Court Victory Against Police Immunity in an Open-Carry Case

Details on a nice court victory for citizen rights against police immunity from a federal court in New Mexico, from the Liberty for All blog. The case was:

St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety, U. S. District Court of New Mexico, No. 08-994 BB/LAM.

Mr. St. John went into a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun. New Mexico has no law forbidding the open carry of a handgun.

The theater owner called Alamogordo Public Safety. Four law enforcement officers (LEO) approached Mr. St. John and with force removed him from the theater, took his handgun and patted him down. After checking, found out that the handgun was legal and that he was not a criminal, returned his handgun and let him go back to the movie but without his handgun, which he placed in his vehicle.

 Mr. St. John filed suit in state court but the case was moved to a federal court because Mr. St. John alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and also asserts his rights under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

The undisputed fact is that Mr. St. John seizure was unreasonable. He had not committed a crime, was not committing a crime and was not about to commit a crime.

The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place”, also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.

The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.

In short, the LEOs can be sued....This ruling means that the law enforcement officers will have to think about what they are doing and begin to make sound judgment and not act on impulse. They will have to take responsibility for their action and/ or maybe face a lawsuit....

The Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner has more thoughts and interesting details on this decision:

I thought this decision was interesting because this court goes even further to address the “community caretaker function” of the police and that it may be invoked as a defense only so long as the officer is entitled to make a forcible stop. Merely receiving a call from a hypersensitive person that someone is armed where it is lawful to be armed, is not reason enough to believe anyone’s safety is in danger in the absence of any suspicious or threatening behavior. This seems to me to be the big disconnect with law enforcement training. The 911 operators need to ask more questions of the caller to determine if there is any criminal activity before sending out one or more officers. In this case, Mr. St. John was in a theater watching a preview to a movie, a perfectly legal activity. The responding officers should have been trained to discern the difference between unlawful activity and a person quietly watching a movie.
 
The court also found that merely being armed does not automatically make a person armed and dangerous, which would be necessary to justify a limited protective search (Terry stop) that justify officers disarming an individual.

For much, much more on gun law, see my recent book Gun Control on Trial.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • robc||

    Brian,

    I was wondering what was up with Radley posting good news, then I saw it was you.

  • RG||

    In these cases, does open-carry override property rights? Can the movie theater deny entrance?

  • robc||

    RG,

    Can the movie theater deny entrance?

    I cant speak for NM law, but in KY, yes. You can ask someone openly (or concealed) carrying to leave your property. If they dont, they are trespassing and can be arrested.

  • ||

    I don't see why they couldn't, but they didn't.

    Our country is really fucked up when a gun isn't suspicious, but a bottle of hydrogen peroxide is. Not saying either should be. I'm just enjoying the disconnect.

  • The Extispicator||

    What you are all missing is the fact that the gun was a coded racist message. This man was obviously threatening to kill the president.

  • Joe M||

    Oh hell yes, LEO can be directly sued? Best news I've heard all day.

  • ||

    I have to admit, I don't get it here. If the theater owner wants the guy to leave his gun in the car instead of wear it in the theater, what's the proper way to get him to do that? If anything, the gun could potentially intimidate the guy into calling the cops (and he obviously invited them onto his property) to do that for him.

    The cops I imagine couldn't have searched him, but if he was unruly, obstinate, etc. then that constitutes probable cause for a search I believe. Other than the potential of the fuzz messing with him despite his compliance, I don't see where there was a crime or rights-violation here.

  • Joe M||

    Unreasonable search and seizure. If the police had spoken with the theater owner, and he'd stated he didn't want the gun on premises, they could've then asked the patron to take the gun outside. If he refused, then they could tell him he needed to leave, and if he refused, trespassing. Without those proper steps, it was a definite rights violation. They didn't take to him, they just yanked him out.

  • ||

    Did the theater owner approach the gun owner prior to calling the cops, and tell him that his private establishment does not allow guns on the premises? Or does his theater have it posted that guns are not allowed on the premises? If so, it seems the theater owner would be within his rights to decide who, and under what conditions, he'll let people enter and use his private premises.

    But if he just called the cops without talking to the guy first or otherwise giving him reasonable notice, then both he and the cops were out of line.

