• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Arrested last night

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Perhaps I missed it, but exactly what was being asked to suppress?

Everything I would assume.

The removal of his firearm and detainment were the result of illegal police conduct. He never should have been removed from his vehicle nor should his firearm have been removed. He never should have been searched nor should his vehicle have been searched.

This all happened at a check-point simply because a KSP trooper noticed a firearm in plain-view while checking his D.L., which is completely legal and NOT grounds for a Terry stop.

The resulting charges are ignorant because the detainment was illegal. All evidence should all be suppressed under the exclusionary rule, but it will not be.

This was a trooper with a bias view and a judge out to get a gun owner that did NOTHING illegal. The trooper knew his actions were illegal and he tried to justify the stop with bogus charges.

If it wasn't for the officer's illegal actions the resulting charges would have never came about. Either way, he has the RIGHT to express his anger and he has the right to redress his grievances. The SCOTUS has affirmed the First Amendment protects plenty of actions, including the ones that resulted in Charley being charged.
 

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
I agree this was uncalled for and quiet alarming.

However, suppression normally involves an illegally siezed item, or an illegally obtained confession, etc.

Since it doesn't seem that any of the normal suppression issues are involved here, it doesn't surprise me that the motion was denied.

The charges don't involved a firearm but are for Disorderly Conduct and Menacing, or in other words actions or conduct that Charlie allegedly committed.

I believe the trial will come down to fact issues. Was his conduct disorderly, as described in the KRS, and menacing as described in the statute.

Can the Lt. reasonably claim that he felt threatened by a person pointing their finger at him? Would a reasonable person have felt menaced under the same circumstances?

Did Charlies freedom of speech rise to the level of being disorderly? Was some other non police officer caused alarm?

Was there even any other non police officers present?

Lastly, the US Supreme Court has already held that an officer can order an individual out of the car. To argue that point will not be fruitful, IMO.

While we can agree that this should never have happened, Charlie has to deal with what is actually happening.

It is a good to try to convince the jury that this was uncalled for and would never of happened without the actions of the KSP, but the actual charges have to be addressed directly.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I agree this was uncalled for and quiet alarming.

However, suppression normally involves an illegally siezed item, or an illegally obtained confession, etc.

Since it doesn't seem that any of the normal suppression issues are involved here, it doesn't surprise me that the motion was denied.

The charges don't involved a firearm but are for Disorderly Conduct and Menacing, or in other words actions or conduct that Charlie allegedly committed.

I believe the trial will come down to fact issues. Was his conduct disorderly, as described in the KRS, and menacing as described in the statute.

Can the Lt. reasonably claim that he felt threatened by a person pointing their finger at him? Would a reasonable person have felt menaced under the same circumstances?

Did Charlies freedom of speech rise to the level of being disorderly? Was some other non police officer caused alarm?

Was there even any other non police officers present?

Lastly, the US Supreme Court has already held that an officer can order an individual out of the car. To argue that point will not be fruitful, IMO.

While we can agree that this should never have happened, Charlie has to deal with what is actually happening.

It is a good to try to convince the jury that this was uncalled for and would never of happened without the actions of the KSP, but the actual charges have to be addressed directly.

If that is the case then the exclusionary rule would be completely useless. The motion to suppress evidence that was obtained illegally or by illegal actions is what is most important here. This was all the result of a Fourth Amendment violation on the officer's behalf. Any evidence that is obtained as the result of an illegal search or seizure is supposed to be suppressed from being introduced to a jury. All of the evidence that is being used against Charley was the result of a Fourth Amendment violation.

The SCOTUS has ruled an officer can remove you from the vehicle during a TRAFFIC STOP. This was NOT a traffic stop and Charley was not accused of committing a traffic infraction. He simply went through a "safety check point" and the officer ILLEGALLY seized his LEGALLY carried firearm and then ILLEGALLY detained Charley for carrying a LEGAL firearm.

This is direct quotation from the uniform citation:

"Above came through a TRAFFIC SAFETY CHECKPOINT at the Ledbetter bridge. Above had a handgun in PLAIN VIEW on the center console. Above was then ORDERED out of the vehicle to secure the weapon. Above was then directed to a secondary location to continue CHECKING THE VEHICLE. Above was upset with this and was speaking to Lt. White, U/100. Above squared off against him and POINTED HIS FINGER in Lt. White's face placing Lt. White in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury. Above was then told to put his hands on the car. He continued to be argumentative and irate. Above was placed in handcuffs for safety. Above was told that he was detained and continued to argue in public in a loud manner that he was arrested. Above was creating public alarm which served no legitimate purpose."

This is the most ignorant report I have ever read. Charley did nothing that isn't already protected (you can get in an officer's face and express your displeasure over their ILLEGAL actions, flip them the "bird," and pretty much anything else as long as you do not touch him or threaten him.

The bottom line is this entire incident happened because the officer disarmed Charley when he had NO right to do so (this was NOT a traffic stop and he had NO right to ask him to leave the vehicle or DISARM him). After he disarmed and illegally ran the firearm's serial number he continued to violate Charley's constitutional rights. This NEVER should have made it past the initial, much less all the way to trial.

I hope Charley receives plenty of the State's money for depriving him of his rights and placing him through this ordeal because of one of the State's officer's illegal and unconstitutional actions. It is officers such as the one involved here that give the KSP a bad name, which is sad because MOST of the KSP troopers are decent law-abiding officers.
 
Last edited:

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
Just for the sake of arguement, lets assume everything you say is true. That battle has been fought and lost.

The immediate threat to Charlie are the DO and the menacing charges. Everything else is moot and has already been ruled on.

I seem to remember case law that said thee had to be someone else present, other than a police officer, for a DO charge to be valid. Not sure about that though, as it has been many years. If it was only Charlie and the two officers, the DO might not be valid.

As to the menacing, I know I would have been ashamed to say that someone pointing their finger at me justified a menacing charge, but that is just me and not relevant to Charlies case.

My point is Charlie has to fight the immediate threat. Attacking each element of the statute that must be present for a charge to be valid seems to be the best approach, IMO. While we can go back and forth on what the state of the world should be, it is Charlie and the District Court that will determine what the state of the world is.

By the way traffic check point are legal per SCOTUS. I guess that Charlie was motioned to stop by one of the officers, and did not voluntarily submit to the check point. I would say that that gives the officer the right to order him out of the car.

I don't like the situation, but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
I provided everything requested at the checkpoint. Upon noticing the weapon the officer asked me to step outside of my vehicle so he could retrieve it and such. He then asked me to pull my vehicle to the side of the road. My wife and child where with me and they have made an attempt to say that THEY (wife and child) are the ones distraught by our verbal back and forth. I agree that it is now time to focus on defeating the DO and menacing charges. BTW the judge said that the "briefness" of searching my weapon made it ok.
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
Hopefully the final stand is tomorrow!

So I have my trial tomorrow at 1:00 P.M. in Livingston county. I'd appreciate anyone there as support, but understand if no one can make it. I'm hoping that the jury will see the events for what they are and not for the propaganda the troopers try to present it as. I'm feeling pretty good about it so at the least wish me luck tomorrow. Thank you.
 

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
So I have my trial tomorrow at 1:00 P.M. in Livingston county. I'd appreciate anyone there as support, but understand if no one can make it. I'm hoping that the jury will see the events for what they are and not for the propaganda the troopers try to present it as. I'm feeling pretty good about it so at the least wish me luck tomorrow. Thank you.

Good luck, CC. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow and wish I knew where Livingston county is..:lol: I'm sure that good or bad you will update us tomorrow.
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
Well.

I was found not guilty on the charge of menacing. The jury found me guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced me to a $50 fine.
 

Elm Creek Smith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
204
Location
In the county.
I'm assuming that the disorderly conduct was a misdemeanor. I'd say pay the fine and be done with it. An appeal would be expensive, and unless your attorney is your brother-in-law like mine it'll cost a ton. I think you got a raw deal.

ECS

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I was found not guilty on the charge of menacing. The jury found me guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced me to a $50 fine.

You never should have been charged with menacing or DC. You need to appeal. I can't believe someone hasn't offered to help you with attorney fees and so forth, like the NRA or SAF. They had no right to search you, disarm you, search your vehicle or charge you with any crime that they say arose because of their illegal actions. I would absolutely appeal this. We need a good case such as this before the KYSC. I just don't see how you could have been found guilty of this charge. Your lawyer must not have argued the facts that should have been argued? You deserve compensation. If this all arised because they disarmed you at a check-point then you deserve to be compensated for the suffering you have endured and the violation of your rights.

This needs to be argued from the issue of your rights being violated and the officer's illegal actions.

You are being punished for an activity that is completely legal and constitutionally protected. That is bogus!
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
The motion to supress was an attempt to negate a trial. What was at issue was officer testimony. So it will be a trial on officer testimony of my reaction to their overstep of authority and the like. What I did was nowhere near illegal, but as some of you might know from personal experience that won't stop them from trying to prosecute me. I hope that the jury is able to derive fact from fiction more easily then these officers are able to fabricate their story. It never ceases to amaze me how the story progressively gets WORSE as it is fabricated by prosecution and these officers. Fortunately for me we have them on record with previous statements.

And this is why very smart OCers always carry covert video&audio equipment. That way when some crap gets pulled they have their lawyer introduce it as evidence in court and watch the "back pedalling" begin as officers try to duck perjury charges. ;)
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
Not surprised they found you guilty on the disorderly conduct charge. Most jury's today are filled with a generation of "COPS" tv show watchers. Who believe to question anything from our "gods in blue" is if not heresy, is at least a crime...:rolleyes: "Don't matter what duh law says you mouth off to a cop you going to jail - I seen it on "COPS" a million times." :uhoh:
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Not surprised they found you guilty on the disorderly conduct charge. Most jury's today are filled with a generation of "COPS" tv show watchers. Who believe to question anything from our "gods in blue" is if not heresy, is at least a crime...:rolleyes: "Don't matter what duh law says you mouth off to a cop you going to jail - I seen it on "COPS" a million times." :uhoh:

Therein rests the problem - juries have the need to find 'em guilty of sumpthin.

In many events, I would prefer to be tried soley by a judge.
 

MrOverlay

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Olive Hill, Kentucky, USA
You never should have been charged with menacing or DC. You need to appeal. I can't believe someone hasn't offered to help you with attorney fees and so forth, like the NRA or SAF. They had no right to search you, disarm you, search your vehicle or charge you with any crime that they say arose because of their illegal actions. I would absolutely appeal this. We need a good case such as this before the KYSC. I just don't see how you could have been found guilty of this charge. Your lawyer must not have argued the facts that should have been argued? You deserve compensation. If this all arised because they disarmed you at a check-point then you deserve to be compensated for the suffering you have endured and the violation of your rights.

This needs to be argued from the issue of your rights being violated and the officer's illegal actions.

You are being punished for an activity that is completely legal and constitutionally protected. That is bogus!

Because this was a misdemeanor his appeal would be to the Circuit Court, and if I am correct, it would be on the trial record for errors not on the outcome. An appeal above that, to the Court of Appeals would be discrectionary on the courts part. Getting a misdemeanor case to the Kentucky Supreme Court is almost impossible.
 

langzaiguy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
916
Location
Central KY
No, CC surely isn't DC, but I would say cursing at the officer and causing a scene, and not cooperating would be.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2
 
Top