Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy

[Old Grump]

Only one question, why would the officer question the validity of the permit. He had the information ofn the attorney. If it later proved to be valid no harm done of it wasn't valid then a warrant could be issued for the attorney. its not like he was going to run away and leave his practice behind over a weapons beef. Unless the attorney was being a complete pain in the sit down, (and I know a lot of them who would have been in that situation), their should have been no reason to hold him as long as he did then release him while keeping the weapon. I don't know both sides of the story but it sounds like a typical anti-gun cop situation. I'm sure there is a lot of gray on both sides of the story, there usually is but this smells bad.

[Conn. Trooper]

If a Mass resident permit is anything like an non-resident permit, they are a joke to fake and easy to counterfeit. It's a laminated sheet of paper and very easily forged. Maybe thats just for non residents, I have never seen a resident permit.

[orangello]

I find myself wondering what would have happened if the attorney had been beaten to death shortly after being relieved of his handgun.

It doesn't seem overly unlikely that a prominent defense attorney ran into a LEO with a grudge who saw an opportunity for some barely legal harassing activity. That is very disappointing to me; how many more serious "crimes" could that officer have dealt with in the 10 minutes +/- he wasted with the attorney, much less the patrol time wasted in court over such a meaningless exercise. I wonder if that LEO has ever exceded the posted speed limit in his duty vehicle without legal justification (answering a call, pursuit, etc.); that seems about as serious to me.

I also find myself glad to live not in Mass. but in Miss. If was the correct application of Mass. law, i wish that attorney the very best of luck in convincing his fellows in the state legislature to adjust the written law to correct what seems like obvious idiocy.

[maestro pistolero]

I find myself wondering what would have happened if the attorney had been beaten to death shortly after being relieved of his handgun.

Kind of a strange thing to wonder about.

It doesn't seem overly unlikely that a prominent defense attorney ran into a LEO with a grudge who saw an opportunity for some barely legal harassing activity. That is very disappointing to me;

So your'e disappointed in something you suppose may have happened?

how many more serious "crimes" could that officer have dealt with in the 10 minutes +/- he wasted with the attorney, much less the patrol time wasted in court over such a meaningless exercise.

I don't like the flavor of this whole incident at all, but ten minutes is a very short time to be detained for anything, let alone suspicion of illegally carrying a weapon.

That said, IF the facts were as presented, the officer overreacted, and I think the state has an obligation to give the officer means to verify any license that he is charged with verifying.

[Dragon55]

This statement is on page 13 of the appeals court decision:

"As it happens, Massachusetts did not have a simple way for police
officers to conduct such a check, so Stern's effort to do so took
several minutes. "


Because of the did I have researched the heck out of the Massachusetts AG's office on line and could not find any information that led me to think that the verification of carry permits process had been improved any for police officers.

It's just that the did in the statement above which was referring to July 2006 made me think that something had been changed.

Anybody from Mass. know? I'm very curious. (Because the appeals court decision was 12/23/09)

[orangello]

Kind of a strange thing to wonder about.

So your'e disappointed in something you suppose may have happened?

I don't like the flavor of this whole incident at all, but ten minutes is a very short time to be detained for anything, let alone suspicion of illegally carrying a weapon.

I should clarify that i was wondering more specifically about potential liability on the part of the officer and the taxpayers for such a questionable confiscation.

Yes, i am; if the officer targeted a citizen for a form of quazi-harassment that only receives the "quazi-" label due to its very technical legality, i am GREATLY disappointed in the officer's conduct. If he was simply lacking in the common sense needed to recognize a "crime" worthy of correction, then i pity him without disappointment (that would be reserved for his loved ones).

Ten minutes of MY personal time isn't much, but ten minutes of patrolling, "serving and protecting" time could be worth as much as a human life or a stolen car, depending on what may have been further down the officer's beat. Further, those are ten minutes of the taxpayer's time and should be used for the benefit of those taxpayers.

[motofabio]

I tend to lean towards the LE point of view, but I just simply cannot see how the decision made by the LEO in this case was correct. The description of events seem illogical.

[Dragon55]

Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy


I tend to agree that the deputy was overzealous. I also agree he went a little overboard apparently exerting his authoritii over an unbuttoned suit jacket in the middle of July by a 'well known defense attorney of 30 years in the Springfield area'.

However, he could not verify the attorney's permit so going to the letter of the law I guess I will have to say he was within his duty to confiscate the pistol.

It's just that he apparently could not verify what turned out to be a lawful permit.
And..... although I think Mass. may have corrected this problem based on the way they worded part of their appeals decision I can't confirm they have. I continue to look.................

[azredhawk44]

From a quick reading of the article it appears as if the officer did have P.C. to believe that the party in question was breaking the law, (officer observed a concealed weapon) so the officer had the right to determine if the suspect had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

This right here irks me.

Carrying a concealed weapon is LEGAL. The assumption that it is immediately illegal irks me.

Less than 1% of the population in any given state with a CCW permit system, carries. Because getting licensed to do so is a deliberate process rather than a casual one.

But: So is a class A driver's license. Do police pull over every 18-wheeler they come across to check for a class A license? of course, not. But, probable cause works the same way to assume that the driver is not licensed and is operating a commercial vehicle without proper licensing.

It has been inculcated into our Law Enforcement Officers that they are to deliberately dissuade the populace through harrassment tactics, from carrying concealed weapons.

The assumption that it's even APPROPRIATE for an officer to initiate an approach on a man who is minding his own business and just going about his day's work, purely because he has a pistol on his hip, is so antithetical to the America I want to live in, that I am struck (relatively) speechless.

Lord, give me peace officers, and no Law Enforcement Officers, in my encounters in life.:barf:

[Conn. Trooper]

The weapon was not concealed, or there would be nothing to talk about.

[Dragon55]

In this case in the absolute letter of the law you are right. The pistol apparently

wasn't concealed.


But where I disagree is that there definitely is something to discuss when a state

can't even verify permits they issue.


Because of Mr Schubert's pursuits in court a MAJOR flaw in the Mass. system has

been exposed. Yes, he lost his case ............ however, that does not invalidate

the apparent finding that officers (in this case a Law Enforcement officer as opposed

to a peace officer) cannot in 10 minutes verify a legal state issued document that a

citizen has paid for and went through a lot of trouble to obtain.

Remember, officer Stern (what a coincidence this officer has that name in this situation) DID NOT cite Mr.

Schubert for improper concealed carry.

[Conn. Trooper]

I would have to agree with you that any LEO should be able to verify if a permit is valid quickly. Barring some giant disaster we can check permit status almost instantly, I don't know why Mass. can't, seems silly.

Remember, he was not arrested and his weapon was returned once the permit was verified. In this wonderful lawsuit filled society everyone in LE is concerned about civil liability. If he let the person keep the gun and he didn't legally possess it and went on to shoot someone, he would be burned at the stake. Sadly.

[motofabio]

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

I would have to agree with you that any LEO should be able to verify if a permit is valid quickly.

That is certainly a big part of this. Since we allow CCWs, all LEOs need a fast and reliable method to check the validity of such permits. If in fact the "did" in question above is representative of a change made that allows LEOs quick access to the list of valid CCWs, then great!

However, I think that is an important secondary issue. It seems that the reaction of the LEO is what's mostly the problem, which as I stated earlier - the description of events seem illogical.

[Al Norris]

You'll please excuse me for what I'm about to write. See, I have a real problem with the way this all went down.

I understand that the license may not have been able to be verified, instantly (although, in this age of computers and instant communications, it seems rather strange). I understand that because of this, the officer had probable cause to keep the firearm until it was shown to be lawfully possessed (and therefore, carried).

Why wasn't the attorney detained, along with the firearm, for alleged unlawful carry? If the officer had probable cause to retain the firearm, then he also had probable cause to detain the attorney. One sort of follows the other, I would think. Keep the firearm but let the criminal go?

Anyone have a link to the decision? Maybe it will answer my questions.

[StiveC2007]

3 words, WELCOME TO MA. supposdly this happend in Springfield MA. Ive seen this some where else about a month or two ago but it was just about what happened. I wouldn't doubt that MA would uphold the police's action. some sections of springfield are pretty bad but not like Hartford CT. I live near springfield, actaully know a guy on the force ( haven't talk to him lately) but this is just another act by a dick cop who felt that he needed to feel impowered. could have gone a thousand different ways some good some bad. But if your an lawyer you should know that law and that MA doesnt reciprocate with GA. so the lawyer was in the wrong, but that doesnt excuse the officer pointing a gun at him and taking his license and firearm. If he felt the need to drawn on a civilan he had a reason to fear for his safety of him or others, in which case he should have arrested the lawyer. but he didnt and he stole both the license and the gun. Just because a cop does it doesnt mean its legal. both partys are in the wrong, but since its MA who gives two ^&$^s about your rights

[StiveC2007]

heres a local springfield link
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...vows_to_a.html




heres a PDF of the USCA for the trial

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1370P-01A.pdf

[maestro pistolero]

The whole problem is that carrying a weapon is presumptively unlawful. That is what must fundamentally change.