  • Tomcat1066||

    TheZeitgeist,

    Using that same logic, we can justify the police being called because a bodybuilder has his feet up on a seat in front of him, right? I mean, his size could potentially intimidate the guy.

    I'm sorry, but if there's no crime being committed, then the police shouldn't be involved. In this case, there wasn't.

  • I, Kahn O\'Clast||

    I live in New Mexico and open carry is common here. In terms of property right, the theater can post that one cannot enter the premise armed therefore restricting access. It is also the case that firearms are not permitted in establishments serving alcohol so no six-shooter at the bar (at my local bar they have a sign advising that you turn your gun in to the bartender, but if police are present that's a bad idea since the law is that you cannot enter the establishment in the first place.)

  • Mike Stollenwerk||

    original article: http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Federal-judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns

  • Paul||

    I'm a little surprised something like this even happened in Alamogordo. I mean, I could see Santa Fe or Taos-- you know, open firearms scaring the bejebus out of the local crystal-wavers. But Alamogordo?!! Anyhoo, this is good news.

    Washington has an open carry law, but unfortunately there's a provision in there somewhere (too lazy to look it up) that says you lose your right to open carry if the presence of your firearm causes alarm or is seen by others to be threatening, or some such incredibly vague language. I posted on H&R some time ago about an exchange between a cop and a friend of mine who was legally concealed carrying and got jacked up by the cops because they saw it peeking out from under his jacket.

    He was allowed to keep his firearm, but not after 15 minutes of police harassment and scrutiny, plus continued drive-by's for the next two hours.

  • RG||

    "In terms of property right, the theater can post that one cannot enter the premise armed therefore restricting access."

    If the theater, or other business doesn't post it, can they ask you to remove the gun from the premises after entry?

  • ||

    @Tomcat1066
    "Using that same logic, we can justify the police being called because a bodybuilder has his feet up on a seat in front of him, right? I mean, his size could potentially intimidate the guy.

    I'm sorry, but if there's no crime being committed, then the police shouldn't be involved. In this case, there wasn't."

    Yeah, your bodybuilder analogy would work just fine for calling the cops because "his feet are on the seat." Fact is, if the owner of the theater wants to do anything to his customers, for any reason (barring the implied contract of give me money = I give you movie...that's for civil court at that point I guess) he can...its his theater.

    Now, acting in such a way is quite boorish and overbearing, and reminds me of the fat lady at the DMV getting all nasty for no reason other than she can (anathema to a libertarian), but it's his right nonetheless (DMV lady is questionable, I have an ownership stake in the DMV!).


    What JoeM said makes sense though, if the cops just grabbed the guy and tossed him out, roughed him up, etc. then that would be a 4th Amendment violation, absolutely (which is something I alluded to in my original post).

  • ||

    The theater owner should have asked the guy to leave and refunded his money.

    And the guy should have had the graciousness to do so.

  • ||

    "In terms of property right, the theater can post that one cannot enter the premise armed therefore restricting access."

    If the theater, or other business doesn't post it, can they ask you to remove the gun from the premises after entry?


    Dunno what unconstitutional laws NM has on its books, but a private property owner should have the right to exclude anyone from his or her premises for any reason, after first advising them of that, posted or not. If the person refuses to comply after being notified, and refuses to leave, then the cops can be called and have the person removed from the premises on the charge of trespassing.

  • Tomcat1066||

    "Yeah, your bodybuilder analogy would work just fine for calling the cops because "his feet are on the seat." Fact is, if the owner of the theater wants to do anything to his customers, for any reason (barring the implied contract of give me money = I give you movie...that's for civil court at that point I guess) he can...its his theater. "

    And if he had asked, or if a sign had been posted that was ignored (apparently not since the court ruled that no crime had been committed), and still carried a gun into the theater, I'd be 100% behind the police presence being there. At that point, a crime was being committed.

    But police aren't there just because someone is uncomfortable, they're there to arrest people who break the law.

    Again, I agree it's his right to decide whether or not firearms are allowed on his property. But it's not his right to involve law enforcement when no crime has been committed.

  • ||

    If the theater owner wants the guy to leave his gun in the car instead of wear it in the theater, what's the proper way to get him to do that?

    Ask him.

    There may be law on the books that a "public accomodation" like a movie theater has to post any restrictions such as this.

