Federal Court decision allows detention for open carry..... This must be countered.

Folks listen to the at odds show titled 'Attorney Steve Dulan, Independence day'

http://atoddsshow.com

In it you will hear Steve Dulan say that his client, Johann Deffert, has decided NOT to move forward with the appeal.

Take that for what it is, his lawyer and the NRA's top lawyer in MI. (Mr. Dulan) either making a huge error on the air, or (more likely) repeating what his client has told him. Or I'm just hearing things that aren't there???

Listen for yourself & make your own judgements.
Listen to the whole show to be entertained - or go directly to the 51:00 minute mark.

Federal Court decision allows detention for open carry..... This must be cou...

Map of fed courts of appeals -

FreeInAZ said:

Please note - that since this ruling will not be appealed, it now stands as case law for the entire 6th federal court district!

Click to expand...

I thought that this case was heard at the federal district court level, the lowest in the system, and as such did not establish restraint/precedent to other courts, even within the same district and who could in fact go the other way.

The map shown depicts the boundaries of the US Courts of Appeals, but does not demonstrate each district court's area of responsibility.

Federal Court decision allows detention for open carry..... This must be cou...

Sorry all - I did not state it clearly - since this ruling (could be cited by prosecutors from any jurisdiction in the 6th district) could it not be used to establish a defacto precedence, I guess is what I'm trying to say. If it takes hold, and surely it will be attempted by some prosecutor, the only way to see it stopped would be by an appeal by the person(s) affected? Correct? Atleast in the Western District of MI?

FreeInAZ said:

I did not state it clearly - since this ruling (could be cited by prosecutors from any jurisdiction in the 6th district) could it not be used to establish a defacto precedence, I guess is what I'm trying to say. If it takes hold, and surely it will be attempted by some prosecutor, the only way to see it stopped would be by an appeal by the person(s) affected? Correct? Atleast in the Western District of MI?

Click to expand...

Indeed some prosecutors will cherry pick singular decisions to bolster a case w/little or no other merit.

See background for Stare Decisis:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis

Then there is this:
http://www.constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm

:thumbsup:

Grapeshot said:

I thought that this case was heard at the federal district court level, the lowest in the system, and as such did not establish restraint/precedent to other courts, even within the same district and who could in fact go the other way.

The map shown depicts the boundaries of the US Courts of Appeals, but does not demonstrate each district court's area of responsibility.

Click to expand...

The map I'm looking at has a line up Michigan's middle, separating the Western District of Michigan (where Neff issued her Deffert v Moe decision) from the Eastern. It also shows the line across Ohio forming the Northern and Southern districts. (northrup originated in the Northern District of Ohio, then it became a 6th Circuit precedent in all the tan states when it was appealed)

Taxman, you miss the point that this was at the District Court level, not the Appeals Court or Supreme Court where precedent is established. District Court decisions carry some weight as they become part of case law, but no court is bound to follow their decision.

I think what is confusing is the two different uses of the word "district." There are Federal Districts dividing up the area of responsibility. Then there are District Courts which are inferior to the Appeal Courts that compromise the seat of authority in each Federal District. I beleive there are numerous District Courts within each Appeal Court's Federal District.

Have evidence to the contrary, let us see it.

Grapeshot said:

each Appeal Court's Federal District.

Click to expand...

Those "Districts" I call "Circuits".

MontanaResident said:

You can open carry or you can wear camo, but you cannot open carry and wear camo.

Click to expand...

Guess I better never leave my house! But then again, :idea: maybe my confederate flag hat will distract them from the camo and my gun :lol::banana:

Northrup precedent setting case & the Deffert Cast

This case has been bothering me so I followed up with Steve Dulan. Steve explained to me after consideration his client decided to defer to the Northup decision out of the 6th circuit. As per the legal landscape changed while their case was pending. In short the Northup case states clearly that OC in and of itself, is not a valid reason for a police stop in a state where OC is lawful conduct. This was the same point that Deffert was trying to make. Northrup beat their case to Cincinnati and the ruling is good for the entire 6th circuit, which includes all of Michigan.

