4th LEO encounter!

[ghostrider]

imported post

Everywhere else in the country, a firearm is not RS for a Terry Stop. The USSC has already ruled that officers cannot conduct fishing expositions without RS of criminal activity.

I know that it is accepted in CA that the officers may detain someone to determine if they are legally carrying, but don't doubt that if someone were to take them to federal court on a section 1983 violation that the plaintiff would win.

The rules for search and seizure as outlined by the USSC still apply to CA regardless of what policy or law the states AG implements.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Everywhere else in the country, a firearm is not RS for a Terry Stop. The USSC has already ruled that officers cannot conduct fishing expositions without RS of criminal activity.

I know that it is accepted in CA that the officers may detain someone to determine if they are legally carrying, but don't doubt that if someone were to take them to federal court on a section 1983 violation that the plaintiff would win.

The rules for search and seizure as outlined by the USSC still apply to CA regardless of what policy or law the states AG implements.

I believe the officer might enjoy qualified immunity if the stop is limited to an "e" check, since CA case law says it is not a "search" or a "seizure" in the 4A sense, but is an "examination" of a lesser degree.

So, I don't think a 1983 suit would be fruitful unless the "examination" involved further detention.

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Everywhere else in the country, a firearm is not RS for a Terry Stop. The USSC has already ruled that officers cannot conduct fishing expositions without RS of criminal activity.

I know that it is accepted in CA that the officers may detain someone to determine if they are legally carrying, but don't doubt that if someone were to take them to federal court on a section 1983 violation that the plaintiff would win.

The rules for search and seizure as outlined by the USSC still apply to CA regardless of what policy or law the states AG implements.

I believe the officer might enjoy qualified immunity if the stop is limited to an "e" check, since CA case law says it is not a "search" or a "seizure" in the 4A sense, but is an "examination" of a lesser degree.

So, I don't think a 1983 suit would be fruitful unless the "examination" involved further detention.

If the person is not free to leave, then it is a detainment. California courts can say anything they want, 1983 actions don't go to CA courts, and the 4th Amendment has already been ruled on in regards to this matter.

That's like saying that CA has ruled that an officer does't need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain someone, or probable cause to do a search of their home because CA courts have ruled it okay.

As far as implied immunity goes, if the officer stops a individual for any reason, then they must articulate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This goes for everywhere in the country, regardless of what stated it's in. It's a USSC ruling, so what the states say on it doesn't matter.

Now, if it was totally illegal to carry a gun in public, then the officer may be able to articulate RAS of a crime, but without other circumstances, the gun itself is not it. There's plenty of rulings to back that up, so I don't see why it would be a stretch in federal court.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

The doctrine of qualified immunity should be revoked as well.

Can you say that again?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

CA_Libertarian wrote:

ghostrider wrote:

Everywhere else in the country, a firearm is not RS for a Terry Stop. The USSC has already ruled that officers cannot conduct fishing expositions without RS of criminal activity.

I know that it is accepted in CA that the officers may detain someone to determine if they are legally carrying, but don't doubt that if someone were to take them to federal court on a section 1983 violation that the plaintiff would win.

The rules for search and seizure as outlined by the USSC still apply to CA regardless of what policy or law the states AG implements.

I believe the officer might enjoy qualified immunity if the stop is limited to an "e" check, since CA case law says it is not a "search" or a "seizure" in the 4A sense, but is an "examination" of a lesser degree.

So, I don't think a 1983 suit would be fruitful unless the "examination" involved further detention.

If the person is not free to leave, then it is a detainment. California courts can say anything they want, 1983 actions don't go to CA courts, and the 4th Amendment has already been ruled on in regards to this matter.

That's like saying that CA has ruled that an officer does't need reasonable articulable  suspicion to detain someone, or probable cause to do a search of their home because CA courts have ruled it okay.

As far as implied immunity goes, if the officer stops a individual for any reason, then they must articulate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This goes for everywhere in the country, regardless of what stated it's in. It's a USSC ruling, so what the states say on it doesn't matter.

