Had my first negetive encounter with LEO in Hendersonville ..

[GLOCKMEISTER]

So you allow them to intimidate you into cover up when no state law requires it?

The issue isn't whether the OP was OC'ing or CC'ing, the issue is that the OP was harassed by the police and may have had his rights violated. How the OP carried is not germane to the issue at hand. The police had no right to treat the OP the way they did.

And that is what lawyers are for--they make it easier to sue cities when they violate your rights and harass you. Harassment is wrong and should not be tolerated by anyone.

It wasnt Mitch's fault but now he knows open carry is just a bad Idea, unless you have time to deal with every police officer that has a legal right to ask for your carry permit then keep it hidden.

Also keep this in mind, you can carry in any safe manner that suits you... so actually you can legally walk around with the gun in your hand as long as your finger isnt on the triiger and your still legal... but I think all here would agree its not a good idea. So in short even if the law will allow you to carry openly, its proably a better idea to keep it out of sight. Sometimes its better to use common sense then pushing your limits.

[eehlert]

Local (municipal or county) agencies cannot conduct DL checkpoints. Only the THP has the statutory authority to do so. Technically, local officers can't even be present when THP conducts DL checkpoints.

State V. Hicks 2001

E

[Guest justme]

It wasnt Mitch's fault but now he knows open carry is just a bad Idea, unless you have time to deal with every police officer that has a legal right to ask for your carry permit then keep it hidden.

Also keep this in mind, you can carry in any safe manner that suits you... so actually you can legally walk around with the gun in your hand as long as your finger isnt on the triiger and your still legal... but I think all here would agree its not a good idea. So in short even if the law will allow you to carry openly, its proably a better idea to keep it out of sight. Sometimes its better to use common sense then pushing your limits.

OC'ing is not a bad idea. People just need to grow up and act like adults instead of like children.

Harassment is wrong.

[Guest LieutenantDan67]

Also keep this in mind, you can carry in any safe manner that suits you... so actually you can legally walk around with the gun in your hand as long as your finger isnt on the triiger and your still legal... but I think all here would agree its not a good idea. So in short even if the law will allow you to carry openly, its proably a better idea to keep it out of sight. Sometimes its better to use common sense then pushing your limits.

NOT that I'd do that..but couldn't that be considered 'brandishing'?

This has been a GREAT thread...very educational.

I'm going to carry my wallet opposite rear pocket when I CCW from my firearm....great tip.

None of us but the OP were attending his situation...so it's really hard to comment on this or that except for what info is provided by him.

I mean, are you a tough-looking 50+ year old guy? The only thing I don't understand from all of this are the LEO's inquiry of the OP being a 'g'. Isn't he about 25+ years over the typical age??

[eehlert]

As I said before, when the officer asked about Gang Affiliation, I HOPE he was asking Mitch because he asks everyone that he field interviews the same questions. He SHOULD do this because there will be a time when he asks someone who better fits the age range (in this case) and he can honestly testify in court that he asks everyone the same questions. So, when the wrong person wants to complain that he profiled them or otherwise violated their rights, the LEO can have a defense in that he asks everyone the "standard" field interview questions.

I would also bet that H'ville's Field Interview Form has questions on it about gang relation, tattoos, nicknames, scars, etc. He may not have asked all the questions based on answers to previous ones.

[strickj]

As I said before, when the officer asked about Gang Affiliation, I HOPE he was asking Mitch because he asks everyone that he field interviews the same questions. He SHOULD do this because there will be a time when he asks someone who better fits the age range (in this case) and he can honestly testify in court that he asks everyone the same questions. So, when the wrong person wants to complain that he profiled them or otherwise violated their rights, the LEO can have a defense in that he asks everyone the "standard" field interview questions.

I would also bet that H'ville's Field Interview Form has questions on it about gang relation, tattoos, nicknames, scars, etc. He may not have asked all the questions based on answers to previous ones.

I can understand asking that because he ask everyone that......but really,cmon!

I know he doesn't go around asking everybody if anything is hidden in their bra when their doing searches now do they?

[Guest LieutenantDan67]

Thank you Eelhert....makes sense I suppose for the sake of continuity...are gangs REALLY that big of an issue there??

