Case Laws: Defense against illegal stop, search, and seizures.

[eagleeyes]

state laws do vary this is true......i think in florida when an officer asks you are obligated to produce your ccwp regardless if you detained at the time or not

[CathyInBlue]

I'm curious then, why did the Maine carrier reference so many case laws if they did not cover him?

I'm thinking he was either in error about what he'd learned about DeBerry or was just throwing citations in the cops' faces to confuse them. Remember, when you can't dazzle `em with data, baffle `em with bull****.

[Firefighterchen]

I'm thinking he was either in error about what he'd learned about DeBerry or was just throwing citations in the cops' faces to confuse them. Remember, when you can't dazzle `em with data, baffle `em with bull****.

:) I don't want to use this information if I am ever in a pissing match with the law. I want this information for my own knowledge.

This is the quote from the Maine PD Detainment guy,

"I was detained by Portland PD officer J McDonald on 26MAY2012. He detains me without suspicion of any criminal activity in violation of Delaware v Prouse. He admits his sole reason for stopping me is my legally carried firearm in violation of US v DeBerry. He seizes my weapon with no reasonable suspicion that I’ve committed a crime in violation of Terry v Ohio. He demands my ID without reasonable suspicion in violation of Hiibel v Nevada.”

Could it not be said, that none of those matter to him, as he lives in Maine. What happened in Illinois, Nevada, Texas, Delaware, and Ohio doesn't mean anything. They were not in violation of any case law he just spoke of because he is not from those States?

I am having a hard time grasping the concept...especially the Terry v Ohio since the "Terry stop" gets tossed around in every State. Is the Terry Stop only related to Ohio?

Do court systems look at other court systems to determine what is justified/legal or not? If they do, then all those case laws would matter as that would be your defense in court?

[CathyInBlue]

Delaware v Prouse is about pulling people over who are driving just for a license and registration check. It has not yet been expanded to licensed firearm carry.

Hiibel v Nevada was about the requirement to identify yourself to police if they are required to first have RAS to detain you (in a legitimate Terry Stop).

Both are SCOTUS decisions, as is Terry v Ohio. So, they are all valid citations nationwide. DeBerry is only 7th Circuit, so is only applicable in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, but maybe Mr. Mainer expects Ofc. McDonald to not realize that.

[Rhino]

Both are SCOTUS decisions, as is Terry v Ohio. So, they are all valid citations nationwide. DeBerry is only 7th Circuit, so is only applicable in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, but maybe Mr. Mainer expects Ofc. McDonald to not realize that.

Actually he should be glad the case didn't apply at all, because DeBerry is one of the last cases he should be citing. From the DeBerry decision:

Armed persons are so dangerous to the peace of the community that the police should not be forbidden to follow up a tip that a person is armed, and as a realistic matter this will require a stop in all cases.

Chief Judge Posner made a number of very anti-gun remarks in that decision. DeBerry was carrying illegally. The guy in this video was not. DeBerry was carrying concealed. The guy in this video was not. DeBerry made a move for his gun when the cop confronted him,. The guy in this video did not. Beside the fact that the Deberry decision did not apply to Maine and the fact that a number of factors in the Deberry case were dissimilar to factors in this video, the actual DeBerry decision is not one that a lawful concealed or open carrier should want to be quoting, on the roadside or anywhere else. It is not a court case that is generally supportive of lawful concealed or open carry of firearms, except maybe in very narrow legal terms that we likely would never see on a day to day basis out in the real world. There are much better cases to cite than this one.

UNITED STATES v. DeBERRY, No.

There was an appeal in 2009, but it didn't involve any of the issues that are relevant here. It was about paperwork they claim should have been filed.

[Firefighterchen]

Both are SCOTUS decisions, as is Terry v Ohio. So, they are all valid citations nationwide. DeBerry is only 7th Circuit, so is only applicable in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, but maybe Mr. Mainer expects Ofc. McDonald to not realize that.

Actually he should be glad the case didn't apply at all, because DeBerry is one of the last cases he should be citing. From the DeBerry decision:

Armed persons are so dangerous to the peace of the community that the police should not be forbidden to follow up a tip that a person is armed, and as a realistic matter this will require a stop in all cases.

Chief Judge Posner made a number of very anti-gun remarks in that decision. DeBerry was carrying illegally. The guy in this video was not. DeBerry was carrying concealed. The guy in this video was not. DeBerry made a move for his gun when the cop confronted him,. The guy in this video did not. Beside the fact that the Deberry decision did not apply to Maine and the fact that a number of factors in the Deberry case were dissimilar to factors in this video, the actual DeBerry decision is not one that a lawful concealed or open carrier should want to be quoting, on the roadside or anywhere else. It is not a court case that is generally supportive of lawful concealed or open carry of firearms, except maybe in very narrow legal terms that we likely would never see on a day to day basis out in the real world. There are much better cases to cite than this one.

UNITED STATES v. DeBERRY, No.

There was an appeal in 2009, but it didn't involve any of the issues that are relevant here. It was about paperwork they claim should have been filed.

When she stated he probably messed up I first thought of that exact reason, but it ends up being both wrong and irrelevant outside of those states.

You say there are much better cases to cite, can you post them up for me? I can research them in more detail, I just need to know the names.

[Rhino]

When she stated he probably messed up I first thought of that exact reason, but it ends up being both wrong and irrelevant outside of those states.

You say there are much better cases to cite, can you post them up for me? I can research them in more detail, I just need to know the names.

Cathy already mentioned several, Terry, Hiibel and Prouse. One big problem with case cites is that they're most often useful only for a narrow point. That is, only one specific legal point or principle made in a case will support the point you're trying to make. It's actually rare to have an entire case somewhere to support your own premise entirely, but it's very nice when it happens. So the result you end up with is that context becomes extremely important. For instance, on the subject of anonymous tips on people carrying concealed firearms, you might cite Florida v J.L.

Florida v. J.L.

But since the guy in the video was carrying openly, the context of what part of Florida v J.L. you cite would have to be chosen very carefully if it were to apply to this case. Otherwise someone would call you on the dissimilar properties. J.L. was carrying concealed and was also underage, which is why there are only initials instead of a name.

For open carry, narrow cites are going to be the rule of the day because there are no truly 'open carry' court cases to cite as far as I know. You're thus stuck with finding cases with specific legal principles that support or affirm a specific legal principle in your own case. Depending on the context of the situation you're faced with, there are a number of other case cites that may apply. Many of the cases may have nothing to do with guns whatsoever, but they can still support a legal principle of your case. Here are a few you might peruse as general possibilities, but there are certainly more.

Dunaway v. New York - 442 U.S. 200 (1979)

UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON (01-631) 536 U.S. 194 (2002)

ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA (99-1408) 532 U.S. 318 (2001)

ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW (98-1036) 528 U.S. 119 (2000)

Michigan v. Long - 463 U.S. 1032 (1983)

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)