Person exercising his 2nd amendment right sues for false arrest

That sounds an awful lot like "Not very if it's contradictory to the way they want to rule, but I don't want to say so because they have me by the short hairs with possible contempt charges if they find out who I am and I step foot in their court." so I won't press.

So changing the subject, If you were involved here who would you shake your head at more (assuming all details are as presented)? The guy who refused to hand over his license until he was arrested, or the officer who required it when he probably couldn't?
 
JimDandy said:
That sounds an awful lot like "Not very if it's contradictory to the way they want to rule, but I don't want to say so because they have me by the short hairs with possible contempt charges if they find out who I am and I step foot in their court." so I won't press.
Click to expand...
If it's binding precedent in my client's favor, I wave it around, blow it up for a big screen presentation, and generally shout it at the top of my lungs.

If it's binding precedent that is not favorable to my client, I'm nonetheless obligated to disclose it to the court. "Your Honor, in Dandy v. McGee, the 8th Circuit said that X was the case. However, the case at bar is different, and so you should rule Y."

If it's not binding precedent (i.e. persuasive), I'm not obligated to tell the court about it.

JimDandy said:
So changing the subject, If you were involved here who would you shake your head at more (assuming all details are as presented)? The guy who refused to hand over his license until he was arrested, or the officer who required it when he probably couldn't?
Click to expand...
That depends on whom I represent. ;)
 
That depends on whom I represent.
Click to expand...
Assume you have two separate but identical cases covering both sides simultaneously, which one has you banging your head on the table in despair first? ;)
 
"There are legitimate reasons why you shouldn't or wouldn't want to give your information to LE. Yes, even if you did NOTHING wrong."
This does not go said nearly enough. I would go so far as to say you should not needlessly divulge especially when you have done nothing wrong. Your words can and will be used against you, after all; not one thing in there about some sort of reward for being helpful ;) (not being arrested is not a reward :rolleyes:)

TCB
 
$3.6 million? That's laughable, IMO. It is just designed for a headline grabber. That's the reason that in my state, it is improper to even allege in the complaint a specific amount for unliquidated damages; i.e., those damages that are unforeseen or not fixed by a formula.
 
I watch cases like this a LOT and this isn't a million dollar case. It's probably going to net the guy $10k in his pocket (after legal expenses) if this goes about par. But something pretty similar netted $200k recently in New York (I'll get to that case in a sec).

The two most common ways people **** off a cop while doing nothing at all illegal or immoral is to either open carry or point a camera at the wrong cop. The latter triggers far more such activity.

A guy name of Jeff Gray in Florida makes a hobby of this and he is *both* a "camera guy" and a "gun guy". He has never been successfully prosecuted for his activities in either event, however he has recently learned that 200 checks of his background have been made by law enforcement concerned over his activism in guns, cameras or both.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...private-records-200-times-abuse-david-system/

There is precedent in FL that this is bad news for the cops involved and that each of those 200 violations of his rights are separately payable!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fla-trooper-stopped-sues-harassment-article-1.1609641

The $200k case involved a full-on false arrest:

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...-wins-200000-settlement-viral-video-incident/

Let's be clear: cops want your ID without probable cause for one of only two possible purposes:

1) To harass you away if you have any outstanding warrants.

2) If you're clean, they are reserving a right to harass you in some form or fashion, as happened in the case documented in the NY Daily News above.

Any cop demanding your ID without probable cause cannot be trusted. Any cop threatening to arrest you for failure to produce ID is your sworn enemy and must be viewed as such, and in Alabama, Virginia and maybe some other states where it is legal to resist false arrest with reasonable force, in my opinion...you should.

I would.
 
Let's be clear: cops want your ID without probable cause reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime for one of only two possible purposes:
1) To harass you away if you have any outstanding warrants.

2) If you're clean, they are reserving a right to harass you in some form or fashion, as happened in the case documented in the NY Daily News above.
Click to expand...

If he does suspect you of a crime, do you necessarily know it? Terry never says he has to articulate anything to you, only that he can articulate it. (presumably to the judge after the fact)

I know this is your hobby so you are better versed on this than I; it's a serious question. Demanding your ID without saying why could be a trap.
 
While it's true that he doesn't have to reveal his suspicions to me, I have the suspicion that he will want answers to questions.
Now, I'll be happy to cooperate; hell I'll talk his ear off and he'll have a hard time shutting me up.
But....

It's gonna cost him.
He wants something that I have and he has nothing that I want. Some people would characterize that as a 'seller's market'. If he wants me to answer any questions beyond "name, rank, and serial number" then he's going to have to tell me what crime he suspects me of so that I may allay alarm, dispel any suspicion, and clear my good name.

He doesn't want to share that info? Cool. I'm not saying anything.
I'll just wait right here, silently, until you finish your investigation, Officer Friendly. Be a good lad and wake me when you're done, m'kay?
 
I haven't researched Ohio's circuit, but . . . .

We seem to be going on the theory that the officer did not have probable cause to make the stop. However, IIUC, the clerk called the police. So there's a basis for initial contact right there. Additionally, I did note that the officer mentions charging the guy with disorderly conduct, so there may have been PC to arrest for that charge.

At the same time, in terms of the "litigation forecast" on this one, in order to get the protections of qualified immunity, the officer doesn't have to have "actual probable cause, but needs only "arguable probable cause." If there's arguable probable cause, this one's done at summary judgment.
 
However, IIUC, the clerk called the police.
Click to expand...

According to the story, it wasn't the clerk. It was another customer, who went outside and notified police in the parking lot. When this happened in a bank, police arrested the guy who freaked out, not the guy legally carrying. With that and Black I'm not sure you can say it's reasonable to seize someone who didn't threaten anyone - even on the word of an "excitable" private citizen. Unfortunately neither are from Ohio, so I'm not sure you can say it's NOT reasonable either.

Between this and Deffert v Moe that we talked about here a couple months ago, I'd say the 6th might have an interesting Civil and/or Firearms rights decision coming out soon.
 
Perhaps not, but PC for the arrest probably isn't based solely on the call from the other citizen. You've got to examine the encounter in a step-by-step fashion. The call from Excitable Eddie gives the officer reasonable basis to make contact with the Opencarry Otto. Then you start looking at what happens during that contact to determine if the officer developed PC for the next step in the encounter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top