TLS Edwin Walker says Texans will be required to ID on demand

[half_life1052]

The courts dismiss with prejudice thousands of pro se actions every year in the central district of California alone. The courts could not care less.

They have to get as far as a hearing before they can be dismissed. Therefore point is made.

 

[nonameisgood]

... anyone who says that "he will sue" is a moron. ...

What you say may end up being true. I expect that officers will initiate an encounter and ask about a open carrier's license. The person will respond as if it is a detention simply because we believe that an officer has a duty to only do those things which are specifically permitted. We believe that when a officer asks a question, we have to answer. The only problem comes when an officer asks about a license and one of us does not answer as the officer expects. Either the carrier says "no" in which case the officer then has RAS to search, or the answer is some variety of "i don't think I'll answer that question." In the case of the latter, the officer can then force the issue because s/he has RAS, or the encounter should end.

There are still many, many people who 1) think the police are never (or seldom) wrong, and 2) you should not hide anything because you should have nothing to hide. It is unusual for an officer to be confronted with a citizen correctly asserting his/her rights. Some officers have a hard time dealing with such people and egos get bruised. Let's all hope that's all the bruising that happens, but based on recent events, I suspect that there will be problems with a very small number of officers and citizens.
For me, the answer to such an inquiry will probably be an affirmative response but I will not produce the card. I might regret it if I happen to be doing something or am somewhere that carry by a licenseholder is prohibited. But saying "yes" is easier and more expedient than being an ass. However, if an officer approaches an encounter with "I need to see your license", I will not reach for my wallet unless I establish that there is a basis for the ask AND s/he knows that my wallet is next to my gun. (tough talk is cheap)

 

[WalkingWolf]

Lawsuits against Dallas police costing city millions

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...ainst-dallas-police-costing-city-millions.ece

Since 2011, the Dallas City Council has approved 10 six-figure settlements or verdicts for lawsuits against the police department, according to city records. Those payouts have added up to about $6 million.

Guess they didn't check with California first before paying out.

Settlement reached in HPD chief's accident

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ck-by-HPD-chief-s-vehicle-settles-6000927.php

The Houston lawyer who was struck in 2013 by an SUV driven by Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland has reached a settlement with the city and its top cop.

Court filings indicating a deal - but not disclosing its terms - were entered into Harris County District Clerk records on Wednesday, a month after James Harris sued citing unresolved negotiations.

Lesbian couple settle suit over "no-knock" drug raid

http://www.qsanantonio.com/lesbian-home-raided2.html

A lesbian couple whose Leon Valley home was raided in 2009 in a fruitless drug bust have settled with the City of San Antonio and the Police Department for the total sum of $145,000.

Women settle with Texas state police for $185K over illegal body cavity search, report says

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-s...-over-illegal-body-cavity-search-report-says/

(CBS) NORTH TEXAS - The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) has settled a lawsuit with two Irving women who filed a lawsuit claiming they were humiliated after they were subjected to an illegal cavity search by police during a traffic stop last July, CBS DFW reports.

Attorney Scott Palmer confirmed his client Angel Dobbs and her niece, Ashley Dobbs, received a settlement of $185,000 in the federal civil rights case.

Why are these department settling, don't they know they have immunity?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Unarmed man shot by CHP officer receives $2.5-million settlement

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-chp-force-settlement-20150204-story.html

According to the lawsuit, two CHP officers tried to stop Ligon while he was driving on Highway 101 in Palo Alto. Less than a mile away from home, Ligon led the officers to his driveway, where he got out with his hands up, the lawsuit states.

With his hands raised, the suit states, Ligon “indicated to the officers that he did not have any weapons” before being shot by officer Joe Lafuaci.

Lafuaci “emptied his clip” on Ligon, who was shot about seven times in the front and four times in the back as he fell to the ground, according to the lawsuit.

Los Angeles pays $8 million to settle wrongful-imprisonment lawsuit

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-obie-anthony-lapd-misconduct-20150413-story.html

A man whose murder conviction was thrown out by a judge after he spent 17 years in prison said Monday that an $8.3-million legal settlement from the city of Los Angeles could not make up for the years he lost behind bars.

“We’ve suffered and we’re still suffering,” said Obie Anthony, 40, gesturing toward Reggie Cole, his co-defendant in the case whose conviction was also thrown out.
lRelated


The payout, reported by The Times this week, settled a lawsuit that portrayed a murder investigation rife with problems — including the withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence, perjured testimony and the ignoring of leads that pointed to a different suspect.

Lawsuit Against SFPD Settled

http://www.thesfnews.com/lawsuit-against-sfpd-settled/17476

SAN FRANCISCO—The city of San Francisco agreed on April 24, to pay a $725,000 settlement to a former police department lawyer, Kelly O ‘Haire who filed a lawsuit against the city and her employer, the San Francisco Police Department, in 2013 for wrongful termination.

O’Haire stated that she was fired for revealing an improperly handled case of domestic violence by Greg Suhr back in 2009.

The incident occurred in 2009 when Suhr-who was a deputy police chief at the time – received a phone call from his friend who reported that she was physically abused by her boyfriend.

SD OKs $225K for infant seizure

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/sep/23/kemper-infant-settle-police-abandon-baby/

DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO — The San Diego City Council approved a $225,000 settlement Tuesday of a civil rights lawsuit filed four years ago by a teen mother alleging that city police officers took her infant child away in 2008 without proper cause.

The mother, Johnneisha Kemper, says she “lost her baby daughter forever” because Sgt. Brent Williams, Sgt. Linda Griffin and Lt. Natalie Stone took her 7-day-old infant away in North Park when there was no evidence to suggest the child “was in immediate danger of sustaining severe bodily injury or that the infant had been abandoned by her mother.”

 

[California Right To Carry]

They have to get as far as a hearing before they can be dismissed. Therefore point is made.

No, they do not. Most of them are dismissed with prejudice before even an Answer to the Complaint is filed. You have a right to file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court, after paying the filing fee and after paying a process server to serve the Complaint as service of a Complaint is not something one is allowed to do on his own.

With the exception of certain appeals by prisoners, which fall under a different set of rules, and with the exception of civil actions which are clearly frivolous or otherwise incapable of amendment, a pro se action in a civil rights case is allowed to file one amended complaint as a matter of course to correct any pleading defects in his initially filed Complaint. Unless the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for a hyper technical reason (such as omitting to state "42 U.S.C. 1983" in the jurisdiction and venue section of the Complaint) or the judge creates his own pleading barrier not found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismisses the case with prejudice then that is typically the end of the line for most pro se cases.

One can file an appeal as a matter of right (after paying the $505 filing fee AND filing a timely notice of appeal (correctly worded)) but the court of appeals will look at his Complaint and almost invariably conclude that it is incapable of amendment and affirm the dismissal with prejudice.

If by "hearing" you meant a trial then again no. Trials take place at the very end of a civil lawsuit and the trial process itself is fraught with procedural landmines in addition to the procedural landmines which have to be sidestepped en route to the trial.

FYI, as a matter of course in the Federal Central District of California, motion hearings (such as a motion to dismiss with prejudice) don't take place. There is no right to a motion hearing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision on whether or not there will be a motion hearing is left entirely in the hands of the judge.

Forget everything you have ever seen on TV or at the movies about our justice system. They bear absolutely no resemblance to reality.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Suing police is now a lot harder - HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA (December 15, 2014) SCOTUS

The decision is self-explanatory and is available here -> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

Not only is a police officer (and his employer) entitled to qualified immunity from civil prosecution if Texas and 5th Circuit Federal law have not clearly established that there is a right to openly carry a handgun AND that police are prohibited from detaining a person to verify that he has a license and that police are prohibited from arresting a person who refuses to present his license, qualified immunity also extends to reasonable mistakes of law.

"Reasonable" is what the courts deem reasonable. Not what you consider to be reasonable.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The decision is self-explanatory and is available here -> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

Not only is a police officer (and his employer) entitled to qualified immunity from civil prosecution if Texas and 5th Circuit Federal law have not clearly established that there is a right to openly carry a handgun AND that police are prohibited from detaining a person to verify that he has a license and that police are prohibited from arresting a person who refuses to present his license, qualified immunity also extends to reasonable mistakes of law.

"Reasonable" is what the courts deem reasonable. Not what you consider to be reasonable.

