The US Supreme Court decisions in Terry v. Ohio, and Michigan v. Long, and their progeny, are relevant here. Understanding a 'Terry" stop, a "Terry frisk," (both of a person and of vehicles), and reasonable suspicion v. probable cause, is helpful, if you actually care to understand this topic.

If you would rather rant emotionally, without understanding the legal realities involved, then carry on.

I had an experience like that shortly after 9/11. I sold my M1 Garand to a former Korean war decorated hero-- Navy Cross-- and met him in the parking lot of Sam's Club to make the exchange of rifle and money. I thought he would examine the rifle-- which was pristine condition-- discreetly, within the trunk for the most part. But he picked it out of the trunk and opened the bolt, etc.

He loved the rifle and was telling me that he wanted it to be part of the legacy he was putting together for his grand kids of things that were important to him in his life, such as the M1.

That's when we heard the sirens. 5 patrol cars, lights flashing, came up on us in the parking lot. They jumped out behind open doors and leveled their pistols at us.

Once they patted us down, and heard our story, the mood totally changed. I told a few of them, quietly, that Bud had been awarded the Navy Cross for his actions at the Chosin Reservoir and explained the legacy he was putting together for grandkids. Then they loved him, apologized for having to upset our afternoon, shook his hand....

But it was definitely scary for a few minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

If you would rather rant emotionally, without understanding the legal realities involved, then carry on.

I'm guessing this is directed towards me? I'm not a lawyer but OP was not doing anything wrong besides sitting in his car when the cops showed. The case you cited, the officer OBSERVED men "casing a job, a stick-up." Is that even remotely the same as a guy sitting in his truck?

This is the era of "if you see something, say something" we live in.

Honesty what did you think would happen if someone saw you standing there loading rounds into magazines? How are they supposed to know your not the next nutjob to walk into a place, shooting it up?

quote:

Originally posted by David W:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

2. Don't need a warrant to search a car (go look it up) and I'd say they would be covered under exigent circumstances also

Can we go back to this for a sec? Why wouldn't he think he needed PC? OP was not breaking any laws right? Just because some pussy saw a guy loading magazines made it extenuating circumstances?

Was it a consent search?

I agree, a “man with a gun” call does not translate into PC to search automatically. It’s not even reasonable suspicion for a frisk. Has to be more to make it legal.

Unless the officers talked their way into consent. But consent at the end of a barrel is not consent.

quote:

Originally posted by David W:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

If you would rather rant emotionally, without understanding the legal realities involved, then carry on.

I'm guessing this is directed towards me? I'm not a lawyer but OP was not doing anything wrong besides sitting in his car when the cops showed. The case you cited, the officer OBSERVED men "casing a job, a stick-up." Is that even remotely the same as a guy sitting in his truck?

It's directed at everyone on this thread that is clearly ignorant of the legal realities. Not just you.

I wonder if the dispatcher can be tied in to any of the blame here?

did they ask , "what kind of gun?"
did they ask " how many guns?"
did they ask and questions at all?

prior to sending in the whole army

They never asked me if they can search anything. They did not toss the car. 3 guys kept me distracted while one looked around "plain view" areas. He definitely missed a 20 round magazine of 150gr .308 ball.

He certainly did see the other 30-40 loaded and unloaded pistol magazines in an open box that I was working from.

I am chalking this incident as a learning experience. With my new found knowledge, I will not roll over so easily next time. And I will ask more questions.

One of the cops told my wife "he sure knows a lot about guns"!

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David W:


Was it a consent search?

I agree, a “man with a gun” call does not translate into PC to search automatically. It’s not even reasonable suspicion for a frisk. Has to be more to make it legal.

Unless the officers talked their way into consent. But consent at the end of a barrel is not consent.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

No, not "everyone," just "everyone . . . that is clearly ignorant of the legal realities." Some on this thread are not ignorant of those realities, but many are.

I'm sorry, DMF, you got the wrong context for that movie quote.
It was bendable's last sentence.

DMF, if I am being ignorant please enlighten me.

quote:

Originally posted by David W:
DMF, if I am being ignorant please enlighten me.

Sure, no problem.

quote:

Originally posted by David W:
Why wouldn't he think he needed PC?

Because if "he" is a trained LEO, who knows the law, and relevant caselaw, then "he" knows "PC" (probable cause) is not the standard to stop and frisk for weapons. "He" would know that the standard to stop and frisk for weapons, is a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is engaged in criminal activity, and is armed and dangerous.

So when you asked that question, showing you felt "probable cause," of criminal activity, and evidence of that criminal activity might be found, were needed for a "stop and frisk," you are showing your ignorance of the topic at hand.

Further, when you said:

quote:

Originally posted by David W:
The case you cited, the officer OBSERVED men "casing a job, a stick-up."

You again show your ignorance of the topic. First, you are only attempting to describe Terry v. Ohio, and have ignored the rest of my post on the relevant caselaw, which also included, ". . . Michigan v. Long, and their progeny."

There is a great deal of caselaw, including one that I cited (and you even ignored that one), that you need to understand, to truly understand the complexities of an investigative stop, and possibly both a stop and frisk, both of a person and a vehicle.

However, let's look at the one case you attempted to describe, "Terry v. Ohio."

You say, "the officer OBSERVED men "casing a job, a stick-up."" That's not exactly correct, the officer only suspected what he observed was "casing a job," meaning he only had a "reasonable suspicion" the observations were the men "casing a job," a much lower standard than "probable cause," and a very long way from "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Further, the officer didn't have to meet the "probable cause" standard for either criminal activity, or that the suspects were armed, to allow for the "frisk" for weapons. The officer only needed a "reasonable suspicion" that the suspects were armed and dangerous, in addition to the reasonable suspicion they were engaged in criminal activity, to justify the "frisk."

Then let's move onto my comments about the "progeny" of "Terry v. Ohio," and "Michigan v. Long." If you were knowledgeable of that caselaw, you would know that officers do not need to make direct observations to establish the "reasonable suspicion" necessary to justify an investigatory stop and/or frisk, and tips can be enough to establish a reasonable suspicion.

You might want to read the US Supreme Court decision in Florida v. JL (2000), and related caselaw. An anonymous tip, where the officers have no way to judge the credibility of the information, or hold the informant accountable for the information provided, cannot be used alone to establish a "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to justify a stop and/or frisk. However, if a tip comes from someone who is identified, and can be shown to be credible, and can be held accountable for the statements, or if the officer(s) are able to corroborate the information from an anonymous tip, that information may be used to establish the necessary "reasonable suspicion" (or probable cause), for a stop and frisk, or other LE action, without direct observations by the officers.

So yes, when you are incredulous that an officer "wouldn't think he needed PC," for an investigative stop and/or frisk, then give a cursory, and somewhat inaccurate, description of Terry v. Ohio, while ignoring Michigan v. Long, and their progeny, and then imply that officers can only make investigative stops and/or frisks based on their own observations, not tips from others, or other evidence, you show your ignorance on this topic.

Sorry, but you asked.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:


1 - The guns drawn angle given the described circumstances seems way over the top.
2 - Search of the vehicle? On what grounds given the circumstances?
3 - Search of the wife? On what grounds?

1. They react to the call they get-not what is actually going on (ie, someone playing with some ammo and loading mags)
2. Don't need a warrant to search a car (go look it up) and I'd say they would be covered under exigent circumstances also
3. another person presented themselves into the scenario of a man with a gun call...of course they can search her purse for a gun. (if she had stayed away they would not have searched her purse)

Now, that being said, there is another way to address the call...but you have to put yourself into their position...all they have is a call about a man with a gun call....would you just saunter up and strike up a conversation with, "Good day citizen" ? Prolly not...

let's not beat up the cops who were doing their jobs of investigating crime-turns out no crime and cops go away....

the problem is that someone who called it in was frightened of a man loading magazines in a public area...(maybe not the smartest thing to do-but certainly not illegal)
because that citizens was scared of a big bad gun

A couple things. One, I have had personal dealings with the Miami-Dade PD in the past. They are well known for 'bending' the law. I am not anti-LE, but I do not trust this particular LE agency at all given their past. Second, I have a number of friends who work for several Central Florida LE agencies, and I do not believe they would have drawn down on someone without a much better grasp of the circumstances. I'll concede that if the op concented to a search of the vehicle, then that's on him. But with no arrest, and likely a pretty good idea of what was 'actually' going on by the time the Miami-Dade officers had questioned him, my bet is they went on a fishing expedition in the ops vehicle. Again, this is right in line with the way Miami-Dade has operated in the past.

Regardless what actually happened, filing a complaint with the Miami-Dade PD is like throwing a pebble into the ocean and hoping for a tsunami. I'm glad he escaped somewhat unscathed.

They need to learn a few things from these cops below. Like I said, being jumpy is not an excuse for their action.



[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nDH0BDCdu4k" width="854"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

I TOTALLY understand your point, and I don't disagree...

But if you understand "copspeak" you would see that that ALL of these offices gave the guy the the guy "douchespeak" as they tolerated his idiocy. These were ALL guys that went out looking for a confrontation, and when were engaged by officers that weren't' going to deal with their debauchery...

I get both sides.... But I also don't like to be baited...

The real part i take issue with, is that the rank and file LE (beyond obvious places) is not the enemy... Never have been. This makes it seem a bit different.

These guys in the videos are ACTIVELY SEARCHING for a confrontation. They aren't heroe, martyrs or anything else. They are most often attention whores.

It comes down to the cardinal rule: Don't be a douche. Even if you are "right" you can still be a douche. Just don't be a douche.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
This is the era of "if you see something, say something" we live in.

Honesty what did you think would happen if someone saw you standing there loading rounds into magazines? How are they supposed to know your not the next nutjob to walk into a place, shooting it up?

OP: "I took my wife grocery shopping and decided to load some mags"...."I found a cozy place surrounded by trees in the store parking lot. I loaded 3 mags with 9mm ammo from my tailgate and I put everything away and went to my front seat."

Location, location, location.

You were not at a location in which one would expect to encounter someone loading gun magazines.
(Grocery store parking lot)

"cozy place surrounded by trees"
Sounds like you tried to conceal what you were doing and therefore realized it could cause alarm to others.

PASig asks a good question.
Honestly what did you think would happen....

Just because you can does not mean you should.

Imagine the criticism that could be leveled at observer and police in these scenarios.

Shopper observes individual loading gun magazines in store parking lot and does not report it.
Nut job goes on rampage in grocery store, 30-40 magazines mixture of loaded, unloaded found at scene.

Shopper reports man loading magazines in partially concealed location of grocery store parking lot.
Police respond not anticipating illegal activity, two officers shot.

From OP's comments it is obvious that he did realize it was not the smartest thing to do, even though it was legal.