Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy

Status
Not open for further replies.
And maybe a criminal lawyer should know the rules in the state he lives and practices law in, suprised that he doesn't.

Maybe this thread should go away before it becomes another cop bashing, cop supporting thread, we are heading that way already.
 
Conn.Troop

Yep the city of NY wont recognize any pistol carry permit but their own. Not even permits issued by the higher authority... The State of New York. They dont even want to recognize HR218. But there have been more than a few law-suits forcing the NYPD to return property (the handgun) to it's rightful owner.

Having said that... Could I have arrested the guy with the little gun?.. Yes I could have. But to serve what purpose? Another number?. Releasing him required something called a 343. (Declination to prosicute) It required that I confer with the riding D/A, the Pct desk officer, and my own opinion. He wasnt a bad guy.. In sum and substance he made a mistake.. He should have known better.. but it was just a mistake.


In my opinion... and this is just my personal opinion... The City Of New York believes itself to be the center of the universe, and answerable to no one but itself. Least of all to the constitution. And thats from a native New Yorker.

Getting back on subject. Police work requires maturity, education, experience, training, and compassion... The police work for all the people. Not for the government.

END OF RANT!!!

I apologize for taking the conversation off topic.


Glenn D.
 
I agree, never understood how a NYS permit was never good enough for NYC, makes no sense. But back when I was a cop in NY we couldn't bring guns into New Jersey, even on duty.

If you felt it was OK to let the guy go, have at it, I don't know the whole story. Was the guy up here to get into something? Why the Georgia plates? Etc. If it was a legit mistake, fine send him packing and make sure he's aware of the law for next time. No sweat. Again, I never said that I would have handled it the same way as the cop in Mass, just that the PD and the courts backed him.

Some people are just not aware of the rules and a little education goes a lot further than an arrest.
 
And maybe a state (Mass. in this case) should have the systems in place to make it a

routine procedure for officers to check the validity of a carry permit BEFORE they

start issuing them.

And maybe this thread should not go away simply because it makes some folks

uncomfortable.

I for one have stated I have the greatest respect for most police officers and certainly

in no way intended to bash the officer. I have a problem with the system Mass. had

in place at the time of the incident and the minimum amount of effort officer Stern

exerted to verify Mr. Schubert's permit before confiscating his weapon. 10 minutes

was not enough of an effort unless there were more pressing concerns ..... which

were never mentioned. If my opinion that 10 minutes is not enough effort is to be

construed as bashing then I guess I was bashing.


I bet this couldn't happen now because I bet the state of Mass. has corrected this flaw.

BUT.... if they haven't someone who IS carrying concealed and is subjected to a

Terry can still be relinquished of their weapon in spite of the fact they have on their

person a state issued carry permit IF the officer does not want to invest more than

10 minutes in trying to verify the permit.
 
Hey Conn. Troop

Yep I checked him out pretty good.He was legitimately visiting relatives in NY. He drove up from Georgia for a holiday. Just a regular guy who did a bone head move. No reason to ruin his life over it.
 
“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.”
From a quick reading of the article it appears as if the officer did have P.C. to believe that the party in question was breaking the law, (officer observed a concealed weapon) so the officer had the right to determine if the suspect had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. An officer has the right and duty to perform a pat down search of suspect’s outer garments to determine if the suspect is armed and may present a danger to the officer or the public at large. If the officer was unable to determine that the suspect’s CCW permit was valid the officer had the right to confiscate the weapon and any documents he believed to be fake. It appears to me that the officer acted within the scope of the law and his authority. Did the officer use what I believe was good sense, no! I believe that the officer could have handled this in a less conferential way.

Years ago when CCW permits were few and far between I had a similar situation happen. It was daylight, in a low crime area; the person I observed was professionally attired, so my threat alarm was at medium. I advised dispatch of my location and observations and requested one back up unit I approached the suspect from a right angle, with my pistol held behind my back, advised him why I stopped him and requested his CCW permit, he quickly provided his U.S. Army CID credentials I made point of re holstering my pistol. We had a short but pleasant conversation and went about our business.

The final aside to this story; the man I stopped was hired as chief of police almost 5 years later and the two of us always had a good laugh over that incident.
 
In my opinion... and this is just my personal opinion... The City Of New York believes itself to be the center of the universe, and answerable to no one but itself. Least of all to the constitution. And thats from a native New Yorker.

Sounds like Chicago also
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'm always puzzled when law enforcement goes that extra mile to MAKE a criminal out of someone. Sure makes life miserable for those officers who try to "conserve the peace".
 
ZeSpectre

I often wonder the same thing. It seems to be a growing trend though. I guess that's what comes of hiring a boy to do a man's work.

Think that was too strong?

Glenn
 
Only one question, why would the officer question the validity of the permit. He had the information ofn the attorney. If it later proved to be valid no harm done of it wasn't valid then a warrant could be issued for the attorney. its not like he was going to run away and leave his practice behind over a weapons beef. Unless the attorney was being a complete pain in the sit down, (and I know a lot of them who would have been in that situation), their should have been no reason to hold him as long as he did then release him while keeping the weapon. I don't know both sides of the story but it sounds like a typical anti-gun cop situation. I'm sure there is a lot of gray on both sides of the story, there usually is but this smells bad.
 
If a Mass resident permit is anything like an non-resident permit, they are a joke to fake and easy to counterfeit. It's a laminated sheet of paper and very easily forged. Maybe thats just for non residents, I have never seen a resident permit.
 
I find myself wondering what would have happened if the attorney had been beaten to death shortly after being relieved of his handgun.

It doesn't seem overly unlikely that a prominent defense attorney ran into a LEO with a grudge who saw an opportunity for some barely legal harassing activity. That is very disappointing to me; how many more serious "crimes" could that officer have dealt with in the 10 minutes +/- he wasted with the attorney, much less the patrol time wasted in court over such a meaningless exercise. I wonder if that LEO has ever exceded the posted speed limit in his duty vehicle without legal justification (answering a call, pursuit, etc.); that seems about as serious to me.

I also find myself glad to live not in Mass. but in Miss. If was the correct application of Mass. law, i wish that attorney the very best of luck in convincing his fellows in the state legislature to adjust the written law to correct what seems like obvious idiocy.
 
I find myself wondering what would have happened if the attorney had been beaten to death shortly after being relieved of his handgun.
Click to expand...
Kind of a strange thing to wonder about.
It doesn't seem overly unlikely that a prominent defense attorney ran into a LEO with a grudge who saw an opportunity for some barely legal harassing activity. That is very disappointing to me;
Click to expand...
So your'e disappointed in something you suppose may have happened?
how many more serious "crimes" could that officer have dealt with in the 10 minutes +/- he wasted with the attorney, much less the patrol time wasted in court over such a meaningless exercise.
Click to expand...
I don't like the flavor of this whole incident at all, but ten minutes is a very short time to be detained for anything, let alone suspicion of illegally carrying a weapon.

That said, IF the facts were as presented, the officer overreacted, and I think the state has an obligation to give the officer means to verify any license that he is charged with verifying.
 
FWIW.... and I have a headache

This statement is on page 13 of the appeals court decision:

"As it happens, Massachusetts did not have a simple way for police
officers to conduct such a check, so Stern's effort to do so took
several minutes. "


Because of the did I have researched the heck out of the Massachusetts AG's office on line and could not find any information that led me to think that the verification of carry permits process had been improved any for police officers.

It's just that the did in the statement above which was referring to July 2006 made me think that something had been changed.

Anybody from Mass. know? I'm very curious. (Because the appeals court decision was 12/23/09)
 
Last edited:
Kind of a strange thing to wonder about.

So your'e disappointed in something you suppose may have happened?

I don't like the flavor of this whole incident at all, but ten minutes is a very short time to be detained for anything, let alone suspicion of illegally carrying a weapon.
Click to expand...
I should clarify that i was wondering more specifically about potential liability on the part of the officer and the taxpayers for such a questionable confiscation.

Yes, i am; if the officer targeted a citizen for a form of quazi-harassment that only receives the "quazi-" label due to its very technical legality, i am GREATLY disappointed in the officer's conduct. If he was simply lacking in the common sense needed to recognize a "crime" worthy of correction, then i pity him without disappointment (that would be reserved for his loved ones).

Ten minutes of MY personal time isn't much, but ten minutes of patrolling, "serving and protecting" time could be worth as much as a human life or a stolen car, depending on what may have been further down the officer's beat. Further, those are ten minutes of the taxpayer's time and should be used for the benefit of those taxpayers.
 
I tend to lean towards the LE point of view, but I just simply cannot see how the decision made by the LEO in this case was correct. :confused: The description of events seem illogical.
 
Illogical maybe ... the OP titled it....

Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy


I tend to agree that the deputy was overzealous. I also agree he went a little overboard apparently exerting his authoritii over an unbuttoned suit jacket in the middle of July by a 'well known defense attorney of 30 years in the Springfield area'.

However, he could not verify the attorney's permit so going to the letter of the law I guess I will have to say he was within his duty to confiscate the pistol.

It's just that he apparently could not verify what turned out to be a lawful permit.
And..... although I think Mass. may have corrected this problem based on the way they worded part of their appeals decision I can't confirm they have. I continue to look.................
 
From a quick reading of the article it appears as if the officer did have P.C. to believe that the party in question was breaking the law, (officer observed a concealed weapon) so the officer had the right to determine if the suspect had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Click to expand...

This right here irks me.

Carrying a concealed weapon is LEGAL. The assumption that it is immediately illegal irks me.

Less than 1% of the population in any given state with a CCW permit system, carries. Because getting licensed to do so is a deliberate process rather than a casual one.

But: So is a class A driver's license. Do police pull over every 18-wheeler they come across to check for a class A license? of course, not. But, probable cause works the same way to assume that the driver is not licensed and is operating a commercial vehicle without proper licensing.

It has been inculcated into our Law Enforcement Officers that they are to deliberately dissuade the populace through harrassment tactics, from carrying concealed weapons.

The assumption that it's even APPROPRIATE for an officer to initiate an approach on a man who is minding his own business and just going about his day's work, purely because he has a pistol on his hip, is so antithetical to the America I want to live in, that I am struck (relatively) speechless.

Lord, give me peace officers, and no Law Enforcement Officers, in my encounters in life.:barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top