Open carrier wrongfully detained by police gets $21,000

[Indy317]

Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit

As reported in the Alamogordo Daily News today, the Alamogordo, NM Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie theater. This settlement follows a host of settlements by police departments around the country with plaintiffs who were detained by police for openly carrying a holstered handgun, including Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia (see another settlement here), and Georgia. More cases are still pending in Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

More at the link.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Good news for the coffee drinkers of Broad Ripple.

 

[bigus_D]

Good news for the coffee drinkers of Broad Ripple.

I don't get it.

 

[singlestacksig]

Kirk was detained last year for OC in shop in BR.

 

[mrjarrell]

Maybe once we have enough of these cases the law enforcers will finally get the point. It would certainly help matters if they had their immunities removed and made them liable for civil action. They'd certainly think twice before harassing open carriers.

 

[Scutter01]

It would certainly help matters if they had their immunities removed and made them liable for civil action. They'd certainly think twice before harassing open carriers.

I respectfully disagree. If you take away their immunity, they won't be able to perform their job for fear of getting sued every time they turn around. A better solution (in my armchair quarterback position) is proper training from people who don't have an agenda of their own (see numerous stories about T.H. departments for examples of said agendas).

 

[Feign]

I respectfully disagree. If you take away their immunity, they won't be able to perform their job for fear of getting sued every time they turn around. A better solution (in my armchair quarterback position) is proper training from people who don't have an agenda of their own (see numerous stories about T.H. departments for examples of said agendas).

They're supposed to serve us, right? As long as they do everything they can to stay within the law (not their own moral law, but this could be debatable in some circumstances) I don't see a problem with removing said immunity.

Isn't not knowing the law to successfully carry out their duties dereliction of said duties...?

 

[Scutter01]

They're supposed to serve us, right? As long as they do everything they can to stay within the law (not their own moral law, but this could be debatable in some circumstances) I don't see a problem with removing said immunity.

Isn't not knowing the law to successfully carry out their duties dereliction of said duties...?

You literally cannot get out of bed in the morning without breaking at least one law. In fact, even staying in bed could probably be construed as loitering. You really want to go the route of having officers carrying around a lawyer with them vetting their every move just so they don't get sued? They deal with dirtbags all the time. The kind of people who would sue regardless just to cause grief for the arresting officer. Everyone wants their chance to roll the dice.

Do police need to know the law? Of course they do. But even lawyers who have dedicated their lives to knowing the intricate details of the law still have libraries of legal reference books at their disposal. This is why I said proper (and CONTINUOUS) training is a better answer. If they continue to commit violations under color of law after having been trained, then the department should hold them accountable.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I wonder how much of this $21k his lawyers will get...

Or if he'll have enough to buy a new pistol when his cut comes through.

Yes, I'm feeling cynical this morning.

-J-

 

[Indy317]

Maybe once we have enough of these cases the law enforcers will finally get the point. It would certainly help matters if they had their immunities removed and made them liable for civil action. They'd certainly think twice before harassing open carriers.

Police officers don't have absolute immunity. There are a few cases on the S. District Court of Indiana's webpage that show officers personal liable for judgments. The fact of the matter is that in order for a common person to bring a suit, they are going to need the help of a lawyer. Clients who want to personally make the cops pay, and refuse reasonable settlements, will likely find themselves without a lawyer.

They're supposed to serve us, right? As long as they do everything they can to stay within the law (not their own moral law, but this could be debatable in some circumstances) I don't see a problem with removing said immunity.

Isn't not knowing the law to successfully carry out their duties dereliction of said duties...?

If you remove an officers immunity, that opens them up for long, drawn out legal battles. The immunity helps by limiting the time frame of lawsuits. It seems that all responses to lawsuits ask for quick dismissals based on qualified immunity. Put it this way, if officers have to worry about multiple, long drawn out trials where they will eventually be vindicated, do you think most will continue to do the job? Oh wait, some might, as I am sure some officers out there would like nothing more than being paid to go sit in court and depositions knowing that they did nothing wrong and will ultimately be found not guilty. However, this would be a total waste of resources because as a taxpayer, I don't want to have to hire more cops because every "it was racism" frivolous lawsuit is taking 10-20% of the officers out of their normal patrol duties. The time they spend in criminal court is bad enough, taking away immunity would just cause even even more court time being taken up by the officers.

Not only that, taking away their immunity wouldn't do much good anyway. Most cases where officers are ruled to have acted properly and the immunity is granted would likely be ruled in favor of the officer. Even with that, again most lawyers are not going to work for free. People who constantly pass up settlement offers paid out by the government, not the officers personally, are not going to make their lawyers happy.

 

[Jack Ryan]

You literally cannot get out of bed in the morning without breaking at least one law. In fact, even staying in bed could probably be construed as loitering. You really want to go the route of having officers carrying around a lawyer with them vetting their every move just so they don't get sued? They deal with dirtbags all the time. The kind of people who would sue regardless just to cause grief for the arresting officer. Everyone wants their chance to roll the dice.

Do police need to know the law? Of course they do. But even lawyers who have dedicated their lives to knowing the intricate details of the law still have libraries of legal reference books at their disposal. This is why I said proper (and CONTINUOUS) training is a better answer. If they continue to commit violations under color of law after having been trained, then the department should hold them accountable.

Sounds to me like there's way too many stupid and useless laws.

 

[Scutter01]

Sounds to me like there's way too many stupid and useless laws.

No argument there.

 

[Joe Williams]

Maybe once we have enough of these cases the law enforcers will finally get the point. It would certainly help matters if they had their immunities removed and made them liable for civil action. They'd certainly think twice before harassing open carriers.

Judges have the ability to remove an officer's immunity, as happened in this particular case. Had the plaintiff not settled, he could have sued the individual officers. Frankly, though, even if he won he likely would have had to spend years collecting. Instead, he's won a great victory. By successfully getting the officer's immunity removed, officers are put on notice that their continued harrassment and willful violation of citizen's rights on this issue will put them personally at risk. He's managed to get a great deal of publicity for his cause, further spreading the word to citizens and officers alike, and he'll have a few bucks for his trouble. Hopefully he'll use it to get a pretty BBQ gun to open carry

 

[ChrisK]

I think a good way to handle it would be like the military does. You get a briefing, verbal and written, at that time you MUST SIGN a statement that you have been briefed on the law ( AFI in my case ) and if it is not followed YOU WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE with no immunity given. Am I held to a higher standard being a member of the military that law enforcement? I would hope not, we both put our lives on the line for the people we serve. The only difference is that I am not a civilian but law enforcement is, only with the powers of arrest. That is an argument for another day.

 

[jsgolfman]

I am required to know the rules of my company and am personally liable for either willfully or unknowingly failing to follow those. I am also required to know and follow a plethora of domestic and international laws, codes, guidelines and regulations, for which I am personally responsible. Likewise, if one of my employees fails to follow said rules, I am liable as well as they. Why should it be any different for law enforcement or any other profession?

 

[Scutter01]

I am required to know the rules of my company and am personally liable for either willfully or unknowingly failing to follow those. I am also required to know and follow a plethora of domestic and international laws, codes, guidelines and regulations, for which I am personally responsible. Likewise, if one of my employees fails to follow said rules, I am liable as well as they. Why should it be any different for law enforcement or any other profession?

What happens if you make an error on your job? Does your customer sue you personally, or does he sue the company?

As a private-sector employee, you enjoy a certain amount of immunity as well. Obviously, criminal action or gross negligence may preclude that immunity, just as it does in law enforcement.

 

[printcraft]

I wonder how much of this $21k his lawyers will get...

Or if he'll have enough to buy a new pistol when his cut comes through.

Yes, I'm feeling cynical this morning.

-J-

On a lawsuit, probably 33% about $7000 + court costs. At least $13,500 remaining will buy a lot of guns and holster in which to OC


This \/

Sounds to me like there's way too many stupid and useless laws.

Also, they guy was not breaking the law.

 

[Astrocreep]

Maybe we could try holding the people that make the 911 calls about seeing a gun liable?
People win civil suits against other private citizens all the dang time over some pretty trivial stuff.


At least we could try to teach the public that reporting a handgun is an abuse of the 911 system...
The public needs to master the idea that a gun is not a crime in and of itself.
If officers started locking people up for false reporting, even if the charges didn't stick, it might help 'open their minds'.

 

[Indy317]

At least we could try to teach the public that reporting a handgun is an abuse of the 911 system...
The public needs to master the idea that a gun is not a crime in and of itself.
If officers started locking people up for false reporting, even if the charges didn't stick, it might help 'open their minds'.

Wrong. In this case, the state law specifically outlaws _concealed_ carry. Indiana law outlaws _any_ carrying of handguns, _unless_ you have a permit or are a member of one of the exempted groups. The arguement could be made, that carrying a handgun is like needing a license to drive a car. The problem is that argument has not yet been made in a state like Indiana. The driver's license issue was ruled on a long time ago. It will take a lawsuit from an open carrier with a license to decide this issue in Indiana.

 

[jsgolfman]

What happens if you make an error on your job? Does your customer sue you personally, or does he sue the company?

As a private-sector employee, you enjoy a certain amount of immunity as well. Obviously, criminal action or gross negligence may preclude that immunity, just as it does in law enforcement.

I am not at liberty to discuss my customers. so it may be hard to explain exactly how its not getting sued I worry about. If I fail its not about getting sued, its about going directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. There is no immunity for my case. The regulaitons themselves specifically say that I am personally liable. Me, not the company, me.