The above is not my commentary but is Steve Dulans which I repeated with permission. He will be writing up something on it and I will be posting on my facebook pages with his citation.

My opinion is this was an excellent outcome as this was a precedent setting case which gave clear ground that OC is lawful and not a reason for a stop.

It is, but...judges look at what they would term the "totality of the circumstances". As I have always said and will continue saying, IF an officer can establish that there were other circumstances present that gave rise to a "reasonable suspicion" in the officer's mind, judges are very loathe to second guess an officer in the street.

Historically, we have dealt with officers (and departments) that showed their cards early in the game and actually admitted that what the officer thought of as "reasonable suspicion" was the fact the person was openly carrying a firearm. (It's not). What we see here, and will continue to increasingly find, is that officers are becoming more clever and developing other circumstances which, together with possession of a firearm, will give rise to courts finding the very low bar of reasonable suspicion having been met. Much like the common LEO refrain, "I detected the odor of Marihuana", which seems to magically turn an illegal stop into something courts find reasonable, these other circumstances are going to be the sticking point. The only suggestion that I can make is that when confronted by an officer DO NOT say anything more than you feel necessary...you never know how it's going to be twisted. Also, remain cool and collected and know that anything you say or do is being added to the list of "circumstances" present during the stop.

Dr Todd. I agree with some of what you're saying. The judicial system is flawed in that it has been politicized. In a perfect world there should be more clear rules behind how judged can rule preventing them from injecting political bias and sanctions and personal liability for legislating from the bench. The flow of lawsuits from circuit, appeals to supreme all depends on the political make up of the judges making the decisions. The most glaring example of this is the most recent SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare in which they rewrote the law to fit their political agenda of the makeup of the court. With that said all this is speculative. If everything as its suppose to be it doesn't matter how many excuses the officer makes for pulling someone over or stopping someone it would have to be proven in court. If people who OC record themselves it makes it easier to prove them wrong. And lastly this precident will be something everyone can point to as settled law. Court is not about what's right or wrong it's only about what can be proven. Only my opinions and in not a lawyer but just based on my experience.

Did Mr. Dulan explain how it was that the judge denied Mr. Deffert when the 6th clearly found in favor of the plaintiffs in the Northup case? Circumstances, as reported, appear to be exactly the same.

Fact 1: Both cases involve a person OC'ing, and an Anti with issues.

Fact 2: Both cases started with said Anti's calling 911.

Fact 3: Both cases resulted in unlawful detainment, search and seizure by uneducated/ignorant officers.

Does singing while walking down the street in camo (none of which is indicative of a crime, either singularly or combined) make that much of a difference compared to walking down the street with your wife?

Edit: And I'd STILL like to know why the GRPD officer has NOT been fired for endangering innocent civilian bystanders (people in SUV going between him and Deffert).

DeSchaine said:

Does singing while walking down the street in camo (none of which is indicative of a crime, either singularly or combined) make that much of a difference compared to walking down the street with your wife?

Click to expand...

Yes, in Officer Moe's careful application of Officer Moe's years of practical experience to Deffert's specific situation, according to Officer Moe.

And Judge Neff judiciously deferred to Officer Moe's superior knowledge of the situation.

Isn't our JustUs System wonderful?

According to the Appeals Court decision in Northrup, the gun was absolutely the only thing present that was even slightly out of the ordinary. According to Judge Neff's decision, normal people don't wear camo and normal people don't sing Disney tunes. (which Moe originally claimed was Johann Deffert "insanely talking to himself", but Moe gets to change his story and retain 100% credibility with the likes of Judge Neff)

Much was also made of the Deffert/Moe encounter taking place near a house of worship.
But to the best of my knowledge, Moe never even tried to claim that the standard M.O. of church shooters included openly carrying handguns in public while singing Disney cartoon songs.

Federal Court decision allows detention for open carry..... This must be cou...

http://youtu.be/U6vLAa-kylM


Hakuna Matata means no worries... unless you OC in Grand Rapids, MI.