Federal judge rules for NM open carrier

This is a discussion on Federal judge rules for NM open carrier within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A federal district court judge has granted summary judgement for a New Mexico gun owner who was detained and disarmed for legally open carrying in ...

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Federal judge rules for NM open carrier

  1. #1
    Member Array C Paul Lincoln's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish
    Posts
    252

    Federal judge rules for NM open carrier

    A federal district court judge has granted summary judgement for a New Mexico gun owner who was detained and disarmed for legally open carrying in a theater. The judge also ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, so the next step will be a jury trial for monetary damages.

    This has the possibility to become a pivotal case on unreasonable search and seizure as it applies to gun owners. We should expect it will be appealed.

    C Paul Lincoln

    Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns

    On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."

    The facts of the case are pretty simple. Matthew St. John entered an Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the movie. He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is legal in 42 states, and requires no license in Mexico and twenty-five other states.

    In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat, took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his vehicle. Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a summons for violating any law.

    Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave. The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule of law.

    On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

    Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages. Garcia said that

    "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions."

    Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not "clearly established." In this case, Judge Black concluded that

    "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater. Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the same and with regard to qualified immunity."

    Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number of open carriers across the United States. Though police harassment of open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia, and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

    Judge Blak's opinion and order can be read here.

    NOTE: Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com.
    Mods, please move this if it is better placed in the open carry forum. It has broad application, so I placed it here.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array ArmyCop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Chickasaw, AL
    Posts
    1,741
    I'd say that's a plus for us....
    For God, Family and Country!

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    I would say there are some cops about ready to file bankruptcy in the near future
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  5. #4
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyCop View Post
    I'd say that's a plus for us....
    +1

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET?! I was a LEO in New Mexico for 21 years and open carry is legal and common knowledge amongst law enforcement. When a person was open carrying on private property it was the property owner/manager's job to tell them to leave, not law enforcement. We would only get involved if the subject refused and they were then arrested/cited for trespassing. To sieze someones property without legal grounds to do so is just asking for it. These rookies need to read the state constitution and refer to opencarry.org.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  7. #6
    Member Array Sub Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cary, IL
    Posts
    95
    Good for him!! $$$
    U.S. Navy Veteran-NRA Member
    Taurus PT 845, PT 99 AF
    Ruger SR9
    1938 Mauser K98 8mm, 1917 DWM German Luger
    1952 M1 Garand
    Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    I am curious as to how their department will react to this. Will they back the officers or tell them they are on their own?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member Array MinistrMalic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,414
    I hope those officers learn their lesson. We are close in AZ, and I have never been harassed while OC. Then again, I normally CC and concealed is concealed!
    "...whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
    Christianity and Self Defense from a Biblical Perspective

  10. #9
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,651
    'bout time...
    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]

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198

    Dept. reaction.....

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    I am curious as to how their department will react to this. Will they back the officers or tell them they are on their own?
    The dept. will have no choice but to back the officers who were acting under color of law. The Dept. is the entity that's liable. The officers can be sued individually, but there's no money in that. The dept. is covered by Risk Management who will provide lawyers, etc., but the city would have to pay any damages.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  12. #11
    Member Array Trouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    27
    Awesome....just awesome....

  13. #12
    Member Array Leopard125's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Posts
    204
    If the city of Almagordo has the same ins. carrier as Clovis
    they will settle in the hallway right before the trial.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,957
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    The dept. will have no choice but to back the officers who were acting under color of law. The Dept. is the entity that's liable. The officers can be sued individually, but there's no money in that. The dept. is covered by Risk Management who will provide lawyers, etc., but the city would have to pay any damages.
    I don't know the law there, but back in Maryland we had a couple of officers that learned the hard way that the department does what is best for the department. If they can show the involved officers were not following department regulations, policies, or procedures they could find themselves twisting in the wind. The question comes down to is it cheaper/easier to defend what the officers did or defend the possible suit alleging inadequate supervision and negligent retention.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

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. Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: September 17th, 2009, 12:38 AM
  2. Judge rules state's gun laws prevail
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: July 17th, 2008, 11:23 PM
  3. Judge rules against several proposed gun laws in Philadelphia
    By Cupcake in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 07:34 AM
  4. Federal Judge Rules Against Pat Downs
    By Kat in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 1st, 2006, 02:30 AM

Search tags for this page

judge black nm

,

judge black open carry

,

judge rules against several proposed gun laws in philadelphia

,

millitary vet illegally detained for open cary on new mexico

,

new mexico self defense laws

,

open carrier violated

,

open carriers guns

,

philadelphia open carrier

,

proposed gun legislation , nm

,

rules for gun carrier

,

taurus pt99 af modifications,

Click on a term to search for related topics.