Again, I say the stop went on too long. But part of the reason it went on too long was because Pete wanted to make sure that every one of his rights was exercised to the fullest possible extent. Simply by asking, “Am I free to leave”? Pete probably could have shortened the whole affair.

Regarding Greg’s comments, the stop was illegal. Period. Detainments must be supported by reasonable suspicion of a crime and open carrying is not a crime, nor does this perfectly legal activity offer reasonable suspicion of a crime, according to both common sense and case law, anymore than driving a vehicle offer reasonable suspicion of vehicular homicide. Thousands of people open carry in Virginia every day and most police departments know better by now than to detain for such a non-crime (it’s taken quite a few incidents like Pete’s and quite a bit of paper pushing to make it that way, but we’ve done quite well).

So, Greg, NO this was not a “run of the mill Terry Stop.” It wasn’t a Terry Stop at all. Terry stops must be supported by Reasonable Suspicion and, as I said, carrying a gun, according to case law, is not that.

Second, no Greg, it didn’t last “a little longer than usual.” According to case law, it lasted long enough to become a “de facto arrest,” which means Pete was illegally detained AND illegally arrested for exercising a God-given right. Educate yourself, man.

United States v. Sharpe states that a detainment must last NO LONGER than the amount of time it takes to ensure that the crime for which the police had reasonable suspicion had not taken place. They have to let you go as soon as that happens. They did not. They continued to detain him after they concluded there was no crime in order to take his picture. That was an illegal arrest, not based on reasonable suspicion.

Non-cooperation in that situation is part of the training good citizens must do for their government. It makes it less likely to happen again, and, incidentally, Arlington PD has NOT detained any more people open carrying (and it’s not because no one is doing it ;-)

Nothing about being armed makes one an “old West gunslinger.” Save your biggoted ignorance, Greg.

Regarding your disgusting comment that if Pete allowed his rights to be trampled, he would’ve “gotten out of there much sooner,” first, if the police had followed the law and Constitution, he would’ve been out of there much sooner. Second, if your rights aren’t worth 20 minutes of your time, a boy like you would not understand why men like Pete do what they do.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” — Sigmund Freud

“Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks” — George Washington

My rights don’t stop when your emotionally-stunted fretting begins, and I’m not going to trade my rights to the people to whom you’ve delegated your responsibilities just so you can “feel safe.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxVXZqMN6XI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL0WRbPHPNo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHTtal_EK0A

My guess is that the identification ordinance would be sufficiently similar to other ID statutes that the Hiibel ruling would govern here.

First, you describe Pete as a “suspect”. Based on the transcript of the 911 call in Pete’s blog, what was he suspected of? The call merely states that he has a holstered gun, and the caller even points out that he knows that it’s not illegal. So what crime is he suspected of?

Second, it is one thing to say that one is required to identify himself, and another to say that that he is required to show identification. Based solely on the text of the above law, no “papers” are required to be shown, but one must state one’s name and address. After all, since he was not driving, he’s not required to carry ID, so how could he be required to show it? Pete appears to be aware of the law, as he says “they attempted to get more information than I was required to provide per the law, such as my social security number and my city of birth.” This implies that he gave them his name and address. But you haven’t shown any requirement for him to show them ID.

I was fortunate enough to spend a week with Florida’s Supreme Court Justices last year discussing this very case (and other 4th Amendment cases). If they are right, you are wrong.

In J.L., the call was anonymous, it gave very little detail, and cops found no hint of illegal activity that would corroborate the call. In Pete’s case, the call was not anonymous, and the caller gave sufficient detail to indicate who and where the subject was, which was then corroborated by the police, all amounting to the reasonable suspicion necessary to “stop and frisk.” Hence, Terry is justified (or, at least, J.L. is easily distinguished).

As to the “stop and identify” law, cf. Chapter 17, Section 13(c) of the Arlington County Code: “It shall be unlawful for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.”

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CountyBoard/CountyCode/default.aspx

It was an excellent effort, though. Kind of 1L, but a good try nonetheless.

A thousand pardons, please, about the VCDL post above. I had you confused with another blogger.

It is simple: in a non-police state, police only have the power that I give to them. I have empowered police to act within the law. Within the law, police act on my behalf and with the consent of the governed. Outside of the law, police are on their own. Because police have a difficult job with “on the spot” judgement calls, I will give them every benefit of a doubt that I can (for example, I think Rodney King got what he deserved). My doubts ran out at thirty minutes. If Arlington cops don’t like Arlington law, they can go to work for the City of New York. If I don’t like New York laws, I can go live in Virginia. God bless America.

Allegedly?

Virginia has no open carry law. It is not addressed by law, so not being illegal, it is legal. No permit is required.

Hiibelonly established that state laws requiring individuals to show identification are not unconstitutional. Absent such a law, there is no requirement to show ID (Virginia has no such law).

This sounds like a run of the mill Terry stop that lasted a little longer than normal, and probably only because they received a call about it

It’s not a Terry stop, because the police had no reason to believe crime was afoot. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), where SCOTUS held that an anonymous report of a man with a gun is insufficient to invoke Terry.

I disagree, Barney Fife was a critical element in the lesson! And many of our current crop of officers obviously paid attention to his character and emulate him on so many levels today.

I don’t think anyone’s objecting to his being asked a few questions and making sure that he had a permit. The problem was that the process should have taken no more than 3-5 minutes at most.

Except for that whole “keeping Barney on as a deputy” thing. I love that old show, but Andy’s sole character flaw seemed to be his lack of desire to find a competent deputy. Of course, then we’d have been robbed of Don Knotts’ special genius, so I forgave him long ago.

Since VA does not recognize my Georgia Firearms License, I carried my handgun openly when I was in VA on vacation last year. I carried around the Roanoke/Salem area and farther north in Lexington and the natural Bridge area as well.

Not once did I notice any reaction from anyone, positive or negative (police included).

Actually, I was relishing the experience. In GA a license is required to carry a pistol in any manner. Also, GA has more places off limits to lawful carry than any other state.

Walking around in VA with a gun on my hip, no license required and with almost nowhere off limits, I almost felt like a free man.