Loveland, CO pays $15,000 to settle open carry lawsuit

opencarrybilly · Mar 19, 2011

MKEgal said:
HAH!
When they started handling an unfamiliar pistol they made the situation MORE dangerous.
It was perfectly safe sitting undisturbed in its holster.

That's what I told the officer when he grabbed hold of it and said he was going to take it (against my denial of that permission).

And, it was real scarey when cop #2 racked the slide as he held the gun (1911 cocked and locked) perpendicular to the ground just about 6" behind the first cops hind leg :-0 I winced in anticipation of the bang and the shouting. I was quite relieved when that last round ejected.

Thanks for your post.

(I'd be interested to know more about your experience if you want to share it.)

opencarrybilly · Mar 19, 2011

WCrawford said:
If my previous tongue in cheek post didn't quite convey the point (and after a couple days it doesn't to me); CONGRATS!

Job well done!

Thanks for the congrats. Don't be concerned about the toung-in-cheek. I didn't "get it" anyway

zwvirtual · Mar 21, 2011

This is my first post here. I also live in Loveland. Good job opencarrybilly. Do you know what training (specifically) they will be giving their officers? Also, do you know what other procedures about dealing with an OC'er they will be enacting?

opencarrybilly · Mar 21, 2011

zwvirtual said:
This is my first post here. I also live in Loveland. Good job opencarrybilly. Do you know what training (specifically) they will be giving their officers?

We have their outline (below). I am told that the DA's office does the training and will make it available to several LEAs in the area. Their outline:

"'STRIKING THE BALANCE'

A training session to explore the interplay between a citizens’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment and a police officer’s right to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment for officer safety purposes.

Topics to be Covered

• A citizen’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court
• A police officers right under the 4th Amendment to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures.
• The three types of police/citizen contacts.
o Consensual contacts
o Investigatory stops
o Arrests
• The constitutional underpinnings for those police/citizen contacts.
o Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
o Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).
o Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009)
o Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
o People v. Ealum, 211 P.3d 48 (Colo. 2009)
o United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993)
o
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid investigatory stop.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting an investigatory stop.
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid frisk for weapons.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting a frisk for weapons.
• The legal requirements for a consensual search for weapons.
• The difference between probable cause for an arrest and reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
• Relevant Colorado statutes dealing with weapons offenses.

Presented by Clifford E. Riedel
Assistant District Attorney
8th Judicial District of Colorado"

zwvirtual said:
Also, do you know what other procedures about dealing with an OC'er they will be enacting?

I don't know exactly. I can say, though, that recently I had a mid morning breakfast at Fatso's reseaurante. there were two LEOs in a booth there. One of them couldn't take his eyes off my gun. the look on his face seemed to express concern. He never said anything to me. When they finished their meal, they left separately. One of them stopped to talk with some other breakfasters accross the way. He didn't even look at me not even a nod in my direction. I heard him introduce himself to one of the other party by the same last name as one of the defendants in the case I don't know what all that means.

WCrawford · Mar 21, 2011

opencarrybilly said:
We have their outline (below). I am told that the DA's office does the training and will make it available to several LEAs in the area. Their outline:

"'STRIKING THE BALANCE'

A training session to explore the interplay between a citizens’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment and a police officer’s right to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment for officer safety purposes.

Topics to be Covered

• A citizen’s right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court
• A police officers right under the 4th Amendment to conduct “reasonable” searches and seizures.
• The three types of police/citizen contacts.
o Consensual contacts
o Investigatory stops
o Arrests
• The constitutional underpinnings for those police/citizen contacts.
o Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
o Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972).
o Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009)
o Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
o People v. Ealum, 211 P.3d 48 (Colo. 2009)
o United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993)
o
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid investigatory stop.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting an investigatory stop.
• The legal requirements necessary for a valid frisk for weapons.
• The legal limitations an officer must observe when conducting a frisk for weapons.
• The legal requirements for a consensual search for weapons.
• The difference between probable cause for an arrest and reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
• Relevant Colorado statutes dealing with weapons offenses.

Presented by Clifford E. Riedel
Assistant District Attorney
8th Judicial District of Colorado"

I don't know exactly. I can say, though, that recently I had a mid morning breakfast at Fatso's reseaurante. there were two LEOs in a booth there. One of them couldn't take his eyes off my gun. the look on his face seemed to express concern. He never said anything to me. When they finished their meal, they left separately. One of them stopped to talk with some other breakfasters accross the way. He didn't even look at me not even a nod in my direction. I heard him introduce himself to one of the other party by the same last name as one of the defendants in the case I don't know what all that means.

Will you or your lawyer be allowed to sit/view video of the some instances of the training to make sure what they are teaching is lawful?

opencarrybilly · Mar 21, 2011

WCrawford said:
Will you or your lawyer be allowed to sit/view video of the some instances of the training to make sure what they are teaching is lawful?

No. We will get a report of the date when the training has been done. Their future actions will tell of the effectiveness of the training. If they offend again, someone will sue them again, presumably.

JamesB · Mar 22, 2011

Any idea what the statute of limitations for an action such as yours?

I got a big stack of similar cases.

opencarrybilly · Mar 22, 2011

JamesB said:
Any idea what the statute of limitations for an action such as yours?

I got a big stack of similar cases.

You might check with Nelson Boyle: nelson@carterboyle.com
(720) 934-1459 voice
(303) 835-7100 fax

He might be out of town this week, though.

since9 · Mar 23, 2011

mahkagari said:
Hecker said police were correct in acting to empty ammunition from the gun to ensure public safety.

Engaging in a law-abiding activity is NOT a danger to public safety. Doesn't matter what it is. Law-abiding is law-abiding.

“They had the obligation to determine what his intent was, what his state of mind was,” Hecker said.'

Hecker doesn't know his job.

They didn't have RAS. Our system of law does not allow them to "make sure things are okay" preemptively.

Neither RAS nor PC. I believe the only reason they settled was to avoid a federal court-level decision like the one Judge Black handed down in AZ (or was it NM?).

Diocoles · Aug 27, 2011

I would just have to wonder why their training is not available to the public?
We should be able to see exactly what our civil SERVANTS are getting for training.
If we don't find it acceptable, we should be able to convey our dissatisfaction.
Too much is being done behind closed doors.
We pay their salary, we fund them, we are who they are SUPPOSED to answer to.

since9 · Aug 30, 2011

Diocoles said:
I would just have to wonder why their training is not available to the public?
We should be able to see exactly what our civil SERVANTS are getting for training.
If we don't find it acceptable, we should be able to convey our dissatisfaction.
Too much is being done behind closed doors.
We pay their salary, we fund them, we are who they are SUPPOSED to answer to.

I agree with your statement 100%, Diocoles, but would add that we already know the law through the much-published C.R.S. We really do not need to know the types of blocks, strikes, or holds they might use during an arrest. That's tactics, and should be kept under wraps, lest the criminals game the system.

The same is true of the military. We follow the law, both our own as well as international law. Those laws are widely available for public view. We do not reveal, however, our tactics by which we ingress or egress a combat zone, or approach/depart an airfield. Revealing those tactics could put us at risk should our enemies obtain them and develop counter-tactics.

The question becomes, then, "do the tactics follow the law?" In the military that's largely determined by both in-house review and investigative commissions. In law enforcement, that's determined by internal affairs as well as by superior authorities, including higher-level district attorney offices.

While there are faults and it's slow, the system does work. Just look at the Loveland, CO incident: Not only was the city forced to cough up $15,000 (a pittance, in my book), but they now have some very public egg all over their face. If law enforcement in that city goofs up again, a judge would be likely to bump the award up enough to garner some serious notice, say, to $50,000, along with a strong advisory to the city managers to get their law enforcement under control unless they're willing to pay $500,000 a third time around.

So yes, it works. Just not instantaneously. If it worked any faster, the results might be worse than if it didn't work at all.

since9 · Mar 30, 2012

gutshot said:
This training or at least the paperwork/course material for it should be available to the public though FOIA or your state equivalent to FOIA.

I think you'll find that's not the case. FOIA isn't an open book, and there are many reasons to deny requests, operational security being one, and the privacy of governmental employees being anoother. You'll find the Privacy Act trumps FOIA requests all the time. As for tactics, you'll find a copy of our city's PD General Orders available online. It's the manual, if you will, of the procedures to which our local law enforcement adheres, and it covers nearly all situations encountered by law enforcement. It's a condensed, operationally-focused reflection local, state, and federal law, and it's under constant revision to ensure it remains accurate. Officers have a read file they must review every time they come on duty, and that file reflects all changes since the last time they reviewed the read file.

The General Orders do not, however, contain specific tactics such as those taught at the academy and during continuation training, nor should they. Government should be reasonably transparent, but there remain aspects which should not be allowed to be widely disseminated to the general public. While most of us would merely say, "interesting," we'd also recognize why the information is best kept out of the public eye. The problem is that there are always a few idiots out there running around who like to make mountains out of molehills, or who would fail to keep the information in its proper context.

And some information, such as where a police officer lives, is just nobody's damned business except his, his family and friends, and the department's.

Loveland, CO pays $15,000 to settle open carry lawsuit

opencarrybilly

Regular Member

opencarrybilly

Regular Member

zwvirtual

Regular Member

opencarrybilly

Regular Member

WCrawford

Regular Member

opencarrybilly

Regular Member

JamesB

Regular Member

opencarrybilly

Regular Member

since9

Campaign Veteran

Diocoles

Regular Member

since9

Campaign Veteran

since9

Campaign Veteran