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.
Indeed.
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.
Where were the ‘Free Staters’?
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."
Yes, they will. 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.
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.
Thanx, I was unaware of this.
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:
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.