Florida Carry Lawsuit

HaveBlue · Jun 29, 2018

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...xercising-second-amendment-open-carry-rights/

Apparently they didn’t appreciate being arrested for behavior that was spelled out in state law as being legal.

press1280 · Jun 29, 2018

Unfortunately the 4th Amendment seems only good for getting (usually guilty) people off the hook, not for getting damages for wrongful detainment of the innocent.

swinokur · Jun 30, 2018

It doesn't say they were arrested.

Only detained.

I don't see how they can claim a 4th amendment violation without an arrest.

Investigative detentions happen all the time. Without an arrest, where is the harm?

I'm not defending the cops, but wonder what is the basis for the suit?

But IANAL so someone straighten me out if necessary

HaveBlue · Jun 30, 2018

I watched most of the video. It appears to me that the police arrived, drew their weapons, handcuffed them for behavior specifically called out as legal in the Florida Law. I’m not sure exactly what the police would claim to be investigating.

Your honor I stopped him for driving 24 in a 25. When I saw the fishing gear, I decided to handcuff him for everyone’s safety.

swinokur · Jun 30, 2018

The purpose of the detainment was to find out the circumstances of their being armed. When it was determined they had no ill intent and were legal they were released.

I don’t see any civil violations of the law but IANAL

Biggfoot44 · Jun 30, 2018

Presumably the plaintiffs will be alledging that their situation was indeed a de facto arrest , despite the PD saying otherwise .

In US v Sharpe the SCOTUS ruled that a " temporary detention " was indeed an Arrest , involving a time frame of 20min .

swinokur · Jun 30, 2018

Did the police act outside the scope of that ruling in investigating the circumstances?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcutonilli · Jun 30, 2018

swinokur said:
It doesn't say they were arrested.

Only detained.

I don't see how they can claim a 4th amendment violation without an arrest.

Investigative detentions happen all the time. Without an arrest, where is the harm?

I'm not defending the cops, but wonder what is the basis for the suit?

But IANAL so someone straighten me out if necessary

The police claim it is a detention, but have not stated it was not an arrest.

The 4th amendment does not mention arrest, it is about search and seizure. Once you are not free to leave, you are generally considered seized.

Under the Terry stop rules ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop ) police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity. The problem in this case is that there does not appear to be any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

swinokur · Jun 30, 2018

So a win is possible But the cops may testify to the fact there was a reasonable suspicion based on unpublished info as of right now. I guess their articulation of the actual facts of the stop needs to be published.

That’s why we have trials.

Interesting case

GTOGUNNER · Jun 30, 2018

Officer will use HEIEN, PETITIONER v. NORTH CAROLINA. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/13-604/opinion3.html

From the opinion "what if the police officer’s reasonable mistake is not one of fact but of law? In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, but a court later determined that a single working brake light was all the law required. The question presented is whether such a mistake of law can nonetheless give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We hold that it can. Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment."

jcutonilli · Jun 30, 2018

GTOGUNNER said:
Officer will use HEIEN, PETITIONER v. NORTH CAROLINA. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/13-604/opinion3.html

From the opinion "what if the police officer’s reasonable mistake is not one of fact but of law? In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, but a court later determined that a single working brake light was all the law required. The question presented is whether such a mistake of law can nonetheless give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold the seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We hold that it can. Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment."

In Heien, the court found that having two functional brake lights was a reasonable interpretation of the law that was later determined to be incorrect. How is it a reasonable interpretation if you ignore the fact that there are exceptions to the law? Additionally the people in question informed the police of the law before the event occurred.

teratos · Jun 30, 2018

Is the mere exercise of a civil right grounds for further investigation? I think not. The officers must articulate some other reason.

press1280 · Jul 1, 2018

jcutonilli said:
In Heien, the court found that having two functional brake lights was a reasonable interpretation of the law that was later determined to be incorrect. How is it a reasonable interpretation if you ignore the fact that there are exceptions to the law? Additionally the people in question informed the police of the law before the event occurred.

This is literally spelled out in FL law. I'm assuming someone else on the pier called the cops. I would think they would have time to figure out while they were on the way that OC while fishing was legal.

jcutonilli · Jul 1, 2018

press1280 said:
This is literally spelled out in FL law. I'm assuming someone else on the pier called the cops. I would think they would have time to figure out while they were on the way that OC while fishing was legal.

Here is a follow on article. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-taylor-recorded-entire-miami-beach-incident/

"The incident started when a Miami Beach park ranger approached the group and informed them that they were committing illegal acts. Mr. Taylor handed the ranger a pamphlet containing Florida Statute 790.25(3)(h) and informed him that they were acting within the law and committing no crime. The ranger then contacted MBPD."

While this is only one side of the story, it does not look good for Miami Beach.

swinokur · Jul 1, 2018

Not one bit.

Oops.

Maybe some retraining on OC is in order.

Schipperke · Jul 2, 2018

Florida isn't an open carry state. I had no idea of the exceptions. Now lets see if those exceptions go bye bye. Many threads, members pontificate just because it's legal or your right doesn't mean it's a great idea. This reminds me of some statute in Maryland concerning dog training. I train my dog on leash, but don't think they'll buy that where I live. I wish Maryland had a carry exception for fishing. In winter at small lakes, typically no one around at various hours until a few local MS-13 I spot, is there to conduct business, or take care of business. A sole person fishing could be robbed and dispatched w/o any witnesses easily.

swinokur · Jul 2, 2018

If Miami looses in court, I don’t see the statute changing. I see a lot more training of LEO in the state to prevent a recurrence

Schipperke · Jul 2, 2018

I don't speculate them losing. The intent of the officers will be considered. I seriously do not understand all the angst, surprise with the 2A crew of people when it comes to getting wrongly detained or arrested over "gunz". This stuff happens every hour of the day on lots of reasons, and basically cops get a slap on the wrist and are allowed to make a mistake. On Live PD, a car was pulled over for no front tag I believe in Georgia. The car had Arkansas plates, where no front tag is required. The stop yielded detainment and charges not related to the tag. The pair was detained well over 20 minutes. The driver commented there was no reason to stop him. Well the cop made a mistake and found other goodies, after the magic dog alerted. The dog was wrong.

swinokur · Jul 2, 2018

I don't disagree. The courts give a lot of deference to LE.

Guess it depends on the jury.

Interesting to watch

jcutonilli · Jul 2, 2018

Schipperke said:
I don't speculate them losing. The intent of the officers will be considered. I seriously do not understand all the angst, surprise with the 2A crew of people when it comes to getting wrongly detained or arrested over "gunz". This stuff happens every hour of the day on lots of reasons, and basically cops get a slap on the wrist and are allowed to make a mistake. On Live PD, a car was pulled over for no front tag I believe in Georgia. The car had Arkansas plates, where no front tag is required. The stop yielded detainment and charges not related to the tag. The pair was detained well over 20 minutes. The driver commented there was no reason to stop him. Well the cop made a mistake and found other goodies, after the magic dog alerted. The dog was wrong.

The courts accept reasonable mistakes. If it were in Georgia then it should have been an unreasonable mistake because Georgia and 18 other states do not require front license plates. ( https://www.cars.com/articles/2013/10/how-many-states-require-front-license-plates/ ) If it were in any of the other 31 states it would likely be seen as reasonable for the state.

I think the angst comes about when there are unreasonable mistakes made.

Florida Carry Lawsuit

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

HaveBlue

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

HaveBlue

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics