Albuquerque Police Arrest Man For Carrying Legal Weapons

http://abq.policecomplaints.info/blog/cops_arrest_man_exercising_second_amendment_rights.html
"Albuquerque police recently arrested and charged a man who was apparently doing nothing more than carrying a firearm.
According to public records obtained by Police Complaints, the man was seen near San Pedro and Central one evening in August, riding a bicycle and carrying a rifle. Out of respect for his privacy, we have chosen not to release the man’s identity. But we can tell you about the officers who stopped him."

"may I blink?" ... what a joke ... don't like a guy with a rifle? Then follow and watch him if you like...

St John v McColley

This is going to be expensive for the officers, the department, and the city. St John v McColley says it all. This was in the 10th circuit--in New Mexico--Alamagordo in fact and serves notice that this action was VERY illegal and the officers should have known what they were doing was wrong.

It is indeed disturbing that the police cannot seem to follow or even understand the laws. If I were the guy in question I would absolutely be filing a law suit. These kinds of things are unacceptable.

Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

I just try to see both sides of the issue.

cloudcroft said:

Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

I just try to see both sides of the issue.

Click to expand...

In light of the heavy increase in seditious writings in recent years, checking out your computer may be in order.

Does your examination of both sides of the issue extend to ratifying government's implied argument that exercising an enumerated right justifiably gives rise to suspicion? Did your examination of both sides of the issue include slippery slope?

cloudcroft said:

I just try to see both sides of the issue.

Click to expand...

I am very surprised to see this from you.

There is only one point here. Were the actions against the law? If not, no reason for suspicion. Hence- no reason for being detained.

You CAN NOT assume wrong-doing.

The APD should pay for this, big-time.

cloudcroft said:

I just try to see both sides of the issue.

Click to expand...

Yes, me too.

Side 1: cops had no right to harass the guy

Side 2: cops are the one in the wrong

@ McBeth

Please read what Cloudcroft actually wrote.

Perhaps my recent trip to the Optometrist (to get new glasses, to see things better) didn't go as well as I had thought?

...will check with my doctor and get back to you critics later...

;-)

cloudcroft said:

Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

I just try to see both sides of the issue.

Click to expand...

You make some good observations. I know that talking with ones relatives is a way to start dialog. The Holidays are coming maybe we could share our OC/CC No C opinions. I always carry a firearm it's(they) are never out of arms reach unless its at one of those place deemed a Coroner's Employment Zone aka Pistol Free Zone.

Communication is always key to winning the hearts and minds of the masses. What better place to start than family. With any luck they will pass the conversation along.

On a side note* both the OP & I have both been illegally detained ourselves for OC in MI. It is always for a concerned caller that they (LE) show up. It's always "how do we know you're not a felon"? I have on one occasion answered in the politest voice I could muster: " Well officer ____ based on the clear violations of the law that have taken place so far, I guess I should be asking you that question." Response: F@#K YOU! Funny thing is whenever there is a group of OCers together it is rare that they are ever approached by LE. I guess Felons never assemble in groups?

There are some very good police out there, this I know to be the case from personal experience. However when a good officer does not do anything to stop a bad officer/criminal, doesn't he/she too become what they are supposed to be fighting?

Police arrested the man and charged him with disorderly conduct and concealing identity. No firearms-related charges were filed. However, Officer Marcia Benavides is heard on video explaining that they stopped the man simply because he was seen carrying a weapon:

Click to expand...

30-20-1. Disorderly conduct.
Disorderly conduct consists of:
A. engaging in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct which tends to disturb the peace; or
B. maliciously disturbing, threatening or, in an insolent manner, intentionally touching any house occupied by any person.
Whoever commits disorderly conduct is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.


30-22-3. Concealing identity/
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.



Unless the gentleman in question had identification with a name/address different than his true identity, I doubt a "concealing name" charge is going to stick. I'd be willing to bet (even without seeing the incident report) that what he did was refuse to answer when his name was demanded.

As was pointed out in the video, the caller was anonymous. Anonymous callers' rights should in no way ever take precedent over anyone else's- in this case the person riding his bike down the street in a legal manner.

As far as identification- show me the law in this state where it says you must carry ID, and identify yourself to an officer who has no legal reason to detain you.

