This can't be true

[TMF]

I don't work in LE, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to know every law by heart. I do work in Tech Support, and I am familiar with almost every system, proprietary program, etc that Metro has, but that doesn't mean I have memorized every single shortcut key, nor do I know exactly who handles which backup or when they are run, or even if YOUR specific issue has all of them (daily/weekly incremental, daily/weekly/monthly full etc).

The analogy being, there are too many things out there for anyone normal, ie non-savant, person to know at any given moment and that doesn't count the changes coming down the pike. Add in, those deputies might very well have known the truth, and had some idiot higher up the food chain "correct" them.

There are many laws I don't expect LE to know. Laws concerning the carrying of firearms is definitely one they should know. That is skill level one type stuff. Any law enforcement officer that does not know the handgun carry laws is derelict in his duties. It isn't as if there is a secret crypt where this information is hidden. When I applied for my permit I found the rules in the TCA and educated myself. A law enforcement officer should be doing the same if he intends to enforce laws pertaining to that. Simply making an "on the spot" law that doesn't exist is a Barney Fief moment, and shows what an unprofessional mouth breather that cop is. If an officer is confused about a law he is free to educate himself at any time (and should since he is supposed to be enforcing the damn law) or he can get on the radio and call an adult to ask what the laws are. There is no room for debate here. You can't enforce laws that don't exist. Saying that there are too many laws for police to know them all I can agree with, but that means they shouldn't be ENFORCING laws that don't exist in the first place. That is the dumbest set of reasoning I've heard in a while.

Also, they will dictate the law to you, not much choice in that. Now I'm pretty sure you've stopped reading at this point but I am going to say anyway that yes you can disagree, file complaints, sue after you were arrested etc, but I am fairly certain they pretty much can do what they want if THEY believe they are right and they aren't illegally trying to kill you. I don't believe you can use force to escape if they are illegally arresting you for example. Not for something like this, let's not get into conspiracy theories.

Who the f@$k is talking about conspiracy theories? Are we on the same topic here? And when did I say I would use force? Are you just making assumptions or something? I was talking about two dimwit cops that needed to be corrected on what the laws are. And I'm not kidding when I say this, if a cop said that it is against the law to chamber a round I will absolutely tell him that it is not and that I intend to chamber a round as soon as we are done talking. He will have only two options and that is to either educate himself and eat crow, or arrest me and eat some very serious crow. Either way, you are wrong. Police don't make the laws, so they can not dictate to me new laws or make-believe laws. That is why we have people we elect.... you know, at polls and stuff.

Also "regular folks"? What exactly makes them "special"? They are normal people doing a job. I have met a few cops in my day that I don't consider "regular" but that's got jack to do with their job and all to do with what they did on the job proving they are they type of person deserving of respect etc.

What makes them special??? Are you friggin for real man? Their job is to enforce the law! I expect them to have a better understanding of it than "regular folks". For crying out loud you must live in bizarro world. I don't expect to walk into a Subway and explain to the guy behind the counter how to make a turkey club. I don't expect to explain to my doctor how to properly treat or diagnose an illness. I don't expect to have an encounter with a cop and have to explain to him what the laws are. Edited February 9, 2013 by TMF

[East_TN_Patriot]

I don't work in LE, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to know every law by heart. I do work in Tech Support, and I am familiar with almost every system, proprietary program, etc that Metro has, but that doesn't mean I have memorized every single shortcut key, nor do I know exactly who handles which backup or when they are run, or even if YOUR specific issue has all of them (daily/weekly incremental, daily/weekly/monthly full etc).

 

The analogy being, there are too many things out there for anyone normal, ie non-savant, person to know at any given moment and that doesn't count the changes coming down the pike. Add in, those deputies might very well have known the truth, and had some idiot higher up the food chain "correct" them.

 

Also, they will dictate the law to you, not much choice in that. Now I'm pretty sure you've stopped reading at this point but I am going to say anyway that yes you can disagree, file complaints, sue after you were arrested etc, but I am fairly certain they pretty much can do what they want if THEY believe they are right and they aren't illegally trying to kill you. I don't believe you can use force to escape if they are illegally arresting you for example. Not for something like this, let's not get into conspiracy theories.

 

Also "regular folks"? What exactly makes them "special"? They are normal people doing a job. I have met a few cops in my day that I don't consider "regular" but that's got jack to do with their job and all to do with what they did on the job proving they are they type of person deserving of respect etc.

