Gun Law Q&A With Off Duty LEO - Page 7

Cycler · October 27th, 2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BikerRN

TX-JB has it right.
Nobody can be expected to know every law on the books.

Yet if I unknowingly break the law, I'm still liable, irrespective of whether I acted in good faith or not.

Quote:

If an arrest is made "in good faith" I do not see why the LEO should be personally liable.

Seems like quite a double standard. A regular citizen is held liable for all laws on the books.

A citizen who swears to uphold the law and becomes a LEO is suddenly not held to that same standard?

You're right that no one can be expected to know every law on the book. That's why cops often let people off when they were acting in good faith. If a LEO doesn't know the law or his knowledge is put into doubt, they should detain and get on the phone or radio to get an answer ASAP so that they can either arrest or get the person on their way as quickly as possible.

SIXTO · October 27th, 2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Here's the rub - what exactly is "Good Faith" in this situation?

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I am carrying a gun in my glove box in Florida, which is perfectly lawful under Florida law. I get pulled over and, I tell the officer there is a gun in the glovebox rather than going into the glovebox for my registration.
Now if there was ever a case where my 'offender' actually makes me wonder about my actions, I certainly would make sure I am right before proceeding, assuming all other things are normal.

He pulls me out of the car and detains me so he can safely retrieve the vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Then, because he doesn't really understand the law, he tells me he is going to charge me with carrying a concealed weapon. I tell him that it is lawful under Florida Statute 790.25(5) to carry the firearm in the glovebox, and further that I have a copy of the statute available if he would like to read it.

He tells me I am wrong, and without making any effort to verify the information I have provided he arrests me and books me into jail.

Has he in fact acted in "Good Faith"?

Matt

I say yes, if we take away the nature of the example. If somebody provides me with a "law" they printed out off the interent to prove their innocence, they probably would get a chuckle at best out of me. I've arrested very few people who were honest about their actions, and actually knew anything about law or legal procedure. Most got their 'education' by watching TV or reading on Internet forums.

With that said, given the nature of this particular example, one could easily make the argument that the officer did not act in good faith because it is such a simple and basic law that he should really know.

Lets use the same scenario, but replace the CCW with some obscure law, now what do we have? Lets say you are transporting prescription medication in your glove box, but not in a proper container. The officer makes an arrest; is that in good faith?

MattLarson · October 27th, 2009, 12:51 PM

It's a difficult question, but I believe the it is incumbent on the officer to make an attempt to verify that the actions giving rise to the arrest are in fact unlawful.

When someone tells you you are making a mistake, "oops" is no longer a valid defense, IMHO, if you proceed after being informed.

Obviously you need to examine the credibility of the information provided, but unless you have an articulable reason not to trust it, it seems to me that detaining the subject and consulting with a supervisor is preferable to proceeding with an arrest that does not have a basis in law.

Matt

BlueNinjaGo · October 27th, 2009, 12:55 PM

Since when did "Innocent until proven guilty" go out of style?

SIXTO · October 27th, 2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

It's a difficult question, but I believe the it is incumbent on the officer to make an attempt to verify that the actions giving rise to the arrest are in fact unlawful.

When someone tells you you are making a mistake, "oops" is no longer a valid defense, IMHO, if you proceed after being informed.

Obviously you need to examine the credibility of the information provided, but unless you have an articulable reason not to trust it, it seems to me that detaining the subject and consulting with a supervisor is preferable to proceeding with an arrest that does not have a basis in law.

Matt

Agreed.

Deanimator · October 27th, 2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIXTO

You are right, nobody is arguing otherwise. However, what comes into play here is the difference in the words detain and arrest. Most people assume that if handcuffs are on, there is an arrest. That is not true. If an LEO see or finds a handgun in a car during a traffic stop, it is perfectly legal for him to detain to conduct a safe investigation. Like it or not, that fight has already been fought several times over. Every court in the land has said what I am saying now.

