Is checking for a Lisense a valid reason to detain a person?

[mlr1m]

The thread about the guy who was arrested for open carrying when the Police said he did not appear to be of legal age to carry. In that case the Police claim is that he was stopped because of his youthful appearance. Which I understand would be reasonable cause.

Now for my issue. November first of this year Open carry, with a license, will become legal in Oklahoma. The Police Chief in one city here has already announced that his department will stop anyone they see openly carrying and ask to see their license. One some forums I have read that this is illegal if they do not have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.
Does anyone know for sure?

EDIT: I seem to have found my answer.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_ch...a_traffic_stop

It depends on the type of motorist checkpoint. Roadblocks, as they are referred to by the courts, fall under what is known as a special needs exception to the 4th Amendment. The special needs exception requires that the primary purpose of the search/seizure be for regulatory, not law enforcement, purposes. Under this theory, things like drivers license/vehicle registration checkpoints pass muster because the purpose is to ensure motorists have complied with state licensing requirements. And as stated below, if there are observable signs of other wrongdoing, police may also gain probable cause for further searches at this type of checkpoint.

Under this special needs excemption it seems the Government is free to stop anyone who is required by law to have a license, for any activity, to see if they have one. This example refers to drivers licenses but I assume it applies to all activities requiring a license.

Michael

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[SIXTO]

Using the standard used for drivers licenses, no, that would not be legal.

[sgb]

Using the standard used for drivers licenses, no, that would not be legal.

I agree, nothing prevents an Officer from approaching and inquiring under a voluntary contact, however the Officer can not detain and demand without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

[Badey]

No, it is not. A couple of websites have some good resources on the legal aspects of this question that cite specific court cases on this issue. I'll let you do the searching leg work since I don't remember the specific posts. Hope this helps.

OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum

Open Carry

[archer51]

Agree with SIXTO as to it not being legal without some other justification. A MWAG call will probably be used as justification. If the police chief tells his men to stop anyone they see OC'ing, then it is going to happen.

If that is the orders they are given, people need to remember, not to blame the LEO on the street who is following orders from his boss. But to blame the chief. I would imagine a couple of law suits with him getting his hand slapped will change his orders.

[mlr1m]

I have found answering it both ways. It seems some States have laws preventing drivers license checks unless their is some other reason for the stop. I edited my original post to show a Federal Court exception for license checks if it is fro regulatory reasons and not law enforcement. Just thinking about it. How if stopping me to check for a carry license or drivers license is illegal why can I be stopped to check for a hunting or fishing license?

Michael

[SIXTO]

Fish and game have a lot more leeway; you are hunting state owned animals on state owned land...

[Maverick7340]

It was written in the Oklahoma open carry law that any LEO can ask to see your permit if you are carrying OC. They don't need a reason to stop you and ask. All they need to see is your gun. Once they see you have a permit and are legally carrying then you "should" be free to go.

[F350]

Agree with SIXTO as to it not being legal without some other justification. A MWAG call will probably be used as justification. If the police chief tells his men to stop anyone they see OC'ing, then it is going to happen.

If that is the orders they are given, people need to remember, not to blame the LEO on the street who is following orders from his boss. But to blame the chief. I would imagine a couple of law suits with him getting his hand slapped will change his orders.

I seem to remember the United States being the primary power behind sending men to the gallows who claimed "I vas only following orders"; saying a man is obligated to disobey unlawful orders.

[mlr1m]

I seem to remember the United States being the primary power behind sending men to the gallows who claimed "I vas only following orders"; saying a man is obligated to disobey unlawful orders.

Like a Police officer on the side of a road. The winning side gets to decide what is a lawful order.

Michael

[Hopyard]

Fish and game have a lot more leeway; you are hunting state owned animals on state owned land...

I don't know about that particular rationalization. You could well be correct, but it has been my understanding
that the Fish and Game folks regularly check on private property as well, because they are looking to catch
poachers and trespassers; and an occasional meth lab they might stumble on.

[Hopyard]

It was written in the Oklahoma open carry law that any LEO can ask to see your permit if you are carrying OC. They don't need a reason to stop you and ask. All they need to see is your gun. Once they see you have a permit and are legally carrying then you "should" be free to go.

Wow, that could get to be quite a nuisance if you are taking a long walk through a heavily patrolled
location.

[F350]

Like a Police officer on the side of a road. The winning side gets to decide what is a lawful order.

Michael

NO! You don't fight it on the side of the road....... You dry hump him in court till his nose bleeds!

[SIXTO]

Im not so sure about the dry humping part, but yes, court is the proper venue.

I don't know about that particular rationalization. You could well be correct, but it has been my understanding
that the Fish and Game folks regularly check on private property as well, because they are looking to catch
poachers and trespassers; and an occasional meth lab they might stumble on.

Im sure things will vary slightly from state to state, but in the game warden is on private property, he'd be so at the invitation of the owner, or if the property is split by public access such as a road. Otherwise reasonable suspicion would need to exist. Most property owners welcome wildlife officers on their land, as it does nothing but good for them. They chase off the riff raff and often help out with land and wildlife management issues. Here in Ohio, a guy can hunt and fish to his hearts content on his own property without a license. He still needs to obey game seasons, as the actual animals belong to the people. The only exception would be a game farm, and then the animals belong to the farm.

[woodstock]

Agree with SIXTO as to it not being legal without some other justification. A MWAG call will probably be used as justification. If the police chief tells his men to stop anyone they see OC'ing, then it is going to happen.

If that is the orders they are given, people need to remember, not to blame the LEO on the street who is following orders from his boss. But to blame the chief. I would imagine a couple of law suits with him getting his hand slapped will change his orders.

We all know, "I was only following orders." didn't work at Nurenburg. We also know about lawful orders and that we disobey at our own peril. But LEOs have to obey the law before than obeying a boss bent on harassing law abiding citizens. The individual officer is going to named in the civil suit so CYA.