CT Open Carry - Goldberg Case

[xtry51]

While this case does NOT prevent open carry in CT, it DOES set a precedent that police can stop you ask for ID/DL/Permit/etc, cuff you and hold you under arrest while doing absolutely nothing wrong until they deem your identification worthy.

The case was brought under 4A grounds as Goldberg was arrested, his gun and permit confiscated, even though no crime had been committed. A sheep called police because he was carrying in a paddle holster when he stopped to pick up food at Chili's on his way back from a hunting trip. He never touched his sidearm, merely walked in to get takeout. This case has nothing to do with the newly established 2A incorporation as the case has been working through the courts for many years now. The case was brought simply to establish if police had the right to stop a citizen who was doing nothing wrong and place them under arrest and seize their personal belongings.

Court Transcript

It's clear that the judge had this case determined before he sat down once you start reading.

 

[rattletrap1970]

How can the police "Place you under arrest" when no law was broken.
If this is the case in this case then I see an appeal and a lawsuit happening really quick.
Detaining you to check ID is not arresting you (not that I agree with being able to do that when no law was broken).

 

[xtry51]

He was arrested and brought back to the police station. He was not "detained" on scene.

 

[rattletrap1970]

Well, I can see this going back to court.

 

[Admin]

Sounds like a violation of rights to me.

 

[rattletrap1970]

They really do have to clean up the ambiguity enforcement of the carry laws here in CT.

 

[pjorg]

They sure do think highly of people making 911 calls. Seems to be treated as an impossibility that the person might be acting irrationally or unreasonably.

 

[appraiser]

Boycott Chili's

 

[drgrant]

So this guy identified himself (provided license) and they still collared him? Breach of peace? What kind of crap is that?

"Breach of Peace" / "Disorderly Conduct" = the catch all bin to allow the police to arrest you when you do something they don't like...

-Mike

 

[pjorg]

So this guy identified himself (provided license) and they still collared him? Breach of peace? What kind of crap is that?

"Breach of Peace" / "Disorderly Conduct" = the catch all bin to allow the police to arrest you when you do something they don't like...

-Mike

The judge argues repeatedly that by lawfully carrying a firearm openly, he breached the peace because he should have known that people in the restaurant would have felt threatened and disturbed by it.

Apparently Chili's attracts a very specific kind of person? Or are we to basically understand from this that we're not allowed to carry because other people are irrationally disturbed by it?

The judge also makes the argument (it's close the beginning, I think) that since "most people" would be in violation of the law by carrying a firearm in CT (because most of them are not duly licensed) then it is safe for the police to make the assumption that anyone seen carrying is breaking the law.

 

[tmitney]

IMHO, the Goldberg case didn’t establish any precedent. The precedent for police to detain someone to determine if criminal activity was afoot, and to pat that person for weapons if under a reasonable belief that they may be armed was Terry v. Ohio (1968). The Goldberg case brings to light that the (preexisting) fact that one is carrying openly is not illegal by itself. It brings to light that police must properly ascertain whose peace was breached and exactly how this was alleged to have been done (that fact that someone was alarmed is simply not enough, it requires a certain conduct on the part of the “suspect”) before making an arrest. It brings to light that people who “carry guns” should not be presumed to be doing anything wrong, nor should they be presumed violent or criminal. It also bring up questions / scope of the suitability clause in the permit statutes and the SLFU’s ability to deny permits that were approved, or re-approved in this case, by the local issuing authority (Chief of police). The Goldberg case was really about a questionable breach of peace arrest that blew up in a “gun rights ,etc ,etc case.” I think that simply brought facts that were preexisting up to the surface, fact that gun owners have been citing all along; now, others are forced to listen and take note. It's about time. God, Speed, Ed Peruta.

I need a “Gun owners are not criminals” flag.

 

[tmitney]

FYI, I was referring to the State case when he was arrested, etc., not his Fed 1983 claim.

 

[dcmdon]

Goldberg has established a few things.

Like others have said, the judge that the police can stop and ask for ID. i.e. a Terry stop.

The other issue, that has been determined in our favor is that the police should NOT arrest someone for OCing or if a gun is "made" while carrying concealed.
While there is no hard case law since Goldberg never went to trial, it does establish a precideent that in similar situations (valid pistol permit, no threatening actions or words) an arrest is not legal

Realistically though, the cops won't get it through their heads until Goldberg wins a whole pile of money. Thats why its important that he win his civil case against the Glastonbury police.

The CT forum on Opencarry.org has some really great stuff. Ed Peruta on that forum has seemingly made it his life's work to push this to its logical limit.

The repercussions of Goldberg can already be felt in some internal police memo's that were issued. Here is one that Ed Peruta got via a FOI request to the State Police regarding protocol in dealing with armed attendees at the 2nd Ammendment rally on the Capitol lawn:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

1l1l Country Club Road

Middletown. CT 06457

2nd Amendment Rally, State Capitol

April 10' 2010


A rally in support of the 2nd Amendment is currently scheduled for April 10, 2010 at 1300 hours on the north lawn of the State capitol. While the capitol building and grounds are

under the jurisdiction of the State Capitol Police, there is the possibility that State Police personnel maybe asked to assist the Capitol Police, or may have occasion to observe and/or come into contact with individuals who are carrying firearms, either openly or concealed. In light of this scheduled event, specific guidance concerning law enforcement matters related to firearms at this event follows:

State Police personnel should not arrest a properly permitted individual merely for publicly carrying a handgun in plain view.

State Police personnel should not arrest individuals merely for publicly carrying a firearm other than a handgun in plain view Exceptions to the general guidance stated above include, but are not limited to:

It is prohibited for private citizens to possess firearms inside the State Capitol or Legislative Office Building (Conn. Gen' Stat. 2-1e).

It is prohibited for private citizens to possess firearms in any Hartford city park (Hartford Municipal Code Article II, Sec. 26-39). Violations should be brought to the attention of Hartford Police for the appropriate enforcement action.

State Police personnel should not request individuals to produce their pistol permits unless such individual has become the subject of a law enforcement investigative inquiry for another reason.

Whether or not probable cause exists to support an arrest depends upon the totality of the circumstances known to the Trooper at the time. Particular attention should be paid to those facts and circumstances which support an inference that an individual to be arrested intended or recklessly created reasonable risk of danger or alarm. Troopers should be careful to document all of the facts and circumstances which justify any arrest which is made. As with all law enforcement action taken by State Police personnel, the safety of both the officer and the general public is of paramount concern.

With those principles in mind, and with specific regard to matters involving firearms, State Police personnel should ensure that they strictly follow State Police policies and procedures.

An Equal Opportunity Employer

 

[Eye5600]

How can the police "Place you under arrest" when no law was broken.

IANAL, but as an example, yelling and shouting are not illegal, but the wrong kind of yelling and shouting in the wrong place can be a breach of the peace.