It doesn't matter if you detain me. If you detain me for something that's not a crime and you should KNOW that it's not a crime, you're going to have a bad day. That's a FAR cry from detaining somebody to investigate whether they're committing a SPECIFIC offense, which in fact IS an offense.

Detaining me for open carrying, or for not open carrying my firearm in a car, or for not "promptly" notifying when you're demanding that I not talk are all intentional torts and I'm going to treat them as intentional torts.

Deanimator · October 27th, 2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIXTO

Lets use the same scenario, but replace the CCW with some obscure law, now what do we have? Lets say you are transporting prescription medication in your glove box, but not in a proper container. The officer makes an arrest; is that in good faith?

If you arrest somebody for something, it had BETTER be an offense. If you have ANY doubt, you'd BETTER ask somebody. If you deprive me of my liberty by virtue of arrogance rather than law, I've got no more reason to let that go than a cop would to let it go if I tried to resist a lawful arrest or obstruct an investigation.

64zebra · October 27th, 2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIXTO

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson View Post
It's a difficult question, but I believe the it is incumbent on the officer to make an attempt to verify that the actions giving rise to the arrest are in fact unlawful.

When someone tells you you are making a mistake, "oops" is no longer a valid defense, IMHO, if you proceed after being informed.

Obviously you need to examine the credibility of the information provided, but unless you have an articulable reason not to trust it, it seems to me that detaining the subject and consulting with a supervisor is preferable to proceeding with an arrest that does not have a basis in law.

Matt

Agreed.

Agreed

example....we chat on our computers all the time to each other asking questions about stops we're on, situations, etc, our Sgts are a cell phone call away and we all work good together
we don't make arrests, etc without knowing what we are doing, I like the mentality my dept has in that we are not too good to ask questions, some people are more knowledgable or more experienced in certain areas than others, I for one am one of the few on my shift that knows all the weapons laws like my own personal history, others have more experience/knowledge in other areas like drugs;
if we run into a questionable area, we ask each other,
thats the way it should be, no robocop, chip on the shoulder, etc

Deanimator · October 27th, 2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Has he in fact acted in "Good Faith"?

If the cop has a reasonable articulable suspicion that you've committed, are committing or are about to commit something that's actually a crime, that's probably good faith.

If on the other hand, he arrests (or detains) you for something which is manifestly not a crime (carrying with a loaded chamber, carrying cocked and locked, etc.) that's BY DEFINITION not good faith. If he detains you to see IF it's a crime, he's still violated your rights, but has gone some distance to mitigate his erroneous actions. Once you're arrested, there's no going back. And at least in Chicago, the officer himself is liable for punitive damages. I'd be going for them too.

Rebmik · October 27th, 2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 64zebra

Agreed

example....we chat on our computers all the time to each other asking questions about stops we're on, situations, etc, our Sgts are a cell phone call away and we all work good together
we don't make arrests, etc without knowing what we are doing, I like the mentality my dept has in that we are not too good to ask questions, some people are more knowledgable or more experienced in certain areas than others, I for one am one of the few on my shift that knows all the weapons laws like my own personal history, others have more experience/knowledge in other areas like drugs;
if we run into a questionable area, we ask each other,
thats the way it should be, no robocop, chip on the shoulder, etc

THAT is the best thing that I have read in this entire thread.

At least one police dept. has their crap together.

October 27th, 2009, 12:51 PM	#63
MattLarson Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,862	It's a difficult question, but I believe the it is incumbent on the officer to make an attempt to verify that the actions giving rise to the arrest are in fact unlawful. When someone tells you you are making a mistake, "oops" is no longer a valid defense, IMHO, if you proceed after being informed. Obviously you need to examine the credibility of the information provided, but unless you have an articulable reason not to trust it, it seems to me that detaining the subject and consulting with a supervisor is preferable to proceeding with an arrest that does not have a basis in law. Matt __________________ Hope is not a plan.

October 27th, 2009, 12:55 PM	#64
BlueNinjaGo Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 264	Since when did "Innocent until proven guilty" go out of style? __________________ Bersa Thunder .380 cc Springfield XD 9mm sc

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode