Am I Free to Stay?

[Deanimator]

Most of us are well aware of the sage advice to consent to no searches, volunteer no information, and to ask "Am I free to leave?" when dealing with unwanted police contacts.

This presumes that you are stopped while going from point a to point b. What if on the other hand, you're at a location carrying on a legal activity and you're subjected to undesired police attention? Say for instance (as is almost always the case) I'm sitting in a restaurant or coffeeshop reading "Smallarms Review" or some $75 book on the Maxim gun. What do you do if for whatever reason, a cop comes up and starts asking you intrusive and or hostile questions based on your completely legal firearms related reading material? I don't want to ask, "Am I free to leave?" since I don't WANT to leave. I'm eating a meal or drinking a cup of coffee. I don't want to ditch my coffee or meal because somebody's giving me an unjustified hard time.

No doubt this has happened to SOMEBODY somewhere. I've got my ducks in line for when "Am I free to leave?" is appropriate. Any suggestions on when you neither want to nor should leave?

 

[Devonai]

If this happened to me, my answer would depend on the questions being asked. If it seemed that I matched the description of someone wanted for robbing the bank down the street, I would comply in order to avoid the hassle of an arrest. If the cop was just giving me a hard time for no apparent reason, I would politely answer with yes, no, or none of your business.

If he still wants to arrest me, then I'll go with him. Unless he plants drugs on me I'm still going home at the end of the day.

 

[buzz_knox]

Do a search for mvpel and see his experience in a situation where his (legal) open carry got him undesired attention by Manchester PD.

 

[springmom]

Can you elaborate on what he actually said? I'm not clear as to what constitutes "invasive and hostile" in your experience. Myself, I'd invite him to sit down and ask him if he wanted a cup of coffee, maybe, but it would depend on what was said and how it was said.

Tell us more about the experience you actually had.

Springmom

 

[Mainsail]

The first thing out of your mouth should be, “Am I being detained?” If he says no, then wish him a fine day and go back to what you’re doing. If he says yes, immediately ask, “For suspicion of what crime are you detaining me?” The police cannot detain you for looking or being suspicious, they have to be able to articulate a crime that he believes you are, have, or are about to commit.

In the situation you describe he will probably say no, that you are not being detained and will in all likelihood continue to ask you questions. Whatever he asks you while you are not being detained is not police business, so there’s your answer. “That’s not police business.” If he continues to harass you (not likely) then call 911 and ask that a sergeant be dispatched.

 

[ChristopherG]

The police cannot detain you for looking or being suspicious, they have to be able to articulate a crime that he believes you are, have, or are about to commit.

I beg to differ. The standard for a 'Terry Stop' is Reasonable Suspicion that a crime is afoot--but he (the Officer) doesn't have to be able to articulate what precise crime he suspects until he gets to Probable Cause--at which point detention becomes arrest. The less demanding standard of Reasonable Suspicion, and the 'Terry Stop' it triggers, means the Officer can detain you for the reasonable period necessary to establish whether or not he has probable cause. Courts have ruled this generally shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes, but it can. Reasonable Suspicion has to be articulable, but it's not as precise or demanding as PC.

You reading about guns, by itself, would not be grounds for Reasonable Suspicion--though it could be one element of a number of factors that came together to create it.

 

[bdickens]

Is Ohio really so bad that you really need to worry about that?

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

The presumption is that your choice of reading material is indicative of your mind set. Not much different than having a LEO overhear a conversation where someone is grousing about a legal or political circumstance or event and saying that someone should do something about that. It's the context of the conversation or activity which triggers the inquiry or detention.

I was flying to check on my Mother shortly after 9 11 and had a copy of one of my gun magazines with me. I had taken them with me previously so I thought nothing of it. Pulled it out and had the airline flight attendant there IMMEDIATELY. Asked me to put it away so I didn't spook the other passengers. Reasonable request considering the circumstances.

Harrassing me about my cowboy boots was another long story that almost got me arrested. But that is off topic here.

 

[geekWithA.45]

As a practical matter, your right to "make people go away" gets muddy really fast.

Your right to leave, however, is hardly ever in question.

My advice: go with the simplest, easiest-for-bystander/witnesses-to-understand actions.

Bystander/witnesses don't do nuance, and even the slightest bit of mud in the water can be churned to goo in seconds.

 

[Treo]

unwanted police contacts.

Are There any other kind? If I were in that situation I'd reply to the first question, "Officer I'm really not comfortable having this discussion, may have your busness card please" after that I'd shut up.

 

[El Tejon]

Don't stay and feed the bear and let him provoke you into a fight (as they do with drunken college kids or tattooed mopes on Wabash Avenue). Never.

Pay for your meal/put your book down and leave.

You have nothing to gain by staying and everything to win if you leave. Leave.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Geting close again....

This thread is getting dangerously close to Cop Bashing...

Fellas, why don't you just stop it now? Don't you know that when the nice policeman approaches you and begins asking questions about what guns you own, how much food you have stored, what church you go to, etc,... he MUST have a good reason!

If the approach feels intrusive it MUST be because you feel guilty about something! Now if you have done nothing wrong, you will have no problem answering all of Mr. Policeman's questions.

Because, I mean, you're not a criminal...are you? Or God forbid...a TERRORIST!?!?!???

Submit! Comply! Be passive! The cops are always right!

Bahhhh..Bahhhhh!!

 

[springmom]

I still want to get a better picture of what constitutes "invasive and hostile". Those are hot-button words to many THR members (as is evidenced by most of the responses so far here) but "hostile" can be in the eye of the beholder. I am not accusing the OP of having a chip on his shoulder, but if someone DID, "invasive and hostile" could mean something different than if he did. "What choo think you reading, there, boy?" is one thing....whereas "what are you reading?" can be conversation.

I just want to read the whole interchange before I go giving advice on this.

Springmom

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Good question, Deanimator. It sounds like there really is no way to have an officer leave you, most especially if you say "leave me alone," but I don't see anything wrong with ignoring any further questions. You do have a right to remain silent, after all.

In you example, if it were me, I suppose I'd try to say something to acknowledge the officer's presence and that you're aware of him or her asking questions, but nothing that could be construed as hostile or avoidance. That's tough, though I like Mainsail's statement of "that's not police business" as a polite way to do that. Just plain ignoring the officer by continuing to read your book and not looking at them or what have you would be a quick way for the cop to simply arrest you, I'd imagine and sort it out down at the station after your booking.

These days, I'm hesitiant to ask any police officers who frequent THR anything police related, but I'm curious to know if an officer would actually respond well if faced with such a statement. Though I'm very wary of any police "fishing expeditions," I would also have to make the assumption that no officer would be approaching me at all unless there was something that he or she saw that made the contact necessary.

 

[Treo]

whereas "what are you reading?" can be conversation

.

Can’t argue W/ Mom. My problem W/ all of this is that a couple of bad encounters W/ various (including Houston) P.D.s have left a bad enough taste in my mouth that I really don’t care to have any type conversation W/ a cop that I’m not absolutely required to have.

I think I’d have to g W/ El Tejon on this one if at all possible I’d leave. I had some second thoughts on the asking for the business card (if he’s already harassing you that would just make it worse) I’d get the unit number of the car on my way out the door.

Then I’d get on THR and have all of you help me draft a letter to the Chief Of Police

 

[ChristopherG]

Police in Washington state are trained to recognize that citizens have the perfect right to say anything from "I'd rather not talk to you" to "*&^% Off." An officer who approached the OP for no other reason than that he was reading about guns would be on an obvious 'social contact', which the citizen can terminate at will.

I'm not saying that's how it will go in every case; but that's how it should go by law and training. In the absence of Reasonable Suspicion, the citizen says "go away," and the Officer does.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

I would also have to make the assumption that no officer would be approaching me at all unless there was something that he or she saw that made the contact necessary.

Yeah! You were reading subversive material like Shotgun News or Small Arms Review...

 

[brighamr]

unwanted police contacts? IBTL 5...4...3...2...

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Yeah! You were reading subversive material like Shotgun News or Small Arms Review...

No I wasn't! I wasn't reading it at all! I don't even know how to read! I was holding it for a friend! I swear to God, it's true!

Nah, I figured someone might pick up on my statement. Just because I make the assumption that they're talking to me for a legitimate reason, doesn't mean I'm going to answer their questions. It makes me understand what's potentially at stake here and to not whine "you can't do this to me!" and all that crap. Hope that makes sense, sometimes I can't express my thoughts well on the subject.

 

[woof]

I've seldom had a police office talk to me about anything personal and not police business. I've been asked about a dog I was walking - totally friendly. And I had an injured ankle once and was limping down the street when an officer asked if I was ok, but I guess that could be considered police, if not law enforcement, business too. Is it part of police training that you aren't really supposed to be striking up a lot of personal conversations with strangers?

 

[cpaspr]

I'm gonna go out on a slightly more paranoid-than-usual limb here, but this link from XavierBreath's May 7th blog was very interesting:

http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/

While police officer's are people too, and may really just be interested in conversation, they are people who have the ability to really mess your day up should that conversation turn even slightly sour. And when they're on-duty, striking up idle conversations is not usually part of their daily duties. So if an officer does strike up what appears to be an idle conversation, red flags should be going up.

No offense intended to anyone reading this, but after watching the first half of the video (only got to the first minute or so of the detective's response), why would any of us ever voluntarily chat with someone who has that kind of potential negative power?

I know, I know. I can think of several scenarios where I could be sitting in a bookstore reading a gun magazine and have an officer ask me questions, such as an accident that happened just outside the window I was sitting near (Was I sitting here when it happened? Did I see anything? Could I tell who might have been at fault?). But those are "official" questions, related to an investigation. What I am reading at that point is irrelevant. But for an officer to walk up and start a conversation out of the blue? Nope. That has lots of negative potential and very little positive.

