prior to making an arrest.

Florida v. J.L. (2000)
Anonymous information cannot be used for probable cause without other substantiating information. Apart from the tip, officers had no reason to suspect
the suspect of illegal conduct. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: it provided no predictive
information and therefore left police without means to test the informant’s knowledge or credibility.

Your right to face your accuser, as part of the 5th Amendment deals with court, not at the time of the contact by law enforcement.

So I spend 3 days in lockup, thus lose my job, My Home, Wife leaves and takes the kids because someone accused me of some horrible crime, The evening News paints me out to be some deviant monster all because of this "report of a man (doing whatever)?"

I Honestly believe that the "Suspicion' by law should be backed with some evidence.

Call comes in to 911 "Man with Gun threatening homeowner"
Police show up and there's a man at the address with a firearm Drawn
By All means, "detain" him

report of a man waving a gun in a Blue SUV in Arvada.
You see a woman alone in a Blue SUV in Northglenn 2 minutes later (evening traffic)
get a warrant.

You are correct in this. If the report was for a male, you would need to be able to articulate that, unless the person could be reasonably observed as a male, but was in fact, a female. This is similar to saying a black male, but there is only a white male.

Seriously my Elderly Aunt had her vehicle stripped down on the side of the road and was left there to reassemble it herself.
Unable to do so she had to walk home, suffered frostbite and had all of her shit stolen.
Northglen PD Told her that if she pursued it there would be "repercussions."

I don't understand this portion of your statement. What repercussions and what was to be pursued?

[hip55]

Easily bootstrapped in Colorado, all he needs is someone to call in a "man with a GUN!! OMFG" and cite with "disturbing the peace". Then he has reasonable suspicion that you are that "man" and can stop you, ask for ID, pat you down, cuff you, disarm you, and generally make your life miserable until he ascertains you have no wants or warrants, then fills out the report, eats lunch, and converses with his supervisor about their fantasy football league. Then he can send you peaceably on your way, all without actually charging you with anything or actually arresting you. Many if not most cops will NOT grind this scenario out to the bitter end if you are not a jerk, but they have a lot of discretion in how to handle it. Denver, Arvada, Lakewood, and Breckenridge have ordinances against open carry, and they can enforce them without conflicting with state law. CRS18-12-201 ONLY covers the supremacy of state law over local ordinance in regards to concealed carry, not open carry.

I didn't see any ordinances in Lakewood -

http://www.lakewood.org/index.cfm?&include=/CC/CityCode/Title09/Chapter%209.70.cfm

[Byte Stryke]

What, in your opinion, is the difference between a peace officer and a LEO? I'm curious, so I'll know which one I'm supposed to be.


I am (personally) hoping (especially if I ever run into you) that you are a peace officer

Peace officers use their heads and the law to keep the peace.
Its a career and a dedication.

unfortunately for other "Badged persons", Paycheck and/or Attitude.
I Actually had a Cop give me extra tickets because I once punked him back in Junior high.
As I remember it was Failure to yield, Failure to Signal, Improper lane change and some other fairy-tale shit.
with all of the points it meant I had to carry an SR for 2 years.

[Byte Stryke]

I don't understand this portion of your statement. What repercussions and what was to be pursued?


*Gets Crayons*
So... if you made a stop and lets say, you made a mistake and you were looking for a MAN in a Blue SUV in Arvada and not a WOMAN in a Blue SUV in Northglen... and lets say you realised this AFTER you had the vehicle seats removed, contents of the trunk removed, door panels and anything else not bolted with more than 4 screws...
THEN it was found that your mistake had cost someone.... A LOT


and now lets assume you are one of the "kinda-good, but not really" guys.

I think it was pretty clear.

Ohh and since Police cannot detain you for 72 hours, how long is the maximum detain without charge here?

[OneGuy67]

I am (personally) hoping (especially if I ever run into you) that you are a peace officer

Peace officers use their heads and the law to keep the peace.
Its a career and a dedication.

unfortunately for other "Badged persons", Paycheck and/or Attitude.
I Actually had a Cop give me extra tickets because I once punked him back in Junior high.
As I remember it was Failure to yield, Failure to Signal, Improper lane change and some other fairy-tale shit.
with all of the points it meant I had to carry and SR for 2 years.

I can tell you, Byte, that I am a career professional that uses my head and heart, common sense and legal standing to keep the peace, but more importantly, find justice for victims, whether that victim is a person, family or frankly, the state of Colorado. I like my paycheck and my family depends upon it to survive, but I always weigh my actions and decisions with the weight of lawsuit and the loss of my paycheck and house and toys. Do I want to cave the face in of a mouthy, drunk punk? Yep, sometimes. Do I? Nope. My career, my house, my paycheck, my family mean too much to me to allow that person to get to me personally. I get my satisfaction with them being in jail. I've never used my badge to "get back" at anyone. Maybe it is because I spent a lot of years in the military before becoming a cop, getting an education, and I don't know...being a mature adult.

Now, if I run into you somewhere...hmm. I may have to arrest you for disagreeing with me! [ROFL1]

Seriously though, there are those here that have had dealings with me. I guess you would have to ask them if I am what you fear.

[TFOGGER]

I didn't see any ordinances in Lakewood -

http://www.lakewood.org/index.cfm?&include=/CC/CityCode/Title09/Chapter%209.70.cfm

Mostly parks, community centers, etc., not actually a citywide ban....my mistake [Stooge]


9.32.050 Open carrying of a firearm prohibited parks, community centers, and recreational facilities.
A. The open carrying or wearing of a firearm within or upon the grounds of any community center, recreational facility, the Lakewood Civic Center, City park, City trail, or City open space including any City owned, operated, or leased building or property is unlawful when said City building or City property is posted with a sign at the entrance to any City building or City property informing persons that the open carrying of a firearm is prohibited in such building or area.
B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the following:
1. A peace officer from openly carrying or wearing a firearm as shall be necessary in the proper discharge of his or her duties;
2. An employee of any armored car service agency providing money transport services pursuant to a contractual arrangement with the City from openly carrying or wearing a firearm as may be necessary in the proper discharge of his duties so long as the employee has been duly authorized by his employer to carry firearms and the employee is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment at the time the firearms are being carried or worn;
3. A person from openly carrying or wearing a firearm while upon the grounds of the Rooney Valley Law Enforcement Training Facility who is acting in compliance with the rules and regulations of the shooting range facility; or
4. A person from openly carrying or wearing a firearm when authorized by the Director to do so for the purpose of presenting a public demonstration or exhibition or for the purpose of participating in an athletic event.
C. Possession of a valid concealed handgun permit shall not constitute a defense to a charge of open carrying of a firearm in violation of this section.
D. "Firearm" means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

[Byte Stryke]

Seriously though, there are those here that have had dealings with me. I guess you would have to ask them if I am what you fear.

Crooked/improper/undereducated/immature cops are just like anyone else.
speaking from "this side of the badge." (meaning I dont wear one) we never know what we are getting in an interaction either.
we might get a good cop with a level head and some sense of right.. and then sometimes you get the jackhole with a badge, a gun and 3 attitudes.

As with any career or profession you also have those people that will hose anyone over to get to their goals and the ends justify the means... even if it means you going to jail for shit you didn't do.


I guess what I am trying to say in a nutshell is the whole damned system is broken and as imperfect as people are... and it rubs my OCD the wrong way when I See it.

:D

[OneGuy67]

I don't understand this portion of your statement. What repercussions and what was to be pursued?


*Gets Crayons*
So... if you made a stop and lets say, you made a mistake and you were looking for a MAN in a Blue SUV in Arvada and not a WOMAN in a Blue SUV in Northglen... and lets say you realised this AFTER you had the vehicle seats removed, contents of the trunk removed, door panels and anything else not bolted with more than 4 screws...
THEN it was found that your mistake had cost someone.... A LOT


and now lets assume you are one of the "kinda-good, but not really" guys.

I think it was pretty clear.

Ohh and since Police cannot detain you for 72 hours, how long is the maximum detain without charge here?


Okay... I guess I would REALLY need to know all the facts to this case and what exactly were they looking for that would be necessary to take the vehicle that far down. I've only seen a vehicle done that way once in my career and it was only after an anonymous tip supported by a dog hitting on the vehicle. Drugs were found in the vehicle.

If I had been involved with your aunt's situation, I would have made it right with her and she would have received an apology from me and my subordinates, if they were the ones who did it without my knowledge. I would find it hard to believe that a street officer would do that without a supervisor's knowledge. I don't know. Again, I would need to know all the information from both sides.

