How Officer View Open Carry

[protias]

OK, very little risk. I guess nothing is zero risk.

But if your goal is to gain experience being in uncomfortable situations with LEOs it can be very close to zero risk. You just need to de-escalate when you think its at a bad turning point.

Besides, am I on the women's home journal web site or opencarry.org?
This entire site is dedicated to supporting people doing something that is risky as far as LEOs go. If you are willing to take on the risk of OCing, then refusing to chat with a cop at a sobriety ckpoint is nothing.

I guess it has a lot to do with what state you are in. Being in the Northeast, we are a lot more questioning of police than many other states. All cops have recorders in the car that they aren't supposed to be able to access. At sobriety checkpoints there are a lot of cops around. I've never had a CT trooper get belligerent, its always been local cops.

Finally, if you are going to engage in any kind of legal civil disobedience, whether its OCing or seeking out sobriety checkpoints you are an absolute fool if you don't do it with some kind of audio and/or video recorder.

If you have an iphone or android device you can download Qik and use it as a video recorder. Qik immediately stores whatever you record up in the cloud, so even if your phone is destroyed or "lost" you still have the video up on the web.

So while zero risk may not be correct, it is much less risky than open carrying and still represents a good way to get practice dealing with LEOs. If you are still concerned about risk, I'd choose to not OC while refusing to cooperate with cops at a checkpoint.

Some of us do not have the option to conceal and some refuse to pay a tax for right to conceal.

 

[dcmdon]

Thats nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with my point, which is that practicing on sobriety checkpoints is a relatively "safer" way to practice engaging LEOs if you are nervous about that.

 

[Motofixxer]

For clarification here are the legal definitions:

DETAIN: To retain as the possession of personalty. First Nat. Bank v. Yocom, 96 Or. 438, 189 P. 220, 221. To arrest, to check, to delay, to hinder, to hold, or keep in custody, to retard, to re strain from proceeding, to stay, to stop. People v. Smith, 17 Cal.App.2d 468, 62 P.2d 436, 438. (Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 535)

ARREST: To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. Ex parte Sherwood, 29 Tex.App. 334, 15 S.W. 812. Physical seizure of person by arresting officer or submission to officer's authority and control is necessary to constitute an "arrest." Thompson v. Boston Pub. Co., 285 Mass. 344, 189 N.E. 210, 213. It is a restraints however slight, on another's liberty to come and go. Turney v. Rhodes, 42 Ga.App. 104, 155 S.E. 112. It is the taking, seizing or detaining the person of another, touching or putting hands upon him in the execution of process, or any act indicating an intention to arrest. U. S. v. Benner, Bald. 234, 239, Fed.Cas.No.14,568; State v. District Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. in and for Cascade County, 70 Mont. 378, 225 P. 1000, 1001; Hoppes v. State, 105 P.2d 433, 439, 70 Okl.Cr. 179.(Blacks Law 4th Ed, Pg 140)

 

[hermannr]

Any random checkpoint be it for seatbelts, drugs, alcohol or anything else is illegal. 4th ammendment.

 

[dcmdon]

Any random checkpoint be it for seatbelts, drugs, alcohol or anything else is illegal. 4th ammendment.

Thats very quaint.

In my state, Connecticut, this went up to the state supreme court. They found that provided the contact was brief and didn't delay anyone it was ok. There were conditions put on the checkpoints, the police had to publish where the checkpoints were going to be at least 3 days ahead of time.

Thats how I find them. Generally there are 3 or 4 per year within a couple of miles of my house. Lately they've been starting early, between 7 and 8. So I can go out, get my practice in and be home within 15 minutes.

Don

 

[hermannr]

Another reason I like WA state...they are very specifically illegal here. WA Constitution Article I section 7 is even more strongly worded than the US constitution's 4th ammendment.

That you state constitution/court says they are ok, is one thing, but I'll bet the question has never been taken to the Supreme Court of the US.

 

[dcmdon]

you're right. Nobody in CT has tried to see if the SCOTUS would pick it up. So for the time being, its legal.

 

[dcmdon]

Don't get all ***** on me. I'm telling you what case law is at this time in CT. I'm not advocating for this interpretation.

Which is why I like to "poke the bear" by refusing to engage in both conversation and field sobriety tests.
The law requires me to provide license, registration, and proof of insurance when requested, so he gets them.

DMV regulations specify that if I refuse a chemical sobriety test they must administratively revoke my license, so I'm very clear that I am refusing a FST, not a CST.
They know they need reasonable actionable suspicion to do a CSD, which is what the FST is for. So I've never been asked to submit to a CST.

Of course everything is being audio recorded on a handheld voice recorder and video/audio recorded via Qik and immediately saved up in the cloud on my iPhone.

Don

 

[3fgburner]

Another reason I like WA state...they are very specifically illegal here. WA Constitution Article I section 7 is even more strongly worded than the US constitution's 4th ammendment.

That you state constitution/court says they are ok, is one thing, but I'll bet the question has never been taken to the Supreme Court of the US.

Michigan v Sitz

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Don't get all ***** on me. I'm telling you what case law is at this time in CT. I'm not advocating for this interpretation.

Which is why I like to "poke the bear" by refusing to engage in both conversation and field sobriety tests.
The law requires me to provide license, registration, and proof of insurance when requested, so he gets them.

DMV regulations specify that if I refuse a chemical sobriety test they must administratively revoke my license, so I'm very clear that I am refusing a FST, not a CST.
They know they need reasonable actionable suspicion to do a CSD, which is what the FST is for. So I've never been asked to submit to a CST.

Of course everything is being audio recorded on a handheld voice recorder and video/audio recorded via Qik and immediately saved up in the cloud on my iPhone.

Don

Kudos. I applaud proactive testing of our public employees, they are running around without very many checks in my opinion. And have been known to poke the bear myself a few times. Of course the local LEO in my forum think I am being a confrontational douche bag in doing so.

If the court found that it must be brief and does not delay....well the stop how ever brief is a delay. Do they (LE) do quick non-interaction visual assessment? Looking for some obvious indications with out actually engaging the drive? You injected delay, not me. Words mean things. Just asking for clarity.

It is more examples of how they slowly chip away at our rights. It has gone from any detainment is serious to, well as long as it's brief, to they need to preemptively shoot us and we have no right to resist unlawful intrusion into our lives.....:banghead: