CT case: cuffing and searching licensed carrier violates 4A

[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.

It is correct. All states in New England, which is all I've looked at so far, indemnify cops by statute.

Here's CT, NH, MA, ME, RI and VT. They all indemnify cops from civil liability unless the action was wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, gross negligence, or some combination of those terms.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_053.htm#sec_4-165

Chapter 99-D DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

General Law - Part I, Title XVII, Chapter 120A, Section 7

malegislature.gov

Title 14, §8111: Personal immunity for employees; procedure

2012 Rhode Island General Laws :: Title 9 - COURTS and CIVIL PROCEDURE–PROCEDURE GENERALLY :: Chapter 9-1 - Causes of Action :: Chapter 9-1-27 - Police and firefighters Immunity from liability.

law.justia.com

Vermont Laws

legislature.vermont.gov

 

[weekendracer]

It is correct. All states in New England, which is all I've looked at so far, indemnify cops by statute.

Here's CT, NH, MA, ME, RI and VT. They all indemnify cops from civil liability unless the action was wanton, reckless, malicious, in bad faith, gross negligence, or some combination of those terms.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_053.htm#sec_4-165

Chapter 99-D DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

General Law - Part I, Title XVII, Chapter 120A, Section 7

malegislature.gov

Title 14, §8111: Personal immunity for employees; procedure

2012 Rhode Island General Laws :: Title 9 - COURTS and CIVIL PROCEDURE–PROCEDURE GENERALLY :: Chapter 9-1 - Causes of Action :: Chapter 9-1-27 - Police and firefighters Immunity from liability.

law.justia.com

Vermont Laws

legislature.vermont.gov

JFC, stop raging long enough to read the stuff you're posting. You are 100% wrong:

committed within the scope of their official duty while in the course of their employment for the state and not in a wanton or reckless manner.

If they are not within the scope of their official duty, they aren't covered. Get a grip on yourself. Again, it was in the 2nd or 3rd sentence of the link you posted.

 

[Bonesinium]

You're an idiot with no reading comprehension and legal knowledge. He searched and seized his gun while operating under his official duties. Unless it was wanton or reckless, he is NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE.

It doesn't say "discharge of his or her duties lawfully or within the lawful scope of employment", because obviously if it was lawful there is nothing to be immune from or liable for. What do you think they are immune from? Legal arrests and lawful conduct? No, it's immune from unlawful conduct that's not wanton, reckless, or malicious. You know, like searches and seizures that don't meet constitutional standards, even if done under good, but mistaken, faith.

Here's some case law for you to read up on (which you won't).

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Connecticut case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of Supreme Court of Connecticut decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

 

[Bonesinium]

I'd say this should help you, but I doubt it.

No police officer, acting alone or in conspiracy with another, shall deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws of this state, or of the equal privileges and immunities under the laws of this state, including, without limitation, the protections, privileges and immunities guaranteed under article first of the Constitution of the state.

Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (b) of this section may bring a civil action for equitable relief or damages in the Superior Court. A civil action brought for damages shall be triable by Bill No. LCO No. 3700

In any civil action brought under this section, governmental immunity shall only be a defense to a claim for damages when, at the time of the conduct complained of, the police officer had an objectively good faith belief that such officer's conduct did not violate the law. There shall be no interlocutory appeal of a trial court's denial of the application of the defense of governmental immunity. Governmental immunity shall not be a defense in a civil action brought solely for equitable relief.

In an action under this section, each municipality or law enforcement unit shall protect and save harmless any such police officer from financial loss and expense, including legal fees and costs, if any, arising out of any claim, demand or suit instituted against such officer by reason of any act undertaken by such officer while acting in the discharge of the officer's duties. In the event such officer has a judgment entered against him or her for a malicious, wanton or wilful act in a court of law, such municipality shall be reimbursed by such officer for expenses it incurred in providing such defense and shall not be held liable to such officer for any financial loss or expense resulting from such act."

 

[AllaSnackbah]

Man f*** twelve

 

[weekendracer]

You're an idiot with no reading comprehension and legal knowledge. He searched and seized his gun while operating under his official duties. Unless it was wanton or reckless, he is NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE.

It doesn't say "discharge of his or her duties lawfully or within the lawful scope of employment", because obviously if it was lawful there is nothing to be immune from or liable for. What do you think they are immune from? Legal arrests and lawful conduct? No, it's immune from unlawful conduct that's not wanton, reckless, or malicious. You know, like searches and seizures that don't meet constitutional standards, even if done under good, but mistaken, faith.

Here's some case law for you to read up on (which you won't).

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Connecticut case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of Supreme Court of Connecticut decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Um, just no.

If the act wasn't lawful, he wasn't operating under his official scope. I've been actually trained in legal authorities and their application, where did you get your training? I'd be interested to hear where you got your law degree.

 

[fishgutzy]

I hope he faces federal prosecution. But it is highly unlikely given that no US Attorney gets appointed in that district if they are even a tiny bit pro-2A or have ever made any moves to prosecute public corruption.

My state, NC, has an insane duty to disclose law. I have one 2 occasions had to disclose at accident scenes. Both times the troopers looked like they could not care less. Though I did hear of one dude's wife disclosing, the trooper stepped back, put his hand on this weapon and asked "you aren't going to shoot me are you?" The jirk may have only thought he was being cute. But still, it was inappropriate.

 

[Bonesinium]

Um, just no.

If the act wasn't lawful, he wasn't operating under his official scope. I've been actually trained in legal authorities and their application, where did you get your training? I'd be interested to hear where you got your law degree.

LMAO! If you really think immunity only applies to lawful actions then you are dumber then I ever realized.

