Posted on 05/19/2010 7:09:55 PM PDT by marktwain
This is the letter I sent to my attorney. I just pasted it here.
On January 15th 2010, at approximately 7:30PM, in Artesia, New Mexico I was traveling on highway 285 with my wife and 2 young daughters, ages 4 and 1. I came upon a DWI checkpoint operated by the City of Artesia police department. An officer (name unknown) approached my drivers window, informed me that they were conducting a DWI checkpoint, and asked for my license, registration, and proof of insurance. As I handed him my insurance card, I informed him that my wallet was in close proximity to my sidearm. The officer said "O.K, I need you to keep your hands on the wheel for me, O.K?" He was polite and I did as instructed. The unknown officer called for another officer, later identified as Lt. David Spencer, and told him "We have a weapon here." Lt. Spencer approached the vehicle by the drivers side with his hand on his weapon and asked where my weapon was. I informed him that it was holstered on my right hip. Lt. Spencer, then in a loud and demanding voice, ordered me multiple times to "Keep your hands on the wheel!" and "Do not take your hands off that wheel!" Then he ordered me to pull my vehicle over to the parking lot of the Masonic Lodge next to the checkpoint, where he told me to put the vehicle in park. I was too afraid to reach for the gear shift, so I asked my wife to do it for me. I shut off the vehicle and Lt. Spencer ordered me to "Get out of the vehicle and keep your hands where I can see them." I asked if this was all really necessary, the only response from Lt. Spencer was an order to turn around and put my hands on the vehicle. At this point I was standing in front of the rear drivers side window, in full view of my children. Lt. Spencer approached me from behind and removed my pistol from its holster. The moment I felt him pull on my pistol I told him that I did not consent to any search or seizure of my person or property. His reply was "I'm not searching anything, this is for officer safety." He then sat my loaded firearm on the curved trunk of my car. My wife informed me after the event that when Lt. Spencer removed my weapon my 4 year old cried out "DON'T SHOOT MY DADDY!" Lt. Spencer began to question me about why I carry a firearm. I told him for self-defense. He balked and asked "Why, is someone after you?" My response was "I never know when I might need it." He asked if I had a concealed weapons permit. I told him no, and informed him that New Mexico was an open carry state, and I did not need a permit to openly carry a sidearm. Lt. Spencer argued with me telling me that if my jacket falls over the gun it is concealed. I reminded him that the firearm was not concealed, but New Mexico allows concealed carry in a private vehicle by non-permit holders. I then noticed another officer by the passenger side of the vehicle, Later identified as Sgt. Jarod Zuniga, who informed me that it was still not allowed if the weapon is on my person. Lt, Spencer the re-iterated his opinion that I needed to get a CCW permit. He asked if I was a felon, I replied that I am not. Sgt Zuniga asked who the pistol was registered to. I told him I purchased it new, so it would come back registered to me. Sgt Zuniga then proceeded to write the serial number of my firearm on a pad. I said "So, Now your going to search my pistol?" He was looking down at the vehicle, and I was able to make out "I have every right to do this" or "I am perfectly within my rights to do this." At this point the officers asked for the registration for the vehicle. My wife looked, but could not find our copy. We told the officers that we had misplaced it, but the license plate had a valid sticker. Sgt Zuniga said that the state could revoke registration, and they needed to see our copy. Then returned to his cruiser. My oldest daughter Julie was still crying, Lt. Spencer said I could get in the vehicle to calm her down. I opened the rear drivers door and re-assured my daughter that everything was O.K. She immediately calmed down. I asked Lt. Spencer if he could place his hand on my pistol so that it would not fall off the curved trunk when I shut the door. Sgt Zuniga returned with a citation for no proof of registration. I signed the citation in the area for court appearance. I was told I could secure my pistol and be on my way. Both officers had their hands on their weapons as I retrieved and holstered my own. The entire incident lasted between 30 and 45 minutes.
