Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police sued for gun seizure(NH)
concordmonitor.com ^ | 6 February, 2012 | Tricia L. Nadolny

Posted on 02/06/2012 6:49:47 AM PST by marktwain

While attempting to seize guns from a man accused of domestic violence, Chichester and Epsom police officers took away firearms belonging to his family members instead, in violation of their civil rights, according to allegations contained in a lawsuit.

Four members of Michael Martel Jr.'s family say he wasn't living in their Chichester home last August when officers stormed in, taking about a dozen guns, including one from his father's holster, according to their attorney, Richard Lehmann.

It took the family 10 weeks to retrieve their firearms, according to the suit, during which time the family members suffered "injuries including mental anguish, embarrassment, violation of their privacy and the sanctity of their home, (and) the fear of knowing that they were left exposed and unable to defend themselves."

The suit, filed Jan. 18 in Merrimack County Superior Court, names the three officers who executed the protection order: Brian Michael and Dan Flanders of the Epsom Police Department and Jonathon Adinolfo of the Chichester Police Department. The departments' two chiefs, as well as the towns, are also named as defendants.

Lehmann said the family will request monetary compensation, though he declined to give a figure.

Charles Bauer, the town of Chichester's attorney, said last week he had only recently reviewed the claims but finds them to be unfounded, adding that he expects the case to be dismissed by a judge.

"There are court orders that deal with weapons. And the weapons were appropriately confiscated pursuant to the court order and they were appropriately returned upon court order," Bauer said, declining to discuss further specifics.

Chichester police Chief Patrick Clarke and Town Administrator Nancy Tanner declined to comment on the case. Contacted last week, Epsom Selectmen Chairman Keith Cota said he was not yet aware of the case. After consulting with the town's attorney, Tony Soltani, Cota said the town has not yet been informed of the lawsuit. Epsom police Chief Wayne Preve did not return requests for comment.

The firearms were taken last August shortly after Michael Martel Jr.'s ex-girlfriend filed a protective order against him, alleging physical and verbal abuse as well as stalking.

According to the lawsuit, officers executing a court order arrived at the home of Martel's parents on Mason Road in Chichester, taking guns from Lynda Martel and Michael Martel Sr. as well as their sons, Christopher Martel and Jeremiah Martel.

The court order requiring Michael Martel Jr. to surrender his guns was not available at Concord's district court, but according to the lawsuit it directed him to "relinquish to a peace officer all firearms and ammunition in his/her control, ownership or possession, or in the possession of any other person on behalf of the defendant."

According to Lehmann, none of the guns taken fell under those provisions.

"He has to have the right to govern the disposition of the property for it to be in his control," he said. "If someone else can decide what happens to it, then it's not in his control."

According to court documents, Martel, 23, was homeless and living in Pittsfield in September. Lehmann said his driver's license listed his parents' address, but he was not living there at the time of the incident.

The seized firearms were returned after 10 weeks following an appeal by Michael Martel Sr. and Lynda Martel, court documents show.

"The plaintiffs were deprived their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in protection of themselves and their families," the lawsuit alleges. "For the entire period of deprivation, the plaintiffs were unable to engage in the fundamental, natural and constitutional right to defend themselves."

The case also includes charges of trespassing, invasion of privacy and negligent hiring and supervision.

According to court documents, the defendants have until March 6 to respond to the lawsuit.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: banglist; civilrights; constitution; donttreadonme; lping; nh; ploicestate; policestate; rapeofliberty; tyranny
The idea that a person can be deprived of a fundamental constitutional right on the mere accusation of another person, is abhorrent.
1 posted on 02/06/2012 6:49:51 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Indeed.


2 posted on 02/06/2012 7:07:26 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The problem as I see it is that most laws being enacted today leave out any chance of the use of ‘Common Sense’.

Also as an aside, this guy really needs to be more careful in his choice of Girl-friends and vice versa on her part.


3 posted on 02/06/2012 7:07:58 AM PST by The Working Man (The mantra for BO's reign...."No Child Left a Dime")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Where were the ‘Free Staters’?


4 posted on 02/06/2012 7:11:08 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I am very tired of police using judges as a fig leaf for illegal conduct against citizens.


5 posted on 02/06/2012 7:14:13 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I am very tired of police using judges as a fig leaf for illegal conduct against citizens.

But the FR jackbootlickers will tell you that "the police are on our side."

6 posted on 02/06/2012 7:35:14 AM PST by from occupied ga (your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
But the FR jackbootlickers will tell you that "the police are on our side."

Yes, they will. The truth from where I live is that the police are not your friends. Especially when firearms are in the equation.

7 posted on 02/06/2012 8:01:30 AM PST by paulcissa (The first requirement of Liberalism is to stand on your head and tell the world they're upside down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: paulcissa
The truth from where I live is that the police are not your friends. Especially when firearms are in the equation.

Neither is the Law.

Family (Kangaroo) Courts and the piles of worthless, unconstitutional laws that support them, are part of a new battering ram the Government uses to strip us of our firearms and God-given Rights, as well as purposely destroying marriage.

8 posted on 02/06/2012 8:37:36 AM PST by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

The police are required by state law and possibly federal law to remove all guns in a DV case. The law is the problem.

Automatic arrest based on an accusation is also a major problem. The police have no discretion; they have to arrest.

The state legislators need to fix both problems.

I will complain and say this is a direct result of the VAWA.

The wife or husband who has made the accusation will also be deprived of the 2A right by having their guns taken. Both sides lose in a DV arrest which is usually nul proc’ed anyway.

I pinged GregNH because I think he is a rep or is in contact with reps that monitor FR.


9 posted on 02/06/2012 8:38:15 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

Thanx, I was unaware of this.


10 posted on 02/06/2012 8:59:51 AM PST by GregNH (I will continue to do whatever it takes, my grandchildren are depending on me....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing; GregNH; marktwain
The police are required by state law and possibly federal law to remove all guns in a DV case. The law is the problem.

As marktwain said:

The idea that a person can be deprived of a fundamental constitutional right on the mere accusation of another person, is abhorrent.
It is, in fact, so abhorrent that the founders of our Constitutional government provided prohibitions on it; the 5th Amendment says:
nor [may a person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
and the 6th further supports this:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Whereas the accused has not had the trial, and therefore cannot lawfully or legally be considered guilty, the taking of his property is the abridgment of the 5th Amendment.

There are federal laws which apply here, and if enforced, would destroy the officers's good standing within the law as they are felonies:

  1. Deprivations of Rights under Color of Law
  2. Conspiracy Against Rights
Automatic arrest based on an accusation is also a major problem. The police have no discretion; they have to arrest.

First; An 'arrest' is not a conviction.
Second; The problem is that there are, as a result of an accusation (rather than conviction), people whose properties are being taken.

What I find most disturbing is the responsibility, or rather lack of it, with respect to the legal process.
For example: In the New Mexico Constitution Counties and Municipalities are forbidden from regulating "in any way" an incident of the right to keep and bear arms; yet there are (on all municipal and county courts I've seen) posted "No Weapons" and more than a year of off-and-on research shows there is no State Statute which would apply -- therefore the counties and cities are in rebellion against the State Constitution. All inquiries into who/how-to address this issue are met with either "I don't know" or a redirection to someone else.

11 posted on 02/06/2012 11:08:31 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing
Both sides lose in a DV arrest which is usually nul proc’ed anyway

I can normally decipher most personal contractions. Okay, I get DV is domestic violence, but what does "nul proc'ed" mean in plain English? I have no background to give me even a faint glimmering of a minicule clue as to its potential meaning.

12 posted on 02/06/2012 11:16:04 AM PST by Don W (You can forget what you do for a living when your knees are in the breeze.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

Too bad there is not an automatic presumption of perjury on the part of the accuser is the DV charges are dropped or the accused is found not guilty...


13 posted on 02/06/2012 11:26:39 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

OK – I have some serious issues with this. All a female has to do is call 911 (or the MPs if on a military base) and say that she was “afraid” her husband or male significant other was GOING to hit/strike/abuse her. No physical evidence of any abuse is required. BAM! Politically correct judges will INSTANTLY dispatch the (“Oh, boy, OVERTIME!”) unionized cops to the residence, body slam, cuff and shackle and probably mace the male in question, and “confiscate” all his weaponry. In the case of the military man, no matter there’s no evidence, no matter what the female’s record is, his career is OVER. In no other situation do the jackbooted wannabes act with like zeal, in no other like situation do PC judges and DAs order weapons seizure. Hey – if a MALE calls and says that HEs being physically threatened by his FEMALE significant other (especially on a military installation) he gets “Yeah, right”. And if Barney Fife DOES respond, do HER weapons get seized? Hell, no. Bottom line – any male who would abuse a woman is not a man and deserves to get what he has coming. However, PC cops and judges need to wake up and read the Constitution. In this case, the man’s PARENT’s guns were seized because in “officer in-my-opinion’s” view, Dad’s gun was “under the control” of the male in question. Reprehensible. Barney needs to be prosecuted and FIRED.


14 posted on 02/07/2012 3:27:43 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

OK – I have some serious issues with this. All a female has to do is call 911 (or the MPs if on a military base) and say that she was “afraid” her husband or male significant other was GOING to hit/strike/abuse her. No physical evidence of any abuse is required. BAM! Politically correct judges will INSTANTLY dispatch the (“Oh, boy, OVERTIME!”) unionized cops to the residence, body slam, cuff and shackle and probably mace the male in question, and “confiscate” all his weaponry. In the case of the military man, no matter there’s no evidence, no matter what the female’s record is, his career is OVER. In no other situation do the jackbooted wannabes act with like zeal, in no other like situation do PC judges and DAs order weapons seizure. Hey – if a MALE calls and says that HEs being physically threatened by his FEMALE significant other (especially on a military installation) he gets “Yeah, right”. And if Barney Fife DOES respond, do HER weapons get seized? Hell, no. Bottom line – any male who would abuse a woman is not a man and deserves to get what he has coming. However, PC cops and judges need to wake up and read the Constitution. In this case, the man’s PARENT’s guns were seized because in “officer in-my-opinion’s” view, Dad’s gun was “under the control” of the male in question. Reprehensible. Barney needs to be prosecuted and FIRED.


15 posted on 02/07/2012 3:28:08 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

OK – I have some serious issues with this. All a female has to do is call 911 (or the MPs if on a military base) and say that she was “afraid” her husband or male significant other was GOING to hit/strike/abuse her. No physical evidence of any abuse is required. BAM! Politically correct judges will INSTANTLY dispatch the (“Oh, boy, OVERTIME!”) unionized cops to the residence, body slam, cuff and shackle and probably mace the male in question, and “confiscate” all his weaponry. In the case of the military man, no matter there’s no evidence, no matter what the female’s record is, his career is OVER. In no other situation do the jackbooted wannabes act with like zeal, in no other like situation do PC judges and DAs order weapons seizure. Hey – if a MALE calls and says that HEs being physically threatened by his FEMALE significant other (especially on a military installation) he gets “Yeah, right”. And if Barney Fife DOES respond, do HER weapons get seized? Hell, no. Bottom line – any male who would abuse a woman is not a man and deserves to get what he has coming. However, PC cops and judges need to wake up and read the Constitution. In this case, the man’s PARENT’s guns were seized because in “officer in-my-opinion’s” view, Dad’s gun was “under the control” of the male in question. Reprehensible. Barney needs to be prosecuted and FIRED.


16 posted on 02/07/2012 3:28:43 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

OK – I have some serious issues with this. All a female has to do is call 911 (or the MPs if on a military base) and say that she was “afraid” her husband or male significant other was GOING to hit/strike/abuse her. No physical evidence of any abuse is required. BAM! Politically correct judges will INSTANTLY dispatch the (“Oh, boy, OVERTIME!”) unionized cops to the residence, body slam, cuff and shackle and probably mace the male in question, and “confiscate” all his weaponry. In the case of the military man, no matter there’s no evidence, no matter what the female’s record is, his career is OVER. In no other situation do the jackbooted wannabes act with like zeal, in no other like situation do PC judges and DAs order weapons seizure. Hey – if a MALE calls and says that HEs being physically threatened by his FEMALE significant other (especially on a military installation) he gets “Yeah, right”. And if Barney Fife DOES respond, do HER weapons get seized? Hell, no. Bottom line – any male who would abuse a woman is not a man and deserves to get what he has coming. However, PC cops and judges need to wake up and read the Constitution. In this case, the man’s PARENT’s guns were seized because in “officer in-my-opinion’s” view, Dad’s gun was “under the control” of the male in question. Reprehensible. Barney needs to be prosecuted and FIRED.


17 posted on 02/07/2012 3:29:11 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

OK – I have some serious issues with this. All a female has to do is call 911 (or the MPs if on a military base) and say that she was “afraid” her husband or male significant other was GOING to hit/strike/abuse her. No physical evidence of any abuse is required. BAM! Politically correct judges will INSTANTLY dispatch the (“Oh, boy, OVERTIME!”) unionized cops to the residence, body slam, cuff and shackle and probably mace the male in question, and “confiscate” all his weaponry. In the case of the military man, no matter there’s no evidence, no matter what the female’s record is, his career is OVER. In no other situation do the jackbooted wannabes act with like zeal, in no other like situation do PC judges and DAs order weapons seizure. Hey – if a MALE calls and says that HEs being physically threatened by his FEMALE significant other (especially on a military installation) he gets “Yeah, right”. And if Barney Fife DOES respond, do HER weapons get seized? Hell, no. Bottom line – any male who would abuse a woman is not a man and deserves to get what he has coming. However, PC cops and judges need to wake up and read the Constitution. In this case, the man’s PARENT’s guns were seized because in “officer in-my-opinion’s” view, Dad’s gun was “under the control” of the male in question. Reprehensible. Barney needs to be prosecuted and FIRED.


18 posted on 02/07/2012 3:29:35 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

OK – I have some serious issues with this. All a female has to do is call 911 (or the MPs if on a military base) and say that she was “afraid” her husband or male significant other was GOING to hit/strike/abuse her. No physical evidence of any abuse is required. BAM! Politically correct judges will INSTANTLY dispatch the (“Oh, boy, OVERTIME!”) unionized cops to the residence, body slam, cuff and shackle and probably mace the male in question, and “confiscate” all his weaponry. In the case of the military man, no matter there’s no evidence, no matter what the female’s record is, his career is OVER. In no other situation do the jackbooted wannabes act with like zeal, in no other like situation do PC judges and DAs order weapons seizure. Hey – if a MALE calls and says that HEs being physically threatened by his FEMALE significant other (especially on a military installation) he gets “Yeah, right”. And if Barney Fife DOES respond, do HER weapons get seized? Hell, no. Bottom line – any male who would abuse a woman is not a man and deserves to get what he has coming. However, PC cops and judges need to wake up and read the Constitution. In this case, the man’s PARENT’s guns were seized because in “officer in-my-opinion’s” view, Dad’s gun was “under the control” of the male in question. Reprehensible. Barney needs to be prosecuted and FIRED.


19 posted on 02/07/2012 3:30:25 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel

OK – I have some serious issues with this. All a female has to do is call 911 (or the MPs if on a military base) and say that she was “afraid” her husband or male significant other was GOING to hit/strike/abuse her. No physical evidence of any abuse is required. BAM! Politically correct judges will INSTANTLY dispatch the (“Oh, boy, OVERTIME!”) unionized cops to the residence, body slam, cuff and shackle and probably mace the male in question, and “confiscate” all his weaponry. In the case of the military man, no matter there’s no evidence, no matter what the female’s record is, his career is OVER. In no other situation do the jackbooted wannabes act with like zeal, in no other like situation do PC judges and DAs order weapons seizure. Hey – if a MALE calls and says that HEs being physically threatened by his FEMALE significant other (especially on a military installation) he gets “Yeah, right”. And if Barney Fife DOES respond, do HER weapons get seized? Hell, no. Bottom line – any male who would abuse a woman is not a man and deserves to get what he has coming. However, PC cops and judges need to wake up and read the Constitution. In this case, the man’s PARENT’s guns were seized because in “officer in-my-opinion’s” view, Dad’s gun was “under the control” of the male in question. Reprehensible. Barney needs to be prosecuted and FIRED.


