Roanoke County’s preempted parks ordinance is prompting calls for legal action

John Pierce · Apr 23, 2012

Well that clears it right up doesn’t it? After that change, any citizen could easily read that ordinance and understand that it is now perfectly legal to carry in County parks. Of course not! And the same is true of a law enforcement officer or a magistrate who is perhaps unfamiliar with the history of the ordinance and the scope of Virginia’s preemption statute. Sooner or later, someone is going to be deprived of their liberty because of this ordinance.

Exceprt ... Read more

1245A Defender · Apr 24, 2012

well,,,

Sooo I am reporting both, Admistrator and Ryon7068 to the Super Moderator!!
Posting the same stuff in multiple threads is concidered SPAM!!!
Why are you doing this?
It is a bother to read this stuff twice..
You are being warned...

ryan7068 · Apr 24, 2012

very well good sir

I am completley on board with that my good man, just forgot to remove :banghead: all good to go now! Have a wonderful evening.

thaJack · Apr 24, 2012

1245A Defender said:
Sooo I am reporting both, Admistrator and Ryon7068 to the Super Moderator!!
Posting the same stuff in multiple threads is concidered SPAM!!!
Why are you doing this?
It is a bother to read this stuff twice..
You are being warned...

If you'd follow the links in each one you would see that they go to TWO different articles. Same subject, yes, but two different articles. I wouldn't consider it SPAM, but just my opinion.

thaJack · Apr 24, 2012

<<< raises hand volunteering to be plaintiff.

1245A Defender · Apr 24, 2012

wait, what, huh? oh no!

thaJack said:
If you'd follow the links in each one you would see that they go to TWO different articles. Same subject, yes, but two different articles. I wouldn't consider it SPAM, but just my opinion.

my appology is now retracted...

1245A Defender · Apr 24, 2012

well,,,

thaJack said:
If you'd follow the links in each one you would see that they go to TWO different articles. Same subject, yes, but two different articles. I wouldn't consider it SPAM, but just my opinion.

confussion abounds whn i stay up all night.
I stand by my original charge of spam.
Both articals are in the original thread!
this thread is just a repost of the follow up artical, I just haddent read them both, so still my bad.

VApatriot · Apr 24, 2012

Having this ordinance left on the books, no matter how they write it, makes me believe that it will, at the very least, confuse carriers who are trying to follow the law and, at worst, end up causing major problems for a legal OC or CCer who gets hassled by cops who don't understand anything about the law. On reading this code, I was immediately reminded of what happened to CHP holder (VCDL member?) in, I believe, Lynchburg (or was it Roanoke?) a few years ago. As I recall, in the course of a traffic stop the CHP holder went through quite an ordeal with the local police, as they repeatedly demanded to know if he was carrying, even though he was under no legal obligation to tell them. The local police continued to repeat a local ordinance that required notification of carry, but the ordinance was preempted and had not been removed from the books. I see the exact same thing happening here, if this ordinance isn't completely struck down.

John Pierce · Apr 24, 2012

VApatriot said:
Having this ordinance left on the books, no matter how they write it, makes me believe that it will, at the very least, confuse carriers who are trying to follow the law and, at worst, end up causing major problems for a legal OC or CCer who gets hassled by cops who don't understand anything about the law. On reading this code, I was immediately reminded of what happened to CHP holder (VCDL member?) in, I believe, Lynchburg (or was it Roanoke?) a few years ago. As I recall, in the course of a traffic stop the CHP holder went through quite an ordeal with the local police, as they repeatedly demanded to know if he was carrying, even though he was under no legal obligation to tell them. The local police continued to repeat a local ordinance that required notification of carry, but the ordinance was preempted and had not been removed from the books. I see the exact same thing happening here, if this ordinance isn't completely struck down.

That is exactly the harm that this kind of ordinance will likely cause.

jmelvin · Apr 24, 2012

VApatriot said:
Having this ordinance left on the books, no matter how they write it, makes me believe that it will, at the very least, confuse carriers who are trying to follow the law and, at worst, end up causing major problems for a legal OC or CCer who gets hassled by cops who don't understand anything about the law. On reading this code, I was immediately reminded of what happened to CHP holder (VCDL member?) in, I believe, Lynchburg (or was it Roanoke?) a few years ago. As I recall, in the course of a traffic stop the CHP holder went through quite an ordeal with the local police, as they repeatedly demanded to know if he was carrying, even though he was under no legal obligation to tell them. The local police continued to repeat a local ordinance that required notification of carry, but the ordinance was preempted and had not been removed from the books. I see the exact same thing happening here, if this ordinance isn't completely struck down.

That was a gentleman down in Roanoke who has had multiple issues with the Roanoke County or City police. I think he may have been tossed out of a Roanoke County park at one point based upon this code section, but I'd have to go back and find the thread. I can't recall his handle here, but I know his real name.

peter nap · Apr 24, 2012

jmelvin said:
That was a gentleman down in Roanoke who has had multiple issues with the Roanoke County or City police. I think he may have been tossed out of a Roanoke County park at one point based upon this code section, but I'd have to go back and find the thread. I can't recall his handle here, but I know his real name.

I believe his screen name was tosta dogen or dojan.....something like that Jmelvin.

The dashcam footage was here, but it looks like he removed it:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...FiNWYtMzRlYjYwY2Y3MzVj&hl=en&authkey=CNy79osJ

jmelvin · Apr 24, 2012

peter nap said:
I believe his screen name was tosta dogen or dojan.....something like that Jmelvin.

The dashcam footage was here, but it looks like he removed it:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...FiNWYtMzRlYjYwY2Y3MzVj&hl=en&authkey=CNy79osJ

Tosta Dojen was it! He and his wife set up the first and only Roanoke OC meal that I'm aware of. He fought his road-side battle to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost. Of course they gave wide lattitude to the officer and he lost his 1983 claim.

peter nap · Apr 24, 2012

jmelvin said:
Tosta Dojen was it! He and his wife set up the first and only Roanoke OC meal that I'm aware of. He fought his road-side battle to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and lost. Of course they gave wide lattitude to the officer and he lost his 1983 claim.

Lots more to his losing and without getting into it, a good reason why VCDL needs to exercise more care about getting advice from lawyers with baggage.

This is the case I often quote where TJ says he chooses to remain silent. The cop says you only have the right to remain silent if you've committed a crime, have you committed a crime.

Tosta Dojen · Apr 24, 2012

VApatriot said:
On reading this code, I was immediately reminded of what happened to CHP holder (VCDL member?) in, I believe, Lynchburg (or was it Roanoke?) a few years ago. As I recall, in the course of a traffic stop the CHP holder went through quite an ordeal with the local police, as they repeatedly demanded to know if he was carrying, even though he was under no legal obligation to tell them. The local police continued to repeat a local ordinance that required notification of carry, but the ordinance was preempted and had not been removed from the books. I see the exact same thing happening here, if this ordinance isn't completely struck down.

That isn't quite correct. There was no ordinance, preempted or otherwise, and the officers didn't cite to anything other than "the law." Which is not to say that your main point is invalid -- I can easily see officers enforcing an invalid law and getting away with it. In Amore v. Novarro, the 2nd Circuit awarded qualified immunity to a police officer who enforced a law that had been declared unconstitutional decades earlier. The Court reasoned that even if the law was invalid, it was still on the books, and a police officer couldn't reasonably be expected to know that it was void and unenforceable.

jmelvin said:
That was a gentleman down in Roanoke who has had multiple issues with the Roanoke County or City police. I think he may have been tossed out of a Roanoke County park at one point based upon this code section, but I'd have to go back and find the thread.

Only Roanoke City and Salem. I haven't yet been thrown out of a park in Roanoke County. But I was just thinking that an open carry hotdog & hamburger grill would be a good idea, so I guess we'll see.

peter nap said:
The dashcam footage was here, but it looks like he removed it:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...FiNWYtMzRlYjYwY2Y3MzVj&hl=en&authkey=CNy79osJ

Google Docs is being weird. Try this link instead: http://docs.google.com/open?id=0B61j4W5ufFbcYTI0MjIzM2UtOGRmMS00ZDVjLTk1OGUtNDVkOWM2NTYzZmE5

thaJack · Apr 24, 2012

Anyone know the driver's name in the video? I've seen the case files, but can't seem to locate it again.

peter nap · Apr 24, 2012

thaJack said:
Anyone know the driver's name in the video? I've seen the case files, but can't seem to locate it again.

I do but don't think he wants it pastedall over the net.

thaJack · Apr 24, 2012

peter nap said:
I do but don't think he wants it pastedall over the net.

No worries. The document I pull up wouldn't have his name redacted already or anything. If I remember right they said that it all fell within the qualified immunity of the cops.

When you don't know the law, ignorance is not an excuse. When they don't know it, it's qualified immunity. Go figure.

thaJack · Apr 24, 2012

By the way, the video is really funny. It's like the police officers have never even heard of the Fifth Amendment.

At about 46:40 the cop says he is a bit low on tickets... makes you wonder about that quota they claim not to have.

VApatriot · Apr 24, 2012

thaJack said:
At about 46:40 the cop says he is a bit low on tickets... makes you wonder about that quota they claim not to have.

I remember having that exact same thought way back when I first viewed that recording. I also remember a sense of total outrage just building in me as the audio went on, because the cops had little to no respect for the citizen, and because they took forever trying to find anything at all that they could charge him with, because they were so sure that he must have been guilty of something. Everything about the case seemed to fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty, protect and serve, and the general ideals of a free state.

thaJack · Apr 24, 2012

"He's guilty of something, we just don't know what."

Love it!

Roanoke County’s preempted parks ordinance is prompting calls for legal action

Administrator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Administrator

Founder's Club Member

Accomplished Advocate

Founder's Club Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member