The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 1, 2010, 11:33 PM   #1
Blondie.357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Posts: 158
Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e8c_1262402454

Now thats just wrong.

Now I can understand checking it out if you saw the weapon, but this power tripping deputy went way to far.
Blondie.357 is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 03:02 AM   #2
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,047
As more and more people carry, this behavior will have to subside. People just won't put up with a clear overreaction like this. If the courts won't do anything about it (I think most courts would find this excessive) then a political/ PR solution must address it.

In many jurisdictions, Mayors have great influence over PDs, and can set the tone for what will and will not be tolerated. This power tripping officer will bring his attitude to the wrong situation at the wrong time, sooner or later, and a smack down will ensue. There is no excuse for it, and no justification.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 03:14 AM   #3
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 982
Doesn't concealed mean concealed?
Wagonman is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 11:32 AM   #4
RedneckFur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Location: Sotheastern US
Posts: 1,417
Quote:
Doesn't concealed mean concealed?
That depends on your states laws. With all due respect, you know that it does.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell
RedneckFur is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 11:45 AM   #5
TsocketslugK
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2009
Posts: 14
maybe next time he will have to exercise this right to carry to said officer
TsocketslugK is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 12:00 PM   #6
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 17,471
Quote from the article:

Quote:
For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."
The worst part, the true violation in my opinion, is bolded.

This deputy STOLE the mans handgun! Since when can any officer simply TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? If he had cause to believe that this man was in violation of the law then he should have been arrested. If he was not arrested then the deputy can not just confiscate private property. No warrant, no arrest, no investigation? That is nonsense.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 12:46 PM   #7
Blondie.357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Posts: 158
Seriously, that deputy needs to be put in his place. Who the hell does he think he is?
Blondie.357 is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 01:06 PM   #8
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,047
And if he couldn't determine that his driver's license was facially valid would he have impounded his car? If he had no receipt for his pants would the officer have driven off with those, as well?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 01:17 PM   #9
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
IMO... This is a perfect example of law inforcement as opposed to policeing. There is a difference. After reading the artical I have the opinion that the LEO not only overstepped his duty to enforce the law, he made a personal issue of the incident, and he further failed to protect a citizen.

I cant understand how the courts up-held a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

Sad day.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 02:29 PM   #10
M4Sherman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 408
Well yall should start writing to the mayor,sheriff and any other elected official in that area who is above this dude. but please do so in a proper and respectful way
M4Sherman is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 03:54 PM   #11
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 529
Don't really buy the story. Deputies in Mass. are not cops. They do court security and prisoner transport. And the article states he was an officer, not a deputy.

The court ruled against him and he's a lawyer, one would assume he would know how to present his case and he still lost. Let's not get out the tinfoil hats just yet.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 04:12 PM   #12
Anticonn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 174
Whatever happened to the Fourth Ammendment?

To sum this up, a man carrying a concealed handgun in Georgia, legally with permit, was briefly detained by a patrol officer and had his CCW and weapon confiscated. The officer "got a glimpse" of the concealed weapon and treated the man as though he were committing a crime.

Link (examiner.com)

Now I ask, what happened to this unreasonable search and seizure thing? If you're carrying a weapon, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that you are doing so illegally, intend to or have committed a crime, my instinct is to believe that he has no right to request anything more than identification and CCW. This is as if your car were impounded, with all documentation in order and without arrest, leaving the driver stranded on the side of the road, after a routine traffic stop because the officer thinks there are a lot of car thefts in the area, but has no actual cause to believe your car was stolen. Without cause there can be no search nor seizure (except in Commiefornia where the 4th doesn't apply to gun owners anyway)

Thoughts?
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Anticonn is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 04:27 PM   #13
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
First time I read that story I was surprised to hear that it happened in Georgia. Then I realized that there always have been and most likely always be some people with muscles for brains will be attracted to law enforcement even though they don't have a clue about what the laws are or have the slightest idea of what is in the constitution. My disgust is for the courts, the judges know better but don't care, like their fearful leader the Arab-in-chief and current resident in the Whitehouse they know whats in the constitution but don't care.

Lawyer getting hassled because he let his gun be seen is understandable. To my way of thinking there should be no difference between concealed and open carry no matter what your preference is nor should there be any restriction against either as long as you are not a convicted felon or adjudicated as mentally unstable and a danger to yourself or others. But he knew the rules and he was careless.

Cop over reacted and unless the lawyer is tired of fighting the last hasn't been heard of this case. Living in Wisconsin but with friends down there who are active in the open carry organization I watch developments down there closely and with some envy. Our progress in the Dairy state lags Georgia's by a mile.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 04:28 PM   #14
Anticonn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 174
Also I just realized there's a civil rights forum directly below this one, and this has already been posted there. I thought I was being sooooo clever checking the first 2 pages of general threads to see if it had been posted already

move/lock/whatever, my bad
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Anticonn is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 04:33 PM   #15
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 17,951
Merged.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 04:36 PM   #16
Anticonn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 174
Thanks, John.
__________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Anticonn is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 04:40 PM   #17
Dragon55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
I read the appellate decision

1. Springfield courthouse steps are a 'high crime area'??? I can only say WOW!

2. Investigators could not produce any of the eyewitnesses that 'pointed and yelled'. Hmmmmm???

3. 'Stern ............ removed the clip.' ARRRGGGhhh!!

4. The Springfield police commissioner recommended officer Stern be retrained on

Mass. firearm law BUT found no specific wrongdoing. (OK.... if he did nothing

wrong why retrain him ????)

5. 'The precise location of the gun is inconsequential;.....' It isn't??? Are you sure?



I know there is always more to a story than what we read here but it looks to me like

Massachusetts citizens can be disarmed by a police officer anytime they choose to

do a 'Terry' frisk because the officers have no way to confirm a carry permit.

Or.....am I missing something?


It would be great if some of our LEO's and lawyers would weigh in on this.

But first, please read the appeals court decision.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

Last edited by Dragon55; January 3, 2010 at 08:25 AM. Reason: removed last line ... appeal decided 12/23/2009
Dragon55 is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 05:08 PM   #18
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,047
I have to wonder, what exactly is the point of the permit, if an officer can take your property, detain you, throw you in the back of a patrol car, disarm you and then leave you without your lawful means of self protection? This illustrates a potential folly of a permit system.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 05:25 PM   #19
Dragon55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
BTW

You can read the appeals court decision here by going to the bottom of the article and clicking on the PDF link.


http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...awful-carriers


Parts of it are actually pretty funny ... if they weren't so sad
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W
Dragon55 is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 08:14 PM   #20
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 17,951
Clarification time.

The original article is written in the Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner and the incident is cited as providing lessons to GA concealed carriers.

HOWEVER, the Schubert/Stern incident actually occurred in Massachusetts.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 08:34 PM   #21
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 631
There was a previous case in GA dealing with MARTA having to do with stopping a person carry concealed but the circumstances are different than the Mass case. In the Mass case a lawyer was walking down the street towards a court house flashed his gun, had a suit coat on but did not cover completely the holstered gun, police officer saw the gun, jumped out held the lawyer at gun point. After getting his ID and permit, held him for 10 minutes then took the gun away. Claim for taking gun was that he could not verify the permit. The lawyer sued and lost. In the Georgia case the person placed his weapon in a concealed holster and got on MARTA, a police officer that saw him in his car holster the weapon, followed him on to MARTA and asked to see his permit, confiscated his weapon and locked him up for 30 minutes while running a check. After the check came back OK, he let him have his gun and leave, The complainant sued the PD and lost. In both cases the possession of a gun was illegal in the specific circumstances under the law unless you had a permit. The courts basically said the police had the right to stop and verify that the carrier had a permit for the weapon.


I sent a PM to Antipitas that there was only one case being discussed in two separate papers, but I was partially mistaken. The main point of both stories was the Mass case but the Georgia paper did mention the MARTA case.

Last edited by wally626; January 2, 2010 at 09:53 PM.
wally626 is offline  
Old January 2, 2010, 09:26 PM   #22
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,277
I misread the two stories and jumped the conclusion gun! Mea Culpa!

Thanks to both JohnKSa and wally626 for setting me (and this thread) straight.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 3, 2010, 08:19 AM   #23
Dragon55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2009
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 811
And here lies the rub........

posted by Wally626
"After getting his ID and permit, held him for 10 minutes then took the gun away. Claim for taking gun was that he could not verify the permit. The lawyer sued and lost."

So, if law enforcement can't verify a permit to carry in the state of Massachusetts then

of what use is the permit?

This statement from page 13 of the 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. "



Incident took place in July 2006.......decision handed down Wednesday before last 12/23/09.

I think the "did" is telling. I bet they can now.
__________________
sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

Last edited by Dragon55; January 3, 2010 at 09:05 AM. Reason: posted excerpt from case
Dragon55 is offline  
Old January 3, 2010, 08:44 AM   #24
Dust Monkey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 723
What's the difference between this and a mugging? Save for the mugger having a badge.
__________________
Civilian Date: 14 Century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law.
If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say.
Dust Monkey is offline  
Old January 3, 2010, 09:24 AM   #25
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 529
Because mugging is illegal and this was not. Obviously.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 04:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13529 seconds with 7 queries