New Mexico Supreme Court Rules "Officer Safety" Supercedes Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

230therapy

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
764
Location
Virginia
Article from: www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3494.asp

5/31/2011
New Mexico Supreme Court Lets Cops Grab Guns During Stops
Supreme Court allows police to take all firearms from law-abiding motorists during traffic stops.

New Mexico Supreme CourtPolice officers in New Mexico can take guns away from drivers who pose no threat. The state supreme court ruled on May 20 that "officer safety" is more important than any constitutional rights a gun-owning motorist might have. The ruling was handed down in deciding the fate of Gregory Ketelson who was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over on November 13, 2008.

During the stop, Hobbs Police Officer Miroslava Bleau saw a 9mm handgun on the back seat floorboard. Ketelson and the driver of the car were ordered out and away from the car while Officer Shane Blevins grabbed the gun. The officers later learned that Ketelson, as a convicted felon, could not legally possess a firearm. The court, however, only considered whether the officers acted properly in taking the gun before they had any reason to suspect Ketelson, who was entirely cooperative during the encounter, of committing a crime.

Ketelson and the National Rifle Association argued that even a brief seizure of a firearm without cause violates fundamental, constitutionally protected rights. Ketelson also argued the gun could not have been taken without a search warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. A district court and the court of appeals agreed with this reasoning. State prosecutors countered that anyone with a gun ought to be considered "armed and dangerous" and thus the gun could be seized at any time. The high court agreed with this line of reasoning.

"Neither the defendant nor the driver was restrained, and thus the risk that one of them would access the firearm was especially potent," Justice Petra Jimenez Maes wrote for the court. "Under such circumstances, Officer Blevins could constitutionally remove the firearm from the vehicle because he possessed a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which warranted him in believing that defendant was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to his safety."

Because a gun would only taken for the duration of the traffic stop, the court decided such seizures were reasonable.

"The retrieval of the gun from the vehicle during the limited context of the traffic stop was at most a minimal interference with the suspect's possessory interest," Maes wrote. "Our decision in this case, which addresses a temporary separation of a firearm from the occupants of a car during the duration of a traffic stop, does not depend on any requirement of particularized suspicion that an occupant is inclined to use the firearm improperly."

The decision overturned statements made in a previous ruling, New Mexico v. Garcia.

"It would be anomalous to treat the mere presence of a firearm in an automobile as supporting a reasonable suspicion that the occupants are inclined to harm an officer in the course of a routine traffic stop," the court held in 2005.

A copy of the decision is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: New Mexico v. Ketelson (Supreme Court of New Mexico, 5/20/2011)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/nm-gungrab.pdf
 
Seems reasonable to me... Then further investigation reveals...Felon:uhoh:

Regarding observation, eye cannot trespass, along with safety, good deal...

Regards
 
State prosecutors countered that anyone with a gun ought to be considered "armed and dangerous" and thus the gun could be seized at any time. The high court agreed with this line of reasoning.

The only thing government consistently does well is look after the interests of government.
 
I don't see a problem with police securing the firearm in the course of a lawful search or while seizing the vehicle for some reason. The issue I would have is if they detain the person and seize the firearm simply because there is a firearm.
 
As a citizen of NM here is my take: the state supreme court did nothing.

What is happening is a media frenzy designed to churn the waters.

Routine traffic stops are not without justified cause: a traffic violation, a safety warning, a sobriety check-point. In other word some sort of 'criminal activity'.

I have never once been stopped for driving at or under the speed limit while maintaining my lane in a vehicle with all systems functioning! Considering that I lock my keys in the gun safe when I drink (and only at home), I've never been detained at a sobriety check point longer than it takes to produce license, registration, proof of insurance and to state "no alcohol, just water, fruit juice or soda-pop'.

As stated, this is the media pandering to the lowest common denominator-the group that thinks traffic stops are anything but actions taken in response to a crime.
 
Keep in mind, however, that the "lowest common denominator," have been the source of virtually all major Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed our most basic constitutional rights. Think Miranda, Escobedo, and a whole host of others....

Don't let the sophistry of "the ends justify the means" or "I don't do anything wrong so I'll never have to worry about it" thinking cloud your vision of the need to stand fast and firm to protect your rights.
 
AZ is the same way, and our law is written that it must be a legitimate lawful "contact", not casual conversation for the officer to secure the firearm. If the firearms are removed for the duration of a lawful contact, where an officer has an articulable reasonable belief that an offense has been committed, I have no issue with it. If it's three cops walk into a coffee shop while I am there, and grab my sidearm, "Ho, no guns around cops sonny!", then I have an issue with it. BTW, I have never seen the latter one done.
 
I hope the US Supreme Court takes this case and strikes this ruling down.

In prior cases, they have always required reasonable suspicion that the suspect is BOTH armed AND dangerous for this type of seizure.

How would this play out in an open carry state? If the courts say that being armed = being dangerous, then anyone open carrying would be subject to being stopped and having their gun seized at any time no matter if they are breaking a law or not. This would legitimize what those cops in Philly recently did.
 
The whole point of carrying a gun is to be "dangerous."

An armed person is 'dangerous' because he has the ability to do a lot of damage to another person very quickly.

The same reason that a policeman stops you in the first place would seem to suffice for him ensuring that you can't very easily kill him in an instant for the duration of your stop.

You can be made to exit your vehicle, to assume a given position, or many other fundamental diminishments of your basic rights while stopped by the police.
 
As long as the gun is returned to the lawful owner at the end of the traffic stop, I have no issue with this.

Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous times in a cop's day and I don't want the police officer to be worried for his safety while dealing with me on a traffic stop.
 
Indeed. Much more fundamental rights are suspended and then restored in the course of a traffic stop.

Holding a gun is not some special case or circumstance compared with being made to stay in place, assume a position, enter or exit a vehicle, etc etc.

The suspension of rights that underlies all of that is rooted in the same justification as the suspension of the right to hold a gun.
 
The whole point of carrying a gun is to be "dangerous."

i disagree. I carry a gun for protection, and I am not the least bit of a danger to anyone who poses no threat to me. My carrying a gun doesn't make me dangerous. Putting me into a position where I may be victimized while I happen to be armed, however, would make me dangerous. I am not "dangerous" during a traffic stop, because chances are, the officer isn't going to feloniously victimize me. If I were dead set on being a danger to an officer in some criminal manner, a gun wouldn't be required. I could do just as much damage with my car. Do we now consider everyone driving to be dangerous, simply because they have the ability to cause great harm to someone quite rapidly? What about a martial artist? Should be be handcuffed and shackled because of his abilities? Being capable of doing harm doesn't necessarily equate to a danger for an officer. Being armed is one thing....being dangerous is another. Being both things is yet another scenario. Officers are supposed to be adept at ascertaining the totality of circumstances. Meeting one requirement isn't an automatic qualification for meeting the other. In some sense, we ALL have the capeability of being dangerous....does that mean we should give the government or police more room to deprive us of our freedoms and/or property?
 
New Mexico is an open carry state. The gun was in plain view on the floorboard of the car, so search is not an issue. It is common to secure weapons for the duration of a stop, always has been, and guns are returned on completion of the stop. NM cops do not stop and harass people just for being armed. I'm sure the complainant/defendant was also charged for "felon in possession" and was looking for that to be dropped for illegal search & seizure. NM Supreme Court got this one right.
 
I don't see how it jives with Supreme Court rulings on the Terry line of cases, which require reasonable suspicion of the suspect being both armed and dangerous in order to justify a search or seizure. For those cases, the Court has required specific and articulable facts leading the officer to believe that the suspect was DANGEROUS, which required some kind of facts that would lead the officer to believe that the suspect was involved in or were about to commit a serious crime. Stopping someone for an administrative offense like breaking a traffic law, absent some other facts, gives the officer NO basis to believe the person is any more dangerous than the average joe who goes 5 over on the way to work.

I guess you can say that Supreme Court precedent is wrong and that a new exception is needed, which is what this Court seems to have done, but I would disagree. I think the attitude that ANY armed citizen is dangerous just plays into the hands of anti-gunners. Statistics from states which have recently passed OC and CC laws would seem to disagree with that notion, since crime has stayed the same or gone down, and there are very few instances of lawfully armed people committing crimes.

I don't think that cops ought to treat armed citizens any differently than any other citizens they come in contact with every day, unless they have some reason to believe that there is something unlawful about the way the person is armed, or if they have good reason to believe the person is dangerous, like on a felony stop.
 
If I were dead set on being a danger to an officer in some criminal manner, a gun wouldn't be required. I could do just as much damage with my car. Do we now consider everyone driving to be dangerous, simply because they have the ability to cause great harm to someone quite rapidly? ?

I don't know if you're aware of this, but typically when people are stopped by the police, they are required to turn off their car and sometimes to temporarily give up their car keys.

This is required, as you have ironically pointed out, because a person in control of a motor vehicle is indeed dangerous, because he can cause a lot of harm very quickly to someone using the car.
 
An awful decision and odd departure from Terry. I second the hope that it's appealed and reversed by SCOTUS.

Somebody already mentioned the possible implications in an open carry states. But lets limit our examples to a seizure incident to a lawful stop.

Under this precedent. If you have a weapon in the car or on your person, even if licensed, you would be subject to a temporary seizure for any number of non-criminal infractions.

  1. City code enforcement (parking commercial vehicle in driveway)
  2. Jaywalking
  3. City Parking Violations / Meter violation
  4. Any number of minor traffic violations

What it means is that if an officer had RAS to temporarily stop an individual, she can disarm preemptively even before the subject had the opportunity to mitigate the reason for the stop. No specific evidence of dangerous, violent, or criminal activity is required.

Because there is no independent RAS of VIOLENT or CRIMINAL activities, this quickly evolves into disarming as procedure.

Or to simplify Terry, if armed automatically meant dangerous, why go through the trouble of requiring "armed and dangerous" in the opinion, "armed or dangerous" would have been sufficient.

Edit: I forgot to mention this case directly contradicts the Indiana case regarding the seizure of a lawfully licensed handgun during a traffic stop. Not to mention the many other cases following Terry.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03041001jsk.pdf

As in Malone, we conclude that in the absence of an articulable basis that either
there was a legitimate concern for officer safety or a belief that a crime had been or was
being committed, the search of Washington’s car for a handgun was not justified.
 
Last edited:
Many seem to forget, each state has its own statute...Big problem in original signing, states rights etc..
The Feds can override if SCOTUS becomes involved... Not a brainer to be honest:confused:

The final outcome of this one, 'Felon' with firearm in plainsight, to jail, don't pass go...:rolleyes:
 
I support the ruling. I agree that officer safety does supersede the inconvenience when the stop has been a legitimate stop.
In my view it does not infringe on the 2A.
Jerry
 
In my 30 years of law enforcement, in western states where open carry was legal, I made many thousands of traffic stops and wrote thousands of tickets and warnings. I often encountered armed individuals and never, not one time, felt the need to disarm a citizen who was stopped or otherwise detained for a minor violation. Cops who would do so are either cowardly or badge heavy bullies. I personally can't stand either type.
 
In my 30 years of law enforcement, in western states where open carry was legal, I made many thousands of traffic stops and wrote thousands of tickets and warnings. I often encountered armed individuals and never, not one time, felt the need to disarm a citizen who was stopped or otherwise detained for a minor violation. Cops who would do so are either cowardly or badge heavy bullies. I personally can't stand either type.



I'm not sure such cops only fall into bully/coward categories. Sometimes it's good police work.


MN is a concealed carry state and I have run into people with guns on traffic stops. All of the people except 2 who were in cars and guns were seen/found, were felons and all went to jail for the gun. The two who weren't felons were known gang-members and went to jail for having the gun.



I've encountered 3 people with permits to carry, all who were involved in some type of incident and needed to be detained (alcohol was involved in 2 of the incidents), and all were not in vehicles; of those 3, 2 were arrested and 1 was let loose.




And I'm a pro-CCW proponent, still have mine actually, instead of a permit to purchase.


.
 
New Mexico Supreme Court Rules "Officer Safety" Supersedes Rights.

What I have a problem with is the court meddling in the purview of constitutions and legislators.

Woody
 
USMARINE0352 states:

MN is a concealed carry state and I have run into people with guns on traffic stops. All of the people except 2 who were in cars and guns were seen/found, were felons and all went to jail for the gun. The two who weren't felons were known gang-members and went to jail for having the gun.

I've encountered 3 people with permits to carry, all who were involved in some type of incident and needed to be detained (alcohol was involved in 2 of the incidents), and all were not in vehicles; of those 3, 2 were arrested and 1 was let loose.

It would appear that, in his experience, almost everyone who carries a gun in MN is a person that shouldn't have it for one reason or another. Must be a really scary place to work.
 
Snowbandit: It would appear that, in his experience, almost everyone who carries a gun in MN is a person that shouldn't have it for one reason or another. Must be a really scary place to work.



It can be. This was this weekend.



http://www.kare11.com/news/article/924949/391/6-injured-in-multiple-shootings-in-Minneapolis


6 injured in multiple shootings in Minneapolis

7:11 PM, May 31, 2011

MINNEAPOLIS -- Police are investigating five separate shootings that injured at least six people in Minneapolis Sunday night.



Most of the CCW and other good citizen's stay away from here on Sunday nights.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top