kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
If you get judgement then you usually get attorney fees too.
If you get judgement then you usually get attorney fees too.
Exactly.Just be prepared to eat the cost, I have discovered that ANYTHING is possible with the courts and judges!
Cites, please.SNIP 1. You are correct, they had no RAS for a "Terry Stop" to begin with. You were fully complying with a law which stated that you could only carry an out of the ordinary gun in an out of the ordinary fashion.
2. During a Terry Stop, if the cop has RAS to believe you are "armed and dangerous" (however, it is commonly interpreted that armed makes the dangerous point pretty moot), they may frisk the outside of your clothing for the purpose of checking for weapons - if they discover what appears to be a weapon in a pocket or otherwise hidden on your person, they may remove that weapon. IF they had RAS for a Terry Stop, they obviously had RAS to believe you were armed because they could see it! They do have legal authority to temporarily seize your weapon for officer safety even if you are lawfully carrying that weapon in the open. Since they had no RAS for the Terry Stop in the first place, a frisk without your consent is against the 4th amendment AND even with RAS for the terry stop, searching inside your pockets for other than a weapon that they have evidence of without your consent is against the 4th amendment.
3. During a Terry Stop, the cop does NOT, without RAS of a separate offense committed, have any legal authority to search further than the frisk in #2 above, without your consent, AND has no legal authority to turn the frisk into #2 above into a search for evidence. When the cop ran the serial number of your gun, without your consent, he turned that search and seizure for officer safety into a search for evidence, without any reason to suspect the gun was stolen, and that violated the 4th amendment.
suntzu wrote:I don't know a lot about this and am trying to learn. I think if there are a lot of abuses the feds will come in and monitor things. As far as having a case for violating my rights you just have to get the judge to agree the rights were violated and you take it to a trial or settle. Either way the judge rules and makes it easier or harder for cops to violate rights.
LAPD has a "pattern or practice" of violating civil rights. They were under a federal consent decree (monitoring) for years... nobody was ever punished AFAIK, then the decree ended, but since nobody was punished, they've continued with the same federal and state crimes as before, maybe worse. Check out the San Pedro incidents in the CA forum.What we need are federal prosecutions for 4A violations. Not likely to happen unless the same officer/department is doing multiple violations and showing a pattern of abuse..but even state charges of official oppression would go a long way toward helping the cause of civil/state rights.
Citizen wrote:http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/case.htmlCites, please.
I am very happy that many of you have come to the point of, finally, realizing that kwikrnu does not deserve your hypocritical fear.
I am only bringing this up because as OC'ers we will not always agree 100%, but it is important to support each other especially as it relates to law.
The same people here still giving him grief, made it blatantly clear that they were certain he was going to go on a shooting spree months ago.
That hasn't happened yet. I questioned that line of thinking a long time ago, and as time moves forward, it only substantiates that Leonard is a sane human being trying to raise awareness that our law enforcement should be expected to know the laws they enforce, and not violate our rights in the process.
Had incorporation occurred already, even the "ee-vile" orange tip would have been a laughable non-point.
This. Glad to see I ain't the only one who's suspicious of his motives.
I don't believe kwik is interested in changing laws. He's only doing what he has for personal monetary gain. Look at all the time he's going to spend persueing a law suit. Why not put that effort into petitioning the city council to repeal their outdated (and not enforced) ordinance, instead. He wouldn't have even needed a lawyer for that.
The citesare not for me.It was for the new guys, so they can learn it right from the source. I was already familiar with the material.[size=-1]SNIP Citizen - do you need any further citations?
[/size]
Ok Kwik, remove yourself from the situation for a second and try and be as objective as possible. While I applaud you for going above and beyond for making sure you don't get hit by a vehicle for wearing a vest, look at it from a peace officers perspective for just a second. I'll probably get flammed for that but it is what it is.
Some dude is walking down the street wearing a vest carrying a gun - I don't know what else you may have been wearing - cammo verse jeans or polo pants, in a small rural sleepy town.The fact remains, it was an odd sight for the LEO's to see. If they don't stop you and ask you a few questions to make sure you're not a few apples short of a fruit basket, they will get fried. If they do stop you, they will get fried. It's a no win situation.
You may as well have been naked wearing a tin foil hat okay?
So how about this. You've had two adventures so far. They've both resulted in Police interaction. How about the next place you venture you contact them ahead of time,let them know you are aware of the law, let them know what you will be doing, let them know you don't expect to be harassed. Should you have to do this? NO. But sinceyou don't have a control case, you may as well. If you do these things and do not get harassed, then you'll have a better idea of which route ismore effective in preventing you from being stopped, even for two minutes.....
Or you can continue withwhat you are doing. Whichis legal. But don't expect any sympathy if you do continue without changing.At least not until you've done this50 times and the LEO's know you. Or until you've spent the money for a law suit, or.....
There are alternatives. What's the harm in trying something that's proven to work?
Fried for not stopping you how? Can you cite cases where police have been held liable for failure to provide public services? Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982), would all seem to indicate that liability is non-existent.If they don't stop you and ask you a few questions to make sure you're not a few apples short of a fruit basket, they will get fried. If they do stop you, they will get fried. It's a no win situation
Not particularlypickingon Suntzu. Just using his comment as a jumping off point to address something.SNIP If he was within the law--they had no business of stopping him.
My response in red.I carry handguns everyday. Most of the time I open carry. Have you been doing this like the rest of us,with a handgun holstered? :shock:Have you been doing this in BelleMeade? :shock:If so, isn't that in violation of Belle Meade's city ordinance? :shock:If so, this would mean that you knew all along that Belle Meade didn't enforce that old ordinance. Most of the time I am not harrassed. It isn't in the best interest of anyone that cops trample civil rights. Let's assume the cops are ignorant of the law. Now, what law would that be? Are you talking about the old Belle Meade ordinanceforbiding the carry of a firearm, except for Army/Navy black powder revolvers that must be carried "in hand"? Why would BMPD need to know about that old ordinance if they don't enforce it? Well, ignorance is not an excuse for the average citizen. At worst these cops are knowingly violating rights. Care to cite other instances where Belle Meade PD have been violating yourrights? I mean, we haven't been hearing about OCers being harrassed in Belle Meade.I intend to make sure these cops understand that it isn't worth it to harrass someone who appears not to be breaking any law. Keep going like you are and it may be you that will be getting a lesson about not harrassing LEO for just trying to do their job. Their human, ya know, just like we are, and subject to error now and then, like we are.If they want to walk the fine line of these federal court cases and supreme court decisions they and their employers need to pay up when they cross it. And you're not walking a fine line of your own? This "crossing the line" and having to "pay up" goes both way.
The cops already know me. From what I have heard Metro nashville put a bulletin out with my name and picture. Ya see how easy it is to get a reputation?I have a problem with this because as a law abiding citizen where does government come off targeting a citizen who has committed no crime? Who was targeting who last friday evening? Wasn't it you that was baiting them?The Belle Meade cops said they knew who I was when I was stopped. Seems your reputation precedes you. :lol:
The tatic I will use next time is I will not say a word except to ask if I am being detained, am I free to go, that I do not consent to being searched, or my property seized. I will simply hand the cop my carry permit. I've grown tired of telling them the law. I am fluent Spanish speaker I may do this in Spanish. I'm under no obligation to speak to any of these cops. I only need identify myself and show my permit.