    Fact is, if the owner of the theater wants to do anything to his customers, for any reason (barring the implied contract of give me money = I give you movie...that's for civil court at that point I guess) he can...its his theater.

    The theater owner is perfectly within his rights to call the cops on anyone and everyone in his theater. However, the cops aren't allowed to harass anyone for any (or no) reason, which is what this case is about.

  • Tomcat1066||

    He's free to call them, but that doesn't mean the cops have to get involved at all when there's no hint of an actual crime.

    At least, that's what I meant to imply. I don't think the guy should have called, but it is definitely his right to do so.

  • tekende||

    Does anybody know of any good resources to find out laws in various states regarding guns, open carry, etc.? I mean, I can look at my state's constitution online, but it's a bitch to search through and the language isn't always very clear.

  • ||

    The court stated that "the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity".

    Mind-boggling!

  • ||

    How is it mind-boggling that openly carrying a completely legal object is not a crime? People also openly carry chemistry textbooks, and those represent far greater risk than any one gun.

  • Paul||

    If a thread comes up about property rights, I suppose some of these posts may be appropriate. However, if my neighbor calls the cops on me, that doesn't give the cops a right to violate my 2nd and 4th amendment rights.

    The pertinent part of this ruling is:

    The court stated that "the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity". The court went on to state that the "Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place", also the "Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John", "Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion".



    The theater owner didn't ask him to leave. Mr. St. John didn't refuse to leave, or linger on the premesis after being asked to leave. This was an illegal stop, frisk and search.

    It's people like Mr. St. John who maintain our rights. I just got done with a thread with a bunch of liberals whining "If you don't have anything to hide" eventually degrading to "If you're concerned about this and feel the need to assert your rights, you must be a criminal."

    No, the best time to assert your rights is when you're not a criminal and you've done nothing wrong.

  • ||

    "However, the cops aren't allowed to harass anyone for any (or no) reason, which is what this case is about."

    Totally agree, like I said I'm not sure how the situation with the cops went down, but given the fact I'm posting on this thread, I'm inclined to think the cops probably were out of line.

    "Again, I agree it's his right to decide whether or not firearms are allowed on his property. But it's not his right to involve law enforcement when no crime has been committed."

    Sure. But when I watch COPS (rarely these days) I see crazy cat ladies calling the cops about...well, nothing. I don't know if you can start placing restrictions on when someone can call the fuzz based on their perceptions of a crime-in-progress. An ideal there I guess would be the cops cite the theater-owner for wasting their time.

    But I don't know if there is an inherent restriction on inviting the cops onto your property, for any reason you desire.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Can the movie theater deny entrance?

    In Virginia, it is the same as what robc said about KY. Property owner/leaseholder/manager can bar anybody (but cops) from carrying on their property. This should be a basic property owner's right, IMHO.

    Paul,

    I'm a little surprised something like this even happened in Alamogordo. I mean, I could see Santa Fe or Taos-- you know, open firearms scaring the bejebus out of the local crystal-wavers. But Alamogordo?!! Anyhoo, this is good news.

    I am not really up on New Mexico, but my recent education on it from two chicks from there is that NM might be a little bizarre. Alamogordo chick works as a State Department contractor.

    Her best friend chick, from Albuquerque, had a flower shop in Santa Fe, I think, fled the country from there to St. Maarten, something to do with money laundering and her 'religion of peace' boyfriend, then ratted the guy out (got "fully cleared"), returned to the US, via Buffalo, and has a bookkeeping business in Alexandria, VA, works in Accounting and HR a couple of other places too.

    The really, really strange part? They talk about this stuff like it is perfectly normal and are shocked, shocked, when others don't find it quite as 'normal' as them!

    Is this normal for New Mexico?

  • !||

    Paul,

    Maybe the flower place was in Albuquerque too, but she was in Santa Fe for a while.

    Anywho, it just seemed odd, especially in Northern VA.

  • Paul||

    I am not really up on New Mexico, but my recent education on it from two chicks from there is that NM might be a little bizarre. Alamogordo chick works as a State Department contractor.
    ...
    Is this normal for New Mexico?


    Alamogordo is an Air Force town. It's a town of around 30,000 people, a large percentage of which undoubtedly work for government contractors or in some way support Holloman AFB. If not there, they'll work at many of the other defense contractors which dot the landscape across the Tularosa Basin between Las Cruces and Alamo. The rest of the locals will probably be ranchers or work in the retail establishments in the town itself.

