Concealed Carry=Probable Cause of criminal activity

[ls1z28chris]

Hope everyone gets behind the guy in his appeals, including the NRA. IF it's legal to carry.... and the appeal is won, it will admonish the Judge against using his personal opinions in judicial findings. An officer cannot "assume" you are doing something illegal if you are carrying a gun legally. It's 'offical' harrassment of people exercising their rights, to dissuade them from exercising those rights. Comparable to harrassing women and /or blacks when they showed up to vote in our history.. and were harrassed and dissuaded in voting.

You NEVER.... have to RAISE A DEFENSE ..... that's not American Judicial procedure... remember ... innocent until proven quity and the defendant does NOT have to do anything but sit there. The Prosecution 'must' prove it is 1) what the law is they supposedly violated , 2) that the defendant knew that or should have known the law, 3) that they "intentionally" and "knowingly" violated the law.

Doesn't appear that he violated 'any law' .

When is "adjusting" your pants illegal. ??

Again, the plaintiff arrived at the station, parked his car, stepped out, then holstered his weapon. Look at the testimony. It was an IWB holster placed in the small of the back. Who among you would drive around with that rig attached?

There was no adjustment, no "slip" of concealed carry. Even if that were the case, it would be utterly irrelevant to this case. Open carry in Georgia is also permitted only if one possesses a GFL, or is a member of a group exempted from the GFL requirement under 16-12-130. The fact that the firearm was visible has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[TerriLi]

Guy follows the law, is completely covered by the law and yet is still stopped questioned and detained.....
Judge it seems to me just doesnt like Open or Concealed Carry, both legal in Georgia with a GCL.

[rmodel65]

Guy follows the law, is completely covered by the law and yet is still stopped questioned and detained.....
Judge it seems to me just doesnt like Open or Concealed Carry, both legal in Georgia with a GFL.

ftfy Georgia Firearms License we dont have a concealed license just one to carry OC or CC

[TerriLi]

I thought it was a Georgia Carry License, meaning open carry or concealed Carry. My bad.

[HotGuns]

It seems to me that there were several "over reactions" on all party's involved from the bottom all the way to the top.

Here's my rather simplistic way of looking at it from the standpoint of me playing the cop...

I see a guy exit his vehicle, go to the trunk and holster a firearm.

Legally, I can walk up to him and inquire if he has a permit to carry. Can I? Yes. Will I? Maybe, maybe not.

Lets say that I do. I introduce myself and say that I observed him concealing a handgun and I would like to see his DL and permit if he has one. We do the small talk thing, I see his DL and his permit, run it, and if it all looks good, I thank him for his cooperation and tell him to have a good day...and that is the end of the story.

It didn't happen like that though. Instead, they temporarily seized his gun,treated him like he was guilty of something when he was not, kept him a bit too long,which probably caused him to miss his ride and the whole episode pissed him off enough that the more he thought about it,the madder he got and he lawyered up to seek damages because he felt that the cops that dealt with him were somewhat heavy handed about the whole thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if had placed the gun in the trunk of the car because he couldn't legally carry somewhere and was simply rearming himself because he was complying with the law where some off duty cop called in some additional support because he saw a man placing a gun in a holster.

Put yourself in his shoes for a minute and imagine how you would feel.

Your case gets picked up by a Judge that doesn't like guns and uses legal jargon,cheap rhetoric and manipulation of the English language to influence his decision ,one that comes real close to harassment for doing what the state has already considered to be a legal act.

So technically, this guy is danged if he does and danged if he don't.

He broke no law, yet was treated as he if he had. He wasn't accused of anything other than holstering a weapon...a legal weapon that he had a permit to carry concealed. His only mistake was letting someone see what he was doing.

And because of that, we get to talk about him on the Internet and the various bulletin boards where people talk about such things.

I see a stack up of several unfortunate events here.

The guy got caught by the wrong dude sticking a gun in his britches.

The cops were piss poor communicators and only served to piss the guy off and the fact that the guy filed for damages proves it. They wanted to see a crime where none was committed.

The judge and the lawyers involved complicated the whole manner because thats what judges and lawyers do for a living...they complicate simple matters into tangled twisted balls of crap that only they can understand while charging you by the hour and laughing all the way to the bank, because they treat you as if you are guilty, rather than the other way around like it is supposed to be because there is more money in it.

And that is exactly why this whole country of ours is screwed up beyond all repair.

[Hopyard]

It seems to me that there were several "over reactions" on all party's involved from the bottom all the way to the top.

Here's my rather simplistic way of looking at it from the standpoint of me playing the cop...

I see a guy exit his vehicle, go to the trunk and holster a firearm.

Legally, I can walk up to him and inquire if he has a permit to carry. Can I? Yes. Will I? Maybe, maybe not.

Lets say that I do. I introduce myself and say that I observed him concealing a handgun and I would like to see his DL and permit if he has one. We do the small talk thing, I see his DL and his permit, run it, and if it all looks good, I thank him for his cooperation and tell him to have a good day...and that is the end of the story.

It didn't happen like that though. Instead, they temporarily seized his gun,treated him like he was guilty of something when he was not, kept him a bit too long,which probably caused him to miss his ride and the whole episode pissed him off enough that the more he thought about it,the madder he got and he lawyered up to seek damages because he felt that the cops that dealt with him were somewhat heavy handed about the whole thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if had placed the gun in the trunk of the car because he couldn't legally carry somewhere and was simply rearming himself because he was complying with the law where some off duty cop called in some additional support because he saw a man placing a gun in a holster.

Put yourself in his shoes for a minute and imagine how you would feel.

Your case gets picked up by a Judge that doesn't like guns and uses legal jargon,cheap rhetoric and manipulation of the English language to influence his decision ,one that comes real close to harassment for doing what the state has already considered to be a legal act.

So technically, this guy is danged if he does and danged if he don't.

He broke no law, yet was treated as he if he had. He wasn't accused of anything other than holstering a weapon...a legal weapon that he had a permit to carry concealed. His only mistake was letting someone see what he was doing.

And because of that, we get to talk about him on the Internet and the various bulletin boards where people talk about such things.

I see a stack up of several unfortunate events here.

The guy got caught by the wrong dude sticking a gun in his britches.

The cops were piss poor communicators and only served to piss the guy off and the fact that the guy filed for damages proves it. They wanted to see a crime where none was committed.

The judge and the lawyers involved complicated the whole manner because thats what judges and lawyers do for a living...they complicate simple matters into tangled twisted balls of crap that only they can understand while charging you by the hour and laughing all the way to the bank, because they treat you as if you are guilty, rather than the other way around like it is supposed to be because there is more money in it.

And that is exactly why this whole country of ours is screwed up beyond all repair.

HG and I actually about 100% agree here. The world must be coming to an end.

I differ only in that I put no blame on the plaintiff's civil lawyer for whatever economic benefit he might have gotten by bringing the case.

[SIXTO]

I don't know what the big deal is, this is pretty much standard and nothing new.

The only thing is, once again, the terms reasonable suspicion and probable cause are confused. There is a huge difference.

[theghostrider]

I just skimmed through the ruling looking for anything from the US Supreme Court since 2000 that affirmed a firearm exception to Terry. I couldn't find any such reference.

It looked like the judge used appellate court, and state court rulings to reach the decision.

This should be over turned. It needs to be overturned. It would remove the burden of suspicion of criminal activity since what the plaintiff did was legal. It would remove innocent until proven guilty. It would also add a firearm exception to Terry where the USSC had previously ruled one did not exist.

[chiefjason]

JL v Florida refused to make a firearms exception to Terry. And it was specifically a firearms case.

JL v Florida
"This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.

Florida v. J.L.

[cwblanco]

I don't know what the big deal is, this is pretty much standard and nothing new.

That is exactly how I see it, but it seems that we share a minority view from many of these scholars who are posting on this topic.

Actually, I am quite surprised that he found a lawyer to take this case. Having tried cases for plaintiff and defense for almost 40 years, lawyers assign a unique label to this type of case -- It is called a DOG case. Typically these type of cases are taken on a contingent fee basis. I assure you that the lawyer who took the case has wasted a lot more time than the 30 minutes. Contrary to the belief of many, this is not the type of case that the NRA is going to spend money on.

The good news is that some lucky lawyer will get someone to pay him a good fee up front to take the case on appeal. The bad news for the client is that he will get no where on an appeal even if it were before the most conservative appellate court in the country.

The ones who are complaining about the outcome are likely the same ones who are screeming for tort reform to limit lawsuits, and to limit the amount that the lawyers will get paid.

So Georgia may be an open and concealed carry state. Converting from open to concealed or vice versa in public view, gives reason for suspician.

Hmmmm -- Could there must be a reason for going concealed? Perhaps it is to avoid the suspician that cost the man 30 minutes. Was he concealed? Obviously not. Someone saw him putting on the holster with the gun and then attempting to carry concealed as he left his car. Contrary to what some are contending, if it is seen in public, it is not concealed.

[Hopyard]

Contrary to what some are contending, if it is seen in public, it is not concealed.

So?

Sure, in Texas if it is seen it is not concealed; and in Texas intentional display (which is clearly what happened here) is unlawful.
(He intentionally allowed the gun to be visible to one and all while arranging his stuff.)

What is being missed I think is the fact that GA allows open carry. Therefore, the display, so long as it wasn't in the form of brandishing, does not seem to rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion" or whatever that allows for what followed.

Was the cop right to go on up and talk to the man. Maybe. It certainly is his job to look into what seems to him to be suspicious.

The problem arose when they persisted in detaining him far longer than appears necessary to have verified his status as LE and his possession of an appropriate license to carry.

I think CW that perhaps you are looking at it from our Texas perspective and not adequately considering the OC option in GA.

There have been many discussions here among the Texas contingent along the lines that the state should allow OC so that incidents as this one where there is momentary uncovering would be non-issues. That seems to me to be common sense, but useless if the judge's ruling were to be somehow adapted and used here in Texas if OC is ever allowed here--- not something I especially favor btw.

[smn]

JL v Florida refused to make a firearms exception to Terry. And it was specifically a firearms case.

JL v Florida
"This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing.

Florida v. J.L.

And JL was at a bus stop, was he not? MARTA also has bus stops.

If a cop sees me carrying and inquires to my license, I can politely tell him to pound sand. GA law only requires me to have it in my possession and not surrender it to him (like a driver's license).

Likewise, there is no hard and fast rule on concealing a weapon in GA except that a concealed weapon be in a holster (or using a hipgrip, or similar device). Even a poorly concealed gun with the grip exposed is considered OC in this state.

This judge's ruling is utter crap. This case had best be appealed and I hope it is. It will sure cause a ruckus until the circuit court hands down a ruling. This is our Ubiles.

[Janq]

...Please explain to me how any of those actions constitutes "not thinking before acting."

Also, please explain to me how being released without charges, after not violating any law, constitutes "being let off light and easy."

Very easy, and simple.

1) Being seen as in viewed by the eyes of persons, whether those persons were cops or a civilian the situation remains same, possesing and then holstering said weapon to then...and this is key here that a good number of folk here seem to have overlooked...walk himself to a public mass transportation system and _enter_ it.
This is not a case of guy stopped at his car upon being seen holstering and there after questioned.
What is key here is context.

2) He was stopped, asked what his purpose was as being armed...Upon being prior seen arming himself to then there after enter the mass transit system...To which he was then escorted to a private area for discussion. His carry license/permit was verified and no doubt they ran his name to make sure he didn't have any prior either. He came up clean and his review & interaction with the police was satisfactory. He was returned his gear and released 30 minutes later, no harm no foul.
That is light and easy as it goes in general and as in specific for civilians stopped by police and inquiry made about why they are armed.
Proof of this sentiment is featured in this forum in _this_ sub-area weekly (!) as related to other persons stopped for same and less egregious reasons only to find them self cuffed, detained and even in arrested and taken away by cop car as has been featured here weekly for years. The heavy and hard way.
It's relative.

Overall context of the situation as observed in _whole_, and not parsed into pieces as folk have been doing in this thread.
As well relativity in relation to how far more difficult, disturbing and overall disruptive this situation very well could have gone and has as for Joe Blow's around the country every other week past Sunday.

- Janq

P.S. - Oh, and BTW as related to item #1 as 'Context'.
Dude is very very lucky it was a LEO who spotted him as rather than a civilian...Who would have dialed 911 and called in a 'man with a gun' just went and walked into the mass transit station. He looks really serious. He's hiding his gun!! I'm scared he might try something.
All holy hell breaks out as po-po and 'response teams' swarm as along with the eyewitness news team too.
Light and easy.

[Janq]

what are you serious for not committing a crime he got off light and it is of note it is legal in GA to carry your Pistol in your hand
Caselaw, Nunn v. State

He was not stopped for carrying a pistol in hand.

That case law you cite and your position by it is of no relevance to the facts as stated in the report, and by which the judge made his decision against...Who no doubt is aware of that GA case law you cite which again is of no specific relevance here.

Being stopped for pistol in hand is not a guy with a gun that is holstered.

- Janq

[rmodel65]

So?

Sure, in Texas if it is seen it is not concealed; and in Texas intentional display (which is clearly what happened here) is unlawful.
(He intentionally allowed the gun to be visible to one and all while arranging his stuff.)

What is being missed I think is the fact that GA allows open carry. Therefore, the display, so long as it wasn't in the form of brandishing, does not seem to rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion" or whatever that allows for what followed.

Was the cop right to go on up and talk to the man. Maybe. It certainly is his job to look into what seems to him to be suspicious.

The problem arose when they persisted in detaining him far longer than appears necessary to have verified his status as LE and his possession of an appropriate license to carry.

I think CW that perhaps you are looking at it from our Texas perspective and not adequately considering the OC option in GA.

There have been many discussions here among the Texas contingent along the lines that the state should allow OC so that incidents as this one where there is momentary uncovering would be non-issues. That seems to me to be common sense, but useless if the judge's ruling were to be somehow adapted and used here in Texas if OC is ever allowed here--- not something I especially favor btw.

GA has no brandishing law....