I did some looking and found that Spencer is the troop leader for the New Mexico Mounted Patrol. Troop 18 in Artesia New Mexico.
....already signed the settlement papers. Just waiting for the check to clear. Sorry about not using paragraphs, It never occured to me.
--------------------------cut-------------------------
Yeah, Got a lawyer. We did sign papers to settle out of court. My daughter would ask every time she saw a cop if they were going to come and shoot me, So I called a friend of mine who is an Alamo officer to meet us at McDonalds in uniform and talk to her..... She's not afraid of cops anymore. Thanks Officer Thompson.
Thank you Mr Statist Tyrant!
Parting with cash is the most effective way to direct cities to restrain their loose cannons.
The cop in this case was clearly attempting to provoke an incident (unsuccessfully this time). Better screening methods need to be in place for recruiting of police.
.
Thank you ever so much for posting this interesting civics lesson. I’m glad it all worked out OK.
Post #4 is the best summation of what American police should be, compared to those cops in America who model themselves on the State Police of the commie part of the world, that I have yet read.
Says who?
That’s the point.
I want facts. You want to go off half cocked.
Doesn’t anyone think anymore?
Read it again. Did I excuse the cops’ actions? No. I called for an investigation.
“I don’t see where the guy rated any cash either way.”
I must disagree. There was no need to be so aggressively “Cop-ly”, and the man’s family was unnecessarily traumatized.
Worse yet, the basic assumption, that a cop is justified in just about anything, ‘cause a cop’s life is more valuable than a mere citizen’s life, needs to be brought forth and then discredited.
I am for any damages being assessed against the offending cops, not the taxpayers. Only if the jury awards more than the cops have should the employers of the cops (the citizens) have to pay.
If it wasn't a shakedown and pay off, was there a written apology? A reprimand? An investigation? Will these same officers, if they acted improperly, act again the same way on the next check lane? Will the next person know their rights? Has it happened before? Who will know now?
More facts needed but not, apparently, on this thread for some Code Orange Freepers.
But thank you for your thoughtful, rational reply.
“Thank you Mr Statist Tyrant!”
Banging your pocket Constitution on your keyboard while you type, are you? Perhaps while waiting for the Depakote to kick in, you missed this part of the post:
“If the cops were out of line, then they need to be investigated and disciplined. Were they? If they acted inappropriately, had they done this other times? If they acted in violation of state law, under color of authority, was that a crime under New Mexico law?”
Hmmm, I want the incident looked into to see if there was a problem, was it a pattern, was it a violation of law, and you want the insurance company to write a check and have business as usual. I also want additional facts and you are hunky dory with one person’s version with the other side not even needing to be heard.
Definitely Code Orange Freeper material.
The facts, as presented, don’t show even by the man’s statements where he suffered any loss nor deserved any money. What damages can you indicate? If the officers acted unprofessionally or illegally, they need to be disciplined or fired.
The man indicated no financial loss and there was no court action or jury. What was alluded to was a lawyer wrote a letter and the city cut a check. Once again under a certain threshhold, the city doesn’t even have a say, that is the insurance carrier’s call.
Your cop views as stated are a strawman and not germane to this incident. There just aren’t enough facts and only one side of the incident is presented.
As for civil liability, the cops are liable if they act outside of policy and law and can be personally sued in addition to their agency. They aren’t immune, at least in my state.
Why do you assume that Money changed hands as a result of the “Settlement Agreement”? There is no mention of cash in the Post.
There are other Remedies that can be asked for.
Training and Discipline come to mind.
Yes, attorney Fees as well.
“already signed the settlement papers. Just waiting for the check to clear.”
(Easy to miss with no paragraphs.)
But, the remedies may not be deserved. Only one side of the story was presented.
Nothing I stated was emotional. The cop was wrong on the law and violated the victims rights. While that should be punishable by years in prison, the best he can do is cost the agency some money. The supreme court has been very clear on the issue of open carry.
There was an investigation and it wasn’t favorable. Otherwise they wouldn’t be paying a settlement.
The guy was really cool about it but still gave me a ticket.
For what it's worth, your license plate is flagged with the fact that you are a CCW permit holder...........So When the officer ran my plate in his onboard computer prior to coming up to my car, he already knew I had the permit.
“You described it as a shake down. That is patently incorrect. The fact that the town settled out of court with so little effort shows that they knew they were guilty and didn’t have a leg to stand on. It also means that the victim should have asked for a lot more.”
Incorrect on all counts.
1. I said it sounded like a shakedown. You say: “That is patently incorrect.” You have no facts to support that, just opinion. I qualified my statement, you did not.
2. “The fact that the town settled out of court with so little effort shows...” My posts indicate that under a certain amount insurance carriers, not governmnetal bodies make the decision. You choose to ignore that. Therefore your opinion, once again, is unsupported. You have no facts to indicate anything.
3. “The cop was wrong on the law and violated the victim’s rights...” Says the supposed “victim.” Only one side was presented, therefore you have no facts here either. What actually happened might have been completely different than was reported. I find it odd for people who want to put the cops in prison for years (for what?), miss the point that the man wasn’t pulled from the car immediately by the cops but asked to drive himself out of line. If the cops were all that thugish, do you think they would have let the man drive to where they were going to violate his rights?
4. “There was an investigation and it wasn’t favorable. Otherwise they wouldn’t be paying a settlement.” Says who? So many assumptions. Who was investigated? What was the result? What was the settlement? How much? Was there an apology? Was there a reprimand? Did the guy pay the ticket? Did the insurance carrier pay the amount? Did the city admit fault? Did this even happen?
You are pretty much working in a fact free zone. You don’t even need a helmet. No danger of hurting your head on one. I qualified my statements and asked for more facts. I said what it sounded like, not what it was. You had no problem seeing only one side and not the objective truth. Don’t you see how other people can do the same but on topics such as the border, global warming,being green, “social justice”, etc.?
Play devil’s advocate once in a while. Look for facts. If they aren’t there, call for them. If they won’t be found, qualify your statements.
I didn’t miss a single statist bit of your post.
The fact that the city turned it over to the insurance co to pay is sufficient proof that the claim was viewed by staff as valid.
Get over your knee-jerk leftist tendencies; there is life after freedom.
.
Then you didn’t miss how insurance carriers make the call under a certain dollar figure. You chose to ignore it because it discredits your view.
All the rest is immature name calling by an spoiled person and of no importance.
Carry on Mr O’Tyranny.
As I stated on another post, some cops just shouldn’t be cops. It would be great if the rank and file officers would cull their own ranks, but in this respect cops are no different than convicts; snitches are taken care of.
It is sad that the insurance had to bail this punk out. The city’s premiums will rise to cover the cost, plus profit, I’m sure.
.
You can’t fix stupid.
You have nothing to base your opinion on but gossip, your own prejudice, and a good display of you lack of character.
What’s the difference between you and the Duke University professors that protested against the Lacrosse players with no facts? NOTHING. Same lack of thinking. Well pity for you but, oh well.
I suggest that you get sober before further posting.
That won’t fix your stupidity, but it might give you better judgment. The testimony of the victim of the crime is what you rail against. I suppose that might be nothing to one of your ilk.
Well, since you have nothing to add, and are devolved to childish behavior and constructing straw men, what else is there?
Reading over the posts I called for an investigation to determine the facts. If the investigation showed impropriety, then discipline or even criminal investigation. (first post even: #10.)
It’s there in black and white. Important to an honest man. Not, apparently to you. That’s your character. Goodnight Nifong.
There was nothing for you to comment on.
The facts were stated plainly; the remediation was swift and just; it offended your hatred for justice.
What’s new?
You’ve become so predictably boring.
.
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.