    However, Alamogordo, squarely in southern New Mexico is a very liberal gun zone. I sat at an Oshman's store in Las Cruces listening to a Sheriff's deputy talking a woman into buying the .44 instead of the .25 so she'd feel safer while jogging.

    Northern New Mexico (Albuquerque/Santa Fe) etc. is an entirely different realm. Different demographic, politics, the whole ball of wax. There are a lot of transports who end up in places like Santa Fe. And the crackpottiest of the crackpots: People with multiple chemical sensitiviy syndrome and what not tend to congregate there. Lots of alt-religion types etc. It's argued that the influence and culture of Santa Fe isn't really even New Mexican in its nature. It's a mishmash of white transplants turning it into a kind of art-cult zone which brings in a lot of wealth, influence and "New Mexico Kitch".

  • ||

    Dunno what unconstitutional laws NM has on its books, but a private property owner should have the right to exclude anyone from his or her premises for any reason, after first advising them of that, posted or not.

    Is there even one libertarian posting here who has suggested that the theater owner *doesn't* have the right to ask the gun-toter to keep his gun off the premises? No? Then why is anybody making an issue of it? The issue is that he *didn't* ask the gun-toter, but called the pigs on him, and the pigs proceeded to act all pig-like.

  • VM||

    I just got done with a thread with a bunch of liberals whining "If you don't have anything to hide"



    this is an argument exhaustively used on all sides. don't you remember the last eight years. combine that with your experiences (in quote) - it's everywhere!

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Paul,

    The uber-nutty one was born and raised in Albuquerque, went to UNM and her ex hubby is now a super-famous Los Alamos/Albuquerque cop, before she dropped him, started learning Arabic and all-of-a-sudden the cops just didn't like the religion of peace any more after9/11, so they had to "relocate". If anybody is a native, she is.

    None of that is so unique, I guess, but the part about it should all be accepted as normal is.

    Knew a girl years ago, who I should have stayed with, from Albuquerque, when I was living in TN. Bright, pretty, fun, graphic artist, daughter of a Physicist and a Doctor. Stupid me cancelled divorce (that was well underway before I met good chick) and dropped the good one. Sigh. Was around this time of year 22 years ago too.

    Hoping the latter is more representative of the area than those two infesting Virginia right now :)

  • Paul||

    this is an argument exhaustively used on all sides. don't you remember the last eight years. combine that with your experiences (in quote) - it's everywhere!

    Of course it is. It's just more delicious when I get it from the liberals. I came to expect it from Republicans vis. the WoT. It turns out that it depends on what they're searching for, and who they're searching.

  • I, Kahn O\'Clast||

    My small town is about 30 mins outside of Santa Fe. Yes we have lots of crystal/star gazer types, but also lots of cowboys/ranchers/loners/anti-govt/etc etc types for whom guns are not unfamiliar. It's the kind of place where raising a militia would be a quick trick and where lots of people live off the grid. I would hate to be an advancing outside force knowing the kind of weaponry is stashed about and how practiced people are with it.

    I am sure any private business owner could ask someone to leave their firearm outside, but most don't.

  • ||

    Okay, now that we've determined that "the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" can we please now extend that to people carrying large amounts of cash?

    Simply holding $10,000 is even less intimidating than a gun, I would think.

  • ||

    Opencarry.org has details for each states laws.

    I the theater had sign saying no firearms clearly posted the guy should not have entered. If not they could have asked him to put it in the car or refund his money. No sign then the theater is SOL and as for the cops I love it that they can be sued for this, had a case here a few years ago that netted the guy the cops harrassed enough coin to buy 2 BMW motorcycles!

    What is sad is that the COPS don't even know the laws themselves. I open carry because I can, I don't want to be fingerprinted and willingly sign away some rights for the card that says I can conceal carry when it is already my RIGHT to carry openly for free. Anyplace that wants to refuse me entry is no problem I can find a place that will take my money and not be afraid of my gun. Where would any of you rather be in a gun free zone or one where anyone could be armed? My money and life are on the armed society versus the lemmings society, they seem to get shot up the most often. Perhaps because the shooters know they are UNARMED!

