Loveland, CO police settle open carry lawsuit

[Jake Balam]

Perception is reality.

Someone was scared, they called the police.

I think the police acted accordingly. He wasnt harassed, they checked him out and sent him on his way. What were they supposed to do not show up?

Why would any LEO not secure a weapon when talking to a suspect?

If you're going to quote just the parts of my post that suit you that's fine. But as I said the 911 caller probably made the situation sound much worse then it was. The police only had everyone's safety in mind.

Some people are so anti establishment that every little thing is an infraction of your rights. The police have only the information they were given and securing the weapon seems the safest course of action in that situation

 

[maestro pistolero]

I understand open carrying in an open carry state, but someone called the police and reported a man with a gun.

SO WHAT? Carrying a holstered sidearm is not illegal behavior, and there was no indication, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause to believe that any crime had been committed. That's why they lost the case.

Imagine they called to report a man with a car, (another potentially lethal weapon) Should they then respond, pull the man out of the car JUST IN CASE he was planning on misusing the vehicle?

Nope, folks are going to have to get used to the idea that carrying a weapon, is not, in and of itself, prima facia evidence hat a crime has been committed.

The departments are going to need more than "he has a gun" to detain and search. The behavior of the person, and or other evidence of an ACTUAL crime is required.

Glad the court saw that clearly in this case.

What were they supposed to do not show up?

Why would any LEO not secure a weapon when talking to a suspect?

I think the dispatchers are in need of a little remedial training in these sorts of cases. They should ask whether the gun was holstered, whether the man was threatening anyone, ask what the man was doing or saying, determine whether any gun crime has been reported in the immediate area, and then make a decision whether dispatching is even necessary.

Even in CA, many departments don't routinely dispatch for open carry absent evidence of a real threat. But let's say the policy of a department is to respond no matter what, even absent any evidence of a crime or credible threat,

What is wrong with approaching the man with sufficient cover from fellow officers, observing the behavior from cover or distance, approaching perhaps with guns drawn at the low-ready, thereby not creating an unneccessarly dangerous situation where a loaded gun is pointed at a human?

They could then ask a few questions to try to determine the state of mind of the citizen, what his intentions are, and then politely thanking him/her for their cooperation?

This even happens in liberal California, though usually (but not always) with a quick weapons inspection per state law. Disarming, searching, and handcuffing folks for lawful behavior will hopefully never withstand any level of scrutiny in this country.

 

[PawDog]

I spent two weeks in Loveland last winter. Nice, scenic little town, and beautiful Rocky Mountains to the west. But, the town is sadly filled with a lot of liberals and dope smoking, burned out hippies. My guess is some liberal, anti-gun freak probably called 911 out of spite, fully knowing it's legal to open carry in Colorado.

Liberals regularly lie just to further their twisted agenda.

 

[KyJim]

A couple of points.

1. The $15,000 to settle likely does not include attorney fees. These are often separate than the settlement amount. The attorney fees are likely to surpass the damages.

2. "Hecker said police were correct in acting to empty ammunition from the gun to ensure public safety." http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=31593&pg=2. This indicates the police chief has not learned the lesson. There is apparently no law against open (and loaded) carry in that state. While an investigatory stop was likely warranted, the seizure of the ammunition was unlawful because there was no crime and simply exercising one's right cannot justify a seizure. A generic claim of "public safety" in a non-sensitive area cannot justify this. Otherwise, all our guns could be seized.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

I want to know specifics on exactly how the officer received the gun. The source stated the officer "temporarily took" the gun. The plaintiff stated they "siezed" the gun. One is an ambiguous statement. The other is a bit more legally defined.

The manner which the officer acted, to me, is the key if the plaintiff was ruled in favor correctly or not.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Why would any LEO not secure a weapon when talking to a suspect?

Why would a law enforcement officer regard a citizen as a suspect? Open carry is legal in Colorado except in Telluride, Denver, and possibly Boulder, (where it's illegal to smoke in public.) No one is a "suspect" who's merely exercising his civil rights.

 

[Ronbert]

Years ago when I was first investigating whether obtaining a CCW permit was possible in the town next door to Loveland I was informed that open carry would "get you proned out" by my city's cops. "Yes, it's legal to carry openly. But officers will approach with holsters unsnapped" and give you orders to eat dirt.

That was when CCW permits were NOT issued by the then-Sheriff and the Police Chief was adamant against all non-police guns and charged a large non-refundable fee to apply for the permit that he wouldn't issue.

We replaced that Sheriff with a guy who went to the Legislature as the head of the Sheriff's Association and advocated for shall-issue CCW permits.
We got shall-issue permits.

