-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Roanoke police actions spark lawsuit
- Thread starter Bill in VA
- Start date
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
There may be a good chance that this man can "penetrate the corporate vale" or in other words, go after the officers themselves in his suit for acting outside of the law. Hopefully, he has this on a recorder.
There may be a good chance that this man can "penetrate the corporate vale" or in other words, go after the officers themselves in his suit for acting outside of the law. Hopefully, he has this on a recorder.
Tosta Dojen
Regular Member
imported post
I have it on good authority that the entire event was captured on police dashcam.
I have it on good authority that the entire event was captured on police dashcam.
fully_armed_biker
Regular Member
imported post
Hopefully he's already sent them his FOIArequest before the dashcam recording mysteriously disappears.
Hopefully he's already sent them his FOIArequest before the dashcam recording mysteriously disappears.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Another case of the only ones abusing citizens who flex their rights.
Another case of the only ones abusing citizens who flex their rights.
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
fully_armed_biker wrote:
fully_armed_biker wrote:
Once the suit's been filed in the USDC, the plaintiff's attorneycan issue a subpoena duces tecum to the chief of police, which is a command in the name of the court that he show up with the tape, punishable as contempt for failure to comply.
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Bill in VA wrote:
At that point, the cop had actual notice that the plaintiff had a valid concealed carry permit. Thus, the question of whether or not he had a gun with him was completely irrelevant to any basis the cop may have had for believing he had reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.
The plaintiff had an absolute right not to engage in chit-chat if he didn't feel like it (Fifth Amendment rights are not involved here, because there's no suggestion that the plaintiff was under suspicion of, or had committed, any crime).
Since the cop had no basis for detaining him beyond the time necessary to write the ticket and issue the summons, there's no question that's false arrest. I assume that federal question jurisdiction has been invoked in order to get the case in front of the USDC, probably under 42USC1982 or 1983, "violation of civil rights under color of state authority". That statute is very strictly confined by the federal courts because if its language were taken literally, they'd be flooded with cases; so it tends to be permitted only in cases where there's some "hostile animus" based on constitutionally protected classes, such as race, religion, national origin, etc.
I hope the lawyer argues that people who arm themselves in preparation for self defense is a constitutionally protected class, given the language of 2nd Amend.
Bill in VA wrote:
At that point, the cop had actual notice that the plaintiff had a valid concealed carry permit. Thus, the question of whether or not he had a gun with him was completely irrelevant to any basis the cop may have had for believing he had reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.
The plaintiff had an absolute right not to engage in chit-chat if he didn't feel like it (Fifth Amendment rights are not involved here, because there's no suggestion that the plaintiff was under suspicion of, or had committed, any crime).
Since the cop had no basis for detaining him beyond the time necessary to write the ticket and issue the summons, there's no question that's false arrest. I assume that federal question jurisdiction has been invoked in order to get the case in front of the USDC, probably under 42USC1982 or 1983, "violation of civil rights under color of state authority". That statute is very strictly confined by the federal courts because if its language were taken literally, they'd be flooded with cases; so it tends to be permitted only in cases where there's some "hostile animus" based on constitutionally protected classes, such as race, religion, national origin, etc.
I hope the lawyer argues that people who arm themselves in preparation for self defense is a constitutionally protected class, given the language of 2nd Amend.
T Dubya
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Good thread! Be sure to keep us posted in you hear anything.
Good thread! Be sure to keep us posted in you hear anything.
ProShooter
Regular Member
imported post
user wrote:
user wrote:
Based on the information presented in the OP, I completely agree with your assessment User. Looks like someone panicked/screwed up/overstepped thier authority on this one.....I'm anxious to see how this one pans out.
ODA 226
Regular Member
imported post
ProShooter wrote:
I agree with this 100% too.
Maybe the cop wanted to see if he had painted the muzzle of his handgun orange?! :shock::what:
ProShooter wrote:
I agree with this 100% too.
Maybe the cop wanted to see if he had painted the muzzle of his handgun orange?! :shock::what:
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
Anyone have access to PACER? Case # 7:2009cv00525
Anyone have access to PACER? Case # 7:2009cv00525
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
Actually, VA is NOT a "must inform" state, so the plaintiff was under no obligation to tell the officer that he had a CHP or that he was carrying.
Hopefully this guy wins his case.
HOWEVER, this just goes to show that if you don't do anything in a car that will get you pulled over, these incidents would never happen in the first place. If the plaintif had not let his registration expire, this whole incident would never have occurred.
If you're gonna carry, you need to be sure you keep your "ducks in a row". Keep your vehicle's tags and registration current. Make sure your lights all work. Don't drive like an idiot. If you don't get pulled over, the police never get the chance to stomp on your rights.
Actually, VA is NOT a "must inform" state, so the plaintiff was under no obligation to tell the officer that he had a CHP or that he was carrying.
Hopefully this guy wins his case.
HOWEVER, this just goes to show that if you don't do anything in a car that will get you pulled over, these incidents would never happen in the first place. If the plaintif had not let his registration expire, this whole incident would never have occurred.
If you're gonna carry, you need to be sure you keep your "ducks in a row". Keep your vehicle's tags and registration current. Make sure your lights all work. Don't drive like an idiot. If you don't get pulled over, the police never get the chance to stomp on your rights.
paramedic70002
Regular Member
imported post
I read over on defensivecarry.com that the guy was filing his suit Pro Se (no attorney) and how this could be dangerous for progunners (I agree). You know what they say about fools and their attorneys! I initially read about the case thru NRA so hopefully some attorney somewhere can hook up with the plaintiff.
They probably found out about the CHP through their computers and got peeved because he didn't give them a complementary notification, thus committing the offense of "contempt of cop" so they went on a fishing expedition way down the money hole. I hope he gets an attorney and the anti-gun City of Roanoke gets a $$$ lesson.
I read over on defensivecarry.com that the guy was filing his suit Pro Se (no attorney) and how this could be dangerous for progunners (I agree). You know what they say about fools and their attorneys! I initially read about the case thru NRA so hopefully some attorney somewhere can hook up with the plaintiff.
They probably found out about the CHP through their computers and got peeved because he didn't give them a complementary notification, thus committing the offense of "contempt of cop" so they went on a fishing expedition way down the money hole. I hope he gets an attorney and the anti-gun City of Roanoke gets a $$$ lesson.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
yep, yep, yep. lawsuit city.
yep, yep, yep. lawsuit city.
mobeewan
Regular Member
imported post
"... Stevenson was driving along Williamson Road to pick up his daughter from church when Roanoke police Officer Jamie A. Kwiecinski stopped him. Stevenson was given a summons because his registration had expired...."
".... Online court records indicated that the expired registration charge against Stevenson was dismissed in June."
Looks like someone was trying to make nice with the victim after someone higher up the police food chain realized they screwed up.
"... Stevenson was driving along Williamson Road to pick up his daughter from church when Roanoke police Officer Jamie A. Kwiecinski stopped him. Stevenson was given a summons because his registration had expired...."
".... Online court records indicated that the expired registration charge against Stevenson was dismissed in June."
Looks like someone was trying to make nice with the victim after someone higher up the police food chain realized they screwed up.
T Dubya
Campaign Veteran
imported post
An LEO gave me a lecture in New Market Va. (Shenandoah County) not long ago. I even started a thread about it.
This sort of thing was bound to happen sooner or later.
An LEO gave me a lecture in New Market Va. (Shenandoah County) not long ago. I even started a thread about it.
This sort of thing was bound to happen sooner or later.
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
T Dubya wrote:
Sorry... Not in Virginia. I do it anyway. I think being polite may possibly be the difference between a warning and paying $$$ to the State for a violation that I am most certainly guilty of comitting.
I'm pretty sure my polite manners, demeanor and honesty to a Trooper a week ago DEFINITELY got me out of a SERIOUS ticket. I was driving like a moron, changing lanes quickly in heavy traffic and speeding way over the limit. I drove away with a verbal warning.
We don't have a duty to inform LE that we are carrying in VA. If you have a CHP, it comes up in BIG RED LETTERS across their computer screen when they run your tags. I tell them anyway. It lowers the stress level for the LEO if they encounter a calm,honest, forthrightcitizen rather than an agressive (or mute) Constitutional Scholar that KNOWS HIS RIGHTS.
Roanoke LE screwed the pooch, no doubt about it. No excuse for them. Just remember we all make choices and decisions that lead toothers making (or being forced to make) choices and decisions.They were ignorant of the law and feltcornered. In his ignorance, the officer chose to "save face" rather than seek "higher enlightenment" from someone more experienced.
Sometimes one (or both) parties make bad decisions that impact their future, livelihood or even their health.
Its all about choices and decisions. Hopefully we all make the correct ones when the feces hits the rotating oscillator.
[stepping down from soapbox after donating my $.02 worth]
mike
T Dubya wrote:
Lectured you about "duty to inform", no doubt?
Sorry... Not in Virginia. I do it anyway. I think being polite may possibly be the difference between a warning and paying $$$ to the State for a violation that I am most certainly guilty of comitting.
I'm pretty sure my polite manners, demeanor and honesty to a Trooper a week ago DEFINITELY got me out of a SERIOUS ticket. I was driving like a moron, changing lanes quickly in heavy traffic and speeding way over the limit. I drove away with a verbal warning.
We don't have a duty to inform LE that we are carrying in VA. If you have a CHP, it comes up in BIG RED LETTERS across their computer screen when they run your tags. I tell them anyway. It lowers the stress level for the LEO if they encounter a calm,honest, forthrightcitizen rather than an agressive (or mute) Constitutional Scholar that KNOWS HIS RIGHTS.
Roanoke LE screwed the pooch, no doubt about it. No excuse for them. Just remember we all make choices and decisions that lead toothers making (or being forced to make) choices and decisions.They were ignorant of the law and feltcornered. In his ignorance, the officer chose to "save face" rather than seek "higher enlightenment" from someone more experienced.
Sometimes one (or both) parties make bad decisions that impact their future, livelihood or even their health.
Its all about choices and decisions. Hopefully we all make the correct ones when the feces hits the rotating oscillator.
[stepping down from soapbox after donating my $.02 worth]
mike
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
paramedic70002 wrote:
I looked up the case (PACER wants the case number in the form, 7:09-525, by the way), and took a look at the docket sheet and filings.
My first thought was, "Oh, hell, another pro-se case." My view, if I may be frank, is that pro-se cases make for bad law. People who don't understand the rules of procedure and evidence, in particular, engineer themselves into horrible positions, which the Court will then enshrine as a precedent. This only makes things worse for everybody. Cops behave the way they do, in part, because they know what judges will let them get away with. So I was pretty discouraged when I saw the plaintiff was going his own way with it.
Then I read the complaint. I thought one paragraph (44) was excessively editorialized, and doesn't state a fact that the defendant can either admit or deny. And I wonderedhow the plaintiff intends to prove thathis allegationsregarding the city's police department having a policy or practice of unlawful dentention. Finally, I would have added state law claims for conversion, trespass to chattels, action for insulting words, and slander per se.
But overall, I thought the complaint was very well written, in proper form, and ought to be very effective. I can't wait to see the defendants' responses. Probably motions to dismiss. It looks to me like the plaintiff is an attorney, or has a good friend who is an attorney. Or else he's a really smart guy, a quick study, and knows how to do research.
I hope he's got some discovery ready to go out. Like, NOW. When you file in USDC, you're already behind the eight-ball with scheduling, so you'd best get your preliminary discovery ready before you even file suit.
It occurs to me that the cops involved, based on the facts stated in the complaint, are themselves criminally responsible, and ought to be indicted. First on the list: extortion, robbery, and grand larceny. When they took the plaintiff's personal property by use of threats, coercion, and physical violence (grabbing him and slapping handcuffs on him), that was both extortion and robbery. It's a felony, because taking personal property from the person of another valued in excess of five dollars is grand larceny. Then there arethe misdemeanors of disturbing the peace, assault and battery. I would also argue that, when they were off on their own personal mission of roughing up a gun owner, they weren't actually engaged in their duties as police officers, and are thus also guilty of the crime of impersonating police officers. But that one's a stretch.
paramedic70002 wrote:
I looked up the case (PACER wants the case number in the form, 7:09-525, by the way), and took a look at the docket sheet and filings.
My first thought was, "Oh, hell, another pro-se case." My view, if I may be frank, is that pro-se cases make for bad law. People who don't understand the rules of procedure and evidence, in particular, engineer themselves into horrible positions, which the Court will then enshrine as a precedent. This only makes things worse for everybody. Cops behave the way they do, in part, because they know what judges will let them get away with. So I was pretty discouraged when I saw the plaintiff was going his own way with it.
Then I read the complaint. I thought one paragraph (44) was excessively editorialized, and doesn't state a fact that the defendant can either admit or deny. And I wonderedhow the plaintiff intends to prove thathis allegationsregarding the city's police department having a policy or practice of unlawful dentention. Finally, I would have added state law claims for conversion, trespass to chattels, action for insulting words, and slander per se.
But overall, I thought the complaint was very well written, in proper form, and ought to be very effective. I can't wait to see the defendants' responses. Probably motions to dismiss. It looks to me like the plaintiff is an attorney, or has a good friend who is an attorney. Or else he's a really smart guy, a quick study, and knows how to do research.
I hope he's got some discovery ready to go out. Like, NOW. When you file in USDC, you're already behind the eight-ball with scheduling, so you'd best get your preliminary discovery ready before you even file suit.
It occurs to me that the cops involved, based on the facts stated in the complaint, are themselves criminally responsible, and ought to be indicted. First on the list: extortion, robbery, and grand larceny. When they took the plaintiff's personal property by use of threats, coercion, and physical violence (grabbing him and slapping handcuffs on him), that was both extortion and robbery. It's a felony, because taking personal property from the person of another valued in excess of five dollars is grand larceny. Then there arethe misdemeanors of disturbing the peace, assault and battery. I would also argue that, when they were off on their own personal mission of roughing up a gun owner, they weren't actually engaged in their duties as police officers, and are thus also guilty of the crime of impersonating police officers. But that one's a stretch.