Detained for Open Carry, Portland, Maine 26MAY2012
- Thread starter Maine CWP Training
- Start date
USN2Pulpit
New member
Was this the OP in the short film? And are there any more details?
BravoSierra2012
New member
At least the officer remained courteous and professional to the best of his abilities. Too bad he was just obeying orders and good thing the guy knew his rights. At least that's my take on the issue
Treo
Bullet Proof
Treo's first rule of Police interactions:
If you speak to the cops long enough you will say something they can use against you.
Treo's second rule of police interactions
As soon as you do they will
I don't argue w/ cops, as soon as he approached me I'd have said " I do not consent to this interaction, am I free to go?"
and I wouldn't have said anything else until he answered that question.
Having said that CRS 18-12-204 states that I must present my permit upon demand of a police officer so I would have turned it over when he asked and Colorado law authorizes the officer to disarm me during a stop but only for the duration of the stop unless I'm being arrested. so I would have had to submit to that as well.
Other than that
Cop: We got a MWAG call
Treo: Am I free to go?
Cop: I just have to check it out.
Treo: Am I free to go?
Cop: Hey aren't you the guy that made all those awsome posts on usacarry.com?
Treo: Am I free to go?
Understand?
If you speak to the cops long enough you will say something they can use against you.
Treo's second rule of police interactions
As soon as you do they will
I don't argue w/ cops, as soon as he approached me I'd have said " I do not consent to this interaction, am I free to go?"
and I wouldn't have said anything else until he answered that question.
Having said that CRS 18-12-204 states that I must present my permit upon demand of a police officer so I would have turned it over when he asked and Colorado law authorizes the officer to disarm me during a stop but only for the duration of the stop unless I'm being arrested. so I would have had to submit to that as well.
Other than that
Cop: We got a MWAG call
Treo: Am I free to go?
Cop: I just have to check it out.
Treo: Am I free to go?
Cop: Hey aren't you the guy that made all those awsome posts on usacarry.com?
Treo: Am I free to go?
Understand?
Maine CWP Training
New member
My yearly detainment in Portland.
I guess it's that time of year again. It seems every spring I get stopped by the Portland PD.
I got video this time
I also wrote an email to the police chief:
Chief Sauschuck,
On 26MAY2012 at about 17:15 I was stopped by Officer J McDonald. I recorded a video of the stop for my protection. You can view the video at
Officer McDonald claimed to have received calls that I was walking around with a holstered firearm. This is a legal activity in Maine. He stopped me, put on gloves, and removed my weapon from me. I told him I do not consent to any searches or seizures. He unloaded my firearm and before ejecting the round from the chamber, he pointed my loaded firearm at my legs. This is unacceptable behavior.
There are many things that need to be taken into account here. Terry v Ohio requires three criteria to be met in order to disarm an individual. The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is armed. The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous. Thirdly, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime. Officer McDonald admitted in this video that the only reason he stopped me was for the legal carrying of my firearm and that he did not have any reason to suspect me of crime. Therefore, the seizure of my firearm was not allowed under Terry.
Secondly, having no suspicion of crime, why was I not free to go? Delaware v Prouse says that an officer cannot detain someone without reasonable suspicion of crime. McDonald had none. This is a sign of poor training and I want to bring it to your attention so that it can be easily remedied. All of your officers should know that they must have a suspicion of an actual crime before making a detainment.
Thirdly, Officer McDonald demanded my ID and would not return my firearm to me when I requested to end the encounter. Maine law in Title 17A Sec 15-A only requires someone to provide their name and DOB if the officer is issuing a summons to the individual. The officer said he needed to see my ID to ensure that I was not a felon. When asked if he had any reason to believe I was a felon, he said he did not. Again, he is making demands and detaining me without suspicion of any criminal activity. Terry requires more than a mere hunch to initiate a detainment. Hiibel v Nevada and Brown v Texas both require reasonable suspicion of crime before demanding an ID.
Officer McDonald admitted that the only reason why he stopped me was because of my legally carried firearm. I would like to point you to US v DeBerry from the 7th Circuit. In that ruling a federal judge said that a the presence of a firearm where legal to possess cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
I believe that a lot of progress has been made under your direction to restore proper and legal police work in your city. I strongly believe that through proper training incidents such as this can be avoided. My suggestion to officers responding to a legally armed man in the future is this: Attempt to initiate a consensual encounter. If the individual does not consent to a police encounter, then observe that individual until such time that the officer develops a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. Only then should a detainment be made.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to call. I am not a litigious person, but I do not appreciate violations of my rights.
Signed,
XXXXXXXXXX
Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
I guess it's that time of year again. It seems every spring I get stopped by the Portland PD.
I got video this time
I also wrote an email to the police chief:
Chief Sauschuck,
On 26MAY2012 at about 17:15 I was stopped by Officer J McDonald. I recorded a video of the stop for my protection. You can view the video at
Officer McDonald claimed to have received calls that I was walking around with a holstered firearm. This is a legal activity in Maine. He stopped me, put on gloves, and removed my weapon from me. I told him I do not consent to any searches or seizures. He unloaded my firearm and before ejecting the round from the chamber, he pointed my loaded firearm at my legs. This is unacceptable behavior.
There are many things that need to be taken into account here. Terry v Ohio requires three criteria to be met in order to disarm an individual. The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is armed. The officer must have a suspicion that the individual is dangerous. Thirdly, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime. Officer McDonald admitted in this video that the only reason he stopped me was for the legal carrying of my firearm and that he did not have any reason to suspect me of crime. Therefore, the seizure of my firearm was not allowed under Terry.
