Officers sued over gun arrest

[ejector]

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... /708050581

NORTH PORT -- He was pulled over for a speeding infraction -- traveling 21 mph over the speed limit -- but a lead foot is not what got Jeffrey Poulakis in trouble.

It was the gun in his car's glove compartment.

He was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm, but the charge did not go far.

Prosecutors declined to prosecute the case, citing case law that says a gun owner does not need a concealed weapons permit in order to carry a firearm in a vehicle.

And now, Poulakis is suing two North Port police officers, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights by arresting him on the weapons charge.

[txinvestigator]

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20 ... /708050581

NORTH PORT -- He was pulled over for a speeding infraction -- traveling 21 mph over the speed limit -- but a lead foot is not what got Jeffrey Poulakis in trouble.

It was the gun in his car's glove compartment.

He was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm, but the charge did not go far.

Prosecutors declined to prosecute the case, citing case law that says a gun owner does not need a concealed weapons permit in order to carry a firearm in a vehicle.

And now, Poulakis is suing two North Port police officers, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights by arresting him on the weapons charge.

Humm, I don't know enough about Florida's law, but IF it is as reported, then he will win the suit. And the chief is wrong.

[KBCraig]

Humm, I don't know enough about Florida's law, but IF it is as reported, then he will win the suit. And the chief is wrong.

The relevant Florida statute:

790.25 Lawful Ownership, Possession, and Use of Firearms and Other Weapons
(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.Notwithstanding
subsection (2), it is lawful
and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed
firearm or other weapon for self-defense
or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private
conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise
not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a
legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being
carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of
a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed
in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including
lawful self-defense
as provided in s. 776.012.

I don't have a cite, but I understand that Florida treats the glove compartment as "securely encased".

[KBCraig]

Durrr... the article provided the cite: "prosecutors cited the 2002 appellate court decision in Dixon v. State. In that case, the court ruled that as long as a gun is in a glove compartment, gun case, snapped in a holster or closed in a box with a lid, then its owner is not required to have a concealed weapons permit."

[srothstein]

I think the officers were wrong to arrest, based on the way the law is written. It is the officers job to keep up with the law and its court interpretations, and I could understand their not knowing if it had been a recent case, but the cited case was several years old, so the police should have known.

Now, recognizing that not all officers are able to access court records and keep up with these rapid changes, I will give them some benefit of the doubt, much like the lawyers and courts will. But, they will also hold the department liable under the theory of vicarious liability for failure to train. It is the departments responsibility to ensure that officers do know the law and they fell down on this.

I actually think the law was clear also, if the pistol was in the glove box. The part that makes it difficult to say for sure was if he really was reaching towards the glove box (in the traditional furtive movement) as they walked up. If the pistol was not in the glove box until he put it there as he stopped, he was braking the law.

But what I find really interesting was the fact that the law says the pistol is carried for self-defense but cannot be readily available for immediate use. Fat lot of good it does me locked in the trunk, right?

[nitrogen]

North Port Police Chief Terry Lewis says that even though the charges were dropped, the arrest was still justified.

And although Lewis would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said that rulings on the definition of a concealed weapon can vary.

No, dude, it's not. The definition is what the law says it is. The law seems pretty clear in non-legalese to me that this is legal.

Officers that pull this kind of thing annoy me. Departments that do it as a matter of policy anger me, and make me distrustful of police in general. (Living in California, this was policy at lots of departments where I lived)

I'm not a big fan of being sue-happy. People make mistakes, but in cases like this, I believe it's warranted.

(I can only imagine how amusing it must be for police officers when people make up THEIR own laws)

[HankB]

I think the officers were wrong to arrest, based on the way the law is written. It is the officers job to keep up with the law and its court interpretations, and I could understand their not knowing if it had been a recent case, but the cited case was several years old, so the police should have known.

Now, recognizing that not all officers are able to access court records and keep up with these rapid changes, I will give them some benefit of the doubt, much like the lawyers and courts will. But, they will also hold the department liable under the theory of vicarious liability for failure to train. It is the departments responsibility to ensure that officers do know the law and they fell down on this. . . .

I think there's an old saying that police have used innumerable times on the people they arrest, which ought to be applied here: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!

Poulakis ought to collect beaucoup $$$, hopefully from the officers personally. (Probably too much to hope for, but . . . )

[TX_TLC]

North Port Police Chief Terry Lewis says that even though the charges were dropped, the arrest was still justified.

And although Lewis would not comment on the specifics of the case, he said that rulings on the definition of a concealed weapon can vary.

***CAUTION***

You can be arrested for murder in North Port even if you don't kill anyone, and the Chief will still site it as a justified arrest.

***CAUTION***

*sarcasm off*

[ejector]

You can be arrested for murder in North Port even if you don't kill anyone, and the Chief will still site it as a justified arrest.

:-) funny statement, I had a good laugh.

Silly question .. Couldn't Poulakis sue the Police chief as well for making statements to press that make Poulakis sound guilty

[CHL/LEO]

Poulakis ought to collect beaucoup $$$, hopefully from the officers personally.

If the officers were never educated by their department regarding this law, then their department (city) will have to pay. If their department can show that they trained their officers in regard to this law then they will pass the liability on to the officers personally.

[KBCraig]

Poulakis ought to collect beaucoup $$$, hopefully from the officers personally.

If the officers were never educated by their department regarding this law, then their department (city) will have to pay. If their department can show that they trained their officers in regard to this law then they will pass the liability on to the officers personally.

Yup. "Qualified professional immunity" is lost when acting "outside the scope of employment", which means acting contrary to training, policy, or law (or when acting outside their authority, or certification level).

Without that immunity, they are personally liable for their actions.

[BrassMonkey]

Something everyone has to remember is, the standards or evidence for arrest are oh so much less than for prosecution and even less so than for conviction. How do we know the officers didn't find reason to believe that the suspect was a prohibited person? How do we know the officers didn't feel the suspect was mentally unstable or something like that, that would not make it to public ears?

[Seburiel]

How do we know the officers didn't find reason to believe that the suspect was a prohibited person? How do we know the officers didn't feel the suspect was mentally unstable or something like that, that would not make it to public ears?

Well, those officers better articulate said reasoning in their reports, if they don't then "it didn't happen".

[BrassMonkey]

I disagree. Not all information is made public you know.

How do we know the officers didn't find reason to believe that the suspect was a prohibited person? How do we know the officers didn't feel the suspect was mentally unstable or something like that, that would not make it to public ears?

Well, those officers better articulate said reasoning in their reports, if they don't then "it didn't happen".

[retrieverman]

I personally hope that the court sticks it to the officers and the department, but I have my doubts. Like someone else said, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and this time the tables are turned. YIPPEE!!!