Another Wal Mart LEO Encounter

[NavyLCDR]

This was posted by another person on another forum. I thought I would copy it here to initiate discussion. This encounter happened in Washington state:

Let me start by saying I started open carrying about 3 months ago and shop at Walmart both in Lynnwood & Everett and never had the cops called on me.

But today I went to go exchange a gift as I bought a shirt for my lead which ended up being to big, so as I get out a older man and looks to be grand son were leaving walmart and I walked across of them and I guess he saw my firearm but I wasn't paying attention to him so I go to the clerk in the front to get a tag for the exchange and then walked back to where the shirts were and grabbed a new one and headed back toward the return area.

As I was slowly walking back toward the line, I see a little kid pointing in my direction and I see its the same old man with him and he was talking to the clerk asking for the manager as "that man has a gun" and the clerk says well he is allowed to. (+1 for walmart clerk) But then he goes on saying if you feel threatened you can call the cops. (by this time I am in line and can hear every word the guy is saying and he is 5 steps away from me with his kid but he is threatened right?)

Line takes about 10-15mins to get to the front and with no sight of any cops I thought maybe they weren't coming. But then as I left three sheriffs greet me and say "I'm sure you know why we are here right?" while smiling and I said I do and understand you are only doing your job. They then ask if I have a cpl and if its loaded and I said yes to both and then they ask why not just hide it then and I just told them because its a large gun (XDm). One asks to see my ID to check up on me and I said even though I don't have to, since you guys are being so nice about it I will (also needed to be somewhere by a certain time and had no time to deal with it)

5 seconds later I am free to go and the guy which was parked next to me started driving off and when I got to the exit he and his grandson could not stop giving me the glare haha

thanks for reading and I think walmart and the sheriffs did a great job in this one compared to a few I have seen.

 

[SGB]

Sounds like a dozen others and no way to tell if it's a bs story or not.

 

[defender829]

What if the boy had said "There is a big black man!" Would it have been okay if the manager had replied "He is allowed to be here. But if you feel threatened...". What if the boy had felt threatened by the color of someone's clothes, or shoe style, or physical handicap, or...?
Is it appropriate or legal for LEOs to confront citizens for doing something they have a perfect right to do?

 

[Cotillion]

Why does every OC story consist of a kid and his parents. Tell them to Stfu and ignore them like the rest of the damn world please!

 

[jrtyson72]

So, clearify for me while I'm here, too lazy to look it up. I have also seen some youtubes of guys open carry and asked by LEO's for ID. So I'm assuming we don't have to show if we don't have to and why? I know this wil only iritate a cop, but in the vids, the cops just begrudenly go on their way. Does this also apply to conceal carry with the ID thing. And does it apply when walking around or just not when your in your vehicle because my chl intructor told me when/if I get pulled over to show both the drivers license and chl. So I'm assuming that this only applies when walking out in public. Please explain. Thanks.

 

[Treo]

So, clearify for me while I'm here, {b]too lazy to look it up.[/b] I have also seen some youtubes of guys open carry and asked by LEO's for ID. So I'm assuming we don't have to show if we don't have to and why? I know this wil only iritate a cop, but in the vids, the cops just begrudenly go on their way. Does this also apply to conceal carry with the ID thing. And does it apply when walking around or just not when your in your vehicle because my chl intructor told me when/if I get pulled over to show both the drivers license and chl. So I'm assuming that this only applies when walking out in public. Please explain. Thanks.

Then why should I look it up for you?

 

[NavyLCDR]

So, clearify for me while I'm here, too lazy to look it up. I have also seen some youtubes of guys open carry and asked by LEO's for ID. So I'm assuming we don't have to show if we don't have to and why? I know this wil only iritate a cop, but in the vids, the cops just begrudenly go on their way. Does this also apply to conceal carry with the ID thing. And does it apply when walking around or just not when your in your vehicle because my chl intructor told me when/if I get pulled over to show both the drivers license and chl. So I'm assuming that this only applies when walking out in public. Please explain. Thanks.

Disclaimer: I can only speak to Washington law without doing further research.

If the situation occurred exactly as described:

1. The deputies had no lawful basis upon which to detain the subject. There was no EVIDENCE to base a reasonable suspicion that the subject was committing a crime.

2. Given #1 above, if the subject had asked, "Am I free to go," the only lawful answer the deputies could have given would be, "Yes, you are free to go."

3. In Washington, a person is only required to identify themselves to law enforcement if a citation for an infraction is going to be issued or custodial arrest is made. Under the same circumstances or if stopped while operating a motor vehicle, identification or driver's license must be provided upon request by the deputy. There is no requirement to carry identification, unless operating a motor vehicle. Even if the person fails to identify themselves or produce an identification document, there is no criminal penalty associated, the law only allows law enforcement to detain the person long enough to establish identity.

4. In Washington, a CPL (concealed pistol license) must be produced upon request of a police officer. However, there is no requirement to carry the CPL unless you are carrying a firearm in a manner/place that requires a CPL - in this case, no CPL was required so the subject would have been perfectly legal to not have their CPL on their person.

5. There is no requirement to produce an identification document in conjunction with the CPL. The CPL by itself serves no identification purpose.

6. The fact that a person might be alarmed or feel threatened by the presence of a firearm is of no consequence in Washington, no law is broken simply because a person is alarmed or feels threatened.

My personal feeling is that too many people have died in order to establish and protect my 4th Amendment rights. I will not dishonor their sacrifice by waiving those rights for the sake of convenience; especially when there is nothing suspicious that the police are actually investigating.

 

[Firefighterchen]

If you ask, are you detaining me? And they say no, can you just walk away?

Or do you have to ask, "am I free to go?"

 

[Firefighterchen]

Does anyone reach out for a hand shake when they are confronted by an Leo?

 

[NavyLCDR]

If you ask, are you detaining me? And they say no, can you just walk away?

Or do you have to ask, "am I free to go?"

If you ask, "Are you detaining me?" and they answer, "No," then you are free to walk away.

Does anyone reach out for a hand shake when they are confronted by an Leo?

Yep. You don't have to be unfriendly or rude to exercise your rights.

 

[Deserteagle]

Navy I am curious why you gave this a thumbs down. The police did not detain the guy, so they deserve a thumbs up. The clerk deserves a thumbs up, and only the old guy deserve a thumbs down, which I hope is why you put that there.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Navy I am curious why you gave this a thumbs down. The police did not detain the guy, so they deserve a thumbs up. The clerk deserves a thumbs up, and only the old guy deserve a thumbs down, which I hope is why you put that there.

I put a thumbs down because of the totality of the circumstances. First, 911 was called with no basis for a complaint. Second, the 911 call was not properly screened and police were unnecessarily dispatched taking them away from possible real situations where they might be needed. Third, the police unnecessarily approached and engaged a citizen who was not engaging in any suspicious behavior, for the purpose of conducting an ivestigation. If the police did not approach the subject for the purpose of an investigation, then why did they run his driver's license? Why not refuse the driver's license with, "Sir, there is no need for you to give us your driver's license." Fourth, waiving my 4th Amendment rights immediately due to the simple presence of a badge and uniform for the sake of convenience goes against my personal beliefs.

Did the deputies themselves do anything wrong? No. That being said, the person carrying the gun never presented any choice to the deputies to make the wrong decision because he immediately waived his rights.

This was a follow up post (not by me):

If you should know exactly who and why called, I would point the perp out to the Sheriffs deputy and tell them to go talk to the person that put in the false 911 call, as what I am doing if perfectly legal. Please inform the perp that you found nothing illegal going on except with his call. He had even been told that I was doing nothing wrong by the walmart clerk, but still called 911. Now...That is what is illegal.

The one time I was talked to by a deputy sheriff, it was two words and off he went to find the woman that made the call. no license chack, did not even ask if I had a CPL or if the gun was loaded.

^^^^ That would get a thumbs up. Dispatch the deputy to talk to the 911 caller who is more likely to be in violation of an actual law, not the guy carrying the gun.

Basically, I give it a thumbs down because the deputies investigated the wrong person.

 

[Treo]

If you ask, are you detaining me? And they say no, can you just walk away?

Or do you have to ask, "am I free to go?"

Personally, I just ask "Am I free to go?" If they say I am I'm clearly not detained and I leave

 

[headhunter]

I am not a lawyer but suspect that this ruling might apply when law enforcement asks that you identify yourself. The (US) Supreme Court upheld Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute, reasoning that requiring individuals to identify themselves to police officers investigating crimes was not unreasonable. The law did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches, nor the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. What may not make this applicable here is "requiring individuals to identify themselves to police officers investigating crimes" Just becuase law enforcement confronted the person OCing does that mean they were "invetigsating crimes". Do not know and leave that to the lawyers.

