CT case: cuffing and searching licensed carrier violates 4A

[KBCraig]

It will be interesting to see what the 2nd Circuit has to say, but this was a good ruling.

In light of the uncontested fact that Plaintiff presented his pistol permit to Defendant before or at the time he disclosed that he was in possession of a pistol and the absence of any other indicia that Plaintiff was otherwise violating the statute, no reasonable officer could believe probable cause was present. Any contrary holding "would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals" by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid.

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit

From Friday's decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.): At approximately 8:34 pm on…

reason.com

 

[enbloc]

Godspeed... To Victory!

 

[Mtn_Guy]

I always lawfully present my pistol permit when I am in unlawful possession of a firearm that I’ve dutifully disclosed upon contact with a LEO.

Wowzers.

Why not issue a ticket for failure to use four-way flashers or parking on the pavement and be on your way. Or better yet, issue a verbal warning for the alleged traffic infraction.

 

[CATI]

BASEL M. SOUKANEH

For some context anyone know what is the country of origin of this name?
Google shows no-one shares that last name lol

Reads like a third world cop shake down
Defendant grabbed him by his shoulder and shirt and violently attempted to drag him out of the car. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 11, 13.) Plaintiff was able to release his seatbelt upon which Defendant pushed him onto the ground and screamed at him. (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant then handcuffed Plaintiff, pushed Plaintiff into the police car, and shouted, “Where’s the prostitute? Where’s the drugs?” (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) Defendant put his hands in Plaintiff’s pocket and declared that he found drugs, which were actually Plaintiff’s nitroglycerin pills for his heart. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.) Defendant also removed the $320 cash Plaintiff had in the pocket of his trousers along with a flash drive. (Id. ¶ 29.) Defendant then shoved Plaintiff into the back of his police cruiser, where he was bent over and partially on the floor of the vehicle. (Id. ¶ 24.) After Plaintiff screamed that his back was in pain, Defendant grabbed his handcuffs, jerked them, and then left Plaintiff in that position where he was facing down and unable to see for several minutes until another officer arrived at the scene and helped him up. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26.) At that time, Plaintiff saw Defendant searching his entire car, including the trunk. (Id. ¶ 27.)
After the search had concluded, Defendant returned to

After the search had concluded, Defendant returned to the cruiser and began writing on his onboard computer at which point he turned to a fellow officer who had arrived at the scene and asked, “What should I write him up for?”

 

[Bonesinium]

Reads like a third world cop shake down

It’s actually just standard US police procedure these days.

 

[CATI]

It’s actually just standard US police procedure these days.

The facts read in the light most favorable to Plaintiff demonstrate that he was friendly and compliant when Defendant approached the vehicle, rolling down his window, providing his license, and volunteering the presence of his firearm and permit. Defendant did not articulate any facts suggesting, for instance, that Plaintiff was resistant or that he could be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Cop could not even make a case he was anything but polite and law abiding

 

[Bonesinium]

Common place.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M3gDUnsox6M

 

[ScottS]

Here's a key tenant of the decision:

"The court also held that the law was clear enough that the police officer didn't have qualified immunity from the claim." Cha-ching.

 

[Bonesinium]

Here's a key tenant of the decision:

"The court also held that the law was clear enough that the police officer didn't have qualified immunity from the claim." Cha-ching.

Means nothing. The cop won’t be paying and in fact will still be getting paid. Which is why cops so willingly violate people’s rights on a regular basis. Until 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 242 actually start being enforced, nothing will change.

 

[ScottS]

Means nothing. The cop won’t be paying and in fact will still be getting paid. Which is why cops so willingly violate people’s rights on a regular basis. Until 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 242 actually start being enforced, nothing will change.

I'm not sure of your logic here. Since the court ruled the officer has no QI, he can be sued civilally with no hope of the city or department paying for him, and can be prosecuted for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, a fed offense.

 

[Howland]

I'm not sure of your logic here. Since the court ruled the officer has no QI, he can be sued civilally with no hope of the city or department paying for him, and can be prosecuted for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, a fed offense.

His logic is that despite the defendant having sworn to uphold the law and having a legal duty to do the same, he nonetheless violated at least two federal felony criminal statutes and we haven't seen any perp walk yet. Nor will we ever because apparently there are no reasonable prosecutors in the fed DOJ. In fact, this douchebag is laughing all the way to his bank knowing that despite his criminal conduct, not only will there be no consequences, he'll still collect his pension. The slim possibility of any civil consequences are obviously a completely ineffective deterrent.

