Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The CT Barfly Breach of Peace Clarification Thread

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337

    The CT Barfly Breach of Peace Clarification Thread

    There's been plenty of chatter about the Goldberg case and what it meant as far as 4A/RAS/PC...but I would like to get some additional clarification regarding the BOP statute CGS 53a-181.

    Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.

    (b) Breach of the peace in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.



    It would seem to me that the most unfavorable reading of BOP (in favor of arrest) would be to argue that the OC'er

    1. recklessly created a risk of inconvenience/annoyance/alarm; AND
    2. created a public and hazardous/physically offensive condition by the act (OC); AND
    3. did not have a license or privilege to OC

    With a valid permit, BOP could not reasonably be charged...and there seems to be no reasonable way for officers to disagree, which makes the Goldberg case such an anomaly.

    I hope I am not missing something.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    There's been plenty of chatter about the Goldberg case and what it meant as far as 4A/RAS/PC...but I would like to get some additional clarification regarding the BOP statute CGS 53a-181.

    Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests.

    (b) Breach of the peace in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor.



    It would seem to me that the most unfavorable reading of BOP (in favor of arrest) would be to argue that the OC'er

    1. recklessly created a risk of inconvenience/annoyance/alarm; AND
    2. created a public and hazardous/physically offensive condition by the act (OC); AND
    3. did not have a license or privilege to OC

    With a valid permit, BOP could not reasonably be charged...and there seems to be no reasonable way for officers to disagree, which makes the Goldberg case such an anomaly.

    I hope I am not missing something.
    Plenty of chatter????
    Your commenting on threads that are years old. When you do post you just try to start arguments or post duplicate threads for the sake of boredom.

    I wish someone would require your posts to be approved before allowing you to post.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by CTSurvivor View Post
    Plenty of chatter????
    Your commenting on threads that are years old. When you do post you just try to start arguments or post duplicate threads for the sake of boredom.

    I wish someone would require your posts to be approved before allowing you to post.
    I don't see an issue with his post; as you said .. threads are years old ... the law changes over time.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by CTSurvivor View Post
    Plenty of chatter????
    And this issue has been put to bed. Several times over.

    http://ctcarry.com/Permits/Unconcealed
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Hey I am really sorry I upset you, CTS...my heart bleeds for your frustration. Your meta-posting re: my post, otoh, is surely helpful to someone...somewhere. Just not sure who or where.

    Rich, thanks, I will click and read.

    David, thanks for the support...I'm not posting to impede anyone's understanding.

    Now that we have the Goldberg case, which was obviously improperly decided, is there any recourse to settle the question of whether an officer may have qualified immunity for making a wrongful arrest for clearly lawful behavior.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20080202231407!Beating-a-dead-horse.gif 
Views:	73 
Size:	18.7 KB 
ID:	10704  
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 08-07-2013 at 06:29 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    And this issue has been put to bed. Several times over.

    http://ctcarry.com/Permits/Unconcealed
    But people still do get arrested occasionally, right? So I would hardly consider it being "put to bed". Unfortunately.

    Good documents to read in your linked page; but I doubt any are admissible in court.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    But people still do get arrested occasionally, right? So I would hardly consider it being "put to bed". Unfortunately.

    Good documents to read in your linked page; but I doubt any are admissible in court.
    this is the fact that concerns me about the decision. i'd like to know whether there is now a cause of action for wrongful arrest now that the State Police have attempted to clarify/settle the law on OC or whether PDs are still entitled to qualified immunity. if the latter, i would think that arrests would continue to happen as a purely bullying tactic, since there's no recourse for arrestees.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 08-08-2013 at 11:05 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member brk913's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Plainville, CT
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by CT Barfly View Post
    i'd like to know whether there is now a cause of action for wrongful arrest now that the State Police have attempted to clarify/settle the law on OC or whether PDs are still entitled to qualified immunity. .
    IMHO I would say that LEOs in CT can no longer hide behind qualified immunity if they arrest someone for simply OC, 1st let's remember that the Goldberg criminal case was decided in his favor, the judge ruled no BOP as he was not breaking the law. When you look at the civil decision it states "that at the time OC was not widely recognized" thus an officer was covered under QI. Times have changed, memos have been released, any LEO who is still ignorant of the law will wind up paying for it.
    Member:, NRA Patron Life, NSSF, CCDL, CT Carry, MRPC and Bell City
    NRA Certified Instructor, Chief Range Safety Officer - Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety, Metallic Cartridge/Shotgun Shell Reloading - www.ctpistolpermit.com

  9. #9
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by brk913 View Post
    IMHO I would say that LEOs in CT can no longer hide behind qualified immunity if they arrest someone for simply OC, 1st let's remember that the Goldberg criminal case was decided in his favor, the judge ruled no BOP as he was not breaking the law. When you look at the civil decision it states "that at the time OC was not widely recognized" thus an officer was covered under QI. Times have changed, memos have been released, any LEO who is still ignorant of the law will wind up paying for it.
    Not like it really matters. When was the last time we saw someone get arrested for Breach of Peace for carrying openly?

    The assertions of this still being an issue in this thread are a complete fabrication without any evidence to support them.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Not like it really matters. When was the last time we saw someone get arrested for Breach of Peace for carrying openly?

    The assertions of this still being an issue in this thread are a complete fabrication without any evidence to support them.
    To clarify, this was an issue IN MY MIND...I tend to agree with brk913 but weird things happen and you never know if a cop has an axe to grind. Thanks for the reassurance, fwiw. I don't know what legal effect a few subsequent memos and months will have when there's an unfavorable 2nd Circuit case out there in the ether. As long as that decision is there, it's going to be a hurdle. There has been no change in the statute and the BFPE's own guidance is unfavorable to OC. So, while analysis of the statute leaves no doubt as to legality, there is enough information and misinformation so as to make OC a sketchy proposition in terms of wrongful arrest recourse. This is unfortunate.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 08-08-2013 at 01:01 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Not like it really matters. When was the last time we saw someone get arrested for Breach of Peace for carrying openly?

    The assertions of this still being an issue in this thread are a complete fabrication without any evidence to support them.
    Well, after 1 JAN the cops might use it as a pretext for stopping a carrier and "checking you and your mags" to see if you registered your >10 rd mags ... cops will likely threaten people with arrest to get them to voluntarily give them the mag and information...and to generally hassle citizens. Likely would not happen in every jurisdiction but in some places I have a feeling that this is exactly how the towns will behave.

    In fact, if one OCs then does this give RAS to check this out? The cop will say he thinks your mags are >10 rds (if they are or not). I'm sure some towns will claim that RAS is there ... Its BS but that's what they'll say.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, after 1 JAN the cops might use it as a pretext for stopping a carrier and "checking you and your mags" to see if you registered your >10 rd mags ... cops will likely threaten people with arrest to get them to voluntarily give them the mag and information...and to generally hassle citizens. Likely would not happen in every jurisdiction but in some places I have a feeling that this is exactly how the towns will behave.

    In fact, if one OCs then does this give RAS to check this out? The cop will say he thinks your mags are >10 rds (if they are or not). I'm sure some towns will claim that RAS is there ... Its BS but that's what they'll say.
    The Black case says no RAS for legal OC...but that's the 4th Circuit. I think Goldberg stated the opposite...turning 4A jurisprudence on its head. I'm sure Rich will be along in a minute b--chslap me if i'm wrong. It has been a few days since reading Goldberg so i am operating off a fading memory.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 08-08-2013 at 06:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

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