That's the same sort of, "If you're getting raped, just lay back and enjoy it" advice given to women.
There is
so much wrong in that, it's hard to find a place to start, but try I shall.....
But Riverside police Chief Mark Reiss said his officers acted correctly and all Call had to do was cooperate.
- No. All Call 'had' to do was what was required of him by law in this circumstance, and that is absolutely nothing.
“Had he been truthful with the police and simply provided his identification so that they could have quickly ran it, that encounter would have been over very quickly, within a minute or two,” Reiss said.
- Mr Call was not required by law to present his identification, nor was he required to carry any. Personal experience says that 'showing your papers' does not necessarily shorten any illegal detention if the officer has no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and is trying to find one.
“Given the time of the day, the location, and the fact that convenience store/gas stations are typical targets for robberies in the middle of the night,” Reiss said. “It would seem reasonable in the eyes of a police officer to ask someone who was carrying a gun if it was legally permissible for them to do so.”
- The Supreme Court would disagree as shown by Terry, the officer would have been reasonable to 'keep an eye on' and develop a reasonable suspicion, but not to accost and detain before there was a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing or intent.
Police reports show a citizen at the Speedway at 3201 Valley Pike was concerned that a man had a gun in the open and told Riverside police Sgt. Harold Jones, who motioned to Call to come outside.
- A report of a legal activity, the call could have said Call was carrying a cell phone, wallet, or Bible, is insufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity.
Jones’ incident report said Call would not answer questions relating to his identity. “He eventually said he had no identification with him. This was actually a lie as his identification was approximately 50 feet away in his truck along with his CCW card,” Jones’ report said. “This was not found for several minutes. He told me he was exercising his second amendment rights to openly carry a gun.”
- Mr Call did the right thing as his identity would neither confirm nor deny any criminal activity being afoot. Nor was it a lie to say he had no identification on him. If someone asks 'do you have the time?" and your watch or cellphone is 50 feet away then saying you don't have the time isn't a lie. I strongly suspect that if Mr Call required a license to openly carry and it was 'fifty feet away' the officers would have said he 'didn't have a license with him." By way of saying, 'this was not found for several minutes' I suspect it was only found in a search incident to arrest or an inventory search if the vehicle was going to be towed. Searches incident to arrest are legal if they are to search for evidence related to the crime or to search for weapons readily available to the arrested person (If I've read Arizona v.Gant correctly. I suspect that departments are well aware of Gant and have developed a program of 'providing safe storage' for every car they come across where an arrest takes place. Of course, in order to do that they have to search the car and inventory it so no items gets stolen... and so they get a free peek at anything inside.
Chief Reiss added: “With carrying a firearm openly, there also comes responsibility with that. People should realize that they may, given a certain set of circumstances, draw the attention of law enforcement. A responsible person would just identify themselves if there’s a brief check to be done and then they would be on their way.”
- The Chief seems to have defined a reasonable person as 'someone who cooperates with the police even when not required to nor is it in their best interests to do so."