imported post
September 11 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
On the morning of September 11, 2009 I was unlawfully detained by several Sunnyvale police officers. I was contacted while a TASER gun was drawn and at the “alert” position, I was detained without reasonable articulable suspicion, I was frisked, and my property was seized on multiple occasions. Numerous Supreme Court Case Laws were violated as well as my constitutionally protected rights to be secure in my person and effects, and to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Two officers; Lt. Dale and Officer Odle, intentionally committed these unlawful actions. It is unfathomable that the Sunnyvale Police Department employs officers who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and fail to grasp the very basics of what our country has held to be the most important to its people.
California Penal Code 12031(e) states:
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.
This statute does not allow for the serial number of the firearm in question to be run. It merely allows for a cursory check to see if the gun has a round in the chamber or any rounds in an inserted magazine. Any competent person familiar with firearms can perform this check in less than 10 seconds. By needlessly detaining me beyond the examination of my firearm, my person was unlawfully seized, a clear violation of the fourth amendment.
In Coolidge vs. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court explained when evidence which came in to "plain view" could be used. The court held that, "Under certain circumstances, the police may, without a warrant seize, evidence in 'plain view,' though not for that reason alone, and only when the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent." Your officers explained to me, in no uncertain terms, that they were seizing my firearm a second time for the sole purpose of running the serial numbers. This clearly violates the guidelines set out in Coolidge.
In a later case, Arizona vs. Hicks, the court put even stricter guidelines on the "plain view" doctrine. The Supreme Court ruling stated that, "Probable cause is required to invoke the 'plain view' doctrine as it applies to seizures." In my case, not only was there no probable cause, but there wasn't even reasonable suspicion. I explained to the officers in question that they were not within their rights to run the serial number of my sidearm, my complaints went unheard. These officers clearly have violated this guideline of the Supreme Court as well.
As you may know, California at one time had a "stop and identify" statute, but it was declared unconstitutionally vague in Kolender v. Lawson. Since that time citizens in California who are not operating a motor vehicle cannot be compelled to identify themselves. In Brown v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that, despite the fact that Texas had a stop and identify statute, "The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct." Once again, since these officers lacked reasonable suspicion, they violated this guideline of the Supreme Court.
When these officers searched me for weapons, they did so without having reasonable suspicion that I had or was about to commit a crime. In Terry vs. Ohio the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer could perform an exterior search of a person's clothes provided that the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion. Your officers searched me without reasonable suspicion, clearly violating the Supreme Court's guidelines.
These court rulings are not new or obscure; they are well-established and widely known. With the multitude of flagrant fourth amendment violations, I would undoubtedly prevail in a 42 USC 1983 complaint against these officers and the Sunnyvale Police Department. Without severe punishment against these officers, I fail to see how Sunnyvale Police Department can continue to perform its duties in an ethical manner. I am a lawful, peaceful citizen. I demand that steps be taken to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
Sincerely,
[size=[font=Calibri][/font]]
XXXXXXXX
SVDPS response:
i filled out one of their generic froms to request a copy of the police report and the audio from the radio traffic and 911 calls. this is what i got from them:
kind of strange,call came in at 9:11 on 9/11