Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government v. Stoke

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    sparta ky
    Posts
    251

    Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government v. Stoke

    In Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government v. Stoke, 2008 WL 2468757 (Ky.
    App. 2008), Stoke was an employee of a local gun store. He was spotted with
    an unconcealed handgun while at a nearby restaurant and LMPD was notified.
    (There was no allegation that he did anything with the gun, or that the location
    prohibited weapons, just that he had it holstered on his person.) They located
    him as he returned to the gun store and pulled in behind him. Officers
    approached him with weapons drawn and gave him contradictory commands.
    One of the officers seized his weapon. Despite being told by the owner that the
    subject was disabled by a bone disease, and officer forced him to the ground
    and handcuffed him, causing him intense pain. After confirming that there was
    no reason to hold him, he was yanked up by the handcuffs, again causing injury.
    The handcuffs were removed and his gun returned to him.
    Stoke filed a lawsuit, asserting false arrest and battery. The Kentucky Supreme
    Court ultimately determined that although Metro Louisville itself is immune from
    suit (as it gained the status of a political subdivision / county at merger), that the
    officers themselves bore some responsibility.
    Specifically, the Court stated:
    Though we know of no law prohibiting a private citizen from carrying an
    unconcealed firearm, we acknowledge that the frequency of such behavior
    in major metropolitan areas is sufficiently rare that we cannot say that the
    officer's decision to make an investigatory stop was not “a good faith
    judgment call[ ] made in a legally uncertain environment.
    The Court agreed that officers may “perform investigatory detentions
    when they have articulable suspicion that the detainee is engaged in
    criminal activity.”1 As such, the Court agreed the officers were entitled
    to official immunity on the detention, as they had, “at worse, a
    ‘reasonable misapprehension” of the constitutional law governing the
    circumstances.” However, the Court did not extend the immunity the
    treatment Stokes alleged, which included that the officers “(1) issued
    conflicting commands; (2) forced him at gunpoint to the ground and
    handcuffed him in a rough manner despite warnings about his frailness;
    and (3) otherwise treated him roughly without any legitimate cause.” The
    Court noted that the allegations indicated that the “officer's treatment of
    him went well beyond that which was necessary to conduct a reasonable
    investigatory stop” as he was apparently completely cooperative. The
    case was remanded back and no further legal action was taken, which
    suggests the case was ultimately settled by Louisville Metro.



    1. This case says (we acknowledge that the frequency of such behavior
    in major metropolitan areas is sufficiently rare that we cannot say that the
    officer's decision to make an investigatory stop was not “a good faith
    judgment call[ ] made in a legally uncertain environment.) ((remember this is a 2008 case not that old))
    Does this mean they have RAS in the big cities to stop you for OC?
    2. Also (officer's treatment of him went well beyond that which was necessary to conduct a reasonable
    investigatory stop” as he was apparently completely cooperative)
    So if we don't cooperate IE no ID shown, keep month shut ect. then they are entitled
    to official immunity when they “(1) issued conflicting commands; (2) force you at gunpoint to the ground and
    handcuffed you in a rough manner; and (3) otherwise treat you roughly without any legitimate cause."
    3. Any update (The case was remanded back and no further legal action was taken, which
    suggests the case was ultimately settled by Louisville Metro.)


    Mike

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Was this a memo of his decision regarding a motion to dismiss?

    If so, it means nothing but that the case will continue with the defendant's left .. in my state there is an agency that has the authority to waive immunity issues and allow a case to proceed against the state or other immunity protected groups that they have jurisdiction over...don't know if this state does..

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    sparta ky
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Was this a memo of his decision regarding a motion to dismiss?

    If so, it means nothing but that the case will continue with the defendant's left .. in my state there is an agency that has the authority to waive immunity issues and allow a case to proceed against the state or other immunity protected groups that they have jurisdiction over...don't know if this state does..
    This is a Kentucky Court of Appeals case analysis.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •