Score one for gun owners!

Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

September 9, 10:16 PM

On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in Mexico and twenty-five other states.

In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.  The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that

"[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded that

"[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.  Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia, and Georgia.  More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Judge Blak's opinion and order can be read here.

NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com.

1st post on the thread!

Score 1 for the good guys!!!!!!

Does sound like a win.

Now we just need open carry in Texas...

Score one for the good guys!

Splash one! Common Sense may be breaking out! Yep. We need it in Texas, for sure.

Holy crap, that's awesome!  And just around the corner from here, relatively speaking.

I wish we had lawyers like his in Albuquerque.  None of the "civil rights" shysters here are interested in your case unless you've been raped or murdered by the cop in question.

Awesome!   I wish CT would do the same...


HA.  Man am I dreamin...

+1



 

I don't get why police would think someone with a holstered weapon is a threat just because they have it on them. I mean, they have holstered weapons.

Simply put, its the jack-booted nature of being a JBT.  Some LEO's think they can do and act any way they desire, law be damned.  Of course, they are slowly learning that there are consequences for their actions, and hopefully the punitive damages awarded in this case will be severe.

+1 for OC
KS has open carry, but no pre-emption.  OC is prohibited in many municipalities

One for the good guys !!!

Will the cops be fired or imprisoned for their illegal acts?

NYC is still a loss...

Probably not, though it looks like they will be personally on the hook for punitive damages.

WooT!

Good....I like!

Always will be till 2012!

Are you suggesting JBT's aren't morons with piss-poor training (who also happen to be running police departments)??

Sweet

And I wish for bacon to fall from the sky!

Its amazing, a federal judge that has his head on straight, I'm sure some where, the anit-s are plotting to have him sent to a re-education camp.

Great news.  Nice to see a judge uphold gun rights.

Now if only online news agencies would only proof their articles.  Guess it's the way things are going.  Here comes idiocracy.

Okay, which states is this not legal in?  Simply asked as that list is shorter that the list where it is legal?



 

Herein lies the problem, you have officers attempting to interpret law they aren't familiar with, aren't educated on, and flat out not experienced in.  Its a perfect example of officers assuming they can enforce a supposed "law" until they figure out what is and is not legal.

Whew.

I OC'ed my Beretta 92 yesterday.

Map:



http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html





 

According to the article, it wasn't quite that simple...

...the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet...



What business do officers have enforcing private rule when no law has been broken?  It would be one thing had theater staff asked him to leave or remove the firearm and he refused, but nothing of the such occurred.  Instead, you have officers acting outside the scope of their authority with blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of a citizen.

Good.

Now I'd like to see my state get OC laws.

Win.

Excellent!!  I live in an open carry state, home of foot in mouth O'Biden.

They will not be imprisoned, nor should they be.

Instead, the proper 'remedy' is monetary damages.  They will pay a "fine".  It could wind up being a heavy fine too.....perhaps in the high 5 or even 6 figures.

(don't go thinking this is a "million" dollar lawsuit.....the language to achieve such a judgement says the conduct must "shock" the court)

My guess is the payout will be around 50-75K

Move to a free state!








 

Calling "1st post"?  Are you 12 years old?  


 

/thread

So does this mean they will be held personally liable for civil rights violations?

removed

The harassment must stop.

Gun confiscation hurricane Katrina will those cops/national guards/criminals be held accountable for their armed robbery?

It's about fucking time.  I'm tired of this, "Yeah it's legal but we won't let you do it" shit.

His days are numbered. Maybe a ATF murder squad attack.

agreed