How does someone violate someone’s rights by committing a lawful act, by the way?

Moron.

 

[weekendracer]

LMAO! If you really think immunity only applies to lawful actions then you are dumber then I ever realized.

How does someone violate someone’s rights by committing a lawful act, by the way?

Moron.

Again, where did you get your legal training? I'd really like to know, because legal terminology is very nuanced and does not mean what standard English means a lot of the time.

 

[weekendracer]

LMAO! If you really think immunity only applies to lawful actions then you are dumber then I ever realized.

How does someone violate someone’s rights by committing a lawful act, by the way?

Moron.

And yes, if what a LEO does is LAWFUL, then there is no QI needed. Maybe in plain English you'll understand.

 

[bullseye]

I hope he faces federal prosecution. But it is highly unlikely given that no US Attorney gets appointed in that district if they are even a tiny bit pro-2A or have ever made any moves to prosecute public corruption.

My state, NC, has an insane duty to disclose law. I have one 2 occasions had to disclose at accident scenes. Both times the troopers looked like they could not care less. Though I did hear of one dude's wife disclosing, the trooper stepped back, put his hand on this weapon and asked "you aren't going to shoot me are you?" The jirk may have only thought he was being cute. But still, it was inappropriate.

The couple times I was stopped here in NC, I disclosed that I had a pistol as according to the law. The first time, I told the NCHP trooper that I had a pistol on my hip, he said," its going to stay there, right?" Trooper told me to slow it down a little and to have a nice evening.
The second time , and this was in Stanley County, the sheriff asked me what I was carrying and it led into a lengthy conversation and a warning, no ticket. Great guy and we had a few laughs.
One of the reasons I wanted out of CT. was just this insane LE bullschitt and their elevated godlike status they place on themselves!! Phvck them, they can have that overpriced, egotistical, unconstitutional state!!

 

[fishgutzy]

The couple times I was stopped here in NC, I disclosed that I had a pistol as according to the law. The first time, I told the NCHP trooper that I had a pistol on my hip, he said," its going to stay there, right?" Trooper told me to slow it down a little and to have a nice evening.
The second time , and this was in Stanley County, the sheriff asked me what I was carrying and it led into a lengthy conversation and a warning, no ticket. Great guy and we had a few laughs.
One of the reasons I wanted out of CT. was just this insane LE bullschitt and their elevated godlike status they place on themselves!! Phvck them, they can have that overpriced, egotistical, unconstitutional state!!

(off OP topic) On the plus side, NC legislature is sending a repeal of the Jim Crow pistol purchase permit to Pooper. Sheriff's association supports repeal finally. They finally accepted the truth that it is unnecessary, redundant, and disproportionately used to deny 2A rights to black Americans. And it costs more to administer than the money it takes in.

 

[uvholic]

Thought cops already know if you have guns when they run your plate or license. Saw on Live PD once cop pulled over this guy and ran his name on the DL and the cruiser laptop loudly alerted 'CCW... CCW'.

 

[In God We Trust]

Thought cops already know if you have guns when they run your plate or license. Saw on Live PD once cop pulled over this guy and ran his name on the DL and the cruiser laptop loudly alerted 'CCW... CCW'.

In MA it pops up on the screen when they run your DL. It also shows what guns you own although this list is seldom accurate or complete

 

[AHM]

My state, NC, has an insane duty to disclose law.

First close approach to the hidden nugget in this case:

Clown defendant gets bathed in Blue Lights
in the middle of the night in Funkytown,
while farting around with his iPhone.

And in a state with no duty to disclose,
he greets the (allegedly unhinged) cop
with the emotional equivalent of
"I have a gun and I know how to use it".

And then people wonder why the situation went downhill.


The motorist's claims about the cuff'n'stuff
hint that there might not have been any answer
that kept the cop from discovering he was packing heat.

He may have been getting jerked out of that car
like a bad molar no matter what he did.

But he sure picked the express lane to trouble.

 

[fishgutzy]

First close approach to the hidden nugget in this case:

Clown defendant gets bathed in Blue Lights
in the middle of the night in Funkytown,
while farting around with his iPhone.

And in a state with no duty to disclose,
he greets the (allegedly unhinged) cop
with the emotional equivalent of
"I have a gun and I know how to use it".

And then people wonder why the situation went downhill.


The motorist's claims about the cuff'n'stuff
hint that there might not have been any answer
that kept the cop from discovering he was packing heat.

He may have been getting jerked out of that car
like a bad molar no matter what he did.

But he sure picked the express lane to trouble.

Seems that many of the videos start with the "subject" going ballistic trying to escalate the situation.
There are plenty of cases where the police are just wrong and went straight to drawing weapons without any probable cause other than a paranoid neighbor calling 911. But the subjects that were wronged, remained calm and will file their law suits later.
99.9% of those altercations could have been avoided.
Back when I lived in MA, At least 9 times when I pulled over for speeding, I got warnings simply because I was respectful toward the officers. Hell, I knew I was speeding. Why get upset at getting caught?
The only trooper that gave me attitude from the jump was a short dude with Napoleon syndrome.

 

[AHM]

 

[SKumar]

Mr Soukaneh is now in prime position to sue the living daylights out of Waterbury Police Dept. It was also be a huge win for 4A.

 

[bfm]

In MA it pops up on the screen when they run your DL. It also shows what guns you own although this list is seldom accurate or complete

I have this picture of the screen just scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling.

 

[AHM]

I almost forgot.

---

I have this picture of the screen just scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling.

 

[bfm]

I almost forgot.

---

SCMODS

 

[AHM]

SCMODS