Positive encounter with police at bank today

[hammer826]

For some time now, the bank my church does business with has been having one of our local LEO on special duty at random times. They are in their uniform, but I assume they are working in the capacity of private security. I haven't asked. I almost exclusively open carry, but have never had one of them say anything to me about it, although they do eyeball me pretty heavy. The tellers tell me that they usually will ask them about me after I leave.

Today as I was going in, I saw a friend leaving and as we were talking, he said that the LEO was eyeballing my friends heart monitor that he wears with a wire sticking out and running into his shirt. After he mentioned it, it does look kind of suspicious.

While we were talking, the LEO could see through the two sets of doors that I was carrying (S&W M&P .40 in a Blackhawk CQC holster). As I entered the first set of doors, the LEO came into the foyer, smiled at me and said "Please tell me you are a police officer"

I said "No, just a citizen exercising my right to carry."

He said he didn't know if the bank had a problem with that and I informed him that they must not as I am in there every week and nobody has had a problem yet.

He said Ok and let me proceed.

I told him that I go to church with one of the detectives and made some small talk with him before I went to the teller. He asked my name but did not ask for ID or if I have a CCW permit, which I probably would have declined to produce as I assume he is private security at this point. I told him he was the first one to ever confront me in the bank and he was very suprised at that.

He did not appear to be worried or agitated, just assessing the situation. It was a very polite interaction, and I didn't feel he overstepped his bounds in any way. I think both of us handled ourselves well, and if I ever see him in public as an LEO, hopefully he'll remember that I was courteous to him as he was to me.

 

[amsgator]

Good thing he didn't ask because things may have turned out differently. Had he asked, you would have had to produce it (assuming your state law requires you to have a permit to OC). LEOs are never "off duty" and ALWAYS have the authority to investigate if a crime is in progress regardless of whether or not they are on their 8/10/12 hour shift. Just because he/she is hired by a private company does not mean they are only private security; LEOs are LEOs 24/7/365 even when in plain clothes at the grocery store shopping for their groceries. Guess it's a good thing he didn't ask.

 

[CapGun]

Looks like the OP might be from Pa. since he lists Lancaster as his location. Maybe there are other states with a Lancaster.
Anyway OC is ok without a permit in Pa. If that same LEO saw the OP getting out of or into his car he might ask to see the OP's CCP.
He would be considered concealed carry while in the car.

 

[hammer826]

I am in Ohio and OC is legal in Oh without a permit. I do need a CCW permit to carry loaded in my vehicle. And no crime was in progress, so there wouldn't be anything to investigate.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Good thing he didn't ask because things may have turned out differently. Had he asked, you would have had to produce it (assuming your state law requires you to have a permit to OC). LEOs are never "off duty" and ALWAYS have the authority to investigate if a crime is in progress regardless of whether or not they are on their 8/10/12 hour shift. Just because he/she is hired by a private company does not mean they are only private security; LEOs are LEOs 24/7/365 even when in plain clothes at the grocery store shopping for their groceries. Guess it's a good thing he didn't ask.

In most states, if not maybe all, your statement is incorrect. Your statement would only be correct in a state that required a permit to open carry AND that also required such a permit to be displayed to a police officer upon demand for any reason.

Under Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may only officially detain a person if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, about to be committed, or has been committed. The mere act of lawfully carrying a firearm is NOT RAS of a crime, regardless of whether or not a permit is required to carry that firearm.

In a state that requires a permit to open carry, but does not require that person to display their license upon demand for any reason, the mere fact that an officer sees a person open carrying does not give them the authority to require anything from that person, just like an officer seing a person driving a car does not give them the authority to stop that single person to check for a license merely because they are driving.

In a state that does not require a permit to open carry, there is even less authority of an officer to stop and ask for identification or a permit due only to the lawful carrying of a firearm.

I am in Ohio and OC is legal in Oh without a permit. I do need a CCW permit to carry loaded in my vehicle. And no crime was in progress, so there wouldn't be anything to investigate.

Nor any authority for an officer to stop you and require anything of you.

 

[amsgator]

You are missing one critical portion of the Terry v. Ohio ruling in that analysis. Terry v. Ohio allows an officer to conduct a "Terry stop/frisk" when there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed. Unlawful (until dispelled) carrying of a firearm meets the "criminal" portion of the ruling and the nature of a firearm meets the "armed" portion. Driving a car with no license in no way lends itself to being armed in and of itself; a pistol strapped on obviously does.

There is also a distinguishable between DWLSR (a misdemeanor) and unlawful carrying of a firearm (felony). Anytime a LEO contacts anyone who is armed (felony in progress if not permitted, at least down here in FL), it's standard procedure to see if they have a permit.

Seeing someone drive is not reasonable suspicion either as a GREAT majority of people have a license to drive. People with permits to carry a firearm are a minority, and therefore the concern moves to becoming reasonable. The whole point of the Terry stop is to briefly and quickly give the person an opportunity to dispel the concern. If the concern can be dispelled the person has to be let go immediately as there is no longer any reason to seize them. It's going to ultimately be up to your state's courts.

The fact that OPs state doesn't require a permit for OC would make the initial concern of being asked irrelevant unless he saw OP get out of his car.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You are missing one critical portion of the Terry v. Ohio ruling in that analysis. Terry v. Ohio allows an officer to conduct a "Terry stop" when there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed. Unlawful (until dispelled) carrying of a firearm meets the "criminal" portion of the ruling and the nature of a firearm meets the "armed" portion. Driving a car with no license in no way lends itself to being armed in and of itself; a pistol strapped on obviously does.

There is also a distinguishable between DWLSR (a misdemeanor) and unlawful carrying of a firearm (felony). Anytime a LEO contacts anyone who is armed (felony in progress if not permitted, at least down here in FL), it's standard procedure, and has been upheld, to see if they have a permit. The fact that OPs state doesn't require a permit for OC would make the initial concern of being asked irrelevant unless he saw OP get out of his car.

I would suggest you read the following article:

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

The act of engaging in a legal activity, even if that activity requires a permit, in no way authorizes a police officer to detain a person and require anything of that person only because they are engaging in the activity which requires a permit. Even if that activity happens to be carrying a firearm in a lawful manner. Unless state law expressly requires a person to produce the permit upon demand for any reason.

 

[amsgator]

"Mere possession may not be sufficient to authorize police action, but in circumstances where the gun presents an imminent threat because of shots just fired, or likely to be fired, and thereby presents a "suggestion of threats of violence, acts of violence, impending criminal activity, or concern for public safety," a court is likely to find there was reasonable suspicion for a threshold inquiry.4 "

Is in Massachusetts, no Supreme Court ruling, I am not in Mass nor is OP. Like I said, it rests with the states. Additionally, see below

"More recently though, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. The Court declined to adopt the "firearms exception" to Terry's requirement of reasonable suspicion.6"

This is in Florida, however it deals with anonymous tips. A LEO seeing a gun himself is not an anonymous tip.

"Clearly, not every report of a citizen is worthy of belief or sufficient to justify a response by an officer. A caller could, for example, intend merely to harass someone by making an anonymous call to police and claiming someone had a gun hidden in his or her vehicle or on his or her person."

That entire article deals with the police receiving a report and the reliability of said report calling into question the reasonableness of the suspicion. This is not the police receiving the report nor concealed, it is the police seeing it himself.

 

[amsgator]

I understand where you are coming from and the reasoning, I just know it doesn't fly down here. If someone walks by a cop with a gun and decides to rob the bank, all hell will break loose because the cop didn't stop the guy to investigate and the public will have his job. At the same time, someone who is lawfully carrying should not have to be bothered and stopped when they are doing nothing wrong. That's why judges get paid more than me to pick their brains over it.

 

[Axeanda45]

amsgator.... Is it ok in your state for a cop to stop you for breaking NO TRAFFIC LAWS (while driving a vehicle) just to see if you have a drivers license?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Axeanda45,

There's a couple of things you must realize here. First, in his posting about Terry v. Ohio, amsgator left out two key words.

You are missing one critical portion of the Terry v. Ohio ruling in that analysis. Terry v. Ohio allows an officer to conduct a "Terry stop/frisk" when there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed.

The two words that amsgator left out are "and dangerous" as in "armed and dangerous".

Now, in Florida, that really doesn't change anything because in Florida a person who is armed is automatically considered dangerous. In 1987-88 the Police Chiefs Association of Florida opposed licensed concealed carry in Florida.

Link Removed

Both the PCA and the Florida Sheriff's Association opposed open carry this year. Apparently the police in Florida would rather people hid their firearms from them, rather than knowing who is armed.

The Glass House of Florida Law Enforcement : Liberty Underground

They are so afraid at the sight of a firearm in Florida that it was like pulling teeth just to make it not a crime to accidentally display a hint of a firearm in Florida. Up until this year, a person who simply bent over to pick something up and accidentally let the handgrip of his firearm peek out from under his shirt could legally be pounced upon by Florida law enforcement like he was Jesse James.

In Florida you have to remember that:

If someone walks by a cop with a gun and decides to rob the bank, all hell will break loose because the cop didn't stop the guy to investigate and the public will have his job.

is a true statement because, in Florida, it is pretty much illegal to walk by a cop with a visible gun, even though it would be perfectly legal to do so in 43 states, and in most of those states you would get a nod of approval from the officer for doing so (carrying the firearm...not robbing a bank!)

And that's what amsgator failed to take into account. Most of the rest of the United States do not have the oppressive firearms carry laws that Florida does. In most of the rest of the United States the sight of a handgun carried in a holster does not cause the legislature, police and a major portion of the general populace to suffer a sudden and acute case of loss of bladder control.

That being the case, in most of the United States, if a police officer were to detain an individual for no other reason than they were carrying a visible firearm, whether or not a permit was required to carry that firearm, the police officer would be committing a crime and would be violating the 4th Amendment rights of the citizen, because absent any other indications the police officer would have no reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed. Florida, unfortunately, is not like most of the rest of the United States.

The challenge for us in the rest of the United States is that we need to be careful to ensure that the idea that carrying a visible firearm is somehow suspicious remains confined to state like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and Illinois.

 

[amsgator]

amsgator.... Is it ok in your state for a cop to stop you for breaking NO TRAFFIC LAWS (while driving a vehicle) just to see if you have a drivers license?

Just about. If the registered owner's DL is suspended it's PC to stop the vehicle.

 

[amsgator]

As long as the "ripe" retiring citizens of this great country keep flocking from y'alls state(s) to Florida I don't think y'all will have an issue with the mindset leaving here and moving there.

 

[NavyLCDR]

As long as the "ripe" retiring citizens of this great country keep flocking from y'alls state(s) to Florida I don't think y'all will have an issue with the mindset leaving here and moving there.

I hope I never get too old and/or senile to roll over and hand my rights to the government.

 

[ccwaz]

Why the fuss?

I fail to understand the fear of showing ID or permit when asked by legitimate authority. We are not as yet in an adversarial relationship with Law Enforcement in this country, are we? Unless you are part of the criminal element, that is...

Unless you are a cop, you probably won't know how many times the store or bank where you are shopping has been robbed in the last month, or the fact that somebody just hit a convenience store two blocks away and drove away in a car that looks just like yours. That cop's main concern is to go home at the end of his shift. He's putting his life on the line to keep YOU safe. Give him a break and make his life easier. Smile. Show him the ID, even if it isn't required by law. Put his mind at ease. Next time he sees you, he'll know you're one of the good guys.

If you get belligerent and whine about your rights being violated, you give all of us who carry a bad name, you create resentment, and you drive a wedge between all law abiding citizens who carry to protect our families and the cops who protect us all professionally.

 

[unevrno]

How bout we close this by agreeing that it's never a good idea to argue with a LEO, regardless of the issue.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I fail to understand the fear of showing ID or permit when asked by legitimate authority. We are not as yet in an adversarial relationship with Law Enforcement in this country, are we? Unless you are part of the criminal element, that is...

Unless you are a cop, you probably won't know how many times the store or bank where you are shopping has been robbed in the last month, or the fact that somebody just hit a convenience store two blocks away and drove away in a car that looks just like yours. That cop's main concern is to go home at the end of his shift. He's putting his life on the line to keep YOU safe. Give him a break and make his life easier. Smile. Show him the ID, even if it isn't required by law. Put his mind at ease. Next time he sees you, he'll know you're one of the good guys.

Garbage collectors, fishermen and farmers die on the job more frequently than cops do. So go ahead and show your ID and CPL to them because they just want to go home at the end of the day. They put their life on the line to keep us safe and healthy by taking away our garbage and providing us with food and other products. I fail to see how showing my CPL and ID to a police officer is going to help them go home at the day.

I, myself, would like to go home at the end of the day, unmolested by police "investigating" perfectly legal behavior. How hard is it for a police officer to respond to a 911 MWAG call, observe a person doing nothing other than shopping or eating dinner, and sign off the call, "Subject observed, no suspicious behavior noted"? To some of us our 4th Amendment rights are just as important, if not more important, than our 2nd Amendment rights are. If you are going to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights by carrying a firearm for protection from criminals, than why not exercise your 4th Amendment rights as well for protection from the government and government officials/employees?

The reason it is a big deal is because if everyone allows police to overstep their bounds of authority, then the police will only continue to do so, overstepping their bounds of authority one more step further each time. We, as citizens, are expected to follow the law...why is it such a "crime" to expect that police officers follow the bounds set forth in law as well?

If you get belligerent and whine about your rights being violated, you give all of us who carry a bad name, you create resentment, and you drive a wedge between all law abiding citizens who carry to protect our families and the cops who protect us all professionally.

I absolutely agree with you. That's why I won't get belligerent and whine about my rights being violated. What I will do is NOT waive my rights just because a person with a uniform and a badge asks me to waive my rights.

How bout we close this by agreeing that it's never a good idea to argue with a LEO, regardless of the issue.

I agree with that as well. I won't argue with the LEO. I will ask if I am being detained or not. If I am not being detained, under most circumstances I will simply choose to end the voluntary encounter. I have no desire to discuss my identity or any permits I might or might not have with a perfect stranger just because they are wearing a uniform and a badge. After I ascertain from the officer directly and clearly that I am being detained, then I will comply with the officer's demands, and then require that officer to explain to a judge in court what his/her justification was for detaining me.

To me, that's just common sense.

 

[OpenCarryYes]

Axeanda45,

There's a couple of things you must realize here. First, in his posting about Terry v. Ohio, amsgator left out two key words.



The two words that amsgator left out are "and dangerous" as in "armed and dangerous".

Now, in Florida, that really doesn't change anything because in Florida a person who is armed is automatically considered dangerous. In 1987-88 the Police Chiefs Association of Florida opposed licensed concealed carry in Florida.

Link Removed

Both the PCA and the Florida Sheriff's Association opposed open carry this year. Apparently the police in Florida would rather people hid their firearms from them, rather than knowing who is armed.

The Glass House of Florida Law Enforcement : Liberty Underground

They are so afraid at the sight of a firearm in Florida that it was like pulling teeth just to make it not a crime to accidentally display a hint of a firearm in Florida. Up until this year, a person who simply bent over to pick something up and accidentally let the handgrip of his firearm peek out from under his shirt could legally be pounced upon by Florida law enforcement like he was Jesse James.

In Florida you have to remember that:

is a true statement because, in Florida, it is pretty much illegal to walk by a cop with a visible gun, even though it would be perfectly legal to do so in 43 states, and in most of those states you would get a nod of approval from the officer for doing so (carrying the firearm...not robbing a bank!)

And that's what amsgator failed to take into account. Most of the rest of the United States do not have the oppressive firearms carry laws that Florida does. In most of the rest of the United States the sight of a handgun carried in a holster does not cause the legislature, police and a major portion of the general populace to suffer a sudden and acute case of loss of bladder control.

That being the case, in most of the United States, if a police officer were to detain an individual for no other reason than they were carrying a visible firearm, whether or not a permit was required to carry that firearm, the police officer would be committing a crime and would be violating the 4th Amendment rights of the citizen, because absent any other indications the police officer would have no reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed. Florida, unfortunately, is not like most of the rest of the United States.

The challenge for us in the rest of the United States is that we need to be careful to ensure that the idea that carrying a visible firearm is somehow suspicious remains confined to state like Florida, Texas, Oklahoma and Illinois.

I can add Connecticut and Mass to the list of states with oppressive firearms laws.

 

[amsgator]

Garbage collectors, fishermen and farmers die on the job more frequently than cops do.

Yea, and more cops get killed than military troops (number serving/number killed). So using this logic I guess it's about time to have a movement to stop supporting our troops and begin supporting our garbage men, fishermen, and farmers. After all, none of the troops EVER break any laws or commit war crimes.

 

[pfflyer]

not police officer

well the rent a guard is not a police officer, just a security officer, quite a difference there! but glad you had a good encounter anyways!! just incase anyone out here had not heard , calif is now a not legal open carry, unloaded gun state, use to be alright to open carry a UN loaded pistol but as of a few weeks ago, no more!! no biggie i guess, except us loosing another right.but hey this is calif!! we don't got no rights!!! unless your a criminal, illegal mexican or gay.. but a law abiding citizen? no so much anymore!! and getting worse all the time!!