Florida Carry Lawsuit

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."

Click to expand...

I thought ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

jc1240 said:

I thought ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Click to expand...

"Finally, Heien and amici point to the well-known maxim, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and contend that itis fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of the maxim. The true symmetry is this: Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law. If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop. And Heien is not appealing a brake-light ticket; he is appealing a cocaine-trafficking conviction as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or law."

Schipperke said:

Many threads, members pontificate just because it's legal or your right doesn't mean it's a great idea.

Click to expand...

Why? Is it because the police rarely know the law? Can't count how many police in MD I have asked about 10 round mags and they all think they are currently banned vs. banned to buy or sell in state. I know police aren't lawyers but if they are going to go after people with guns drawn then they better know what they are doing.

Bunch of guys fishing with holstered firearms is grounds to draw on them like they are knocking over a 7-11?

The police in question need major reprimanding via suspensions. It would be different if they just walked up to them to talk to them like normal police would. Let them go about their business of fishing until they called someone who knows the laws of the state since they clearly don't.

jcutonilli said:

"Finally, Heien and amici point to the well-known maxim, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and contend that itis fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of the maxim. The true symmetry is this: Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law. If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop. And Heien is not appealing a brake-light ticket; he is appealing a cocaine-trafficking conviction as to which there is no asserted mistake of fact or law."

Click to expand...

I should learn to read included links in their entirety.

pilot25 said:

Why? Is it because the police rarely know the law? Can't count how many police in MD I have asked about 10 round mags and they all think they are currently banned vs. banned to buy or sell in state. I know police aren't lawyers but if they are going to go after people with guns drawn then they better know what they are doing.

Bunch of guys fishing with holstered firearms is grounds to draw on them like they are knocking over a 7-11?

The police in question need major reprimanding via suspensions. It would be different if they just walked up to them to talk to them like normal police would. Let them go about their business of fishing until they called someone who knows the laws of the state since they clearly don't.

Click to expand...

More likely the police can't reasonably be expected to EVERY law and the peculiarities and exception to them

Docster said:

More likely the police can't reasonably be expected to EVERY law and the peculiarities and exception to them

Click to expand...

That is exactly the point.

There should be a movement to repeal all of the complex laws.

Laws should be so easy to read, that a 10th grader understands them!

several districts have noted that, where open carry is permitted/lawful, open carry does NOT provide RAS for a detention.

while florida does not allow for general open carry, it does SEEM to allow for open carry in specific instances. and being legal, the detention would seem unwarranted.

i am not a lawyer, so i'll defer to any among us for more thorough analysis here is one case. i found several others similar to this. the other was was similar was from ohio.

https://www.fedagent.com/columns/ca...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-legal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9745b64ae4c

that said, there are other cases, subsequent to this, which have said otherwise. in my brief searching for the above case, a michigan case stood out as permitting such detention, including a photo of a guy on the ground and johnny pointing his pistol at the law abiding citizen.

https://www.guns.com/2015/06/16/mic...-initiate-contact-based-solely-on-open-carry/

Docster said:

More likely the police can't reasonably be expected to EVERY law and the peculiarities and exception to them

Click to expand...

I agree but I also think approaching individuals, who are fishing, with guns drawn is completely unacceptable.

pilot25 said:

I agree but I also think approaching individuals, who are fishing, with guns drawn is completely unacceptable.

Click to expand...

This most likely stems for a generation or so of vilifying gun owners. When even the sight of a gun on a tee shirt "triggers" the snowflakes we know the road back will be a long one.

Thank God they were not carrying Pop Tarts

One of the detainees implored the police repeatedly to inspect a piece of paper thatr recited the pertinent sectoin of the law. I'm wondering if the refusal of the police to accept guidance from the detainees that would have addressed their apparent ignorance of the law would in any way compromise their defense of innocent ignorance of the law.