The Goldberg transcript and Decison of 09.17.10

[GoldCoaster]

Do judges look at getting their decisions overturned favorably?

Makes you wonder how this judge will feel with the 2nd circuit gets done with it. I know the latest affirmative action appointee to the SCOTUS has had a few of hers overturned but that didn't seem to slow her rise to the top court in the nation.

 

[Edward Peruta]

Interesting Tid Bit

The Second Circuit three judge panel that heard the Goldberg v. DPS appeal last year made a point of asking the Assistant AG about the Connecticut Constitution and the legality of Open Carry in CT.

There is a chance that the same three judge panel will hear this related case.

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

 

[Edward Peruta]

Does this sound familar?

Wisconsin cops officially insist open carry is disorderly conduct
The Madison Wisconsin police department has officially decided to charge five peaceful open carriers with disorderly conduct for actions that COULD HAVE caused a "disturbance", even if they didn't actually cause a disturbance on that occasion. The recording of the 911 call makes it clear that the carriers were not acting in a threatening manner and therefore the officers were breaking the law just by detaining the carriers to conduct an investigation. When two of the carriers refused to identify themselves, they were arrested for obstructing an investigation (even though there was no basis for reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigation), handcuffed, and searched for ID. Then they were given tickets for obstructing and released. The obstructing charges have been dropped, but all five will now be charged with disorderly conduct.

The thing the Madison police don't seem to get is that just because something disturbs people, doesn't make it illegal. For example if ten skinheads with nazi tattoos and studded black leather jackets walked into that restaurant, it would have likely disturbed some people, but assuming they didn't do anything threatening, it would still be legal. The right to bear arms for hunting, defense, and other lawful purposes is protected in the Wisconsin constitution.

Examiner Article:
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...e-s-no-problem

Official City of Madison press release:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

Three recordings of the event and the 911 call here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/curren...ml#post2965071


Here is a condensed version of the relevant parts of the 911 call. The complete transcript will follow:


* 911 Operator: 911. What's the address of the emergency?

* Caller: I don't know if it's an emergency but I'm out
at Culver's at East Town.
...
* Caller: And I see that there are two men ... They both have side arms on. Fully
exposed, what appear to be guns.

* Operator: And they're inside the Culver's?

* Caller: No they're sitting outside at a picnic table.
...
I didn't know if maybe
you had people out here. But it seemed really strange to me.

* Operator: ... Right now they're sitting at a picnic table?

* Caller: Yea. ...

* Operator: And did you say the guns were in holsters?

* Caller: Yea. ...

* Operator: Are they, do they seem to be threatening or talking or
what do they?

* Caller: No. They're just talking. They seem extremely relaxed. We
couldn't believe it. They were leaning up against the vehicles
with these sidearms prominently displayed. They're not under their
T-shirts. They're just right out in plain sight. I thought if they
were police officers it just, it just didn't look like police
officers.
...

* Operator: Ok, well that's Ok. Will uh, well if you'll just be in
the silver Accord in the back parking lot?

* Caller: Yea, we're actually just outside the parking lot. We're
just kind of idling.

* Operator: You're safe right where you are, you think?

* Caller: Yea, we are. But there's the place is full of people.
...
* Caller: It's just the strangest thing I've seen.
...
* Caller: So I just wanted to let you know in case it wasn't right.

* Operator: Uh Hm. Ok. Well, not threatening anyone that's really
what we're worried, concerned about right now.

* Caller: No. They're just sitting there extremely relaxed.

* Operator: I do believe now that it is um just for your information
it was asked by the state Attorney General that it is legal to be
armed in Wisconsin if they're not threatening or someone is not
disturbed by the uh by your weapon.

* Caller: I didn't know that.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: So anybody can wear a side arm in plain sight like that?

* Operator: Yea. It's actually uh concealed it's uh issue now.

* Caller: Ooohhh.

* Operator: But out in plain sight has now recently been passed by
the Attorney General.

* Caller: Wow. All right that's news to us. So apparently there's no
problem and it's not an emergency. That's I

* Operator: Well, if you're um, if you're concerned or disturbed by
the weapons then it becomes a problem.

* Caller: No, they weren't threatening anybody and they weren't
acting threatening. It was the fact that they uh, no it just came
as a shock to us. It's not

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: Yea. All right well thank you.

* Operator: Sure, not a problem. We are sending police officers over
to to check them now. [inaudible]

* Caller: Well, I feel bad then because

* Operator:No.

* Caller: if they're not doing anything wrong then it's my mistake.
I just

* Operator: No, well you know what ma'am we, that's the kind of
thing where you just don't know if they're going to do anything
wrong or not. And [inaudible] being armed in the city of Madison
is just not a, you know, usual thing. So, it's quite all right, we
we we're perfectly happy that [inaudible] called.
...


Complete transcript of 911 call:

* 911 Operator: 911. What's the address of the emergency?

* Caller: I don't know if it's an emergency but I'm out
at Culver's at East Town.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: And I see that there are two men in, one's got black
T-shirt I can't see the writing on it and another man in a T-shirt
with a long gray beard. They both have side arms on. Fully
exposed, what appear to be guns.

* Operator: And they're inside the Culver's?

* Caller: No they're sitting outside at a picnic table.

* Operator: OK. At Culver's East Town you said?

* Caller: Yes.

* Operator: Correct? At what are, what's the phone number where you
can be reached?

* Caller: I'm on my cell phone. What is my cell phone number? I I
don't even know my [inaudible].

* Marty?: 279

* Caller: 279

* Marty?: 99xx

* Caller: 99xx I think. Sorry I just never call it myself.

* Operator: OK That's OK. Can I get your name please?

* Caller: Yea. It's Phyllis xxxxx x x x x x. I didn't know if maybe
you had people out here. But it seemed really strange to me.

* Operator: I don't know. Right now they're sitting at a picnic table?

* Caller: Yea. Can you see them still Marty? Pull ahead so we can
see them. Um.

* Operator: And did you say the guns were in holsters?

* Caller: Yea. On their right on their right sides, they've Yea my
number's 279-99xx. Pull ahead. They look like semi-automatic. Yea
they're still there. Ok I'm gonna put my phone down now.

* Operator: Ma'am, can you describe the men again for me please.

* Caller: Yea. The one man has blue jeans on and a gray tee shirt
and a long beard, kind of gray in color. And the other man has
short hair and a black T-shirt, and I don't know what's on the
back. Yea, something on the back it's like a white shape of the
state of Wisconsin. But I can't read the writing on it. I really
don't want to get any closer to them.

* Operator: Ok, I'm sorry slow down because I can't keep up with
you. The second man had a what colored T-shirt?

* Caller: Black T-shirt. One one has a black T-shirt and one has a
gray T-shirt.

* Operator: All right and the black T-shirt had a symbol on the
back? Some kind of

* Caller: Of the state of Wisconsin. An outline of the state of
Wisconsin with writing but I can't read it. They're uh in the
parking lot side of Culver's and they're sitting at a picnic table
on the parking lot side in the back side.

* Operator: Are they, do they seem to be threatening or talking or
what do they?

* Caller: No. They're just talking. They seem extremely relaxed. We
couldn't believe it. They were leaning up against the vehicles
with these sidearms prominently displayed. They're not under their
T-shirts. They're just right out in plain sight. I thought if they
were police officers it just, it just didn't look like police
officers.

* Operator: Uh hm. Yea. Ok. Uh great, so one had gray beard, gray
T-shirt, and jeans, right?

* Caller: Yes, Yes.

* Operator: And the other black T-shirt with the outline of state of
Wisconsin and jeans also?

* Caller: And what?

* Operator: And jeans?

* Caller: I think the second guy had jeans too, didn't he, the guy
in the black T-shirt? I think so.

* Operator: Oh. All right. Um, will you be available if we need you
by phone?

* Caller: Um, we can sit here. We're just in the back of the parking
lot right now.

* Operator: Ok, what kind of car are you in?

* Caller: We're in a silver Honda Accord.

* Operator: Ok, all right. Do you know the plate off hand?

* Caller: Of our car?

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: Uh, what is it? GBxxxxxxx? Uh, I don't know [inaudible]

* Operator: That's Ok.

* Caller: I think it's 50xxxx but I'm not positive.

* Operator: Ok, well that's Ok. Will uh, well if you'll just be in
the silver Accord in the back parking lot?

* Caller: Yea, we're actually just outside the parking lot. We're
just kind of idling.

* Operator: You're safe right where you are, you think?

* Caller: Yea, we are. But there's the place is full of people.

* Operator: Uh Hm.

* Caller: It's just the strangest thing I've seen.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: So I just wanted to let you know in case it wasn't right.

* Operator: Uh Hm. Ok. Well, not threatening anyone that's really
what we're worried, concerned about right now.

* Caller: No. They're just sitting there extremely relaxed.

* Operator: I do believe now that it is um just for your information
it was asked by the state Attorney General that it is legal to be
armed in Wisconsin if they're not threatening or someone is not
disturbed by the uh by your weapon.

* Caller: I didn't know that.

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: So anybody can wear a side arm in plain sight like that?

* Operator: Yea. It's actually uh concealed it's uh issue now.

* Caller: Ooohhh.

* Operator: But out in plain sight has now recently been passed by
the Atorney General.

* Caller: Wow. All right that's news to us. So apparently there's no
problem and it's not an emergency. That's I

* Operator: Well, if you're um, if you're concerned or disturbed by
the weapons then it becomes a problem.

* Caller: No, they weren't threatening anybody and they weren't
acting threatening. It was the fact that they uh, no it just came
as a shock to us. It's not

* Operator: Yea.

* Caller: Yea. All right well thank you.

* Operator: Sure, not a problem. We are sending police officers over
to to check them now. [inaudible]

* Caller: Well, I feel bad then because

* Operator:No.

* Caller: if they're not doing anything wrong then it's my mistake.
I just

* Operator: No, well you know what ma'am we, that's the kind of
thing where you just don't know if they're going to do anything
wrong or not. And [inaudible] being armed in the city of Madison
is just not a, you know, usual thing. So, it's quite all right, we
we we're perfectly happy that [inaudible] called.

* Caller: And do you need us to stay around here or is it all right
for us to leave then?

* Operator: Um well, if you'll be available by phone [inaudible]

* Caller: Sure. I'll keep my phone on.

* Operator: Ok. That'll be good. Then I'll. Yea, I'll let you go and
um you can [inaudible] want talk to you about it they will call
you, Ok?

* Caller: Ok, Sure. And our home phone is 249-34xx if they need to
reach us we should be home within about ten minutes.

* Operator: Ok, all right thank you very much.

* Caller: Yea, thank you.

* Operator: Uh Hm. Bye Bye.

* Caller: Bye.

 

[Evolve]

Does anyone have contact with Mr. Goldberg or his lawyer? It seems that his lawyer is not familiar with the Supreme Court's ruling in Florida v. J.L., in which they explicitly ruled that there is no firearm exception to Terry v. Ohio. The judge simply wasn't going to accept her logical arguments, so they were worthless no matter how good they were. But he would have had a harder time if, after making his statements about how a gun is different, she had pointed out that SCOTUS has already addressed that issue and said that he's wrong. He can be as obtuse in his logic as he wants, but dismissing SCOTUS precedent would have been a little more difficult. She should definitely familiarize herself with that case before the appeal is filed.

 

[We-the-People]

Just sent the following message to the Mayor of Madison....typed it on the fly so it may not be super fancy but hopefully mine won't be the only one explaining how disgraceful their city is.

I just read of an incident in your city concerning several law abiding citizens who's rights were violated and the press release from your city including the information on how your police chief intends to handle law abiding citizens who are lawfully carrying firearms. LINK http://www.cityofmadison.com/news/view.cfm?news_id=2231

As the press release was from your city, I can only assume that you and your staff have "signed off" on it. Please be aware that this issue has the nationwide attention of firearms owners, many of whom are businessmen, and that those to whose become aware of this matter will avoid your city and avoid leaving their dollars in your city.

I believe that you are treading in a very dangerous place as the published methods for dealing with law abiding firearms carriers will undoubtedly cost you additional revenues in the form of civil settlements and costs of defending against lawsuits. Make no mistake, there is a new era in America, an era where many have said "enough" and are prepared to put both their money and thier actions where their convictions lay.

I know that I, for one, will avoid, and advocate that those I know avoid, expending any funds in your jurisdiction other than those to support suits brought against such anti American ideas as those promulgated in your press release. You may think that someone in Oregon isn't going to affect you at all, or at most just a little, but don't forget, this is the age of the internet. Business is conducted nationwide and internationally, face to face as well as electronically, from large cities and tiny little enclaves equally.

On a final note, Edward Peruta. If you don't know the name, you will soon enough. He's heard of this travesty of justice and is "on the case".

On the off chance that you were not personally aware of this situation, a reply indicating so and your intended corrective actions would be appreciated. I, in return, would submit that information to those in the firearms community who are, at the moment, a bit upset with the current situation.

Thanks for your time,

signed by me

 

[Rich B]

But what's the point of a permit, then?

There is none. I have never argued that there is a point to having a permit process.

I think most people feel that the police should be able to stop and ask for information, which citizens should be required to give.

This might be the case, but I have a feeling it is more that they don't understand the law and their rights.
Even if they do think this, we are lucky to not be under majority rule. We still have a constitution and state laws.

Maybe there really is no point to a permit, if the police can't ask for it unless you've already probably committed a crime with your gun, and that crime can't be simply carrying it somewhere not prohibited by law.

Bingo.

I wonder what the outcome would have been if someone called and said "There's a man with a fishing pole and a fish, and I'm afraid!" The vast majority of CT residents don't have fishing permits, so it's entirely likely that a person with a fishing pole and a fish has been fishing illegally. Would police be justified in responding to such a call, and asking for the possible fisher's permit? And in temporarily seizing the fishing pole in case the suspect uses it against the police?

I would hope that this is not the case, but I am not current on gaming laws.

This argumentation about police temporarily taking a person's weapon and handcuffing the person is a very slippery slope. Why don't they handcuff everyone, in case people find a weapon at hand like a piece of furniture? Or even if the person doesn't have a weapon but fights bare-handed? Where's the line? If the police can handcuff people when they ask them questions, for their own safety, can they just indiscriminately handcuff everyone because everyone is a potential danger?

Only if they have RAS, which they did not have in the Goldberg case or in my case, or in the Culver 5 case. Having a firearm is not RAS.

If they respond as they should, meaning that the dispatcher informs the caller that unless the person is making threats using the gun or is unsafely handling the gun there isn't a problem and that's the end of the matter, then the media will be all over them for not responding to calls about possible armed criminals. If they respond as many people would like and show up to harrass someone acting legally and responsibly, they violate laws and rights. No real winning solution for them, there.

The real problem with that logic is that no one is criticizing them for responding. It is how they responded and what they did after they were there.

I don't think anyone really faults Glastonbury for checking up on James Goldberg due to the 911 call. But simply walking in, talking to him, asking if he had a permit (not demanding, just asking) would have been sufficient. With just some simple conversation with him and the manager, I believe they would have ascertained that James Goldberg was not about to commit a crime, committing a crime or had commit a crime.

If the police ask me if I have a permit, I will tell them "Yes". If they ask to see it, we have now ended the consensual stop and begun the Terry stop. At that point, I want to know what I am being detained for and what crime they are investigating. If there is none, I will likely end my consensual stop at that time and be on my way.

Like the issue of suitability, this vagueness in law or in the understanding of law that says the context of an action when perceived by "reasonable" people is creating a big problem. If the law were even clearer than it is, and the relevant statutes were updated to say that mere possession of a weapon, visibly or not, is not sufficient to constitute assault or threatening, it would help prevent a lot of these cases. Yes, I know that's like printing "Caution, hot drink" on a coffee cup, but that's apparently the kind of society we're in nowadays.

I disagree actually. I think a certain level of subjectivity exists for a good reason. However, the cases we are discussing are clearly not part of the subjectivity due to the many rulings on the subject. I think the field is pretty well established and defined at this point.

Aside from that, even the judge would have to admit that the act of drawing his firearm in his car to put it away, if observed by someone, would be definite reason to call 911 and a definite breach of peace.

I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion.

I completely agree with Ed that the solution to this legal ambivalence is more clarification of the laws. If even respected judges can't see through their emotions on these topics, we need to make it so clear that they can't deny what the law says. Perhaps that's futile, given the kinds of irrational fears some people have about guns.

I think what is more important is that we all start a movement immediately to remove this judge from his seat. It is ridiculous for the words "judge" "emotion" and "ruling" to all be applied so obviously together.

 

[stacks04]

fundamental rights.

This is the key to your response. I understand people comparing to other permit based luxuries in this state but the fact is not one single other permit based freedom is set up in the constitution of the united states and/or that of ct.

 

[Johnny W]

Reply to Rich B

There is none. I have never argued that there is a point to having a permit process.

That is another hole in the judge's thinking then.

I would hope that this is not the case, but I am not current on gaming laws.

Probably the dispatcher would laugh and hang up, because the laws are not the issue, the perception is the problem. The judge's argument is pretty flimsy when applied to other types of activity, but for some reason firearms seem to have a different status. The reason is clearly not anything specified in the law, so it has no place in a judge's decision-making.

Only if they have RAS, which they did not have in the Goldberg case or in my case, or in the Culver 5 case. Having a firearm is not RAS.

The Federal judge is arguing otherwise, but followed to their logical conclusion his argument seems less appealing. That's what I'm pointing out.

The real problem with that logic is that no one is criticizing them for responding. It is how they responded and what they did after they were there.

I don't think anyone really faults Glastonbury for checking up on James Goldberg due to the 911 call. But simply walking in, talking to him, asking if he had a permit (not demanding, just asking) would have been sufficient. With just some simple conversation with him and the manager, I believe they would have ascertained that James Goldberg was not about to commit a crime, committing a crime or had commit a crime.

I see your point. It would make sense for the police to respond properly, but how could they verify that no crime is being committed if the permit holder does not show the permit? That would seem to be a problem for law enforcement. Even if there were no permits, the police would still have to verify that the person is not prohibited from carrying or owning a gun, and if no one produces identification it would create quite the conundrum for law enforcement officers.

I disagree actually. I think a certain level of subjectivity exists for a good reason. However, the cases we are discussing are clearly not part of the subjectivity due to the many rulings on the subject. I think the field is pretty well established and defined at this point.

Subjectivity is a two-edged sword. When an intelligent person with good intentions can use subjectivity, the results are usually good. However, it seems that more often nowadays it's people with bad intentions or little intelligence who use subjectivity to harm others and society, as is the case with this judge's interpretation. Since it seems most people can't responsibly use judgment anymore, perhaps most people shouldn't have access to subjectivity anymore. That might not require new laws or revision of the current laws, but obviously some judges need instructions on interpreting the law.

I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion.

Keep in mind that in some cases I am using the judge's so-called logic against itself. If the judge thinks that allowing a firearm to be seen is a valid breech of peace, how could he expect someone to then expose the firearm and risk breaching the peace to avoid bringing the weapon into the restaurant? Perhaps the judge thinks guns should be kept in the car all the time, in a locked box. That kind of thinking actually sounds familiar, doesn't it? It used to be the policy of a certain Federal district, didn't it?

 

[Rich B]

I see your point. It would make sense for the police to respond properly, but how could they verify that no crime is being committed if the permit holder does not show the permit? That would seem to be a problem for law enforcement. Even if there were no permits, the police would still have to verify that the person is not prohibited from carrying or owning a gun, and if no one produces identification it would create quite the conundrum for law enforcement officers.

No. No. No. Citizens in America are innocent until proven guilty. Citizens are not required to prove their innocence at every inquiry by a LEO. The burden of proof is on the state. If they don't have a reason to believe you are committing a crime, they should not be making a Terry stop in the first place. That RAS required is not allowed to be a hunch, but rather a reasonable suspicion rooted in some kind of fact or evidence the LEO is observing. The LEO is not allowed to have a hunch that you have no permit, he has to have a reason to believe you do not.

An officer is not allowed to pull you over in your car just to check if you have a license either. An example of RAS in this case would be that he recognizes you and remembers that you have a history recently of driving without a license due to a suspension or revocation. Simply pulling over random motorists and checking to see if they have licenses would not be acceptable, nor would it be acceptable to do this to OCers.

Subjectivity is a two-edged sword. When an intelligent person with good intentions can use subjectivity, the results are usually good. However, it seems that more often nowadays it's people with bad intentions or little intelligence who use subjectivity to harm others and society, as is the case with this judge's interpretation. Since it seems most people can't responsibly use judgment anymore, perhaps most people shouldn't have access to subjectivity anymore. That might not require new laws or revision of the current laws, but obviously some judges need instructions on interpreting the law.

I would rather we just get rid of judges who clearly should not be judges and replace them with fair and balanced versions.

 

[We-the-People]

.......Simply pulling over random motorists and checking to see if they have licenses would not be acceptable, nor would it be acceptable to do this to OCers.

Actually it is "acceptable" according to the SCOTUS as they have held that "checkpoints" are legal....both DUI and Immigration.

I disagree with their ruling, but it is their ruling and the "law" until we get it changed.

 

[Rich B]

Actually it is "acceptable" according to the SCOTUS as they have held that "checkpoints" are legal....both DUI and Immigration.

I disagree with their ruling, but it is their ruling and the "law" until we get it changed.

That does not take away the requirement for RAS for a terry stop. I have no idea how they get the grounds for checkpoints, but a Terry stop still requires RAS.

Also, don't quote SCOTUS rulings or law without citing the source please.

 

[KBCraig]

Actually it is "acceptable" according to the SCOTUS as they have held that "checkpoints" are legal....both DUI and Immigration.

I disagree with their ruling, but it is their ruling and the "law" until we get it changed.

Please cite the ruling allowing checkpoints for licenses, which is what Rich B was talking about. You won't find one.

SCOTUS has ruled that specific, targeted, published-in-advance random checkpoints for the specific purpose of spotting drunk drivers is allowable (I disagree with their ruling, but that is the ruling). They made a similar ruling for immigration.

BTW, sobriety checkpoints are only legal in 39 states. The other 11 states' supreme courts have found them illegal or unconstitutional.

The majority of citations at sobriety checkpoints are for expired registrations or inspections, lapsed insurance, etc. They stop very few drunk drivers.

 

[Rich B]

Please cite the ruling allowing checkpoints for licenses, which is what Rich B was talking about. You won't find one.

+1

I have never been IDed at a DUI checkpoint. This might be because I don't drive drunk.

 

[We-the-People]

I did skip over the "licenses" part of the post that I replied to, however, if you read the whole texts of the SCOTUS cases, I believe that they ARE, per SCOTUS incorrect ruling, authorized to get your ID (documents). Here is the logic:

In Section IV B, first and second paragraphs, of 428 US 543 (US vs Martinez-Fuerte (which concerns border checkpoints)) the court shows it's intent to allow production of documents. Second para is below:

"`[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.'" United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 880. "

Okay, by itself, we're still not to ID (drivers license) at a DUI checkpoint....BUT... In Martinez-Fuerte the court "signed off" on the production of documents in suspicionless immigration checkpoint stops.

In State of Mich State Department of Police vs Sitz the SCOTUS refers back to Martinez-Fuerte AND......In the last sentence of para (c) gives the state (i.e. LEO's conducting DUI checkpoints), at the minimum, sufficient wriggle room and at the worst, outright approval, to get your "document" (i.e. drivers license). Last sentence of para (c) is quoted below:

"The resulting intrusion is constitutionally indistinguishable from the stops upheld in Martinez-Fuerte. Pp. 451-453."

REFERENCES:
US vs Martinez-Fuerte (428 US 543)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=543

Michigan Dept of State Police vs Sitz (496 US 444)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0496_0444_ZS.html


Like I said, I don't agree with either type of checkpoint. I'm sure the founding fathers would absolutely say NOT in America.

I also think that most of us here would agree that intimidation and coercion are integral parts of both DUI and immigration checkpoints (just google or youtube for a multitude of videos and/or audio of such encounters) which is increased by the courts at least "quiet nod" approval for obtaining "documents".

We also know that the vast majority of sheeple comply with whatever "demands" are made without a single thought to the rights which they are "voluntarily" surrendering by blind compliance with "requests" that are presented with an expectation of unquestioning compliance and in a manner which is much more indicative of a "demand"

Have I made my case sufficiently?

 

[Edward Peruta]

Motion filed asking Court to reconsider and include 911 audio clips

Read the motion and reasons in the PDF document at this link:

http://www.ctgunrights.com/04.Legal.Federal/Motion to Reconsider 911 audio.pdf

 

[Evolve]

Actually it is "acceptable" according to the SCOTUS as they have held that "checkpoints" are legal....both DUI and Immigration.

I disagree with their ruling, but it is their ruling and the "law" until we get it changed.

Another aspect of DUI and immigration checkpoints that makes this a bad comparison is that these checkpoints pull everyone over who goes through them, they don't randomly single out individuals, which would be illegal. Also, they have to be announced ahead of time so that anyone not wishing to be pulled over may simply avoid the "Constitution-free zone". This is very different from the police stopping and questioning OC'ers simply because they are carrying guns in what appears to be a legal manner. That would be like pulling over a car randomly along the road simply to check for a driver's license, which is an unconstitutional act.

 

[Rich B]

Another aspect of DUI and immigration checkpoints that makes this a bad comparison is that these checkpoints pull everyone over who goes through them, they don't randomly single out individuals, which would be illegal. Also, they have to be announced ahead of time so that anyone not wishing to be pulled over may simply avoid the "Constitution-free zone". This is very different from the police stopping and questioning OC'ers simply because they are carrying guns in what appears to be a legal manner. That would be like pulling over a car randomly along the road simply to check for a driver's license, which is an unconstitutional act.

This.

 

[larch]

Another aspect of DUI and immigration checkpoints that makes this a bad comparison is that these checkpoints pull everyone over who goes through them, they don't randomly single out individuals, which would be illegal.

Just to clarify one point here....Not everyone who goes through a DUI checkpoint is necessarily pulled over. They could be, but it is not an absolute. The commanding officer of the checkpoint has the option to set the random interval of people to be checked...ie...every car, every other car, every 3rd car etc.... Also, at check points any vehicle, regardless of it's position in the interval order, can be stopped for any observed violation such as no seatbelt, cracked window etc.....Oh, and those black plastic car dealer advertisement license plate boarders are illegal too. Most cops ignore them but they can be used to justify a stop.

I was a cop for a few years in the mid 90's and have conducted numerous of these checkpoints. I have since moved onto greener pastures

Another example of stopping vehicles without RAS or without witnessing a violation is weigh stations for trucks.