Now, if it was totally illegal to carry a gun in public, then the officer may be able to articulate RAS of a crime, but without other circumstances, the gun itself is not it. There's plenty of rulings to back that up, so I don't see why it would be a stretch in federal court.

It's not a stretch. I'm not sure why everyone is so eager to accept the (e) checks, just because they've withstood CA court scrutiny before. If someone could afford to fight this battle, we would win.

The constitutionality of (e) checks will not stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny in the face of standing Federal court precedent.

 

[Decoligny]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

suntzu wrote:

The doctrine of qualified immunity should be revoked as well.

Can you say that again?

Qualified Immunity is when an LEO "thinks" something is illegal, and because he was acting on an assumption that there was actually a law against something, he is IMMUNE from any legal repercussions of his actions because he was acting in "good faith".

The cops should be held to the same standard as anyone else, i.e. "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

marshaul wrote:

suntzu wrote:

The doctrine of qualified immunity should be revoked as well.

Can you say that again?

Qualified Immunity is when an LEO "thinks" something is illegal, and because he was acting on an assumption that there was actually a law against something, he is IMMUNE from any legal repercussions of his actions because he was acting in "good faith".

The cops should be held to the same standard as anyone else, i.e. "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Even then, the responsibility for the unlawful detainment would fall on someone, probably the department.

Grand Haven, MI has an ordinance against OC, and the officer even called the city attorney to verify it. When it goes to court, the officer might get a pass, but it isn't definite (the city definitely won't). They are required to know what the law they are enforcing before they stop someone, and they must have RAS of criminal activity. This is a USSC ruling that is much too widely known for an officer to claim good faith that he was detaining someone without RAS of a specific crime.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I didn't literally want him to repeat himself, or be repeated.

I was agreeing. Qualified immunity has got to end.

And sovereign immunity, for that matter.

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

I apologize if this was already covered (I do not have time to get through all 7 pages right now, but I will later)

But you have got a solid case against thembecause they demanded your social security number!

There has been a few other cases won around the country where police have wrongfully gotten a social security number during an arrest/detainment. I believe it violates the federal privacy laws. There is no grey area in this at all. The courts ahve come down hard on police using your SS#.

One case was in GA, another is currently happeningin WI, and I think another in MI.

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I apologize if this was already covered (I do not have time to get through all 7 pages right now, but I will later)

But you have got a solid case against thembecause they demanded your social security number!

There has been a few other cases won around the country where police have wrongfully gotten a social security number during an arrest/detainment. I believe it violates the federal privacy laws. There is no grey area in this at all. The courts ahve come down hard on police using your SS#.

One case was in GA, another is currently happeningin WI, and I think another in MI.

I would love to see the cites for those cases, especially the one in MI as I've not heard of it.

 

[Frosty_In_CA]

imported post

As far as (e) checks go.....
Sccolia said very well "A search is a search"

I would rather live in a land where a police man fears interfering with someones sovereignty, than in a land where we fear the cops.

Remember......WE ARE THE KINGS!

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Nutczak wrote:

I apologize if this was already covered (I do not have time to get through all 7 pages right now, but I will later)

But you have got a solid case against thembecause they demanded your social security number!

There has been a few other cases won around the country where police have wrongfully gotten a social security number during an arrest/detainment. I believe it violates the federal privacy laws. There is no grey area in this at all. The courts ahve come down hard on police using your SS#.

One case was in GA, another is currently happeningin WI, and I think another in MI.

I would love to see the cites for those cases, especially the one in MI as I've not heard of it.

Ok, here is the link to the current case involving WI with OCDO forum member Parabellum
http://www.jpfo.org/pdf02/complaint.pdf
here isa quote from tha actual suit;

defendants violated the federal Privacy Act by demanding that Plaintiff disclose his social security account number (“SSN”) as a condition of being released from jail and without notifying Plaintiff what uses would be made of his SSN and by what statutory or other authority it was requested. Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order for the West Milwaukee
Defendants to expunge his SSN from their records. Regarding Defendants
Chilton and Young (the “Chilton Defendants”), this is an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for the illegal detention, search, and arrest of Plaintiff, and for
the illegal seizure and retention of Plaintiff’s property

The other one was in Georgia if I remeber correctly,the guywas detained, harrassed, arrested or whatever. thenlet go, but the attorney was able to file suit on the fact that the guys SSN was demanded and it is a blatantviolation of the federal privacy act!

I found the suits listedon OCDO within the last 90-120 days, so do a search or ask around tro help me find the appropriate info, I would appreciate it.

I bet the owners of OCDO could post the cites I currently am looking for,

 

[suntzu]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

suntzu wrote:

The doctrine of qualified immunity should be revoked as well.

Can you say that again?

I said the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity should be revoked as well.....

the government should not be able to hide behind it.

As others have said--law enforcement should not be exempt from criminal and civil penalties just because they "think" something is wrong.....ignorance of the law is no excuse--at least it isn't for us...

 

[suntzu]

imported post

Frosty_In_CA wrote:

As far as (e) checks go.....
Sccolia said very well "A search is a search"

I would rather live in a land where a police man fears interfering with someones sovereignty, than in a land where we fear the cops.

Remember......WE ARE THE KINGS!

not according to the government we're not....


if we were the kings in our own land--law enforcement and the government would truly FEAR to unlawfully intrude into our lives out of fear they will not only lose their jobs, but their money, and their freedom for violations of our rights--do they fear to intrude into our lives? Nooooo.

 

[Frosty_In_CA]

imported post

Isn't that one of the reasons we are engaged in this activity, to free the minds of our fellow sovereigns?

Lest we forget! (Emphasis is mine)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

While I'm not suggesting an overthrow of the Government, isn't it about time we "Throw off such Government (oppressors of police authority)" by every peaceable means available to us?

 

[davesnothere]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

The constitutionality of (e) checks will not stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny in the face of standing Federal court precedent.

Unless the USSC decides to overturn the precedent.

Heller is a good example of a change in direction concerning precedent. Previous SCOTUS direction held that the RKBA was a collective right granted to militias, and therefore could be heavily regulated and infringed upon for the "greater good."

In Heller, the SCOTUS turned the precedent on it's head stating that RKBA was an individual right, but that governments could still regulate within reasonable limitations, which is why Mr. Heller still can't carry a gun today. Now he's fighting with DC over what is reasonable.

 

[Frosty_In_CA]

imported post

I hate that "legal" term REASONABLE!

 

[wrightme]

imported post

davesnothere wrote:

marshaul wrote:

The constitutionality of (e) checks will not stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny in the face of standing Federal court precedent.

Unless the USSC decides to overturn the precedent.

Heller is a good example of a change in direction concerning precedent. Previous SCOTUS direction held that the RKBA was a collective right granted to militias, and therefore could be heavily regulated and infringed upon for the "greater good."

In Heller, the SCOTUS turned the precedent on it's head stating that RKBA was an individual right, but that governments could still regulate within reasonable limitations, which is why Mr. Heller still can't carry a gun today. Now he's fighting with DC over what is reasonable.

I did not see a change of stare decisis mentioned in DC v Heller. Where was such change in the decision?

 

[cato]

imported post

davesnothere wrote:

Previous SCOTUS direction held that the RKBA was a collective right...

The SC in Miller did not hold that collective position. It was the Circuit Courts (9th for example)that wentin that direction.

The SC in Heller corrected the lower courts on that dirction of thought.But the SC in Heller did not reverse itself or Miller as Miller hinged on the "absence" of evidece that sawed off shotguns could contribute to efficiency of the Militia aspreventing them from finding that weapon "protected" by the 2nd A.

Please read Miller if you haven't and A. Gura's briefs in Heller.



art work by oleg volk:

 

[davesnothere]

imported post

cato wrote:

The SC in Miller did not hold that collective position. It was the Circuit Courts (9th for example)that wentin that direction.

That is in fact more correct. Miller's outcome and the subsequent precedent decisions were more based in Circuit opinions than SCOTUS. Sorry 'bout that.