Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights

This is a discussion on Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Second Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights in Post-September 11 Security Crackdown The United States Second ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    620

    Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights

    Second Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights in Post-September 11 Security Crackdown

    The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a Bronx gun shop owner who claimed her constitutional rights were violated in a search and seizure of her store following a post-9/11 security crackdown by the New York City Police Department.

    Angela Spinelli, the owner of Olinville Arms, Inc., appealed the case to the Second Circuit after a federal district court granted the City of New York and the NYPD officers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing her case. In the overturned ruling, the district court held that Spinelli failed to demonstrate that the city had denied her Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, her rights to Due Process of Law, or tortuously interfered with her business, when they confiscated her entire firearms inventory and suspended her dealer’s licenses.

    While the Appeals Court determined that the lower court had properly dismissed Spinelli’s Fourth Amendment claim because the City’s warrantless search of Olinville Arms was objectively reasonable and performed pursuant to established regulations, the Court found that the City and its police officers violated due process by denying Spinelli the constitutionally required notice and post-deprivation hearing.

    “We are delighted by the court’s decision to protect the due process of defendants, even in light of reasonable security interests designed to protect the public,” said Sanford F. Young, Esq., who argued the case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Spinelli and Olinville Arms.

    In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the 47th Precinct of the NYPD was tasked with providing enhanced security to sensitive locations within its boundaries, known as “Omega posts” or “Omega watches.” The Olinville gun shop was designated an Omega post.

    Without a warrant, a police search on October 8, 2001 cited the gun shop for minor security breaches due to an unwatched counter area, a hole in the backyard fence and two unlocked safes. The following month, the City’s License Division suspended the shop’s dealer’s licenses and demanded the surrender of all her inventory of firearms, some which had already been sold to customers who later demanded a refund. Many of the customers are themselves police officers.

    Spinelli made improvements to comply with the original complaint, including restoration of the fences in the backyard area, installation of video surveillance in the store, renovation of the counter area and construction of a large concrete room where her gun safes were housed. Shortly after, the division recommended the reinstatement of her license and allowed her to reopen the gun shop.

    Due to the loss of sales and a violation of her rights, Spinelli sued the City on November 8, 2002, alleging that the city’s confiscation of her licenses and weapons violated her due process and Fourth Amendment rights and also interfered with her business relationships.

    Finding that the City’s search of Olinville’s premises, the seizure of its firearms and the suspension of its license were reasonable due to “the apparent security lapses at Olinville,” the district court dismissed all of her claims.

    On appeal to the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals, that court ruled in favor of the city with respect to the appellant’s Fourth Amendment claim, but reversed the lower court’s judgment with respect to the appellant’s due process claim. The Court sent the case back to the district court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Spinelli on her due process claim, and to calculate her damages. The district court’s judgment dismissing the appellant’s tortuous interference claim was also vacated, and that claim also sent back to the district court for further proceedings. In addition to damages, Spinelli is entitled to recover her legal fees.

    The Panel of three judges who heard the oral argument of the appeal on January 22, 2009 included Justice Sonia Sotomayer. However, in the Court’s Decision, dated August 7, 2009, the Court noted that Justice Sotomayer did not participate in the Decision as she “was elevated to the Supreme Court… on August 6, 2009.”

    Contact:

    Sanford F. Young, Esq.
    212-227-9755
    New York & New Jersey Litigation Attorney | Insurance Disputes Malpractice 2nd Legal Opinion Business Disputes Lawyer NY NJ

    Joe Boyle
    JRB Communications
    917-376-3595
    joeboyle@comcast.net

    [LINK]

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036


    And here I had said that absolutlly no good would ever come from Sotomayer appointment to the Supreme Court.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570
    Good.

    However, don't we see this sort of thing happen all the time in other areas of commerce? E.g., A restaurant gets inspected for evidence of sanitary violations and gets closed and the food license taken. I'm not sure I see how this case differs from those, except that the store sold guns and didn't quite
    follow the prescribed security rules the city has for such stores.

    I'm not sure I see this as a gun rights or even a 4th A case, but am happy for the store owner and saddened that it has taken almost 7 year to get things sorted out.

  5. #4
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,503
    I wouldn't exactly call a seven-year process, justice...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,570

    Re: retsupt

    Quote Originally Posted by retsupt99 View Post
    I wouldn't exactly call a seven-year process, justice...
    No, its not justice, and worse the appeals courts just send stuff back for the trial judge to rethink or redo. This one will drag on. Meanwhile the damage is done.

    You have to wonder why they didn't just give the owner an opportunity to "correct" the alleged deficiencies and let it go at that.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You have to wonder why they didn't just give the owner an opportunity to "correct" the alleged deficiencies and let it go at that.
    A very good question....
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You have to wonder why they didn't just give the owner an opportunity to "correct" the alleged deficiencies and let it go at that.
    Come on now, it's New York City!

    That would be considered a reasonable thing to do in the rest of the world.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array redbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    646
    Will the city of NY pay her for lost earnings and pay her attorney fees?

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. A Horrible Hunting Accident - Violation of all safety rules
    By cwblanco in forum Basic Gun Handling & Safety
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2010, 12:08 PM
  2. No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?
    By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: June 17th, 2010, 11:45 PM
  3. Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 07:23 PM
  4. From the Bangor Daily: Residents raise the issue of need vs. constitutional rights
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 13th, 2010, 12:19 AM

Search tags for this page

second circuit city of new york concealed carry

,

where to file constitutional violation against the state in ny

Click on a term to search for related topics.