 

[ScottS]

His logic is that despite the defendant having sworn to uphold the law and having a legal duty to do the same, he nonetheless violated at least two federal felony criminal statutes and we haven't seen any perp walk yet. Nor will we ever because apparently there are no reasonable prosecutors in the fed DOJ. In fact, this douchebag is laughing all the way to his bank knowing that despite his criminal conduct, not only will there be no consequences, he'll still collect his pension. The slim possibility of any civil consequences are obviously a completely ineffective deterrent.

A little early for that conclusion. This case was the first step. It might end up the way you predict, but at this point, it's a prediction, not a fact.

 

[Lank]

Connecticut, the "Constitution State". f***ing laughable- just like Mass is the "Spirit of America".

 

[wilson911]

But I thought it was for my safety and the cops safety?

Cops are so incompetent and entitled it's refreshing to see them reigned in a little.

 

[KBCraig]

In that great gun-friendly Mecca of Texas, the law says, "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual."

See that word "reasonably"? It's been ignored since the law passed in 1995.

Some individual officers made it their personal policy, and some entire departments made it official SOP, to disarm everyone, every time. And since they claim "officer safety", no court will rule against them.

 

[Bonesinium]

I'm not sure of your logic here. Since the court ruled the officer has no QI, he can be sued civilally with no hope of the city or department paying for him, and can be prosecuted for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, a fed offense.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. I mean, that's how it should work, but it's not how it does work. No QI doesn't mean the individual cop is accountable. It's still the taxpayers who pay out any settlement or lawsuit.

And QI is a defense against civil suits, not criminal. Even if QI is granted, in theory, could still be charged criminally. But we all know it almost never matters either way. Other than the George Floyd and Walter Scott deaths, when has any cop been charged for rights deprivations?

Take this very case. It's a civil suit. Because that's the only mechanism us mere peons have when cops commit crimes against us. The cop wasn't criminally charged nor will he ever be.

 

[Bonesinium]

In that great gun-friendly Mecca of Texas, the law says, "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual."

See that word "reasonably"? It's been ignored since the law passed in 1995.

Some individual officers made it their personal policy, and some entire departments made it official SOP, to disarm everyone, every time. And since they claim "officer safety", no court will rule against them.

NH has the same sort of statute. Many states do, and they are based in the ruling of Terry v. Ohio. And indeed, the word reasonable has been ignored entirely in all states.

594:3 Searching for Weapons. – A peace officer may search for a dangerous weapon any person whom he is questioning or about to question as provided in RSA 594:2 whenever he reasonably believes that he might be in danger if such person possessed a dangerous weapon. If the officer finds a weapon, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, when he shall either return it or arrest the person.​

 

[ScottS]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. I mean, that's how it should work, but it's not how it does work. No QI doesn't mean the individual cop is accountable. It's still the taxpayers who pay out any settlement or lawsuit.

And QI is a defense against civil suits, not criminal. Even if QI is granted, in theory, could still be charged criminally. But we all know it almost never matters either way. Other than the George Floyd and Walter Scott deaths, when has any cop been charged for rights deprivations?

Take this very case. It's a civil suit. Because that's the only mechanism us mere peons have when cops commit crimes against us. The cop wasn't criminally charged nor will he ever be.

That's not correct at all. Lack of QI means the officer (in this case) is directly responsible in any ensuing civil suit. It doesn't mean the department can't also be sued, but lack of QI puts the officer squarely on the hook.

 

[KBCraig]

NH has the same sort of statute. Many states do, and they are based in the ruling of Terry v. Ohio. And indeed, the word reasonable has been ignored entirely in all states.

594:3 Searching for Weapons. – A peace officer may search for a dangerous weapon any person whom he is questioning or about to question as provided in RSA 594:2 whenever he reasonably believes that he might be in danger if such person possessed a dangerous weapon. If the officer finds a weapon, he may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, when he shall either return it or arrest the person.​

Terry v. Ohio is a perversion of 4A. It enabled most of the abuses that are seen in everyday police encounters.

Terry says that if police have reasonable articulable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then they may briefly detain that person for questioning.

