Unconstitutional Abuse of Power - Questioned by Police for Buying Ammo?

reply to post by kerazeesicko

By the way if the police got a report of suspicious activity...it is their right to look into it.

And again I ask – What is suspicious about a large ammunition purchase?

Are you OK with the police being able to call someone at their home and question them about a legal purchase? Why do you submit to such complete control?

I'm not going to be baited into a religious argument with you. The Declaration of Independence clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is a violation of a person's liberty (4th amendment rights) to be subjected to intrusive questions about something that is nobody's business....period.

NO CRIME OCCURRED! Therefore, no need to question him.....

Watch this video.....you may learn a little bit about your rights.

So they asked him some questions? They did not detain, search or threaten to arrest him if he did not answer questions? And this is what you people are raving on and on about? You know its all this paranoid fear mongering and crying wolf that could ruin people taking any of you seriously if something legit happens people should be concerned about.

reply to post by MrSpad

So they asked him some questions? They did not detain, search or threaten to arrest him if he did not answer questions?

They had no probable cause to even question this man…that’s the point!

And this is what you people are raving on and on about? You know its all this paranoid fear mongering and crying wolf that could ruin people taking any of you seriously if something legit happens people should be concerned about.

Who are you? Are you the thought police? Have I said too much?



Last time I checked ATS was a place to discuss issues.

reply to post by kerazeesicko

You use an item to show that these fools also believed in the myths as a evidence for the myth...

Just goes to show you...a lot of gun owners are not very bright.

So do you not feel you have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Are you saying that you were NOT CREATED?

Maybe you need to see a therapist and discover why you are so angry with people who believe that they were "created" and have a belief in the fact the maybe there is a higher power who is behind us being here?

You seem to also have an attitude with people who believe in owning guns? WHY? Do you own one? Or do you believe in calling 911 when your life is threatened and wait for MEN WITH GUNS to come and save your pathetic self, because you weren't able to protect yourself?

Which is it? You seem to be a very angry person who hates those who want to protect themselves and believe that MAN is the highest life form in existance in this universe!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I am a very principled person when it comes to the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. There is no flexibility in my thinking when it comes to that, for the simple reason that any society that takes away the freedom of the individual citizen based on "what ifs" becomes an oppressive regime that is doomed to fail. People like to be free, and not just have the illusion of freedom.

There is a reason that America was the beacon of freedom for so many years, and attracted so many people from all over the globe. Now that beacon of freedom is being snuffed out. If somebody goes crazy and I die as a result, that doesn't mean that I would advocate everybody's rights should be taken away. Stuff happens. I died as a free citizen in a free country.

I considered your position for all of two seconds before every fiber of my being went NOOOOOOO!!! I am a first generation American, so I have a more unique perspective about growing up hearing stories of war, fear, abolition of rights, and the inability to create a decent life for oneself. Call me an ideologue if you must, but America as it was founded was darned near the perfect country.

If you no longer wish to consider me insightful, that is your right. I could care less what my "reputation" is on this site. I write how I feel and I apologize for nothing. Some things are just abhorrent to me, and the idea of taking away our freedom in this country so some people can feel safe is one of them.

Slavery is only freedom when you no longer think and feel for yourself.

reply to post by seabag

What was the suspicious activity?

None that I can see. But who knows what the guy who reported it said? Maybe he said something like - "I think the guy is planning an attack!" If he said something like that should the police look in to it?

reply to post by RedParrotHead

None that I can see. But who knows what the guy who reported it said? Maybe he said something like - "I think the guy is planning an attack!" If he said something like that should the police look in to it?

But that is not the case here. You are speculating about possible motives that there is no evidence to support. This man clearly stated the police officer said he was calling because “YOU PURCHASED A LARGE QUANTITY OF AMMUNITION”. The cop said he wanted to “make sure he wasn’t going to do anything crazy”.

Should the police question a person because he/she purchased a large quantity of ammunition? Is that suspicious or threatening activity that warrants an investigation?

*sigh*
The police do not need probable cause to simply ask someone a question.

In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arrest a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted.

Probable Cause

Please don't throw around legal terms if you don't understand what they actually mean. It just makes this site and it's users look foolish.

reply to post by RottenBeauty

*sigh*
The police do not need probable cause to simply ask someone a question.

Please don't throw around legal terms if you don't understand what they actually mean. It just makes this site and it's users look foolish.

Paleeeeeze!

Are you finished??

Cops must have “reasonable suspicion” to stop and question someone. In the case Terry V. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled that an individual may be stopped and questioned by law enforcement officers based on “reasonable suspicion”. Buying ammo certainly doesn’t qualify as “reasonable suspicion” therefore they had no reason to question him and he had absolutely no obligation to answer. And calling someone on the phone at their HOME to question them is even more intrusive than stopping them on the sidewalk in public to question them IMO.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

We keep wanting our rights, but how mature are we? How much have we SHOWN we deserve these rights? The problem with people is this: we think about ourselves far more than we think about others.

We don’t have to “show” that we deserve these rights!! Our rights are granted to us by our creator not by centralized government.

If you need the government to control your every step then you should move to a country with less freedom. The majority of American’s don’t need someone to wipe their butt for them.

Yea, and we need our rights more than ever as the ship starts to fill with water so to speak.


And really, its an old trick to get folks somehow distracted and then slip in and get the goods. As has been said many times and many ways we need to watch when some try to blacken the whole of our rights when a few go off the deep end. A very small partical of evil is being used to make the case. Stay vigilant.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

reply to post by seabag

 

You use an item to show that these fools also believed in the myths as a evidence for the myth...

Just goes to show you...a lot of gun owners are not very bright.

You just called the Founding Fathers, "fools"... ??

That says a lot more about you than it does them.

amazing

With respect to this man being questioned for buying a bit of ammo... he could have just said "i'm busy fishing, have a nice day" and hung up. That's what I would have done. He committed no crime. The cops can go pound sand.

reply to post by seabag


I have to go do work now but I'll be back in a bit to educate you on reasonable suspicion. You of course won't listen and will continue to propagate your ignorance of law & criminal procedure but I'll do it anyway.

Reasonable Suspicion

an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time

After reading through the definition of resonable suspicion and the Terry Vs. Ohio ruling I cannot see how they have anything to do with this issue.

Terry Vs. Ohio deals with the temporary stopping and surface frisking of a person and does not deal with questioning in any way.

Terry Vs. Ohio defined seizure as:

It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person.

Source

That did not happen here. The individual was not prevented from leaving anywhere. The individual was not searched in any way.

Under US law there are a number of definitions for 'search', none of which involve questions.

search n 1 : an exploratory investigation (as of an area or person) by a government agent that intrudes on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy and is conducted usually for the purpose of finding evidence of unlawful activity or guilt or to locate a person [warrantless es are invalid unless they fall within narrowly drawn exceptions "State v. Mahone, 701 P.2d 171 (1985)"] see also exigent circumstances, plain view probable cause at cause, reasonable suspicion search warrant at warrant compare seizure NOTE: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that a warrant may issue only upon probable cause and that the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. Some searches, such as a search incident to an arrest, have been held to be valid without a warrant. administrative search : an inspection or search carried out under a regulatory or statutory scheme esp. in public or commercial premises and usually to enforce compliance with regulations or laws pertaining to health, safety, or security [one of the fundamental principles of administrative searches is that the government may not use an administrative inspection scheme as a pretext to search for evidence of criminal violations "People v. Madison, 520 N.E.2d 374 (1988)"] called also administrative inspection inspection regulatory search see also probable cause at cause NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court held in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967), that a reasonable administrative search may be conducted upon a showing of probable cause which is less stringent than that required for a search incident to a criminal investigation. The Court stated that the reasonableness of the search can only be determined by “balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails.” Cases following Camara have stated that the probable cause requirement is fulfilled by showing that the search meets reasonable administrative standards established in a nonarbitrary regulatory scheme. bor·der search : a search made of a person upon crossing into the U.S. at a border or its equivalent (as the airport at which the person arrives in the U.S.) NOTE: Probable cause is not required for a border search. consent search : a warrantless search conducted upon the voluntarily given consent of a person having authority over the place or things to be searched inventory search : a warrantless search (as of an impounded automobile) conducted for the purpose of placing personal property in safekeeping to prevent loss of the property and claims against police for such loss protective search : a search (as a frisk) conducted by a law enforcement officer for the purpose of ensuring against threats to safety (as from a concealed weapon) or sometimes to prevent the destruction of evidence regulatory search : administrative search in this entry shake·down search [shāk-dan-] : a search for illicit or contraband material (as weapons or drugs) in prisoners' cells that is usually random and warrantless NOTE: In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Fourth Amendment protections do not extend to searches of prisoners' cells. strip search : a search for something concealed on a person conducted after removal of the person's clothing 2 : an act of boarding and inspecting a ship on the high seas in exercise of the right to do so under international law (as in time of war) 3 : an examination of a public record or registry see also title search vt : to conduct a search of [ a premises] [ a person] [ a title] vi : to conduct a search [ for drugs in a school locker] search·er n

Source

This individual was in no way searched or seized or forced to answer questions.

Continued in next post

And since, seabag, I know that you're going to move the goalpost and claim that had the individual not answered the officers questions that would cause them to arrest or detain him or something of the sort that isn't true either. Even if this man had been temporarily seized by the police (a Terry stop), which again, he wasn't:

Due to a ruling in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, states may require an individual to give his or her name during a stop. However, the person is not required to answer any questions during a Terry stop.

Source

Refusing to answer would not give the police probable cause to arrest him.

There was simply no violation of this mans constitutional rights.

The police received an admittedly bogus and BS tip from someone and instead of wasting resources and money conducting an investigation which probably would have risen to unconstitutional they picked up the phone, spoke to him for a few minutes and decided there was no threat.
I would say that there was a great show of restraint in their power from the police, not an abuse of it.

I don't think the police are to blame in this incident. We can blame the DHS for feeding the watch your neighbor crap into the masses heads. I buy ammo all the time and have not run into this yet myself. Probably because I buy it at the same places and have for years. This is getting a little rediculous though. Next people will be getting calls from police over buying large quantities of food or other esential supplies. Where will it end is what I am saying. When the police recieve a tip they have to check it out. I imagine the officer called first rather than make face to face contact and risk an incident over what was obviously nothing.

The easiest,simplest way to handle that situation:
*phone ringing*
You: Hello?
Police Officer: Can I speak with (your name here)
You: This is he/she
Officer: We got a report that you purchased a large amount of ammo at the local(place you purchased ammo)
You: That is not a crime and unless I am being investigated for a crime, I will invoke my right to remain silent at this point and end this phone call. Have a nice day. *click*
Simple,easy and polite.

If I may... this whole thing could have been avoided had the officer that received the initial complaint asked a few questions of the citizen that initiated the police action.
To follow previous posters;
Dudley: I just saw a man buy 1,000 bullets!
Officer Mike: O.K....
Dudley: Well, I want to know what you are going to do about it!
Officer Mike: Did this man make any sort of threat, did he act unusual?
Dudley: HE BOUGHT 1,000 BULLETS!!!
Officer Mike: Do you know this man to be a felon?
Dudley: I want to speak to your sargeant!
Sarge: This is not against the law unless you know more than you have already said. Have a nice day.
Sarge to Officer Mike: Run a trace and check out that idiot.
Have a nice day!

When will you people understand, you no long have certain rights.

The patriot act and the NDAA violate the United States Constitution by taking away rights you had.

The patriot act alone gets rid of the 1st, 4th and 6th amendment rights.

Wake up people, please. They tell you to prepare for natural disasters, then I read FBI adds ‘preppers’ to potential terrorists list

According to the government everyone here is a "potential terrorists" it's bullsh*t, but this is what happens, or just the start.

Originally posted by RottenBeauty
reply to post by seabag

 

I have to go do work now but I'll be back in a bit to educate you on reasonable suspicion. You of course won't listen and will continue to propagate your ignorance of law & criminal procedure but I'll do it anyway.

Since I see you are new to posting on this site and are obviously fond of "educating" people on matters let me start by giving you some education. When you call someone or infer that they are ignorant you are not going to be taken seriously on this site. This is a forum for intelligent debate and conversation and it would behoove you to present your argument in an intelligent manner which means to refrain from name calling or any such inference of derogatory names or implied insults. You will find that by doing so you will be taken much h more seriously and your comments and opinions will be welcomed although not always agreed with.

As far as your legal reference to whether or not police have a legal right to question a person who has legally exercised one of their most basic rights that is guaranteed under the constitution, well that can create a very slippery slope. As we all know those slippery slopes usually end when the judicial system and law enforcement twist laws around through their interpretation of the protections of The Bill Of Rights until your rights are no longer recognizable.

So if a person engages in a legal right that makes them suspect of doing something wrong? That's like saying that is a person is walking home from work one night it makes them suspect of looking for something to steal, or trying to buy drugs which btw already happens way to often. Hell I routinely purchase 1000+ rounds of 7.62x54, 7.62x39, 223, and 40 Cal.........I guess the cops are just itching to give me a call and ask questions.

This isn't precrime, we don't punish people for what they might do. If that is where this nation is heading then we are SCREWED! We might as well topple the Statute of Liberty, wipe our butts with the Constitution, put tracking devices on every man, woman, and child in America, and urinate on the graves of all of our founding fathers and service members because all is lost and the land of the free is dead.

ETA: I agree with you 100% GunzCoty

The police do not need probable cause to simply ask someone a question.

reply to post by seabag


Seabag, he is right about that because anyone can ask you a question, however you are under no legal obligation to say anything, nor are you under any legal obligation to tell the truth.

ETA: I mean if the officer has no case, like the video, that is.