Posted on 07/19/2009 2:49:03 PM PDT by AAABEST
The American Civil Liberties Union has sent a letter to the Loveland Police Department alleging that officers illegally searched and briefly detained a man carrying a gun at South Shore Parkway.
On Thursday, the ACLU sent a formal complaint to Loveland Police Chief Luke Hecker and 8th Judicial District Attorney’s Office chief investigator Elliot Phelps.
The organization is questioning the way police dealt with Loveland resident Bill Miller at South Shore Parkway on Oct. 7, 2008.
The ACLU has not sued the city but asked in its letter that the Police Department turn over all records connected to the incident, including internal review documents and discipline or training records of the officers involved.
A spokesman for the ACLU said the organization would wait for a formal response from both Hecker and Phelps before commenting.
The Loveland Police Department did not return several messages from the Reporter-Herald requesting comment Thursday.
Miller, 71, said Thursday that he isn’t looking for anything for himself, such as an apology, but rather he wants to teach a lesson.
“I would like to see police officers change the way they approach people with guns,” Miller said in an interview.
“I hope that (police departments) know they need to operate within the law and respect all of the constitutional rights of all the people.”
Miller was carrying an unconcealed handgun in a holster attached to his waistband, he said, when he was approached by Loveland police officers who had received a report of a man with a weapon in the park.
Miller wasn’t carrying the gun to protest or make a point, he said; he was trying out a new holster he had made.
The police officers, according to the ACLU’s letter, seized Miller’s pistol “without consent, and emptied it of ammunition.”
The officers then ordered Miller to give them his driver’s license, over his objections.
After checking with dispatchers, the officers found that both the gun and Miller were clear of any issues, and they returned Miller’s gun and license.
They also “explained our and citizens’ initial concern over the weapon,” the police incident report says.
Miller also said, the ACLU’s letter says, that the officers told him he could expect similar treatment should “similar encounters occur in the future.”
From the time officers first contacted Miller to the time they left was about 16 minutes, according to a police incident report. No charges were filed.
Miller sent a formal complaint to 8th Judicial District Attorney Larry Abrahamson, according to a letter Phelps sent to Miller.
In that letter, Phelps told Miller the office considered the incident an internal matter for the Police Department.
Phelps said residents have a right to possess and carry firearms, but that “there is a fine line between the protection of an individual’s rights and the protection of a law enforcement officer.”
My bad. MollyNMe, I thought it was Lovelland, Tx.
I replied to another poster that I thought it was Levelland, Tx.
Ease up on the thread and take a relaxant.
The officers then ordered Miller to give them his driver’s license, over his objections.
After checking with dispatchers, the officers found that both the gun and Miller were clear of any issues, and they returned Miller’s gun and license."
Sooo; what happened to the ammunition?
If I was dealer, it's obvious that you'd be a lousy customer.
Even if it was Levellend and not "Loveland," the Texas law you cited applies specifically to procedures governing a state trooper dealing with a conceal carry holder during a traffic stop, not a local cop dealing with a pedestrian in a public park.
Apparently your reading comprehension issues aren't limited to simple internet articles.
It is within the cops' purview to ensure that it's not.
R9,
What you're putting forth here is philosophy, which can be agreed with or disagreed with. Personally, I disagree with it as I do with most (though not all) preemption arguments.
That said, in a nation of laws, it doesn't matter what you, I or anyone else thinks about law. It is either legal or it's not for Colorado cops to approach someone not bothering anyone, take his gun, empty the ammo and interrogate him.
“While it’s all very well for us to say that carrying a gun is OK (and I do think it is OK, in general), we can’t ignore certain realities about our culture, such as the fact that “a guy with a gun in a park” may very well represent a real danger to others.”
True which is why I carry a gun when in public. To protect myself and family against those other guns.
The police had no right to even talk to this man on the basis of him having a firearm. Terry V. Ohio makes it clear that an anonymous MWAG call is not RAS for a terry stop. Those police officers should be fired, as should anyone who harasses a man with a firearm who is not engaged in unlawful activity.
If the police are so concerned about their own safety then maybe they shouldn’t have approached him in the first place.
“True which is why I carry a gun when in public. To protect myself and family against those other guns.”
Sounds like ‘division of power’ to me. Good enough for the Founders is good enough for me.
Yawn. work on the delivery AAAWorst. You’re boring me.
What you're putting forth here is philosophy, which can be agreed with or disagreed with.
The thing about philosophy, however, is that although it can be very neat and tidy in our brains, real life has a way of mucking with even the very best philosophies.
That's why common sense is so important -- it's our way of dealing with the imperfections of real human behavior, as opposed to the ideals our highly limited philosophies espouse.
In the real world, it is far from unknown that guys in parks openly carrying guns can represent a real hazard. You have the advantage of hindsight. The cop who got the call, however, only knew that there was a guy with a gun; he had no knowledge of the guy's intentions. Possibly he had serious unpleasantness in mind, and the cop would have been a fool to assume otherwise.
The cop seems to have exercised a great deal of common sense in this case: render the weapon harmless until he's sure there's no threat, and then let the guy go.
http://www.opencarry.org/co.html
Colorado has become a little tricky as it appears some changes in attitude, and some laws, have occurred...
As far as the Texas CHL forum website discussion on this issue...That website has some of the best discussion on pro-gun and gun-control issues I have seen in many years...The knowledge base is second to none...Texas may have some interesting things and conditions per the carry law in our state, but there are many from out of state that come in and participate in a very constructive manner...
Many on Free Republic know this already...
What is the RAS for approaching a guy open carrying in an area where open carry is not restricted? No RAS = no stop. Anything else is a violation of the victim’s rights and is legally actionable.
Some guy with a gun is no reason to interogate him beyond a consentual stop which the victim is free to refuse and walk away from without further repercussions.
That "fine line" BS must be part of the instruction manual on how to respond to a complaint about open carry harassment. I got it from Manchester, NH police and the NH attorney general too.
I defer to your experience. It would seem that communication by the officer to proper channels to verify said person and the CHL verificaiton could be done faster. I’ll go back and check but i cannot recall if this person was placed under arrest.
...agreed. But if precedents and Code haven’t changed, and a person is held for a certain length of time, they’re arrested whether explicitly notified of that or not.
[Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney. If you need legal advice, seek a properly licensed attorney.]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.