Boston Globe: SJC state law requiring trigger locks on firearms

[Knuckle Dragger]

He needs to do what he needs to do... If you want to fall on a Constitutional sword, please do, but don't ask anyone else to...

Oh, I'm not complaining, only observing and making the point that our interest in this case is over. I don't think our agenda was ever Mr. Runyan's. He was our test case only by default, and he was a bad one at that.

 

[Scrivener]

I don't think our agenda was ever Mr. Runyan's. He was our test case only by default, and he was a bad one at that.

Exactly. Rep point inbound.

 

[Half Cocked]

Oh, I'm not complaining, only observing and making the point that our interest in this case is over. I don't think our agenda was ever Mr. Runyan's. He was our test case only by default, and he was a bad one at that.

Someone understands!

 

[GSG]

Having had a Sister who had Downs Syndrome, someone with a mental disability (at least of diminished capacity . . . can't speak of toher "mental disabilities") really doesn't have the capability of understanding that they can withhold consent, refuse to answer questions, etc.

Slightly off topic, but now I'm curious...does anyone know if this issue has been addressed in other prominent court cases?

ETA found some.

Commonwealth v. Louis Santos (1988):

a. Bartick's stationhouse identification. The judge found that Bartick was a thirty-two year old man suffering from Down's syndrome. Bartick could be described as moderately retarded with an I.Q. somewhere between thirty-five and forty-nine. Bartick was unable to conceptualize abstractions, could not describe the passage of time (although he knew how to tell time), could not read, and could write only his name.

Four hours after the robbery, Bartick identified Louis Santos as one of Colleen Maxwell's assailants at a one-on-one confrontation at the Area C police station. Bartick had earlier described the assailants as three black males, one of whom had a handgun. During his voir dire testimony, elicited in response to defense counsel's motion to suppress Bartick's stationhouse identification, Bartick stated that the assailants had "brown" faces, yet he identified two white males, a police detective and a member of the defense staff, as two of Maxwell's assailants.

then later

a. Competency. After Bartick identified two white men at the voir dire, the defendant moved for a competency examination pursuant to G. L. c. 123, Section 19 (1986 ed.). [Note 11] In these circumstances, the judge should have ordered a competency evaluation pursuant to G. L. c. 123, Section 19. "If the competency of a witness is placed in issue, `it is the duty of the judge to examine into the question of [the witness's] competency, and to reject [the witness] unless [the judge] is satisfied that [the witness] is competent.'" Commonwealth v. Gibbons, 378 Mass. 766 , 770 (1979), quoting Commonwealth v. Reagan, 175 Mass. 335 , 340 (1900). Testimony from an expert on Down's syndrome is not the equivalent of following the mandate of the statute that an impartial expert be assigned by the Department of Mental Health. [Note 12]

The case Commonwealth v. Nathan Widrick (1984) also touches on this issue, but in regards to establishing the credibility of a witness. Neither addresses the issue of consenting to a search though.

It also seems like MGL 123-19 might come into play:

Chapter 123: Section 19. Parties or witnesses; determination of mental condition


Section 19. In order to determine the mental condition of any party or witness before any court of the commonwealth, the presiding judge may, in his discretion, request the department to assign a qualified physician or psychologist, who, if assigned shall make such examinations as the judge may deem necessary.

 

[cekim]

moderately retarded with an I.Q. somewhere between thirty-five and forty-nine.

Moderately?

 

[GSG]

Moderately?

They were taking into account the IQ of Massachusetts politicians, no doubt.

 

[Palladin]

Case dropped..Illegal search cited.

DA expected to drop Billerica gun case
By Lisa Redmond, [email protected]
Updated: 06/11/2010 06:35:34 AM EDT


LOWELL -- A Billerica gun case that rose to the state's highest court and reaffirmed gun owners' responsibilities is expected to be dropped by prosecutors today after a judge ruled Billerica police illegally searched a home to find an unsecured shotgun.

Prosecutor Christina Lucci filed a motion in Lowell District Court that stated the District Attorney's Office is not proceeding with the case against Richard Runyan of Billerica. The decision comes after Lowell District Court Judge David Cunis allowed a motion to suppress the search, which prevented Lucci from using her key piece of evidence -- the shotgun.

Initially, the District Attorney's Office was going to appeal the decision allowing the motion to suppress, but withdrew the appeal, according to court documents.

Attorney Brenden McMahon said, "My client and I are pleased with Judge Cunis' decision. Judge Cunis made it clear that he believed the officers acted prudently given the situation they encountered, but in the end found there was a violation of the constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure."

The case could be dropped as soon as today.

In April 2008, Billerica police charged Runyan with violating gun laws, which require that stored firearms be secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant safety device, except when "carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user."



Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_15275788#ixzz0qY38tugW

 

[cekim]

Case dropped..Illegal search cited.

Nice... DA and AG spent what defending this non-sense charge?

 

[upStomp]

Nice... DA and AG spent what defending this non-sense charge?

I guess they figured they already got enough "good" publicity (not to mention the SJC ruling) out of this case.

Still, I'm glad Runyan has been cleared.

 

[cekim]

I guess they figured they already got enough "good" publicity (not to mention the SJC ruling) out of this case.

Still, I'm glad Runyan has been cleared.

