Lawful arrest? What crime, if any, did he commit?
While I generally don’t have time for professional activists I didn’t see justification for lawful detainment or arrest. We haven’t yet arrived at the point where we are required to carry and present ID. Obviously if the individual was engaged in the commission of some kind of crime he can be detained and even arrested until his identity is determined, buy I think “obstruction” (if I heard that correctly) might be a bit of a reach.
Obviously the people in the Federal building have a different view when it comes to collecting data and video than the government does with regard to recording citizens, but I don’t think that is the main issue here.
I appreciate the fact that this individual “peacefully” exercised his 5th amendment rights. Will be interesting to see how this one shakes out. Wonder if the ACLU will even be interested.
Interesting question OP and a good issue to discuss.
-
Is there another source for the video that shows what happened before the officer arrived?
-
Where was the person standing when they were approached by police? Private or restricted access property? Were signs posts?
-
Was the person near a vehicle that was legally or illegally parked?
-
Could the officer see the holster when he first made contact? Is there a Virginia CCW law that requires a person provide identification when approached by an officer?
Virginia does not require a licensed CCW holder to notify an officer if he is carrying, though it is usually advised as a courtesy. Not sure about ID however.
That takes care of question # 4.
Thank you.
I missed the part about him being armed. That potentially brings in a whole new dynamic.
I know VA is a “no license needed” state but I’d be willing to bet that anyone openly carrying is required to produce ID upon demand. We need to get some local experts to weigh in.
I’m thinking anyone who is going to try to pull off a stunt like this and attempt to do it professionally and politely should have done his homework and knows all the issues going in.
Seems pretty legit.
Arresting people for walking around, minding their own business, while letting known radical Muslim terrorists like the Tsarnaev’s plan and kill Americans.
Everything is going according to Hussein’s plan.
An officer cannot ask for ID simply because you are displaying a firearm. There still needs to be reasonable suspicion that there is a crime. See the following;
U.S v. Black (4th Circuit Court of Appeals), St. John v. City of Alamogordo, Northrup v. City of Toledo (still ongoing I believe). And more recently a case in Arizona where a convicted felon was carrying a firearm and was convicted. It was overturned by the state supreme court State v. Serna (Arizona).
From what I heard in the video, he was not armed. He had an empty holster and the officer asked him where the gun was. He said I plead the 5th, and the officer laughed.
It looks bad though. I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of that guys lawyers if he really wasn’t doing anything illegal, and the video didn’t show him doing anything illegal. For all we know though, he edited out the parts that make him look bad.
As far as I know, VA is not a stop and ID state. I think he will have grounds for a lawsuit.
It’s tough to draw any reasonable conclusion without seeing the person videotaping the Federal building, how they were dressed, if the officer saw part of or the whole holster, etc. Without seeing signage and knowing who’s property they were standing on at the time, it begs even more questions.
As far as the firearm question is concerned, if a person refused to identify themselves how do you determine if they were issued a concealed carry permit?
Virginia Code § 18.2-308.01. Carrying a concealed handgun with a permit.
A. The prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun in clause (i) of subsection A of § 18.2-308 shall not apply to a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this article. The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer. A person to whom a nonresident permit is issued shall have such permit on his person at all times when he is carrying a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth and shall display the permit on demand by a law-enforcement officer. A person whose permit is extended due to deployment shall carry with him and display, upon request of a law-enforcement officer, a copy of the documents required by subsection B of § 18.2-308.010. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.01/
Was the person videotaping standing on Federal property at the time he was approached by the officer and what signage was posted?
Until more/better details become available, it is hard to draw a reasonable conclusion.
See in bold.
In bold.
I’m no fan of activists, but prior to being arrested, it’s my understanding cops have no right to demand “Your Papers” like some cops think. After you’ve been arrested, yep, they can legally demand I.D., but not on a whim.
If you’re not doing anything illegal, you don’t have to produce I.D.
This is still America, sort of, and I would respond the same way if a cop decided to insist out of the blue, I provide I.D. when I’ve done nothing illegal.
Found a 2002 VA Attorney General opinion that states, "It is my opinion, under the specific facts you have presented, that a law-enforcement officer conducting a lawful investigative stop may not arrest a suspect for obstruction of justice under § 18.2-460(A), when the suspect refuses to identify himself to the officer. Depending on the circumstances, however, there may be justification to detain a suspect for the purpose of determining his identity. "
http://www.ag.virginia.gov/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf
Bottomline: If the man had been in the company of eight or more individuals, and they had all been openly carrying arms, the police likely would have done nothing. It’s simple biology: As most male Homo sapiens sapiens, the officers understand the risks involved when others in numbers choose to carry arms, too.
Was the officer dispatched after someone in the Federal building made a telephone call to police or did the officer merely see the individual recording as the officer drove past? Video recording in itself would not be considered criminal activity and I am not so sure a Terry Stop would be appropriate.
Without being in control of a motor vehicle or being engaged in an activity, such as carrying a firearm, that would require presenting ID to LEO upon request, there may not have been any standing to ask for ID. On the other side of the coin, if the Federal building was attacked one month or six months from now and the person video recording the building was involved in intelligence gathering for the attackers, a lot of people would be raising hell and saying police should do more to prevent attacks on Federal buildings, Marine Corps recruiting stations, etc. This puts the officer behind the 8 ball no matter which way he handled the situation.
The situation definitely merits review and intelligent discussion.
If he did have an empty holster, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think he had a gun on him, concealed? Just from an officer safety standpoint, I would want to make sure he didn’t have a gun, especially if he’s evading questions. I’m not an LEO, just some thoughts.
What you say makes sense. We don’t know at what point the holster was seen. If the person was hoping for an encounter with police to prove a point, he should have planned farther ahead and had video of himself both before and during the contact with LEO.
Let’s assume the officer had RAS, why did he not detain and search? Even if he did plan on detaining/searching (but not arresting), he can’t claim the man obstructed justice, given that videographer had not been informed of his detention.