20 posted on 02/07/2012 3:33:05 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel

Administrator, multiple posts my error.


21 posted on 02/07/2012 3:34:50 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel

Worth repeating, but probably not quite that many times.


22 posted on 02/07/2012 3:43:25 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel

I agree. What the hell happened to “presumption of innocence?” What happened to the punishment of perjury and making false accusations?


23 posted on 02/07/2012 6:12:38 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

The multiple posting was my mistake - I’d delete the duplicates if I knew how.


24 posted on 02/07/2012 10:35:42 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

The multiple posting was my mistake - I’d delete the duplicates if I knew how.


25 posted on 02/07/2012 10:35:53 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

“The police have no discretion; they have to arrest.”

No, they do not. Separation of powers says that. A police officer has the discretion of who he arrests. The law may say kill all the males but is a cop required to obey it? An officer operates under a license and is required to uphold the terms of that license.


26 posted on 02/07/2012 10:50:46 AM PST by CodeToad (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

CodeToad -

The state law here in NH removes the police discretion in a DV case. I don’t know what law you are referring to, federal or state. I have direct experience with this law in NH.


27 posted on 02/08/2012 9:58:27 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Don W

It means that the prosecution has decided not to persue the case, most likely as a result of the two parties reaching an agreement before trial.


28 posted on 02/08/2012 10:00:30 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Don W

It means that the prosecution has decided not to pursue the case, most likely as a result of the two parties reaching an agreement before trial.


29 posted on 02/08/2012 10:00:35 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Don W

It means that the prosecution has decided not to pursue the case, most likely as a result of the two parties reaching an agreement before trial. The prosecution usually adds some penalty (good behavior for 1 year for example) that the accused has to pay, then the accused can get the charge removed from the arrest record after completing all terms of the agreement.


30 posted on 02/08/2012 10:02:49 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

That’s a good idea for really nasty individuals if we could separate these cases out cleanly.

After the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), what happens after a husband-wife spat that ends in an arrest of either is bad for husband and wife and kids. Peaceful reconciliation occurs in the great majority of the cases now. Your idea would mean peaceful reconciliation would be nullified and result in further destruction of the family.

I think most of these arrests now are occurring because of the ‘no discretion’ policy legislatures have implemented. Whereas, in the past, what usually ended in no arrest before VAWA, now we’re getting far too many arrests.


31 posted on 02/08/2012 10:10:25 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I like your post and the Constitutional basis of the ideas. These domestic violence cases are yet another example of how far we actually are into a post-Constitutional America. And I’m not even a conspiracy theorist.


32 posted on 02/08/2012 10:15:34 AM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

When my wife got divorced from her previous husband, her lawyerette urged her to file domestic violence and child abuse charges just as part of the “negotiating stance.”

Now, as it happens, the DV charges would have been justified - that person still has a warrant on him here in GA; the Child Abuse charges would not have been justified. But I suspect the lawyerette would have urged her to do so, regardless of the validity of the charges.

If the someone screams “Child Abuse!” or “Domestic Violence!” just get an advantage in the divorce proceedings and can’t back it up, they need to GO TO JAIL for perjury.


33 posted on 02/08/2012 10:45:47 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel

For heaven’s sake, stop pressing the post button!


34 posted on 02/08/2012 10:56:35 AM PST by Poser (Cogito ergo Spam - I think, therefore I ham)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Poser

My error, Sir.


35 posted on 02/09/2012 3:10:36 AM PST by Nathaniel (- A Man Without A Cross -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson