Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 9/14/2009 3:53:07 PM EST
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 shooting 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 New Mexico and twenty-five other states. Learn more here.

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

"It 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

"Relying 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 (see additional settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 4:06:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 4:10:51 PM EST
Holy shit!

A federal judge that actually reads and interprets the law rather than legislating from the bench. Sotomayor should pay attention (actually, she'll probably write the desenting opinion if it makes it to the Supreme court and is upheld)
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 4:46:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 4:47:36 PM EST
Wow!
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 4:58:46 PM EST
Might be a dupe but it is still good news.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 9:30:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By raf:
And in a related development, Mr. St. John's phone has been ringing
off the hook by lawyers wanting to sue the errant cops.
Just guessing, but I'd be surprised if I wasn't right.

Everyone's always looking to sue somebody.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 9:31:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By bmw20:
Holy shit!

A federal judge that actually reads and interprets the law rather than legislating from the bench.
Sotomayor should pay attention (actually, she'll probably write the dissenting
opinion if it makes it to the Supreme court and is upheld)

I know!

This judge sounds like they would have been a better pick for the SCOTUS seat.
Of course, that really isn't saying much as she is a petty excuse for a judge.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:39:21 PM EST
Does Louisiana fall under those states who have no rule against carrying a holstered gun in public?

and on that subject of LA, anyone know if a sbs is considered an AOW in LA?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 9:45:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 9:46:02 PM EST by max229]

Originally Posted By bushyM4A1:
Does Louisiana fall under those states who have no rule against carrying a holstered gun in public?

and on that subject of LA, anyone know if a sbs is considered an AOW in LA?

Check out this site.
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 10:56:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By raf:
And in a related development, Mr. St. John's phone has been ringing off the hook by lawyers wanting to sue the errant cops.
Just guessing, but I'd be surprised if I wasn't right.


I guess you missed the summary judgment part and that this was already a civil case

Lexis Nexis didn't have this one yet. Anyone have any details or actual reports on this?
Link Posted: 9/19/2009 7:53:26 AM EST
The original summary above implies that the judge found that there is a constitutional right to open carry. That is not the basis for the judgement.

What the judge did was rule that given that open carry is not a crime in the state that then it was a violation of the plaintiff's rights to be arrested with no evidence of any crime.
Top Top