My yearly detainment in Portland.

[hammer6]

I doubt that Ron Paul saw it. It's a forum post. That's like saying because I posted it here, the owners of OCDO must like my courage... They might, and Mr. Paul might, but I don't see anywhere where he commented directly. (Thought that would be hella cool)

100% sarcastic.

that's like saying barack obama writes his own tweets.

 

[Maine Expat]

I found your video while I was cruising related vids on youtube.

Shortly after that you got linked at OathKeepers.net

Can I get an autograph when I come to visit my folks later this month? :monkey

 

[FireFighterchen]

I have been following your story since you posted it on USA Carry. Glad to see it spreading around. Like many others who have seen your video, I have read many a questions on how you knew all those case laws. I may search/start a thread about case laws for OC to have in their back pockets, but would you mind writing down your own research on Warren vs DC, Terry vs Ohio, Brown vs Texas, Hiibel vs Nevada, US v DeBerry and how they relate to your defense?

Here is a quick summary I made up and I will keep on me just for reference until I have them memorized:

Warren vs District of Columbia: Police do not protect the individual.

Terry v Ohio (Delaware v Prouse, Ybarra v. Illinois, Minnesota v. Dickerson, Florida v. J.L., Muehler v. Mena, Alabama v. White, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, Maryland v. Wilson, and Brendlin v. California): Must have reasonable articulated suspicion and probable cause to arrest for legal search and seizure.

Brown v Texas and Hiibel v Nevada: Cannot demand ID without reasonable suspicion.

US v DeBerry: A firearm where legally carried cannot be the only cause for a stop.

 

[boyscout399]

I have been following your story since you posted it on USA Carry. Glad to see it spreading around. Like many others who have seen your video, I have read many a questions on how you knew all those case laws. I may search/start a thread about case laws for OC to have in their back pockets, but would you mind writing down your own research on Warren vs DC, Terry vs Ohio, Brown vs Texas, Hiibel vs Nevada, US v DeBerry and how they relate to your defense?

Here is a quick summary I made up and I will keep on me just for reference until I have them memorized:

Warren vs District of Columbia: Police do not protect the individual.

Terry v Ohio (Delaware v Prouse, Ybarra v. Illinois, Minnesota v. Dickerson, Florida v. J.L., Muehler v. Mena, Alabama v. White, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, Maryland v. Wilson, and Brendlin v. California): Must have reasonable articulated suspicion to detain, and probable cause to arrest for legal search and seizure. A RS detainment search must be limited to a pat of the outer surfaces of the clothing searching for weapons only. A search incident to arrest may be more thorough. But if they pat you down and feel a needle and ask "what's this" and you say, "it's a drug needle," then you're screwed.

Brown v Texas and Hiibel v Nevada and Kolender v Lawsen: Cannot demand ID without reasonable suspicion. (Also, statute must demand the identification, those court cases set a baseline of RS. Maine for instance does not require you to ID unless you are being issued a summons or are stopped for a traffic violation.)

US v DeBerry: A firearm where legally carried cannot be the only cause for a stop.

Firstly, I did not post on USACarry. If someone posted my video saying they are me, they are lying.

I added the parts in red to your post.

 

[F350]

FireFighterchen and Boyscout399....

If you guys don't mind I'm going to distill your posts down so it will fit on a business card (I have card stock and program) and carry one in my wallet.

If unlawfully asked for ID while OCing I'll take out the card, hand it to the officer and wish him/her a good day.

 

[KBCraig]

Brown v Texas and Hiibel v Nevada: Cannot demand ID without reasonable suspicion.

Hiibel actually says that if a state has a law requiring citizens to identify themselves to police without RS, those laws are constitutional.

It frequently gets twisted into "police may demand your ID at any time", which also isn't true, except in states where that is the law.

 

[boyscout399]

Hiibel actually says that if a state has a law requiring citizens to identify themselves to police without RS, those laws are constitutional.

It frequently gets twisted into "police may demand your ID at any time", which also isn't true, except in states where that is the law.

That is incorrect. The Nevada law Hiibel is based off of does require RS of criminal activity. Hiibel was suspected of committing an assault when he was demanded to ID. In contrast, Kolender v Lawsen was a very similar case, but in that case the Supreme Court ruled that the California ID law was too vague because it didn't require reasonable suspicion of crime.

 

[david.ross]

Sir,

Mentioning rulings which were not in your district is weak. While the officers did back off when you mentioned such rulings like[FONT=arial, sans-serif] US vs DeBerry which was in the 7th circuit, I don't believe you should've mentioned such rulings. Just for your information, Maine is in the 1st circuit court. J[/FONT]udges aren't bound by rulings made in other circuits, t[FONT=arial, sans-serif]wo similar cases can have a different ruling in different circuit courts.[/FONT]

 

[boyscout399]

Sir,

Mentioning rulings which were not in your district is weak. While the officers did back off when you mentioned such rulings like US vs DeBerry which was in the 7th circuit, I don't believe you should've mentioned such rulings. Just for your information, Maine is in the 1st circuit court. Judges aren't bound by rulings made in other circuits, two similar cases can have a different ruling in different circuit courts.

Any federal court decision is valid nationwide unless overturned by a higher court. If two equal courts have different rulings, then the ruling of your circuit applies. Since there is no similar case in the 1st district, the 7th district ruling still applies until either the 1st district or the supreme court overturns it.

 

[david.ross]

Since there is no similar case in the 1st district, the 7th district ruling still applies until either the 1st district or the supreme court overturns it.

Assistant DAs in office will gladly make a challenge which isn't yet in a case precedent in the district even if another district has given an opinion, which is why I said making such a statement is weak.

 

[boyscout399]

Assistant DAs in office will gladly make a challenge which isn't yet in a case precedent in the district even if another district has given an opinion, which is why I said making such a statement is weak.

The law was still on my side and they had nothing to cite me with since Maine does not have a "stop and identify" statute. In a suit regarding DeBerry, it wouldn't be the DA prosecuting, it would be me suing for an infringement of my rights and it would be the city's attorney defending.

 

[Marcus92183]

great video

you did an amazing job i am a big fan of this video i have watched it numerous times. you stood up for alot of people that don't have the knowledge or nerve to do so
thank you