Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting court ruling on a case involving concealed carry ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 03:37 PM
Original message
Interesting court ruling on a case involving concealed carry ...
A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

The officer eventually released Schubert but confiscated both his concealed carry license and his firearm. The court, of course, ruled that all of Stern's actions were appropriate to "ensure his own safety" and because he could not confirm the "facial validity" of the license.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers




SCHUBERT v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Schubert is a prominent criminal defense attorney who has worked in Springfield, Massachusetts for approximately thirty years. On July 21, 2006, Officer Stern, seated in his patrol car near the Springfield courthouse, observed Schubert walking toward the courthouse. The location is considered a high-crime area. Schubert was dressed in a suit with an unbuttoned jacket and was carrying a briefcase. Stern noted that Schubert was also carrying a handgun in a holster. Despite the very hot weather that day, Schubert was wearing his suit jacket, apparently in order to conceal the handgun; however, he had the jacket unbuttoned, which allowed the officer to see the weapon. According to Stern, several passers-by also noticed Schubert's gun and alerted the officer to the firearm by waving and pointing. However, a subsequent investigation of the incident by the police department produced no witnesses or other proof of Stern's allegation regarding the passers-by.

On Schubert's account of the events, once Stern noticed Schubert's partially concealed weapon, the officer leaped from his cruiser in a "dynamic and explosive" manner, with his gun un-holstered. Stern then pointed his weapon at Schubert's face. The officer ordered Schubert to stop and put his hands in the air. Schubert complied. When asked if he had a weapon, Schubert responded that he did and that he had a license to carry. While still pointing his gun at Schubert, Stern reached inside Schubert's jacket and removed the weapon from its holster. Stern then walked backward toward his cruiser, set his gun down, and removed the clip and chambered round from Schubert's gun. Schubert replied in the negative when Stern asked if he was carrying any other weapons. Stern then frisked Schubert and asked him for his license to carry. Schubert produced his "Class A" gun license, which also indicated that Schubert was an attorney. He also handed over his driver's license.

***snip***

Stern continued to attempt to verify the validity of Schubert's weapons license, but because Massachusetts lacked a centralized database containing such information, the officer soon realized that the inquiry could take a significant amount of time. Thus, about five minutes after moving Schubert into the cruiser, Stern told Schubert that he was free to go, but that Schubert would have to retrieve his gun and gun license from the Springfield police department. The entire stop took about ten minutes.

Schubert also contends that the manner and length of the stop exceeded the circumstances which justified the stop in the first place. Schubert reasons that once he produced his license to carry, the officer should have released him and ended the encounter. Schubert also takes issue with the manner in which Stern suddenly emerged from the police cruiser with his weapon drawn. Further, Schubert questions Stern's subsequent five-minute detention of Schubert in the rear of the cruiser, during which time he partially Mirandized Schubert and mentioned the possibility of charging him with a crime. Finally, Schubert argues that Stern unreasonably confiscated his weapon, requiring Schubert to retrieve it from the police department.

However, as the district court correctly concluded, once Stern had reasonable suspicion justifying a stop, he was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety. See Schubert v. City of Springfield, 602 F.Supp.2d 254, 257 (D. Mass. 2009). The officer took several reasonable steps given that Schubert was an unknown armed man walking in that particular location: he emerged quickly from his vehicle, drew his gun, executed a pat-frisk, requested identification and a gun license, attempted to confirm the validity of the licenses, and escorted Schubert into the cruiser after Schubert moved from the position in which the officer had instructed him to remain. All these actions were related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial stop, namely, Schubert's open possession of a weapon in front of a courthouse. Stern's concern for his own safety and for the safety of others was the context for this stop. It is "clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm." Stanley, 915 F.2d at 57 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 24).< 5 >

Further, we do not agree with Schubert's contention that the gun license was valid on its face and therefore the several minute delay during which Stern attempted to confirm the validity of the license was unreasonable. Just as an officer is justified in attempting to confirm the validity of a driver's license, such a routine check is also valid and prudent regarding a gun license. As it happens, Massachusetts did not have a simple way for police officers to conduct such a check, so Stern's effort to do so took several minutes. But the entire stop took only ten minutes and when Stern realized that he would not be able to confirm the gun license within a reasonable time, he sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon.

We thus conclude that the district court correctly held that Stern acted within the permissible scope of his initial Terry stop of Schubert. Therefore, having already determined that the initial stop complied with Terry, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on Schubert's Fourth Amendment claim.
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20091223098


It's always a good idea for anyone who carries a concealed weapon to make damn sure that it is concealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. That police officer sounds like a douchebag to me.
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 03:56 PM by OneTenthofOnePercent
Was Schubert breaking the law or doing something that would make a stop permissible?
I am unfamiliar with GA law, but in Ohio you cannot be stopped on suspicion alone. Walking down the street with a firearm on your side (which is legal) is not grounds for an officer to make a Terry-Stop because no laws were being broken. One would have to give probable cause that laws are being broken and acting lawfully is not probable cause.

I think what officer Stern did would be akin to an officer pulling over a vehicle just to see if the operator had a driver's permit. I think many would agree that being stopped because you were driving would be an illegal stop/search/siezure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Sounds like a reasonable cop to me. Just being careful with his own life and those of others.
If someone is going for legal concealed carry, they'd better be ready to face police suspicion when their concealment fails. The court ruling is reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Except that O.C. is legal in GA, thus the mere sight of a firearm...
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 05:38 PM by PavePusher
should not be cause for R.A.S.

There has to be a little more to it. The Court, in this case, is woefully wrong.

Edit: I got the cases a little mixed up, however, O.C. is legal in MA as well, although it is severely (and illegaly) discouraged by most L.E. there. The officer was also in the wrong, IMNSHO.

Edit #2: "Officer Safety" (or for that matter ANY "government official" safety) should never, ever trump Civil Rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. In GA (and likely elsewhere), there really needs to be better policy and methods for checking

on whether a "person with a gun" is legally doing so.

Georgia Firearm Licenses are not in a central data base for police to check so it could take a long time to verify with the county folks who only work 8 - 4:30.

Plus, if police see a person with a gun and no other criminal or suspicious behavior is being exhibited then a simple request to see the GFL is all that has to be done. No one has to be disarmed, put in a room, stuffed in a car, etc.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Virginia has CCW info, attached to DMV and 911 records..
When a police officer runs your Drivers License, plates in your name, or a 911 call comes from your house..

You CCW status comes up with that information....

It is a very good system... That state trooper walking up to your car, that he just pulled over on the interstate, KNOWS, before he even gets out of his patrol car, about your CCW status.

Virginia also has Open Carry....So no problems their, for an "inadvertent" gun exposure, no legal ramifications anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Sounds good to me ...
I have no problem with the police knowing that I have a carry permit. The locals are well aware of that fact and have no problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I totally agree. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Massachusetts, no wonder.
They don't have very many CCW permit holders there. If someone is carrying concealed there, they are likely to be doing so illegally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I've heard people say that in the very liberal areas of the country...
cops view people who legally carry conceal with a great deal of suspicion.

In Florida, where I live, the police have a far different opinion of CCW holders. Obviously since many people here do have concealed carry licenses and carry, the police have more experience with those who have permits.

I did have one incident with a police officer in Florida. I was in a gun store and the officer noticed that I had a Benchmade 710 knife clipped to my pocket. He asked if a had a concealed carry license. I smiled and showed it to him.

The knife wasn't concealed as it was very visible. Nor was the knife illegal under Florida law as it was a common pocket knife. But Florida knife laws are somewhat vague.



The officer was satisfied when I showed him my permit. I didn't point out to him that he needed to read up on Florida law. No need, as the situation ended politely.

But I know a number of police officers in the area that I live and while in conversation with them I have asked if they had any problem with those with concealed carry licenses. None have mentioned any negative incidences and most replied that they were in favor of concealed carry. If a person has a license, he is very unlikely to be a criminal as he passed a criminal background check.

