Question about open carry and probable cause for police questioning.

[NickB]

Nick,

As I'm sure you know, laws vary greatly from state to state. I won't pretend I know anything about Colorado law, but if you go to http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum13 you can likely find others with similar experiences, advice on finding local lawyers (if desired), etc.

Mark

Thanks Mark, I'll check them out. A lawyer isn't needed in this situation, thankfully - I just found it interesting. I open carry to snag lunch or coffee on my way to the range from time to time, always without incident. If it could turn into a legal issue for me, I'll simply stop.

[NickB]

The officers were responding to a complaint about a suspicious person call. It sounds like they did a consensual encounter and asked questions.

I think your friend should heed their advice, or he will not wind up as a LEO.

Not a friend - I've only met the guy once. Why do you think he won't end up as a LEO? Word travels fast within departments, but do you honestly think an incident like this is enough to justify torpedoing him with other departments? I think that may have been a pretty empty threat considering no law was broken, and no citation was issued.

[Patrick Aherne]

Around here, if you act like an ass, word travels. All it takes is one call to your background investigator that you failed the attitude test on a contact with an officer and you're toast, depending on the officer making the call.

[NickB]

Around here, if you act like an ass, word travels. All it takes is one call to your background investigator that you failed the attitude test on a contact with an officer and you're toast, depending on the officer making the call.

I've got to claim ignorance on this - how would they have a record of this? When they called in his information, is there a record of that? Is there a record of cooperative/uncooperative? I was under the assumption there was not... Even still, he had no attitude - just politics that differ from the officer's. He's had the opposite experience before, too, when officers tell him they wish more people carried.

[BarryP]

I know this is a stretch, but that is almost like me calling 911 and reporting that another driver is doing nothing wrong, but he's making me nervous.

That is the example I was thinking of. Should I call 911 everytime someone in a 6000 pound SUV or pickup tailgates me or drives like a maniac? That in reality is probably alot more dangerous than someone legally carrying around a gun.

[Pat_Rogers]

I've got to claim ignorance on this - how would they have a record of this? When they called in his information, is there a record of that? Is there a record of cooperative/uncooperative? I was under the assumption there was not... Even still, he had no attitude - just politics that differ from the officer's. He's had the opposite experience before, too, when officers tell him they wish more people carried.

Nick- in NYPD there was a "Stop and Frisk" form that had to be filled out anytime you stopped and frisked someone.
A person did not have to answer your questions of course, and in that case if no further action was taken the captions such as "Name" were filled with "refused".
The purpose of this form was to document an officers actions as to why they stopped who they stopped.
Factors such as time of day, location, actions of the person etc were included, to include a 911 call.
For example, a report of a prowler at a specific location would mean that someone in that vicinity might be questioned as to who he is, where he lives, why he is there.
Furtive movements, specific actions/ answers/ refucals would elevate the reasonable suspicion to a frisk- an external pat down for officer safety.
If a weapon was found, then this would satisfy the legality of the search issue.

One night my team spotted 2 people who exhibited all of the signs of someone who was looking for a vic. At one point they split up. We did too and followed them for a period of time. When we started to incur OT, we did a stop and frisk. We turned those cards in and filed the names with our data system. Both has extensive GLA/ robbery sheets.
On the next night there were two garage takedowns in close proximity. We stayed a few blocks away and saw one of the mutts stopped the night before running. Based on all of the previous info and radio 'script of perps, we stopped him.
He immediately rolled over on a major robbery/ GLA ring that resulted in multiple arrests and closed out a metric assload of cases.
So yes, these things remain on file.
If an investigator asked me about people who were in the application process and with whom i had interaction, it was simple for me to look at my memo book for the name/ date and provide him with the back story.
If the guy was not an assclown, that is what we gave to the investigator. If he was rude, belligerent, stupid or such, that is what we gave to the investigator.
If he was arrested for a misdemeanor charge that did not make him ineligible for hiring, we would be asked for our opinion as to his suitability for the job.

Things to think about when one wants to get on the soap box...
Also, you are getting the word of someone you met once and who is relating a tale to you. Red Flags Flying...

[NickB]

Nick- in NYPD there was a "Stop and Frisk" form that had to be filled out anytime you stopped and frisked someone.
A person did not have to answer your questions of course, and in that case if no further action was taken the captions such as "Name" were filled with "refused".
The purpose of this form was to document an officers actions as to why they stopped who they stopped.
Factors such as time of day, location, actions of the person etc were included, to include a 911 call.
For example, a report of a prowler at a specific location would mean that someone in that vicinity might be questioned as to who he is, where he lives, why he is there.
Furtive movements, specific actions/ answers/ refucals would elevate the reasonable suspicion to a frisk- an external pat down for officer safety.
If a weapon was found, then this would satisfy the legality of the search issue.

One night my team spotted 2 people who exhibited all of the signs of someone who was looking for a vic. At one point they split up. We did too and followed them for a period of time. When we started to incur OT, we did a stop and frisk. We turned those cards in and filed the names with our data system. Both has extensive GLA/ robbery sheets.
On the next night there were two garage takedowns in close proximity. We stayed a few blocks away and saw one of the mutts stopped the night before running. Based on all of the previous info and radio 'script of perps, we stopped him.
He immediately rolled over on a major robbery/ GLA ring that resulted in multiple arrests and closed out a metric assload of cases.
So yes, these things remain on file.
If an investigator asked me about people who were in the application process and with whom i had interaction, it was simple for me to look at my memo book for the name/ date and provide him with the back story.
If the guy was not an assclown, that is what we gave to the investigator. If he was rude, belligerent, stupid or such, that is what we gave to the investigator.
If he was arrested for a misdemeanor charge that did not make him ineligible for hiring, we would be asked for our opinion as to his suitability for the job.

Ahh, good to know - thank you, Pat. I'm really struggling with this issue precisely because of stories like yours. My father has related many of the same types of tales to me over the years from his experiences as a LEO.

On one hand, I understand the sixth sense officers develop over time about a person's character and intentions, which is why I'm OK with officers using things like jaywalking or loitering to bust the corner crack dealer. On the other, it's upsetting to me that an openly displayed firearm makes a person suspect, and that a phone call reporting nothing illegal is justification enough to question a person. Cops aren't allowed to request proof of residency from people speaking Spanish. If I pop a prescription pill in front of an officer I won't be hassled to prove the prescription is mine. This incident is nothing more than the result of open carry being sufficiently uncommon enough to cause people to take notice, IMO. Being in Boulder, Colorado certainly didn't help...

Also, you are getting the word of someone you met once and who is relating a tale to you. Red Flags Flying...

I posted this thread to satisfy my own curiosity, as this situation is something I would expect to encounter if I carried openly. I don't care to draw any more attention to myself than necessary, but the law has always fascinated me. Even for a law abiding citizen, it never hurts to know your rights.

[Pat_Rogers]

Roger Nick. As i understand it, this contact was the result of a 911 call. The cops responded and saw what they saw. They conducted a quick investigation until they were satisfied (in this instance, no crime. However, they could have collared up under different circumstances and have been proper also).

To have done otherwise could have been negligent. Under the circumstances presented, and based on my knowledge of NYS law, no problems.

Open carry is always contentious. When i was in AZ, it was common in some places but not others. Therefore, what is proper here may not be proper over there. Another way of looking at that would be over here, no 911 call. Over there, maybe several 911 calls.

I believe that open carry in certain settings is viable, but in other settings is stupid, and you are giving up a tactical advantage for no valid reason..

I don't- won't -open carry even in places where i can. Unwanted attention, no matter if you are right or wrong, can have unintended consequences from a number of different corners.

[Dport]

I remember talking to some Columbia, Missouri police officers about this very subject. This was during a police academy and they were guest instructors, a Capt and a Sgt IIRC.

Anyway, their read on it was that while it was legal in Missouri to carry openly, if you caused a disturbance they would arrest you for disturbing the peace. (To be honest I don't remember the exact charge, and I believe it was specific to that city rather than the state at large.)

The lesson from that was carry concealed where it is legal, and open carry only when it's socially appropriate. Columbia Missouri being a three college town, it was never socially appropriate.

[NickB]

Roger Nick. As i understand it, this contact was the result of a 911 call. The cops responded and saw what they saw. They conducted a quick investigation until they were satisfied (in this instance, no crime. However, they could have collared up under different circumstances and have been proper also).

To have done otherwise could have been negligent. Under the circumstances presented, and based on my knowledge of NYS law, no problems.

Open carry is always contentious. When i was in AZ, it was common in some places but not others. Therefore, what is proper here may not be proper over there. Another way of looking at that would be over here, no 911 call. Over there, maybe several 911 calls.

I believe that open carry in certain settings is viable, but in other settings is stupid, and you are giving up a tactical advantage for no valid reason..

I don't- won't -open carry even in places where i can. Unwanted attention, no matter if you are right or wrong, can have unintended consequences from a number of different corners.

Pat - as a LEO, would there ever be reason to cite him for something like disturbing the peace? Something else?

It is also my understanding that the stop initiated from a 911 call. What type of call warrants further investigation, and what type of call does not? This call seems to be motivated by politics and/or ignorance of the law. What if we use the same complaint scenario with a more commonplace activity? What if I call 911 and tell them I think some construction workers might be illegal? What if I report someone talking a cell phone that might be stolen, or using software that might be pirated? Those scenarios have no less legal justification for further investigation than an individual with a holstered firearm, but I bet they would be ignored as a waste of resources. My gut tells me the word "gun" changes the call priority dramatically regardless of context.