Indeed, I don't expect to see a headline "After spending millions and months, the Runyan case has been thrown out on bad search that should have been caught early on"

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

Indeed, I don't expect to see a headline "After spending millions and months, the Runyan case has been thrown out on bad search that should have been caught early on"

But...but...but...at least they DID something.

 

[cekim]

But...but...but...at least they DID something.

Yes, waste a lot of time on someone other than the rapists, killers, drug dealers, etc...

 

[Len-2A Training]

This ruling should have been the FIRST ONE! As I had stated earlier, someone mentally impaired can't give consent with a full understanding of the ramifications of such.

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

...the rapists, killers, drug dealers, etc...

But, those are the liberal's darlings.

 

[cekim]

This ruling should have been the FIRST ONE! As I had stated earlier, someone mentally impaired can't give consent with a full understanding of the ramifications of such.

Clearly a case of abusing the disabled...

Yes, yes it should... It would have saved everyone a lot of time, trouble and money that could have been devoted to more useful things (see killers, rapists, drug dealers, etc...)

 

[cekim]

But, those are the liberal's darlings.

Indeed, without them delivering chaos, they couldn't scare the sheep into handing over more power. As I have always maintained, there are at least 2 distinct groups of liberals - the naive who don't know any better and the evil ones who do and manipulate everyone else to get their way...

 

[Chris]

Don't forget to write your letters. We have to get the reform passed by the end of July. Before that can happen, it has to get out of committee in a week or so.

 

[lupis42]

Nice... DA and AG spent what defending this non-sense charge?

Not sure, but I'm more worried about what the defendant had to spend. After all, making the lives of gun owners more difficult and expensive is usually the point of this BS, and by that measure, they certainly succeeded.

 

[seanc]

So, does he get his confiscated shotgun and LTC/ FID back now? Or Ever?

 

[Half Cocked]

Not sure, but I'm more worried about what the defendant had to spend.

Ummmm....... I would lay some blame on the defense attorney on that. My thought would have been to have the Motion to Suppress the search FIRST which would have saved everyone a lot of time and money.

 

[lupis42]

Ummmm....... I would lay some blame on the defense attorney on that. My thought would have been to have the Motion to Suppress the search FIRST which would have saved everyone a lot of time and money.

True. Still, there's plenty of blame to go around.

 

[cekim]

Ummmm....... I would lay some blame on the defense attorney on that. My thought would have been to have the Motion to Suppress the search FIRST which would have saved everyone a lot of time and money.

Well, there is this little thing called ethics that could/should have restrained the DA, but I'll grant it is entirely possible that they had a reasonable belief they were obeying the law.

I would assume the defense did file such a motion. That's criminal defense 101...

Presuming they did, then you need to blame the lower court judge for a bad ruling.

 

[Coyote33]

So, does he get his confiscated shotgun and LTC/ FID back now? Or Ever?

Also wondering this.

This, along with all those charges dropped in Manchester by the Sea, amounts to a lot of wasted time and money harassing innocent people.

 

[Half Cocked]

Well, there is this little thing called ethics that could/should have restrained the DA, but I'll grant it is entirely possible that they had a reasonable belief they were obeying the law.

It is not the job of the DA to file a motion to suppress their own evidence....

I would assume the defense did file such a motion. That's criminal defense 101...

Yes... after the SJC case which brings us to this ruling.

 

[cekim]

It is not the job of the DA to file a motion to suppress their own evidence....

As I said, depending on the circumstances, it is entirely possible they did their duty to the letter and spirit of the law.

I forgot the order of things on the suppression hearing in this case when I commented... IIRC, they got the case tossed initially on Heller grounds and then the DA appealed right? So, that explains why they didn't go after the search...

 

[Len-2A Training]

As I said, depending on the circumstances, it is entirely possible they did their duty to the letter and spirit of the law.

I forgot the order of things on the suppression hearing in this case when I commented... IIRC, they got the case tossed initially on Heller grounds and then the DA appealed right? So, that explains why they didn't go after the search...

A diligent defense would have raised both issues at the same time. No need for a sequential defense, that just chews up everyone's time and bank account . . . except the attorneys billing by the hour.

 

[n1oty]

A diligent defense would have raised both issues at the same time. No need for a sequential defense, that just chews up everyone's time and bank account . . . except the attorneys billing by the hour.

This motion to dismiss based on an illegal search may have been raised earlier, but rendered moot at that time when the motion judge dismissed based on Heller. The Commonwealth's successful appeal of the original dismissal based on Heller would trigger a review of the other possible reasons to dismiss.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This motion to dismiss based on an illegal search may have been raised earlier, but rendered moot at that time when the motion judge dismissed based on Heller. The Commonwealth's successful appeal of the original dismissal based on Heller would trigger a review of the other possible reasons to dismiss.

Point taken!

I hope you are right.

 

[Kurtz]

There is nothing new, novel or unexpected in this decision, except, perhaps, that it was rendered without waiting for the McDonald decision. However, that is not really relevant, as incorporation still would not preclude restrictions and keeping guns not under control secured would certainly pass muster.

A statement of the obvious.

NOW - what about the Super Trooper whose homicidal kid took daddy's service pistol and tried to kill a little girl with it? Why did HE walk?

It's called a Police Union attorney with lots of money.

 

[Coyote33]

So, has his license been reinstated and his guns returned yet? Someone ought to press the paper to inquire on this restoration of civil rights, the sooner the better.