View attachment 12593

Again you are assuming that rights have to be given by the court, which is utter BS. I am baffled why so many depts settle lawsuits when they are immune, maybe you should give them your wisdom.(sarcasm)

And you should read your own cite, it is not very far that it explains the officers RAS. Come on, you should be able to do better than this. So far you are grasping at straws, maybe you should try for another personal insult, since your confusion is not working for you.
Following a suspicious vehicle, Sergeant Matt Darisse noticed that only one of the vehicle’s brake lights was working and pulled the driver over. While issuing a warning ticket for the broken brake light, Darisse became suspicious of the actions of the two occupants and their answers to his questions. Petitioner Nicholas Brady Heien, the car’s owner, gave Darisse consent to search the vehicle. Darisse found cocaine, and Heien was arrested and charged with attempted trafficking. The trial court denied Heien’s motion to suppress the seized evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, concluding that the vehicle’s faulty brake light gave Darisse reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the relevant code provision, which requires that a car be “equipped with a stop lamp,” N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(g), requires only a single lamp—which Heien’s vehicle had—and therefore the justification for the stop was objectively unreasonable. Reversing in turn, the State Supreme Court held that, even assuming no violation of the state law had occurred, Darisse’s mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable, and thus the stop was valid.

And that was an appeal on a arrest, not a civil case.

 

[WalkingWolf]

[video=youtube;jiGsHCpBGg4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiGsHCpBGg4[/video]

 

[stealthyeliminator]

And I repeat for our stubborn friend from Ca. nobody is suggesting refusing demands for ID.

I have no intention of providing ID on demand, but I'm not necessarily going to advise others to refuse.

It is unusual for an officer to be confronted with a citizen correctly asserting his/her rights.

The only time I've ever refused to answer questions to an officer (I don't get stopped a lot ), the officer actually told me that he's never had anyone refuse to answer questions before. Like, never, not even once. I tried to make sure he knew I wasn't trying to be rude, but just wanted the enjoyment of my rights.

 

[half_life1052]

No, they do not. Most of them are dismissed with prejudice before even an Answer to the Complaint is filed. You have a right to file a pro se lawsuit in Federal court, after paying the filing fee and after paying a process server to serve the Complaint as service of a Complaint is not something one is allowed to do on his own.

With the exception of certain appeals by prisoners, which fall under a different set of rules, and with the exception of civil actions which are clearly frivolous or otherwise incapable of amendment, a pro se action in a civil rights case is allowed to file one amended complaint as a matter of course to correct any pleading defects in his initially filed Complaint. Unless the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for a hyper technical reason (such as omitting to state "42 U.S.C. 1983" in the jurisdiction and venue section of the Complaint) or the judge creates his own pleading barrier not found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismisses the case with prejudice then that is typically the end of the line for most pro se cases.

One can file an appeal as a matter of right (after paying the $505 filing fee AND filing a timely notice of appeal (correctly worded)) but the court of appeals will look at his Complaint and almost invariably conclude that it is incapable of amendment and affirm the dismissal with prejudice.

If by "hearing" you meant a trial then again no. Trials take place at the very end of a civil lawsuit and the trial process itself is fraught with procedural landmines in addition to the procedural landmines which have to be sidestepped en route to the trial.

FYI, as a matter of course in the Federal Central District of California, motion hearings (such as a motion to dismiss with prejudice) don't take place. There is no right to a motion hearing under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision on whether or not there will be a motion hearing is left entirely in the hands of the judge.

Forget everything you have ever seen on TV or at the movies about our justice system. They bear absolutely no resemblance to reality.

Who said anything about 42 USC or Federal Court? If you start there in most circumstances you will be properly dismissed since you have not sought relief from the state system yet. Bah, I don't have time to continue down this straw man alley. Go try and lecture someone else.

Good day

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Some get how the law is supposed to work wrong.

It isn't if there is a prohibition from cops stopping and checking they can stop and check.

Florida case Regalado vs State a case showing how courts "work" says officers cannot gleam by mere observation if one has his "papers".

 

[We-the-People]

I did not say that "they have the right to "just check your papers" in Texas..." They don't. The police have the power to stop you and verify that you have a permit to openly carry your handgun and until a court says that police cannot do so, they can. Until then, courts will grant police officers qualified immunity in any lawsuit brought by a person who was stopped and/or arrested by police for not presenting their permit.

This is not a difficult concept. There are volumes of case law on the subject -> https://scholar.google.com/

FYI, judges and prosecutors have absolute immunity.

Honestly folks, you don't have to go to law school or dig through law books to learn these things. The relevant case law is free and online for anyone who isn't too lazy or stupid to read for themselves.

I believe you are correct about officer getting qualified immunity over this issue. But that doesn't mean they can act with impunity forever. Nor that their departments won't be liable for civil suit. The officers will receive qualified immunity because this isn't settled. Their agnecies will foot the bill until that time.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I think it's important to consider that even if the officers may "legally" arrest you for OCing, it still can be improper to say that one is legally obligated to provide their CHL on-demand. There is in fact no statute that I'm aware of that one could be prosecuted under for refusing to show identification or their CHL prior to an arrest. So, I see this at worst as a beat the rap but not the ride scenario.

It's natural to assume that if an officer may legally arrest you then you must be in actual violation of some statute such that you're susceptible to prosecution, but it would seem the legislatures and courts have made such a mess that isn't actually the case.

 

[nonameisgood]

...

It's natural to assume that if an officer may legally arrest you then you must be in actual violation of some statute such that you're susceptible to prosecution, but it would seem the legislatures and courts have made such a mess that isn't actually the case.

We have set the bar way too low for arrest. The error should always be to not arrest a guilty person. We should not tolerate arrests of people for crimes (or non-crimes) they did not commit. Failing to arrest someone has a very low cost while arresting in error can cause nearly incalculable cost to both the defendant and society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[California Right To Carry]

Who said anything about 42 USC or Federal Court? If you start there in most circumstances you will be properly dismissed since you have not sought relief from the state system yet. Bah, I don't have time to continue down this straw man alley. Go try and lecture someone else.

Good day

You do not have to first seek relief from a state court to sue for relief from a Federal court when the issue is a Federal one. I am not a lawyer but I did take a year and a half of law in college and I have been fighting a Federal lawsuit to restore Open Carry to California since 2011.

You needn't reply as I am putting you on my ignore list. I hope you like jail food and don't forget to wear clean underwear everyday because one day you're going to make a lot of new friends in jail.

 

[half_life1052]

Are all Californians narcissistic?

 

[solus]

I think it's important to consider that even if the officers may "legally" arrest you for OCing, it still can be improper to say that one is legally obligated to provide their CHL on-demand. There is in fact no statute that I'm aware of that one could be prosecuted under for refusing to show identification or their CHL prior to an arrest. So, I see this at worst as a beat the rap but not the ride scenario.

It's natural to assume that if an officer may legally arrest you then you must be in actual violation of some statute such that you're susceptible to prosecution, but it would seem the legislatures and courts have made such a mess that isn't actually the case.

stealth, you just stated there is no statute, that you are aware of, but under section H this little piece of statute came to light: quote

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. unquote.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx....xactPhrase=True&QueryText="concealed+handgun"

does this count as a statute?

ipse

 

[nonameisgood]

It is generally accepted that this demand should follow some other reason for a non-consensual stop. If it were a consensual encounter, the carrier could simply ignore any such request for ID. Right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

It is generally accepted that this demand should follow some other reason for a non-consensual stop. If it were a consensual encounter, the carrier could simply ignore any such request for ID. Right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

noname that's the point i am trying to discern as you see the statute as it is written. i will say, NC's statutes flatly state if asked in the 'performance of their official duties' and not during 'causal conversation'. personally, any conversation i have with any nice LE, is, from my perspective, being carried out in the performance of their official duties!

so i do not know how to 'read between the lines' with the lonestar's statutes on this one and i have reviewed the entire section H covering CHP.

new year's oc meet on the first in dallas?

BB62 whatcha doing new year's day 2016??

ipse

 

[nonameisgood]

I won't be carrying open at midnight if I'm among drunks. Otherwise, yes.

The section you quote is used only on things like traffic stops or other legal detentions. The intent and execution is for a person who is licensed to carry concealed to disclose the CHL if they are carrying. It is not a standalone requirement to produce the CHL. And the rule changed two or four years ago, so that it is a de minimus if you don't tell the officer, since he will find out you are a CHL holder when he runs the DL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk