Ordered to ground at gunpoint for open carrying by cleveland heights ohio police

[maybejim]

In an earlier post on this thread, I mentioned a traffic stop in CA as well as a Border Patrol check point and a second stop in TX. Point one if you are confrontational you can expect problems, LEO's have a difficult job, when they receive a call it is usually a note of a problem, they have to investigate safely and all officers wish to go home to their familys at night. A man with a gun call is just that, even in OC states, again it is knowledge that protects both them and us. Any LEO who receives a call of a man with a gun would be remiss not to investigate at a minimum. The recent Madison town call of men with guns was not taken care of in a professional manner, OC state, folks sitting minding there own business caller even stated they were not brandshing just sitting talking, police did overreact and individual who placed the call even stated (after being informed of OC) she did not have a problem, all charges were dropped except disorderly conduct (police chief). Even this could have been avoided had the Chief been aware of his States own laws (unless he has issues with enforcement of the law and not his personal issues). Peace, Knowledge, God Bless America and 2nd Amendment.

Sounds like the Chief of Police needs to be replaced, and the officers retrained or fired.

[wuzfuz]

I was a deputy sheriff in Arizona, and checked out a number of people carrying openly. Not once did I have to draw my weapon or prone somoeone out on the sidewalk. We just had a case in Pierce County, here in Washington state. Washington is an open carry state that also issues concealed pistol licenses. Starbuck's has supported the Second Amendment, and invites people to feel free to carry in their stores. A gentleman in Pierce County had been going to his local Starbuck's every day to get his latte, with his 9 mm on his hip, with no problem. This one morning, a Pierce County deputy entered the store and approached the customer and demanded to see his ID. The gentleman got his back up and refused to show the deputy his ID, as he was violating no law. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and transport him to jail. When the public was made aware of this abuse of police authority. Detective Ed Troyer, Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman stated the man was in the wrong, as the police HAD THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ANY POSSIBLE THREAT (emphasis mine). How does a citizen exercizing his constitutional rights constitute a threat? The deputy was armed as well, was HE posing a threat? In this instance, yes, as he was exceeding his authority,m harassing a citizen for nothing more than peacefully going about his business while exercizing his Second Amendment rights. What part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed ' do they fail to understand? Normally, I support the police, as I know how hard the job is, but I will not back a cowboy who has his badge tattooed on his chest.

[NavyLCDR]

I was a deputy sheriff in Arizona, and checked out a number of people carrying openly. Not once did I have to draw my weapon or prone somoeone out on the sidewalk. We just had a case in Pierce County, here in Washington state. Washington is an open carry state that also issues concealed pistol licenses. Starbuck's has supported the Second Amendment, and invites people to feel free to carry in their stores. A gentleman in Pierce County had been going to his local Starbuck's every day to get his latte, with his 9 mm on his hip, with no problem. This one morning, a Pierce County deputy entered the store and approached the customer and demanded to see his ID. The gentleman got his back up and refused to show the deputy his ID, as he was violating no law. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and transport him to jail. When the public was made aware of this abuse of police authority. Detective Ed Troyer, Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman stated the man was in the wrong, as the police HAD THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ANY POSSIBLE THREAT (emphasis mine). How does a citizen exercizing his constitutional rights constitute a threat? The deputy was armed as well, was HE posing a threat? In this instance, yes, as he was exceeding his authority,m harassing a citizen for nothing more than peacefully going about his business while exercizing his Second Amendment rights. What part of 'Shall Not Be Infringed ' do they fail to understand? Normally, I support the police, as I know how hard the job is, but I will not back a cowboy who has his badge tattooed on his chest.

wuzfuz,

Your details of the incident are a bit in error, even though your final point about the case is 100% accurate. The man, Tom Brewster, and the situation leading up to the incident were as you described. He had gone to the same Starbucks many times, LAWFULLY carrying his firearm. This particular time, one Sheriff deputy standing in line - NOT in response to any 911 call - asked Tom Brewster to show him identification because he was openly carrying a firearm - an act for which NO license or permit is required to do in Washington.

Tom refused to show ID and asked if the deputy was detaining him. The deputy replied no, he was not being detained, so Tom stated that this conversation was over. The deputy then left the store and called THREE more deputies. Tom, in the meantime, started a voice recorder that he carries with him. The four deputies returned and asked Tom to leave the store with them. Tom refused. What happened next was 6 or 8 (I don't remember which) full minutes of 4 deputies harassing Tom to show them identification even though no offense was being committed. Also note that during this entire incident, none of the deputies felt that Tom was enough of a threat to anyone to disarm him. He remained in possession of his firearm at all times.

Finally, seeing no other alternative to end the harassment, Tom showed the deputies his identification and the deputies left. Tom was never arrested nor charged with anything. In Washington there is no legal requirement to produce an identification document to law enforcement, and there is no statute that permits law enforcement to ask a person for identification without there being a cause to issue a citation to that person. The US Supreme Court has ruled that in the absence of state law, such as in Washington, that police may only require verbal identification of a subject IF they have reasonable and articulable suspicion that person has committed, is committing or about to commit a crime. The sheriff's deputies in this incident clearly and blatantly violated Tom's 4th Amendment rights.

An mp3 file of the voice recorder is posted in this thread:
Harrassed by 4 sheriffs in STARBUCKS!!

There will probably be a lawsuit filed against the Peirce County Sheriff for violating the 4th Amendment, ESPECIALLY in light of the public statement made by Ed Troyer on television that it was perfectly acceptable for law enforcement to stop whomever they desired in order to "investigate" irregardless of if that person was breaking no laws and posing no threat.

[AmericanWolf]

Whoops, Posted something in the wrong forum. :-)

[maybejim]

Seems to me that alot of open carry people try to bait the police...Why else would you carry a video camera? Yes you were right and they were wrong but in thier response they have to detain you and check you out in the course of a radio call, think of the liability if they had not...of course you probably already knew that. Carrying a video camera and taping the police and carring the law with you. And your probably the type to try to sue over it and waste more taxpayers money. JMHO

knighted4

The police have no liability to provide protection to anyone. There have been a number of cases supporting that. It seems to me it was only a couple of years ago where some women called 911 said someone had threatened that they were coming over to kill them. The police didn't show up for an hour or so and the women were dead. Court said police had no liability.

[m1gunr]

The police didn't show up for an hour or so and the women were dead. Court said police had no liability.

Warren v District of Columbia
DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

[AmericanWolf]

Having been a police officer and a sheriff's deputy I agree that police need probable cause to stop and question someone. That is of course, unless they have received a call about someone acting suspiciously or so oddly as to be a potential threat to themselves or others. However, the video you show as your evidence actually speaks volumes about you. For you example, 1) had you not been walking with the camera on your phone already recoding during your "stroll"; and 2) had you not already been giving your opening dialog BEFORE the police car even got to you; and 3) had you not had the attorney general's ruling in your pocket and 4) had you not repeatedly "warned" you officer that he was on camera then I would have agreed that you had a potential grievance with the officer. However, you did all those things which gives me probably cause to believe you were looking for provoke an incident. This would naturally lead me to wonder what else you did before began recording your walk. Based purely on your actions I suspect you did something that probably resulting in someone calling the police and reporting a suspicious person with a weapon. And, that my friend, would absolutely give the police the right stop and question you even when open carry is legal in your state as it is in my (Virginia.)

[antietam]

In your opinion as a former LEO, is probable cause easy to invent? Isn't the concept so broad and ambiguous that nearly anything can be contrived as probable cause especially when it's the LEO word against the citizen.

[Nightmare45]

Part of the problem with anti gun folks is they believe the police are there to protect "them", the laws every state in the union prevent this, they are in place after the fact to arrest and prosecute the person who killed you, speeding ticket is good example they can't issue one before the fact only after you speed. This concept fails when someone is intent on harming or robbing you, unless the officer happens to be standing next to you when this happens.

[PaxMentis]

Having been a police officer and a sheriff's deputy I agree that police need probable cause to stop and question someone. That is of course, unless they have received a call about someone acting suspiciously or so oddly as to be a potential threat to themselves or others. However, the video you show as your evidence actually speaks volumes about you. For you example, 1) had you not been walking with the camera on your phone already recoding during your "stroll"; and 2) had you not already been giving your opening dialog BEFORE the police car even got to you; and 3) had you not had the attorney general's ruling in your pocket and 4) had you not repeatedly "warned" you officer that he was on camera then I would have agreed that you had a potential grievance with the officer. However, you did all those things which gives me probably cause to believe you were looking for provoke an incident. This would naturally lead me to wonder what else you did before began recording your walk. Based purely on your actions I suspect you did something that probably resulting in someone calling the police and reporting a suspicious person with a weapon. And, that my friend, would absolutely give the police the right stop and question you even when open carry is legal in your state as it is in my (Virginia.)

If the call included information that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime likely has been or is being committed, you are correct. However, a call stating that a person is walking down the street with a gun on his or her hip does not meet that standard. The "factors" that you list as far as what would cause you to suspect a crime was committed also do not reach the standard of Reasonable Articulable Suspicion.