Ah, you beat me to it! I was going to post this as well. Excellent case to read!
I saw one of the most absurd things I have ever read from a LEO in this one, if it weren't so disgusting what they were trying to get away with, it would be laughable. In trying to show he had reason to believe that a suspect was "nervous", a LEO actually testified to this version of events:
Black stood up, said he was going home, and began walking
towards the apartments. Officer Zastrow, who was
approximately five feet from Black, walked in front of Black
and told him that he was not free to leave and he should sit
down. In response, Black said "I can’t go home?" or "I can’t
leave?" and continued walking away.
Officer Zastrow then grabbed Black’s left bicep with his
left hand. According to Officer Zastrow, he could feel Black’s
"extremely fast" pulse through Black’s t-shirt, which he
believed was a sign of nervousness.
Unbelievable! When was the last time someone took your pulse through a shirt, while squeezing your bicep!?
Also, here is the slap-down on the legally carried, and properly holstered firearm by one of the gentlemen being used as RAS to detain the rest of them:
Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina,
which permit its residents to openly carry firearms, see
generally N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 14-415.10 to 14-415.23,
Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Government
contends that because other laws prevent convicted
felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know
whether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until
they performed a records check. Additionally, the Government
avers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "go
about their business while allowing a stranger in their midst
to possess a firearm." We are not persuaded.
Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default
status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to
openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more,
cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a
justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections
for lawfully armed individuals in those states. United States
v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993). Here, Troupe’s
lawful display of his lawfully possessed firearm cannot be the
justification for Troupe’s detention. See St. John v. McColley,
653 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1161 (D.N.M. 2009) (finding no reasonable
suspicion where the plaintiff arrived at a movie theater
openly carrying a holstered handgun, an act which is
legal in the State of New Mexico.) That the officer had never
seen anyone in this particular division openly carry a weapon
also fails to justify reasonable suspicion. From our understanding
of the laws of North Carolina, its laws apply uniformly
and without exception in every single division, and
every part of the state. Thus, the officer’s observation is irrational
and fails to give rise to reasonable suspicion. To hold
otherwise would be to give the judicial imprimatur to the
dichotomy in the intrusion of constitutional protections.
Additionally, even if the officers were justified in detaining
Troupe for exercising his constitutional right to bear arms,
reasonable suspicion as to Troupe does not amount to, and is
not particularized as to Black, and we refuse to find reasonable
suspicion merely by association.
Finally, at the end, the court tossed in this little jewel, which I find fascinating in and of itself:
The facts of this case give us cause to pause and ponder the
slow systematic erosion of Fourth Amendment protections for
a certain demographic. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., we are reminded that "we are tied together in a single
garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of
mutuality," that our individual freedom is inextricably bound
to the freedom of others. Thus, we must ensure that the Fourth
Amendment rights of
all individuals are protected.
Wow.
I don't like felons carrying guns any more than the next guy, but these clown LEOs deserved to lose this one.
TFred
