Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy

Status
Not open for further replies.
As more and more people carry, this behavior will have to subside. People just won't put up with a clear overreaction like this. If the courts won't do anything about it (I think most courts would find this excessive) then a political/ PR solution must address it.

In many jurisdictions, Mayors have great influence over PDs, and can set the tone for what will and will not be tolerated. This power tripping officer will bring his attitude to the wrong situation at the wrong time, sooner or later, and a smack down will ensue. There is no excuse for it, and no justification.
 
Quote from the article:

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."
Click to expand...

The worst part, the true violation in my opinion, is bolded.

This deputy STOLE the mans handgun! Since when can any officer simply TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? If he had cause to believe that this man was in violation of the law then he should have been arrested. If he was not arrested then the deputy can not just confiscate private property. No warrant, no arrest, no investigation? That is nonsense.
 
And if he couldn't determine that his driver's license was facially valid would he have impounded his car? If he had no receipt for his pants would the officer have driven off with those, as well?
 
IMO... This is a perfect example of law inforcement as opposed to policeing. There is a difference. After reading the artical I have the opinion that the LEO not only overstepped his duty to enforce the law, he made a personal issue of the incident, and he further failed to protect a citizen.

I cant understand how the courts up-held a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

Sad day.
 
Well yall should start writing to the mayor,sheriff and any other elected official in that area who is above this dude. but please do so in a proper and respectful way
 
Don't really buy the story. Deputies in Mass. are not cops. They do court security and prisoner transport. And the article states he was an officer, not a deputy.

The court ruled against him and he's a lawyer, one would assume he would know how to present his case and he still lost. Let's not get out the tinfoil hats just yet.
 
Whatever happened to the Fourth Ammendment?

To sum this up, a man carrying a concealed handgun in Georgia, legally with permit, was briefly detained by a patrol officer and had his CCW and weapon confiscated. The officer "got a glimpse" of the concealed weapon and treated the man as though he were committing a crime.

Link (examiner.com)

Now I ask, what happened to this unreasonable search and seizure thing? If you're carrying a weapon, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that you are doing so illegally, intend to or have committed a crime, my instinct is to believe that he has no right to request anything more than identification and CCW. This is as if your car were impounded, with all documentation in order and without arrest, leaving the driver stranded on the side of the road, after a routine traffic stop because the officer thinks there are a lot of car thefts in the area, but has no actual cause to believe your car was stolen. Without cause there can be no search nor seizure (except in Commiefornia where the 4th doesn't apply to gun owners anyway)

Thoughts?
 
First time I read that story I was surprised to hear that it happened in Georgia. Then I realized that there always have been and most likely always be some people with muscles for brains will be attracted to law enforcement even though they don't have a clue about what the laws are or have the slightest idea of what is in the constitution. My disgust is for the courts, the judges know better but don't care, like their fearful leader the Arab-in-chief and current resident in the Whitehouse they know whats in the constitution but don't care.

Lawyer getting hassled because he let his gun be seen is understandable. To my way of thinking there should be no difference between concealed and open carry no matter what your preference is nor should there be any restriction against either as long as you are not a convicted felon or adjudicated as mentally unstable and a danger to yourself or others. But he knew the rules and he was careless.

Cop over reacted and unless the lawyer is tired of fighting the last hasn't been heard of this case. Living in Wisconsin but with friends down there who are active in the open carry organization I watch developments down there closely and with some envy. Our progress in the Dairy state lags Georgia's by a mile.
 
Also I just realized there's a civil rights forum directly below this one, and this has already been posted there. I thought I was being sooooo clever checking the first 2 pages of general threads to see if it had been posted already :rolleyes:

move/lock/whatever, my bad :o
 
I read the appellate decision

1. Springfield courthouse steps are a 'high crime area'??? I can only say WOW!

2. Investigators could not produce any of the eyewitnesses that 'pointed and yelled'. Hmmmmm???

3. 'Stern ............ removed the clip.' ARRRGGGhhh!!

4. The Springfield police commissioner recommended officer Stern be retrained on

Mass. firearm law BUT found no specific wrongdoing. (OK.... if he did nothing

wrong why retrain him ????)

5. 'The precise location of the gun is inconsequential;.....' It isn't??? Are you sure?



I know there is always more to a story than what we read here but it looks to me like

Massachusetts citizens can be disarmed by a police officer anytime they choose to

do a 'Terry' frisk because the officers have no way to confirm a carry permit.

Or.....am I missing something?


It would be great if some of our LEO's and lawyers would weigh in on this.

But first, please read the appeals court decision.
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder, what exactly is the point of the permit, if an officer can take your property, detain you, throw you in the back of a patrol car, disarm you and then leave you without your lawful means of self protection? This illustrates a potential folly of a permit system.
 
Clarification time.

The original article is written in the Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner and the incident is cited as providing lessons to GA concealed carriers.

HOWEVER, the Schubert/Stern incident actually occurred in Massachusetts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top