Wright v. Beck - USDC-CD Cal (LAPD firearms retention policy)

[pacrat]

Which means what? That Mr Wright now has to pay $12,801.95. For the privilege of being victimized by LAPD, LA City Attorney, and assorted Judges in LA for the last 15 yers.




WTF

[wolfwood]

2020-04-01 9:00 am Courtroom 3, Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals, Pasadena
Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges
Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side
Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck - An appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of law enforcement officials in an action alleging that defendants illegally withheld and destroyed plaintiff's valuable firearm collection. [2:15-cv-05805-R-PJW] Civil C. CA 15 min

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calenda...4-17&year=2020

great panel Van Dyke and Callahan are both pro 2a

[gunuser17]

Based on the current court operation order, I doubt there will be any oral argument with everyone at the court house. It will be taken on submission, telephone or video argument or postponed based on the operation order. No way I know of to tell right now.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

2020-04-01 9:00 am Courtroom 3, Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals, Pasadena
Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges
Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side
Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck - An appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of law enforcement officials in an action alleging that defendants illegally withheld and destroyed plaintiff's valuable firearm collection. [2:15-cv-05805-R-PJW] Civil C. CA 15 min

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calenda...4-17&year=2020

great panel Van Dyke and Callahan are both pro 2a

Hopefully Mr Wright can start to get some relief from the "F'n" he has been getting for the last 16 yrs.

For those new to this thread, or to CG, that are interested. Here is a link to an article published shortly after this fiasco began.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ca...un-collection/

EDIT


I understand that M&A have full plates with all the 2A suits running in Ca. Hopefully someone from M&A can take time to update CG on Mr Wright's plight.

[wolfwood]

arguments are about to start here is the live stream. go to 27 18 of the argument

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9iqmXVcHKs

[Elgatodeacero]

This argument started at 58:17 for me, probably a typo in above post.

[nikonmike5]

It's interesting, even the federal judges can't track all the nuances of CA firearms laws.

[GetMeCoffee]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

This argument started at 58:17 for me, probably a typo in above post.

Add 27:18 to that to go straight to the good stuff
Edit: I think wolfwood was pointing to 1: 24: 30 or somewhere around there.

[Elgatodeacero]

All three appellate judges made it clear they were not ok with what happened here.

I expect a reversal, and probably a jury trial, and the government likely will lose.

[pacrat]

WOW, just WOW!

Wright side; This Ch!t is WRONG. Explains why.

Wrong side; Blah Blah blah. Deflection, Obsfucation, Bovine Excrement, Qualified Immunity, Blah Blah Blah. More Deflection, More Obsfucation, More BS. Poor bastard was thrown in the gladiator's ring with no shield and a rubber sword.

Judges one an all, IMHO didn't buy Blah Blah, Deflection, Obsfucation, or the BS.

Especially liked Van Dyke bringing up "Jessup" at about 1:10:00.

"9th Circuit said COPS CAN STEAL". I get the distinct impression he and Callahan are both chomping at the bit to overturn that POS. Because she agreed with him.

Even Paez was a bit pissed that Beck/Fuere destroyed Wayne's guns with an Ex Parte order by lying to the Judge. Without even telling him.

Finally after 16 yrs, just maybe Mr Wright can finally get some satisfaction.

Thank You Wolfwood for posting this.

[FirearmFino]

Oral argument video: https://youtu.be/2eWxiqhv6sM

[Not_an_outlaw]

Just watched the court hearing on Youtube. Its worth the time. Hard to believe there is some case law that may allow "takings" without due process.

[eaglemike]

Really hard to watch the attempt at justification of the LAPD actions. Judges seem to acknowledge issues with the practice in this particular instance. I wonder how often it happened at other times? My guess would be this has happened, but perhaps not to this degree. The LAPD lawyer, well just see pacrat synopsis above. Brutal.

[FirearmFino]

Judge VanDyke: "Is it even plausible that the officers thought that the remaining 300+ guns, that he didn't own some of those guns, right? Like, It'd be like if you stole my 300 cars that were all old cars so I don't have registrations, but my grandpa bought 'em from somebody back before you needed registrations, and you just destroyed them. Did they actually - I don't think that it's actually plausible that they actually thought he didn't own them, they just didn't think he should have them, so they thought they could get away with destroying them."

[ARFrog]

Interesting video.

Kudos to Mr. Wright's counsel for exercising great restraint while the LA attorney was speaking. I was fascinated that when the Judges were pressing the LA attorney that he seemed to keep digging the same legal hole, then refilling it, then digging the same hole again. It sure looked like the Judges were not buying it.

Last thought -gotta get me a pair of those cool 3rdRFTS glasses - groooovey!

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

Judge VanDyke: "Is it even plausible that the officers thought that the remaining 300+ guns, that he didn't own some of those guns, right? Like, It'd be like if you stole my 300 cars that were all old cars so I don't have registrations, but my grandpa bought 'em from somebody back before you needed registrations, and you just destroyed them. Did they actually - I don't think that it's actually plausible that they actually thought he didn't own them, they just didn't think he should have them, so they thought they could get away with destroying them."

