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.