Lawyer up. If nothing else but to stop this jackhole Barney Fife from screwing with other people.
This could be stretching it a bit, but could it be said that the "crime" would be the speeding violation? Or, are there specific crimes that justify removal during contact? Felony, obvious, but is there anything else?
The disarm is only legal if the cop has reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the suspect is dangerous, as well as armed. "Officer safety" is not the catch-all that many make it out as.
This kind of thing is exactly why we need to get rid of the notification requirement. And the license requirement, for that matter.
This kind of thing is exactly why we need to get rid of the notification requirement. And the license requirement, for that matter.
You gotta love the 35 mph speed limit in MWC ...
That is excessive behavior on part of the Officer ... must have been something in her behavior that triggered that kind of contact ... I would tell her to ask to speak to a Supervisor and ask them to explain what she did to get that type of contact so that she can learn and not do it again to ... approach it from a teaching moment not a complaint
That is excessive behavior on part of the Officer ... must have been something in her behavior that triggered that kind of contact ... I would tell her to ask to speak to a Supervisor and ask them to explain what she did to get that type of contact so that she can learn and not do it again to ... approach it from a teaching moment not a complaint
Not necessarily!
Disclaimer: I'm going to proceed on the assumption that since she allegedly made the required notification and presented her SDA permit at the initial point of contact, that she fully complied with the officers subsequent instructions.
Now that that's done, here's my issue with it. If she's a regular citizen who's complying with the notification requirement in the SDA, and you've elected to disarm her with no outward indications of deception, aggression or disobedience of a lawful order, why then would you need to cuff her? You have her gun, so under what description of "officer safety" are you physically detaining her?
All LEO's in the US, regardless of jurisdiction are subject to the "objectively reasonable" use of force standard as detailed in Graham vs. Connor and Tennessee vs. Garner. From the Public Agency Training Council (and other sources not listed):
http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/handcuffing-excessive-force.shtml
The three-part test on use of force looks at (1) the severity of the offense suspect; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others; and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. So in this case, can the officer reasonably articulate the use of handcuffs on an allegedly compliant and disarmed subject, in an average traffic stop (nothing is "routine")? I'm highly suspect on this point.
Further, the SDA law is explicit that no inspection of the firearm is warranted without without probable cause that a crime has been committed. The officer has no legal standing to demand "proof of ownership" or any other information about the status of the firearm prior to returning it at the conclusion of the stop. If he violated that legal requirement, how solid is he on using the cuffs per Graham vs. Connor?
My spidey sense inclines me to believe that the officer may have been exercising his personal beliefs on the subject of citizen carry. Only the officer can answer that question. It bears further scrutiny and absent a reasonably articulated justification by his agency, she may have an actionable complaint for the violation of her 4th Amendment rights. I know I certainly wouldn't accept the situation at face value if I were in her shoes and had acted in a reasonable manner.
This is a case study in the fact that you can't safeguard your rights, if you don't know what your rights are under the law.
Yes...
I'd be filing a comlpaint for sure.
Nice explanation. I don't see how he could do this either. Sounds to me be is a power hungry jerk. Cops like that sicken me.Not necessarily!
Disclaimer: I'm going to proceed on the assumption that since she allegedly made the required notification and presented her SDA permit at the initial point of contact, that she fully complied with the officers subsequent instructions.
Now that that's done, here's my issue with it. If she's a regular citizen who's complying with the notification requirement in the SDA, and you've elected to disarm her with no outward indications of deception, aggression or disobedience of a lawful order, why then would you need to cuff her? You have her gun, so under what description of "officer safety" are you physically detaining her?
All LEO's in the US, regardless of jurisdiction are subject to the "objectively reasonable" use of force standard as detailed in Graham vs. Connor and Tennessee vs. Garner. From the Public Agency Training Council (and other sources not listed): http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/handcuffing-excessive-force.shtml
The three-part test on use of force looks at (1) the severity of the offense suspect; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others; and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. So in this case, can the officer reasonably articulate the use of handcuffs on an allegedly compliant and disarmed subject, in an average traffic stop (nothing is "routine")? I'm highly suspect on this point.
Further, the SDA law is explicit that no inspection of the firearm is warranted without without probable cause that a crime has been committed. The officer has no legal standing to demand "proof of ownership" or any other information about the status of the firearm prior to returning it at the conclusion of the stop. If he violated that legal requirement, how solid is he on using the cuffs per Graham vs. Connor?
My spidey sense inclines me to believe that the officer may have been exercising his personal beliefs on the subject of citizen carry. Only the officer can answer that question. It bears further scrutiny and absent a reasonably articulated justification by his agency, she may have an actionable complaint for the violation of her 4th Amendment rights. I know I certainly wouldn't accept the situation at face value if I were in her shoes and had acted in a reasonable manner.
This is a case study in the fact that you can't safeguard your rights, if you don't know what your rights are under the law.
Wasn't MWC one of the towns that said they were going to take a hard line on anyone OCing? Maybe this is a symptom of that attitude.
Or maybe there is more to this story? IDK
Similar threads