 

[Firefighterchen]

If you ask, are you detaining me? And they say no, can you just walk away?

Or do you have to ask, "am I free to go?"

Personally, I just ask "Am I free to go?" If they say I am I'm clearly not detained and I leave

For example:

Officer: hello sir, do you know why we were called it here?
Lac: hello, no sir.
Officer: a citizen called because you are carrying a gun.
Lac: I see, since that is legal, am I free to go?
Officer: Yes.
Lac: Good day (walks away)

Or

Officer: no, can I see id?
Lac: I do not consent to any searches, and I will remain silent during this detainment. (remains silent, follows orders of the police, contacts an attorney and files a complaint)

 

[NavyLCDR]

I am not a lawyer but suspect that this ruling might apply when law enforcement asks that you identify yourself. The (US) Supreme Court upheld Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute, reasoning that requiring individuals to identify themselves to police officers investigating crimes was not unreasonable. The law did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches, nor the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. What may not make this applicable here is "requiring individuals to identify themselves to police officers investigating crimes" Just becuase law enforcement confronted the person OCing does that mean they were "invetigsating crimes". Do not know and leave that to the lawyers.

The case you are speaking of is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The key element in the Hiibel decision is that it only applies during a lawful detainment based upon reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. An individual cannot be required to identify themselves to police officers absent a lawful detention under reasonable suspicion. In the case of the subject of the OP, there was no reasonable suspicion the subject was committing a crime, no basis for a Terry Stop, therefore no legal requirement for the subject to identifiy himself. The officers can certainly, and lawfully ASK. However, to REQUIRE the individual to identify themselves requires reasonable suspicion to be lawful.

(b) The officer's conduct did not violate Hiibel's Fourth Amendment rights. Ordinarily, an investigating officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Amendment. INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 216. Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop

 

[JohnLM]

Why does every OC story consist of a kid and his parents. Tell them to Stfu and ignore them like the rest of the damn world please!

I concur! ! A bunch of nosy busybodies "!

 

[Deserteagle]

I put a thumbs down because of the totality of the circumstances. First, 911 was called with no basis for a complaint. Second, the 911 call was not properly screened and police were unnecessarily dispatched taking them away from possible real situations where they might be needed. Third, the police unnecessarily approached and engaged a citizen who was not engaging in any suspicious behavior, for the purpose of conducting an ivestigation. If the police did not approach the subject for the purpose of an investigation, then why did they run his driver's license? Why not refuse the driver's license with, "Sir, there is no need for you to give us your driver's license." Fourth, waiving my 4th Amendment rights immediately due to the simple presence of a badge and uniform for the sake of convenience goes against my personal beliefs.

Did the deputies themselves do anything wrong? No. That being said, the person carrying the gun never presented any choice to the deputies to make the wrong decision because he immediately waived his rights.

This was a follow up post (not by me):


^^^^ That would get a thumbs up. Dispatch the deputy to talk to the 911 caller who is more likely to be in violation of an actual law, not the guy carrying the gun.

Basically, I give it a thumbs down because the deputies investigated the wrong person.

Well I agree that 911 should never have been called. However, citizens like this clearly do not know the law and he thought one was being broken. The police probably have a duty to at least talk to all parties involved when they are called to a scene though. Imagine if you called 911 because you thought you saw something illegal, and the police just drove by and didnt do anything. I do think that the police should have spent most of their time telling the caller that no law was being broken and he should not call unless a crime is being committed. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The police probably have a duty to at least talk to all parties involved when they are called to a scene though.

Sorry, but no such duty exists.

http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 796, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants [**2] and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b) (6). However, in a split decision a threejudge division of this court determined that appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. The division unanimously concluded that appellant Douglas failed to fit within the class
of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of her complaint. The court en banc, on petitions for rehearing, vacated the panel's decision. After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.

In this case, people were actually raped and the court ruled the police had no duty to do anything about it.

 

[Treo]

For example:

Officer: hello sir, do you know why we were called it here?
Lac: hello, no sir.
Officer: a citizen called because you are carrying a gun.
Lac: I see, since that is legal, am I free to go?
Officer: Yes.
Lac: Good day (walks away)

Or

Officer: no, can I see id?
Lac: I do not consent to any searches, and I will remain silent during this detainment. (remains silent, follows orders of the police, contacts an attorney and files a complaint)

It would be more like

Officer: hello sir, do you know why we were called it here?
Lac: Am I free to go?