Officer Stern worries me if he indeed say that he was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat. Obviously at a minimum, he is unfamiliar with Massachusetts law. Still, I can't be too critical of his actions. That's why I argue that if you carry concealed, be certain that you are not exposing your firearm. If you have a concealed carry permit, your weapon should be concealed. Period!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. "I didn't point out to him that he needed to read up on Florida law."
"No need, as the situation ended politely."

Except that you should have politely and gently reminded him of the facts, so that he would be better informed and possibly not harrased a legal person in the future.

"Teachable Moment"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. Same in Texas. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. Concealed means concealed! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Post 13. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. True, but..
This was in MA.. according to handgunlaw.us, it's not traditionally an open carry state, and open carry may be used as a justification to remove your CHL.

*meh*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. It wouldn't (shouldn't) hold up in court...
though you might have to push it through several levels to proove it.

There is ample case law that says the mere presence of a firearm does not equate to DtP or D.C.

Also, if it is not explicitly proscribed by law, it's not prohibited, period.

Again, probably expensive legal fees, unfortunately. It's to bad the government isn't required to pay all legal fees of the defendent until s/he is proven guilty and has lost all appeals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indy Lurker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. Seems like the cop acted correctly (mostly)
Several sheeople apparently told the officer "there's a man with a gun" who knows what other hysterics were mentioned to the cop.

The cop stops the guy for 10 minutes to check things out.

It also sounds like the system is screwed up, since the cop could not complete the check.


Where the cop went wrong is if said or believes no one else carries a gun on his beat.

Who cares how the cop exited his car?


It also makes a difference if this is a rare occurrence, or if they disarm everyone and make they retrieve their guns at a later date.


I would expect the result to be the same if someone was carrying class A explosives and their class A license couldn't be verified.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I don't really fault the cop ...
True, he lacks familiarity with those with concealed carry permits. His comments disturb me, and I suspect that he is somewhat of an asshole.

But had the permit holder used commonsense, his firearm would have been totally concealed and the incident would never have happened.

The permit holder appears to me to be somewhat of an asshole too. But then again, he is an attorney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. "Concealed" is not the only way to legally carry in many places.
Seeing a holstered firearm should not be grounds for immediate detainment by police. In the majority of states it does not meet the criteria for R.A.S. to be legally exercising a Civil Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
16.  In Texas we have a practical approach to the " momentary loss of cover"
If the wind catches your cover shirt and "momentarily" displays your pistol, if you are climbing a ladder and someone can see your revolver from below, any of a number of ways that nature, or circumstance, causes a momentary loss of concealment. There is no law broken. It is NOT brandishing, open carry, or a violation of the CCL law.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. In AZ, UT, VT and NH we have a practical approach to visible firearms...
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 09:50 PM by PavePusher
It's called "We don't care", and works very well without limiting ones' Civil Right.

:toast:

Edit: I thought you could O.C. on private property in TX?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
18.  You can.
But if you are in your front yard you could, in some urban areas, get arrested for "creating a public disturbance". You can also legally carry a loaded rifle or shotgun downtown, but the result will probably be the same.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Hope they loosen up on you folks soon.
Tho' Texas is far from a bad place.

(Just don't ever ask me to live in Abilene again. Two years of my life I'll never get back...):evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
20.  There are certain Canuks that think Texas is a VERY bad place! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Oh.
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 10:42 PM by PavePusher
Them.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
east texas lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-05-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Oh man, you were stationed at Dyess?
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 11:09 PM by east texas lib
That's why they invented beer, to ease the pain. I worked there on a maintenance crew for MWR for a few years. It was right about the time the 96th Bomb Wing (SAC) was deactivated and we went under the 7th Bomb Wing (ACC, I think). It's my home town. We called it Drabilene. I feel your pain. You won't find Dyess on many "dream sheets".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Not only was I there, but I was with the 317th Airlift Gp....
Edited on Wed Jan-06-10 11:25 AM by PavePusher
so we were the bastard stepchildren of the base as well. Me and the AF nearly parted company there.

Beer... oh, yes, was probably a borderline alcoholic there. When two different bar staffs know what you drink, and in what order, you may want to re-evaluate your habits. (The Zone and Little Texas)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC