MI: Open Carry Lawsuit; Police Report or Dashcam Video?

Gun Watch ^ | 25 December, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Open Carrier With Revolver

Johann Deffert is suing the Grand Rapids Police for their treatment when he was stopped while openly carrying a handgun.  Now, two versions of events are being put forward.   In the official police version, as reported in mlive.com:

“Deffert was alone, and was loudly talking to himself,” Moe wrote. “Based on the area, and Deffert’s unusual behavior, R/O (responding officer) was concerned Deffert may have mental issues and was about to commit a violent crime.

The responding officer then elaborates:

He secured Deffert in handcuffs. He then secured a .40- or .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol with attached flashlight.

“Deffert immediately began stating that he was exercising his right open carry,” Moe wrote. “R/O explained to Deffert, he had that right (to) open carry as long as he was not a felon or had any documented mental orders.

“R/O further explained to Deffert, R/O would release him as soon as R/O checked him in LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network). Deffert stated he had neither. Based on Deffert’s answers and odd demeanor, R/O was not so sure Deffert did not have some psychological issues. Deffert would not elaborate on why he was talking to himself. He had no cell phone on him,” Moe wrote, in a four-paragraph narrative.

The problem is that people who claim to have seen the dashcam video from the officers patrol car say that the video does not support the R/O's report.  From the comments on mlive.com  Tom Lambert , who claims to have seen the dashcam video, writes:

 Tim and I are on the leadership of a group called Michigan Open Carry and are local to the GR area. The plaintiff contacted us after his incident seeking help. We reviewed his case (the video) and sent him to a qualified attorney.

I have tried to be open and honest about who I am, and the facts of this case. If you still do not believe me, I understand, but I feel there is nothing more I can do.

In a later post Tim Beahan writes:

Having reviewed the video, the comments offered by the responding officer are a complete fabrication. I'm looking forward to his impending career change.

Tom Lambert writes:

 "But, his attorney, Steven Dulan said Deffert “repeatedly offered his identification to (police), who refused to retrieve it for several minutes, instead choosing to debate public policy with plaintiff.”"

This is backed up in the video. If the R/O just wanted to "check out" the plaintiff, why did he debate policy with the plaintiff instead of checking him out?

In a separate post:

 "Deffert would not elaborate on why he was talking to himself. He had no cell phone on him"

Both are not true as demonstrated on the video. Perhaps if the R/O had listened to the answers to his questions, this might not have turned out this way.

The dashcam video has not been released to the public.   Deffert's lawyer is said to have the copy that Lambert and Beahan say they saw.

The  Police in Warren, Michigan and Grand Haven have settled  claims with open carriers who sued.   It will be interesting to see if Grand Rapids Michigan does the same.   A common requirement of such a lawsuit is training of the police to respect the second amendment rights of open carriers.   Another common requirement is that plaintiffs are required not to talk about the settlement.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[old curmudgeon]

A warrant is required to search a vehicle unless there is probable cause.

[TribalPrincess2U]

“Deffert was alone, and was loudly talking to himself,”

That's all everyone does these days..with phones in their ears.

[SunkenCiv]

> Having reviewed the video, the comments offered by the responding officer are a complete fabrication.

Thanks marktwain.

[Tainan]

I do not listen to what the voices in my head tell me to do.
I listen to what the voices in my wifes' head tell her to tell me to do.

[gitmo]

When my son was a toddler, my mother asked if he talked to himself when he was alone. I grinned and responded. “I don’t know. I’ve never been with him when he was alone.”

[RushLake]

Apparently, the gentleman with the firearm was exercising his sovereign right. According to a LEO I know well from East Lansing, Michigan the term “sovereign citizen” is gaining currency among the rogue element of law enforcement. While, as free men and women, we are sovereign citizens, the term has taken on a different meaning among this subset. Their view essentially is that we are never right, always guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. Therefore we are subject to the application of law as they define it, not as the state or US Constitution defines our rights. If we choose to challenge them on the basis of our defined rights, we’re sarcastically referred to as “sovereign citizens”. Apparently they particularly hate “minor issues” like 2A and 4A. 1984 redux.

[RetiredNavy]

A warrent, or probable cause, IS required to search your vehicle, and it is private property. Your example provides probable cause, but does not make your vehicle public property.

Just say no to ALL requests to search your car. When a policeman has stopped you, he is not there to be your friend, he is there to put you in jail if he can. It is foolish to answer leading questions or submit to a search voluntarily.

[bike800]

Probable cause is needed for a search of your vehicle...a warrant is not. It falls under the Carroll Doctrine. It is not public property, ut you are considered in public is in a vehicle...