Attorney sues Portsmouth police over gun license denial! We need to follow this case

[soloman02]

Thank you so much..I figured it was a one and done..Do you know if it is going to be a protracted trial..30 days type thing to issue a finding?

I think these things, if decided upon at the circuit court level are done quickly, possibly at the hearing.

I think there is a fair chance WMUR and the like won't even bother to report on the ruling if it doesn't happen according to their politics. Unless the police appeal that is. Then they might report. Before Newtown I would have said yes they would, but after it? No. Hopefully I'm wrong but I get a liberal and antigun sentiment from WMUR.

 

[wmccurdy53]

I think these things, if decided upon at the circuit court level are done quickly, possibly at the hearing.

I think there is a fair chance WMUR and the like won't even bother to report on the ruling if it doesn't happen according to their politics. Unless the police appeal that is. Then they might report. Before Newtown I would have said yes they would, but after it? No. Hopefully I'm wrong but I get a liberal and antigun sentiment from WMUR.

WMUR can't be all bad, they did run a favorable piece about the USPSA Area 7 Championship in Exeter while it was going on.

 

[Hiltonizer]

I think there is a fair chance WMUR and the like won't even bother to report on the ruling if it doesn't happen according to their politics.

If you think WMUR is slanted you haven't watched Boston media much. They actually aren't too bad on TV... the website is joke though, but comments are usually gold.

 

[mikem317]

The law also needs to be changed: The reference thing is a bunch of bravo-sierra. Plus phone numbers aren't even required on the form, only names and addresses.

My recommendation? Get rid of the reference check nonsense. Or better yet, abolish the P&R license application all together and go full Constitutional Carry.

Link to resident app: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp85.pdf

Where do you put the references phone numbers? I didn't include mine in my app when I applied for mine.

However, I know that Hudson PD does in fact require it as I was a reference on two friends' applications.

 

[exo]

The law also needs to be changed: The reference thing is a bunch of bravo-sierra. Plus phone numbers aren't even required on the form, only names and addresses.

My recommendation? Get rid of the reference check nonsense. Or better yet, abolish the P&R license application all together and go full Constitutional Carry.

Link to resident app: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp85.pdf

Where do you put the references phone numbers? I didn't include mine in my app when I applied for mine.

However, I know that Hudson PD does in fact require it as I was a reference on two friends' applications.

Does the law even say anything about references? And what do you mean that Hudson is requiring it? Are they refusing to process applications that don't have phone numbers? That's in violation of state law.

Edit: Which I know that's what this whole thing is about I don't see how Portsmouth or any other PD in NH can prevail in such a case, because the law is clear that there's only one valid form allowed without modification.

 

[Nick Fury]

This could actually be a landmark case with those who would like to see things more like our southern neighbors vs. the law as it was actually written. I'm sure there are many who would rather see the burden be placed on the applicant and not the dept.

 

[soloman02]

If you think WMUR is slanted you haven't watched Boston media much. They actually aren't too bad on TV... the website is joke though, but comments are usually gold.

I don't watch TV. I have Aereo but it only gives me Boston channels and WMUR is not part of that. Nor is NHPTV. I get all my local news from the web.

I only use Aereo for Patriots games (and the World Series cause the Sox were in it).

 

[soloman02]

Does the law even say anything about references? And what do you mean that Hudson is requiring it? Are they refusing to process applications that don't have phone numbers? That's in violation of state law.

Edit: Which I know that's what this whole thing is about I don't see how Portsmouth or any other PD in NH can prevail in such a case, because the law is clear that there's only one valid form allowed without modification.

The law makes no mention of references. It merely directs the state police to create a form.

159:6 License to Carry. –
I. (a) The selectmen of a town, the mayor or chief of police of a city or a full-time police officer designated by them respectively, the county sheriff for a resident of an unincorporated place, or the county sheriff if designated by the selectmen of a town that has no police chief, upon application of any resident of such town, city, or unincorporated place, or the director of state police, or some person designated by such director, upon application of a nonresident, shall issue a license to such applicant authorizing the applicant to carry a loaded pistol or revolver in this state for not less than 4 years from the date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property or has any proper purpose, and that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed. Hunting, target shooting, or self-defense shall be considered a proper purpose. The license shall be valid for all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued.

(b) The license shall be in duplicate and shall bear the name, address, description, and signature of the licensee. The original shall be delivered to the licensee and the duplicate shall be preserved by the people issuing the same for 4 years. When required, license renewal shall take place within the month of the fourth anniversary of the license holder's date of birth following the date of issuance. The license shall be issued within 14 days after application, and, if such application is denied, the reason for such denial shall be stated in writing, the original of which such writing shall be delivered to the applicant, and a copy kept in the office of the person to whom the application was made. The fee for licenses issued to residents of the state shall be $10, which fee shall be for the use of the law enforcement department of the town or city granting said licenses; the fee for licenses granted to out-of-state residents shall be $100, which fee shall be for the use of the state. The director of state police is hereby authorized and directed to prepare forms for the licenses required under this chapter and forms for the application for such licenses and to supply the same to officials of the cities and towns authorized to issue the licenses. No other forms shall be used by officials of cities and towns. The cost of the forms shall be paid out of the fees received from nonresident licenses.

II. No photograph or fingerprint shall be required or used as a basis to grant, deny, or renew a license to carry for a resident or nonresident, unless requested by the applicant.

 

[LoginName]

Update... WTF!!!

Gun license case twists after wiretapping claims surface

PORTSMOUTH — A city resident who is challenging the Police Department's decision to not renew his license to carry a concealed weapon had his tablet confiscated Thursday in court after prosecutors alleged he may have illegally recorded a conversation with local authorities.

Randall Pratt, a local lawyer and a resident of Richards Avenue, was forced to give up the device to state police after a lengthy hearing in Seabrook Circuit Court.

Pratt was in court to argue against a decision made in October by local police that his renewal application for a concealed weapons permit should be denied based on the fact that his three references didn't return police calls for verification.

But before a Circuit Court judge could rule on the legal challenge, the case took an interesting twist after it was discovered Pratt may have broken state law.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20131115-NEWS-311150394

 

[DemonChronicles]

Update... WTF!!!

Gun license case twists after wiretapping claims surface

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20131115-NEWS-311150394

Talk about deflection...

 

[noxin]

seriously, some people can't get out of their own way.

 

[RadiCS]

.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Update... WTF!!!

Gun license case twists after wiretapping claims surface




http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20131115-NEWS-311150394

 

[soloman02]

Um, we just had a first circuit court ruling that said recording police is not a crime.....

Now I gotta find the ruling and read it.

 

[atilla]

whyyyyyyy would his lawyer let him do that?

not smart.

Um, we just had a first circuit court ruling that said recording police is not a crime.....

Now I gotta find the ruling and read it.

this would save his ass, but does it apply to the phone? NH is two party.

 

[Hiltonizer]

worst lawyer ever

 

[Harleynut]

They asked me to add phone numbers and it would go faster. I said that's ok I will put everything that was asked for on the state form and only what was asked for there. No phone numbers. I said I didn't mind waiting and would be by to pick it up in 2 weeks. It was there for me when I went back in 2 weeks later.

 

[atilla]

They asked me to add phone numbers and it would go faster. I said that's ok I will put everything that was asked for on the state form and only what was asked for there. No phone numbers. I said I didn't mind waiting and would be by to pick it up in 2 weeks. It was there for me when I went back in 2 weeks later.

my references weren't contacted at all IIRC.

 

[soloman02]

whyyyyyyy would his lawyer let him do that?

not smart.



this would save his ass, but does it apply to the phone? NH is two party.

The plaintiff in this case is in fact an attorney and is thusly representing himself.

And he is ****ed, it only applies to video in a public place:

Judge Kermit Lipez delivered the opinion of the court. The court noted the principle of qualified immunity balanced the need to hold public officials accountable with the need to shield such officials from harassment on account of their public duties. The court therefore applied a two-prong test, first, did the facts alleged by the plaintiff show a violation of a constitutional right, and second, was the right clearly established at the time of the violation.[5]

The court first addressed the question of whether Glik's First Amendment rights had been violated. It noted that "we have previously recognized that the videotaping of public officials is an exercise of First Amendment liberties"[5] and held that Glik had a constitutional right to videotape a public official in a public place.[13] The court noted that this right was not limited to reporters and journalists, but a right of all citizens, subject to reasonable limitations of time, place and manner. It was clear in the current case that none of those limitations applied.[5][7]

