Cops

Reasonable Suspicion

This post is about a video of a police interaction in Virginia, which is included below. Let me say that the cops really need to stop being total dumbasses, because I really don’t want this blog to become an anti-cop blog. It just seems like they can’t help themselves. They are just hiring tyrannical dumbasses to be cops.

Here is the basis of the video that follows:

Police received at least one call complaining about shots fired in a rural area. The vehicle involved was reported to be a red pickup truck.

A deputy sees a vehicle matching that description and initiates a traffic stop. By the deputy’s own admission, he is not aware if the shots were fired in the vicinity of houses or a road, meaning that he has no idea whether or not a crime has been committed. In other words, there is no reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver of the red truck has committed a crime, because you can’t even point to a crime that you would suspect him of, thus making the traffic stop illegal. Note that Virginia law is plain on this:

Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.

Here is what happened next:

Note that the deputy claims “You can’t shoot within so many feet of a home,” but by his own admission, he has no idea how far away any homes are from the location where the shooting was talking place.

I believe the cop is wrong about what the law says. For starters, the law in Virginia says that you can’t discharge a firearm on public land, AT a building, across or from a road, from a vehicle, or in a reckless manner. None of which has been alleged here. Watch this second, longer video of the traffic stop, and the second cop says that merely operating a vehicle on the roadways of Virginia constitutes reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop and demand to see the ID of the driver.

He says that “Evidence of a crime isn’t reasonable suspicion. You need to get a better lawyer.” The cop is clearly wrong. The law says:

A police officer may have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed if based on all of the facts and circumstances of the situation, a reasonable police officer would have the same suspicion. 

The cop is not being reasonable, which is the standard here. He can’t even articulate which law, if any, he believes is being broken. How can a police officer believe that this man is committing a crime, when he can’t even point to a crime that he reasonably believes is being committed? The statement that merely driving down the road constitutes reasonable suspicion is extremely incorrect.

He says that I don’t have to point to a crime to initiate a traffic stop. This fucking dumbass of a cop then proves beyond a doubt that he doesn’t know what he is talking about when he admits that this isn’t a Terry stop. A Terry stop gets its name from the Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio. In a Terry stop, if a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing. Since, under this cop’s own admission, this isn’t a Terry stop, then he has no reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.

So instead, the cops go to the man’s property and arrest the father on a trumped up charge to teach the property owner (the son in the red pickup) a lesson. The cops went to the man’s property and arrested the man’s father because, in the cop’s own words, “He ain’t gonna curse me out.” This is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the father.

NOTE: A look at Sussex county court records shows that the father, Robert Steven Huffman, has been charged with a violation of 18.2-416, abusive language to another, a 3rd degree misdemeanor. His next hearing is December 18.

The Supreme Court of Virginia has limited the sweep of § 18.2-416 to abusive language that has “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, [the language is] addressed.” Mercer v. Winston, 214 Va. 281, 199 S.E.2d 724, 726

So is the police officer alleging that the man saying “Leave, get the hell off of my property” is language that would tend to cause him to commit acts of violence? No, this officer is a tyrannical asshole.

Again, remember that no crime has been alleged to cause the police to even be on the property in the first place. It isn’t a crime to shoot guns on private property. The cop keeps saying “We have complaints in the area of shots fired, and this is an open investigation,” but as we have pointed out already, there is no investigation, because there has been no crime alleged. In my opinion, the cops made the arrest to lure the property owner (the son in the red pickup) to an ambush.

The man in the pickup arrives on his property, and the cop arrests him because he won’t provide ID to prove that he is the owner of the property. Refer back to the law, above. The man doesn’t have to show that he owns his own land, which would mean that he has to prove his innocence. That’s not how this works.

This is a bad cop. The second cop who stood there and told him to “just comply” is also a bad cop. Why? Because he saw this illegal behavior and did nothing. He is also a dumbass that doesn’t understand the laws that he is supposed to be enforcing.

I hope they get a good lawyer, and I hope that they sue the Sheriff’s department of Sussex County. I also would like to reiterate that qualified immunity needs to go away. In the meantime:

By Divemedic, ago

Misusing Involuntary Commitment

Every state has a law allowing individuals to be involuntarily committed in the event that they are in such a mental state that they are an imminent danger to themselves or others. In Florida, it’s called a Baker Act, and it allows a doctor or law enforcement officer to hold a person for up to 72 hours for the purposes of medical and psychological evaluation, if that professional reasonably believes that they are a threat to themselves or others.

My last day at work, I placed a woman under a Baker Act after she told me that she had ingested several handfuls of pills in an attempt to commit suicide. If you do this, your documentation had better be able to stand up in court. Because if you misuse this power, you will and should get your ass sued. It’s one of the reasons why I carry a million dollars worth of malpractice insurance, and why that policy includes coverage of my legal bills.

But what happens if you are a cop with qualified immunity? What if you decide to misuse this power by lying in order to place an ex-girlfriend on an involuntary hold, then use force to enforce it? That’s exactly what Pennsylvania State Trooper Ronald Davis did. One of her friends got it all on video:

As I was watching this, I was thinking to myself, “What if this was my sister, or a close friend? Would I stand by and allow this, while just filming? Or would I use force to protect her from this felony domestic battery?”
If I *did* intervene, would I go to jail? Would other cops automatically take this cop’s side, and either arrest or ventilate me? I think we know the answer to both of those questions. If you are a cop and are reading this- This is what you should be asking yourself:

This cop is obviously a bad cop. Would I arrest someone for intervening in this situation? What if that person was holding the cop at gunpoint? Would I shoot them for pointing a gun at a cop? Even if it was being done to stop the officer’s felonious battery of an innocent woman? If so, can you still call yourself a good cop?

Something needs to be done. For starters, I think that qualified immunity should be eliminated. Let cops get personally sued into oblivion for stuff like this. They can go out and get malpractice insurance, just like medical professionals do.

Second, I think that cops should have *every* use of force judged by a panel of at least 7 people, and that panel should consist of: A judge, two current or retired police officers, and 4 citizens who are not convicted felons. That panel would have the power to fine police officers or refer them to the Grand Jury and suspend their LEO certification pending completion of the Grand Jury’s deliberations. The judge is there to advise the others on the meaning of the law, and only gets a vote in the event of a tie.

What other things might work?

By Divemedic, ago

Not Hate

There are those who say that I “hate cops” because I disagree with their actions when they screw up. Well, here is a time when I think that the police were completely justified in their use of force:

I don’t care that she is a girl. I don’t care that she is, at 16 years of age, still legally a child. She entered into a fight with a police officer and attacked him in an attempt to disarm him and acquire possession of his weapon. The police must presume that, should she gain control of this weapon, it will be used against them.

For that reason, the officer was entirely within the bounds of being reasonable when he threw her to the ground. This is a clear case of self defense.

By Divemedic, ago

Property Crimes Are Our Achilles Heel

Before we get started, I don’t need anyone quoting the law to me. I know that in most places, we are not permitted to use force to protect property. I don’t care what the law is, because I am fully aware of that. This post is about what the law SHOULD be. Take a look at a couple of videos:

Now consider that we are being told that “insurance will take care of” reimbursing you for theft and vandalism of property. Never mind that the more insurance claims there are, the higher the costs of insurance. People who would destroy and steal your property for whatever reason are confident in the belief that they will get away with it, and in many cases, they are correct. The police and courts, our own law enforcement, are failing in their duties by doing absolutely nothing to prevent this, and in some cases are actively supporting it.

I trade pieces of my life in exchange for value, which I then used to acquire my property. If you destroy or take my property, you are in actuality engaged in stealing away finite pieces of my life. Pieces that I will never be able to recoup.

Either the government needs to step up, or the people will begin to say “enough” and will begin doing it themselves.

By Divemedic, ago

Florida Legislature Leaves a Mess

As a follow up to yesterday’s post on hospitals and businesses prohibiting carry in the wake of the new constitutional carry law that went into effect in Florida on Saturday, we will address the next two claims:

  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a “police substation”
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in hospitals

First, let’s look at the claim that concealed carry isn’t permitted in hospitals. There are two laws that can be applied here, with the first of them being 394.458:

Except as authorized by law or as specifically authorized by the person in charge of each hospital providing mental health services under this part, it is unlawful to introduce into or upon the grounds of such hospital, or to take or attempt to take or send therefrom, any of the following articles, which are hereby declared to be contraband for the purposes of this section:

1. Any intoxicating beverage or beverage which causes or may cause an intoxicating effect;

2. Any controlled substance as defined in chapter 893; or

3. Any firearms or deadly weapon.

Note that this is uncharted territory. The law as it existed in 2022 specifically says “except as authorized by law” and Florida’s 790.06 does authorize one to carry a concealed weapon, and paragraph (12) gives a specific list of places off limits to carry. The addition of constitutional carry (PDF alert) also states that a person who is otherwise qualified for a permit may carry a weapon under the same conditions as a person with a permit.

The problem here is that one could make the argument that 790.06 authorizes (by law) carry in places except those listed in 790.06(12), and 790.06(15)(c) specifically says:

This section does not modify the terms or conditions of s. 790.251(7).

Meaning that the legislature means for this law to supersede others in restricting carry at certain locations, and when they don’t want it to do so, make it clear in the statute. The issue with this argument is that it can only be made in court after you have been arrested. Since no one has yet done so (as evidenced by the fact that there is no case law spelling out the limits here) this is an issue that has not yet been tested in the courts, so you do so at your own peril.

What is interesting is the second law that affects hospitals: 790.145. That law specifically says:

Unless otherwise provided by law, any person who is in possession of a concealed “firearm,” as defined in s. 790.001(6), or a “destructive device,” as defined in s. 790.001(4), within the premises of a “pharmacy,” as defined in chapter 465, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) The provisions of this section do not apply:
(a) To any law enforcement officer;
(b) To any person employed and authorized by the owner, operator, or manager of a pharmacy to carry a firearm or destructive device on such premises; or
(c) To any person licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

Since a person who is carrying without a permit under Florida’s constitutional carry law -IS- carrying without a permit, and most hospitals are or contain pharmacies, is it still illegal for a person who is otherwise legally carrying a concealed weapon without a permit to have a firearm while inside of a pharmacy? Is this one of those cases that I mentioned above, where the legislature exempts a law when it intends to? Or has the legislature left a legal mess that the courts will have to deal with later? In my opinion, this is another case where the law is confusing and unclear, and the courts will have to deal with it after someone is arrested and charged with the crime, whereupon his lawyer will have to make this argument.

So to sum up the answer to the claim that you can’t carry in a hospital in Florida: The answer is maybe. It is specifically illegal to carry a firearm into a hospital or pharmacy in Florida, but not if you are authorized by law to do so. The law is unclear on whether or not people can carry into a hospital, or whether those who are carrying under constitutional carry may do so into a pharmacy. This question will not be cleared up unless the legislature cleans up the law, or until the courts rule on this one way or the other.

The legal issues here are quite a mess, and the only people who benefit from what the legislature has done here will be lawyers and those who write books about what the law means (in many cases, lawyers who are also authors). It will be interesting to see Jon Gutmacher’s take on this when my copy of Florida Firearms book gets here later in the week. That book is the bible for those who carry or use firearms in Florida, and there are more than a few judges who have his books on their bookshelf. If you own or carry a firearm in Florida, you should have a copy of it.

We will address the last of the three claims tomorrow when we look at “Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a ‘police substation'” I think that this post is long enough already.

Now, the disclaimer: I don’t advertise, and receive nothing for my reviews or articles. I have no relationship with any products, companies, or vendors that I review here, other than being a customer. If I ever *DO* have a financial interest, I will disclose it. Otherwise, I pay what you would pay. No discounts or other incentives here. I only post these things because I think that my readers would be interested.

In this case, I have had a relationship with the author of the book that I mention in this post. You can read about it here. I wrote an email to Mr. Gutmacher at the time, letting him know that the property records of Florida showed that the property licensed for explosives manufacture and the resorts were two different pieces of property, as they must be, because under the fire code, you can’t have a hotel on the same property with an explosives factory. He was interested in my point, but I don’t know if he made that point in his legal case or not.

I do not make any money from the book, or from Mr. Gutmacher, but I still want to disclose the relationship, however tenuous it was.

