Stevenson v. (Roanoke City police officers) Kwiecinski

On May 6, 2009, Roanoke City police officers Jamie Kwiecinski and Dwight Ayers accused me of violating a Virginia law that requires citizens with Concealed Handgun Permits to submit to questioning about their possession of firearms. On the basis of that allegation, they forcibly removed me from my truck, placed me in handcuffs, seized my handgun, performed thorough searches of my person and my truck, persistently interrogated me in spite of my requests for legal counsel, stuffed me in the back of a police car, and kept me in their custody for about an hour.

The law they accused me of violating does not exist.

I subsequently filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court to hold the officers accountable for their grievous violations of my civil rights. On July 23, 2010, Chief District Judge Glen Conrad dismissed the suit, ruling that because the officers believed they were acting appropriately, they are entitled to qualified immunity, and cannot be sued.

The court effectively held that the officers' ignorance of the law serves as an excuse for violating my civil rights. I intend to appeal the decision.

Recordings, transcripts, and filings are available at http://stevenson-v-kwiecinski.donortools.com/

Are you planning to appeal the ruling?

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Are you planning to appeal the ruling?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Tosta Dojen said:

I intend to appeal the decision.

Click to expand...

There's your answer.

For those wanting a citation, 2010 WL 2927964 or 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75268

ETA: This judge has decided 2 1983 decisions in the past decade which have been appealed to the 4th Circuit. Both were affirmed. Hope you have better luck.

So ignorance of the law IS an excuse, if your job is to enforce the law???

How far does this "immunity" go? What laws are they allowed to make up on the spot and arrest or detain people for because they "think it might be illegal" and suffer the law-abiding for their ignorance?

That's not just negligent, it's injurious.

wylde007 said:

How far does this "immunity" go? What laws are they allowed to make up on the spot and arrest or detain people for because they "think it might be illegal" and suffer the law-abiding for their ignorance?

Click to expand...

The answer:

It is a reasonableness test and unfortunately, I believe that the 4th Circuit will uphold this opinion. In prior cases (cited in this case), the 4th Circuit has held that:

... in holding our law enforcement personnel to an objective standard of behavior, our judgment must be tempered with reason. If we are to measure official action against an objective standard, it must be a standard which speaks to what a reasonable officer should or should not know about the law he is enforcing and the methodology of effecting its enforcement. Certainly we cannot expect police officers to carry surveying equipment and a Decennial Digest on patrol ...

Click to expand...

John

Administrator said:

The answer:

It is a reasonableness test and unfortunately, I believe that the 4th Circuit will uphold this opinion. In prior cases (cited in this case), the 4th Circuit has held that:




John

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more john!
The Eastern District has always been a tough court to prevail in and that's one of the reasons that I get annoyed with some of the hard rules some people spout.

I've heard "They can't do that" repeatedly, and the simple fact is...they do, do that and with a reasonable amount of immunity.

As the OP is finding out, justice ain't cheap and if there's any real chance of prevailing in this, it will be in a very detailed, very costly, appeal to the top.

Just going on the Cop's record where he had been sued and it took 6 years for the plaintiff to get a 20,000.00 settlement. The Officer seemed to think that was a long time for little money and I agree.

I'm a great believer in not showing ID and in that case the OP had already done it because of the ticket. I also accept the fact that I may be detained and maybe even arrested. That just goes with exercising rights.

I'll give the OP credit. He did nearly everything right after he decided not to answer the Cop. He stuck with it under considerable harassment and abuse.

He had a good clean recording and said very little.
He also has excellent taste in guns.:lol:

This case speaks volumes about Perks for Permits. The word "Privilege" was used repeatedly. The threat to take it away was made repeatedly.

The officer knew they OP had a permit and assumed he had to have a gun. The targets and ammo that were visible underscored it.

peter nap said:

That just goes with exercising rights.

Click to expand...

That may be the saddest statement I have ever heard.

"You have to expect to be arrested for exercising your rights."

Really? This is what it's come to... what a sad state of affairs.

I just listened to the audio tapes, and I am adsolutely infuriated. These cops should not be employed, let alone be protected by any rights-obliterating immunity.

I summize that no summons was ever issued for the non-existent charge. Was your CHP ever actually revoked, as the officers were so determined to have it done?

skidmark said:

Are you planning to appeal the ruling?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

That's the plan. Right now I'm trying to scrape together the $455 appeal fee, and I'm also looking for a new attorney. The attorney who has assisted me so far has been excellent, but has indicated that he will not be able to represent me on appeal.

Administrator said:

The answer:

It is a reasonableness test and unfortunately, I believe that the 4th Circuit will uphold this opinion. In prior cases (cited in this case), the 4th Circuit has held that:

... in holding our law enforcement personnel to an objective standard of behavior, our judgment must be tempered with reason. If we are to measure official action against an objective standard, it must be a standard which speaks to what a reasonable officer should or should not know about the law he is enforcing and the methodology of effecting its enforcement. Certainly we cannot expect police officers to carry surveying equipment and a Decennial Digest on patrol ...


John

Click to expand...

In applying that cite to this case, the court is effectively holding that we can't expect a police officer to know whether the law he's enforcing even exists, because that's an unreasonable standard. That pretty much kills Harlow's expectation that a reasonable official will know the law governing his conduct. If a police officer is required to know the law, but that requirement is limited to the point where he doesn't have to know whether the law is even on the books, then the requirement might as well not exist.

wylde007 said:

That may be the saddest statement I have ever heard.

"You have to expect to be arrested for exercising your rights."

Really? This is what it's come to... what a sad state of affairs.

Click to expand...

I guess it's always been that way but certainly since the 60's.
The fear of arrest is really the only power they have in a situation like that.

Look at Rosa Parks. She had the guts to say "Go ahead and arrest me but I ain't sittin in the back of the bus"

If you expect it, they've lost their edge.

VApatriot said:

I just listened to the audio tapes, and I am adsolutely infuriated. These cops should not be employed, let alone be protected by any rights-obliterating immunity.

I summize that no summons was ever issued for the non-existent charge. Was your CHP ever actually revoked, as the officers were so determined to have it done?

Click to expand...

It is infuriating isn't it.
It makes me mad enough to kick in a little donation toward the $455.00 appeal fee. It's worth it just to see them go through more misery even if the OP loses.

This is the way to respond

I syndicate Carlos Miller's Blog and this came across this morning.

It's On Topic here because this is the way to respond to police officers. I get mad and try to egg it on but this kid is good. Short, simple and to the point, then walk away. Notice that he did not show ID.
http://news.oldva.org/

The OP handled it nearly as well.


[video=youtube;j8NedCDwLNw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8NedCDwLNw&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Classic - responding to a "color of law" request by asking pertinent questions.

Been there, done that - perhaps not as calmly though.

Well Done by guy in video.

Not quite sure how taking pictures of a sensitive area is valid if the area in question is in plain view from the street? Sounds like BS to me.

Another question, since the officer actually said he was being detained, is this cause for a lawsuit?

Does anybody besides me see a marked change in the officers behavior about 2/3rd through the contact? I wonder if he noticed the camera and realized he was treading on dangerously thin ice?

Administrator said:

The answer:

It is a reasonableness test and unfortunately, I believe that the 4th Circuit will uphold this opinion. In prior cases (cited in this case), the 4th Circuit has held that:

John

Click to expand...

I think the problem here is that this court decided it was reasonable for the police to incorrectly think they were enforcing a non-existent law. In St. John vs Alamagordo, the court used the same reasonableness standard, but found that it was reasonable to expect police to actually know the law they are enforcing.

Citizen said:

I think the problem here is that this court decided it was reasonable for the police to incorrectly think they were enforcing a non-existent law. In St. John vs Alamagordo, the court used the same reasonableness standard, but found that it was reasonable to expect police to actually know the law they are enforcing.

Click to expand...

The overall balance of the cases is against us on this one. Plain and simple. We can say what the law should be all we want but that doesn't change what the law actually is.

I assume OPs counsel was on contingency here? If so, I think there is 0 chance of another (good) lawyer taking this case on contingency. That tells you all you need to know about the chances of this case succeeding.

Citizen said:

I think the problem here is that this court decided it was reasonable for the police to incorrectly think they were enforcing a non-existent law. In St. John vs Alamagordo, the court used the same reasonableness standard, but found that it was reasonable to expect police to actually know the law they are enforcing.

Click to expand...

Makes sense.

If an officer is called to enforce a law he hasn't heard about, or doesn't know enough about, than he shouldn't enforce it. I can understand how that falling under immunity makes sense. Enforcing a non-existent law seems completely outside of their scope of duty to me.