Quote:
Originally Posted by RomanDad
I didnt see that post til just now, and I think youre dead on.... Id like to hear your (and the other LEOs) opinion on whether my threshold of Terry v Ohio as being an articulable bright line test would be correct?
If so, (Greg's turn) what are the chances of someone with JD after his name writing a brief letter to OCPSD asking for a clarification/adoption of 'interaction where a "Terry Stop" is available to the officer or is actually in progress,' as the official notification point for CCW holders and actually getting a RESPONSE?
After all, its not a LAW. Its an administrative RULE. And the penalty comes not from the officers themselves but from PSD in the form of revocation. If we write an articulable bright line and submit it to them (preferably after things calm down a bit with the leadership situation) they MIGHT give us a "Yes. That is the threshold at which point we expect A CCW holder to inform an officer he is carrying, and we wont pull a permit if the CCW holder fails to inform the officer for LESS formal interactions than that.-"
|
Legal Reasoning:
Absolutely, I agree with your view on this. Since the world is complex and situations are infinitely variable - the reason your "bright line" is a good beacon for compliance, and is two fold.
1. It's a simple concept with legal background and history to fall back on. In other words, you can articulate your reasoning following a "contact" - as to why you informed or didn't inform. When faced with legal action or revocation, your standing is must more solid on the platform of case history.
2. Your agency is not providing an answer to the question which isn't vague or unclear.
It is my belief, that the "rule" OCSD has instituted, derives from this line of thought, or something similar to it.
It is unreasonable to expect your licensees to "inform" every time one sees a peace officer. It is also a hindrance for LE.
Psychological Considerations and Self Preservation:
If you want to go deeper...and read into an alternative or possibly (the real) reason your policy has no real explanation or legal reasoning and why it exists to begin with: Is it's a "cult of confession" (8-point model) relic deep seeded within the culture itself.
Self preservation by knowledge of legal history and terminology accompanied by "street-wisdom" and common sense....ie: you aren't effected by institutional psychological influences because you are aware of them...because you understand why they were instituted in the first place and because you want to survive in our complex society.