Federal lawsuit filed against Cleveland Heights Police [OH]

[algoesfast]

If I was an officer and I heard of one case like this. Whether it was in my state or not I would seek written information on local laws regarding similar situations in my jurisdiction. By trade I am an electrician. And I always check with local inspectors to see if they have any issues with what I'm doing. I would hope that LEO's would take their job seriously enough to actually learn the law. No one knows it all. But every human has the ability to learn. Lets hope that more LEO's take note of situations like this and make proper steps to ensure that their actions are backed by law and not opinion.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

<snip>Even those who know they are not obligated usually comply. After all, they don't want to give the officer a hard time. They're just doing their job...

While this whole post was rep worthy-and sadly enough I have to spread it-, the quoted section really gets to the heart of one of the basic problems I bring up all the time, people have had it ingrained in their psyche to give police some sort of deference even in the face of abuse. It is part of the indoctrination plan the government settled upon, in order to transform the government from a representitive republic into a democratic one.... but enough on that here, I just wanted to highlight that part of a great post....

Originally Posted by algoesfast

If I was an officer and I heard of one case like this. Whether it was in my state or not I would seek written information on local laws regarding similar situations in my jurisdiction. By trade I am an electrician. And I always check with local inspectors to see if they have any issues with what I'm doing. I would hope that LEO's would take their job seriously enough to actually learn the law. No one knows it all. But every human has the ability to learn. Lets hope that more LEO's take note of situations like this and make proper steps to ensure that their actions are backed by law and not opinion.

Good point. I see this time and time again, said by LEOs and their supporters, "no one can know every law, not even police". Umm..right, and no one says they should be expected to. What should, and indeed must, be expected and demanded of LEOs, is that they know the law they attempt to enforce. In addition, when they hear of something contrary to their existing belief set, instead of simply deciding that they have the authority, indeed the right, to do whatever they feel is the right thing, they should be expected to research the disputed facts enough that they do not arbitrarily arrest someone for doing something that is not in fact illegal. Something as simple as carrying a copy of the consolidated statutes around in their vehicle, and the willingness to look up the thing they are supposedly enforcing, would go a long way toward stopping nonsense like what happened to the man in the OP.

[ChrisF4i]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

One need not be told "You are under arrest" to change a 'detainment' to an 'arrest'.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest


But here's the part that seals the deal for me (that it WAS an arrest):

I understand that it is confusing, but there are levels of interactions with the police.

Mere encounter: LEO can ask any questions he/she wants to, to anybody he/she wants, does not have to read Miranda, person is free to leave whenever they want.

Investigatory detention (being detained): Reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Person is not free to leave, LEO must Mirandize if asking guilt seeking questions.

Then arrest of course: Which you need probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person that is being arrested probably committed the crime.

The whole thing is very confusing, but I'll bet most people don't realize that when you receive a citation, even a summary offense, you are technically arrested. Or maybe they do....IDK.

[leeam]

Originally Posted by algoesfast

If I was an officer and I heard of one case like this. Whether it was in my state or not I would seek written information on local laws regarding similar situations in my jurisdiction. By trade I am an electrician. And I always check with local inspectors to see if they have any issues with what I'm doing. I would hope that LEO's would take their job seriously enough to actually learn the law. No one knows it all. But every human has the ability to learn. Lets hope that more LEO's take note of situations like this and make proper steps to ensure that their actions are backed by law and not opinion.

Unlike an electrician, if they don't do things "by the book", they're rarely held accountable. I'm sure if you wired a building incorrectly and someone electrocuted themselves because you didn't follow some codes or procedures, you'd have more to worry about than "paid administrative leave". See you have to look at it from their point of view... they have no incentive. Even when civil rights cases are brought up and won, have officers had to personally pay damages?

[jslack7851]

In case the other big 2A organizations don't come through, and they haven't yet, but its early still, we can still show our support:

http://sueclevelandheights.chipin.com/o ... hts-police

[PA Traveler]

Originally Posted by ChrisF4i

No, he was being detained, wrongfully of course.

Click on the first link. Read the text of the suit itself. That was no investigatory detention. That was clearly an arrest, without any RAS or probable cause to believe an offense had been committed.

[addicted2freedom]

Nice!

Although, I do have a question. Amongst all the rubbish being spewed by the cops, I heard what appears to be a somewhat valid point. If, under the current law, certain persons are restricted from owning firearms, do they not have 'reasonable suspicion' to investigate a person if they are open carrying a weapon in order to verify the legality of the ownership of said weapon?

Actually, I just talked myself out of the validity of the point. I suspect that reasonable suspicion requires that there is reason to believe that the firearm in possession is done so illegally. Yay or nay?

If that is the case, is there ever a situation where reasonable suspicion can be raised for someone OC'ing?

[rmodel65]

Originally Posted by addicted2freedom

Nice!

Although, I do have a question. Amongst all the rubbish being spewed by the cops, I heard what appears to be a somewhat valid point. If, under the current law, certain persons are restricted from owning firearms, do they not have 'reasonable suspicion' to investigate a person if they are open carrying a weapon in order to verify the legality of the ownership of said weapon?

Actually, I just talked myself out of the validity of the point. I suspect that reasonable suspicion requires that there is reason to believe that the firearm in possession is done so illegally. Yay or nay?

If that is the case, is there ever a situation where reasonable suspicion can be raised for someone OC'ing?

there is no gun exception to the 4th amendment.....

[MrBi11]

Originally Posted by addicted2freedom

Nice!

Although, I do have a question. Amongst all the rubbish being spewed by the cops, I heard what appears to be a somewhat valid point. If, under the current law, certain persons are restricted from Driving a car, do they not have 'reasonable suspicion' to investigate a person if they are open Driving a car in order to verify the legality of the ownership of said Automobile?

Actually, I just talked myself out of the validity of the point. I suspect that reasonable suspicion requires that there is reason to believe that the vehicle in possession is done so illegally. Yay or nay?

If that is the case, is there ever a situation where reasonable suspicion can be raised for someone Driving?

Or enter any other item that requires permission from the government, you know the ones that don't have a constitutional amendment specifically saying the government can't restrict there access. Like a boat, or a hunting, etc.

[redeye202]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

???

Please elaborate.

The 2A,open carry and citizens owning firearems are a nightmare for politicans,moreso now that we have libs in control of the gov. A federal judge will decide this case and his decision will become case law,he will be under great political pressure to make the right[politically correct]decision.
I may be wrong[have been many times in my life] but i just don't trust the courts anymore. You have been through the system and are still involved in it,just how much do you trust the system,just remember that politics are at play in every aspect of our daily lives.