moga
Member
Thank heavens I don't have to inform, and double thanks that having a GFL (not a concealed license) doesn't automatically involve giving up what little protection from the 4th that's left.
I don't know about other states requiring it, but you bet your ass I am going to tell any officer that pulls me over that I have a valid CHL, and then I'm going to go the extra step and offer to surrender my sidearm to him for the duration of our visit.
Alabama does not require that I inform an officer, and honestly the only question in my mind is how do I properly go about it without alarming the gentleman in blue. I can't exactly see myself going with "Evening Officer, I have a gun". I have generally just handed them my drivers license (in the case of a traffic stop anyway), along with my CC permit at the same time (hopefully they'll get a clue at this point, and inquire), though I do not volunteer to disarm myself. DMV and CC holder info is not shared when someone does a DMV check here.
I guess the thought on my mind is, if I don't inform them, and they somehow see my firearm, chances are very good that I'm going to see theirs a little more up close than I'd rather. So far, my strategy has worked just fine for me
So far, my strategy has worked just fine for me
Memorize:I got a 30 minute question and answer session like "Why the hell do you need a gun" (personal protection) and "Why would you carry it into the grocery store for Gods sake" (BG's are everywhere sir).. etc etc.
With all due respect, what do these rookies DO at the academy? I thought they learned the law and self defense.Why? you may ask. Well, honestly, rookies. Guys that are fresh out of the academy, just on their own, doing their first couple of weeks of night stops. They're already as twitchy as you can be, and if they see a holstered firearm without knowing why, they're going to assume criminal, not CHL holder.
With all due respect, what do these rookies DO at the academy? I thought they learned the law and self defense.
I'd like to see a chart of the % of officer shootings that were committed by CC permit holders.
I would think a rookie would be more frightened by a traffic stop where he didn't know anything about the citizen. I would think that Having a CC permit would indicate that the person in the car had undergone a background check, been fingerprinted, passed a class, and was not a felon. So why the big deal in pulling over a permit holder?
Y'all, I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again. The more polite and contrite you are in a traffic stop, the more likely you are to get off scot-free.
If you notify said officer, you avoid the hypothetical.
Unless the officer is going to pat you down or specifically asks you if you are armed there is no good reason to volunteer the information.
All it does is open you up to harassment from an anti cop. As a general rule the less information you give a cop during an official encounter the better off you are Deanimator hit the nail squarely opn the head.
Officer, am I free to Leave?
Officer, I have nothing further to say W/ out consulting my attorney.
Officer, I do not consent to any searches.
You obey the letter of the law, nothing more, nothing less.What to you do when the law requires you to notify?
What to you do when the law requires you to notify?
fully understand being nervous about armed people
What is gained by doing things not required by the law, which then get taken as "required"?What is gained by not informing an LEO that you have a license to carry, or if covered under the traveling law that you have a gun in the vehicle?
If my obeying the law is too "difficult" for him, he needs to find another way to make a living, PERIOD.These men and women are on the front lines, so to speak, and face potential danger at every stop. Why make it difficult for them?
If you have friends who are cops to whom you've told that "fable", they shouldn't consider you a friend. You could cost them their careers and a lot of money.If it’s a rookie do what you can to make it easy for him. You want to get sticky about it: you might beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride. And even if you prove the officer acted beyond his right you’ll not get his badge, nor his house, nor his car, nor his money.
These men and women are on the front lines, so to speak, and face potential danger at every stop. Why make it difficult for them?
If it’s a rookie do what you can to make it easy for him. You want to get sticky about it: you might beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride.
Following the law is certainly difficult for ME.Why is following the law making things difficult for them?
And even if you prove the officer acted beyond his right you’ll not get his badge, nor his house, nor his car, nor his money.
Qualified Immunity
Defendants next assert that qualified immunity shields them from Mr. St. John's Fourth
Amendment claims. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages
"insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
Courts generally follow a two-step procedure in considering qualified immunity defenses.
First, they determine whether the plaintiff's allegations, if accepted as true, adequately allege a
violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. See Albright v. Rodriguez, 51 F.3d 1531,
1534-5 (10th Cir. 1995). If the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient, courts then consider whether,
at the time of occurrence, the right was clearly established. Id. For a constitutional right to be
clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
understand that what he is doing violates that right. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002).
This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action
in question has previously been held unlawful. Id.; Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
Rather, the unlawfulness of the official's conduct must only be apparent in light of pre-existing
law. Id. Under Tenth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff must generally show that there was a Supreme
Court or Tenth Circuit opinion on point or that the proposition is supported by the weight of
authority from other courts. Armijo v. Wagon Mound Pub. Schs., 159 F.3d 1253, 1260 (10th Cir.
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 11 of 16
12
1998). If the plaintiff fails to show that a defendant's actions violated a clearly established right,
he cannot recover. Id.
As discussed above, Mr. St. John was seized and searched in violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights. The question then becomes whether, at the time of the incident, Mr. St.
John's rights were clearly established. The Court finds that they were.
Relying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts
have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific,
legitimate reason. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; Fuerschbach,439 F.3d at 1204-6 (holding that a
seizure without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity "would violate the most minimal
Fourth Amendment standard"); Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d at 1228 ("Where no legitimate basis
exists for detaining [an individual], a seizure is plainly unreasonable."); Duran, 904 F.2d at 1378
("If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police
officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how
peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop
unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed or that there is
an imminent danger to persons or property."); see also Lawrence Rosenthal, Second Amendment
Plumbing after Heller: Standards of Scrutiny, Incorporation, Well-Regulated Militias, and
Criminal Street Gangs, 41 Urb. Law. 1, 37 (2009) (“When applicable law does not ban carrying a
firearm, however, the Fourth Amendment does not permit a stop-and-frisk regardless of any
indication that a suspect is armed or potentially dangerous because there is no indication that the
suspect is violating the law.”). For example, in Sorrel v. McGuigan, 38 Fed.Appx. 970, 973 (4th
Cir. 2002) (unpublished) the Fourth Circuit denied qualified immunity to an officer who seized
an individual for lawfully carrying weapon. Noting that a state statute made the plaintiff's
Case 6:08-cv-00994-BB-LAM Document 48 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 12 of 16
13
concealed carrying of the weapon legal, the court found that, though "[q]ualified immunity
protects law enforcement officers from bad guesses in gray areas," the fact that the plaintiff's
actions were clearly permissible under the statute meant that the officer "was not in a gray area."
Id. at 974.
The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited
Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq.
Because both New Mexico law and the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unjustified seizure
were clearly established, and a reasonable officer is presumed to know clearly established law,
see, e.g., Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-9, qualified immunity does not protect Defendants.
Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth
Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity.