PDA

View Full Version : Police detention for open carry


Bugei
10-02-2009, 9:19 AM
Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because Hes Openly Carrying a Handgun

http://volokh.com/2009/10/01/police-may-not-even-temporarily-detain-a-person-simply-because-hes-openly-carrying-a-handgun/

Not that we're open carrying lately, but this was interesting. Might apply to California's loaded-check stops.

kf6tac
10-02-2009, 10:16 AM
Why the reference to "Supremes" in the thread title? There's no discussion of any Supreme Court ruling here.

ilbob
10-02-2009, 10:17 AM
Amazing that it takes a judge to decide that police can't detain you when they know for a fact what you are doing is neither a crime nor dangerous to a third party.

wilit
10-02-2009, 1:06 PM
Looks like the PD have to pay St John $21,000 too. Maybe when infringing on rights start hitting budgets, the powers that be will actually start training their officers properly.

bwiese
10-02-2009, 2:16 PM
Looks like the PD have to pay St John $21,000 too. Maybe when infringing on rights start hitting budgets, the powers that be will actually start training their officers properly.

Trouble is, the $21K came out of the PD's budget that's refilled by taxpayers.

If it's to really have significance, it needs to come out of the cop's wages.

dexter9659
10-02-2009, 2:32 PM
Trouble is, the $21K came out of the PD's budget that's refilled by taxpayers.

If it's to really have significance, it needs to come out of the cop's wages.

How about a police bake sale to cover the $21k?

cdtx2001
10-02-2009, 6:24 PM
How about a police bake sale to cover the $21k?

So does that mean they should bake police officers??

postal
10-02-2009, 6:27 PM
Better than girls scout cookies!

LOL!

fairfaxjim
10-02-2009, 6:39 PM
I'm thinking local LEO's with a folding card table outside of Safeway selling "Get Out of Jail FREE" type cards. I would definitly keep a bunch in my truck.

Kid Stanislaus
10-02-2009, 7:13 PM
bweise sed: "Trouble is, the $21K came out of the PD's budget that's refilled by taxpayers. If it's to really have significance, it needs to come out of the cop's wages."

Well, if enough of the Public Safety budget is gobbled up paying for lawsuits then eventually the flatfoots will find their pay is not going up as fast as that in the next town over!
__________________

Sobriquet
10-02-2009, 7:18 PM
bweise sed: "Trouble is, the $21K came out of the PD's budget that's refilled by taxpayers. If it's to really have significance, it needs to come out of the cop's wages."

Well, if enough of the Public Safety budget is gobbled up paying for lawsuits then eventually the flatfoots will find their pay is not going up as fast as that in the next town over!
__________________

Or they just raise taxes...

Pont
10-02-2009, 8:18 PM
How about a police bake sale to cover the $21k?
They could easily raise that much in a bake sale...





...if they used certain confiscated herbal ingredients to make the brownies.

freakshow10mm
10-02-2009, 8:28 PM
The departments don't pay, their insurance companies pay. Every police department is insured for lawsuits.

postal
10-02-2009, 8:37 PM
The departments don't pay, their insurance companies pay. Every police department is insured for lawsuits.

Yes this is true. But wouldnt it be nice to make them *high risk* policies that would take a big chunk of the budget and include a really high premium as well?

We all hear about their budgets being cut- once it really hits em where it hurts they will learn to comply with the law and not instigate behavior that hurts their wallets.

A high cost of insurance and a really high premium might persuade them to follow the letter of the law.

KylaGWolf
10-02-2009, 8:41 PM
Trouble is, the $21K came out of the PD's budget that's refilled by taxpayers.

If it's to really have significance, it needs to come out of the cop's wages.

Exactly what should happen. That might be the thing that makes an LEO stop and think before they do some of the bad stops they do. But I think as long as the unions keep their hands in things that would never happen.

jnojr
10-02-2009, 8:43 PM
Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because He’s Openly Carrying a Handgun

Until some meaningful sanction is directly applied to the individual officers guilty of violating our rights, decisions like this are meaningless. I love how they cite previous instances where police did the same thing, and a court decided years later, "That was wrong!" Well, here they are, doing it again. It goes to court, and years later, a judge says, "That was wrong" and the taxpayers write a check. Meanwhile, people are still being stopped, detained, searched, etc.

Don't believe me? Strap on a gun, and legally carry it down Main St. Especially in the Bay Area or Los Angeles. See how long it is before you're approached. You aren't committing a crime, and there isn't even any "reasonable suspicion" that you are. But you will be stopped, held against your will, be identified, have your sidearm removed from your possession, and you'll be there for a lot longer than it'll take for them to verify it's unloaded. Be sure to tell the officers about these wonderful court decisions, and see how much they're impressed.

KylaGWolf
10-02-2009, 8:43 PM
They could easily raise that much in a bake sale...





...if they used certain confiscated herbal ingredients to make the brownies.

Pass I have no desire to wind up in the ER. I am deadly allergic to that herb.

jnojr
10-02-2009, 8:49 PM
Trouble is, the $21K came out of the PD's budget that's refilled by taxpayers.

If it's to really have significance, it needs to come out of the cop's wages.

Exactly.

And the cop(s) in question need to be fired, arrested for civil rights violations, tried, and imprisoned. They need to be held personally liable for all damages, and they need to be ruined over this. Not because I "hate cops", but because no crime is more egregious than an agent of the state violating the rights of a citizen. Sure, on an act-by-act basis, lots of individual crimes are far more heinous... but acts like this are far more insidious. They creep into the system and undermine all of our rights. They set "us" farther and farther apart from "them". And that is the road to totalitarianism... when a government decides it can act against it's own citizens with impunity, and the instruments of that government (the police) willingly go along, and the only checks are meaningless and ineffectual.

Digital_Boy
10-02-2009, 9:08 PM
Just read the article, it looks like it was just the New Mexico Supreme court, not the SCOTUS.

Still, it's good precedent for reference next June when SCOTUS hears incorporation arguments.

Shotgun Man
10-03-2009, 4:25 AM
Just read the article, it looks like it was just the New Mexico Supreme court, not the SCOTUS.

Still, it's good precedent for reference next June when SCOTUS hears incorporation arguments.


LOL. It is:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO


Lowest level of federal court.

OP, you can edit the thread title. One's heart gets pumping fast with the mentioning of the Supremes-- we tend to think US or CA Supreme court.

I've only recently discovered that you can edit a thread title-- edit post, advanced edit.

kcbrown
10-03-2009, 6:24 AM
Exactly.

And the cop(s) in question need to be fired, arrested for civil rights violations, tried, and imprisoned. They need to be held personally liable for all damages, and they need to be ruined over this.


I agree, and for exactly the reasons you cite. Can't the plaintiff sue explicitly for such things? In other words, stipulate that a mere monetary fine is insufficient relief, and that only getting rid of the violator at a minimum is sufficient?

The reasoning you cite would, I think, make a powerful argument for it. So why can't people whose rights are violated in this way demand of the court that the remedy include such things?

ilbob
10-03-2009, 6:34 AM
The departments don't pay, their insurance companies pay. Every police department is insured for lawsuits.

It depends. In Illinois most smaller cities and counties are in the municipal insurance pool. There is a largish yearly deductible and the insurance pool pays off after that to a certain amount.

In some cases such judgments are paid out of what is called the tort fund. Its a property tax that a taxing entity uses solely to pay legal judgments. No one votes on it, your taxes just get adjusted to pay for it.

The county I live in just paid $15 million when a cop killed 2 people and severely and permanently injured a third because he was drvning 100 mph down a road. No lights, no siren, no emergency, just did it. The insurance only covered part of the deal. The county is going to have to pay the rest out of its own pockets, meaning my pockets.

Jury found the cop not guilty. Sheriff gave him his job back.

bodger
10-03-2009, 7:38 AM
Don't believe me? Strap on a gun, and legally carry it down Main St. Especially in the Bay Area or Los Angeles. See how long it is before you're approached. You aren't committing a crime, and there isn't even any "reasonable suspicion" that you are. But you will be stopped, held against your will, be identified, have your sidearm removed from your possession, and you'll be there for a lot longer than it'll take for them to verify it's unloaded. Be sure to tell the officers about these wonderful court decisions, and see how much they're impressed.

Very true. And in the course of their illegal detention and confiscation, thay will also illegally obtain your identification info.
And then the DA might send out their surveying squad to verify that you were 999 feet 11 inches from a school, and your real trouble begins.

I don't carry open and unloaded, but I've encountered several LAPD officers and engaged them in conversation about UOC. I got conflicting info from each one and some of it was inaacurate. One of them told me it's legal to UOC, and if it's a semi-auto pistol, you can conceal the loaded magazine.

I don't think they get much training about how to handle a UOC call.
For me, the 1000' GFSZ makes it too risky to UOC on a regular basis as a means of self defense readiness.

bwiese
10-03-2009, 9:57 AM
Let's change the incorrect title of this thread.

Supremes have not voiced on OC at all.

Maestro Pistolero
10-03-2009, 11:55 AM
Let's change the incorrect title of this thread.

Supremes have not voiced on OC at all.
Right. It's the 3rd Circuit federal court, no?

remodelin
10-03-2009, 12:04 PM
Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because Hes Openly Carrying a Handgun

Not that we're open carrying lately, but this was interesting. Might apply to California's loaded-check stops.

What if you have the slide racked & locked on your auto with the mag out. They can clearly see it is NOT loaded without even touching it?

ivanimal
10-03-2009, 1:21 PM
I changed the title

Hogxtz
10-03-2009, 3:48 PM
Yes this is true. But wouldnt it be nice to make them *high risk* policies that would take a big chunk of the budget and include a really high premium as well?

We all hear about their budgets being cut- once it really hits em where it hurts they will learn to comply with the law and not instigate behavior that hurts their wallets.

A high cost of insurance and a really high premium might persuade them to follow the letter of the law.

Actually many times the cities and counties are "self insured".

KylaGWolf
10-03-2009, 3:59 PM
What if you have the slide racked & locked on your auto with the mag out. They can clearly see it is NOT loaded without even touching it?

Trust me even then they remove it from the holster. Hell I have seen them remove an unloaded gun from a LOCKED case. That had a cable lock through the gun and been hassled. But that is whole different story altogether.

And even though this ruling came from a lower court it is still points in our favor down the road. It can still be used to fight for our rights.

Meplat
10-03-2009, 4:03 PM
Don't hold your breath. All large US cities quietly settle out of court many cases involving police misconduct each year for figures much larger than this. Sort of a 'cost of doing business' philosophy.

Looks like the PD have to pay St John $21,000 too. Maybe when infringing on rights start hitting budgets, the powers that be will actually start training their officers properly.

Meplat
10-03-2009, 4:05 PM
Of course not. Doughnuts!:D



So does that mean they should bake police officers??

Meplat
10-03-2009, 4:11 PM
You are forgetting that the bottom line is that WE pay, they do not.:mad:




Yes this is true. But wouldnt it be nice to make them *high risk* policies that would take a big chunk of the budget and include a really high premium as well?

We all hear about their budgets being cut- once it really hits em where it hurts they will learn to comply with the law and not instigate behavior that hurts their wallets.

A high cost of insurance and a really high premium might persuade them to follow the letter of the law.

pullnshoot25
10-03-2009, 4:16 PM
Don't hold your breath. All large US cities quietly settle out of court many cases involving police misconduct each year for figures much larger than this. Sort of a 'cost of doing business' philosophy.

That pesky Constitution is truly a hard one to figure out...

Meplat
10-03-2009, 4:21 PM
It's almost tempting to strap on my BlackHawk and my fancy hand tooled holster and see what happens.:43: But in deference to those who think this is a mistake right now I will refrain.


Until some meaningful sanction is directly applied to the individual officers guilty of violating our rights, decisions like this are meaningless. I love how they cite previous instances where police did the same thing, and a court decided years later, "That was wrong!" Well, here they are, doing it again. It goes to court, and years later, a judge says, "That was wrong" and the taxpayers write a check. Meanwhile, people are still being stopped, detained, searched, etc.

Don't believe me? Strap on a gun, and legally carry it down Main St. Especially in the Bay Area or Los Angeles. See how long it is before you're approached. You aren't committing a crime, and there isn't even any "reasonable suspicion" that you are. But you will be stopped, held against your will, be identified, have your sidearm removed from your possession, and you'll be there for a lot longer than it'll take for them to verify it's unloaded. Be sure to tell the officers about these wonderful court decisions, and see how much they're impressed.

Meplat
10-03-2009, 4:31 PM
Damn!! Wish I'd thought of that! But then you have the three strikes paradox. Some guys would rather kill the witness than lose their job.

I agree, and for exactly the reasons you cite. Can't the plaintiff sue explicitly for such things? In other words, stipulate that a mere monetary fine is insufficient relief, and that only getting rid of the violator at a minimum is sufficient?

The reasoning you cite would, I think, make a powerful argument for it. So why can't people whose rights are violated in this way demand of the court that the remedy include such things?

demnogis
10-04-2009, 12:34 AM
Any potential cases about UOC against the state would be related to 4A claims. Illegal search and seizure of your person and property. Since we still have to skip 2 when counting to 10 in CA and 12031(e) is an "inspection" and not a "search"... It's everything else around the detainment that makes it illegal.

However... In many of the memos passed around through our state they insinuate that the intent of UOCing is to entrap law enforcement into violating our rights so we can henceforth sue for damages... Yet, I don't know of any cases currently where a person is pursuing damages of large monetary value. Reading these types of things in training memos and briefs also sets the LEA communities to have a negative disposition [in general] towards those who do UOC.

Now... If we can get more rulings like these, and even one in the 9th saying "Hey now Mr. Leo... You know that's wrong, the court says its wrong and now you have to be accountable for your actions" we would be set. Of course, I'm expecting LOC and the destruction of 626.9 before that comes down from the 9th...

Brianguy
10-04-2009, 1:01 AM
Who wants to join me for a UOC stroll through downtown LA? :D

demnogis
10-04-2009, 1:48 AM
Put together a time/date for a group UOC event! Make sure there won't be any 626.9 or municipal code violations (event taking place in a park?).

artherd
10-04-2009, 2:11 AM
This was a New Mexico lower circuit court decision - albit a good one.

THIS IS NOT BINDING PRECEDENT IN CALIFORNIA!

Please do not OC (note this was for Loaded OC, which IS generally illegal in CA.)

If you cite this case in your defense in CA you will have it overturned.

The Nomadd
10-04-2009, 11:09 AM
Any potential cases about UOC against the state would be related to 4A claims. Illegal search and seizure of your person and property. Since we still have to skip 2 when counting to 10 in CA and 12031(e) is an "inspection" and not a "search"... It's everything else around the detainment that makes it illegal.

However... In many of the memos passed around through our state they insinuate that the intent of UOCing is to entrap law enforcement into violating our rights so we can henceforth sue for damages... Yet, I don't know of any cases currently where a person is pursuing damages of large monetary value. Reading these types of things in training memos and briefs also sets the LEA communities to have a negative disposition [in general] towards those who do UOC.

Now... If we can get more rulings like these, and even one in the 9th saying "Hey now Mr. Leo... You know that's wrong, the court says its wrong and now you have to be accountable for your actions" we would be set. Of course, I'm expecting LOC and the destruction of 626.9 before that comes down from the 9th...

You know what I find interesting? That despite these memos, and the general misconception that we're doing this to "entrap" them, many leos continue to violate our rights in regards to overstepping the bounds of the E-check. You would think that if they're that worried about being sued, they would make sure to do it by the book and not trample on our rights. It's almost like they're daring us to do something. As much as I'm pro law enforcement, maybe we need to actually start going after them legally. As far as I'm concerned, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and need to always remember that. Just my 2 cents

mmartin
10-04-2009, 8:55 PM
Actually many times the cities and counties are "self insured".

I believe los angeles is self insured, that came up earlier this year on a case where they settled with a firefighter for discrimination/workplace issues. his very large settlement came out of the city general fund.
megan

bodger
10-04-2009, 9:04 PM
You know what I find interesting? That despite these memos, and the general misconception that we're doing this to "entrap" them, many leos continue to violate our rights in regards to overstepping the bounds of the E-check. You would think that if they're that worried about being sued, they would make sure to do it by the book and not trample on our rights. It's almost like they're daring us to do something. As much as I'm pro law enforcement, maybe we need to actually start going after them legally. As far as I'm concerned, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and need to always remember that. Just my 2 cents


In California, when it comes to citizens and guns, law enforcement seems to have the general attitude that they can violate our rights all they want.

The majority of the population here thinks guns are evil, and anyone who would dare carry one in plain sight in public, legal or not, should be thwarted.

This attitude prevails at the DOJ as well, and with most of the legislators.

I am of the opinion that this emboldens cops to think they can do as they please with the (e) check and challenge anyone in posession of a firearm.

If ever there was a circumstance where you are guilty until proven innocent, it's when you have a gun in California.

artherd
10-04-2009, 10:07 PM
The misconception I find amongst LEOs, even many very good ones, is that their job ought to be easy.




It oughtn't.

-Ben.

pullnshoot25
10-05-2009, 5:25 AM
The misconception I find amongst LEOs, even many very good ones, is that their job ought to be easy.




It oughtn't.

-Ben.

Why don't you just answer my questions?

You're making yourself look suspicious!

You would make my job much easier if you just answered my questions...


No thanks!

Bugei
10-05-2009, 8:50 AM
Why the reference to "Supremes" in the thread title? There's no discussion of any Supreme Court ruling here.

My bad. You're correct, there isn't. To clarify, this is the District Court for New Mexico.

Bugei
10-05-2009, 8:53 AM
LOL. It is:

Lowest level of federal court.

OP, you can edit the thread title. One's heart gets pumping fast with the mentioning of the Supremes-- we tend to think US or CA Supreme court.

I've only recently discovered that you can edit a thread title-- edit post, advanced edit.
Someone thoughtfully did it for me. Thanks, whoever.
Shotgun Man, thanks for the tip. Didn't know you could do that, either.