Case Laws: Defense against illegal stop, search, and seizures.

Firefighterchen

Firefighterchen

OC for Tactical Advantage
The purpose of this thread is for people who want to come and find case laws relating to defense against illegal stop, search, and seizures while carrying a firearm, in one easy to understand thread.

I was re-reading some of the "Detained by police" threads and videos. One thing I noticed in all those videos, was the numerous responses asking where they could find all the case laws that are related to firearm defenses. IANAL, it is hard for me to read and understand legal case documents, so in making this thread I am hoping more legal minded individuals can help find, list, and explain the significance of specific case laws related to being stopped, ID'd, and frisked illegally. I am going to reserve post #2 (detailed explanations of case laws) and #3 (misc) for further use if I can get this thread started like I hoped.

For example, I started making a basic list and summary for case laws that were used during the "Detained by portland Maine police" that was recently posted here. Case laws he referred to:

Terry v Ohio (Delaware v Prouse, Ybarra v. Illinois, Minnesota v. Dickerson, Florida v. J.L., Muehler v. Mena, Alabama v. White, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, Maryland v. Wilson, and Brendlin v. California): Must have reasonable articulated suspicion and probable cause to arrest for legal search and seizure.

Brown v Texas and Hiibel v Nevada: Must have RAS and PC to arrest to legally demand ID

US v DeBerry: Pending further explanation. A firearm where legally carried cannot be the only cause for a stop.

And another case law that comes around here often:

Warren vs District of Columbia: Police do not have the obligation to protect an individual.

DISCLAIMER: IMO and IANAL, I advice people to not talk with police without an attorney present. If you have the time, money, and effort to argue with LEO's, that is your call. I will just ask, "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" If I am not, I will remain silent.
 
Terry v. Ohio:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio,
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html
- http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_67/

Brown v. Texas:
- http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/brown-v-texas/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Texas

Hiibel v. Nevada:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
- http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_5554/
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html

Warren v. District of Columbia:
- http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

As members start explaining the details and significance of the cases, I will replace the links with information provided. Hope this turns out well.
 
the__outlaw said:
Baiting should be a crime. Mainly because it is so annoying and infuriating to watch these attention whores do there thing.
Click to expand...

I quote this reply as a "call" of SGB's comment and I raise him one responsible reply. The kid is an "attention whore" smart alec. I can only hope he slips up one day and gets a good dose of responsible adult behavour.
 
kelcarry said:
I quote this reply as a "call" of SGB's comment and I raise him one responsible reply. The kid is an "attention whore" smart alec. I can only hope he slips up one day and gets a good dose of responsible adult behavour.
Click to expand...

What you perceive as an "attention whore" kelcarry others perceive as an Individual simply exercising his rights. The fact that ill trained or overbearing LEO feel it necessary to overstep their authority results in citizens who carry means to record such encounters for their own protection. That this individual would dare to post this encounter so as to share the experience and educate others obviously offends your bow to authority sensibilities.

What you refer to as a responsible reply looks glaringly like an adolescent south park attitude to me.
images
 
i'm glad our poster made that video it is a great teaching tool for all of us imo
but here in florida we are required to give identification if an officer inquires about our weapon as i understand our statutes to read. if i am wrong will someone please clarify that for me
 
United States v DeBerry (1996) USCA 7C, 95-2232, Mere carry of a firearm in a jurisdiction where same is not a de facto crime is not RAS to detain.
State v Richardson (2010) ISC, 49S02-0910-CR-428, Continued questioning about firearm carry after presentation of a valid LTCH is unreasonable.
Washington v State (2010) CAI, 49S02-0907-CR-649, When removed from the automobile, the automobile may not be searched for weapons without warrant.
Malone v State (2008) CAI, 49S02-0701-CR-18, Disarmament on one's own property requires a warrant.
Gaddis v State (1997) CAI, 49A02-9611-CR-727, Mere display of a firearm does not constitute threat or intimidation.
State v Johnson (2001) ISC, 71S03-0009-CR-529, Deliberate display of a firearm plus "fighting words" DOES constitute threat and intimidation.
Lyles v State (2012) ISC, 49S02-1201-CR-49, Having an account at a financial institution does not grant one a contractual interest in the property for purposes of the criminal trespass statute. (OCing in banks)
 
kelcarry said:
I quote this reply as a "call" of SGB's comment and I raise him one responsible reply. The kid is an "attention whore" smart alec. I can only hope he slips up one day and gets a good dose of responsible adult behavour.
Click to expand...
He did slip up. He quoted the wrong cases. Fortunately the cops didn't know that. He also created a mood that is likely to get other gun owners treated less than cordially down the line. He could have said the same things with a little less 'attitude'.
 
Rhino said:
He did slip up. He quoted the wrong cases. Fortunately the cops didn't know that. He also created a mood that is likely to get other gun owners treated less than cordially down the line. He could have said the same things with a little less 'attitude'.
Click to expand...


All the quoting of precedent was completely unnecessary and I chalk it up to his obvious nervousness, not uncommon in such a situation. Most people when confronted by a uniformed LEO are intimidated, a natural reaction for many to the authority the uniform represents. Happens to most every time they get stopped for a traffic violation.

When dealing with such situations it's simply best to keep things simple. "Am I being detained?" " Am I free to go?" "I'd like an attorney present" " I'd like a supervisor"
 
FFC:
Not really. DeBerry was the 7th Circuit, which is Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. None of the cases I cited are directly relevant for you in Washinton State... Washington, IN and Washington Co., IN, yes. Washington State, no.
 
CathyInBlue said:
FFC:
Not really. DeBerry was the 7th Circuit, which is Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. None of the cases I cited are directly relevant for you in Washinton State... Washington, IN and Washington Co., IN, yes. Washington State, no.
Click to expand...

I'm curious then, why did the Maine carrier reference so many case laws if they did not cover him?

So, I need to find Washington state case laws specifically? Otherwise I would be wrong, correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 155 (members: 0, guests: 155)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,525
Messages
610,668
Members
74,995
Latest member
tripguru365

Share this page

Back
Top