By Divemedic, ago

Cops Are Lying in Florida

I was at work last night and the supervisor of security came wandering through the ED. One of the nurses asked him if Florida’s new concealed carry law was going to make his job more difficult. His reply was that many people in Florida don’t realize that concealed carry doesn’t apply to the hospital. When I asked him why the law didn’t apply, his reply was that there were three reasons:

  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed on private property in Florida, unless the owner allows it
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in police stations, and our hospital contains a “police substation”
  • Concealed carry isn’t allowed in hospitals

When I told him that most of those statements weren’t what the law says, he told me that he and the police likely know more about the law than I do, so I should just stay in my lane. Let’s tackle his claims one at a time, with this post addressing the “property owner” argument:

The police are the ones circulating the “carry isn’t allowed on private property” trope, and I am not sure where it’s coming from. I searched the social media pages of every sheriff’s office in central Florida, along with a sampling of city police departments. This is what I found:

Hillsboro County and Tampa Police
Lake County Sheriff
Columbia County Sheriff’s Office
Sarasota Police

It’s being pushed by a fair number of law enforcement agencies all over the state. The problem here is that the law says nothing of the sort. The new law says that a person who doesn’t have a permit but would otherwise be eligible for one may still carry a concealed weapon or firearm wherever they could carry that weapon if the DID have a permit. There is a list of places off limits to carry that can be found in 790.06(12). Property owners prohibiting carry is not anywhere on that list.

The only statement that could be construed as allowing a property owner to prohibit carry is the general property rights that any property owner has. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law as being prohibited for concealed carry, but it has posted “no guns” signs, and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave, but that is different from claiming that the “law doesn’t apply” to private property. If they don’t ask you to leave, it is legal to carry right past a “no guns” sign.

Since this is being widely pushed by some (but no all) police agencies all over the state, I can’t help by believe that this is an intentional misstatement by law enforcement to enforce a law that doesn’t exist.

Next, we will take a look at carry in hospitals and police stations.

By Divemedic, ago

Maybe They Will Get Around to Drug Dogs

The Maryland Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that firearms experts will no longer be able to testify that a bullet was fired from a particular gun. Many forensic methods that rely on pattern-matching, like bite mark and tool mark analysis, rely on subjective interpretations that are presented as scientific conclusions with definitive solutions.

In the case of bite mark evidence, government watchdogs report that examiners not only cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark. It turns out that using rifling groove patterns to match an unknown bullet to a known firearm is not repeatable, reproducible, or accurate to any statistically valid level of certainty. I have previously reported similar reports suggesting that drug dogs are even more inaccurate. Cops know they are inaccurate, but refer to drug K9s as “4 legged money generators.”

Dogs are very good at reading people. They know that if they give their handler what he wants, they get a reward. If the cop wants the dog to alert on a car, the dog will alert on a car. There was one study that actually supported that, but once the study was published, cops have refused to participate in any more studies unless those studies are being performed by pro-policing organizations.

Cops don’t even keep records of how often dogs alert to drugs and then no drugs are found. The police say:

“There’s been cars that my dog’s hit on… and just because there wasn’t a product in it, doesn’t mean the dog can’t smell it,” says Gunnar Fulmer, a K9 officer with the Walla Walla Police Department. “[The drug odor] gets permeated in clothing, it gets permeated in the headliners in cars.”

The problem here is obvious- even giving the dog the benefit of the doubt, probable cause means that the search is being done because drugs are probably there. What the cop in the above quote is saying is that by alerting, the dog is indicating that drugs may have been there at some time in the past. The dog indicates the odor of drugs, but not the presence of drugs. That isn’t the same thing and shouldn’t be enough to trigger a warrantless search of someone’s property.

It isn’t just police dogs, or bite marks, or even bullet matching. Falsifying evidence to get higher conviction rates is widespread among police, and the FBI lab itself has been caught falsifying lab tests. Much of what is called “forensics” is little more than pseudoscientific nonsense that hides behind the public’s virtual ignorance of what science really is, but it sounds good and is nothing more than snake oil designed to fool a jury into convicting the defendant.

When I worked for the fire department, we participated in the United Way. One of the things I used to donate money to was the Innocence Project. They use scientific results to prove that people were wrongly convicted- things like DNA evidence to prove that a man on death row was actually innocent. It’s a worthy cause.

By Divemedic, ago