And at least twice, Judge Callahan stated, [paraphrased] "even kindergarteners know it's wrong to steal". How could the cops think it's OK."

Priceless.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Not_an_outlaw

Just watched the court hearing on Youtube. Its worth the time. Hard to believe there is some case law that may allow "takings" without due process.

Welcome to CalGuns.

Lots worse happens all the time. Just google "Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse".

Warning...........you will be reading for hours.

[RickD427]

I just finished watching the arguments in the case.

No real surprises. The case had been pretty extensively pled. The real reason for watching was to see how the three judges reacted, and to hear their questions.

It's important not to read too much into a judge's questions on appeal. They're trying to create the best record that they'll have to deal with in deliberation. The opposing attorneys aren't often helpful in doing that in their pleadings. They're not asking a question to highlight a point of how they view the case. I also like to watch the interaction between the judges, primary to see in their questions are "in sync" or "outta sync" with their colleagues.

The Ninth Circuit has actually done pretty good job of handing their cases down relatively quickly (with a couple of notable exceptions like Lee Baca's appeal). I gave up on predicting how a case will turn out based on the arguments. But I did see two interesting issues come to the forefront of the case and it will be very interesting to see how the court handles them:

1) Penal Code section 34000 - This statutes authorizes the destruction of firearms that are considered as abandoned. It's the primary vehicle for LE agencies to dispose of firearms. It was central to the L.A. City's argument that no notice of the destruction was necessary. The idea (though not well explained by the city's attorney) is that abandoned property becomes owned by the state and that no purpose is served by giving the state notice of pending destruction by the state. The judges heavily questioned this idea, and more so than I would think if they were trying to make a clear record. But at the same time, they have to be mindful that an awful lot of search and seizure law is predicated on the principle that one has no rights with regard to property that they abandon. Look for some very skillful writing on this point.

2) Evidence Code section 637 - This establishes a rebuttable presumption that a person owns things that are possessed by him/her. A key point to the city's argument was that Mr. Wright did not meet LAPD's policy requirements to show that he owned many of the weapons that he sought to have returned. Mr. Wright's attorney addressed this, but, IMHO, was kinda weak in doing so. The Constitution trumps Statutes, and Statutes trump Policies. She argued that Constitution and Statute established Wright as the owner. The City argued that Policy did not.

Stay tuned, this is gonna get interesting

[TruOil]

I find it interesting that some municipalities enact "policies" that make it essentially impossible to "prove" (to their satisfaction) that you "own" a firearm, a policy that is not typically applied to any other kid of property. I remember there was a lawsuit about similar policies in SF and Oakland where the certificate from the DOJ was not enough to satisfy the "policy," even though in each case the firearm was taken from the possession of the person seeking to retrieve it. The obvious intent of these policies is to seize and destroy firearms as often as is possible.That in and of itself should be unconstitutional.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I find it interesting that some municipalities enact "policies" that make it essentially impossible to "prove" (to their satisfaction) that you "own" a firearm, a policy that is not typically applied to any other kid of property. I remember there was a lawsuit about similar policies in SF and Oakland where the certificate from the DOJ was not enough to satisfy the "policy," even though in each case the firearm was taken from the possession of the person seeking to retrieve it. The obvious intent of these policies is to seize and destroy firearms as often as is possible.That in and of itself should be unconstitutional.

You may well see that change when the Ninth Circuit opinion comes out.

[homelessdude]

Make the commies leave, why should I. I'm not screwing with their rights. The courts might even agree if we can keep improving the system. TRUMP 2020

[RickD427]

The Ninth Circuit decision has just been posted.

Going through it right now. Looks like a win for Mr. Wright, but still reading the details.

UPDATE: Just finished a quick read through the decision. It's a basic win for Mr. Wright on the main issues of notice, and in turn, his ability to pursue a recovery of damages. The court did affirm the grant of qualified immunity for a number of officials involved in the case, but denied qualified immunity to the key officer involved, and to the police chief and city attorney. The court did award costs to Mr. Wright. There was no dissent.

[FirearmFino]

Opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding

Memorandum

[kuug]

They used NYSRPA to keep the case alive. Request for monetary damages saves the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I find it interesting that some municipalities enact "policies" that make it essentially impossible to "prove" (to their satisfaction) that you "own" a firearm, a policy that is not typically applied to any other kid of property. I remember there was a lawsuit about similar policies in SF and Oakland where the certificate from the DOJ was not enough to satisfy the "policy," even though in each case the firearm was taken from the possession of the person seeking to retrieve it. The obvious intent of these policies is to seize and destroy firearms as often as is possible.That in and of itself should be unconstitutional.

It looks like your point of view was pretty effectively accepted by the Circuit Court...............

[lastinline]

Will this ruling ever actually co$t those officials any money from their own pockets?

[pacrat]

In post 176 I mentioned;

And at least twice, Judge Callahan stated, [paraphrased] "even kindergarteners know it's wrong to steal". How could the cops think it's OK."

Yet they granted Qualified Immunity to some of the blatant BAD ACTORS who knowingly broke laws.

Using Jessop as precedent. Undoubtedly one of the most biased precedents to ever come out of the 9th Circus. Which moved the "Clearly Established" designator even farther into left field away from Police Stations. And farther from justice for victimized citizens, than the original goalpost set in "Pierson v Ray". The 1967 case where QI was born, and based on the "good faith and with probable cause" actions under color of authority. Because the cops in Pierson made the arrest under an existing [later struck] Miss. State Statute.

With Jessop, the 9th Circus literally gave bad cops a "LICENSE TO STEAL". Even when they know damn well their actions are illegal under state law. Already show by them breaking not only existing laws, but their own LAPD WRITTEN POLICY. Which was included as part of a previous suit for the same offense, that LAPD lost years ago.


I wonder what happened to the 'RICO' part of Wright's suit against Beck? I would still jump for joy to see that A-hole perp walked in cuffs in front of media cameras.

I'm happy for Mr Wright on his partial victory. But further saddened for citizens at large because of the blatant abuses that the courts now condone. ...

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by lastinline

Will this ruling ever actually co$t those officials any money from their own pockets?

HIGHLY UNLIKELY.......................

[lastinline]

Originally Posted by pacrat

HIGHLY UNLIKELY.......................

No wonder why so many folks (myself included) have such disdain, distrust, and no respect for the bad folks imbedded in these “law enforcement” agencies who pull this crap, and do so knowing that it is wrong. They are no better than the criminals they put away. That they knowingly flout laws that they would happily arrest others for, and yet break those laws themselves is tragic.
What else is really sad is that there are some really great people who have stepped up to do their best for the public, yet they are distrusted by many because of cases like this.

[librarian72]

Originally Posted by RickD427

....denied qualified immunity to the ... city attorney.

ahhhhh, about time. Good first step, but now what?

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by librarian72

ahhhhh, about time. Good first step, but now what?

The case goes back to the District Court on remand once the Ninth Circuit issues the mandate. The original trial judge died during the proceedings, so it will go to a new judge.

The city has the option of requesting an en banc rehearing, or of seeking a review by the Supreme Court. IMHO, the en banc is unlikely given the lack of a dissent, and it's even more unlikely that the Supreme Court would grant certiorari.

The Ninth Circuit's decision pretty much reduces the new trial court's role to the determination of damages.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by RickD427

The original trial judge died during the proceedings.

Never good to hear of someones passing, but the court system is better off w/o this judge if it is who I think it is.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...9hhrg29969.htm

[BeAuMaN]

I'm glad to hear this has taken a favorable turn for Mr. Wright. I hope the damages will be generous for Mr. Wright. Feel good story ending an otherwise crappy year.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by BeAuMaN

I'm glad to hear this has taken a favorable turn for Mr. Wright. I hope the damages will be generous for Mr. Wright. Feel good story ending an otherwise crappy year.

The real kicker is that any damages Mr. Wright is awarded will come out of the taxpayers pockets not the crooks that stole his firearms.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by mshill

The real kicker is that any damages Mr. Wright is awarded will come out of the taxpayers pockets not the crooks that stole his firearms.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Evil Puppet Chucky, lost his QUARTER OF A MILLION $ annual pension. Due to his criminal acts.

And get perp walked and imprisoned on RICO charges.

[pacrat]

ANY MOVEMENT?

[HowardW56]

Originally Posted by pacrat

ANY MOVEMENT?

The city is seeking rehearing or EnBanc review...

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by HowardW56

The city is seeking rehearing or EnBanc review...

Thank you Howard. Has the city made any filings to that affect?

As an aside yet on topic due to the RICO accusations filed by Mr Wright. In support of my lower than scum opinion of Beck.

https://youtu.be/fFd7GAVj7f8

Victim of an LAPD officer is awarded $210,000 taxpayer's dollars for abuse of power and police brutality. To personally punish his daughters ex boyfriend under color of authority. Within 3 wks, Beck claims he is a good guy and promotes him to Sgt.

I certainly hope that Daniel Garza gets a substantial settlement that includes a large portion of Becks undeserved pension.

[HowardW56]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Thank you Howard. Has the city made any filings to that affect?

As an aside yet on topic due to the RICO accusations filed by Mr Wright. In support of my lower than scum opinion of Beck.

Yes, it is on PACER.... I didn't download a copy of the petition...

[FirearmFino]

Filed order (RICHARD A. PAEZ, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and LAWRENCE VANDYKE) The Panel has voted to deny Defendants-Appellees’ petition for rehearing. The Panel has also voted to deny Defendants-Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.