I'd still kinda give a LEO of 'are you kidding' before replying 'No, I am not in a gang.' I'd probably kid around a little about that one unless the LEO(s) were really humorless for some reason.

I'm a big, white, 6'3" 280 pound 42 yr old teddy bear that seems to project an aura of approachability and friendliness, as total strangers will smile at me and start talking with me for no reason when I'm out and about. LOL

[eehlert]

I can understand asking that because he ask everyone that......but really,cmon!

I know he doesn't go around asking everybody if anything is hidden in their bra when their doing searches now do they?

Point taken...kinda. Becuase, dependant on departmental policy and the circumstances surrounding the search, every location is fair game...even bras.

I am simply trying to offer reasons why the officer asked that question, because that seems to be a point of contention for everyone here. Was it a prudent question? I don't know. I wasn't there. Is he a new officer, trying to establish his base line of questioning? I don't know. Maybe.

But unless you have ever had to go in front of a judge on a frequent basis and prosecute a case, I guess my reasoning is falling on deaf ears, but trust me, building a professional rapport with your judge is one of the most important things a LEO can do. If the judge does not support the officer's ethics, the officer might as well start looking for another city to work in.

[eehlert]

Thank you Eelhert....makes sense I suppose for the sake of continuity...are gangs REALLY that big of an issue there??

I'd still kinda give a LEO of 'are you kidding' before replying 'No, I am not in a gang.' I'd probably kid around a little about that one unless the LEO(s) were really humorless for some reason.

I do not know if gangs are a huge problem in Hendersonville, but gangs are everywhere nowadays...it just depends on to what extent they want to make themselves known.

And I agree, I do not look like I would fit in a gang and would be taken aback if asked that question....my only point is, giving the OP's physionomy that he is not the typical gang member profile, there was a reason to ask that question. I don't know what the reason was, I wasn't there...but there was a reason.

[eehlert]

NOT that I'd do that..but couldn't that be considered 'brandishing'?

This has been a GREAT thread...very educational.

I'm going to carry my wallet opposite rear pocket when I CCW from my firearm....great tip.

None of us but the OP were attending his situation...so it's really hard to comment on this or that except for what info is provided by him.

I mean, are you a tough-looking 50+ year old guy? The only thing I don't understand from all of this are the LEO's inquiry of the OP being a 'g'. Isn't he about 25+ years over the typical age??

Tennessee State Law does not address "brandishing", but yes, it could be construed as "intent to go armed", which would still apply to a HCP holder if they meant ill will.

A good thread indeed.

And another reason to carry your wallet or flashlight or keys on your support side (side opposite your weapon) is so that your strong hand is free to draw the weapon at any time and you are not hindered by having your hand in your back pocket to get your wallet or front pocket to get your keys.

[Guest LieutenantDan67]

Tennessee State Law does not address "brandishing", but yes, it could be construed as "intent to go armed", which would still apply to a HCP holder if they meant ill will.

A good thread indeed.

And another reason to carry your wallet or flashlight or keys on your support side (side opposite your weapon) is so that your strong hand is free to draw the weapon at any time and you are not hindered by having your hand in your back pocket to get your wallet or front pocket to get your keys.

Point!

[Fallguy]

As I said before, when the officer asked about Gang Affiliation, I HOPE he was asking Mitch because he asks everyone that he field interviews the same questions. He SHOULD do this because there will be a time when he asks someone who better fits the age range (in this case) and he can honestly testify in court that he asks everyone the same questions. So, when the wrong person wants to complain that he profiled them or otherwise violated their rights, the LEO can have a defense in that he asks everyone the "standard" field interview questions.

I would also bet that H'ville's Field Interview Form has questions on it about gang relation, tattoos, nicknames, scars, etc. He may not have asked all the questions based on answers to previous ones.

I hear what you are saying...and I understand. Especially if they are questions asked over everyone.

But let me ask your opinion on this....Had they asked him for his HCP first, then he produces it....wouldn't he have been (should have been) free to leave at that point?

I ask becuase it seems like I heard of a court case about a popular things some officers do...Let's say stop you for speeding...they issue the ticket...then just about when you are going to leave, they ask about searching the vehicle. It seems like I heard once the reason for the seizure was over, speeding and citation issued in this case, you are free to leave and they can't make you stay unless you do so voluntairly.

[Guest KWW67]

you still have to have a trooper on the scene when conducting a "roadblock"... right, or have they changed that recently?

A DL checkpoint/roadblock yes. A DUI or seatbelt, checkpoint, etc, no. But you can not ask for their DL unless you observe a violation. I am not familiar with state vs Hicks, 2001. After my time so apparently a stop was challenged where no case law had existed before. I will research it though.

NOW, for all this HCP stuff, I agree the officer's must respond. It just has to be and caution is the word. But once it has been established no crime has been committed and the holder is legit, it is time to thank them for their patience and apologize for their delay. I don't care how many try to justify rude behavior there is NO excuse and they should be wrote up. I am pro police obviously but citizens deserve respect period unless their actions cause you to have to take further action. The officers job is to protect and serve. If there is no threat then there is nothing to protect. The behavior I read in the OP is nothing more than being a bully. For you current LEO's in here don't tell me you have not worked with a few of these people. It is YOUR job to keep them straight because they will ruin YOUR reputation in the process. Word of advice: Every time you have interaction with a citizen, think about them being YOUR father, mother, sibling or child. I will bet you will look at and treat that person a little differently. These departments are getting a little out of hand these days. If they want to act military they should have joined, or stayed, in the Marines. Treat people with some respect. I blame the FTO's. They need to pull some of the older, seasoned officers from inside and put them back on the road where they can teach these young guys some people skills.

Edited March 31, 2009 by KWW67

[eehlert]

But let me ask your opinion on this....Had they asked him for his HCP first, then he produces it....wouldn't he have been (should have been) free to leave at that point?

I ask becuase it seems like I heard of a court case about a popular things some officers do...Let's say stop you for speeding...they issue the ticket...then just about when you are going to leave, they ask about searching the vehicle. It seems like I heard once the reason for the seizure was over, speeding and citation issued in this case, you are free to leave and they can't make you stay unless you do so voluntairly.

Well, good questions. It is a gray area as to when the encounter is actually over, e.g. when the OP was free to go. The best rule of thumb that will cause the least amount of frustration, as to when the encounter is over is when the Officer tells you its over. The gray area I am speaking of is "unreasonable seizure" or "reasonable amount of time". There is no clearly defined limit as to how long an officer can detain you for questioning other than it must be a reasonable amount of time.

I do not want to get too technical here, for those that could care less or any dirtbags that might look here for help in committing a crime. But to overgeneralize, if it takes 20 different officers 5 minutes to write a citation for speeding and it takes me 20 minutes (because I think there may be dope in the car but can't articulate why I feel this way, so I am going to call for a K9) then, my traffic stop could fail the reasonableness test, so to speak.

As far as your second question, yes there is a difference between a police seizure (pulling someone over for a traffic violation) and a voluntary encounter. Therefore, in the OP, to summarize his post as I understand it: He went into store, was made by the park ranger who in turn called for backup. The OP was then confronted by police. Their job is to ascertain if a crime has been or is being committed. Once they gathered enough facts to convince themselves that no crime was or is going to be committed, the OP should have been let go. Would the HCP have done the job...most likely, but there is nothing saying that just becuase he has an HCP that he is not wanted for another crime committed in the recent past.

As others have said, I have little regard for Officers who abuse their authority, but something else everyone needs to keep in mind is how difficult police work has become. Its no longer a matter of arriving on scene, arresting the bad guy and taking him to jail. There are so many things to take into consideration and factors to take into account and there is very little guidance on exactly how things should be done. Very few clear cut answers. So next time you see a police officer, consider how much stuff he has to take into account each and every day before he even puts on the uniform in the morning.

[eehlert]

A DL checkpoint/roadblock yes. A DUI or seatbelt, checkpoint, etc, no. But you can not ask for their DL unless you observe a violation. I am not familiar with state vs Hicks, 2001. After my time so apparently a stop was challenged where no case law had existed before. I will research it though.

NOW, for all this HCP stuff, I agree the officer's must respond. It just has to be and caution is the word. But once it has been established no crime has been committed and the holder is legit, it is time to thank them for their patience and apologize for their delay. I don't care how many try to justify rude behavior there is NO excuse and they should be wrote up. I am pro police obviously but citizens deserve respect period unless their actions cause you to have to take further action. The officers job is to protect and serve. If there is no threat then there is nothing to protect. The behavior I read in the OP is nothing more than being a bully. For you current LEO's in here don't tell me you have not worked with a few of these people. It is YOUR job to keep them straight because they will ruin YOUR reputation in the process. Word of advice: Every time you have interaction with a citizen, think about them being YOUR father, mother, sibling or child. I will bet you will look at and treat that person a little differently. These departments are getting a little out of hand these days. If they want to act military they should have joined, or stayed, in the Marines. Treat people with some respect. I blame the FTO's. They need to pull some of the older, seasoned officers from inside and put them back on the road where they can teach these young guys some people skills.

You make some very good points. I can't stand the new-Rambo-officers. In a way, being overly gung ho can be advantageous. It tends to expose the new officer to a lot of things that may take years to experience. However, there is a fine line between being aggressive and being abusive.

You bring up FTO's. I count myself fortunate to have experienced, what I feel to be, the best FTO training. I started my career as a Park Ranger. I enjoyed the LE aspect of protecting the visitors and natural resources, but as citations and arrests were to be only used as a last resort, I gained the ability to talk to people and the ability to hopefully alter their wrong behavior, just by pointing it out and letting them know why their behavior needs to change. Granted, some people absolutely need to be arrested or cited, but the majority of people can be converted through education.

[Guest slothful1]

Their job is to ascertain if a crime has been or is being committed. Once they gathered enough facts to convince themselves that no crime was or is going to be committed, the OP should have been let go. Would the HCP have done the job...most likely, but there is nothing saying that just becuase he has an HCP that he is not wanted for another crime committed in the recent past.

I find this statement disturbing. Of course an HCP doesn't prove that the OP has never committed any other crime, but it certainly does prove that he wasn't violating the law by carrying, and that was the only thing that caused the encounter in the first place. You could just as easily say that all the other people leaving that store could hypothetically be "wanted for another crime committed in the recent past" but they will presumably not be accosted by LEOs in the absence of any evidence of a crime. Where's the authority for this fishing expedition?

[eehlert]

I find this statement disturbing. Of course an HCP doesn't prove that the OP has never committed any other crime, but it certainly does prove that he wasn't violating the law by carrying, and that was the only thing that caused the encounter in the first place. You could just as easily say that all the other people leaving that store could hypothetically be "wanted for another crime committed in the recent past" but they will presumably not be accosted by LEOs in the absence of any evidence of a crime. Where's the authority for this fishing expedition?

If you would be so kind to re-read my post, I prefaced my statements by saying that I am 'overgeneralizing". I simply cannot reference every situation and more importantly, I was not at the scene and therefore will not MMQB. I was answering another poster's questions and using an example. And, if memory serves I believe I also stated the following:

"Once they gathered enough facts to convince themselves that no crime was or is going to be committed, the OP should have been let go."

I apologize if I was too vague, however, my point was, in response to the original question, that the LEO's responded to a call of "man with a gun", upon arrival and recieving HCP from the holder, a possible next course of action for the LEO's would be to run the HCP to see if it is valid, thus further detaining the HCP holder. They (HCP Holder) would continue to be detained whilst HCP is being run through dispatch. It does not have to be taken at face value and is well within the rights of the LEO to run the HCP. Hope this explanation and re-reading my original post clears things up. Yes, the original call was "man with a gun", but that could have lead to further criminal behavior, HCP or not. Your post sounds as though if someone is stopped for speeding, than a speeding citation is all that should happen to them. I am sure glad that theory didn't hold true with Timothy Mcveigh.

Edited March 31, 2009 by eehlert
Grammar and Further Thought

[Punisher84]

I apologize if I was too vague,

You weren't vague. Actually your posts have been some of the best I've read in a LONG time. The problem is that there are a few members here that have nothing better to do than whine and bitch about the cops.

Luckily it's a small group, but you will get used to a few that will blame you for everything and curse you as the son of Satan because you carry a badge.

Welcome to TGO

[Fallguy]

You weren't vague. Actually your posts have been some of the best I've read in a LONG time. The problem is that there are a few members here that have nothing better to do than whine and bitch about the cops.

Luckily it's a small group, but you will get used to a few that will blame you for everything and curse you as the son of Satan because you carry a badge.

Welcome to TGO

I didn't think I was that bad......

...and I agree, VERY good post.

[Punisher84]

I didn't think I was that bad......

...and I agree, VERY good post.

Not you goofy! You at least make a valid point when you disagree with something instead of just pooping your pants and yelling "I hate da po-po!"

Well, you may do that, I can't tell what you're doing as you type

[Guest justme]

A DL checkpoint/roadblock yes. A DUI or seatbelt, checkpoint, etc, no. But you can not ask for their DL unless you observe a violation. I am not familiar with state vs Hicks, 2001. After my time so apparently a stop was challenged where no case law had existed before. I will research it though.

NOW, for all this HCP stuff, I agree the officer's must respond. It just has to be and caution is the word. But once it has been established no crime has been committed and the holder is legit, it is time to thank them for their patience and apologize for their delay. I don't care how many try to justify rude behavior there is NO excuse and they should be wrote up. I am pro police obviously but citizens deserve respect period unless their actions cause you to have to take further action. The officers job is to protect and serve. If there is no threat then there is nothing to protect. The behavior I read in the OP is nothing more than being a bully. For you current LEO's in here don't tell me you have not worked with a few of these people. It is YOUR job to keep them straight because they will ruin YOUR reputation in the process. Word of advice: Every time you have interaction with a citizen, think about them being YOUR father, mother, sibling or child. I will bet you will look at and treat that person a little differently. These departments are getting a little out of hand these days. If they want to act military they should have joined, or stayed, in the Marines. Treat people with some respect. I blame the FTO's. They need to pull some of the older, seasoned officers from inside and put them back on the road where they can teach these young guys some people skills.

Well said, I absolutely agree 100% with this.

KWW67 are you currently a LEO?

[eehlert]

You weren't vague. Actually your posts have been some of the best I've read in a LONG time. The problem is that there are a few members here that have nothing better to do than whine and bitch about the cops.

Luckily it's a small group, but you will get used to a few that will blame you for everything and curse you as the son of Satan because you carry a badge.

Welcome to TGO

Thank you for appreciating my thoughts and comments and thanks for the welcome. I have enjoyed my short tour here.

And believe me, I know all about those who curse the police. And to some extant the complaints are valid, I will be the first to admit. Every profession has bad apples and people who are unprofessional. And every profession gets the broad stroke because of those few bad apples. Nothing new there. The unfortunate part is that some of those bad apples really aren't that bad. Like I said in an earlier post, being a LEO is one of the most complicated jobs to be had. And many times, those bad apples are dubbed "bad" by people that don't really understand the intricacies and complexities of enforcing the law. There is so much to take into consideration when fulfilling the role of LEO, that the badge bearers are going to make mistakes and it is so easy to MMQB them instead of looking at the big picture.

[Guest KWW67]

Well said, I absolutely agree 100% with this.

KWW67 are you currently a LEO?

I left in 1998 after my retirement locked. My son-in-law is still working. I get on him pretty hard too. Everyone you encounter did NOT just rob suntrust!!!!! Times have SURE changed. Back before we ever thought about permits, some were given at the local level, everybody with a gun went to jail. Period. People we have it pretty good today. Not where we want it to be, but better. But to those officers who are still working, stop screwing with the public. If they have a permit, let them go and apologize for their delay. I know how you are feeling sometimes. You get caught up in the moment, it's fun and you look good in front of the plate glass window, but for every bad word and/or action you have with the public it will take 10 to correct it. MOST true if you ever encounter someone in front of their family. Give the man some sense of pride. I could rant for days. There are GREAT officers out there. Just a very few bad. BUT the bad drags the good down. Like I said before, you guys police yourself and jerk the yahoo's back in line and tell them to stop that sh*%. They are hurting you too. No matter how nice you try to be to someone, they will not respect you b/c your third shift renegade has already treated them like garbage. You fella's better listen to me on this one. I am dead serious. MY poor son in law hates to engage me on this stuff. But I love him and want him to make the right decisions and stay out of federal court. He has my daughter and grand-daughter to support. But most important, he has his reputaion to uphold.

