LEO perspective

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
diamondsun
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:10 pm
Location: Medway, Oh. -Clark County

Re: LEO perspective

Post by diamondsun »

Warning: long post
\preaching
FormerNavy wrote: The only real way to stop it will be for a criminal who had his gun S/N called in in such a way to win a suppression of evidence motion and appeal.... If a LAC challenges it the court will likely find they had no grounds and were not really inconvenienced...

The thing that most LEO don't really consider is that none of this occurs in a vacuum. No, a LAC that challenges such action, won't have any grounds to stand on in court. But, there has been damage done in his mind and that damage is to the LEO and department's reputations.

I've never had my gun taken for "officer safety", but if it happens, I would definitely insist that the gun and holster be removed together. I'd also later get the recording of the radio traffic to see if the serial number was called in. My criminal record, or more properly, lack thereof is readily apparent when the officer runs my plates before ever approaching me. I'd find asking for the weapon to be mildly insulting. Running the SN on the firearm would be a violation of my privacy and my rights in my mind.

That's where reputation comes into play. While I've never had my gun taken, something else happened almost 20 years ago. I was driving and dropped my cigarette. It was near the door, and I simply opened the door and let the wind pull the burning cigarette out of the truck. Less than a minute later, I was pulled over. The Marion city PD officer had seen me open and hold open my door for a couple seconds and, from the conversation we had, was basically curious to see what was up. Honestly, had he just left it there, or said he pulled me over because opening the door while in motion is a violation or dangerous, I would have been fine with it. What he came up with to give as a reason to pull me over was that I was speeding. I looked at him funny and said, you know how fast I was going, right? He replied, 35 but this is a 25 zone. I then pointed to the 35MPH speed limit sign less than 100 feet in front of us and pointed out that we passed another less than a mile back. Now we have a problem.

A couple days later, we were both seated in the Chief's office and the officer admitted that he lied about the reason for pulling me over. The Chief, correctly, pointed out that his officer can legally lie to me. DOES NOT MATTER. After that, if this particular officer says the sun will come up in the East, I'm gonna look West come dawn. His word is worthless, and the word of any officer of that department has to be viewed with heavy skepticism.

Fast forward about 2 years later and I get a letter to report for jury duty. Officer #2 who was riding with the guy that pulled me over is on the stand. I find that I can't give his testimony of exigent circumstances more weight than the testimony of the couple that insist there was no fight and an illegal search. Hung jury and a drug dealer gets away with it because I can't trust the word of that cop. If a cop has absolutely no reason to remove my firearm from the holster and run the SN on my firearm, but does so anyway, how can I trust in court when that cop, or any officer of that department, says he has RAS or PC to search someone else?

To me, it's not about whether CHL's are good guys or not. It's about police holding up their end. Doing things the right way. Not abusing the public trust. Because when we give police the powers we do, it's all about trust.

/sermon
To America's Citizen Soldier; Who answered the call; Climbed the hill; Paid the price; And never let us down.
racer265
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:33 am
Location: Minerva Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by racer265 »

Diamondson, I feel the same way.... Honesty with a police officer is expected of US when there is interaction.. sometimes the honesty is appreciated and goes along way with the officer. BUT If I lie to a police officer I am in trouble, possibly legal trouble just for lying to them.. The police officer CAN and will lie to you just to say that your story has changed so he has a reason to go farther with an investigation... :!: :?: :evil: :x
User avatar
Chuck
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 4753
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:06 am
Location: Licking County

Re: LEO perspective

Post by Chuck »

If you can't expect honesty, how can you trust?
Ain't activism fun?

"Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. " - George Washington

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something.
And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do.
What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."
- Edward Everett Hale (descendant of Nathan Hale)
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: LEO perspective

Post by djthomas »

diamondsun wrote:A couple days later, we were both seated in the Chief's office and the officer admitted that he lied about the reason for pulling me over. The Chief, correctly, pointed out that his officer can legally lie to me. DOES NOT MATTER.
That's unfortunate. The sad thing is that the chief was only about half right. It's true that law enforcement can lie in certain circumstances, especially during an interview. But they cannot legally make up probable cause where none existed. The chief absolutely should know that and I probably would have escalated my complaint up to the next level at that point. But this all goes back to the point made earlier: unless you're somehow criminally charged during the incident you really don't have any meaningful recourse.

Just curious after your hung jury did you ever follow up with the prosecutor? I know that my prosecutor would be very interested in knowing that the officers he represents are doing things to undermine their own credibility with the very people who will make up his jury pools.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 5506
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: LEO perspective

Post by Werz »

djthomas wrote:I know that my prosecutor would be very interested in knowing that the officers he represents are doing things to undermine their own credibility with the very people who will make up his jury pools.
How will that change anything if their police agencies continue to put them on the streets?
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: LEO perspective

Post by djthomas »

Werz wrote:
djthomas wrote:I know that my prosecutor would be very interested in knowing that the officers he represents are doing things to undermine their own credibility with the very people who will make up his jury pools.
How will that change anything if their police agencies continue to put them on the streets?
Not much at first, but in my experience the prosecutor tends to hold a position at the same level as the police chief, sometimes even a step higher. The police chief usually reports to the mayor or safety director. The prosecutor usually reports to the law director, and in some cases is the law director. Law directors tend to either be directly elected or report to the mayor or council.

If the police chief can keep minor problems at his level then nothing bad will ever happen. On the other hand a prosecutor is an officer of the court. He is duty bound to not let shenanigans go forward and to give his client (the city) a full disclosure of potential legal issues. It has been my experience that the prosecutor is more or less treated like a god. If you anger him, he has the ear of some very powerful people, all of whom report to the voters and have the ability to make your life as a city employee, and that of your bosses (e.g. the chief) quite miserable. In fact, memos from our chief just need to be read. Memos from the prosecutor or law director need to be read and acknowledged.
User avatar
diamondsun
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:10 pm
Location: Medway, Oh. -Clark County

Re: LEO perspective

Post by diamondsun »

That's an interesting perspective, I wish I'd thought of it, but going to the county prosecutor never even crossed my mind back then.
To America's Citizen Soldier; Who answered the call; Climbed the hill; Paid the price; And never let us down.
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: LEO perspective

Post by djthomas »

If your trial was at the county level then it is a slightly different dynamic. On the one hand the actual prosecutor is directly elected, but on the other he won't have quite the same level of influence over municipal police officers. A county prosecutor is not going to call the mayor and say he's not happy with a few things. The municipal prosecutor will probably let that drop over their morning coffee.
User avatar
dcludwig
Posts: 1859
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:51 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio

Re: LEO perspective

Post by dcludwig »

Werz wrote:
djthomas wrote:I know that my prosecutor would be very interested in knowing that the officers he represents are doing things to undermine their own credibility with the very people who will make up his jury pools.
How will that change anything if their police agencies continue to put them on the streets?
Yep! Which is one of the main reasons the notification law should be eliminated. Give cops on the street who don't know the law cause to abuse their authority. The way things are in Dayton, they will put who is politically correct in being placed on the street. After all, you only need a "passing grade" of 60 - yep - 60, to get into the academy. So, I only expect things to get worse in Dayton as time goes on.
U.S. Army 1968 - 1971
5th SFGA, 1st SF
Republic of Vietnam, March 1969 to May 1971

ALWAYS be aware of the letter of the law, because THEY may not be! --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWLxPC6YKlA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Post Reply