Positive interactions w/ Huntingdon PD

[Guest RandomHero]

Hey guys. I hope I picked the right subforum to post this in. Last night was an interesting one, and I decided to take a little time out of my saturday to write it up.

It was during some odd hours, this morning - after I got back into town from seeing the new John Dillinger movie in Jackson. I saw a friend of mine pull up to a gas station at approx. 1:30 this morning, so I pulled in beside him and he saw and met me at the door. We walked in casually talking and he pointed out that I had my kimber on me tonight. I told him I couldnt go see a movie filled w/ thompsons and colts w/ a glock on me! He went to the drink case and picked up a soda or something, and I noticed that the older cashier (black lady - for clarity) was eyeing me.

Moments later I heard "excuse me, you can't be in here with that!". I turned to face her and politely said "I didn't see a sign posted on the way in". And she retorted with "Still, we sell alcohol (read aykhol) and you can't bring that in here". I said "I'm within in the law. I'm a permit holder and am only restricted from places that serve alcohol by the drink or have posted signs. You can call the owner/manager if you'd like and see if they would prefer me leave". So she picks up the phone and starts dialing.

My guess is - either she woke the manager up and said "there's a guy in here with a gun" and he told her to call the police, or she skipped the manager all together and called the police anyway. Because minutes after she started dialing she told me she called the police, and I said "that's fine - i'm doing nothing illegal".

A minute or two past, and my friend had his drink and was ready to leave, so I walked out the door behind him to my car - we both crossed the road to the vacant "old walmart" parking lot where more of my friends were gathered around talking (typical small town). As soon as a stepped out of my car there was a squad car rolling up on my side. He said out the window "hey buddy can I talk to you for a minute", and I replied "sure officer and hung my head in his passenger side window. He said "do you have a gun on you?" to which I replied yes sir I do. At this point he got out of the car and I walked over to meet him in front of the car. He asked me what side it was on and I motioned to my strong side where I was OWB'ing a Kimber 1911 in a serpa holster. He told me he was going to disarm me for a second so we could talk and asked me to keep my hand away from my gun. I told him I understood, and I didn't mean to make him nervous. By this time - 2 other squad cars had rolled up behind him (BACKUP)... small town! Not a lot else to do that time of night, so now I had spectator officers. As well as the 10-12 person group of friends in the parking lot watching.

After pulling up on the grip one good time and nothing happening, I had to instruct him to ride the trigger gaurd to get the lock to disengage, which he did. He asked me if there was one in the chamber to which I replied "of course" - he tried to rack the slide to get the round out - to no avail, and I told him the thumb safety was on. He finally got the round out and held on to my mag and chambered round while he laid the gun in the seat of his cruiser. He told me that they'd got a call from swifty T that some guy "walked up in there with a gun on his hip", and I said yes that would be me. He asked to see my CHP and I happily obliged. He radio'd to dispatch and cleared my license and all that good mess. I told him that the folks in there must not be well informed on there rights and have the typical "guns are evil" mindset, to which he agreed and told me that the Huntingdon police force is happy for everyone that can carry to do so.

We had a good little conversation about glocks and how he's a glock guy and owns several, and the mods he's done to a model 23 he owns. I told him i've been looking into a nice IWB for my model 30 so I can more deeply conceal more often, and he mentioned it would be a good idea with all the (narrow minded) people like the ones in the gas station.

He asked the two other officers standing outside of their patrol cars behind him if they "had anything to add" - and they just kind of shrugged their shoulders as if they enjoyed the exitement at 1:30 in the morning. The officer told me to have a nice night, and kindly wait till they exit the parking lot to chamber another round. They circled and left the parking lot, and 2 of them went back up to the gas station - hopefully to inform the three sheeple behind the counter that I was completely within the boundaries of the law.

I'm impressed with the HPD officers on the clock last night, and had a positive interaction with them. If they ever see this TGO forum, i'd like them to know that

[BrasilNuts]

Why if I were you I would have.... done the exact same thing. I think the situation was handled well by everyone involved.

[Guest bkelm18]

The situation was handled very well by you and the officers. Only thing I can say is that it's not a CHP, it's a HCP.

[Guest justme]

Overall it seems like a good encounter, but I saw a couple of mistakes--one you answered their question about whether you were armed. If they knew, they would not have asked you.

Second, you were not required to even talk to them. A consensual encounter can be stopped by you at any time--if they ask if they can talk to you-- all you have to say is "I'd rather not". Now that is if you don't want to talk to them.

Third, they detained you for the purpose of the 4th Amendment. They had absolutely no reason to detain you until you answered their question about whether or not you were armed. They did not know you were armed--it could have been anyone in the group who was carrying. All they probably had was a general description, and any number of people can fit a particular description.

And finally, they cannot tell you how or when you should re-chamber a round.

while the encounter ended well--the possibility that it could have ended badly was very existent.

It would have been better in my opinion when they asked if they could speak with you and began a consensual encounter--to simply say well I'm a little occupied right now and really would rather not. That is my opinion.

What you say during a consensual encounter--whether you end it, or talk depends entirely on you. But from reading your account--they had no reason to stop you specifically--they did so in order to try and get you to talk to them in order to fish about whether you had a gun--because the fact is--they did not know and had no reason to detain you until you spoke to them.

Edited July 11, 2009 by justme

[Guest RandomHero]

Overall it seems like a good encounter, but I saw a couple of mistakes--one you answered their question about whether you were armed. If they knew, they would not have asked you.

Second, you were not required to even talk to them. A consensual encounter can be stopped by you at any time--if they ask if they can talk to you-- all you have to say is "I'd rather not". Now that is if you don't want to talk to them.

Third, they detained you for the purpose of the 4th Amendment. They had absolutely no reason to detain you until you answered their question about whether or not you were armed. They did not know you were armed--it could have been anyone in the group who was carrying. All they probably had was a general description, and any number of people can fit a particular description.

And finally, they cannot tell you how or when you should re-chamber a round.

while the encounter ended well--the possibility that it could have ended badly was very existent.

It would have been better in my opinion when they asked if they could speak with you and began a consensual encounter--to simply say well I'm a little occupied right now and really would rather not. That is my opinion.

Maybe so... i just didn't want to put myself out there as non compliant. It was plain to see I was armed if any one of the 3 officers were paying attention, considering it was outside the waistband and a full size steel 1911. If I had "preferred not to speak with them" - I believe I would have become more of a target in this small town. I'd hate to get pulled over every time I came through town for petty things such as window tint or something on my car that's against state law. There's a lot they could hastle me for if they so chose... best to make friends and not enemies.

[dralarms]

I think you did good. Some folks around here have their tin foil hats on a little to tight. Glad to know there are more good guy cops out there than most people believe

[Fallguy]

Sounds like an overall good encounter. I too hope they informed the people at the gas station that it was legal for you to be in there.

The only thing I don't like is automatically disarming you. The law does say they can disarm you, if they feel it is needed for your safety, officer safety or the safety of others. To be honest, it sounds like it was more dangerous for the LEO to be handling your weapon than it would have been for it just to stay in the holster. But anyway.....lol

I agree in principal you have no obligation to talk with LE, but I definitely don't think that would have been the way to go in this case.

It doesn't sound like he was detained...at least not in the sense of walking down the street or driving and being forced to stop. He was already stationary and was simply asked if he could speak with him.

The received a report of a MWG. Which is illegal in TN unless you have a HCP. So I really don't think they would have just drove off if he would have said he didn't want to talk to them.

[Guest justme]

Maybe so... i just didn't want to put myself out there as non compliant. It was plain to see I was armed if any one of the 3 officers were paying attention, considering it was outside the waistband and a full size steel 1911. If I had "preferred not to speak with them" - I believe I would have become more of a target in this small town. I'd hate to get pulled over every time I came through town for petty things such as window tint or something on my car that's against state law. There's a lot they could hastle me for if they so chose... best to make friends and not enemies.

Yeah, but that is why you obtain a good lawyer so that he/she can sue the officers if they do start harassing you simply because you choose to exercise your right to not speak to them if that is what you want. Just if you do choose to not speak with them in any consensual encounter-get a good digital recorder and keep it with you. Even if they stop you in a traffic stop--they cannot just arbitrarily search your vehicle--they have to have a legitimate reason based on reasonable suspicion that you have, are or are about to commit a crime and that evidence of that is in your car--at least as I understand it ..stopped for running a stop sign for example, or for having a tail light out isn't even grounds to ask if you are carrying or have a gun in the car, let alone reason enough to search it--and if they do get you out, simply lock the doors and keep the keys with you--or lock them in your car and keep a spare door key on you--and then if they ask permission to search simply refuse consent--that way if they do search anyway then you at least have them for a 4th Amendment violation--and then proceed to file a complaint with the state and with the FBI civil rights division and seek legal counsel.

As I understand it--you can voice record any public encounter in the state--such as an encounter with the police as long as you give yourself consent to be recorded--as I understand it, Tennessee is a single party consent state, meaning if you want to carry a voice recorder on you and keep it running--there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Now as I understand it, you cannot record telephone conversations without special permission from the other party--but public face to face encounters such as those you would have with a law enforcement officer as I understand it--you can record those.

Even in a non consensual encounter such as a traffic stop you can still refuse to speak with them--are there times when it might be smart to speak, yes--but just remember, anything you say can and will be used against you in court, while nothing you say can be used to help you in court. In my opinion it is best to pick and choose what questions to answer and what questions to refuse to answer.

Everyone has their own opinions--mine is to say as little as is possible and if I have an encounter--to get it on audio for my protection.

[Fallguy]

Just like I think informing or not informing and OC or CC are choices for each individual to make. I think how much, if any you choose to speak to LE is a choice.

I also feel in all three situations above there are times that maybe one choice is more preferable than the other, again for the individual to choose.

The thing I hate is when someone stresses one choice over and over and making it sound like the other is correct only .0001% of the time. I mean discussion is fine, but at some point everyone understands your position.

[Guest justme]

The only thing I don't like is automatically disarming you. The law does say they can disarm you, if they feel it is needed for your safety, officer safety or the safety of others. To be honest, it sounds like it was more dangerous for the LEO to be handling your weapon than it would have been for it just to stay in the holster. But anyway.....lol

I also dislike how they automatically disarmed him--they are only allowed to do so when they have a reasonable belief it is necessary for "officer safety"--what was the belief founded on? They deprived him of his property, even momentarily without a reason. They should not be allowed to disarm you just because they want to--they should have to have a reasonable belief about why they think you should be disarmed during the encounter, and they should have to be able to state the reason either verbally or in writing--disarming you simply because it makes them uncomfortable that you have a gun should not be a good enough reason.

It doesn't sound like he was detained...at least not in the sense of walking down the street or driving and being forced to stop. He was already stationary and was simply asked if he could speak with him.

yes, but the point I am making is that his personal freedom of movement for purposes of the 4th Amendment were restricted at the time the OP answered the question about whether he was armed and the officer made the decision to disarm and check his permit--while they have the ability under Tn. law to run the permit--it sounds like they had no idea at the time he was carrying and thus had no reason to stop him anyway.

When they proceeded with the stop, and it turned into a non consensual encounter regardless of whether he was stationary or moving--his personal freedom of movement was restricted for the purposes of the 4th Amendment.

The received a report of a MWG. Which is illegal in TN unless you have a HCP. So I really don't think they would have just drove off if he would have said he didn't want to talk to them.

yes, but the question is--did they know at the time they asked to speak with him that the OP was the person carrying a gun...if they did not know then their question really was more of a fishing expedition than anything else.

[Guest justme]

Just like I think informing or not informing and OC or CC are choices for each individual to make. I think how much, if any you choose to speak to LE is a choice.

agree fully

I also feel in all three situations above there are times that maybe one choice is more preferable than the other, again for the individual to choose.

agree fully

The thing I hate is when someone stresses one choice over and over and making it sound like the other is correct only .0001% of the time. I mean discussion is fine, but at some point everyone understands your position.

agree fully. I agree there are times when it is best to answer certain questions. I also agree that it is best at times to carefully pick and choose what you answer. It really is a personal choice that each person must make.

[Fallguy]

I also dislike how they automatically disarmed him--they are only allowed to do so when they have a reasonable belief it is necessary for "officer safety"--what was the belief founded on? They deprived him of his property, even momentarily without a reason. They should not be allowed to disarm you just because they want to--they should have to have a reasonable belief about why they think you should be disarmed during the encounter, and they should have to be able to state the reason either verbally or in writing--disarming you simply because it makes them uncomfortable that you have a gun should not be a good enough reason.

I agree it would be nice if they stated why they are disarming you, but I don't ever see them being required to unless something happens (like a ND/AD) while they are doing so and it goes to court (civil or criminal)

yes, but the point I am making is that his personal freedom of movement for purposes of the 4th Amendment were restricted at the time the OP answered the question about whether he was armed and the officer made the decision to disarm and check his permit--while they have the ability under Tn. law to run the permit--it sounds like they had no idea at the time he was carrying and thus had no reason to stop him anyway.

When they proceeded with the stop, and it turned into a non consensual encounter regardless of whether he was stationary or moving--his personal freedom of movement was restricted for the purposes of the 4th Amendment.

I get what you are saying.... and I assume you are using the term stop referring to a Terry Stop...and I agree that is more or less what it was. I also agree they had no way of knowing for sure he was the guy with the gun.

yes, but the question is--did they know at the time they asked to speak with him that the OP was the person carrying a gun...if they did not know then their question really was more of a fishing expedition than anything else.

Yep, but that is what the police do.

To be honest I am not 100% familiar with the laws of TN when it comes to cooperating with a LEO when he is investigating a complaint.

[Guest dizzielizzie]

Thanks, RandomHero, for posting your "encounter."

I think you did just fine, you were nice to the officers and humored them, knowing well all along you weren't breaking any laws.

Only thing that would make me nervous is the officer's lack of knowledge in handling your Kimber & removing it from your holster...

[JayC]

It was detainment under the law, no question of that... A friendly detainment but still detainment... Clearly the encounter as described was a Terry Stop which is a form of detainment under the law.

I think it went as well as expected... Younger permit holder, after midnight doesn't surprise me the police responded the way they did.

Mu only suggestion would be next time not to put ideas in their head about calling the manager to have you kicked out... I'd just inform them you are legally carrying under state law, and leave it at that...

No sense in giving them any ideas on how to kick you out of the business...

Sounds like an overall good encounter. I too hope they informed the people at the gas station that it was legal for you to be in there.

The only thing I don't like is automatically disarming you. The law does say they can disarm you, if they feel it is needed for your safety, officer safety or the safety of others. To be honest, it sounds like it was more dangerous for the LEO to be handling your weapon than it would have been for it just to stay in the holster. But anyway.....lol

I agree in principal you have no obligation to talk with LE, but I definitely don't think that would have been the way to go in this case.

It doesn't sound like he was detained...at least not in the sense of walking down the street or driving and being forced to stop. He was already stationary and was simply asked if he could speak with him.

The received a report of a MWG. Which is illegal in TN unless you have a HCP. So I really don't think they would have just drove off if he would have said he didn't want to talk to them.

[Guest Patty]

I think its time for a box of fresh doughnuts to show up on all shifts.

[Guest HexHead]

Only thing that would make me nervous is the officer's lack of knowledge in handling your Kimber & removing it from your holster...

I would have let him tug on the holster for a while and then when he couldn't rack the slide recommend he "stay away from that wheelbarrow, you don't know nothing about machinery."

[Guest dizzielizzie]

I would have let him tug on the holster for a while and then when he couldn't rack the slide recommend he "stay away from that wheelbarrow, you don't know nothing about machinery."

:rofl: Now that's something I'd like to see on youtube!

[56FordGuy]

I think its time for a box of fresh doughnuts to show up on all shifts.

I would imagine that the chief might like to hear about a positive interaction with the officers.

[Fallguy]

I think its time for a box of fresh doughnuts to show up on all shifts.

Not a bad gesture....as long as they don't see it as stereotypical.

[DavidCBaker]

In an encounter like that, I'm not going to try to make a point about my rights. Instead, I'm going to be respectful and do what I can to de-escalate the encounter. It's never failed yet, and I don't see the point of making the stop some sort of constitutional convention, especially if it involves attorney's fees on my part.

[mac12]

In an encounter like that, I'm not going to try to make a point about my rights. Instead, I'm going to be respectful and do what I can to de-escalate the encounter. It's never failed yet, and I don't see the point of making the stop some sort of constitutional convention, especially if it involves attorney's fees on my part.

:up:

[Titansfan]

Overall, I think the encounter was handled correctly and do have concern about the disarming point. Good to know that Huntingdon PD are pro-HCP and feel better as I pass through the town on the way to I-40.