Florida man sues officers for concealed weapon (firearm) arrest

[alex_trebek]

I think this lawsuit is clearly flawed, based on the story presented in the media. However, it will still cost the department money in fighting the lawsuit. This might set some sort of precedence in the local police department regarding criteria that has to be met in order to arrest someone for weapons possesstion.

While i think that the flagrant use of lawsuits only hurts the public by increasing the cost of goods and services, it is nice to see the effect help secure the rights of citizens every once in a while. Still may not be worth cost, but that is a debate for another thread.

 

[sacp81170a]

When it comes to the beer can, though -- was he actually drinking, or just trying to put a previously emptied can out of sight?

Generally, a beer can or bottle doesn't have to be opened before it's considered an "open container". If it's a can or bottle of a size that normally comes in a six pack, then a single can is considered "open". If it's in a large bottle with the seal unbroken, it's not. Likewise, a six pack with a can missing is considered to be an open container. At least, those are the rules in my jurisdiction. I can't speak for other jurisdictions.

 

[benEzra]

What about the beer can? Last time I checked, drinking and driving is an arrestable crime.

It's not clear if the can was an old empty, an unopened new can, or a can half full of beer. Who knows.

Presumably they ran a breathalizer on him and he passed, or else they'd have charged him with DUI.

 

[ceetee]

The law is hardly ambiguous. It states clearly how a person may carry a firearm legally, and how a person carrying a firearm illegally is to be defined. As to the open container, it's my understanding that an open can is just that. It doesn't matter if it's been open for two minutes or two years; it's against the law here. If it were me, I'd also press a lawsuit, if for no other reason than to punish the arrogant jerks that arrested me unlawfully...

 

[RPCVYemen]

I am sure happy to have some speeding drinking driver standing up for my gun rights!

Mike

 

[XDKingslayer]

An ambiguous, unspecific, or otherwise unclear law is impossible for a law-abiding citizen to comply with.

The 790 laws are anything but ambiguous, unspecific, or unclear.

In fact, when you get your paperwork to apply for a CCW the 790 laws are in there and each and every law is explained in simple, plain English by Florida. If you can't figure out the 790 laws after all of this, you simply don't have the intelligence required to responsibly own a handgun.

Even the 790 laws in the CCW handbook give the glovebox as an example of a legal place to keep a firearm.

And you can keep it there WITHOUT a CCW permit.

 

[W Turner]

1. He wasn't charged under the open container law

2. Speeding is a ticketable offense, not an arrestable one unless you refuse to sign the ticket.

3. He was charged with carrying in a concealed weapon that was FOUND by the police in the CONSOLE of his vehicle. The console is expressly allowed as a place to store a weapon for non-CCW permit holders.

4. The police (apparently) did not actually see him conceal the weapon in the console after being pulled over, otherwise I am sure they would have testified to that.

5. The officers made an arrest that was based on their assumptions and interpretations.

The cops were wrong when they arrested him. Period. Even the criminal court judge has ruled that way. Therefore he never should have been arrested and the police violated his rights by arresting him unlawfully.

He's using the court system to right a wrong same as the cops tried to do. Just so happens that he's more right than they are in this case.

Where's the problem?

W

 

[10 Ring Tao]

Pretty sad all of the assumptions that get thrown around. We really are our own worst enemies.

The fact nothing happened after the arrest says plenty, and I hope these cops, who forgot their job is to enforce, not interpret, the law, are in some way heavily and negatively effected in court.

 

[Geno]

ceetee:

Excellent point, and reinforces the fact that even where a law is clear, or as in the case of the Southfielde PD, the officer had a photocopy of the AG's opinion, he still was going to arrest the man?! Like my MSP friend said, "...case law...". I also agree with El Tejon...we will see much more federal case law. I agree that we need more case law at the federal level!

Doc2005

 

[Steve499]

" When in doubt, don't" was the motto when I went through the patrol academy. If a policeman isn't POSITIVE about what is or is not against the law, and arrests someone anyway, he's gotta expect some negative repurcussions. I spent my entire career in law enforcement so I'm not anti-cop at all, but if I had been the one arrested in this case, the arresting officers would be hearing from my lawyer. Examples are valuable and serve to dampen future behavior of a similar nature.

 

[10 Ring Tao]

Hey doc, I searched and didn't come up with anything related to southfield PD. Care to link?

 

[Domino]

I am sure happy to have some speeding drinking driver standing up for my gun rights!

You don't even know for a fact that he was drinking while driving. As stated above the beer can could have been full, opened, empty, or just away from a sixpack. It seems to me that if he had been drinking and driving than he would have certainly been charged for it.

The cops arrested a man who didn't commit an arrestable crime. The cops clearly didn't know the law and are fault here, thats all there is to it. I hope they get whats comming to them.

 

[joab]

The federal lawsuit, which was filed in July, will ask the courts to decipher and clarify the ambiguous state statute that governs carrying concealed weapons in the state of Florida.

This is the part that bothers me

The law is simply not ambiguous so why sue to have it deciphered?

 

[10 Ring Tao]

The law is simply not ambiguous so why sue to have it deciphered?

Its clear to us, the ones who pay attention. Those who give it minimal attention, if at all, need to be slapped upside the head with it. Only then will the proper interpretation be widespread.

 

[TX1911fan]

This is why I think it is an arbitrary law:

In the end, he said, it all comes down to the judgment of the law enforcement officer and whether the officer believes there is enough probable cause to make an arrest.

Or at least being enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which is unconstitutional. Hence, if this is the policy, to just let the officer decide, then the Federal court will be able to strike the policy and tell them to enforce the actual law, rather than let an officer decide if he likes it or not.

 

[joab]

Those who give it minimal attention, if at all, need to be slapped upside the head with it.

