Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

[Jaxon]

As long as the officer went home safe, nothing to see here, rare incident

- Halfcocked

And your point?

 

[terraformer]

That isn't the case, his weapon, that he had a valid license for, was seized because officer Tackleberry didn't want anyone but him carrying on his beat.

The man's rights were trampled all over.

No, this guy was not a tackleberry. He was Ofc Dingleberry. Ofc Tackleberry would have looked down at his little 9mm, declared it puny and insufficient for the task at hand, swapped it with his own 44 magnum and lectured the lawyer on penetration, energy delivered to the target (stopping power) and proper stance.

 

[pbearperry]

What I truly find horrible is the actions of the Courts on this matter.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Barney Fife is at it again

 

[Supermoto]

And your point?

My point was to make fun of Halfcocked, since he is the resident Police apologist.

 

[Moga]

My point was to make fun of Halfcocked, since he is the resident Police apologist.

Please ignore my earlier remarks *SM* given in response to the "move on" comment. I didn't pick up the context.

 

[garandman]

Boston Globe article.

After Schubert filed a citizen’s complaint against Stern, the Springfield police commissioner recommended that the officer be retrained on state firearms law but “found no specific wrongdoing’’ and recommended no disciplinary action, said the appeals court ruling.

Coyle said the retraining reflected no deficiencies on Stern’s part and was “just a review.’’

 

[terraformer]

Boston Globe article.

From the article:

“All [Stern] knew was that he saw somebody with a gun, which was exposed when the coat hung open as he was walking to the courthouse,’’ Coyle said.

So a middle aged man in a suit is carrying a gun near a courthouse. Did this guy not stop and think that maybe it was a detective from an outlying suburb? Really, these guy don't have bluedar or something, right?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

From the article:



So a middle aged man in a suit is carrying a gun near a courthouse. Did this guy not stop and think that maybe it was a detective from an outlying suburb? Really, these guy don't have bluedar or something, right?

They have boredom and a Barney Fife attitude to go along with it.

 

[Baldkat82]

I do agree, that if the gun was properly concealed in the first place, he would not have been approached by "officer asshat" (I love that term!)

Regardless, it's a crock of s*** what the officer did AFTER he produced his valid LTC. I dont think the officer was in the wrong to approach him, but wrong in the manner which he did.

 

[Fixxah]

The perp should be awaiting trial and not allowed to wear a badge or own a gun. The victim evidently has no rights. Effing liberals!

There are three LEOs in my family but I am not an apologist, a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

 

[Woodstock]

Greg Schubert has been a criminal defense attorney in the Springfield courts for many years. That's why the cop knew his occupation. If I were a cynic, it might occur to me that he required some street justice after he mopped the courtroom floor with a few of Springfield's finest and demonstrated their faulty memories and creative discovery of evidence, etc. One of them just went to prison for swiping $2000 from a couple of farm workers during a traffic stop. His partner beat the rap in court, but resigned last week when asked to take a lie detector by the PD. They're not the first bad apples. Dealing coke out of a cruiser, getting freebies from hookers, etc., etc.
That said, most of the force is honest. The bad ones make their jobs harder. LEO's in my family, too. Not in Spfld., thankfully.

 

[terraformer]

Greg Schubert has been a criminal defense attorney in the Springfield courts for many years. That's why the cop knew his occupation. If I were a cynic, it might occur to me that he required some street justice after he mopped the courtroom floor with a few of Springfield's finest and demonstrated their faulty memories and creative discovery of evidence, etc. One of them just went to prison for swiping $2000 from a couple of farm workers during a traffic stop. His partner beat the rap in court, but resigned last week when asked to take a lie detector by the PD. They're not the first bad apples. Dealing coke out of a cruiser, getting freebies from hookers, etc., etc.
That said, most of the force is honest. The bad ones make their jobs harder. LEO's in my family, too. Not in Spfld., thankfully.

Oh crap, that is a huge implication. If true, this/these POS got away with a massive abuse of the justice system.

 

[Coyote33]

Ya know, the outcome would have been different if he had one of those window stickers.

 

[sig2009]

Enough already with the old line "officers safety". Screw that. His life was never in any jeopardy.

 

[KMaurer]

The importance of subtle differences in wording. This ruling was discussed earlier on one of the legal blogs, though I can't locate it at the moment. A key element of the decision was the wording of the law requiring a license in order to carry a concealed firearm. Since the law is worded to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms, with an exception for those with the proper license, the officer was deemed to be justified in extending the encounter and in his subsequent acts of keeping the firearm because he couldn't determine whether the license was valid. Had the law been worded (as it is in some other states) to prohibit the carrying of a firearm without a license, he would have been required to assume that the license was valid as soon as it was presented and release the appellant, unless he had probable cause to believe the license was invalid.

Ken

 

[GSG]

That is absolutely disgusting.

it sounds more like intimidation than anything else.

Exactly.

My LTC doesn't indicate my profession. Anyone have a clue what that's about?

My guess is he had a restricted LTC, it could've said something like "Employment only, while working as an attorney" or something similar. I've heard of the more restrictive chiefs being very descriptive in their LTC restrictions, either to create or remove gray area, I'm not sure which though.

Perhaps the real problem is requiring a license at all?

+1 to the whole post, but this especially.

On second thought, the 4th amendment would have covered this. I miss that thing.

+1

So a middle aged man in a suit is carrying a gun near a courthouse. Did this guy not stop and think that maybe it was a detective from an outlying suburb? Really, these guy don't have bluedar or something, right?

No kidding.

The importance of subtle differences in wording. This ruling was discussed earlier on one of the legal blogs, though I can't locate it at the moment. A key element of the decision was the wording of the law requiring a license in order to carry a concealed firearm. Since the law is worded to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms, with an exception for those with the proper license, the officer was deemed to be justified in extending the encounter and in his subsequent acts of keeping the firearm because he couldn't determine whether the license was valid. Had the law been worded (as it is in some other states) to prohibit the carrying of a firearm without a license, he would have been required to assume that the license was valid as soon as it was presented and release the appellant, unless he had probable cause to believe the license was invalid.

Ken

"Concealed" isn't a part of Mass. law regarding carry, although it may come up in case law. Open or concealed is tlegally allowed with a Mass. LTC, although I wouldn't recommend open carry.

 

[KMaurer]

OK, I just located the discussion I mentioned above. The MA/GA confusion gets even worse. The case I was thinking of was of a similar case in Georgia, reported by a Boston source, while this one was of a Massachusetts case reported by a Georgia group. In both cases, the wording of the law is important. If the law prohibits carry without a license, then not having a license is an essential element of the crime. In this case carrying a gun in and of itself doesn't provide any cause to believe that a crime is being committed. In contrast, if the law prohibits carry except for those with a license, then the crime is carry and having a license provides one with an exception. In this case simply carrying a gun establishes probable cause that a crime is being committed, allowing police to stop a person and detain him until they've verified that he has a valid license.

Ken

 

[GSG]

Yeah, it was some ways into the thread that I realized that the OP was referring to a case in Mass., it is confusing.

 

[Scrivener]

"Concealed" isn't a part of Mass. law regarding carry, although it may come up in case law. Open or concealed is tlegally allowed with a Mass. LTC, although I wouldn't recommend open carry.

Utter drivel. Read c. 140, s. 131.

Hint: Try the section addressing an LTC/B.

 

[MaverickNH]

Greg Schubert has been a criminal defense attorney in the Springfield courts for many years. That's why the cop knew his occupation. If I were a cynic, it might occur to me that he required some street justice after he mopped the courtroom floor with a few of Springfield's finest and demonstrated their faulty memories and creative discovery of evidence, etc. One of them just went to prison for swiping $2000 from a couple of farm workers during a traffic stop. His partner beat the rap in court, but resigned last week when asked to take a lie detector by the PD. They're not the first bad apples. Dealing coke out of a cruiser, getting freebies from hookers, etc., etc.
That said, most of the force is honest. The bad ones make their jobs harder. LEO's in my family, too. Not in Spfld., thankfully.

I was thinking there might be some backstory here, but that remains only a possibility.

Of several disturbing things in the decision, one stands out to me: "Schubert contends that his clothing, his age, and the fact that he was carrying a briefcase are factors that should undercut the reasonableness of Stern's suspicion. We are not persuaded...We need not outline in detail the obvious and potentially horrific events that could have transpired had an officer noted a man walking toward the courthouse with a gun and chosen not to intervene."

Now granted, terrorists often dress the local part to escape detection, as exampled by the guy who got into the Green Zone last week in a unifirm and then blew himself (and other Americans) up. But we're not there yet in the US.

So now, walking in the general area of a prohibited location (courthouse, school, airport or possibly a post office) while carrying concealed is an issue? By failing to provide a system whereby an LTC can be verified as quickly as a DL, the government manufactures cause for detention and seizure of legally carried firearms? Even if you were to attempt to check-in a firearm when entering a courthouse, they could detain/seize as they could claim an inability to verify your LTC.

I don't think the matter of exposure of the firearm is significant beyond the validity of the initial stop. Once Schubert produced a DL & LTC he should have been let go. Presumably he had some credentials confirming he was a lawyer as well, but I didn't find any information on whether he presented those to the officer.

This case is at the extreme of poor judgement on the part of the officer, even if he acted within the bounds of the law. If Schubert attempts to elevate his appeal further, he stands a considerable chance of losing, but as he has already established a legal precedent, stopping now just leaves twisting in the breeze.

