federal judge rules police cannot detain open carriers

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
outstanding ruling in federal court yesterday and no qualified immunity to the jackboots stomping constitutional rights.

On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in Mexico and twenty-five other states.

In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that

"t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that

"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia, and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Judge Blak's opinion and order can be read here.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like the problem here was that the theater did not request the gun carrier to leave because he had a gun. If they had and he refused then I think the police could have stepped in.
 
uscitizen said:
Looks like the problem here was that the theater did not request the gun carrier to leave because he had a gun. If they had and he refused then I think the police could have stepped in.
Click to expand...

that's all it would have taken, but some cops out there think that anyone with a gun is someone they can detain. not anymore.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that's all it would have taken, but some cops out there think that anyone with a gun is someone they can detain. not anymore.
Click to expand...

A bit more technical than that the theatre had called the cops, but had not asked the man to leave and not come back with his gun.
At least that is what I got from a quick scan of the portion of the article you posted.
 
uscitizen said:
Looks like the problem here was that the theater did not request the gun carrier to leave because he had a gun. If they had and he refused then I think the police could have stepped in.
Click to expand...

If the dog didn't stop to take a shit, it would have caught the rabbit
 
uscitizen said:
A bit more technical than that the theatre had called the cops, but had not asked the man to leave and not come back with his gun.
At least that is what I got from a quick scan of the portion of the article you posted.
Click to expand...

nothing technical about it at all. it doesn't matter if the theatre called the cops or not. they did and what should have happened is the police just asking the man to leave upon request of the manager. they treated him like a criminal suspect though, illegally seized him and illegally searched him. I hope those officers learn a good lesson.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
nothing technical about it at all. it doesn't matter if the theatre called the cops or not. they did and what should have happened is the police just asking the man to leave upon request of the manager. they treated him like a criminal suspect though, illegally seized him and illegally searched him. I hope those officers learn a good lesson.
Click to expand...

Too bad they did not taser him.
 
The movie theater needs their no gun policy printed on their tickets. That way they are covered and can just call the cops.
 
uscitizen said:
The movie theater needs their no gun policy printed on their tickets. That way they are covered and can just call the cops.
Click to expand...

in most states, the no guns sign needs to be clearly posted in a conspicuous location, like the front door. then they are covered. on the ticket after being purchased wouldn't cut it.
 
I suspect that a ticket constituts a legal binding contract. And by using that ticket to gain admittance you are agreeing to the terms of that contract.

The entire problem here seems to stem from the way the police held the offender and obtained his id, etc. Not the fact that he was escorted from the theatre.
 
uscitizen said:
The movie theater needs their no gun policy printed on their tickets. That way they are covered and can just call the cops.
Click to expand...
No they couldn't. Since it isn't against the law it is private policy the cops, according to this ruling, cannot do a thing even if it was a billboard. The cops are not there to enforce the theater's private policy.
 
Damocles said:
No they couldn't. Since it isn't against the law it is private policy the cops, according to this ruling, cannot do a thing even if it was a billboard. The cops are not there to enforce the theater's private policy.
Click to expand...

The last theatre I was in did not have any employees old enough to carry short firearms. Like they are going to confront an armed man.
 
uscitizen said:
The last theatre I was in did not have any employees old enough to carry short firearms. Like they are going to confront an armed man.
Click to expand...
Whether they are or not the cops are not there to enforce the private policy of the theater, that was the ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top