"REASONABLE SUSPICION":

Particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a citizen is involved in criminal activity. A law enforcement officer must be able to articulate facts that indicate a reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. More than a mere hunch. Based on a set of facts and circumstances that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an infraction of the law has been committed, is about to be committed, or is in the process of being committed, by the person under suspicion.

"Detention"

The act of stopping or restraining and individuals’ freedom to walk away. Approaching and questioning an individual outside the realm of a consensual encounter; or stopping an individual suspected of being personally involved in criminal activity.

The amount of time you can be detained is a slippery thing. There isn't an exact time. It has to be "articulable" and "reasonable". The courts have allowed time periods between a few minutes to a few hours, depending upon those two words. You can be detained to allow time to investigate a lead that may or may not lead to your arrest. But that time needed, needs to be articulable and reasonable. It is reasonable to detain you to bring witnesses to your location to identify you as a suspect; it is reasonable to detain you while a clearance is run on you for warrants; it is unreasonable for that clearance to take a long time (again, time isn't set in stone). After a "reasonable" time, you should be released if the clearance hasn't come back.

Clear as mud? These are the things that officers wrestle and wrangle with every day.

[StagLefty]

Well I admit after reading 5 pages I'm still not sure about the ID question ???

[Irving]

Before I start, I want to point out, that just the fact that you are an active member of this board, really speaks to the strong likelihood that you have your head in the right place. Bad cops don't have calm, intelligent discussions with fellow firearm enthusiasts on-line. Bad cops laugh about "prone-ing out" law abiding citizens for open carrying, "just to show them who's in charge around here." on their Facebook page. Referring to that asshole in California who did just that.





My law book states this:

4 Ways to Search a Vehicle
1. Consent
2. Probable Cause
3. Impound Inventory
4. Search Incident to Arrest

Additional Ways
5. Plain View
6. Exigency
7. Search Incident to Detainment
8. Search Warrant




#5 here worries me. I have a feeling that if asked to step out of my car, and I refused a search of my vehicle, but there was a handgun laying in plain view on the back seat of my vehicle, that my window would be broken, my car would be searched, and I may even get tazed. Why though? Having a gun on your seat in plain view isn't illegal. I still bet my car would get searched without my consent though.

Now, on to some other points. First, I've open carried in Thornton before. I was contacted by an off duty officer. He was pretty young, but he didn't harass me or anything. He did strongly suggest that I not continue to open carry though.

I've also been stopped at a DUI check point and asked to step out of the vehicle while I was carrying concealed on my hip, WITHOUT a CCW. It was no big deal and I was impressed with how the officer handled the situation, and I made sure to tell him so. I also told the officer who contacted me for open carrying in Thornton.

On the other hand, when I had first bought my first gun, I asked every cop I ran into if I could legally carry the gun in my car. I was in Lakewood and approached some officers while they were having lunch at the Brother's Barbeque and asked them if I could carry a gun in the car. The male officer said I should have it unloaded, locked up, and in my trunk. The female officer told me that if I had it any where but locked up and unloaded and in the trunk that there was going to be trouble. My gun rights balls hadn't dropped yet, so I didn't tell her that she was flat out wrong at the time. However, the male officer looked at her and said, "And why is that?" after she gave me that line of bull. I excused myself and let them finish their lunch. I used to see her driving around all the time when I still lived in Lakewood too. I hope her partner correcter her.

[Byte Stryke]

Now, on to some other points. First, I've open carried in Thornton before. I was contacted by an off duty officer. He was pretty young, but he didn't harass me or anything. He did strongly suggest that I not continue to open carry though.

So I am a tad Concerned here as this conflicts with What I had been told.
I know that all public city property(Parks, openspace, recreational areas and buildings) in Northglenn and Thornton is CCW only if at all.
I had not been told that open carry was a violation city wide... which to say the least is a shock since I do.

do you have a reference on this?

[jim02]

My law book states this:

4 Ways to Search a Vehicle
1. Consent
2. Probable Cause
3. Impound Inventory
4. Search Incident to Arrest

Additional Ways
5. Plain View
6. Exigency
7. Search Incident to Detainment
8. Search Warrant

#4 was recently successfully challenged in court and is in the process of appeal to the Supreme Court. We'll have to see if the Supremes are willing to hear the case.