 

[Coyote33]

... the crime is carry and having a license provides one with an exception. In this case simply carrying a gun establishes probable cause that a crime is being committed, allowing police to stop a person and detain him until they've verified that he has a valid license. ...

Once "they" verify that, are they allowed to keep his gun? I thought that was the real question here.

 

[Will Brink]

"Concealed" isn't a part of Mass. law regarding carry, although it may come up in case law. Open or concealed is tlegally allowed with a Mass. LTC, although I wouldn't recommend open carry.

Can you elaborate a bit more there? I had thought there were laws in MA and other states regarding "brandishing" which applied to poorly concealed guns.

If I can "glimpse" your concealed gun while sitting in my car, that's one crappy job of concealment there.

If MA does not have a specific law regarding concealment, is it simply the use (legal?) of brandishing related laws to enforce concealment?

As another has pointed out, my guess is there is way more to the story per personal issues via not so popular local defense attorney and LEO. If so, that's an abuse of his authority by the LEO.

However, the LEO was perfectly within the law to approach someone who appears to have been doing what amounts to the worlds worst job of concealment. In MA, does that then come under some brandishing law?

Personally, knowing only what I know from the post, after establishing the person was a legal CCW holder, a short discussion on doing a better job in the future of concealment (I'm still trying to get my mind around how someone could do such a poor job of concealment it could be "glimpsed" through the windshield of the cruiser...) and send the person on there way.

To add also, like it or not, it's also a personal interaction between two people. Ergo, much of what the LEO does depends to a great extent on what the person does.

Now, if the LEO recognized this person as someone he didn't like (as some have indicated) and decided to simply hassle the person, LEO is in the wrong and was being a tool and abusing his powers.

However, let's turn it around (God forbid we give the LEO a benefit of the doubt in any citizen/LEO interactions on NES...) that LEO sees VERY poorly concealed gun, makes contact, and the person starts ranting and raving about how he's a powerful lawyer, "knows people in this" town, and the usual "I pay your salary" types comments vs simply responding civilly to the LEO. You make the day hard for the LEO, he will in turn make your day hard also.

I know, a very unpopular, and rarely admitted to, reality of human to human interactions.

I DO NOT know which of these scenarios played out, but I can imagine either, or some combo of both.

 

[steveyc272]

Once "they" verify that, are they allowed to keep his gun? I thought that was the real question here.

It would be interesting if Schubert pursues his conversion claim in state court.

It appears the officer claimed he had to talk to his supervisor to determine if Schubert's LTC was going to be immediately revoked as a result of this incident (based on suitability). From the Defendant's motion for SJ:

Off. Stern seized the Plaintiff's handgun, ammunition and license and turned them in to his superiors to determine if the Plaintiff's license was valid and his conduct may impact his suitability to be licensed. He did so in large part because he could not within a reasonable time obtain confirmation of the validity of the Plaintiff's license from his cruiser. His actions were a reasonable exercise of discretion under the circumstances and were not “wrongful”, as required by the elements of the tort.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I had thought there were laws in MA and other states regarding "brandishing" which applied to poorly concealed guns.

#1: No such law in MA.

#2: "brandishing" laws generally require the gun be pulled out or displayed in an aggressive or threatening manner, not just spotted due to imperfect concealment technique.

It would be interesting if Schubert pursues his conversion claim in state court.

It might be tough if the gun has been unconverted.

 

[Coyote33]

I've said it before, I remember when one was required to have a part of the gun visible if one did not have a concealed carry license. In those days, it was not called "concealed carry", it was called "personal protection", and it was very uncommon to have one of those.

 

[Will Brink]

#1: No such law in MA.

#2: "brandishing" laws generally require the gun be pulled out or displayed in an aggressive or threatening manner, not just spotted due to imperfect concealment technique..

I had thought any accidental display could potentially be under the brandishing laws. So say I bend over to tie my shoe at the mall. Someone sees the barrel poke out from under shirt, and calls the police. Police show up, I show them CCW. Now what? Is there a clear response the LEO has at that point that leaves the person with the CCW happy and the LEO satisfied you are not a threat? Is it SOP for them to do X or is that the gray area?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I had thought any accidental display could potentially be under the brandishing laws.

Can you cite an MGL on "brandishing"?

 

[Will Brink]

Can you cite an MGL on "brandishing"?

No, that's why I'm asking. Can you answer the other parts of my scenario/question?

 

[Scrivener]

No, that's why I'm asking. Can you answer the other parts of my scenario/question?

Can you read his FIRST response to you? Hint: It's # 55:

#1: No such law in MA.

#2: "brandishing" laws generally require the gun be pulled out or displayed in an aggressive or threatening manner, not just spotted due to imperfect concealment technique.

Discussions of other accidental revelations, such as the infamous Dedham incident and the more recent Fall River incident can be found on this forum.