Secondly, having no suspicion of crime, why was I not free to go? Delaware v Prouse says that an officer cannot detain someone without reasonable suspicion of crime. McDonald had none. This is a sign of poor training and I want to bring it to your attention so that it can be easily remedied. All of your officers should know that they must have a suspicion of an actual crime before making a detainment.
Thirdly, Officer McDonald demanded my ID and would not return my firearm to me when I requested to end the encounter. Maine law in Title 17A Sec 15-A only requires someone to provide their name and DOB if the officer is issuing a summons to the individual. The officer said he needed to see my ID to ensure that I was not a felon. When asked if he had any reason to believe I was a felon, he said he did not. Again, he is making demands and detaining me without suspicion of any criminal activity. Terry requires more than a mere hunch to initiate a detainment. Hiibel v Nevada and Brown v Texas both require reasonable suspicion of crime before demanding an ID.
Officer McDonald admitted that the only reason why he stopped me was because of my legally carried firearm. I would like to point you to US v DeBerry from the 7th Circuit. In that ruling a federal judge said that a the presence of a firearm where legal to possess cannot by itself be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
I believe that a lot of progress has been made under your direction to restore proper and legal police work in your city. I strongly believe that through proper training incidents such as this can be avoided. My suggestion to officers responding to a legally armed man in the future is this: Attempt to initiate a consensual encounter. If the individual does not consent to a police encounter, then observe that individual until such time that the officer develops a reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot. Only then should a detainment be made.
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to call. I am not a litigious person, but I do not appreciate violations of my rights.
Signed,
XXXXXXXXXX
Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
MRHancock
New member
I have to ask. What is the big deal with giving a LOE your info if they stop you and ask for it? I am asking because I have seen a couple of different videos like this and I am really interested in the reason why.
Also if you were carrying concealed would the situation been different?
Now please do not take this the wrong way because I do not mean anything by this.
Also if you were carrying concealed would the situation been different?
Now please do not take this the wrong way because I do not mean anything by this.
USN2Pulpit
New member
Thanks, I appreciate your reply. Should I be stopped in my home state or anywhere else, I have a good amount of information to protect myself with.
I too have seen multiple video's like this, and while I'm impressed by your knowledge and I believe it is important to know, I don't understand why you do not just show the officer your ID and be done with it. All he is doing is trying to do his job. And the way I see it, I would rather have my police force error on the side of caution and check then not check. As I said I'm not condemning your actions, and I realize that what you did is legal and within your rights and the law, but the officer is just trying to do his job. He is trying to feed his family. Why not do as he kindly requested and move on. I'm just trying to understand- thanks in advance for your explanation.
MRHancock
New member
You said it better then I did. I am trying to understand the reason behind these also.
CRW
New member
Anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you in a court of law. Nothing will ever be used FOR you. I really don't blame the guy for what he did. And trust me, I do have mad respect for LEO's, I just avoid getting myself in to any kind of bind. Although, I haven't been pulled over in over 18 years
Treo
Bullet Proof
If you want to give up that information you can but no one should be forced to. The person in the video wasn’t doing anything wrong or illegal so why should he have to submit to an interrogation?
Also, as has been noted previously, the longer you talk to a cop the more likely it becomes that you will say something he can use against you. Knowing that, why would you want to continue the conversation any further than you absolutely must?
I'm still trying to understand- maybe you all can help me out.
I absolutely understand that the LEO was wrong. I too work in public safety and believe me, people inform us of our errors on a daily, if not hourly, basis. That being said, putting the fact the he was wrong aside, and bearing in mind that he was simply doing as other civilians requested, wouldn't it be easier not only for him, but also for you, to show him your ID, thus proving beyond 100% that you are doing nothing illegal? I understand the desire to correct wrong behavior, but this is a battle that has been going on for so long with regards to OC stops. Pick your battles. Like I asked, why not take the easy way out AND make yourself and the rest of us look better?
Perhaps my question is: "Do you all really think that with enough confrontations of this nature, these stops will decrease without the level of public safety decreasing as well?"
I absolutely understand that the LEO was wrong. I too work in public safety and believe me, people inform us of our errors on a daily, if not hourly, basis. That being said, putting the fact the he was wrong aside, and bearing in mind that he was simply doing as other civilians requested, wouldn't it be easier not only for him, but also for you, to show him your ID, thus proving beyond 100% that you are doing nothing illegal? I understand the desire to correct wrong behavior, but this is a battle that has been going on for so long with regards to OC stops. Pick your battles. Like I asked, why not take the easy way out AND make yourself and the rest of us look better?
Perhaps my question is: "Do you all really think that with enough confrontations of this nature, these stops will decrease without the level of public safety decreasing as well?"
jabatam
New member
I take it like this. It is the OP's, and everyone's, right to demand that the LEOs in their area act within the confines of the law. LEOs are used to overstepping their bounds because people let them. They need reminders, from time to time, of where that line is. It was the OP's right to have a lawful stop or detainment and, as we all know, if one doesn't exercise his/her rights, they risk losing them
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
DRaid48:316846 said:
Yes. We have thousands of gun laws, and they have not stopped crime. Giving up your rights, doesn't make the public any safer from crime, and even more dangerous as we become a police state.
As far as them just wanting to go home safely, why do I not get that same courtesy? Especially if I have done absolutely nothing wrong. If an officer can't trust that I am a good person, and demands ID with complete compliance, I can't trust him.
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-