What warrants a deputy from running my name if no known law broken?

[OHRoadwarrior]

They chose to exercise their right to not give info. You n dad gave info. He acted on the info. Next time you commit a crime, keep your mouth shut and advise dad to do the same.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

Someone complained in my neck of the woods that some man was firing weapons on our property. We are out of city limits and it is perfectly legal to do so and this was not the issue. A deputy came up to our property to tell us people were complaining and to just give us a warning about the potential safety concerns.

Okay.

Of course, while the firing may have occurred in the county, the bullets might fall in the city ... anyone firing a gun within earshot of others is likely to be the subject of a call to the police or the sheriff. And, they are perfectly right in investigating the matter to ascertain whether all is well and safe.

Thing is, I have a temporary NON-VIOLENT restraining order against me for a crazy-ex.

Oops! That means you were not to be in possession of a firearm ... bad decision on your part.

Anyways, friends, what is the legitimacy for the officer to run my name for no just reason?

The officer can run your name for any legitimate purpose. No, they do not need probable cause to believe a crime was committed to do a records search. We do this all the time. We might run the names of victims, witnesses AND suspects. If the dispatchers are really up on their game, they may even run the names of anyone at the residence of a contact and advise the responding officers of restraining orders and warrants of possible parties at the scene before they arrive. Yes, that sometimes means the party that reports a crime could be arrested if they have a warrant.

So, you were in possession of a firearm while prohibited. Whether the local DA will slap your wrist or throw the book at you depends on your history and their policies. Next time, heed the conditions of the restraining order and this won't happen.

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you, Tranquility. Is there an ORS or statute for that? How do people get away with walking the streets with open carry guns that get questioned by the police and they tell the officers that they will not give them their name and/or ID? Seems like it's one in the same.

It is well settled case law throughout the nation. I am unaware of any state that prohibits officers from making a records check of any person so long as the check is related to their job function. He could not run your name trying to find out where ou lived so he could put an offer in on some classic car you own, but he could run your name to check and see if you had a valid license to drive that car.

There are a ton of YouTube videos (don't laugh) where people exercise this right. Almost always someone complains some man is walking down the street with a visible gun, and the cop just responds to it to check up on things. No law broken. And the officers are unable to demand ID or their name. My case seems to parallel that.

The officer did not compel you to give up your name. Either dad or someone else gave up your name and the officer ran it and discovered you were subject to the protective order. If he did not know your name and you refused to ID yourself to the officer - and he had no lawful right to compel that info from you - then you'd be correct that you could refuse and it would likely be over ... but, that is NOT what happened.

 

[Krowbar]

Yeah my home of address is here and my dad gave up my name not knowing it mattered because the officer stated first thing that he was no there to charge anybody with anything.

I can't believe the courts are able to infringe on your right to bear arms for a BS restraining order from a girl who doesn't even live in the same STATE as you. It is non-violent too.

 

[CdwJava]

I can't believe the courts are able to infringe on your right to bear arms for a BS restraining order from a girl who doesn't even live in the same STATE as you. It is non-violent too.

That's the way it is.

If the protected party obtained a restraining order while residing in another state, then either one of you moved away from the other, or, your actions crossed state lines such that she felt threatened.

Understand that our rights can be infringed upon based upon our actions. In this case, your actions apparently gave good cause to a court to issue the protective order and as a result, you lost that right to possess a firearm - at least for the duration of the order.

 

[dave33]

Yeah my home of address is here and my dad gave up my name not knowing it mattered because the officer stated first thing that he was no there to charge anybody with anything.

I can't believe the courts are able to infringe on your right to bear arms for a BS restraining order from a girl who doesn't even live in the same STATE as you. It is non-violent too.

Every year more laws are passed. Every time a law is passed, citizens rights are infringed upon. Most people do not realize how little of their rights are actually left.

 

[CdwJava]

Every year more laws are passed. Every time a law is passed, citizens rights are infringed upon. Most people do not realize how little of their rights are actually left.

It is NOT a new law that allows an officer to run the name of someone in the course of their duty. To my knowledge this has NEVER been prohibited as it has nothing to do with any Constitutional protections.

Yes, the ban might be "new" (if you call something enacted in 1997 "new"). But, there was a good reason for that one, and due process must still be observed.

 

[HighwayMan]

Every time a law is passed, citizens rights are infringed upon.

Yes, those damn assault and murder statutes really cramp my style.

 

[Antigone*]

Every year more laws are passed. Every time a law is passed, citizens rights are infringed upon. Most people do not realize how little of their rights are actually left.

I hear crap like this and it drives me crazy. I guess it was okay bastage who murdered my step son for no damned reason, not to have his rights to be infringed upon huh???

The bastage was so proud of his rights that he hid his gun in his mother's oven when the police came looking for him.

<spit> on both of you.

 

[dave33]

I hear crap like this and it drives me crazy. I guess it was okay bastage who murdered my step son for no damned reason, not to have his rights to be infringed upon huh???

The bastage was so proud of his rights that he hid his gun in his mother's oven when the police came looking for him.

<spit> on both of you.

Um... blowing things a little out of proportion and getting way off topic. As a matter of fact the o.p was specific in saying his offenses were NON-violent.

I think the o.p. like many others think they have a lot more civil rights than they actually have. That's it, that's my point and I think it a valid one.

You spit on me? Oh boy, another telephone tough guy. So go ahead than and spit. Oops, whatsa matter? Uh oh you can't.

 

[dave33]

Yes, those damn assault and murder statutes really cramp my style.

Yea well those have been on the books for several tears, some even hundreds of years.

If your style is cramped than leave.

 

[Zigner]

Yea well those have been on the books for several tears, some even hundreds of years.

If your style is cramped than leave.

I guess you missed the point...

 

[Antigone*]

Um... blowing things a little out of proportion and getting way off topic. As a matter of fact the o.p was specific in saying his offenses were NON-violent.

I think the o.p. like many others think they have a lot more civil rights than they actually have. That's it, that's my point and I think it a valid one.

You spit on me? Oh boy, another telephone tough guy. So go ahead than and spit. Oops, whatsa matter? Uh oh you can't.

Not off topic dave, you just don't get it, and I don't care enough about you to give you any more of my day. At the end of the day, the OP's information was justifiably run and he was arrested as he should have been.

 

[tranquility]

Every year more laws are passed. Every time a law is passed, citizens rights are infringed upon. Most people do not realize how little of their rights are actually left.

Please people. The laws we all agree with were "passed" long ago. I suspect we generally agree Murder, rape, robbery, burglary, arson, mayhem, kidnapping, theft, assault and battery and the like (Common law crimes. I omit sodomy for PC reasons.) are wrong, m'kay.

Dave might be referring more to things like:
http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-12-PP32-EngulfedInEnvironmentalCrimes-CEJ-MarcLevinVikrantReddy_0.pdf

Perhaps he is talking about yet another book that joins the three already written by federal appellate court judges about how we all commit felonies every day. "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" (Harvey Silvergate) with the Amazon description of:

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

That's why the cool kids now don't talk about guilt and innocence as much as prosecutorial discretion. One only needs to look to the charging of a Reddit founder for violating the terms of service of JSTOR. Multiple felonies.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony/
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/277353-lawmakers-blast-trumped-up-doj-prosecution-of-internet-activist

 

[Shannongiles16]

Spitting on someone is assault. In which case he could get a restraining order. At which point I would hope you dont have any guns hidden in your kitchen.

Restraining orders are kinda funny in that there doesnt need to be any supporting evidence to get one. You can make up any old thing off the top of your head and bammo you are granted a R.O.. IIRC I read a r.o. for a friend and it was granted because he used "hurtful words" towards his gf.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.