And then, if they reasonably believe that the person is both armed and dangerous, they may pat down the outer clothing to feel for a weapon.

No reaching into pockets, no searching for anything other than a weapon that can be felt through the outer clothing.

So that's the case law. How is it applied? Police stop anyone on a hunch, not RAS, and search their pockets for drugs.

 

[Bonesinium]

That's not correct at all. Lack of QI means the officer (in this case) is directly responsible in any ensuing civil suit. It doesn't mean the department can't also be sued, but lack of QI puts the officer squarely on the hook.

Feel free to cite even a single example of a cop having to pay personally after losing a civil rights lawsuit in which qualified immunity was denied.

 

[weekendracer]

Means nothing. The cop won’t be paying and in fact will still be getting paid. Which is why cops so willingly violate people’s rights on a regular basis. Until 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 242 actually start being enforced, nothing will change.

I'm not sure of your logic here. Since the court ruled the officer has no QI, he can be sued civilally with no hope of the city or department paying for him, and can be prosecuted for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law, a fed offense.

Easy there ScottS, don't get in the way of a good old cop hating banging on a keyboard.

In 6 months, when the cop is fired, has a judgement against him, and he's justifiably ruined, the news won't cover it.

 

[weekendracer]

Feel free to cite even a single example of a cop having to pay personally after losing a civil rights lawsuit in which qualified immunity was denied.

N.Y. correction officer must pay $550K to inmate he sexually assaulted, judge rules

A former correction officer in a Westchester County prison who was sentenced to nine months for sexually assaulting an inmate now owes her $550,000 for his “reprehensible” crime, a judg…

www.nydailynews.com

 

[weekendracer]

https://apnews.com/article/3a16d125e18c45ed8171f83846cf952d

 

[qqac]

BASEL M. SOUKANEH

For some context anyone know what is the country of origin of this name?
Google shows no-one shares that last name lol

Soukaneh or Soukane appears to be Algerian, Moroccan, or Saudi, and Basel is Islamic

Basel - Islamic Name Meaning - Baby Names for Muslims

QuranicNames.com is the largest, most detailed and most authentic Islamic baby name site on the Internet.

quranicnames.com

 

[In God We Trust]

Terry v. Ohio is a perversion of 4A. It enabled most of the abuses that are seen in everyday police encounters.

Terry says that if police have reasonable articulable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then they may briefly detain that person for questioning.

And then, if they reasonably believe that the person is both armed and dangerous, they may pat down the outer clothing to feel for a weapon.

No reaching into pockets, no searching for anything other than a weapon that can be felt through the outer clothing.

So that's the case law. How is it applied? Police stop anyone on a hunch, not RAS, and search their pockets for drugs.

It’s abused of course, but the legal loophole is that if the cop feels something he suspects to be drugs or contraband, then the law allows the seizure of said item

 

[Bonesinium]

N.Y. correction officer must pay $550K to inmate he sexually assaulted, judge rules

A former correction officer in a Westchester County prison who was sentenced to nine months for sexually assaulting an inmate now owes her $550,000 for his “reprehensible” crime, a judg…

www.nydailynews.com

https://apnews.com/article/3a16d125e18c45ed8171f83846cf952d

The first one was a direct result of a CRIMINAL conviction. It also was for trying to rape someone, and not a violation under the color of law. He wasn't claiming he had authority as a prison guard to rape inmates. Indeed cops (or in that case, a corrections officer) who commit other crimes unrelated to any official function, sometimes are held personally liable. Quite a different scenario than violating someone's rights under the color of law, which is what we're talking about here.

The second one it's a good one. You have me there. It's actually very interesting in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Van Buren (which did occur after this incident.) She wasn't charged with a crime (despite the DA admitting it is a crime). She kept her job (shocking, I know). I wonder if she didn't admit she had no legal reason for what she was doing, if she might have avoided personal liability.

With that said, it's again not an example of a cop violating someone's rights under the color of law, rather them committing a crime without any official function justification/excuse.

 

[weekendracer]

The first one was a direct result of a CRIMINAL conviction. It also was for trying to rape someone, and not a violation under the color of law. He wasn't claiming he had authority as a prison guard to rape inmates. Indeed cops (or in that case, a corrections officer) who commit other crimes unrelated to any official function, sometimes are held personally liable. Quite a different scenario than violating someone's rights under the color of law, which is what we're talking about here.

The second one it's a good one. You have me there. It's actually very interesting in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Van Buren (which did occur after this incident.) She wasn't charged with a crime (despite the DA admitting it is a crime). She kept her job (shocking, I know). I wonder if she didn't admit she had no legal reason for what she was doing, if she might have avoided personal liability.

With that said, it's again not an example of a cop violating someone's rights under the color of law, rather them committing a crime without any official function justification/excuse.

You are mismatching legal terminology. To get to 'under color of law', there is a criminal violation in the first place. It's simply not charged or they bypass the charge and go straight criminal.

There can't be one without the other. But that search took me 5 seconds, there were a lot of them. While it's fun to poke at you, I don't waste much time with it.

 

[Bonesinium]

You are mismatching legal terminology. To get to 'under color of law', there is a criminal violation in the first place. It's simply not charged or they bypass the charge and go straight criminal. There can't be one without the other.

What are you rambling about now? I have no idea what you are attempting to say. If you are intending to say unless there is a criminal violation it's not "under the color of law", I mean, I agree that violating people's rights under the color of law is criminal, I also know it's hardly every prosecuted. Which is why all these examples like from the OP only end in civil lawsuits. But if you are also saying, it cannot be a civil violation, you are very wrong. 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, which is the says, and I'll emphasis for your convenience:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,"



In any case...what I'm saying is quite clear. Cops who commit crimes while pretending what they are doing is a legal police function is very different then someone who happens to be a cop trying to rape someone. So different as to be entirely irrelevant.

The OP is about a cop violating the 4th Amendment by committing an unlawful search and seizure. Searches and seizures can be lawful under many circumstances and are legitimate police functions. Rape is not. If you can point to an example of a cop who has been held personally liable in a civil suit for something like that, I'm very interested. Because I've posted probably hundreds of examples of police misconduct that's lead to lawsuits and settlements, many in which QI was denied, and haven't found one yet in which the individual cops who committed the misconduct had to pay.

At least you made a good effort with the second example.

 

[Bonesinium]

But that search took me 5 seconds, there were a lot of them.

A lot of them, sure there were...

But don't take my anecdotes alone.

My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct. After describing my findings, this Article considers the implications of widespread indemnification for qualified immunity, municipal liability, and punitive damages doctrines; civil rights litigation practice; and the deterrence and compensation goals of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Police Indemnification - NYU Law Review

This Article empirically examines an issue central to judicial and scholarly debate about civil rights damages actions: whether law enforcement officials are financially responsible for settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases. The Supreme Court has long assumed that law enforcement...

www.nyulawreview.org

Police Don't Pay - Courts Law

Joanna C. Schwartz, Police Indemnification, 89 N.Y.U. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2014).Nancy LeongWhenever I teach criminal procedure I arrange for a police officer to talk to my students. It’s always a fascinating class. I remember one time in particular when a student asked an officer whether...

courtslaw.jotwell.com

"Professor Schwartz’s data yield a stark finding: police officers are virtually always indemnified. Officers contributed to judgments in just 0.44% of the 8600 civil rights settlements and judgments to plaintiffs, and their contributions amounted to a mere 0.02% of the $760 million that states, cities, and counties paid out in these cases. And even in cases involving punitive damages—where the officers’ conduct was presumably most egregious—officers paid only 0.005% of the $3.8 million in punitive damages judgments entered against them.

One of the most remarkable findings is that governments often indemnified officers even when indemnification was directly prohibited by statute. For example, municipalities frequently indemnify for punitive damage awards, even when the relevant statute expressly forbids such payment. Even when officers were terminated or sanctioned by their employers, the officers still generally did not contribute financially to the judgments against them."

 

[Bonesinium]

But wait, there's more!

I must be wrong about the cop not having to pay. He doesn't have QI! It's ridiculous to suggest he'd be indemnified from personal liability, right?

Well no. State law actually indemnifies him explicitly from personal liability, unless said actions were "wanton, reckless or malicious".

Sec. 4-165. Immunity of state officers and employees from personal liability. (a) No state officer or employee shall be personally liable for damage or injury, not wanton, reckless or malicious, caused in the discharge of his or her duties or within the scope of his or her employment. Any person having a complaint for such damage or injury shall present it as a claim against the state under the provisions of this chapter.

But I'm just cop hating for being correct about CT law, right weekend?