[deerslayer]

You can refuse to give it all you want. When your DL or HCP are ran through NCIC/TCIC, same number by the way, it has your SSN listed in the info. Its an identifier, to make sure you are who you say you are. If someone hesitates on their SSN, DOB, or anything else; its an indicator that they may be lying or using false or stolen ID.

If you pull me over and I am hesitant to give you my SSN, it's shouldn't be an indicator that I'm a liar; it's merely an indicator that I'm hesitant to give you my SSN. I won't give mine to an LEO; if he can find it by running my license, then it's pointless to ask for it anyway. Lots of folks are hesitant to give out their SSNs to strangers, LEO or not. Obviously, if someone stutters when giving his name or address, something may be up, but people are especially sensitive about SSNs, and LEOs should not get offended if motorists don't want to reveal them.

Edited April 1, 2009 by deerslayer

[Guest JLowe]

If you pull me over and I am hesitant to give you my SSN, it's shouldn't be an indicator that I'm a liar; it's merely an indicator that I'm hesitant to give you my SSN. I won't give mine to an LEO; if he can find it by running my license, then it's pointless to ask for it anyway. Lots of folks are hesitant to give out their SSNs to strangers, LEO or not. Obviously, if someone stutters when giving his name or address, something may be up, but people are especially sensitive about SSNs, and LEOs should not get offended if motorists don't want to reveal them.

Sorry, but it is an indicator. I don't know how long you've been attempting to catch criminals and how many times people have given you false information, but as I've learned and have been taught in several different schools it is a sign of deception. But not solely one that do I determine whether or not someone is being deceptive. Its a Identifier that the person I am dealing with at that time is who they say they are. Amazingly enough, not everyone carries ID these day, and most of the time its because they have something to hide. One of the reasons we ask for SSNs is because its a long number and its hard to memorize a false one. You don't know how many criminals I have taken off the street when they give a "proper" false name and DOB, but a SSN that does not match. You seem to think that every LEO out there is going to go out and steal your identity, well, your wrong. I have been to several Criminal Interdiction schools, and Interview and Interrogation schools as well. During these schools, we are taught the dynamics and physiological responses of persons under stress and attempting to deceive. I use these techniques in my job everyday to catch as many criminals as I can. These techniques allow me and my fellow LEO's to keep you and yours a little safer. You can agree or not, but I understand why the questions were asked of the OP. We deal with criminals on a daily basis who lie to us, and some of them are very adept at it and its the little things that give them away. Those little things add up, and thats how officers catch people like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph (who was caught be a rookie who had just graduated from the academy and added up the indicators into something quite large). Amazingly enough, there is a method to the madness.

Fallguy,

You are right about the attitude thing, I was just venting a little. I attempt to treat every person I come across with respect and according to how they are acting at the moment. But what I said was still true. They can exercise all of the attitude they want and its not against department policy or law or a violation of a persons civil rights. Should they, no, but in truth its up to them to decide what they can sleep with at night.

KWW67,

Thank you for your years, you seems to be a wise veteran who knows alot about community policing. But, in the last 11 years alot has changed, especially after 9/11. We have to dig a little deeper into things than before, "Saw drunk, arrested same" no longer applies. I personally hate where the trend is going and fear where I think that its headed. I long for the days when I was a rookie, coincidentally, the year you retired. I was taught by some great veterans when I was coming up and was very fortunate. These days I see some of these new guys and wonder WTF? Where did they find this f*cking moron at and how did he get a badge and a gun? But alas, I realize that its different now, officers are getting violently assaulted more and more and the trend is increasing. So these new guys are taught that everyone, and I mean everyone, is looking to kill you. It starts in the academies and continues from there. Trends are changing, back in the 70's the first SWAT teams were formed and were very militaristic in nature with the shoot first, second, third, and last attitude. In the 80's came "Community Policing" which carried through the 90's, a kinder gentler police department. Now it seems to be somewhere in between. Also, you know how the young ones are always trying to prove their selves to the grown folk.

Edited April 1, 2009 by JLowe