    All the private property rights are usually going to say that the property owner can refuse enter to anyone for any reason. However, recently we had the state do something good for a change and declared that we were being denied our right to self defense by companies that had policies stating that no firearms could be on the company property, not even if left locked in your car.

    Well that is BS since you have to get back and forth to work and in that process your subject to being threatened. So the state ruled that the Corps could not violate our right to self defense while coming and going to work and that we are to be allowed to carry a gun so long as it remains locked in the parking lot.

    I know my corp had just such a policy that said no guns. When the law passed saying the corp policy out of NEW JERSEY go figure was in violation of state law I brought it over to the HR lady and told her she needed to update her policy books!

    The corp can't guarantee your safety to and from work so why should you have to give up your rights simply because you WORK?

    Now why can't they use that same logic and rational to tell corps to take their piss cups and shove them up their asses as well for being against our rights?

  • VM||

    gotcha, Paul! thanks!

  • ||

    """The theater owner didn't ask him to leave. Mr. St. John didn't refuse to leave, or linger on the premesis after being asked to leave. This was an illegal stop, frisk and search. """

    True, but the theater owner did want the cops to come check the guy out, that was the purpose of the 911 call. The officers were acting on request of the theater owner.

    Should the theater owner be sued for calling the cops on somebody who wasn't commiting a crime?

  • ||

    Would it be reasonable to you if the object in question were a book, rather than a gun? Could a theater customer call the cops and ask them to frisk the manager for stolen popcorn? The country has laws for a reason.

  • Corvair||

    So, everyone seems to think it reasonable that the theater owner can ask the customer to leave his gun outside or post a sign stating "no guns", etc. because the theater is private property. But, humor me here, what would happen if the theater owner had posted a sign that said "NO Burkas". Would it be reasonable for him to expect Burka wearers to leave? Would the cops be able to arrest you if you refused to leave while wearing a Burka? What's the difference as long as the carrying of the weapon isn't illegal?

  • ||

    A private property owner can already demand that you wear shoes and shirt or receive no service, so why shouldn't they also be allowed to say no burkas? They can discriminate on anything that is not a physical trait, right? Like, they can't say no disableds or no redheads, but they can say no flip flops and you must wear a tie to eat here. Right?

  • Paul||

    The officers were acting on request of the theater owner.

    Should the theater owner be sued for calling the cops on somebody who wasn't commiting a crime?


    As I posted above, you don't lose your 4th amendment rights because of the request of the theater owner. The cops could have come and questioned him, but they messed it all up with the search. It's the search where they crossed the line. Cops can talk to anyone about anything. It's a free country, brother.

  • Hmm||

    NAME HIGHJACKER!!!

    In short, the LEOs can be sued....This ruling means that the law enforcement officers will have to think about what they are doing and begin to make sound judgment and not act on impulse. They will have to take responsibility for their action and/ or maybe face a lawsuit....



    This just means they will shot your ass dead then claim they saw you go for your weapon. They aren't about to get sued by some lowlife civilian scum.

  • ||

    If the penalty for shooting back is the same as for not doing so, why not?

  • ||

    Chalk one up for those who believe in the Constitution. Those who don't, please leave.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    RC,
    I am normally 100% behind your sage legal opinions but in this case I am curious why you would have made the following statement:

    The theater owner is perfectly within his rights to call the cops on anyone and everyone in his theater. However, the cops aren't allowed to harass anyone for any (or no) reason, which is what this case is about.


    Since this can be considered "filing a false police report" or "false emergency/911"

    Those are criminal actions since they take LEOs away from actual crimes. I think the theatre owner does not get a free pass to call the police anytime he "feels" threatened. He needs to be held accountable for distracting the cops from their normal duties. This of course goes along with the cops saying "Why did you call us?" instead of barging in and beginning the blanket violation of rights. So I believe the theatre owner and the cops should be susceptible to both criminal and civil actions...Not saying that it would be required but the option should be there.

    Also, is this a new hmm?
    Two cents

  • ABC||

    The theater owner should have asked to leave first, as he had every right to do so, instead of immediately calling the police.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    There he is!

    What up wit dat?

  • ||

    Since this can be considered "filing a false police report" or "false emergency/911"

    Good point, CB.

