a check takes all of about 5 seconds 30 mins is way to long to not be free to leave

 

Have to agree with this. A license and photo id with the same names and the bearer should be clearly identified.

 

Ok, rather long set of posting here.

But the way I see it, the guy made himself suspect by allowing an officer to see him place a gun into a concealed place and enter a bus.

GA allows OC, great, but the guy was clearly CC when he headed towards the bus. Does GA allow CC for any and everyone or must one have a permit. If a permit is required then the cop had every right to question the guy right then and there. Bus carry is not legal unless you have a CC permit. Cop had every right to stop him and question him about his status/legality whatever one would call it when heading for the bus.

Should it take 30 minutes to verify the legal status of a permit holder. Heck I don't know. Traffic violations can tak that long some times, I don't know if there is any set time frame that should be allowed for whateve type of stop.

Should the officer have been able to disarm the fellow, well in Texas he can, I don't know what GA law is. In my mind, an officer who is charged with keeping the peace should be able to disarm an individual during a stop. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, others are going to disagree, but if being inconvienenced by an officer by being disarmed bothers you that much, maybe you should spend a day in their shoes dealing with bad guys and see if you can tell who does and who doesn't pose a threat to you.

I think the case was much to do about nothing personally.

 

Still, the "background check" including full fingerprints is completed prior to issuing a Georgia Firearms License. The bearer is verified as being entitled to possess a weapon as defined by the law when the license is in their possession.

What's with this background check you speak of...simply because someone legally possesses a firearm or knife? The last time I was stopped by the police no background check was run, nor was it expected. You guys either have too much to do or too little. Just check id if you're interested and we will all go our own way. I'm not breaking the law because I carry.

 

There seems to have been no other purpose for this incident than to validate the individual's license to carry a concealed weapon. No laws were broken. Hardly reason for detention on probable cause, which may have merited a more thorough check of his identity/record, &tc. One could easily draw the conclusion that he believed he had been singled out simply because he possessed a concealed weapon.

Bad on MARTA if this is their attitude.

Someone said the officers could have held him pending instructions from their supervisors. I could accept this explanation, but this incident was simply not a fair way to treat a private citizen legally using a public accommodation.

 

I really wonder if anyone read the order of the court and understood it, rather just acting emotionally about a subject they are uninformed about.

This was a 4th amendment warrantless seizure and search issue.

The decission is in line with other cases on the issue which say the police may effect a seizure of a person (brief detention) without a warrant upon probable cause that a crime (some guy with a gun walking into a transit station...) is occuring, and then investigate if such crime is in fact occuring. If the detention's duration is what the court considers reasonable, then no violations of the constitution have occured.

A person coming in my office complaining about a 30 minute detention by the police because an officer saw them take a gun from the car, conceal it on their person and walk into a bus station...that results in no arrest or further adverse action...would get told he doesn't have a case.

I wonder if the people who are so offended by this case are more in shock about it because they are realizing they don't know as much about their rights as they think they did, and are getting a bluntly worded statement about how incorrect they are.

This case just happens to involve a gun & Georgia Carry, so people feel the judge is picking on them.

He isn't.

 

Mitchell, maybe I'm missing something. You wrote: "This was a 4th amendment warrantless seizure and search issue.
The decission is in line with other cases on the issue which say the police may effect a seizure of a person (brief detention) without a warrant upon probable cause that a crime (some guy with a gun walking into a transit station...) is occuring,"

OK-- to this point we would be on the same page if OC were unlawful. But where is the probable cause if in an OC legal state? Next, once aware of a CHL or whatever the permit is called in GA and especially once aware the guy was LE, where is the probable cause for a non-existent crime?

Now, you might think that a half hour on the side of the road is no big deal. Maybe the law thinks its no big deal. That isn't how most folks are going to feel about it; especially anyone who has done nothing whatsoever for which they should be detained.

What you and a couple of others are saying is that if I am stopped for a tail light violation and present my CHL, it is perfectly OK to hold me for 30 minutes or somewhat longer while the nice officer double and triple checks the validity of my DL, CHL, car registration, and that I've really been a good boy and not just committed a holdup in the last 30 minutes. That is fine in theory, as long as you (I) am not the one on the side of the road.

Maybe as you say there is no case there. The judge agreed to that point. Still, there is a difference between right and wrong, being treated right and being treated wrongfully.

 

Mitchell, maybe I'm missing something....

OK-- to this point we would be on the same page if OC were unlawful. But where is the probable cause if in an OC legal state?.

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed.

It does not have to be correct, but it does have to be reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

In this matter, the plaintiff's actions raised suspicion of the observing officer to a degree that was sufficient that a reasonably prudent and cautious person would believe that a crime has been or was about to be committed.

Taking a pistol out of your trunk in a parking lot, tucking it under a jacket and walking toward a crowded transit station tends to make reasonably prudent people who wear plastic guns, big shiny buttons & blue clown suits believe "sumptin be goin down"

Rightly or wrongly, that's the info they have to go on.

Next, once aware of a CHL or whatever the permit is called in GA and especially once aware the guy was LE, where is the probable cause for a non-existent crime?

Once the probable cause exists, it allows for detention & investigation sufficient to determine if further action needs to be taken.

This can take 3 minutes or 3 hours, it depends on the factual situation.

30 minutes is by no means unreasonable, especially in a situation involving firearms.

Now, you might think that a half hour on the side of the road is no big deal. Maybe the law thinks its no big deal. That isn't how most folks are going to feel about it; especially anyone who has done nothing whatsoever for which they should be detained.

Determining reasonability is a matter for the court, but they would use a subjective/objective test and interest balancing (your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures v. the state's interest to enforce its own laws) to look at the matter.

What you and a couple of others are saying is that if I am stopped for a tail light violation and present my CHL, it is perfectly OK to hold me for 30 minutes or somewhat longer while the nice officer double and triple checks the validity of my DL, CHL, car registration, and that I've really been a good boy and not just committed a holdup in the last 30 minutes. That is fine in theory, as long as you (I) am not the one on the side of the road.

No, it isn't what I've been saying, and if you had read carefully you'd have understood I was saying that given the situation, the facts as the police knew the, and the totality of the circumstances as they presented themselves - THIS detention was not a violation of the 4th amendment.

Warrantless detentions are constitutional only so long as probable cause exists.

A traffic stop is a different situation.

It involves different facts, circumstances, laws which may or may not ahve been violated, and other factors which may allow for the length of the detention to be much shorter (or longer...) but the search to far more in depth (or none at all), and the level of detention used different from this one.

You are attempting to make a 1:1 analysis when that is incorrect in underlying theory at such a fundamental level it's difficult to convey.


People are protected from unreasonable seizure and search.

S&S must be upon warrant or upon probable cause.

Action taken upon PC must be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

This is the fundamentals, and they do not change; however, the application in the practical sense varies deeply and significantly based upon factors which present themselves.

Maybe as you say there is no case there. The judge agreed to that point. Still, there is a difference between right and wrong, being treated right and being treated wrongfully.

He was treated just fine.

The detention was brief.
His weapon was returned at the incident's conclusion.
The authorities did not take action to revoke his permit.

He was using the incident to initiate a lawsuit that isn't worth the paper it's written on due to the police acting properly, professionally and quickly to determine what happened, the status of his permit, who he is, and if they should take any further action based upon what they had at hand.

 

MitchelCT is dead on with all points.

- Janq

 

Agreed.


We can run in circles on this one all day long, but two posts up was about the best description of what happened from start to finish that I've seen yet.


And with that we're closing on a good note.