[Al Norris]

Thanks StiveC2007 for the link to the decision.

After reading this, it just confirms that the attorney is rather lame in bringing this lawsuit. It appears that there were several arguments that Shubert should have made, but didn't.

I don't know for a fact that Shubert acted pro per in the District Court, but it does appear that way.

I still think that the officer should have detained Shubert until such a time that the LTC-A was verified. It the license was not valid, then the officer did in fact let a criminal go.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

The whole problem is that carrying a weapon is presumptively unlawful.

Because a State requires a permit to carry concealed, it is unlawful to carry without one. It's been that way (concealed = unlawful) since almost from the beginning of this country.

Even after incorporation, it will still be. What will may change is that the State might have to allow unlicensed open carry, if it wishes to retain licensed concealed carry. Lots of IF's and court cases before this happens.

[Wagonman]

I have a question and if it is too off topic I will start a new thread.

For you proponents of open carry. What level of retention do you think is adequate?

When I was a recruit I had a level III holster since then I have vacillated between level I and II

[azredhawk44]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Because a State requires a permit to carry concealed, it is unlawful to carry without one.

And how is that any different than "because a State requires a permit to drive an 18-wheeler, it is unlawful to drive an 18-wheeler without one?"

I don't see every police officer on the road pulling over every 18-wheeler they come across checking for a class A driving permit.

Just because a police officer sees a concealed weapon doesn't mean it's fundamentally illegal for that person to have the weapon.

[Wagonman]

I don't see every police officer on the road pulling over every 18-wheeler they come across checking for a class A driving permit.

No but every driver that gets pulled over better have a permit.

[azredhawk44]

But they only get pulled over after doing something else wrong:
-Failure to signal
-Speeding
-Failure to stop at a scale (like carrying into a place that is prohibited)

They don't get pulled over JUST BECAUSE it's a big rig.

And, if he has a license and the officer's computer is acting up or he can't check the status of the license for some reason... he doesn't confiscate the big rig due to a failure of his remote working conditions to validate a routine license.

And, he doesn't make the assumption that the rig is immediately stolen or that the license is counterfeit as a basis for initiating the stop.

[Conn. Trooper]

Actually I can stop any CMV at any time for no reason at all. I am a CMV Inspector and I don't need any reason to stop a CMV, they must comply with an inspection at any time, rules of the game for big rigs.

But thats apples and oranges. Driving a big truck or any vehicle goes on all the time, every day, every road. People with firearms that are carried visibly are not common in Mass., that I have ever seen, therefore it drew the officer's attention.

[azredhawk44]

Common has nothing to do with it.

If a licensing system exists, then it is legal to carry.

Assuming it is illegal to carry is the basis for a harassment-based campaign to permanently discourage carry.

As evidenced here, IMO.

[Dragon55]

posted by Antipitas

After reading this, it just confirms that the attorney is rather lame in bringing this lawsuit. It appears that there were several arguments that Shubert should have made, but didn't.

Boy I'll say. To be a 'criminal defense attorney for 30 years' he was not very impressive. But........ because he stumbled doesn't mean he shouldn't continue to pursue this for all our sakes. Who knows this decision may be cited in future during someone else's case. In the article below Shubert says he's gonna continue.


posted by StiveC2007

[heres a local springfield link
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...vows_to_a.html

posted by Antipitas

I still think that the officer should have detained Shubert until such a time that the LTC-A was verified. It the license was not valid, then the officer did in fact let a criminal go.

Yes he did. But the license was valid. So in essence because Stern did not want to take any more than 10 minutes to check the permit he basically tried Schubert on the spot and found him guilty of illegally carrying without a permit and confiscated his weapon...... from an elderly man... in a high crime area... in spite of the fact it was very near the courthouse steps.

The whole thing smells because of:
1. If Schubert was a 'well known criminal defense attorney in the Springfield area' I bet a dozen donuts that Stern's shift supervisor knew Mr. Schubert and could have verified the permit and saved the Mass. taxpayers a pile of money.

2. The state of Mass. issued permits that apparently could not be verified in 10 minutes. AND..... never once in the appeals decision fessed up about this flaw and never stated emphatically they had corrected it.