 

[Old Dog]

OP hypothesizes

I'm sitting in a restaurant or coffeeshop reading "Smallarms Review" or some $75 book on the Maxim gun. What do you do if for whatever reason, a cop comes up and starts asking you intrusive and or hostile questions based on your completely legal firearms related reading material? I don't want to ask, "Am I free to leave?" since I don't WANT to leave. I'm eating a meal or drinking a cup of coffee. I don't want to ditch my coffee or meal because somebody's giving me an unjustified hard time.

So, we are to the point now where THR members are making up situations wherein they attract unwanted law enforcement attention based solely on choice of reading material while in a public place?

I'm sorry, but this sort of "what-if?" indicates to me that some THR members are really, really stretching a bit to find scenarios vis-a-vis interaction w/LEOs to discuss in the forums. We've had the "what to do when pulled over in a traffic stop and carrying;" "what to do if my house is the site of an erroneous no-knock warrant by SWAT in the middle of the night;" "what to say to cops/bystanders if confronted about the fact that one is legally open-carrying a firearm in accordance with all laws and statutes ..."

Of course, all these on the heels of those threads such as "what to say to someone who feels one's concealed handgun when giving one a hug;" "what to say on one's first date about the fact that one carries a gun, before the huggy-huggy, smoochy-smoochy begins ... "

Is it just me, or are things getting really silly around here? Perhaps because it's an election year and we need controversy, but can't talk politics?

Where, oh where, has all the common sense gone?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

price of aluminum up folks using thinner hats

 

[Mainsail]

I beg to differ. The standard for a 'Terry Stop' is Reasonable Suspicion that a crime is afoot--but he (the Officer) doesn't have to be able to articulate what precise crime he suspects until he gets to Probable Cause--at which point detention becomes arrest. The less demanding standard of Reasonable Suspicion, and the 'Terry Stop' it triggers, means the Officer can detain you for the reasonable period necessary to establish whether or not he has probable cause. Courts have ruled this generally shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes, but it can. Reasonable Suspicion has to be articulable, but it's not as precise or demanding as PC.

You reading about guns, by itself, would not be grounds for Reasonable Suspicion--though it could be one element of a number of factors that came together to create it.

You got some of that right, but the officer must be able to articulate a particular crime that is afoot in order to legally detain you (at least here in WA) under Article 1 section 7 of the WA Constitution. A Terry stop is not a fishing expedition for an officer to try to find PC, he has to be able to say what crime he suspects you of before the contact. If the officer has PC, then he’s going to arrest, not detain.


State v Day:

A Terry investigative stop only authorizes police officers to briefly detain a person for questioning without grounds for arrest if they reasonably suspect, based on "specific, objective facts" that the person detained is engaged in criminal activity or a traffic violation.

Washington's adoption of the Terry investigative stop exception is grounded upon the expectation of privacy. Our constitution protects legitimate expectations of privacy, "those privacy interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass absent a warrant." Myrick, 102 Wn.2d at 511. Whether the Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution is in issue, a detaining officer must have "a reasonable, articulable suspicion, based on specific objective facts, that the person seized has committed or is about to commit a crime."

Or the ever useful, State V Casad:

The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing evidence against Gregory E. Casad. Casad walked down the street in Port Angeles on a Saturday afternoon carrying two rifles partially wrapped in a towel. A woman called 911. Police responded, detained Casad, frisked him, and asked why he carried the weapons. Casad admitted that he was a felon, an admission that lead to his arrest and charges for unlawfully possessing the weapons. The trial court held that the police had no authority to detain Casad for a Terry stop and suppressed the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. We affirm.

The statute does not and, under the Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere carrying of a firearm in public. Therefore the Court finds that the officers at the time of the initial contact had no reasonable articulable suspicion that any criminal activity was occurring

We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people..

Casad certainly looked suspicious; carrying two rifles down the street in broad daylight wrapped in a towel. Despite looking suspicious, the police were unable to articulate what particular crime was afoot that would allow them to detain him. They tried several approaches including the ‘warrants alarm’ statute and failed. Since everything he was doing was legal the police could not legally detain him to find out that he was a felon. Likewise, when I’m carrying my 1911 openly around Tacoma or Seattle, the police cannot seize me (unless something else I’m doing is illegal). That means they cannot detain me to request my CPL or ID.

 

[MarcusWendt]

Do people really sit around contemplating these types of scenarios? How many times has this exact scenario happened to you?

I drive 100 miles a day. I work in one of the most crime ridden areas of southern CA, I read gun books and magazines all the time. NOT ONCE has anything like this ever happened to me.

About as close as it came was when I was wearing a Sig tee shirt and an officer commented that he wished his department authorized Sigs for duty carry.

What kind of hell hole do some of you people live in that this is a serious concern?

Let's start a thread about what to do is a Police officer leaps on to the roof of your car from an overpass on the highway and puts his PR-24 through your sun roof in an attempt to determine if you are under the influence of NyQuil.