When did this happen. The video looks to be time stamped 02/12/2007. Is this old news or am I reading the time stamp wrong? The "Case History" link in the story says the arrest took place in August 2012 and the charges were dismissed against the man on Nov 5 2012

This actually happened in Aug 2012. The date stamp on the officers lapel cam was wrong. This happens when power from the device backup battery that keeps the bios info is lost - much like your old computer when the backup battery [usually a little coin battery on the motherboard] dies and is replaced.

On the face of this arrest, APD is certainly open to legal action for violating this mans Constitutional rights in NM. However, without more information, it's hard to make a sound judgment. Based on what we see in the video and the information that's generally available, it sure looks like APD is liable but we certainly do not have all the information. Comments about the mans appearance - "skinhead" - are intended to portray him in an unfavorable light and are unfounded.

This is going to be an interesting case to watch. I think APD is going to have to really dig deep to justify their actions. In NM, the mere presence of a firearm is not probable cause for an arrest. As to withholding identity, it does not appear the 30-22-3 applies in this case.

Steve Aikens

Story update

http://abq.policecomplaints.info/blog/update_on_child-tasering_and_firearms_arrest.html


Case dismissed - officer failed to show up for the court hearing.

NavyMike said:

http://abq.policecomplaints.info/blog/update_on_child-tasering_and_firearms_arrest.html


Case dismissed - officer failed to show up for the court hearing.

Click to expand...

Criminal case, yes; civil case- yet to come.

AH.74 said:

Criminal case, yes; civil case- yet to come.

Click to expand...

Good thing the Abq taxpayers have really deep pockets and continue to employ LE who like to push the boundaries of the law.

I noted that police complaints makes a statement about the respect of the legal carry in a vehicle, but it should be noted that the NM supreme court overturned long held NM case law and now allows the LEO to temporarily seize a firearm for 'officer safety.'

This is something that NM Citizen's need to codify against.

9/7/12 – NM Supreme Ct Ruling that officers can take possession of firearm during stop.

nuc65 said:

Good thing the Abq taxpayers have really deep pockets and continue to employ LE who like to push the boundaries of the law.

I noted that police complaints makes a statement about the respect of the legal carry in a vehicle, but it should be noted that the NM supreme court overturned long held NM case law and now allows the LEO to temporarily seize a firearm for 'officer safety.'

This is something that NM Citizen's need to codify against.

9/7/12 – NM Supreme Ct Ruling that officers can take possession of firearm during stop.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What does the vehicle law have to do with it?

First of all, please give us citations to the supreme court ruling and the long-held case law you are referring to. A date is not enough.

Second of all, it has been codified: in the NMAC it has been established since the CC act went into effect that officers have the right to disarm licensees. If they have the right to disarm licensees, non-licensees would also fall under this right of officers (NMAC 10.8.2.20).

It is not an uncommon thing or even unreasonable for officers to have this ability, in many other states it is the same. Are you saying officers should not be able to do this?

cloudcroft said:

Most people -- even cops I guess, fearing being held responsible if such a guys DOES do something later and they did NOT stop and check him -- still see these people as possible psycho-shooters on their way to or from a shooting incident RATHER than an armed citizen exercising his rights (I didn't include "her" because I don't know of any woman likely to be carrying like this). People don't see ENOUGH OCers out there in public to get used to it yet...and probably NEVER will, as FEW people OC in ANY state, not just CO. VERY FEW people in ANY state even CC, and the subset of OCers is a fraction of that CC set.

That's just how it is nowadays...how do you sort it out?

Didn't read the article so I'm NOT addressing the "arrest" part (if he was found to be acting legally, then OF COURSE he shouldn't have been arrested -- that's a given), I'm just saying that in light of an increasing # of workplace/school/mall/restaurant (and so on) shooting incidents nowadays (and more to come), "checking the guy out" may be in order.

I just try to see both sides of the issue.

Click to expand...

Trying to see both sides is one thing but to restrict liberty and freedom is another.

Would you be comfortable with the goverment and cops restricting your travel for security reasons, how about inplanting a tracking device?

Lets start with them pulling over cars just to check if they have a DL?

If you would like to live in a police state like Germany in the late 30's and 40's or the USSR in the 70-80's then that is what you advicating by saying cops can just stop someone that isn't doing anything wrong.

People get into car accidents
People shoot up places

Maybe if places like schools and theaters (Aurara) didn't restrict LAC from carrying you wouldn't have as many shooting instead of going after people doing nothing wrong.

I don't want to live in a police state and be told where to work, when to take a vacation, where to go, and how to live.

Giving up freedom for "percived" security is a good way to loose both......

Tomas Jefferson?