Considering the relatively gun-friendly atmosphere in the county (Loveland is in my same county and we had that same gun-friendly Sheriff until he was term-limited out) I think both sides over reacted.

Good thing the "victim" wasn't a New York lawyer. Loveland would be out another zero or two.

 

[TXAZ]

Any lawyers care to answer:

So was there not a violation of the Second Amendment in this instance?

If so, was there a possible criminal charge against the rights violator?

 

[MLeake]

For those who think the police acted reasonably...

... please realize that it's a fairly normal thing for anti-gun departments to instruct their officers to effectively harass open carriers. There was a thread not too long ago about one major city police chief who had instructed his officers to stop everybody they saw carrying, even though open carry was legal.

Said police chief apparently thought it would be just great if a carrier got checked every few blocks or so.

The only thing that gets the attention of such departments (and typically city councils and mayors, since not that many police chiefs embark on such campaigns without at least tacit approval) is hitting them in the checkbook.

I'm all for making their stupidity hurt. In a legal manner, of course.

More power to the plaintiff.

 

[LouCap]

So, are we suggesting that police responding to a 911 or "man with a gun" call should not investigate, nor do anything to ensure their own safety until they determine the severity of the situation? They have a duty to respond, it's not a choice. At most, the man was inconvenienced and then sent on his merry way once they determined the call had no merit. If anything, the people who made the call are to blame, and perhaps they are the ones who need to be educated, not the police.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.

 

[jcsturgeon]

Would you like to be stopped, and questioned for speaking out publicly about an issue and exercising your First Amendment rights?

Open carry is the extreme end of second amendment rights. It accomplishes nothing but intimidation and offers zero tactical advantage. So, using your analogy, if someone was running down the street screaming in people's faces I would expect police officers to take an interest and do a stop and investigate to make sure the person is alright and assess the situation. Possibly, they would just find out the person was an a-hole, as was the case here.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Why would a law enforcement officer regard a citizen as a suspect? Open carry is legal in Colorado except in Telluride, Denver, and possibly Boulder, (where it's illegal to smoke in public.) No one is a "suspect" who's merely exercising his civil rights.

Score another one for Mr. Wolf.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So, are we suggesting that police responding to a 911 or "man with a gun" call should not investigate, nor do anything to ensure their own safety until they determine the severity of the situation? They have a duty to respond, it's not a choice. At most, the man was inconvenienced and then sent on his merry way once they determined the call had no merit. If anything, the people who made the call are to blame, and perhaps they are the ones who need to be educated, not the police.

Two cases that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court have established that in order for a police officer to make an "investigative stop" he must first have "a reasonable suspicion, based on clearly articulable facts, that a crime has been committed, IS BEING committed, or is about to be committed." (Google "Terry Stop" and "Hiibel")

If the officer cannot clearly articulate why he suspects that the person has committed or is committing a crime, then no ... the officer may NOT detain the individual, or disarm the individual "to ensure his own safety." Thus, location is important. In Chicago, where there are no carry permits, it can be reasonably suspected that a man wearing a gun is breaking the law. In Loveland, CO, where open carry is legal, the fact that the man was wearing a gun does not provide any indication whatsoever of criminal activity, and thus the officer had NO LEGAL RIGHT to detain or to disarm the man.

Do the police have a duty to investigate? Maybe yes, maybe no. My view is that "man with a gun" calls should be handled first at the dispatcher level. Let's say (just for argument) that we're in Loveland, CO, and someone sees a man sitting on a park bench, eating his lunch. And the man happens to be wearing a sidearm, in a holster.

Suzie Soccermom gets her knickers in a twist and calls the police: "Hello, police? I'm in the park and there's a man here! And, and ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!"

Now, according to you, the police "must" investigate. I ask: Investigate WHAT? So far, there's nothing to indicate a crime. So the dispatcher should then ask Ms. Soccermom, "M'am, what's the man doing?"

SS: "He's ... he's ... he's sitting on a park bench. Eating a sandwich. But, but ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!"

D: "Yes M'am, he has a gun, I got that. What is he doing with the gun?"

SS: "Well, nothing. He's wearing it in a thingie on his belt. But, but, he's in the PARK! And he has a g-g-g-GUN!"

D: "Yes, M'am. But he isn't threatening anyone? Is he pointing the gun at anyone? Is he shooting the gun?"

SS: "No, I told you -- he's eating a sandwich. B-b-b-but ... he has a g-g-g-GUN!!!!"

D: "Ummm, M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in Colorado, per state law. Unless he's shooting the gun or pointing it someone, we can't do anything. have a nice day." -click-

That's all that's necessary. Really.

Look at it another way: Everyone needs a license to drive, correct? What if I called the police department to report that I just saw a man driving a CAR down Main Street. MUST the police department dispatch an officer (or a flippin' SWAT team) to "investigate" a report of a man driving a car? Heck, no, they'd tell me to pound sand, and probably send the officer to arrest ME for wasting their time.

Why is a "Man with a gun" call any different in a jurisdiction where carry (and open carry) is legal? What;s the crime the officer is going to investigate? "Suspicion of engaging in lawful activity"?

 

[LouCap]

I would submit that the call to dispatch gave the responding officer all of the PC he/she needed yo conduct an investigation. A car is not a gun, and given the current climate and recent events, every gun call needs to be taken seriously. I hear what you're saying about 2nd amendment rights, but if we go to such extremes where the police cannot even conduct an investigation initiated by a citizen's call, then ALL of the smart criminals should start to OC too, because in that world they are impervious to police scrutiny. I mean, where do you draw the line?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.

 

[stephen426]

When you say "hoodlum", I think "habitual criminal". They would be a prohibited person on the Federal level. They are committing a crime just by the act of possessing a firearm.

I guess that is the reason that open carrying hoodlums are not a problem- they all carry CONCEALED to avoid detection of their illegal firearms.

Bob

When I use the term hoodlum, I mean he looks like a gang member. Maybe he is covered in tatoos, dressed with his pants half way down his ankles, possibly wearing gang colors, etc... One would obviously have no way of knowing whether or not the person in question is a "habitual criminal" or some poser. Back to the same question... Should the police be allowed to stop and question someone based on their appearnace, even if they are not committing a crime?

 

[Davey]

I have no problem with police investigating the call however they need to make sure that no one's constitutional rights are being violated. I'd rather the police question the person and then make the conclusion rather than taking away his/her gun first then asking questions.

 

[MLeake]

jcsturgeon....

.... I think you and I might disagree on who the a-hole is in this situation.

LouCap, jcsturgeon, and a couple others - please bear in mind that Colorado is an open carry state. In other words, NO CRIME is being committed just because somebody carries openly. There is NO BASIS for police to believe a crime is being committed.

Unless we want the police to be allowed to assume that EVERYBODY is a felon until verified otherwise, that is.

So you think the police have a duty to respond to every call, and do a full investigation?

Hmmm... so the old lady down the street hates dogs, especially pit bulls. She calls the police, because a guy is walking his leashed pit bull. Exactly how deep an investigation should the police do for that one?

Or those damn kids are playing basketball in the driveway again....

Just what calls, in your minds, do NOT require a "thorough investigation?"

The cops should use some discretion, and realize that unless the guy is behaving in a threatening manner, or exhibiting some other suspicious behavior, that there is no reasonable basis for a stop just because he is openly carrying in a place where open carry is perfectly legal.

The a-holes are the people who think the cops should fully investigate any complaint made by any random ninny without exercising any of their own judgement.

And there's been plenty of recent case law to back that up.

 

[zukiphile]

I would submit that the call to dispatch gave the responding officer all of the PC he/she needed yo conduct an investigation.

How could a telephone call to dispatch constitute an officer's reasonable suspicion?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I would submit that the call to dispatch gave the responding officer all of the PC he/she needed yo conduct an investigation.

In view of the extremely clear and specific guidelines set down by the Supreme Court, HOW do you conclude that the call gave the officers ANY "need" to conduct an investigation? There was nothing reported to indicate criminal activity. Even if an officer was dispatched, as soon as he saw that the gentleman was carrying peacefully and in accordance with the law, any need for further "investigation" disappeared.

A car is not a gun, and given the current climate and recent events, every gun call needs to be taken seriously.

Cars kill many more people annually than guns. Both are inanimate objects, subject to either proper use, or improper abuse. You think all gun calls need to be taken seriously; I think all car calls need to be taken seriously.

The Supreme Court has established the criteria. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. If we are a nation of laws, the police have to follow the laws.

I hear what you're saying about 2nd amendment rights, but if we go to such extremes where the police cannot even conduct an investigation initiated by a citizen's call, then ALL of the smart criminals should start to OC too, because in that world they are impervious to police scrutiny. I mean, where do you draw the line?

I draw the line right there. I don't think asking that the police respect my Constitutional 2nd Amendment right is an "extreme" at all. The fact that you regard asking the police to respect fundamental civil rights as "extreme" is, to me, frightening.

 

[jimpeel]

Standing Wolf,

No one is a "suspect" who's merely exercising his civil rights.

Good call. The courts have ruled that no person may be held suspect for the mere exercise of their Constitutional rights. Looks like that is what happened here.