I disagre
It is plain to anyone who has passed 6th grade English
I have read the application for LEO and some of the tests
They are well above 6th grade English

This is why I think it is an arbitrary law:

Again I disagree
The law is not arbitrary and does not lend itself to arbitrary enforcement

The proper way to carry a gun in a vehicle in Florida is clearly spelled out

The chief can say it's up to the discretion of the officers all he wants to
I can say I'm can say that I'm smarter than Hawkins, it don't make it true

Case law has already clearly decided the statute

It takes courage to admit that you're wrong and accept the consequences, somebody in North Port needs to get some or the people of North Port need to find someone that has some
If not they get what they earn

 

[CDignition]

lol. The internet is entertaining, all these silly posts. The cops screwed up, plain and simple.

Weather they knew it or not matters none(same rule applies to you, Ignorance of law is no excuse)... They need to be reprimanded, or get more training.

 

[akodo]

I am a bit confused - the weapons charges were dropped, but the man still wants to pursue a FEDERAL lawsuit?

If I grab a guy and drag him to my home and lock him in my closet, that is kidnapping, and if they want to push it, a violation of that person's civil rights/liberties.

A police officer cannot say "That is the ugliest tie I have ever seen! I am taking you jail for a fashion violation!" The cop can call it assault with a deadly weapon (ugly tie assaulting his eyes) or disturbing the peace, or what have you. Of course, eventually it will get thrown out, however, in the meantime you cannot be going about your daily business, you are sitting in the station in handcuffs. The police cannot be allowed to just let you out of lockup 24 hours later with a 'my bad!' Federal lawsuit is how you make the department pay finanially for the deprivation of your rights, it is NOT about clarifying the law.

Of course, such suits only work when the police officer knew, or should have know what he was taking the guy to jail for was NOT illegal. This is akin to how "Filing false police reports" etc works for regular folk. If you see a man prying up a garage door next door, and you call the cops "burglar next door!" but it turns out to be the homeowner who locked himself out...that is entirely acceptable, as it was reasonable. However, if you dislike the neighbor, and decide to give him a rude suprise by calling 911 at 3am and telling them "burglar next door!" that will get you into trouble.

 

[Kilgor]

sacp81170p wrote:

Generally, a beer can or bottle doesn't have to be opened before it's considered an "open container". If it's a can or bottle of a size that normally comes in a six pack, then a single can is considered "open". If it's in a large bottle with the seal unbroken, it's not. Likewise, a six pack with a can missing is considered to be an open container. At least, those are the rules in my jurisdiction. I can't speak for other jurisdictions.

I have to say that your definition of open container strikes me as insane. Five unopened beers linked together with plastic rings are an open container??? What if they weren't tied together?

Of course arguing the definition of open container in Arkansas is a spurious task because Arkansas DOES NOT HAVE AN OPEN CONTAINER LAW. I live in NW Arkansas, so your post caught my attention. Would you please show me the Arkansas Code on this? The only thing I can find in the Arkansas code concerns boats and it specifically says that open containers do NOT constitute probable cause.

5-76-102. Unlawful acts

The consumption of alcohol or the possession of an open container aboard a vessel does not in and of itself constitute probable cause.

 

[LaEscopeta]

Cops aren't even in the top ten most dangerous jobs in the US.

Hey, does this same logic apply to you? The odds of you getting killed by a home invader are less then the odds for a logger or a Commercial Fishermen dieing on the job. Does this mean you don’t have the right to be prepared to defend your self in your home? But you are saying cops don’t have the right to prepare to defend them selves when making a traffic stop?

(None of the above relates weather the cops should or should not have arrested the driver in the original post.)

 

[Black Adder LXX]

North Port Police Chief Terry Lewis says that even though the charges were dropped, the arrest was still justified.

And although Lewis would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said that rulings on the definition of a concealed weapon can vary.

In the end, he said, it all comes down to the judgment of the law enforcement officer and whether the officer believes there is enough probable cause to make an arrest.

"There's nothing that stands the hair up on a police officer more than a firearm," Lewis said. "In those cases, it's a judgment call."

Translation: We screwed up and won't admit it. I LOVE it when folks own up to their mistakes like that! I bet the homeowners in that area are really glad their taxes are going to fight the suit that's coming.

 

[drbironhead]

I just move from North Port the police are very timid if u tell them u have a fire arm. if u go south less then a mile to Charlotte county and u get pulled over and u tell the deputy u have a fire arm concealed he doe sent care hell he'll ask you what you are carrying for small talk sake. In north port they'll call for back up tell u to get out of the car take your gun from u unload it and put it in the trunk of your car. most of the cops their are snot nose kids out of college. One cop was shocked that i was carrying hollow points and wondered were i got them. so that story wouldn't surprise me one bit

 

[Ithaca37]

Hey, does this same logic apply to you? The odds of you getting killed by a home invader are less then the odds for a logger or a Commercial Fishermen dieing on the job. Does this mean you don’t have the right to be prepared to defend your self in your home? But you are saying cops don’t have the right to prepare to defend them selves when making a traffic stop?

I don't view everyone I see as a potential robber/murderer/rapist/whatever. I am not saying cops don't need to be careful, but the notion that they need to view and everyone as a criminal due to the likelihood they will face a deadly force encounter is ludicrous (not mention just plain un-American) and simply not supported by the data. The fact that the possibility exists that a cop might need to defend himself is why he carries a gun, the same as why other people carry too. But you don't go whipping your gun out every time you meet someone you don't know do you?

 

[joab]

But you don't go whipping your gun out every time you meet someone you don't know do you?

No and neither do cops

I don't view everyone I see as a potential robber/murderer/rapist/whatever.

I do, and I'm probably alive today because of it