  • hmm||

    Cliche is correct in it could be a case of a false report. The question would be what did the theater owner say. The owner could have easily said you can't carry here. The owner could have called the police and the police could have said the owner says you can't carry here. The theater owner is a bed wetting fucktard, but his actions as presented are not that big of a deal. The police searching and taking property for however long they did, is a big deal. I know officers here that will demand a CCW of those carrying with a permit. I've challenged them and they try to argue on a safety basis. A lot of the officers I know, oddly the older rednecks, tend to follow a don't shoe me yours and I won't show you mine policy. Which is commendable considering they are cops.


    Also, is this a new hmm?



    NAME THIEF!!!
    Obviously not me. Not enough expletives, spelling errors, and typos.

  • hmm||

    shoe = show in retard

    for those that don't speak tard

  • ||

    """The cops could have come and questioned him, but they messed it all up with the search. It's the search where they crossed the line"""

    I doubt SCOTUS would agree since gun possession is the danger SCOTUS gives cop wide lattitude for non-warrant searches.

    SCOTUS did affirm that a weapon you can't access is not a threat to the officer. But they still believe a gun you can access is a threat. Otherwise, why support government that restrict them as Scalia did?

  • hmm||

    Isn't the gun being a threat only relative to a stop with reasonable cause. So the gun itself is not the reasonable cause if it is being legally carried. Or the presence of a gun does not present enough cause for detention and a search, even a terry frisk.

    Or am I misunderstanding the rulings.

  • ||

    As RC alludes to above, the right of a property owner to exclude people is modified for a place of public accommodation. Obviously, it is not trespassing to walk into a supermarket during business hours without permission of the owner, even though it would be trespassing to walk into a private residence without permission of the owner.

    There's also the issue of the ticket being purchased, which creates an implied contract. Even if he refunds the customer's money, if the theater owner kicks the customer out of the theater prior to the movie being over he is unilaterally voiding the contract. You need to either have boilerplate language on the ticket or posted policies about this stuff if you're going to do that.

  • hmm||

    Tickets are a license in the eyes of the law are they not?

    The dispute isn't the man with the gun being on the property. I haven't seen where he was asked to leave so his presence is presumed legal, given the circumstances, until asked to leave. The property rights issue with respect to the theater and exclusion of firearms is moot until the man refuses to leave the premise or remove the arm from the premise. Which to my knowledge he didn't.

  • Paul||

    re: the false police report.

    It's an interesting exercise in glibness, but I don't think it passes real scrutiny. We can't 'prove' that the theater owner didn't feel threatened or intimidated and knowingly called the police under false pretenses with intent.

    No, I still see this as mere ignorance on the part of the theater owner, but an illegal, unconstitutional action on the part of the police.

  • robc||

    Corvair,

    I will answer your question with an even more extreme example, I think it should be okay, in the legal sense, to have a NO NIGGERS ALLOWED sign. For one thing, it would make my choice of businesses easier, I can scratch another off my list.

    Morally - wrong
    Legally - I see no problem with it

  • ||

    "The court also found that merely being armed does not automatically make a person armed and dangerous, which would be necessary to justify a limited protective search (Terry stop) that justify officers disarming an individual."

    Does this essentially negate "stop and frisk" programs?

  • ||

    Folks. Keep you eye on the ball. The property rights weren't the issue. The search was not legal. The confiscation of the individual property was not legal. Simple.

  • ||

    Speaking of keeping your eye on the ball, I wonder if the police would have been called if he walked in with a baseball bat. Some people feel they cannot go out in public without their baseball bat for protection.

  • ||

    Here's a similar case... except that the gun wasn't even real, the person was on a public hiking trail, and the complainant had no proprietary authority at all:

    http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/Scottsdale-news-081109-military-teen-hiking-arrest.cfefaf2a.html

    Oh, and yeah... the person was a ROTC student on a training hike.

  • ||

    I never offered a reason to the officers to act how they did. I was compliant but i didn't consent. There's a huge difference there. Also there where no signs posted anywhere on the premises. No one ever expressed issues with my weapon to me personally before being pulled out of the theater.

    It's an open and shut case. The judge had his head on straight and everyone in NM (possibly the US) is better because of it.

  • Mark||

    This case is a little late for me but I'll keep it in mind next time local LEO hassles me when I open carry.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement