Positive encounter with police at bank today
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Positive encounter with police at bank today

  1. #1

    Positive encounter with police at bank today

    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.

  2.   
  3. #2
    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.
    NRA Certified Instructor - FL CCW/CWP Classes
    http://www.GainesvilleFirearmsTraining.com

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,558
    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.
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member
    NRA Certified RSO

  5. #4
    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.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by amsgator View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by hammer826 View Post
    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.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. #6
    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.
    NRA Certified Instructor - FL CCW/CWP Classes
    http://www.GainesvilleFirearmsTraining.com

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by amsgator View Post
    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.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  9. #8
    "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.
    NRA Certified Instructor - FL CCW/CWP Classes
    http://www.GainesvilleFirearmsTraining.com

  10. #9
    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.
    NRA Certified Instructor - FL CCW/CWP Classes
    http://www.GainesvilleFirearmsTraining.com

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    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?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast