That was my initial thought....always more to the story.
Whether it's legal or not it must have been intimidating to your ex to be treated that way in public. It would be for me, followed by anger. Yet another example of a law abiding citizen being punished for the action of a few criminals.
Make an official complaint. For all the good it will do.
She needs to call a heavy hitter!
What's the old mantra on this forum... "If you ain't done nothing wrong, you ain't got nothing to worry about."
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.
I was thinking the same thing, although you articulated it far better than I could have. I sent a PM to the OP, but I didn't get a response. I also believe that if all the information we have is all that exists, then a complaint is in order.
Wait... Thats kinky?
Similar threads
