Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: +1 for us

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    , ,

    Post imported post

    Here is the thread…

    News article…

    Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
    On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
    The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and twenty-five other states.Learn morehere.
    In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.
    Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.
    On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendmentbecause they seized and disarmed himeven though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L.[/i] (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).
    Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that

    [i]"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."
    Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that

    "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."
    Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia(seeadditional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin,Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
    Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
    NOTE: Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT

  2. #2
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Post imported post

    In the NM forum, St. John stated that a monetary settlement had been agreed upon. Unknown if it was per individual involved or collectively. Hopefully the former.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA

    Post imported post

    Wow, we should rent a bus and head up to the Vegas strip. Reading the Nevada forum, OC citizens always get harassed by the police. Sounds like we could get a big settlements.

Posting Permissions

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