Question about getting drawn on by police

[rotorhead]

I'm thinking it's a simple matter of being unaware of (or unfamiliar with) the many tools provided, such as the ones you mentioned rather than an intentional attempt to misquote or misrepresent the original message.

 

[marshaul]

Alright, here we go:

I thought I would jump in here since I have been a Los Angeles County Sheriff for much of my life working patrol and I have another perspective

But not uncommon from what we have all heard before.

First..most police officers support your right to be armed.. and be armed correctly and be smart and trained about how to carry and how to use force legally...

We have people impersonate police all the time.. when we investigate this stuff its usually drug ripoffs or kidnapping for profit.. occasionally there will be the red light weirdos or crooks who want to do harm to someone by pulling them over

My suggestions are these

Open carry in a not normally open carry state is pretty stupid... its asking for a problem or a mistake... you are depending upon another person.. sometimes trained sometimes flawed person to make a decision regarding your life or safety. You exacerbate the situation by wanting to make a political statement

Which are you, trained or flawed?

As a police officer I do not have the luxury of figuring out if you are a bad guy or not until I "make you safe".. and when you have a gun displayed even in a holster it makes my common sense survival tactics max out. You dont know why Im stopping you.. you may be a perfectly honorable and honest person... irregardless of this if you are walking with a weapon I will detain you.. I might not do this in a rural setting.. but walking around L.A. I would.. I would have additional legal cause but carrying a firearm is unusual city behavior and most judges will back a stop if for nothing more a weapons check. The supreme court is very lenient in favor of the police in street detentions.. its not the time to debate politics.. -----------------its the time to prevent myself and others from being killed.

My sentiments exactly I should be afforded the same luxuries as you, to prevent myself and others from being killed.

If you choose to open carry in California and want to make a "statement" about it prepare to be stopped.. it will happen. Prepare to get prone'd out.. that will probably happen.. prepare to get searched.. cuffed.. questioned and detained... prepare to have you and your gun checked nine ways to Sunday... be smart (well if you really were you wouldnt be doing this in the first place).. obey commands

So you would illegally detain someone for a perfectly legal act, because it is a unusual act. You would trash the oath you took to uphold the constitution for no better reason than you do not personally agree with the parts that should prevent you from the actions you speak of...be smart (well if you really were you wouldn't be doing this in the first place,) and I think you should be able to quess what you can do with your commands by now.

My department requires us to carry not only our badge but our picture ID.. its available for you to see.. When we are plainclothes we are trained extensively on identifying ourselves properly... too many mistakes have been made too many times.. we do it by the numbers

I will have more comments as time goes by

GOOD I,ve read this forum for quite sometime now and I know there alot more smarter persons than I (and a hell of alot smarter than you) that can rebut the trash you choose to spew.

In a respectful manner I have given some real world advice on this board. What I am not inclined to do is argue.. or give constitutional law advice to other members on here.. let lawyers who get paid to argue in a court of law do that…

I think the respectful part could be sucessfully argued. I do not think you gave real world advice. I think you have a very big case of "little mans syndrome", and you came here not to educate but argue or try to force your opinions.

There is substantial legal precedent for my statements

While I see that this board is for open carry what I would like to see as a responsible police officer is concealed carry for any citizen who can show they aren't a criminal, and has an acceptable level of training. The statement that police officers dont want armed citizens is not true.. what police officers fear are idiots and spudnuts with guns.. not responsible gun owners. What a police chief might say as a politically appointed representative is way different than what a street copper might say... there are many liberal police chiefs in liberal communities.

What I would like to see is more LEO's that had anacceptable level of training of what is legal and what is not. Because what I fear is idiots and spudnuts with GUNS and a misunderstanding of the law and constitution.

My post comes to this board on the heels of a person (apparently an active member here..or perhaps even a moderator or founder of this board who was stopped in my county the other day for a 12031 (a) PC investigation (carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.) This occurred in response to a citizen making a 911 call of a man acting "strangely" walking in front of her home wearing a handgun.

Your statements are confusing you say he was being( investigated )for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. You did not say he was GUILTY of such. And how did the citizen know wether or not the supposed weapon was loaded?

During the stop this person was cooperative but evasive.. was compliant enough not to get shot or do anything stupid during temporary detention. There were actions ( which I wont reveal for security reasons) taken by this person to lead law enforcement to believe that he is purposefully trying to get stopped and purposefully have law enforcement do something illegal to him.. unnecessary use of force.. illegal detention.. find what you like.. for the express purpose of bringing suit against government.

Was this person really evasive or just had a better understanding of his rights than you? Maybe the actions you won't reveal, were not for the purpose of entrapment by the individual. Maybe the actions taken were because the stop was leaning toward the violations of his rights, or maybe just unjustifiably intrusive on your part. We may never know without more information.

This person had a revoked concealed weapons permit. In California it is rare to get CCW's except where I live.. and the Sheriff gives them out to any citizen who wants one and can complete a CCW class.. background investigation for not being a felon.. and maintain a legitimate (which is very very liberally defined) reason for having and keeping one (this person did not comply with these)..

CCW is irrelivant. From my understanding he was OC. Maybe he just got tired of paying for a privledge, when a RIGHT is free.

So to this person... I would say.. you are ignorant and will expose yourself and police officers to the possibility of harm... this isn't a threat in any way.. its just plain and simple reality...why not go to Berkley, a bastion of liberalism and free speech, and walk around with your firearm and see what happens... it would be the perfect place to make your political statement.

You have a complete misunderstanding of OC. Most of us carry for protection.
If you want a political statement here it is " I do not give a DAMN if you like it or not". and it is a statement I will make at Berkely or anywhere else.

My office is the street.. I don't argue there... political/policy statements are best made for a nice court of law where everyone's actions are predictable. Laws are enabled by the citizenry.. if we don't like them.. we can change them through a process.. that process does not include putting me or fellow police officers at perceived or real peril.

Laws are enable by the citizenry,and they can be changed(and often are) through a process. What it seems to me is, you want to skip that process and make them fit YOUR beliefs.

If the percieved or real peril bothers you, I would recommend the same advice I give to the young persons who joined the army just for college money." If you were not willing to take up the the fight when called upon to do so, you made a piss poor career decission, get out now before you have to live up to that oath you took.

I'm not totally sure that was worth it. I do agree with this 100%:

If the percieved or real peril bothers you, I would recommend the same advice I give to the young persons who joined the army just for college money." If you were not willing to take up the the fight when called upon to do so, you made a piss poor career decission, get out now before you have to live up to that oath you took.

 

[rotorhead]

lol- outstanding bit of editorial skills.

Now we can move on, I reckon.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Message to notmeofficer

Please change professions before you do something stupid and get someone else killed.

 

[protect our rights]

I don't blame the (supposed) LEO for the way he thinks. They way of the GOOD small town Cop is gone. Now to the corrupt and just taught wrong departments of today. You went through a crooked system. Now you don't know left from right, I feel for you.

 

[notmeofficer]

Thanks for your opinions. If nothing else it gives an insight into the inner factors involved with LEO stops concerning carrying.



Again, thank you for your opinion on this matter. However, many states allow for open carry. Although you might want to see things different, there are choices out there and people should not be subject to harassment for doing what is allowed. I'm careful to note that I am not accusing you of harassing anyone in this case or others. I'm just saying it happens- a lot.

California is not an open carry state.. those police officers who operate in such develop different tactics and have a different level of expectation than I do

As to the "training", what would you consider to be acceptable? I'm a recently retired military man who has extensive training with weapons, both military and civilian. I've been shooting for many years. Yet, I have not (as of yet) applied for my state's Concealed Handgun Permit.

California already has a state approved CCW course.. thats already been all hashed out... I dont think there is a challenge to it but again Im not sure and Im sure one of the local experts here will know better than I. In my opinion any military honorable dd214 would be good in my book

Would my level of training be considered "acceptable"? And at what level would you consider someone to be acceptably trained? State level? Federal? Local community...county...? Should I be able to waive any state mandatory training due to my military experience or should that training be acceptable in lieu of mandatory classes which are approved by a state?

see above

Is my training considered worthless compared to a 22 year old who just bought his first gun, yet attended a state approved class and fired 40 rounds on a range to familiarize himself with his gun?

see above.. I understand and respect the difference

Many states leave this discretion up to local sheriffs. The standard can widely differ between counties, as you note in your post. It is this disparity that leads me to believe that this system is not based on any fairness, but on the luck of the draw. Yet, you want us to believe that this level of "training" is acceptable?

The program is state... the CCW here is local... and you're right its probably not fair.. although anyone can get it based on no criminal history. ccw course, and loosely based need ( being in fear and rural living with low law enforcement response resource is a justified need)


Did you follow the Manson trial? Remember when Charles Manson held up the newspaper that declared in large print "Nixon says Manson is guilty!"?

I remember him when he was in 1750 lockup.. hi-power... just another nut to me... and a crook.. just like Nixon...

I'm not sure of your department's policies regarding publicly commenting on cases, but it might not be a great idea to discuss particulars of them before the trial is concluded.

Its not my case nor my department.. I came to this site because of his assertion.. wanted to see on "the other side of the street" for myself... some of the commentators here make me feel... hmmm how do I say.. possibly concerned that they might want to push the envelope to engage law enforcement in their perceived or real right and create an incident to make a statement.. setups are just that.. and those who engage in that behavior put themselves and others at peril.. sometimes exposing abhorrent behavior if occurring is noble.. other times " creating " behavior is stupidity.

I know just by the way I speak to someone I could make them go off... anyone can.. therefor I avoid that behavior at all costs... there's plenty of business already.. I don't need to create it to satisfy myself.

However, I'll assume that because you are discussing the case in public, the case has been resolved already.

see above.. I have no idea if there is a criminal case.. I know there was a bolo bulletin so that we as police officers can watch out for anyone who wants to engage in unusual behavior and "make" law enforcement stop them... and while I left out many facts.. his behavior was "unusual". This is no different than the knucklehead we got bolo'd on a month or tow ago that was "working" my patrol area trying to get us to stop him and then "create" some type of civil rights violation.. videotaping us (which I have zero issues with).. baiting us.. (which I do have an issue with).. and having backup cars of his follow him (which I also have an issue with because of my safety issues)

BTW unusual behavior is a pretty low bar for someone to engage in.. you might not like it.. it is what it is... Im sure the forum lawyers can recite the definitions of probable cause and reasonable suspicion... vs mere suspicion or fishing expeditions...Some of the posters want to have others think the laws are becoming more and more restrictive about what detentions.. contacts.. etc are. I think they are becoming more liberlal in favor of government. There is a process to change it

Personally I tend to stand with LEOs when they are baited. Personally I see no reason to intentionally strap on and carry in situations where I know I will be confronted by LEOs. I'm just not "that guy". I prefer to carry for the sole purpose of my and my loved one's defense, instead. In most instances, I will not be the one any LEO has to worry about or feel defensive about talking with. As long as everything remains legal, respectful (on both sides) and I don't feel I'm being singled out simply because LEOs want to make their own statement by harassing me, all is well.

My job is not to harass... Im way to busy for that.. my job is to serve... and do my best to do it fairly and impartially... BTW... if a copper really was a nutjob himself and felt some weird sense of I dont know.. wanted to harass people I think someone without a gun would be a better choice.. anyway.. where I come from its so far from my consciousness I never think about harassing people.. of course people I detain or arrest might feel a tad different... handcuffs might be the ultimate form of harassment to most people....

I can also understand that LEOs wish to feel secure out there and not have to worry about weirdos with guns. The trouble is that you can't go around stopping everyone you see with a gun simply to make yourself feel better. Responding to a call is one thing, but I think we can agree that LEOs have, and will continue, to harass people all in the name of public safety.

Actually.. and I know this obviously rubs people on this forum the wrong way because they feel they have the right to walk around packing at any time without ever being stopped (even though they may not have a clue what information or observations that the officer is operating under).. Unfortunately the law here.. here in California is clear... and a peace officer does have ample justification for stopping an armed citizen... for many reasons.. and after determining legal carry releasing that person...

Simply put, the public has a right to protect themselves. They also have a right to carry a gun to serve that purpose. Despite numerous Federal, state, and local laws designed to weaken that right, it's now becoming more evident that this right is coming back to life. After years of legislation on all levels designed to choke that right out of existence, it's now becoming an issue where people are seeing that this country simply went too far in it's attempt to snuff it out.

Ok... but I will still do my job and take care of my safety in a legal and effective manner to protect myself first.. then the public... I can only think of a couple of occasions where someone was open carrying in my jurisdiction legally anyway.. and in the cases I was involved in they had no problem with me stopping them even at gun point.. as a matter of fact after explaining my observations and information i was working under they apologized for for dumb behavior. ( and it was stupid behavior.. you walk down a busy blvd in L.A with a gun in your hand people are going to be afraid and call about you.. in Texas.. or Wyoming or an open carry state perhaps not.. but here.. yes)

As an aside for all of you that think open carry is your divine constitutional right there are many more people out there who you put in fear. and they act upon this fear.. and put observations in motion... change that and you'll have your argument won and can win at the ballot box...

I can think of no responsible gun owner who justifies or condones gun violence on the part of criminals who use guns to perpetrate their crimes. I feel you can understand that statement. No one here is justifying irresponsible gun ownership and I would dare say most of the people here would stand with you to stop it. However, when your efforts which are bred from your opinions slip out and affect the rights which are ours, you're going to meet some resistance. A lot of resistance, actually.

We can respectfully agree.. or disagree... codified law are the parameters I can work under irregardless of peoples opinion on here

I'll wrap it up with this: There's no way in hell I'm going to let your choice of an occupation stand in the way of my rights to own a gun. You chose to accept that job, you were not drafted into it. Your choice of a career in no way should affect my right to own and carry personal protection I feel is sufficient to stop a potentially lethal attack upon my person.

I agree... that never entered into any of my statements.. on the contrary.. I encourage citizens to change the laws legally... demand such... Ill work with it on the other end happily...

I hear the arguments from both sides every day. LEOs don't want to deal with crazies with guns. I get that. I understand the fears. I also can see, in numerous statements made over many mediums, that some LEOs will replace law and precedent with personal opinion regarding gun ownership and the practice of carrying for defensive reasons.
When LEOs detain people, treat them as criminals, abuse their authority, and make an ass out of themselves and do it based on their personal opinions rather than established law, that's where I have the problem.

Hmmm interesting blanket statement.. I must respectfully tell you that seeing "cops" or other perceptions of what and how police do their job isnt, in many cases, accurate at all. A couple of shifts in a radiocar as an observer (which I also encourage for citizens.. we do after all work for you...) might temper your observations.

You chose that job. Either go out and do your best under established law or find another line of work. If the dangers are too hard or not worth your effort, find another line of work. If you ever find yourself interjecting your personal opinions out there and they happen to clash with established law or procedure, then please, find yourself another line of work. No one deserves to be treated like crap simply because someone else feels it's necessary in their line of work.

I am very honored to do my job.. and proud that I do it well and that I work for a very professional department..and more importantly that I provide a level of service that my community desires to the best of my ability...I work within the law.. my house payment is on the line...and depends upon it.... as is order on a larger scale.. I think about this in each action I take... when I was young I dont think I thought about this as much but over the years I came to this premise... but even as a brand new deputy this is ingrained in each of us... those that don't like it leave.. and many do..

That said, I do hope that your safety out there remains intact. Stay alert, stay safe, and thank you for your service to your community.

Thank You Sir..

notme

 

[sharkey]

I cherry picked.

Ok... but I will still do my job and take care of my safety in a legal and effective manner to protect myself first.. then the public... I can only think of a couple of occasions where someone was open carrying in my jurisdiction legally anyway.. and in the cases I was involved in they had no problem with me stopping them even at gun point.. as a matter of fact after explaining my observations and information i was working under they apologized for for dumb behavior. ( and it was stupid behavior.. you walk down a busy blvd in L.A with a gun in your hand people are going to be afraid and call about you.. in Texas.. or Wyoming or an open carry state perhaps not.. but here.. yes)

Not even I would defend someone walking with gun in hand down a street unless they were actively engaging a threat. I question if you literally meant what you stated or if it is an exaggeration. If literal and truthful, then yes that is the definition of stupid.

As an aside for all of you that think open carry is your divine constitutional right there are many more people out there who you put in fear. and they act upon this fear

Thus why we were founded as a republic. Their fear is not my concern. I will not act a certain way to pacify the masses. Those in authority who are willing to violate our divine rights are those who should cower, not from threat of violence but rather threat of personal lawsuit.

I work within the law.. my house payment is on the line...and depends upon it.... as is order on a larger scale.. I think about this in each action I take...

Note, while you may be working within California law, you may be violating Supreme law, which could subject you to personal damages in a civil suit and loss of said house. Someone may bait you. I, personally, am all for baiting law enforcement. It is one of the quickest ways to educate them on rights. If I lived in a state where training was needed I'd happily be collecting settlements all day. Perhaps I should move and turn it into my full time occupation.

notme

 

[protect our rights]

Thank You Sir..

notme

You have to separate the quotes and your writing or else this will get confusing REAL quick!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Please change professions before you do something stupid and get someone else killed.

+1

I don't blame the (supposed) LEO for the way he thinks. They way of the GOOD small town Cop is gone. Now to the corrupt and just taught wrong departments of today. You went through a crooked system. Now you don't know left from right, I feel for you.

I do, I blame him for not being smart enough or plain not wanting to think things through first and for putting his job and his life as our servant above our rights.

I have had a gun pointed at my head for OC by an officer Slodysko who didn't identify himself as an officer for a split second it was almost a fight or flight moment. It was very very close to drawing and firing or diving for the bushes and then firing. Reactionary impulses are often way faster than actionary(?). I then saw the whole Bellingham Police Department close rank and protect that officers actions, I was actually "arrested" trying to file a complaint about it, stood outside in the hot sun and interrogated, threatened and harassed, handcuffed, illegally searched for ID, etc.

Notice his words of the OC'er being "evasive" putting the fact that the guy stood up for his 4th amendment rights into a negative light. :banghead:

 

[Badger Johnson]

Bear in mind that most LEOs are not stupid, dense, or unaware of the law(s), though by some of their comments it may appear so. They are well aware of what they are doing and it's all a game (to them).

$.02

 

[TOF]

Question for notmeofficer:

I served honorably in the US Navy and have documentation to prove it. I have never been charged much less found guilty of a crime be it misdemeanor or felony. I am a natural born US Citizen.

While in the US Navy, I never held much less fired a revolver or pistol. My rifle ecperience in the Navy was absolute minimum. I carried a rifle without ammo while in boot camp and fired a few rounds on a single day.


As a post military service citizen, I have owned several handguns and fired tens of thousand rounds over a period of 50 years without causing harm to anyone. I have also carried them openly during those 50 years.


My question is: Which experience do you believe qualifies me for a permit to carry a gun either concealed or open (your choice).

1. Military
2. Civilian

 

[bomber]

my...................... to the OP


--Inappropriate link deleted by Moderator--

 

[protect our rights]

+1



I do, I blame him for not being smart enough or plain not wanting to think things through first and for putting his job and his life as our servant above our rights.

I have had a gun pointed at my head for OC by an officer Slodysko who didn't identify himself as an officer for a split second it was almost a fight or flight moment. It was very very close to drawing and firing or diving for the bushes and then firing. Reactionary impulses are often way faster than actionary(?). I then saw the whole Bellingham Police Department close rank and protect that officers actions, I was actually "arrested" trying to file a complaint about it, stood outside in the hot sun and interrogated, threatened and harassed, handcuffed, illegally searched for ID, etc.

Notice his words of the OC'er being "evasive" putting the fact that the guy stood up for his 4th amendment rights into a negative light. :banghead:

Yeah, I was mainly being sarcastic. I know that a lot of them purposefully abuse their power (the power they THINK they have)

 

[bomber]

my...................... to the OP


--Inappropriate link deleted by Moderator--

 

[waapl01]

Drawn on by police

Thanks for your opinions. If nothing else it gives an insight into the inner factors involved with LEO stops concerning carrying.



Again, thank you for your opinion on this matter. However, many states allow for open carry. Although you might want to see things different, there are choices out there and people should not be subject to harassment for doing what is allowed. I'm careful to note that I am not accusing you of harassing anyone in this case or others. I'm just saying it happens- a lot.

As to the "training", what would you consider to be acceptable? I'm a recently retired military man who has extensive training with weapons, both military and civilian. I've been shooting for many years. Yet, I have not (as of yet) applied for my state's Concealed Handgun Permit.

Would my level of training be considered "acceptable"? And at what level would you consider someone to be acceptably trained? State level? Federal? Local community...county...? Should I be able to waive any state mandatory training due to my military experience or should that training be acceptable in lieu of mandatory classes which are approved by a state?

Is my training considered worthless compared to a 22 year old who just bought his first gun, yet attended a state approved class and fired 40 rounds on a range to familiarize himself with his gun?

Many states leave this discretion up to local sheriffs. The standard can widely differ between counties, as you note in your post. It is this disparity that leads me to believe that this system is not based on any fairness, but on the luck of the draw. Yet, you want us to believe that this level of "training" is acceptable?


Did you follow the Manson trial? Remember when Charles Manson held up the newspaper that declared in large print "Nixon says Manson is guilty!"?

I'm not sure of your department's policies regarding publicly commenting on cases, but it might not be a great idea to discuss particulars of them before the trial is concluded.

However, I'll assume that because you are discussing the case in public, the case has been resolved already.

Personally I tend to stand with LEOs when they are baited. Personally I see no reason to intentionally strap on and carry in situations where I know I will be confronted by LEOs. I'm just not "that guy". I prefer to carry for the sole purpose of my and my loved one's defense, instead. In most instances, I will not be the one any LEO has to worry about or feel defensive about talking with. As long as everything remains legal, respectful (on both sides) and I don't feel I'm being singled out simply because LEOs want to make their own statement by harassing me, all is well.

I can also understand that LEOs wish to feel secure out there and not have to worry about weirdos with guns. The trouble is that you can't go around stopping everyone you see with a gun simply to make yourself feel better. Responding to a call is one thing, but I think we can agree that LEOs have, and will continue, to harass people all in the name of public safety.

Simply put, the public has a right to protect themselves. They also have a right to carry a gun to serve that purpose. Despite numerous Federal, state, and local laws designed to weaken that right, it's now becoming more evident that this right is coming back to life. After years of legislation on all levels designed to choke that right out of existence, it's now becoming an issue where people are seeing that this country simply went too far in it's attempt to snuff it out.

I can think of no responsible gun owner who justifies or condones gun violence on the part of criminals who use guns to perpetrate their crimes. I feel you can understand that statement. No one here is justifying irresponsible gun ownership and I would dare say most of the people here would stand with you to stop it. However, when your efforts which are bred from your opinions slip out and affect the rights which are ours, you're going to meet some resistance. A lot of resistance, actually.

I'll wrap it up with this: There's no way in hell I'm going to let your choice of an occupation stand in the way of my rights to own a gun. You chose to accept that job, you were not drafted into it. Your choice of a career in no way should affect my right to own and carry personal protection I feel is sufficient to stop a potentially lethal attack upon my person.

I hear the arguments from both sides every day. LEOs don't want to deal with crazies with guns. I get that. I understand the fears. I also can see, in numerous statements made over many mediums, that some LEOs will replace law and precedent with personal opinion regarding gun ownership and the practice of carrying for defensive reasons. When LEOs detain people, treat them as criminals, abuse their authority, and make an ass out of themselves and do it based on their personal opinions rather than established law, that's where I have the problem.

You chose that job. Either go out and do your best under established law or find another line of work. If the dangers are too hard or not worth your effort, find another line of work. If you ever find yourself interjecting your personal opinions out there and they happen to clash with established law or procedure, then please, find yourself another line of work. No one deserves to be treated like crap simply because someone else feels it's necessary in their line of work.

That said, I do hope that your safety out there remains intact. Stay alert, stay safe, and thank you for your service to your community.

@ Rotorhead, very nicely worded and to the point. Nice job!!!!!!

 

[eye95]

...

This board is essentially private property. If you have a problem with the rules here (I find them far more reasonable than most sites), rationality dictates that you exercise your Liberty and start your own site with your own rules.

And, you can do it for free!

Of course, it requires effort.

BTW, thanks, John and Mike, for your efforts. I don't always agree 100% with the way you do things (that is just the nature of individuality), but you run this site better than any other message board I have ever posted on.

 

[McX]

i had heard once something to the effect that if a cop, acting independantly- and ignorantly, violates your rights, the state immediately 'cancells' his authority, and he becomes nothing more than an armed attacker. something they should teach them cops in police school.

 

[eye95]

i had heard once something to the effect that if a cop, acting independantly- and ignorantly, violates your rights, the state immediately 'cancells' his authority, and he becomes nothing more than an armed attacker. something they should teach them cops in police school.

I think you are referring to the fact that the officer's qualified immunity can be pierced if he acts in a way that he knows (or should have known) violates your rights. He loses the protection he normally enjoys, while acting on behalf of the State, from being sued for mistakenly violating a citizen's rights while acting in good faith.

 

[ixtow]

Reason #958 why a Standing Army thinly disguised as 'police' should not exist.

 

[Gunslinger]

The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: "(1) Was the law governing the official's conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?" Act-Up!, 988 F.2d at 871; see also Tribble v. Gardner, 860 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1075 (1989).

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). In determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was "clearly established;" and (3) determine whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1363-64 (9th Cir. 1994).

Courts apply the test articulated by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), to determine whether the right is "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Id. at 639-40. It is not necessary that the specific action in question previously have been declared unconstitutional, so long as the unlawfulness was apparent in light of preexisting law. Id. at 640. We consider whether "the particular facts of [the] case support a claim of clearly established right." Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1389 (9th Cir. 1985).

Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, an officer will be immune from suit if he or she "could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero, 931 F.2d at 627.

"[A] district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985).