Second, the court looked at whether the right to videotape was clearly established at the time of the arrest. The court had "no trouble concluding that 'the state of the law at the time of the alleged violation gave the defendant fair warning that [their] particular conduct was unconstitutional.'" (brackets in original)[5] The court noted that some constitution violations are "self-evident"[5] and the right to film public officials in a public place was clearly established[2][14] a decade prior to Glik's arrest.[15]

Next, the court determined if Glik's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The court noted that an arrest must be based upon probable cause. Noting that Glik claimed that no probable cause existed and that the officers stated that probable cause existed that the wiretap statute was violated. The court looked to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for the determination of state law. The Massachusetts court required that the recording be made secretly to be a violation, and that when a camera was in plain sight a recording could not be held to be made secretly. In Glik's case, the criminal complaint stated that "openly record[ed] the police officers", (brackets in original)[5] was not made in secret, and that therefore the officers had no probable cause to arrest Glik.[16] Since there was no probable cause, Glik's Fourth Amendment rights were violated.[2][5][17]

Finally, the court determined that the absence of probable cause as a constitutional violation was clearly established in law. The court therefore held that the district court's denial of the officers of qualified immunity was proper, affirming the decision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe

 

[ixia]

Um, we just had a first circuit court ruling that said recording police is not a crime.....

Now I gotta find the ruling and read it.

According to the linked article, he recorded a conversation with police over the phone. This must not be like every time I've ever called the police, where they answer the phone by saying "calls recorded". I'd be willing to bet the case you're referring to has to do with them being in a public place.

ETA: i'm slow at responding

 

[Nick Fury]

Let's test case wiretapping laws while were at it.

OMFG what a dumbass... Why? Why? Why?

It was such an open and shut case. The chief wasn't even disputing his actions or motivations.

 

[soloman02]

Unless Pratt has plans of appealing to SCOTUS, he is a retard.

Actually, he is still a retard as this could get bad case law due to how he bungled it.

 

[exo]

So if this case goes down the tubes now, can it set a bad precedent for other towns that violate state law?

 

[atilla]

He is acting on his own behalf. That alone makes him a fool, "For only fool would have himself as a client". I think that was said by Justice Brandeis.

i derped up a bit there.

this guy is so ****ed.

 

[soloman02]

So if this case goes down the tubes now, can it set a bad precedent for other towns that violate state law?

It would mean someone else would need to have their application denied for the same reason and that they then appeal it as far as needed and not be a retard and **** up the case like Pratt just did.

 

[Hiltonizer]

So if this case goes down the tubes now, can it set a bad precedent for other towns that violate state law?

If anything, I would think it gets thrown out rather than ruled in favor of the PD. The precedent already exists that a approval or denial must be supplied in 14 days.

 

[Nick Fury]

Um, we just had a first circuit court ruling that said recording police is not a crime.....

Now I gotta find the ruling and read it.

Even on the phone? Without both parties consent or knowledge? That would be news to me.

One point not to overlook however is the "evidence" the the Portsmouth attorney alluded to in the previous article was obviously this. Not that it has anything to do with the permit process violation in the least. Just another "Look at the monkey!" moment...

 

[dixidawg]

According to the linked article, he recorded a conversation with police over the phone. This must not be like every time I've ever called the police, where they answer the phone by saying "calls recorded".

Ifso, that may be an interesting twist. If the other party notifies the caller that the call may be recorded, can the caller also record since both parties are aware there is a recording?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I believe that case is about "openly recording the police". If that being the case then this guy violated the law.

It could hinge on what the NH definition of "open" is.

The case of a tape record with spinning wheels being set on the table during the discussion is obvious, as is a hidden body mic. The case where someone sets a multi-purpose device that any reasonable person knows can be used as a recorder, and there is no attempt to hide that device, presents a more complex challenge as to the definition of "open recording".

 

[exo]

Ifso, that may be an interesting twist. If the other party notifies the caller that the call may be recorded, can the caller also record since both parties are aware there is a recording?

For this guy's case I sure hope so, otherwise they will royally F him.