My book states a few diffrent things.
Amendment II
Amendment IV
Amendmemt V
Amendment VI
All found in The Constitution of the United States which are the supreme law of the land, all laws in violation of these rights are not lawfull and are not of my concern.

Leo's have a hard job to do and if they want my support they need to not look for the easy way and lay excuses on me while they try to trample my rights.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Benjamin Franklin

[Irving]

No. I was just open carrying at the Chipotle on 120th and Washington-ish. Under cover approached me and asked who I worked for (he knew it was no one). I told him "No one" and he went on to tell me that it was legal, and he wasn't trying to harass me or going to do anything about it, just wanted to give me a heads up that when you open carry, you run the risk of being contacted by PD every time.

[jim02]

Thornton Rec center on 116 and Colorado has a sign, no open carry, says nothing about CCW and I have seen nothing stating CCW is not allowed on city property anywhere, only open carry.

[ronaldrwl]

No. I was just open carrying at the Chipotle on 120th and Washington-ish. Under cover approached me and asked who I worked for (he knew it was no one). I told him "No one" and he went on to tell me that it was legal, and he wasn't trying to harass me or going to do anything about it, just wanted to give me a heads up that when you open carry, you run the risk of being contacted by PD every time.

Wow Stuart. That takes some guts. Any reason you did it?

[Irving]

Encouragement from other jerks behind key boards basically. ;)

It was in a simple Uncle Mike's nylon holster with just a buckle strap across the top too. Not exactly something that I'd recommend open carrying in.

The only time I've heard of open carry being restricted anywhere except Denver and that one ski town, is on here. I don't think that Arvada, Lakewood, or Thornton have any restrictions except for at public parts and buildings and stuff.

[jim02]

I would gladly go on record as stating that I firmly believe that the Denver and Arvada ordinances against open carry and possession of a firearm for personal defense is in direct contradiction of the 2nd Amendment.
So the Initial arrest was, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
When a Judge is sworn in they swear or affirm to uphold and protect/defend that same Constitution. These things are pretty much undeniable fact.

beyond that it gets crazy and fuzzy political this, Corruption that...

As far as the militias, please do not stereotype as not all militias are nutcases preparing to overthrow the government by force, just as not all Law officers punk teenage kids for their pot and are on the M-13 Payroll

Thank you

:)

I 2nd this and will add, dont forget if it were not for the militias we would have been subjects of king george. We the people are the militia.

The leo's and the southern poverty law center have seem to forgotten this fact and like to cast the term militia in with all the nazi's and other anti-US radical groups. They describe their Intelligece Report as "It is the nation's preeminent periodical monitoring the radical right in the U.S." what about the radical left.

[Byte Stryke]

No. I was just open carrying at the Chipotle on 120th and Washington-ish. Under cover approached me and asked who I worked for (he knew it was no one). I told him "No one" and he went on to tell me that it was legal, and he wasn't trying to harass me or going to do anything about it, just wanted to give me a heads up that when you open carry, you run the risk of being contacted by PD every time.

That's fine... and as long as they are only doing their jobs its all good.

I've been contacted by Aurora PD when visiting my Kid, etc.. The Officer seemed like a pleasant enough Guy, wasn't trying to be a dick. He asked me why I Open-Carried and I told him. "I Carry a Ruger because carrying around a cop is just silly. Besides, They don't make a holster that fits you guys. "
He laughed He asked why I didnt have a CCW I told him. "I don't believe in the Taxation of rights, you don't have to pay to vote, why do I have to pay to carry a gun?" he agreed.. sorta.

I concede that Most police officers aren't bad guys. They are out there trying to do something they believe in, then the rest fuck it up for them.

I am REALLY put off by the $2-300 it takes to get a CCW.
seriously some CCW Classes are nothing short of a scam.

scrape the cash together I need to get my class from TheInternet :D

[OneGuy67]

#5 here worries me. I have a feeling that if asked to step out of my car, and I refused a search of my vehicle, but there was a handgun laying in plain view on the back seat of my vehicle, that my window would be broken, my car would be searched, and I may even get tazed. Why though? Having a gun on your seat in plain view isn't illegal. I still bet my car would get searched without my consent though.

State statute allows you to have a firearm in your vehicle "while traveling", but does not define what exactly that is. Does that mean traveling from Grand Junction to Denver, or from your house to the supermarket? There have been municipalities that have outlawed firearms in vehicles, but all have been declared null and void as they were written prior to March 18, 2003. This was when the new gun laws went into place. Denver had the most restrictive gun laws prior to that time and they were put in place to deal with their gang problems in the 90's. Most officers in the surrounding cities around Denver might not be aware that Denver doesn't have those laws anymore and usually tell people what the safest manner of dealing with all officers, including Denver, as most people don't seem to understand that each city and county are different from each other and there are different ordinances. Most people do not have a basic understanding of municipal law, municipal, county, and state government and most officers tire of trying to continually educate an ignorant population.

So, to answer your question. If you had a gun in your vehicle, a quick check of your criminal history would answer whether or not you should have it in your possession. A positive identification will aid that endeavor. If you were clean, there wouldn't be a need to continue the contact. I'm sure you still would get a lecture and sent on your way. The officer may want to look at the firearm so ensure it had a serial number, but without an articulable reason, that shouldn't expand if you refuse politely. Although, most officers are under the general impression that if you don't have anything to hide, then why drag out the encounter?

On the other hand, when I had first bought my first gun, I asked every cop I ran into if I could legally carry the gun in my car. I was in Lakewood and approached some officers while they were having lunch at the Brother's Barbeque and asked them if I could carry a gun in the car. The male officer said I should have it unloaded, locked up, and in my trunk. The female officer told me that if I had it any where but locked up and unloaded and in the trunk that there was going to be trouble. My gun rights balls hadn't dropped yet, so I didn't tell her that she was flat out wrong at the time. However, the male officer looked at her and said, "And why is that?" after she gave me that line of bull. I excused myself and let them finish their lunch. I used to see her driving around all the time when I still lived in Lakewood too. I hope her partner correcter her.

Answer above.


I will try to answer the next few people's comments, but I am growing tired of the questions. I don't have all the answers, nor do any of the officers, but this is what we deal with every day from the public, both as questions and as legal issues we have to maneuver through.

[Irving]

Of course you get tired of answering questions that you deal with every day. However, in this forum (not the online forum, the other definition), you don't need to explain your fatigue because you offered your expertise on your own. Everyone, in every occupation, generally knows much more about their occupation than the general public. Just because you deal with the same stuff every day, and it became mundane and boring to you long ago, doesn't mean that everyone else isn't brand new to the party. Remembering that, and acting accordingly is a key part of customer service and you've been doing a fine job thus far.

[OneGuy67]

My book states a few diffrent things.
Amendment II
Amendment IV
Amendmemt V
Amendment VI
All found in The Constitution of the United States which are the supreme law of the land, all laws in violation of these rights are not lawfull and are not of my concern.

Leo's have a hard job to do and if they want my support they need to not look for the easy way and lay excuses on me while they try to trample my rights.



Sigh...Once again people don't seem to understand that yes, there are identifiable ways in which things can happen that are lawful, have been upheld by the Supreme Court and allow officers to do their job.

So, I'll discuss them here and this will be my last communication on the subject, because apparently, people aren't getting it.

4 Ways to Search a Vehicle:
1. Consent - If you provide consent to an officer to search something.

2. Probable Cause - Probable cause is the threshold needed to make an arrest. Upheld countless times by the Supreme Court.

3. Impound Inventory - An agency is required to make a full inventory of a vehicle's contents in order to protect themselves from liability. If, during that inventory, they find something, it can be used against that person. A vehicle can be impounded for traffic related offenses (DUI, etc), arrests, etc. This is another item that has been upheld by the Supreme Court on numerous occassions.

4. Search Incident to Arrest - Was a standard for years to allow a search of the interior of the vehicle if the driver was to be arrested for something and the vehicle wasn't going to be impounded. It is commonly referred to as the wingspan of the driver, where the driver could effectively reach inside the vehicle. This was recently challenged and is awaiting to see if the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the challenge.

Additional Ways
5. Plain View - If you have something illegal like a pot pipe in plain view, the officer can seize it. Pretty simple.

6. Exigency - Exigency would mean that the officer would normally have obtained a warrant, but the seizure of the item or vehicle required an immediate response for a specific reason. Not commonly used, but let's say the vehicle is on fire and it had been used in a robbery. Exigency would allow the officer to gain entry to look for evidence before the fire consumed the vehicle.

7. Search Incident to Detainment - Another not normally used and requires a lot of articulable reasons to ensure the search was lawful. Vehicle was used in drive by and witnesses report blue Dodge with two males in it. Vehicle stopped three blocks away matching description with two males in it. Males are detained and a search is conducted to ensure officer safety due to possible weapon issue.

8. Search Warrant - Lastly, the formal request to search for something signed by the judge. Easy to get during the daylight hours, a hassle for the judge at night. Still doable, but takes time.

There you have them. All are perfectly legal and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous cases that you yourself will have to research as I am tired to be the research bitch for you. You want to have a continuing dialogue? Do it with respect!

[Irving]

If you get pulled over for a suspected DUI, can your car be searched if it is not impounded (left on the street)?

[Seamonkey]

Sigh...Once again people don't seem to understand that yes, there are identifiable ways in which things can happen that are lawful, have been upheld by the Supreme Court and allow officers to do their job.

So, I'll discuss them here and this will be my last communication on the subject, because apparently, people aren't getting it.

I for one want to thank you for the loads of info including references.

[KevDen2005]

If you get pulled over for a suspected DUI, can your car be searched if it is not impounded (left on the street)?

It was up until recently that car could be searched "Incident to Arrest" all the time, but now it has to be searched incident to arrest only if there is possible evidence of the crime you are being arrested for and you have an articulable reason to believe that evidence exists. The general rule of thumb now is that a car cannot be searched "Incident to Arrest."

A car can still be inventoried on the tow sheet, even if you are signing a waiver to have it parked lawfully where it sits. This has to be within your department policy and has to be common practice per the US Supreme Court

[KevDen2005]

I would also like to point out that it seems that every time a police officer in this country does something, the critics of this thread feel the need to immediately point out why its "wrong."

Just a thought, but I certainly don't bitch about the way anyone else performs their jobs on here. Furthermore, if a police officer does something wrong in the state of Colorado, there are 14,000 other police officers that seem to have done the job right that day. As if anyone on here is an expert in law and deciphering it and understanding the quickness of rapidly evolving situations. Sometimes police officers have to react very quickly. Sometimes people need to be contacted for carrying guns in certain places. Violence happens, and I guess sometimes the police should just look into situations just to make sure everything is on the up and up. Supposing that is their job to prevent crime whenever possible.

[Krasni]

I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd like to point out that I don't think anyone actually believes a police officer's job is to prevent crime. I've always thought it was to enforce the law once it's been violated.

Regardless, we need police and I think everyone can agree that a majority are good people doing a somewhat thankless job.

[OneGuy67]

I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd like to point out that I don't think anyone actually believes a police officer's job is to prevent crime. I've always thought it was to enforce the law once it's been violated.

Regardless, we need police and I think everyone can agree that a majority are good people doing a somewhat thankless job.

If that be the case, then we could be like the firemen and sit around watching tv or sleeping until someone calls and then head out. That would show my paramedic brother!

The very act of patroling, parking and watching, and traffic enforcement are visual indicators of police activity that tend to decrease crime in the areas that it occurs in. Unfortunately, there isn't any way to get an accurate poll or quantitative number of exactly how much crime was prevented or moved due to the increased police activity. The same argument is made for concealed carry. We just can't poll the bad guys to see why they didn't commit a crime at this location.

[KevDen2005]

If that be the case, then we could be like the firemen and sit around watching tv or sleeping until someone calls and then head out. That would show my paramedic brother!

The very act of patroling, parking and watching, and traffic enforcement are visual indicators of police activity that tend to decrease crime in the areas that it occurs in. Unfortunately, there isn't any way to get an accurate poll or quantitative number of exactly how much crime was prevented or moved due to the increased police activity. The same argument is made for concealed carry. We just can't poll the bad guys to see why they didn't commit a crime at this location.


Good point my friend...

Someone call the f-ing Fire Department...sounds like we need America's Heroes to make everyone happy and feel good...

[KevDen2005]

I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd like to point out that I don't think anyone actually believes a police officer's job is to prevent crime. I've always thought it was to enforce the law once it's been violated.

Regardless, we need police and I think everyone can agree that a majority are good people doing a somewhat thankless job.


By the way, I know what is in my job title, just thought I would point it out

[Byte Stryke]

Additional Ways
5. Plain View - If you have something illegal like a pot pipe in plain view, the officer can seize it. Pretty simple.



Ahem... "Controlled"

depending on how you see the conflict of federal vs state laws

I personally don't indulge due to National Security regulations. but I thought I would point that out. :D


As for the whole Bad cop vs Good cop, I guess I am a bit Jaded.
Ive had a weapon taken from me by a cop in Ky and planted at a bad shoot. There was a record of the interaction with him and I did file for return of property immediately afterward which was well before the drop... So it was pretty stupid on his part Dirty none the less.. and I Still lost my weapon and 2 weeks work (court).
I also had to testify when a DPD made an illegal U-turn (Evans/Broadway) into the side of this poor woman's vehicle (No Emerg lights) Injuring her and her Baby. He then Turned ON his lights(after the Impact), got out and proceeded to make her life hell at the end of a baton.

So, I understand that there are a ton of good cops out there doing their job in the most respectful and professional manner possible.
I also understand the Growing levels of distrust within the citizenry of this country when we see 74 year old Man with a cardiac Condition (known) in Cuffs lying on the floor being Tasered as punishment, or 12 year old little Girl getting her head blown up by a cop with a taser on the national news.



To the good cops, Thank you and start cleaning house!

[HBARleatherneck]

i think we can get over the "thankless" job bit.

i went to the academy. i got post certified. i knew what the pay, hours and job conditions were like. several of my family are cops. cops are payed for the job. one of my many uncles became a cop 3 years in the metro area. no experience, but a community college post cert. started at $48,000. that is not thankless. Weld SO where I live starts new hires at jail $40,000. patrol gets more. that is also not thankless. so we need less leo ass kissing.

and fuck teachers who bitch about pay too. what they didnt know going in what the pay was? teachers have been bitching about pay since I was a child. and yet people still become teachers, knowing what the pay will be and then bitch, to get sympathy.

this was not an anti leo statement. for those that cant figure it out. it was an anti "knob swabbing" rant. i know everyone kisses the ass, so maybe karma will get them off of a ticket later. it doesnt work that way. everyone can just treat eachother as equal. no ceo, leo, cfo, janitor, teacher, bus driver,etc. is better than each other. except the people who are in the military or served in the military. you can kiss thier asses all you want. i approve. they do a serious job for not serious pays. give up almost all of the bill of rights for themelsves, while they defend it for you, 24/7. ok i am done. sorry for the interuption

[OneGuy67]

i think we can get over the "thankless" job bit.

i went to the academy. i got post certified. i knew what the pay, hours and job conditions were like. several of my family are cops. cops are payed for the job. one of my many uncles became a cop 3 years in the metro area. no experience, but a community college post cert. started at $48,000. that is not thankless. Weld SO where I live starts new hires at jail $40,000. patrol gets more. that is also not thankless. so we need less leo ass kissing.

and fuck teachers who bitch about pay too. what they didnt know going in what the pay was? teachers have been bitching about pay since I was a child. and yet people still become teachers, knowing what the pay will be and then bitch, to get sympathy.

this was not an anti leo statement. for those that cant figure it out. it was an anti "knob swabbing" rant. i know everyone kisses the ass, so maybe karma will get them off of a ticket later. it doesnt work that way. everyone can just treat eachother as equal. no ceo, leo, cfo, janitor, teacher, bus driver,etc. is better than each other. except the people who are in the military or served in the military. you can kiss thier asses all you want. i approve. they do a serious job for not serious pays. give up almost all of the bill of rights for themelsves, while they defend it for you, 24/7. ok i am done. sorry for the interuption


Ha ha! You rock! Great statement!

[BigBear]

and fuck teachers who bitch about pay too. what they didnt know going in what the pay was? teachers have been bitching about pay since I was a child. and yet people still become teachers, knowing what the pay will be and then bitch, to get sympathy.


Lol. I completely understand that statement. I think the majority of the teacher complaining (I do my own fair share of complaining even though I'm not in the field right now) is that even though we knew the pay, we didn't expect to see our "benefits" taken away, retirements removed, more kids moved into our classes without additional aides/support teachers, more duties piled on top of our overstretched day (while not paid for overtime), more restrictions on what we can say/do/teach, having to go to our own classes to learn spanish, dealing with parents who refuse to raise their kids, etc... I don't think the base pay is what most teachers are really complaining about, it just seems to be the common rallying point.

[Beer]

[Marlin]

Ha ha! You rock! Great statement!


I agree.. The only thing He missed was the Retirement they get also.

[Byte Stryke]

cops are regular guys, who do regular guy things. and live among us. I know scary huh?

wait.. you mean they aren't the angelic supernatural beings that the media and government portray them to be?
Say it isn't so!

Next thing you are going to tell me is that they also put their own pants on and one leg at a time like everyone else!
/sarcasm


Seriously, not cop bashing or cop lovin.. just jaded and untrusting.

[Irving]

Before we met, my fiance went on a date with a cop. He spent the whole date telling her how him and his friends (including firefighters) like go out and get trashed and go bar hoping (driving around) and no one ever says anything because "We are the boys in blue and can do whatever we want!" She ended that date pretty quick and has hated the saying "boys in blue" from then on.

One thing I'd like to point out, is that even though everyone on here has 10 bad cop stories to their 1 or 2 good cop stories, whenever the police do something great, we as a whole community, don't skimp on the compliments of jobs well done. Sometimes it's hard to remember with 10 to 1 odds, but I haven't seen a thread yet where a good cop doing good cop things was trashed or even not celebrated and bragged on.

Threads like this can get carried away with people all trying to one up each other with their bad cop stories (like I just did), but I wanted to make sure and point out that good cops are always praised when the opportunity arises.

[BigBear]

To add onto what Stuart said: I even know of several stories of LEO's and FF's rescuing animals... particularly dogs! .... I am NOT trying to be sarcastic. I'm serious.

[Byte Stryke]

To add onto what Stuart said: I even know of several stories of LEO's and FF's rescuing animals... particularly dogs! .... I am NOT trying to be sarcastic. I'm serious.



Dog hater!

:D

[BigBear]

Dog hater!

:D



SSSHHHHHHH!!! Don't tell Buddy! [Muaha]




(Buddy is my dog, in case anyone didn't know.)

[Byte Stryke]

SSSHHHHHHH!!! Don't tell Buddy! [Muaha]




(Buddy is my dog, in case anyone didn't know.)

you mean small horse..

http://www.bsdgames.com/site/album_pic.php?pic_id=290

[ronaldrwl]

I like good people. Good people rock. I hate bad people. Bad people can all just die with or without a badge.

[BigBear]

you mean small horse..

http://www.bsdgames.com/site/album_pic.php?pic_id=290

Lol, wish I knew where the wife has the saddle pic.... We had a little saddle for the niece. Saddle's gone but we have a pic somewhere.... Buddy is such a good dog he'd just walk around with a 2 year old kid hanging off his back. HAHA.



** Wait!! Call PETA, that's animal abuse!!!



I like good people. Good people rock. I hate bad people. Bad people can all just die with or without a badge.

+1 Agreed.






















** I need to stop. Didn't I say I wouldn't joke around anymore?... Bad Bear.

[jim02]

Sigh...Once again people don't seem to understand that yes, there are identifiable ways in which things can happen that are lawful, have been upheld by the Supreme Court and allow officers to do their job.
There you have them. All are perfectly legal and have been upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous cases that you yourself will have to research as I am tired to be the research bitch for you. You want to have a continuing dialogue? Do it with respect!


Lawmakers create laws in violation of the Constitution and just because it has not been overturned does not mean its not a violation.
I dont see where I have been disrespectful to you as a person, maybe thats not addressed to me.

Respect my authoritah! wheres that little fat Cartman at when you need him. ha ha.

Leos get away with violations all the time because their word is taken over the others usually, but thats not going to last much longer as more media devices become available.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/police-continue-to-harass-citizens-who-record-them-102826639.html

[ronaldrwl]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/police-continue-to-harass-citizens-who-record-them-102826639.html

Great video

[KevDen2005]

This post has become ridiculous.

[Irving]

They always do. It will die by the end of the week.

[StagLefty]

** I need to stop. Didn't I say I wouldn't joke around anymore?... Bad Bear.

Damn it !!! I just had elevated you to sainthood [Coffee]













** I need to stop. Didn't I say I wouldn't joke around anymore?... Bad Bear.[/QUOTE]

[Elhuero]

They always do. It will die by the end of the week.


Long live the ridiculous.

[BigBear]

http://www.lowdensitylifestyle.com/media/uploads/2009/09/14-amazing-ridiculous-dog-costumes-1.jpg


NOW it's a ridiculous thread.... you're welcome. [Beer]