Goldberg V Glastonbury = RAS?

Am I missing something here?? I just reviewed this case and it appears to me that in a situation where a complainant calls police for a MWAG, and said complaint(s) is/are alarmed, police are justified in doing a Terry stop? Agree or disagree, is this not caselaw?



http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9530201335512658617&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Secondly, wouldn't this apply in the new haven movie theater case?

There is a lot more to the Goldberg case than just RAS when a person reports MWAG.

By any stretch of the imagination, the court's rulings in the Goldberg case were pretty flawed and could be summed up as 'if firearm, no 4th amendment'. Which is obviously a complete and total departure from any other court ruling on the subject.

One of the main issues in the Goldberg case was that he was not carrying openly like so many people try to pretend. He was carrying concealed, but apparently not very well. There have been cases in Georgia (they have the same style permit as us that allows concealed or open with a permit) that have essentially said that the standards for RAS are different for a person who is carrying concealed and a person who carries openly.

Carrying openly is viewed as an obvious and honest thing to do. Carrying concealed poorly comes across as dishonest.
Carrying concealed poorly tends to attract more attention and alarm since for most people the firearm 'suddenly appears'.

Good explanation Rich. I see someone OCing I don't think much about it.

I see a grip sticking out of someone's pants because they are IWB a little different reaction.

SPOProds said:

Good explanation Rich. I see someone OCing I don't think much about it.

I see a grip sticking out of someone's pants because they are IWB a little different reaction.

Click to expand...

Well sure, right or wrong, people have been conditioned to interpret a grip sticking out of a waistband as 'gangbanger'.

Also on the Goldberg situation there was no "MWAG and we are scared call". If you listen to the 911 call the manager was pretty much laughing it off and just asked if there was such a thing as an open carry permit in CT because they saw "9mm strapped to his hip", the dispatcher of course had no idea of the answer to that queston and they (GPD) over reacted and sent 3 or 4 officers to the scene who then proceeded to violate his rights by charging in, disarming him, handcuffing him, dragging him outside and leaving him on the ground for over 15 minutes while they stood over him discussing what they should charge him with since he was breaking no laws.

Rich B said:

Well sure, right or wrong, people have been conditioned to interpret a grip sticking out of a waistband as 'gangbanger'.

Click to expand...

This. From what I see on the next post is it was an OWB holster? This should not cause alarm. Criminals, unless movie assassins, don't use holsters.

Detainging/Not Detaining OC in CT

Hi All,


I briefly scanned all the past posts, but just in case, I apologize in advance if I am repeating anything that has been said already. I am a SGT. in a large police department here in CT. with 18 years experience. Up until about 3 years ago, I was not familiar with the laws pertaining to OC in CT. I went under the assumption that OC was not legal and that it could cause BOP/DC. This was partly because of lack of training and experience specifically in this area. Since that time I have done alot of research on this topic. Some of this enlightening research I have received from this website, so I thank you for that. There has been alot of press on OC in CT recently (again) especially since the Hwang incident in New Haven. I saw this thread and I thought I woud give my two cents. Again, I apologize if I am being redundant.
What I have found, concerning the ability of a PO to detain someone (Terry v Ohio), for merely OC, to determine if they have a valid permit to carry, is that the PO does not have that right. I base this on the fact that just because someone is OC does not in of itself reasonable articuable suspicion (RAS) that a crime is being, has been or is about to be committed (Terry v Ohio). It is LEGAL to OC in CT (see CT Firearm's Law and US v DeBerry) and is not BOP/DC or any other crime. The only way a PO can demand ID is when there is RAS which, again, is not the case here when OC. All a PO has is a consensual encounter and can only request to see ID/Permit. As a LEO I understand a PO's plight here in regards to protecting citizens and themselves but we are also sworn to uphold both our State and Federal Constitutions which ensures our right to bear arms. With that being said I have never had a criminal OC before committing a crime and as a LEO I prefer to see the threat rather it being hidden. The training given by Torrington and Old Saybrook is contradictory in of itself because it says that an OC is not BOP. So if OC is not committing a crime then what are you detaining that person for? In of itself OC is not Prima Facia evidence (evidence at first hand) that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed. No RAS, no detention, no ID.

I thank you for investing your own time to research the correct laws. I wish more LEOs were like you.

You're welcome. The sad truth, at least in my department, is that alot of PO's do not know the law regarding OC. I had one tell me that it is illegal to OC and that CT issues a concealed carry permit. I had another tell me that OC is in of itself RAS to detain and demand ID. As you can see LEO need better training in this area.

LESGTINCT: You are 100% right. And that was the major issue in the Goldberg case. The entire case was predicated under the thought that BoP not being valid grounds for arrest was not 'settled law' and well known to a 'reasonable' LEO at the time.

Things are changing for the better, and progress is being made. I applaud you and lucky and other officers around the state that have the courage and integrity to stand on the right side of this issue.

If you would like to stay in touch or have questions/issues/etc, you can reach me at: rich [at] ctcarry.com and there is also lots of information on our site: http://ctcarry.com

We do have some LEO specific things that may be of help to LEOs that you may be able to assist with if you should choose to get involved.

Up until about 3 years ago, I was not familiar with the laws pertaining to OC in CT. I went under the assumption that OC was not legal and that it could cause BOP/DC. This was partly because of lack of training and experience specifically in this area.

Click to expand...

Hey Sarge,

If you haven't seen my last posts, i'm a LEO in one of CT's big three cities, and I too was extremely misinformed about this issue up until about a month ago when my father ( a permitee ) turned me on to this site. The things i've learned here have been eye opening and instrumental to my understanding of the relevant law. I'm glad you pointed out in your post how there is a serious lack of training concerning OCing and proper legal response because hands down there is a major lack of training across the board. So many officers learn their response by watching veteran officers and then repeating...wether it's legal or not.

I reviewed all of the caselaw that people have posted on here and also have conclusively realized that OC is not RAS without some other suspicious behavior, regardless of how many complainants are alarmed. Not only that, but I've learned a lot about legal Terry stops in general, regardless of guns being involved or not.

Look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

luckyykid said:

Am I missing something here?? I just reviewed this case and it appears to me that in a situation where a complainant calls police for a MWAG, and said complaint(s) is/are alarmed, police are justified in doing a Terry stop? Agree or disagree, is this not caselaw?



http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9530201335512658617&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Secondly, wouldn't this apply in the new haven movie theater case?

Click to expand...

I checked with an attorney on this, and basically what I got was 1) This is a civil case and doesn't necessarily effect criminal law, and 2) in civil law the court is deciding that based on the law at the time of the incident (2007) would officers be protected by qualified immunity based on their understanding of the law at that time. He basically said that in 2007, it was not as well established then as it is now that you cannot breach someone's peace by OC. So if the same situation were to occur today, when the law is more established, the officers may not be protected by qualified immunity. And it still does stand that OC is not RAS. But I guess the whole appeal was focused on the civil liability of the officers, and not so much the legality of a Terry stop for OC.

Lucky, I appreciate your work to better understand the laws on your own time and commend you as well.

luckyykid said:

I checked with an attorney on this, and basically what I got was 1) This is a civil case and doesn't necessarily effect criminal law, and 2) in civil law the court is deciding that based on the law at the time of the incident (2007) would officers be protected by qualified immunity based on their understanding of the law at that time. He basically said that in 2007, it was not as well established then as it is now that you cannot breach someone's peace by OC. So if the same situation were to occur today, when the law is more established, the officers may not be protected by qualified immunity. And it still does stand that OC is not RAS. But I guess the whole appeal was focused on the civil liability of the officers, and not so much the legality of a Terry stop for OC.

Click to expand...

Yup. And you might be interested to know about Burgess v Wallingford which is doing exactly that.

Disclosure: I am the plaintiff.

Rich B said:

Yup. And you might be interested to know about Burgess v Wallingford which is doing exactly that.

Disclosure: I am the plaintiff.

Click to expand...

Yeah i read the lawsuit. Where are you at with that?

luckyykid said:

Yeah i read the lawsuit. Where are you at with that?

Click to expand...

Still in discovery. Arguing over silly hang ups with the defendants.

I tend to stay limited in dispensing too much in public about the case myself since it is ongoing. You know how to reach me if you have specific questions though.

LESGTINCT said:

With that being said I have never had a criminal OC before committing a crime and as a LEO I prefer to see the threat rather it being hidden.

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you agree with other LEO's on this matter. Thank you for that!

From OCDO's main page:

"[G]ang members aren't known to open carry."
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Sgt. Dave Phelps, San Bernadino Sun, September 6, 2010


I hope we can count on your professional testimony at the Capitol if an open-carry ban bill is introduced.

Rich B said:

Yup. And you might be interested to know about Burgess v Wallingford which is doing exactly that.

Disclosure: I am the plaintiff.

Click to expand...

http://subtlehustle.com/WallingfordLegal/FederalLawsuit/Complaint/Complaint_As_Filed.pdf

The complaint in case anyone is interested. Filed July 2011 in federal court.

luckyykid said:

Hey Sarge,

If you haven't seen my last posts, i'm a LEO in one of CT's big three cities, and I too was extremely misinformed about this issue up until about a month ago when my father ( a permitee ) turned me on to this site. The things i've learned here have been eye opening and instrumental to my understanding of the relevant law. I'm glad you pointed out in your post how there is a serious lack of training concerning OCing and proper legal response because hands down there is a major lack of training across the board. So many officers learn their response by watching veteran officers and then repeating...wether it's legal or not.

I reviewed all of the caselaw that people have posted on here and also have conclusively realized that OC is not RAS without some other suspicious behavior, regardless of how many complainants are alarmed. Not only that, but I've learned a lot about legal Terry stops in general, regardless of guns being involved or not.

Look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have seen your posts and agree. OC in of itself is not RAS. I actually had another conversation with a SGT today. I tried to explain but I get the same bull headed response of basically I will do what I want. I told my LT. that there needs to be training and he agrees.

Rich B said:

LESGTINCT: You are 100% right. And that was the major issue in the Goldberg case. The entire case was predicated under the thought that BoP not being valid grounds for arrest was not 'settled law' and well known to a 'reasonable' LEO at the time.

Things are changing for the better, and progress is being made. I applaud you and lucky and other officers around the state that have the courage and integrity to stand on the right side of this issue.

If you would like to stay in touch or have questions/issues/etc, you can reach me at: rich [at] ctcarry.com and there is also lots of information on our site: http://ctcarry.com

We do have some LEO specific things that may be of help to LEOs that you may be able to assist with if you should choose to get involved.

Click to expand...

Will do, thanks.