Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 11-10-2017, 4:54 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Rick, Edit time

Mr Wright is the citizen who had his guns confiscated. "Mr Beck" is the turd who is responsible for his gun goon squad going out of their jurisdiction in the city of LA, into another county to stitch him up.


JM2c
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-10-2017, 5:32 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,134
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Rick, Edit time

Mr Wright is the citizen who had his guns confiscated. "Mr Beck" is the turd who is responsible for his gun goon squad going out of their jurisdiction in the city of LA, into another county to stitch him up.


JM2c
Pacrat,

You're right, at least to the plaintiff's name.

Thanks for the correction.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-20-2017, 12:57 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...0/16-55239.pdf

Wright wins his appeal on to a trial
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-20-2017, 1:37 PM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 64
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I hate this case, it makes me cringe every time it comes up.

But it does slightly renew my faith in the judiciary that 2 Clinton and 1 Obama appointees reversed the lower courts decision. Moreover, in doing so, they clearly stated that Beck's defense points had zero merit.

Still, a completely cringe-worthy case. No way it should have come to this point.

Thank you for posting the update.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
US Circuit Courts of Appeal have no deadlines; they work on what they want, when they want. The 9th also seems sometimes to Make Stuff Up in their opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-20-2017, 1:41 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,005
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Forgive an ignorant question - but as the guns have already been destroyed will any victory on the merits be only symbolic?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-20-2017, 1:49 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,134
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Forgive an ignorant question - but as the guns have already been destroyed will any victory on the merits be only symbolic?
It's a little better than symbolic. Mr. Wright now has the potential to recover the value of the firearms and the LAPD (and other LE agencies) now have some better guidance on how to handle similar cases. But the Ninth Circuit elected not to publish the decision so it's not citable as precedent.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-20-2017, 2:03 PM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 480
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The "destroyed" collection is most likely being "stored" in cops and judges homes. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, then hang them...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-20-2017, 3:37 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,646
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can he report them as stolen now? That would be a nice touch... Turn each one of those guns into a time bomb for whoever has them.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-20-2017, 4:25 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,134
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Can he report them as stolen now? That would be a nice touch... Turn each one of those guns into a time bomb for whoever has them.
Nope.

The guns were never "Stolen." They may have been destroyed absent a y legal authority, or not. We'll have to see how the trial goes.

The Appellate Decision did not say that Mr. Wright was right. It only said that he now has the ability to make his case in court. It can still go either way.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-20-2017, 10:56 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
It's a little better than symbolic. Mr. Wright now has the potential to recover the value of the firearms and the LAPD (and other LE agencies) now have some better guidance on how to handle similar cases.
But the Ninth Circuit elected not to publish the decision so it's not citable as precedent.
Is the underlined a failed attempt at facetious humor?

From post #1

Quote:
LAPD has been previously sued for its failure to provide basic due process or follow state law when it comes to returning firearms to their owners. In that prior matter, Sarah McGee, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., USDC Central District of California Case No. 98-2043GHK, then-Chief Bernard Parks agreed to implement Special Order No. 1, making compliance with state law regarding return of firearms an express policy of the LAPD. Once again, LAPD has ignored state law as well as its own policy, and the result is the destruction of priceless collector’s items valued in the aggregate at nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars.
Since when has state laws, or even a cops own dept POLICY. Stopped A-holes like Chucky [evil puppet] Beck from doing whatever they damn well please to further their political agendas?

I wonder why Chucky sent his gun goon squad not only out of his jurisdiction. But out of his whole damn county, to stitch up a law abiding citizen in another county?

Is he under the delusion that he has already singlehandedly solved all the crime problems in Watts, Wilmington, Pacoima, East LA, and every other scummy corner of the City of LA? Now he has to send his Boyz into other counties to find some criminals to bust?

I sincerely hope that Mr Wright gets the justice he deserves. And Chucky gets the perp walk he has worked so hard for.

Chucky is a perfect example of why so many law abiding citizens no longer trust or respect police.

Sadly even if Mr Wright wins his case. It will cost Chucky the evil puppet. Not one thin dime.

JM2c....
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 01-15-2019, 10:00 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

With the recent payment of fees to CRPA due to LAPD's illegal activities and blatant cover ups of their malfeasances. In relation to the illegal confiscation, refusal to return, and destruction of citizens firearms.

