Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Goldberg v. Glastonbury to be argued at Second Circuit in November

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Goldberg v. Glastonbury to be argued at Second Circuit in November

    HOT OFF THE PRESS

    The Goldberg v. Glastonbury case involving Open Carry in CT is noticed for possible oral argument at the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York during the week of November 21st 2011.



    ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
    Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
    Notice of Docket Activity

    The following transaction was filed on 08/04/2011
    Case Name: Goldberg v. Glastonbury
    Case Number: 10-4215

    Docket Text:
    CASE CALENDARING, for the week of 11/21/2011,PROPOSED.[355958] [10-4215]


    This case has been flying under the national radar of most Second Amendment advocacy groups and has significant issues that may be of interest.

    More to follow as the date approaches.

  2. #2
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Like a lot of these cases, I think the closer we get, the more the discussion will grow.

    Looking forward to this. I hope I can get time off to observe myself Would be interesting.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Peruta View Post
    HOT OFF THE PRESS

    The Goldberg v. Glastonbury case involving Open Carry in CT is noticed for possible oral argument at the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York during the week of November 21st 2011.



    ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
    Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
    Notice of Docket Activity

    The following transaction was filed on 08/04/2011
    Case Name: Goldberg v. Glastonbury
    Case Number: 10-4215

    Docket Text:
    CASE CALENDARING, for the week of 11/21/2011,PROPOSED.[355958] [10-4215]


    This case has been flying under the national radar of most Second Amendment advocacy groups and has significant issues that may be of interest.

    More to follow as the date approaches.
    For people who haven't followed this case closely can you give the readers digest version of this appeal? What is being appealed? What significant issues is this case germane to? I know the details of the incident at Chili's but haven't followed the court proceedings closely.

    Thanks

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Info for Larch and those who have not followed the case since 2007

    You can read the court transcript at this link:

    http://www.ctgunrights.com/00.Docs/0...berg Trans.pdf

    Here is a link to the Brief filed with the Second Circuit:

    http://www.ctgunrights.com/0.2nd.Cir...ief_032111.pdf

    This is some of what it says:

    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW


    I. Was the investigatory stop of the Plaintiff conducted by the three Town of Glastonbury police officers justified at its inception and, if so, reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place?

    II. Did the three police officers have probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff?

    III. Did the Plaintiff establish his entitlement to summary judgment in Count One alleging unreasonable search and seizure and unlawful arrest against the three Town of Glastonbury police officers sued in their individual capacities as a matter of law or, alternately, do genuine issues of material fact exist to preclude summary judgment against the Plaintiff in Count One?

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    Plaintiff James F. Goldberg (“Goldberg”) appeals from the final judgment entered in the action below on September 20, 2010, in favor of the Defendants Michael Furlong, Simon Barratt, and Kenneth Lee2 and from a Ruling rendered by The Honorable Stefan R. Underhill on September 17, 2010, granting the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Goldberg filed a Complaint on November 21, 2007, in the District of Connecticut alleging in Count One unlawful arrest and unreasonable search and
    seizure of property and person in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Goldberg alleged that the three Town of Glastonbury Defendant police officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain him at the Chili’s Restaurant in Glastonbury on June 21, 2007, and lacked probable cause for his subsequent arrest. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the district court heard oral argument on September 17, 2010.

    At oral argument, the district court articulated the issue for determination:

    “Was there probable cause or with respect to the qualified immunity issue, was there arguable probable cause for the arrest?” The court and the parties agreed that a claim under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution had not been raised by Goldberg.

    The court began its inquiry by asking Goldberg’s counsel why a Terrystop was not warranted to determine whether Goldberg possessed a valid state permit to carry a pistol or revolver.

    Goldberg’s counsel responded that “there was no indication that Mr. Goldberg was engaged in criminal conduct, about to engage in criminal conduct or was threatening criminal conduct.” Accordingly, Goldberg’s open carry or inadvertent open carry of a pistol “was no different than him walking into Chili’s with a bag, with a wallet, with any other item that it’s lawful to carry. The fact that it was a firearm made absolutely no difference and it constituted no reason for the police to approach him in any way.” The court responded that the difference was “it is illegal for the vast majority of people in Connecticut to carry it into Chili’s or to display it or to possess it openly.” Goldberg’s counsel rejected the principle that the popularity of lawful conduct decides the degree of rights afforded an individual engaging in the lawful conduct. The court then agreed stating “whether it’s 1 percent or 99 percent” did not matter to its analysis. To support its position next, the court referenced the fact that Goldberg was in a public place that had To support its position next, the court referenced the fact that Goldberg was in a public place that had been the subject of “armed robberies” on two occasions within the previous five years.

    The court ignored the intent of the state legislature expressed through General Statutes 29-35(a) that a valid permit holder may lawfully carry his or her pistol in public, openly or concealed. In response to a statement by Goldberg’s counsel that “we have a state legislature that could add to the state statutes if you hold a state permit …” the court responded: “But we’re not here to talk about what the state legislature could do.”

    However, it is an issue for the legislature because the legislature is the branch that enacts laws by the will of the people. When law enforcement exceeds the law to accomplish ends it deems worthy, the will of the people is trampled. In explanation, Goldberg’s counsel argued:

    The police have a concern about people carrying firearms, openly carrying firearms. And so what they try to do, because there is no law that can place you under arrest for openly carrying a firearm, is they tried to fit it into the breach of peace statute by saying that he was engaged in threatening behavior. There’s no evidence in Laura Smith’s affidavit that was submitted by the defendants that Mr. Goldberg engaged in any threatening behavior.

    Furthermore, Goldberg’s counsel continued:

    So, even though the police were concerned about Mr. Goldberg carrying a firearm or pistol, it’s legal and there’s nothing that – there’s nothing that anyone can do or say to get away from that fact that he was engaged in completely lawful behavior and we don’t condone our police just walking up to people engaged in completely lawful behavior and demanding from them proof either that they are allowed to drive and they are allowed to be in this country or they are allowed to carry a firearm. That’s just not the law and it was clearly established at the time that that’s not the law.

    The entire brief can be found online at www.ctgunrights.com

    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 08-06-2011 at 07:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

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