Concealed Carry=Probable Cause of criminal activity

This is a discussion on Concealed Carry=Probable Cause of criminal activity within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Still, the "background check" including full fingerprints is completed prior to issuing a Georgia Firearms License. The bearer is verified as being entitled to possess ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Concealed Carry=Probable Cause of criminal activity

  1. #61
    Member Array Toml's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    34
    Still, the "background check" including full fingerprints is completed prior to issuing a Georgia Firearms License. The bearer is verified as being entitled to possess a weapon as defined by the law when the license is in their possession.

    What's with this background check you speak of...simply because someone legally possesses a firearm or knife? The last time I was stopped by the police no background check was run, nor was it expected. You guys either have too much to do or too little. Just check id if you're interested and we will all go our own way. I'm not breaking the law because I carry.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    ...That depends on the what's being used. If the cop is doing it on an MDT it could take longer pending on system usage, if it's being radioed in to dispatch it could take a while depending on the volume of traffic that the dispatcher is dealing with.

    Most PDs where I've worked (installing, maintaining, repairing public safety 911/Dispatch/radio systems) only have one machine to run NICS and one dispatcher able to log into that terminal at a time, if there's a lot going on that day, back ground checks can take longer.

    Not saying that's what the case was, but stating that every single back ground check should take "X" time is bull. It gets even worse if some one has the same name as a wanted person.
    BINGO! ^^

    This is _exactly_ my understanding as well and I know it is fact for two reasons.

    First being just this past winter spring I went through an extensive 16 week college course type Citizens Police Academy locally as taught by a major city police force. Other students included a major defense atty. well known to the PD as well as two major news media persons (reporter and cameraman) who both participated as students along with multiple city govt. reps including a representative from the county judicial court.

    We spent a full course day (3hrs) covering this very subject including in real time at a squad car running background checks against volunteer student persons.
    It takes time and is not instant, exactly as how JD relates it per situations. We also got to see in real time as while working that of dispatch and it was in the evening time during a normal and very busy shift.
    Again these checks are not always going to be instant and to expect as much makes no sense at all. Functionally.

    Second I have been stopped (moving violation) and was cuffed there after and enudured all manner of much harder and longer time frame than this guys "half hour" simply because my full name, minus surname, matched that of not just one person and I supposedly resembled that of a second. One who had a suspended license (my father) and the second a person who with a car style & color similar to my own had minutes prior committed a major crime of some sort and they were seeking the person. I'd posted about this before in another thread as toward being roughed up and detained at the street gutter for over 1.5 hrs (!). Only to be ultimately released and given a _bogus_ moving violation citation, only after it took a follow on sargent on duty to confirm that my ID was me and not my father or some other cat unknown to me.
    This was in DC, another major metropolitan area city.

    Again these are the realities of how these systems and activities do commonly work, in and among a major metro area/city.
    Things may be different and faster in small towns and such, which is not where this incident occurred.

    To think one could get off with a "background check" in seconds at a city, is not reasonable nor even believable.
    A thirty minute delay and detention is very much believable, reasonable as related to _context_ and is also lawful and appropriate as again by context of the situation in it's entirety.
    This was not a stop of a guy 'holding a a pistol' nor was it a stop of a guy as at his car. Folk have to stop parsing the situation and facts and rather take into full consideration the entirety of everything as viewed and then known to the LEO as relative to context in that immediate.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  4. #63
    Member Array Toml's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    34
    There seems to have been no other purpose for this incident than to validate the individual's license to carry a concealed weapon. No laws were broken. Hardly reason for detention on probable cause, which may have merited a more thorough check of his identity/record, &tc. One could easily draw the conclusion that he believed he had been singled out simply because he possessed a concealed weapon.

    Bad on MARTA if this is their attitude.

    Someone said the officers could have held him pending instructions from their supervisors. I could accept this explanation, but this incident was simply not a fair way to treat a private citizen legally using a public accommodation.

  5. #64
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    I really wonder if anyone read the order of the court and understood it, rather just acting emotionally about a subject they are uninformed about.

    This was a 4th amendment warrantless seizure and search issue.

    The decission is in line with other cases on the issue which say the police may effect a seizure of a person (brief detention) without a warrant upon probable cause that a crime (some guy with a gun walking into a transit station...) is occuring, and then investigate if such crime is in fact occuring. If the detention's duration is what the court considers reasonable, then no violations of the constitution have occured.

    A person coming in my office complaining about a 30 minute detention by the police because an officer saw them take a gun from the car, conceal it on their person and walk into a bus station...that results in no arrest or further adverse action...would get told he doesn't have a case.

    I wonder if the people who are so offended by this case are more in shock about it because they are realizing they don't know as much about their rights as they think they did, and are getting a bluntly worded statement about how incorrect they are.

    This case just happens to involve a gun & Georgia Carry, so people feel the judge is picking on them.

    He isn't.

  6. #65
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,657
    Mitchell, maybe I'm missing something. You wrote: "This was a 4th amendment warrantless seizure and search issue.
    The decission is in line with other cases on the issue which say the police may effect a seizure of a person (brief detention) without a warrant upon probable cause that a crime (some guy with a gun walking into a transit station...) is occuring,"

    OK-- to this point we would be on the same page if OC were unlawful. But where is the probable cause if in an OC legal state? Next, once aware of a CHL or whatever the permit is called in GA and especially once aware the guy was LE, where is the probable cause for a non-existent crime?

    Now, you might think that a half hour on the side of the road is no big deal. Maybe the law thinks its no big deal. That isn't how most folks are going to feel about it; especially anyone who has done nothing whatsoever for which they should be detained.

    What you and a couple of others are saying is that if I am stopped for a tail light violation and present my CHL, it is perfectly OK to hold me for 30 minutes or somewhat longer while the nice officer double and triple checks the validity of my DL, CHL, car registration, and that I've really been a good boy and not just committed a holdup in the last 30 minutes. That is fine in theory, as long as you (I) am not the one on the side of the road.

    Maybe as you say there is no case there. The judge agreed to that point. Still, there is a difference between right and wrong, being treated right and being treated wrongfully.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Mitchell, maybe I'm missing something....

    OK-- to this point we would be on the same page if OC were unlawful. But where is the probable cause if in an OC legal state?.
    Probable cause is defined as a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed.

    It does not have to be correct, but it does have to be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

    In this matter, the plaintiff's actions raised suspicion of the observing officer to a degree that was sufficient that a reasonably prudent and cautious person would believe that a crime has been or was about to be committed.

    Taking a pistol out of your trunk in a parking lot, tucking it under a jacket and walking toward a crowded transit station tends to make reasonably prudent people who wear plastic guns, big shiny buttons & blue clown suits believe "sumptin be goin down"

    Rightly or wrongly, that's the info they have to go on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Next, once aware of a CHL or whatever the permit is called in GA and especially once aware the guy was LE, where is the probable cause for a non-existent crime?
    Once the probable cause exists, it allows for detention & investigation sufficient to determine if further action needs to be taken.

    This can take 3 minutes or 3 hours, it depends on the factual situation.

    30 minutes is by no means unreasonable, especially in a situation involving firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Now, you might think that a half hour on the side of the road is no big deal. Maybe the law thinks its no big deal. That isn't how most folks are going to feel about it; especially anyone who has done nothing whatsoever for which they should be detained.
    Determining reasonability is a matter for the court, but they would use a subjective/objective test and interest balancing (your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures v. the state's interest to enforce its own laws) to look at the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What you and a couple of others are saying is that if I am stopped for a tail light violation and present my CHL, it is perfectly OK to hold me for 30 minutes or somewhat longer while the nice officer double and triple checks the validity of my DL, CHL, car registration, and that I've really been a good boy and not just committed a holdup in the last 30 minutes. That is fine in theory, as long as you (I) am not the one on the side of the road.
    No, it isn't what I've been saying, and if you had read carefully you'd have understood I was saying that given the situation, the facts as the police knew the, and the totality of the circumstances as they presented themselves - THIS detention was not a violation of the 4th amendment.

    Warrantless detentions are constitutional only so long as probable cause exists.

    A traffic stop is a different situation.

    It involves different facts, circumstances, laws which may or may not ahve been violated, and other factors which may allow for the length of the detention to be much shorter (or longer...) but the search to far more in depth (or none at all), and the level of detention used different from this one.

    You are attempting to make a 1:1 analysis when that is incorrect in underlying theory at such a fundamental level it's difficult to convey.


    People are protected from unreasonable seizure and search.

    S&S must be upon warrant or upon probable cause.

    Action taken upon PC must be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

    This is the fundamentals, and they do not change; however, the application in the practical sense varies deeply and significantly based upon factors which present themselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Maybe as you say there is no case there. The judge agreed to that point. Still, there is a difference between right and wrong, being treated right and being treated wrongfully.
    He was treated just fine.

    The detention was brief.
    His weapon was returned at the incident's conclusion.
    The authorities did not take action to revoke his permit.

    He was using the incident to initiate a lawsuit that isn't worth the paper it's written on due to the police acting properly, professionally and quickly to determine what happened, the status of his permit, who he is, and if they should take any further action based upon what they had at hand.

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    MitchelCT is dead on with all points.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  9. #68
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    MitchelCT is dead on with all points.

    - Janq
    Agreed.


    We can run in circles on this one all day long, but two posts up was about the best description of what happened from start to finish that I've seen yet.


    And with that we're closing on a good note.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Arkansas re-ignites activity with the push for open carry
    By Ram Rod in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: March 25th, 2011, 10:20 AM
  2. Physical Activity Carry Question
    By something in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: December 1st, 2009, 11:39 PM
  3. Probable Cause... without an effect?
    By OMEGA2669 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 16th, 2009, 10:45 PM
  4. Would a CCW Permit = Probable Cause?
    By landofvanill in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: May 5th, 2009, 10:51 AM

Search tags for this page

carrying a firearm concealed is probable cause a crime is committed
,

concealed carry probable cause

,
concealed weapon activity
,

federal judge thomas w thrash georgia

,
georgia weapons probable cause to stop
,

mn carry permit is it probable cause

,

probabal cause of illegal activity

,

william tavernier arrest

,

william tavernier arrests

,

william tavernier felonies

,

william tavernier felony

,

william tavernier supreme court

Click on a term to search for related topics.