Is there renewed hope that LAPD and Chuck Beck can now be brought to justice for their intentional crimes against Mr Wright?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-06-2019, 10:27 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
With the recent payment of fees to CRPA due to LAPD's illegal activities and blatant cover ups of their malfeasances. In relation to the illegal confiscation, refusal to return, and destruction of citizens firearms.

Is there renewed hope that LAPD and Chuck Beck can now be brought to justice for their intentional crimes against Mr Wright?

BUMP

Still hoping for answers.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-07-2019, 7:38 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This case may have more legs given the recent ruling in Timbs v Indiana on excessive fines.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-07-2019, 9:14 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,250
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I'd love a status update if there is one
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-07-2019, 10:56 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
This case may have more legs given the recent ruling in Timbs v Indiana on excessive fines.
Not really. This is not a case about excessive fines, it is a case where the LAPD destroyed the "evidence" (a valuable firearms collection) after charges were dropped rather than return the firearms to their rightful owner.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-07-2019, 11:59 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 128
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Not really. This is not a cases about excessive fines, it is a case where the LAPD destroyed the "evidence" (a valuable firearms collection) after charges were dropped rather than return the firearms to their rightful owner.
IANAL but I would argue both case could fall within the category of asset forfeiture. While in this case, they seized for evidence, the fact they did not return them resulted in forfeiture.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:44 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prwterbird View Post
IANAL but I would argue both case could fall within the category of asset forfeiture. While in this case, they seized for evidence, the fact they did not return them resulted in forfeiture.
The difference is that in a forfeiture case, the owner has no right of return of the property, while in a criminal case where there are no charges preferred, the owner has a right of return of the property. Yes, in both cases, the owner loses possession, but he has a legal cause of action in the latter that he lacks in the former.

In this case, he did have a right to return of the property when charges were dropped, but the LAPD and the City Attorney dragged their feet long enough, while (mis)leading the owner's attorney into believing that the property was going to be returned , to go to a different judge and get an order of destruction. Property that is forfeited is not destroyed but used or resold by the seizing agency.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-07-2019, 3:01 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The difference is that in a forfeiture case, the owner has no right of return of the property, while in a criminal case where there are no charges preferred, the owner has a right of return of the property. Yes, in both cases, the owner loses possession, but he has a legal cause of action in the latter that he lacks in the former.

In this case, he did have a right to return of the property when charges were dropped, but the LAPD and the City Attorney dragged their feet long enough, while (mis)leading the owner's attorney into believing that the property was going to be returned , to go to a different judge and get an order of destruction. Property that is forfeited is not destroyed but used or resold by the seizing agency.

^^^CORRECT^^^

End result to "victim" of unscrupulous LEAs is the same. "Legal" means by which unscrupulous LEAs, deprive victim of their property are different.

IMHO, the Wright case also casts a pall over the Judiciary here in CrapOfornia. Otherwise once it was determined that the "Judge" that signed the "ex parte" order of destruction. Did so without realizing that the city attorney had with held relevant evidentiary information from the judge. Why did the judge not initiate proceedings against the City Attorney and Baca BECK for with holding that relevant evidence?

IMHO, his failure to do so, made him complicit in the illegal destruction of Mr Wrights property. And shows collusion between LAPD, City Attorney, and Judiciary, in a concerted effort to deprive Mr Wright of his property.

Last edited by pacrat; 03-08-2019 at 1:33 PM.. Reason: Baca to Beck crooked cop brainfart
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:13 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
^^^CORRECT^^^

End result to "victim" of unscrupulous LEAs is the same. "Legal" means by which unscrupulous LEAs, deprive victim of their property are different.

IMHO, the Wright case also casts a pall over the Judiciary here in CrapOfornia. Otherwise once it was determined that the "Judge" that signed the "ex parte" order of destruction. Did so without realizing that the city attorney had with held relevant evidentiary information from the judge. Why did the judge not initiate proceedings against the City Attorney and Baca for with holding that relevant evidence?

IMHO, his failure to do so, made him complicit in the illegal destruction of Mr Wrights property. And shows collusion between LAPD, City Attorney, and Judiciary, in a concerted effort to deprive Mr Wright of his property.
Agreed. The bad faith of the listed actors, and even the judge who dismissed the case, was and is readily apparent.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 06-05-2019, 10:43 AM
JDale@Michel&Associates's Avatar
JDale@Michel&Associates JDale@Michel&Associates is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Mr. Wright loses at the federal and state levels; the federal case is on appeal

Here’s an update on the case: The federal case was dismissed by the district trial court at the pleading stage in 2015, in part because the LA City Attorney’s office through its deputy Eric Brown, misrepresented the prior record of Mr. Wright’s efforts to reacquire his guns from the LAPD. Following one of the most one-sided oral arguments I’ve ever witnessed, one in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel chided the City Attorney’s office for not even knowing its own record, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal. It called the City Attorney’s arguments prompting the federal trial court dismissal a “gross mischaracterization” of the record.

In the meantime, because of the federal trial court dismissal, and while the federal appeal was pending, certain of Mr. Wright’s property destruction claims were re-raised in a state superior court lawsuit. In dismissing the federal lawsuit, the federal trial court had dismissed state law property claims brought in that case without prejudice. To prevent the running of the statute of limitations on those state law property claims, in 2016 the state superior court lawsuit was brought. In response to that lawsuit, the City of LA brought an anti-SLAPP motion claiming that because the City’s destruction of Mr. Wright’s firearms was done pursuant to its petitioning activities with the local courts, the property destruction claims were barred "SLAPP" actions. A SLAPP action is a lawsuit designed to punish a defendant’s exercise of speech or actions or efforts to petition the government. A subset of the anti-SLAPP doctrine holds that most speech or actions in furtherance of government petitioning activities are protected such that lawsuits challenging such activities can be dismissed at the pleading stage unless the plaintiff can show a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of the suit.

Surprisingly, the state trial court granted the City’s anti-SLAPP motion, and dismissed the state case in its entirety. That court held that because the destruction of the firearms was part of the City’s activities in responding to court motions by Mr. Wright for return of his firearms, the City’s activities were protected under the anti-SLAPP doctrine. Further because the federal trial court had already ruled in dismissing the federal district court case that a 2011 property return order Mr. Wright obtained (the one the City had grossly mischaracterized to the federal trial judge) impliedly gave the City the right to destroy Mr. Wright’s firearms, the state trial court held that the federal trial court’s finding had collateral estoppel effect on Mr. Wright’s state court property claims. Thus, the state trial court found as part of its anti-SLAPP analysis that the collateral estoppel effect of the federal trial court’s finding meant that Mr. Wright could not show a likelihood of success on his state law property claims. The dismissal of the state court case was appealed.

Following the state trial court case dismissal, the federal appellate decision came down and the federal claims went back to the federal district court and were heard by Judge Manuel Real. After limited discovery, Judge Real granted the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal trial court claims, finding, among other things, that there was no unlawful firearm destruction policy by the LAPD and that the involved officers and city attorneys who had gotten the illegal destruction order as to Mr. Wright’s firearms were all entitled to qualified immunity. That matter is back on appeal to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The state court of appeal rendered its decision on the state trial court appeal two weeks ago. In an unpublished decision, the state court of appeal affirmed the state trial court’s grant of the anti-SLAPP motion and the finding that the LAPD’s actions in destroying Mr. Wright’s firearms were subject to broad anti-SLAPP and litigation privileges because the destruction occurred attendant to court proceedings where Mr. Wright had asked for his firearms back. And although the federal Ninth Circuit in the intervening period since the grant of the anti-SLAPP motion had overturned the federal trial court’s findings on the 2011 property return order (reminder: the federal trial court finding had prompted the state trial court to find that under the collateral estoppel doctrine Mr. Wright could not succeed on his state law property claims), the state court of appeal did not find this significant change in circumstance to be sufficient to change the state trial court's finding that Mr. Wright was unable to show a likelihood of prevailing on his property claims.

These outcomes, as you can imagine, are incredibly alarming. The abuse of Mr. Wright's property rights has seemingly been excused, resulting in the lifetime passion of a decorated veteran for collecting and displaying notable and historical firearms being subsumed by machinations of a police agency to do anything it can get away with to claim it is furthering the goal of "stopping gun traffickers."

Also shocking is the state court of appeal’s finding of a broad immunity for LAPD and other law enforcement agencies in exercising their ministerial duty to hold or return seized firearms to property owners as such a finding only encourages further property return abuses by LAPD. As part of the limited discovery obtained in the federal case, LAPD witnesses revealed that the internal standards they use to determine whether a property owner is entitled to return of a seized firearm are incredibly onerous, so much so that LAPD's policies likely constitute a backdoor form of civil forfeiture without the due process required for a civil forfeiture proceeding. The LAPD’s internal policies for firearms returns vest so much arbitrary discretion in individual officers that when a particular LAPD gun unit detective wrongly decides without charge or trial that a person like Mr. Wright “is a bad guy,” that detective has almost limitless discretion to prevent the return of that person’s firearms. It is a disgusting policy that will no doubt continue to be abused by LAPD until it is unambiguously rebuked in the courts.

With the federal appeal still pending, we will continue to fight for Mr. Wright, and we are also looking at other litigation and political avenues for holding law enforcement agencies, including the LAPD, accountable for unlawful property seizure and return policies. We will further update you following the latest appeal.

Last edited by JDale@Michel&Associates; 06-05-2019 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:58 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That was a very worthwhile read!

Thank you for keeping up the good fight.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 06-05-2019, 2:52 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,250
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

So, long story short, the judiciary is running cover for a bad cop and has dismissed all but the federal claims. What a joke the ninth is.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 06-05-2019, 4:41 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My take on the above very well thought out and articulated legal explanation is that all citizens must do everything possible to avoid seizures of their personal property by state-sponsored and funded terrorist (in this case detectives from a local police agency) organizations.
It is obvious that this agency is out to rid the world of all privately owned firearms, and will stop at nothing to do it, and in a manner with smug arrogance and willful manipulation of a court system that could care less.
Might be wise to keep all of your eggs in multiple baskets, to help lessen what the rats get.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 06-10-2019, 1:53 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,630
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
So, long story short, the judiciary is running cover for a bad cop and has dismissed all but the federal claims. What a joke the ninth is.
The system is protecting the system.

Until the penalties are harsh, the tyrants will brush them off. We the people are on the hook for their behavior. We need to go after their pensions or assets to make this behavior stop. These corrupt a**holes might rethink their behavior if their kids end up penniless and homeless as a result.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 06-10-2019, 4:13 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default The bill of rights is late

The 8th Amendment prohibition against excessive fines, penalties, and automatic forfeiture is 200 years late, as in last month.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1091

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1091_5536.pdf


Not all of the Amendments are incorporated against the states. Prior to their incorporation, it is States' rights and anything goes. In April I received a moving violation ticket for a broken tail light (thanks to a hit and run driver), and if I did not sigh the ticket agreeing as to validity of the charges, the following would occur
1. arrest on the spot,
2. the police would tow, seize, impound at a daily fee, sell my auto,
3. charge me daily for my incarceration, and charge me for the court's administrative time.

Such forcible indentured servitude was the spark that ignited Ferguson and lead to a civil rights consent decree.;

Last edited by sarabellum; 06-10-2019 at 4:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 06-10-2019, 4:53 PM
Win231 Win231 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,985
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Go Get em Guys.

Until Police are made personally responsible for their illegal acts. Nothing will change. They have carte blanche to pursue their political agendas and the taxpaying citizens of their respective city foot the bill.

I feel it should be illegal for municipalities to foot the bill for the illegal acts of their employees.

This is the fourth time in recent memory that City Police have illegally destroyed the personal property of citizens to further their political agendas.

And that is just the ones that got sued for their actions. How many citizens just walked away and let the cops have their way?

JM2c
Never happen. No police can be held personally responsible. All a citizen can do is sue the city. Police officers couldn't care less; they're not paying any legal fees & whenever they seize guns, they can be seen as "Fighting Crime" & "Saving Lives," & it enhances their "hero" status (to the gullible).

And, when citizens just "walk away," it's usually because they don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. I wonder who's footing the bill for this one?
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 06-10-2019, 8:32 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,869
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Win231 View Post
Never happen. No police can be held personally responsible. All a citizen can do is sue the city. Police officers couldn't care less; they're not paying any legal fees & whenever they seize guns, they can be seen as "Fighting Crime" & "Saving Lives," & it enhances their "hero" status (to the gullible).

And, when citizens just "walk away," it's usually because they don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. I wonder who's footing the bill for this one?
I beg the differ. "Qualified Immunity" only applies to "lawful acts" while enforcing the law. NOT unlawful acts, under color of authority.

As I previously stated. Three times prior to this despicable action by a LEA, they pulled the same crap and lost in court. This Unlawful Act was committed "extralegally". And one of those times, it was LAPD that previously pulled the crap.

They can't even claim "Ignorance".

This "extralegal" enforcement action by LAPD. Is ALSO directly against LAPD's OWN POLICY. That's right, they have a POLICY in place which strictly prohibits this very type of atrocity against citizens rights. After the last time the pulled this crap, AND LOST.

Excerpt quote from Post #1 of this thread.

Quote:
LAPD has been previously sued for its failure to provide basic due process or follow state law when it comes to returning firearms to their owners. In that prior matter, Sarah McGee, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., USDC Central District of California Case No. 98-2043GHK, then-Chief Bernard Parks agreed to implement Special Order No. 1, making compliance with state law regarding return of firearms an express policy of the LAPD. Once again, LAPD has ignored state law as well as its own policy, and the result is the destruction of priceless collector’s items valued in the aggregate at nearly three-quarters-of-a-million dollars.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 06-11-2019, 2:05 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I believe it is true that qualified immunity is not supposed to apply to unlawful acts under color of authority.

Realistically? It doesn't seem that with regards to 2A-related laws the courts consider any LEA action to be unlawful and qualified immunity doesn't have many practical qualifications.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 06-11-2019, 8:06 AM
Win231 Win231 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,985
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
I beg the differ. "Qualified Immunity" only applies to "lawful acts" while enforcing the law. NOT unlawful acts, under color of authority.

As I previously stated. Three times prior to this despicable action by a LEA, they pulled the same crap and lost in court. This Unlawful Act was committed "extralegally". And one of those times, it was LAPD that previously pulled the crap.

They can't even claim "Ignorance".

This "extralegal" enforcement action by LAPD. Is ALSO directly against LAPD's OWN POLICY. That's right, they have a POLICY in place which strictly prohibits this very type of atrocity against citizens rights. After the last time the pulled this crap, AND LOST.

Excerpt quote from Post #1 of this thread.
But whatever money is involved in any judgement against the police is not paid by police officers; it's paid by the City. That's why police don't care & they'll do whatever they want. Same with unjustified police shootings, misconduct or use of force. The City pays out any judgements; not the officers.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 06-11-2019, 8:44 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,134
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Win231 View Post
But whatever money is involved in any judgement against the police is not paid by police officers; it's paid by the City. That's why police don't care & they'll do whatever they want. Same with unjustified police shootings, misconduct or use of force. The City pays out any judgements; not the officers.
Not quite true.

When the officers are sued in their official capacity and suffer a judgment, the city pays.

When sued in their private capacity, the officer is generally on the hook (and there's typically legal wrangling to amend the case to their official capacity)

When there is a federal award of punitive damages, the officer pays.

When there is a California state award of punitive damages, the officer pays, but the city has the option of covering.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 06-11-2019, 9:04 AM
jimmykan's Avatar
jimmykan jimmykan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,180
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Default

Slippery slope...

Seems like a free pass to confiscate and destroy, then ask questions later.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 06-11-2019, 9:48 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
I beg the differ. "Qualified Immunity" only applies to "lawful acts" while enforcing the law. NOT unlawful acts, under color of authority.

They can't even claim "Ignorance".

This "extralegal" enforcement action by LAPD. Is ALSO directly against LAPD's OWN POLICY. That's right, they have a POLICY in place which strictly prohibits this very type of atrocity against citizens rights. After the last time the pulled this crap, AND LOST.
See 8.2.B.4. Qualified Immunity Practice and Procedure
https://www.povertylaw.org/clearingh...pter8/section2
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 06-11-2019, 9:56 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post

When there is a federal award of punitive damages, the officer pays.
You may mean, when there is an award of punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 or some other statute, the officer is personally liable. See 8.3.C. Good Faith Defenses and the Availability of Punitive Damages. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction, and absent congressional directives of exclusive jurisdiction vested in a federal court, may exercise concurrent jurisdiction to hear causes of action arising under federal law. Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal. 3d 835, 837 (1976). Concurrent jurisdiction extends to Section 1983 causes of action. Id.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:32 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,134
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
You may mean, when there is an award of punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983 or some other statute, the officer is personally liable. See 8.3.C. Good Faith Defenses and the Availability of Punitive Damages. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction, and absent congressional directives of exclusive jurisdiction vested in a federal court, may exercise concurrent jurisdiction to hear causes of action arising under federal law. Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal. 3d 835, 837 (1976). Concurrent jurisdiction extends to Section 1983 causes of action. Id.
No, I meant what I wrote.

My comments were not limited to 42 USC 1983 actions.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 06-12-2019, 1:03 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
When there is a federal award of punitive damages, the officer pays.

When there is a California state award of punitive damages, the officer pays, but the city has the option of covering.
What statute(s) differentiates an award of punitive damages between a federal court and a state court's award of punitive damages vis-a-vis the government employee's duty to pay that judgment personally? What statute supports the contention that "When there is a California state award of punitive damages, the officer pays, but the city has the option of covering" but that when a federal court enters a judgment of punitive damages against a government employee, the government entity may not indemnify the employee? Government Code section 825(b)(". . . a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the following . . .") does not make any distinction between federal and state courts.

The term "federal court" does not appear in the pertinent government code sections regarding liability of government employees:

CHAPTER 1. General Provisions Relating to Liability
Liability of Public Employees [820 - 823]
Indemnification of Public Employees [825 - 825.6]
CHAPTER 2. Dangerous Conditions of Public Property
Indemnification of Certain State Agents [827- 827.]
Liability of Public Employees [840 - 840.6],
CHAPTER 3. Police and Correctional Activities
Police and Correctional Activities [844-846]

Last edited by sarabellum; 06-12-2019 at 1:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 06-12-2019, 1:32 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,134
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
What statute(s) differentiates an award of punitive damages between a federal court and a state court's award of punitive damages vis-a-vis the government employee's duty to pay that judgment personally? The term "federal court" does not appear in the pertinent government code sections regarding liability of government employees:

CHAPTER 1. General Provisions Relating to Liability
Liability of Public Employees [820 - 823]
Indemnification of Public Employees [825 - 825.6]
CHAPTER 2. Dangerous Conditions of Public Property
Indemnification of Certain State Agents [827- 827.]
Liability of Public Employees [840 - 840.6],
CHAPTER 3. Police and Correctional Activities
Police and Correctional Activities [844-846]
You will not find a single statute that differentiates between the state and federal law. Those are different sovereigns and there is no common statute.

The statute that allows (but does not require) cities to pay punitive damages in state law cases is found in Government Code section 825(b). Here is the text:

"Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the following:

(1) The judgment is based on an act or omission of an employee or former employee acting within the course and scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity.

(2) At the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent best interests of the public entity.

(3) Payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best interests of the public entity."

I am not as familiar with the federal statutes concerning civil liability and punitive damages. I do understand that there are federal provision of law that require a defendant to be personally responsible for the payment of punitive damages. I don't have the ability to cite "chapter and verse" of the federal provisions due to my lack of familiarity with them, but I understand that they would prevent the application of GC 825(b) to a federal judgment of punitive damages.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RickD427; 06-12-2019 at 1:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 06-12-2019, 4:26 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Government Code section 825(b):

[I][INDENT]"Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the following:

I do understand that there are federal provision of law that require a defendant to be personally responsible for the payment of punitive damages. I don't have the ability to cite "chapter and verse" of the federal provisions due to my lack of familiarity with them, but I understand that they would prevent the application of GC 825(b) to a federal judgment of punitive damages.
Therefore, in the case of Wright v. Beck, in the event any court renders a judgment, for compensatory or punitive damages, against the intransigent government employee, that employee must pay the judgment. Government Code section 825 describes the steps that the employee must take, if any, to be indemnified, if at all, for any judgment entered against him/her.

There are no ". . . federal provisions . . .[that] would prevent the application of GC 825(b) to a federal judgment of punitive damages," as Gov. Code §825(indemnification) does not implicate liability or immunity. Decampo v. Potts, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01283-WBS-CMK (Ninth Circuit, 2016), pp. 18 (". . . the statute [Gov. Code §825] creates a 'purely intramural arrangement between a state and its officers,' because if a plaintiff 'prevails on the merits, the court will not be ordering the state to do anything; it will only be ordering the official to pay damages. If the state official desires indemnification under the state statute, he must bring suit in a state court . . .'”).

Last edited by sarabellum; 06-12-2019 at 5:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:05 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.