unreasonable or warranted search

[jacob]

Spotted this online: http://lastresistance.com/3564/u-s-district-judge-open-carrying-handgun-reasonable-suspicion-crime/

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[MacGyver]

I don't see the story, here.  Seems to me he found the confrontation he was looking for.

[RichardR]

I don't understand how lawfully exercizing your Constitutional Rights is "looking for a confrontation".

[MacGyver]

To do list:

 

1. Dress up in my camo
2. Strap on a gun
3. Walk around a playground
4. Wait for someone to call to the police
5. Wait for police to arrive
6. Refuse to identify myself
7. Refuse to leave when asked
8. Feign surprise when they arrest me
9. Make bail
10. Post my story to the internet
11. Revel in the righteous indignation within the echo chamber that I exist

 

I'm sorry.  People can "lawfully exercise their rights" all they want.  Like so many of the other open carry "evangelists", this man went looking for a confrontation and found it.  That's not helpful to the community of gun owners at large.

[Dolomite_supafly]

That is the law here. As much as I hate to say it, in this state it is a priviledge to carry a firearm and that priviledge can be taken away.

 

Also, anyone carrying a firearm in this state is breaking the law. That includes those with a HCP, LE officers, literally anyone and everyone. It is only after an investigation that it can be determined that a person has a defense to breaking the law. If an officer sees anyone with a gun they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed and can investigate. Once he sees the person has a valid HCP, which is a defense, the person cannot be charged.

 

Until the officer verifies a person has a valid defense he has no clue whether the person has a defense to breaking the law and can assume the person is breaking the law. It is just the way the law is written. It is written so that anyone with a firearm is breaking the law but the defenses keep anyone from being arrested.

[Joe357]

I agree, I carry for self protection not to be a target whether it's the target of a bad guy or to prove a point. That is why I conceal carry. I don't want to call attention to myself.

[Fourtyfive]

Non-compliance is reason for arrest , plain and simple.

[LagerHead]

To do list:

 

1. Dress up in my camo
2. Strap on a gun
3. Walk around a playground
4. Wait for someone to call to the police
5. Wait for police to arrive
6. Refuse to identify myself
7. Refuse to leave when asked
8. Feign surprise when they arrest me
9. Make bail
10. Post my story to the internet
11. Revel in the righteous indignation within the echo chamber that I exist within

 

I'm sorry.  People can "lawfully exercise their rights" all they want.  Like so many of the other open carry "evangelists", this man went looking for a confrontation and found it.  That's not helpful to the community of gun owners at large.

 

While I fully support every citizen's right to carry, Mac is right. When you go looking to poke the bear, don't feign surprise when the bear bites back. 

[homeagain]

Gotta love the cop/establishment hatin' tone of the article.  Don't know what GA law is, but if it is similar to TN the officer may just have had reasonable cause to Terry stop the guy.  Don't really see how the search was unreasonable (don't really know if it was a consent search or not) but dude was apparently asked to leave and didn't so he got hooked for trespass.  It's funny, I've only met one cop that actually wanted to actively, on purpose, violate constitutional rights....and he's no longer in the profession.  Most cops are just trying to do what they can (often within fleeting moments of decision-making opportunity) to do their jobs, not violate rights (or at least find the best balance they can in the moment) and not get dead in the process. 

[Jonnin]

To do list:

 

1. Dress up in my camo
2. Strap on a gun
3. Walk around a playground
4. Wait for someone to call to the police
5. Wait for police to arrive
6. Refuse to identify myself
7. Refuse to leave when asked
8. Feign surprise when they arrest me
9. Make bail
10. Post my story to the internet
11. Revel in the righteous indignation within the echo chamber that I exist

 

I'm sorry.  People can "lawfully exercise their rights" all they want.  Like so many of the other open carry "evangelists", this man went looking for a confrontation and found it.  That's not helpful to the community of gun owners at large.

 

This really sums it up.  And, as I have said before, if the person would swap out 5-8 with

5) make friends with the officer and comply with any reasonable request whether its the law or not

 

we would make a lot more progress.  9 would not exist, 10 would be a happy story, and 11 would be a little bit more awareness and positive view of gun owners.

[jacob]

I tend to disagree with open carry myself only because you are increasing the chance of creating this type of situation as previously stated. Hate to be judgemental but I feel like most of the people that are open carrying do so because they WANT the attention. That, IMHO, is the wrong reason to carry a firearm...

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Appearances can mean everything in certain situations. Like was said, no reason to go around poking the bear, if that

was the case. A lot of times it is. I don't have anything against open carry, except for the nuts who try show off or provoke.

Who was it? Dale Carnegie: How to Win Friends and Influence People. Been around a long time. Maybe it should be looked

at more often.

[Mike.357]

play stupid games....

[Dolomite_supafly]

play stupid games....

Win stupid prizes!

[macville]

Did you all ignore that it said he gave them his carry permit? He did give them state issued ID, but they refused to accept it. And you think it's okay for them to ask him to leave a PUBLIC park simply because people didn't like the way he looked? Can I have a dirty hippie thrown out of a park because I don't like the way they look?

[MacGyver]

You can't use a Georgia permit for ID.  It's a laminated card for some crazy reason in 2013 does not have a picture on it.

 

This is a non-story.  This guy went looking for a confrontation with law enforcement and they obliged.

[TMF]

Did you all ignore that it said he gave them his carry permit? He did give them state issued ID, but they refused to accept it. And you think it's okay for them to ask him to leave a PUBLIC park simply because people didn't like the way he looked? Can I have a dirty hippie thrown out of a park because I don't like the way they look?

Yes and yes.

[macville]

You can't use a Georgia permit for ID.  It's a laminated card for some crazy reason in 2013 does not have a picture on it.

 

This is a non-story.  This guy went looking for a confrontation with law enforcement and they obliged.

 

So is georgia not like TN and you can only be required to show your carry permit if asked? I don't know of a law that says if you are walking around you have to have an ID.

[MacGyver]

So is georgia not like TN and you can only be required to show your carry permit if asked? I don't know of a law that says if you are walking around you have to have an ID.

They didn't ask for his permit.  They asked for ID and he would only provide his permit.

[dawgdoc]

Hi, new here (been lurking for a while), but I thought that I would post because I followed this story from the day it happened.  The man in question posts on GeorgiaPacking.org, and freely shared the entire story the day after being released from jail.

 

The basic facts are that a security guard, who was contracted by a private company, mistakenly thought carrying in a park was illegal (Georgia pre-empts local municipalities) and confronted the man.  He badgered him into leaving and argued that carrying was illegal.  He also falsely claimed to the responding officers that he had asked the man to leave.  The LEO's also did not know Georgia law either.  He was eventually arrested for "felony trespass" (which doesn't exist in Georgia) and spent a night in jail.  The case was "nolle prosequi" due to lack of evidence, the private security company settled a lawsuit, and the lawsuit against the officers wound up being what this article is about.

 

Beside losing the lawsuit, the other important point is that the judge decided that quite contrary to Georgia law, the mere presence of a gun allows a LEO to detain, demand identification, and perform a warrantless search (running the serial number).  The law is quite unlike Tennessee in that having a Georgia Weapons License is an element of the crime, rather than being an affirmative defense like in Tennessee.  When it comes down to it, this ruling is as much about the 4th amendment as the 2nd amendment.

 

Some of you might have visualized a cop baiter who dresses all in camo and carrying an AR in public, trying to win a lawsuit.  From what I can see based on his side of the story and reading the court documents and recordings, this was a case of a guy who really did not want all the attention that he got.  The picture that I saw showed him in very normal clothing (I don't remember any camo).  In other words, even though he eventually sued, he did not leave his house that morning intending to cause trouble or make a scene.  Once he was detained, he did not roll over and urinate in submission, either.

 

If you want to read it for yourself, here's a link: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/showthread.php?t=237726

[East_TN_Patriot]

That article reveals how most people don't really understand the law related to the 4th Amendment. It does not give you an unlimited right to privacy, but protects you from "unreasonable" search and seizures. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Framers didn't give us much else to work with on that standard. Instead, the courts have had to decide how to interpret the Amendment. To make an investigatory stop - aka a Terry stop named after Terry v. Ohio (1968) - an officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is engaged in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a set of facts that can be articulated and would lead a reasonable person, such as a juror, to reach a similar conclusion under the same set of circumstances. The stop is a temporary detention to give the officer an opportunity to investigate the circumstances and determine whether their original suspicions are gather enough evidence that would constitute probable cause and justify an arrest. In this case, I think there is most certainly enough information to give any officer reasonable suspicion that the person may be up to no good. If the individual had been more cooperative and was not violating the law, I am confident the officer would have let him go about his business, stupid as it may be.

I can tell you one thing; if I was in a park with my kids and saw this douchebag wandering around, there is a good possibility I would call the police. No responsible gun owner would act like that and there are just enough lunatics walking around our streets to keep from from taking any chances with the safety of my kids. As I say frequently following stories like this, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[dawgdoc]

He was actually just walking on a walking track (using it for its intended purpose).  He wasn't wandering around, acting weird.  He was literally minding his own business.  The only thing that made him any different from anyone else was that he had holstered firearm.   His was not lurking around a playground; the walking path goes near a playground.

 

You may have a mis-impression from the article.  He was not a lurker.  He was not baiting a cop.  Carrying a gun is not reasonable suspicion in Georgia.  The security guard lied in his report that he asked him to leave.  Also, the carrier had called the office in charge of the park to make sure it was not illegal, even though he knew Georgia law pre-empted any ordinances they may have had, because he did not want to be hassled for exercising his rights.  

 

So in summary, he was walking on a walking trail for the sole purpose of exercising, and he happened to be carrying a firearm, which he does on a daily basis.  He was not acting suspicious; the security guard's report states that the guard initiated the contact solely because he saw the gun, and he did not think people were allowed to have a gun in the park.  He even called the local authorities to see if there was an ordinance.  All the "suspicious behavior" that was subsequently reported was after the authorities (security guard and LEOs) started questioning him, and they did not like that a person was refusing to have his rights trampled.  He made some flippant responses, but I suspect that the longer they detained him with no actual RAS, the less cooperative he became.  

 

He tried to leave when confronted, even though he did not have to do so.  He presented his weapons license when asked, even though he did not have to do so.  The LEO got hung up on the fact that he didn't have a driver's license with him (he leaves it in his car), but there is no law in Georgia that you have to carry or present a picture i.d. to a cop.  The encounter should have never have happened, but it should have ended as soon as they saw that he was legal to carry.  Instead, they didn't like that he was not cooperative enough, so they arrested him based on an incorrect statement from the guard (that he had been asked to leave and wouldn't, so he wanted to trespass him).

[Guest 95thbonehead]

To do list:

 

1. Dress up in my camo
2. Strap on a gun
3. Walk around a playground
4. Wait for someone to call to the police
5. Wait for police to arrive
6. Refuse to identify myself
7. Refuse to leave when asked
8. Feign surprise when they arrest me
9. Make bail
10. Post my story to the internet
11. Revel in the righteous indignation within the echo chamber that I exist

 

I'm sorry.  People can "lawfully exercise their rights" all they want.  Like so many of the other open carry "evangelists", this man went looking for a confrontation and found it.  That's not helpful to the community of gun owners at large.

WOW, the lack of correct information here is stunning. I am not a close personal friend of his but I have talked to him about this incident. Where do I begin, it was not camo he was in. While he was walking around a playground he was on the walking trail meant to be used to get exercise. He was not waiting for the police to be called he was exercising. He did not need to ID himself, and this is the only part I can even agree that was wrong. He was trying to leave but was prevented from doing so. I am sadden by the people who have posted about this and have not taken the time to learn the truth. 

[Guest Fallschirmjäger]

I seem to be a bit late to this little soirée, but I'd like to thank DawgDoc for inviting me and I promise the last dance with him.

To do list:

1. Dress up in my camo
2. Strap on a gun
3. Walk around a playground
4. Wait for someone to call to the police
5. Wait for police to arrive
6. Refuse to identify myself
7. Refuse to leave when asked
8. Feign surprise when they arrest me
9. Make bail
10. Post my story to the internet
11. Revel in the righteous indignation within the echo chamber that I exist

 

I'm sorry.  People can "lawfully exercise their rights" all they want.  Like so many of the other open carry "evangelists", this man went looking for a confrontation and found it.  That's not helpful to the community of gun owners at large.

That makes a nice story,  Mac, might be a bit better if it more resembled reality though.

1. No camo, no uniform, no army boots, just an old fat bastid walking in the park because his heart doctor recommended he get more exercise.

2. I put on pants that morning, the gun follows.  No proper gentleman is completely dressed without one.

3. I walked around an exercise pathway, that it passed nearby a playground is immaterial, there is no law against it and you're not supposed to walk across playing fields when they are in use.

4, 5, I was willing to leave and in the process of doing so when the security guard called me back to engage in conversation.  In hindsight, I realise it was to allow more time for the police to arrive to investigate legal conduct.

6.  Didn't happen.  Don't know where you heard the fairy tale from, but you really shouldn't trust people like that.

7.  Didn't happen. Although I was in violation of absolutely No federal or state law, No county or city ordinance, and No park rule, I was asked to leave and attempted to comply.  (It's on tape, by the way.)

8.  Absolutely true, but who expects to be arrested when they have done nothing against the law?

9. Yep, I did.  Is that either surprising or indicative of something nefarious?

10. Absolutely dang tootin'.  Being absolutely convinced of my innocense I have an "Open Records" view to things.  "I Can't Comment." is for cops and the guilty.

11.  Whatever, sir, whatever.

 

Non-compliance is reason for arrest , plain and simple.

 

Nope, plain and simple or there would be an arrest for that.  There wasn't was there?

More to the point... "No compliance with _______________________" feel free to fill in the blank.

Feel free to point out what section of the Georgia Code I would be arrestable for.

 

play stupid games....

Win stupid prizes.  Thousands of them.  Enough to purchase a new 80% AR lower and have it completed and engraved -

"With grateful thanks to

Officer Adam Garth Bell

Gwinnett Police Department"

SN: B01167

(^ Garth's badge number for those wondering.)

 

 

The County Solicitor dropped the charges as soon as it reached their office.  Adding, I might add a hand written addendum to explain why it was dropped; something they had no requirement to explain to anyone, much less me.

 

Now.. this is the dangerous desperado that went "looking for a confrontation" in a podunk park in a podunk town in backwoods Georgia.

Ugly cuss, ain' he?  Should prolly get some exercise, maybe a nice couple miles in a park or sumthin' to work off all that fat.

 

In Contrast...

One Year Later, on the anniversary of the Great Gary Pirkle Park Pirkling, there was a picnic at... you guessed it, Gary Pirkle Park.

 

Same park, same person PLUS a solid dozen* others all openly carrying arms PLUS a children's athletic event on both fields PLUS a call to Gwinnett County PD from not just a security guard but a "concerned citizen".

Guess who didn't show up?

If you guessed the Gwinnett County Police Department; I made the quiz too easy.

 

*Not all participants pictured, some had to leave early for other committments.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Fallschirmjäger

[surfabilly]

"And now you know the rest of the story."

Paul Harvey ... Good day!