I have worked in law enforcement and I can assure you that law enforcement officers should know most laws, especially those commonly used such as those relating to firearms and weapons, and be trained well enough to know when it's time to consult their statute book before making any statements or decisions about the law.  Officers are also expected, and trained, on changes of the law.  Clearly, whether the individual officer takes the training seriously or whether the department provides the adequate training is a different matter entirely, but the case law is clear that officers are expected to meet a reasonable level of knowledge and expertise in their skills and knowledge of law.  They cannot simply use the "good faith" exception to justify their mistakes if their level of training and knowledge fails to meet minimal professional expectations and mandated standards.  That generally does not give the individual citizen the lawful authority to resist the officer, but it does provide a mechanism for civil and possibly criminal litigation.  In short, the police have a professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to be knowledgeable of the laws they enforce.

[TMF]

So in short, if a half wit officer arrests me for committing a crime that doesn't exist I will have his job or I will take it out of the department's bottom line. I'd hate to sue a department for the mistakes of a problem child, so my goal would be to see the officer returned to civilian status and flipping burgers.

[RobertNashville]

LEOs arent the only ones. I came across some individuals that had just take their safety class and swore that they were taught they couldnt have a round chambered while carrying. Even with an HCP.

You can't necessairily or at least not automatically blame that on the trainer...it could be just as likely that the individuals didn't hear correctly or didn't understand when it is/isn't legally to have a round chambered.

[East_TN_Patriot]

So in short, if a half wit officer arrests me for committing a crime that doesn't exist I will have his job or I will take it out of the department's bottom line. I'd hate to sue a department for the mistakes of a problem child, so my goal would be to see the officer returned to civilian status and flipping burgers.

 

Basically, yes.  Either way, the department needs to be held accountable for either not properly training the officer or not properly supervising the officer to detect the lack of proper training and/or the officer's failure to follow the law.

[DaveTN]

So in short, if a half wit officer arrests me for committing a crime that doesn't exist I will have his job or I will take it out of the department's bottom line. I'd hate to sue a department for the mistakes of a problem child, so my goal would be to see the officer returned to civilian status and flipping burgers.

 

That is the reason there are Training Officers, Senior Patrol Officers, and Command Officers both on the street and a phone call or radio call away.  To be transported you need more than one Officer, the chances of having an HCP and getting arrested for having a round chambered with multiple Officers present is pretty slim. Don’t you agree?

 

I would guess if the Officer was wrong about the law it was explained to him when the citizens left. But yes, if you are arrested for something that isn't against the law; you have recourse.

 

[TMF]

Basically, yes.  Either way, the department needs to be held accountable for either not properly training the officer or not properly supervising the officer to detect the lack of proper training and/or the officer's failure to follow the law.

Right, I just detest the idea of suing government agencies and taking money from the tax pool. Of course, if a systemic problem exists the only way to solve it is to make it painful and hurt their bottom line. I'd just hate to see the good officers of a PD feel the pain of budget cuts because of negligent/substandard performance of one of their peers. I like it when the person responsible gets the pain.

[TMF]

That is the reason there are Training Officers, Senior Patrol Officers, and Command Officers both on the street and a phone call or radio call away.  To be transported you need more than one Officer, the chances of having an HCP and getting arrested for having a round chambered with multiple Officers present is pretty slim. Don’t you agree?

 

I know. I can remember when my father was promoted and had a bunch of officers he had to take care of. Some of the stories he had of the problem children would be funny if they weren't sad. Having been around so many LEOs over the years I always get the impression of extreme professionalism and calm demeanor, so hearing some of the crap he's had rookies do was quite surprising.

[Randall53]

If no one had anything to hide, why would you not consent to the serial number being run?

 

Dave S

 

 

This is a troubling statement to me, and made by an LEO or a retired LEO by the moniker below his name.  Why is the decision of a citizen of this country to decide to announce his desire to apply a constitutional right to a situation have "something to hide"?.  It may seem a trivial matter, but to me, running the serial number of a firearm for no apparent reason sits right up there with "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" which is used a lot by LEO's when they have no real reason and a legal search is not possible.  If the person responds with, "I don't submit to searches of my personal property without due cause."  suddenly they  have "something to hide"?  Every time an LEO coerces a citizen by subversion, into something they know is unconstitutional, they are pushing us a little further away from freedom and closer to "I need to see your papers!"

[DaveTN]

I know. I can remember when my father was promoted and had a bunch of officers he had to take care of. Some of the stories he had of the problem children would be funny if they weren't sad. Having been around so many LEOs over the years I always get the impression of extreme professionalism and calm demeanor, so hearing some of the crap he's had rookies do was quite surprising.

And I bet your Father could tell you about and laugh about some of the mistakes he made. That’s why they are called rookies. Some mistakes are funny, some are dangerous, and some are negligent.
 

It happens in all jobs. I’m sure you can apply that to your military service and whatever job you do now. I know I made mistakes.

We had more training in criminal law than attorneys get in law school. I have seen many attorneys make stupid mistakes in court that cost their clients, even when they had weeks or months to prepare. Our training was on-going; criminal law can change fast.

 

[DaveTN]

This is a troubling statement to me, and made by an LEO or a retired LEO by the moniker below his name.  Why is the decision of a citizen of this country to decide to announce his desire to apply a constitutional right to a situation have "something to hide"?.  It may seem a trivial matter, but to me, running the serial number of a firearm for no apparent reason sits right up there with "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" which is used a lot by LEO's when they have no real reason and a legal search is not possible.  If the person responds with, "I don't submit to searches of my personal property without due cause."  suddenly they  have "something to hide"?  Every time an LEO coerces a citizen by subversion, into something they know is unconstitutional, they are pushing us a little further away from freedom and closer to "I need to see your papers!"

 

I think he’s a retired Fireman. Everyone loves them and they get to do pretty much whatever they want, but I don’t think searches is one of them.

 

[East_TN_Patriot]

It may seem a trivial matter, but to me, running the serial number of a firearm for no apparent reason sits right up there with "you don't mind if I search your car do you?" which is used a lot by LEO's when they have no real reason and a legal search is not possible. 

 

I would disagree with your statement somewhat.  As far as running a serial number, we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to running numbers through NCIC.  When I was a police officer, I regularly ran license plates, VIN numbers, and serial numbers on property including firearms.  As long as the police are in a place where they have a legal authority to be and have obtained possession of the numbered items in a lawful way, then they can run as many serial numbers as they wish in association with their official duties.  If the police lawfully disarm you during a lawful encounter, then they can run that firearm whether you like it or not.  If they ask consent and you give it to them, then they are able to do pretty much whatever they want within the scope of that consent until you revoke that consent.  I don't see any problems with that.  The issue is how they gain consent and/or that they have legitimate suspicion or probable cause to possess the firearm in the first place.  

[2.ooohhh]

I would disagree with your statement somewhat.  As far as running a serial number, we do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to running numbers through NCIC.  When I was a police officer, I regularly ran license plates, VIN numbers, and serial numbers on property including firearms.  As long as the police are in a place where they have a legal authority to be and have obtained possession of the numbered items in a lawful way, then they can run as many serial numbers as they wish in association with their official duties.  If the police lawfully disarm you during a lawful encounter, then they can run that firearm whether you like it or not.  If they ask consent and you give it to them, then they are able to do pretty much whatever they want within the scope of that consent until you revoke that consent.  I don't see any problems with that.  The issue is how they gain consent and/or that they have legitimate suspicion or probable cause to possess the firearm in the first place.  

 

Sure we absolutely have a right to privacy if the law abiding citizen wishes to not share that information, unless you have probable cause. I've never given consent for the numbers on my firearms to be run and never will. I believe you'll find in the links below that this is well supported in case law as well.

 

Arizona v. Hicks

 

Knowles v. Iowa

Edited February 9, 2013 by 2.ooohhh

[DaveTN]

Sure we absolutely have a right to privacy if the law abiding citizen wishes to not share that information, unless you have probable cause. I've never given consent for the numbers on my firearms to be run and never will. I believe you'll find in the links below that this is well supported in case law as well.
 
Arizona v. Hicks[/size]
 
Knowles v. Iowa[/size]

Neither of those cases apply. Tennessee law puts the gun in the hands of the Officers legally, without a warrant or a search. Keep in mind you are in a state where carrying a gun is a crime.

If they ask you for permission to run the number you can tell them “No” if you like. I wouldn’t think they would ask you for your permission any more than they would ask your permission to run your license plate number for stolen.

[2.ooohhh]

Neither of those cases apply. Tennessee law puts the gun in the hands of the Officers legally, without a warrant or a search. Keep in mind you are in a state where carrying a gun is a crime.

If they ask you for permission to run the number you can tell them “No” if you like. I wouldn’t think they would ask you for your permission any more than they would ask your permission to run your license plate number for stolen.

TN puts the gun in the hands of the officer for officer safety, I doubt any judge will say that alone was probable cause to run the guns numbers which may have only been brought into plan view in the intrest of officer safety during a supossedly  unrelated stop. Carrying the gun is a crime, but with a HCP I'm clearly legally carrying and they may run that HCP # all they want to verify it's validity, but with no database of legal gun ownership there is no reason to run mine unless they have PC to believe that mine is stolen. The police don't generally like it but I've yet to have one push the issue and run my numbers.

 

Running the numbers turns handling my gun for the officers safety into a search, which without my consent, a warrant, or PC would be unconstitutional.

Edited February 9, 2013 by 2.ooohhh

[wjh2657]

being seen carrying a gun is cause for stopping someone.  It is illegal to carry in TN.

 

Thank you Mike. The whole point that everybody seems to miss is that a normal citizen (without a HCP) carrying a gun is committing an illegal act .The HCP  gives you an immunity from this law.

 

Unfortunately, an LEO doesn't know you have that immunity until you show your HCP. Up until the time you show your HCP, you are criminal in his eyes. (One big reason I don't OCC, hate going through the whole drill !)

 

Carrying a gun in TN, we are governed by the Tennessee State Constitution (interpreted through the TCA) and it does clearly state (again through the TCA) exactly what conditions must be in place for carry.

 

I buy all of my guns through FFL dealers and make them put the numbers from the background check on my receipt (You normally don't get a copy of the background check) and I have all of my receipts filed plus scanned copies on file in my backup hard drives. If  an LEO wants to run the numbers I have no problem. If they do come up as lost or stolen, I have my proof that I complied with the law. I may lose the gun but I will not face legal action.

 

Yes they are probably violating my rights, But if I were a Cop Killing Serial Killer Pedophile carrying a handgun and they took it away from me, they also be violating my Second Amendment rights. It does not say such a person can be restricted from possession and carrying a handgun. It says everybody can carry a gun. I am not being sarcastic, it does say that. Whatever laws they come up with about guns is always going to violate the literal letter of the law as stated in the Second Amendment. But I can guarantee there will always be laws that do restrict us.  I just follow them and go on my way. It's part of the price you pay to live in a society instead of a cave!

Edited February 9, 2013 by wjh2657

[Makiaveli]

<lots of stuff>

 

Since you apparently don't want to debate, I won't. Why?

 

For example, take the conspiracy comment. You took it completely out of context. I was referring to the situation in the OP, and saying that under those circumstances etc. I was trying to head off someone say Well what about if.....

 

Yet you didn't ask WTF I was talking about, you just jumped straight into ripping me a new one and insulting me.

 

Is it any wonder the other forums I visit have a low opinion overall of this forum.

[TMF]

Since you apparently don't want to debate, I won't. Why?
 
For example, take the conspiracy comment. You took it completely out of context. I was referring to the situation in the OP, and saying that under those circumstances etc. I was trying to head off someone say Well what about if.....
 
Yet you didn't ask WTF I was talking about, you just jumped straight into ripping me a new one and insulting me.
 
Is it any wonder the other forums I visit have a low opinion overall of this forum.

Sorry you feel that way, but your comments made in response to me showed that you either didn't adequately read my original statement or you have reading comprehension problems. To suggest that I said I would use force to prevent arrest or attempt to escape in unfounded. You can't find that in my post. You were debating something that I wasn't even debating. I took that to mean you're making assumptions on my character with no basis for such assumptions.

So instead of acting like a victim, how about acknowledging that and sack up a bit?

[Makiaveli]

Sorry you feel that way, but your comments made in response to me showed that you either didn't adequately read my original statement or you have reading comprehension problems. To suggest that I said I would use force to prevent arrest or attempt to escape in unfounded. You can't find that in my post. You were debating something that I wasn't even debating. I took that to mean you're making assumptions on my character with no basis for such assumptions.

So instead of acting like a victim, how about acknowledging that and sack up a bit?

 

Never occurred to you it might be the other way around?

 

I didn't say you said you would use force. I made a statement, then followed it with another sentence that used using force as an example. You did say they wouldn't dictate to you which sounds like you would argue. You also said you would chamber a round after being told not to, which would be disobeying a order from an officer.

 

Now I will say that some of what I said was needlessly provocative, I shouldn't have made the comment about you not reading past that line etc. That was out of line. As to acting like a victim, where did I ask for help in dealing with this? Where did I ask a mod to come rescue me from you? I haven't even started fighting with you, this is merely a spirited debate where I come from. 

[TMF]

Never occurred to you it might be the other way around?
 
I didn't say you said you would use force. I made a statement, then followed it with another sentence that used using force as an example. You did say they wouldn't dictate to you which sounds like you would argue. You also said you would chamber a round after being told not to, which would be disobeying a order from an officer.
 
Now I will say that some of what I said was needlessly provocative, I shouldn't have made the comment about you not reading past that line etc. That was out of line. As to acting like a victim, where did I ask for help in dealing with this? Where did I ask a mod to come rescue me from you? I haven't even started fighting with you, this is merely a spirited debate where I come from. 

No, I said I will inform the officer of my intentions to chamber a round, leaving him two choices: call in for legal advice or arrest me. You can go back and read it. It's still there just like I left it. And no, a LEO can not dictate to you what the law is if there is in fact no law he is referencing. Maybe the officer could tell me not to chamber a round in his presence due to officer safety or some crap, but if he is saying I can't do something because it is against the law when it is not I will defy that officer and inform him of my intentions to defy him, thus forcing his hand. I've done it before in Myrtle Beach when I was younger. A cop threatened to take me to jail over no violation of the law; just throwing his weight around and didnt like it when I said "no". I turned around, put my hands behind my back and told him to go ahead and arrest me. In the end he did not. Lucky for him there was an adult officer nearby who intervened.

I have the utmost respect for good LEOs, but I have ZERO tolerance for a bully or dumbass with a badge.

[Makiaveli]

Yeah, but regular folks get a by for being ignorant. Someone who is enforcing the law needs to know better. I would have corrected those officers if they said such a thing. I can only imagine they would disagree with me and be forced to take me to jail when I re chamber a round. I'm not sure what my recourse would be for being arrested for breaking a law that doesn't exist, but I'm not going to be dictated the law from someone who doesn't even know it.

 

 

No, I said I will inform the officer of my intentions to chamber a round, leaving him two choices: call in for legal advice or arrest me. You can go back and read it. It's still there just like I left it. And no, a LEO can not dictate to you what the law is if there is in fact no law he is referencing. Maybe the officer could tell me not to chamber a round in his presence due to officer safety or some crap, but if he is saying I can't do something because it is against the law when it is not I will defy that officer and inform him of my intentions to defy him, thus forcing his hand. I've done it before in Myrtle Beach when I was younger. A cop threatened to take me to jail over no violation of the law; just throwing his weight around and didnt like it when I said "no". I turned around, put my hands behind my back and told him to go ahead and arrest me. In the end he did not. Lucky for him there was an adult officer nearby who intervened.

I have the utmost respect for good LEOs, but I have ZERO tolerance for a bully or dumbass with a badge.

 

 

Maybe you should re-read it. Maybe you meant it another way, but it says re-chamber not announce an intention to do so. Second, I think we disagree on the definition of "dictate". As I said earlier, if the cop thinks he is right, and is not attempting to physically harm you in an illegal manner, and unless I am highly mistaken, you have to legally obey his orders. If he wants to arrest you because he believes you have broken the law, ie chambered a round, then if you resist you are wrong.

 

Now your example in NC sounds like an a-hole being an a-hole and has nothing to do with a cop performing his job. 

 

As to "a bully or dumbass with a badge", no chance you misunderstood like you did me? Who then is the bully or dumbass? Maybe you remembered incorrectly as you did above, could that make him right and you wrong? East_TN_Patriot had a good point a few pages back that cops should know the laws. But as I said, there are quite a few laws, they are changed, a 10 year veteran could only have 2 years on the job in this state/city (I know Metro has recently hired quite a few from NYC) which would provide ample opportunity for a mistake.

 

In summary, a cop making one mistake in the law leading to a citizen screaming dumbass does indeed prove there is a dumbass involved. The idea that someone is an idiot because you (generic you here since people here seem to take offense real easily and then blame the other person for being butt-hurt) knows something they don't know shows the same. 

[Superman]

You dont consent to a search or consent to having the serial number run on anything you own, just like you dont talk to the cops when they arrest or accuse you of a crime. Its not about hiding something, its about protecting yourself.

[TMF]

Maybe you should re-read it. Maybe you meant it another way, but it says re-chamber not announce an intention to do so. Second, I think we disagree on the definition of "dictate". As I said earlier, if the cop thinks he is right, and is not attempting to physically harm you in an illegal manner, and unless I am highly mistaken, you have to legally obey his orders. If he wants to arrest you because he believes you have broken the law, ie chambered a round, then if you resist you are wrong.

You seem to very seriously misunderstand what the difference is between a lawful order and what is the law. A cop can tell me to keep my hands out of my pockets, but he can't tell me that the act of putting my hands in my pockets is in it of itself a crime. So, for example, if an officer tells me to keep my hands out of my pockets during a stop that is a lawful order. If a cop says, "hey, it's illegal to put you hands in your pockets" I'm going to tell him that it isn't illegal, and then put my hands in my pockets.

This wasn't an officer giving a lawful order. This was two dummy officers that need to pull their heads out of each other's asses. They said "this is the law." I once again made very clear, you can't be charged with a crime that doesn't exist. I will gladly get booked at a jail for committing a false crime after telling informing an officer that he needs to research the law. Edited February 10, 2013 by TMF

[RobertNashville]

There seem to be some folks who feel that they have some sort of obligation to set the police "right" to the extent of doing so at the side of the road or on a sidewalk...I don't know if it's some natural mistrust of police or if it comes from past bad experience or a misguided belief that it proves that the civilian values his freedom and independence more than the next guy if he argues with or corrects the officer(s) when he has an encounter with a LEO that may not, in the opinion of the civilian, know the law correctly.

 

I do agree with the prior statement that in general, one should never give consent to search (and there are a good reasons why you shouldn't)...the police may search anyway but that's not the point.

 

I agree that LEOs make mistakes on the law and that should be taken up with supervisors later but you absolutely can be charged with a crime that doesn't exist or that the citizen thinks doesn't exist - if the police actually make a mistake and arrest you for something that actually isn't a crime or they conduct an illegal search or make other mistakes, that should be dealt with in a courtroom, not out on the street.

 

As far as I can tell, the OP's friend did nothing wrong...it appears he was carrying openly (or concealed very poorly)...the officers also did nothing wrong by stopping him since, without an HCP, it is illegal to carry a weapon in public (openly or concealed) in TN...as far as I know, police can and often will run the SN or a firearm (VIN numbers on a vehicle, etc.) and they have the legal right to do so...I can't see that the police did anything wrong here save for their mistaken instructions about carrying a round in the chamber and I hope the OP's friend takes it up with those officer's supervisors.

 

Other than that one mistake by the officers, this whole thread seems much ado about very little.

[TMF]

There seem to be some folks who feel that they have some sort of obligation to set the police "right" to the extent of doing so at the side of the road or on a sidewalk...I don't know if it's some natural mistrust of police or if it comes from past bad experience or a misguided belief that it proves that the civilian values his freedom and independence more than the next guy if he argues with or corrects the officer(s) when he has an encounter with a LEO that may not, in the opinion of the civilian, know the law correctly.
 
I do agree with the prior statement that in general, one should never give consent to search (and there are a good reasons why you shouldn't)...the police may search anyway but that's not the point.
 

No, it's not a matter of an obligation, I just refuse to be subjected to laws that don't exist. I don't know all the laws, but if the laws I do know, if I happen to be conducting myself in a legal manner and an officer decides to tell me I'm breaking a law that I know for a fact does not exist, I will absolutely challenge that officer to arrest me on that charge. I guess I'm just the crazy one here that doesn't believe that law enforcement have the powers to create laws. And no, you can't be charged with crimes that don't exist. That would be impossible. You can be arrested, but not charged.

And no, I don't have a distrust of police. I come from a law enforcement family. I only dislike officers that are incompetent or see their badge as something higher than what it is. I don't think most cops fall into that category, but some do and if I were to encounter one of those people I will not be subjected to illegal treatment and go about my merry way. It is a matter of principle. Besides that, I don't suppose I'd have a very high opinion of myself if I allowed another human being to subject me to some kind of self appointed power of making up laws and administering justice beyond the scope of what is legal. No, I'd allow him to either correct himself or take me to jail.

I agree that an officer has a right to disarm you. I also agree it is legal under TN law for that officer to run your serial number, although I believe it is a 4th Amendment violation. Those types of arguments are not to be had on the side of the road, because the officer is acting within his capacity, whether I like it or not. But if an officer is to make up a law on the spot with the expectation I am to adhere to that law, I will tell him that I will not adhere to such a law because it does not exist. I don't even understand how you can believe that one can be charged with a crime that isn't in the law books, but there is a booking process that must take place before you are officially charged. If that crime can not be found it would be difficult for them to charge you.