Iowa Deputy Violates Permit Holder's Rights (video)

Gun Watch ^ | 12 August, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On August 4th Plymouth County Sheriff's department Sgt. Rick Singer stopped a man legally openly carrying a holstered pistol while walking.  Sgt. Singer asked for the man's permit, which was presented.    Sergent Singer would not accept the legal permit.  He persistently demanded a "paper permit" which he said was the "legal permit".   He keeps saying that the permit is simply a "courtesy card"  He was wrong, but he illegally confiscated the open carriers permit.   The entire affair was recorded on video:

 Link to video

The Sergeant claims that the picture on the permit is not recognizable, but wants to see a "paper copy" that does not have a picture on it.

The permit holder filed a complaint with the Plymouth County Sheriff's office.  He says that he has been carrying openly for years.  From opencarry.com:

I've been open carrying for years and never had this problem before. Where these cops got the idea that you need to produce a paper copy alongside your valid carry permit is beyond me.

The Iowa code lists form WP9(pdf) as a legal form for the Permit to Carry Weapons:

 9. Form WP9. Authorization for Wallet-Size Permit to Carry Weapons, to be generated by the issuing officer including the type of permit, and, at a minimum, the individual identifiers of name and date of birth.

I did not see a requirement for a photograph in the State code.

It appears that the permit holders Fourth Amendment rights were violated.  Sergeant Singer has qualified immunity, because he was ignorant of the law.   Fortunately his abuse was not extreme.  He did not arrest the permit holder, and while he argued with him, he did not shout or use obscenities.  Both parties were restrained and polite.  I suspect that Sergeant Singer is now educated about this part of the law. 

Three days later, the permit was returned to the permit holder.  No apology was given, and no charges were filed.  The permit holder suffered damages (he lost valuable time, he was wrongfully detained, and he had to visit the Sheriff's office several times).  I doubt that these damages are sufficient to make a lawsuit pay.  If I were an attorney, I would not take the case on consignment. 

Another poster noted that this was not the first time that an officer has claimed that a permit holder had to have a "paper copy" in Iowa.  The law was reformed in 2011, four years ago.

As officers become educated, these incidents will diminish. 

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[Excellence]

I carry a notebook containing a printed copy of all the California laws pertaining to motor homes and handicap parking permits. The ignorance is strong with code enforcement. It pays to be prepared.

[eyeamok]

When the same considerations are applied to all regular law abiding citizens attempting to do the right thing, and happen to make a mistake, then and only then will I entertain your thoughts that somehow because he wears a magic blue costume that he is ABOVE THE LAW, if it is an Honest Mistake.

[marktwain]

Perfection is not an option.

[eyeamok]

Agreed, and identical standards should be applied equally to all

[School of Rational Thought]

cop is predatory

Needs to go.

[archy]

vauge” should be vague

That's the current vogue, anyway!

[MeganC]

100% agreed!!!

[FreedomPoster]

And “consignment” should be “contingency”.

I enjoy the GunWatch posts.

[archy]

We live in a world where the laws are voluminous and vauge, where police face no penalty for ignorance of the law, but claiming ignorance in court is no excuse for an ordinary citizen.

Not entirely so. See following:

2014 Iowa Code
TITLE XVI - CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SUBTITLE 1 - CRIME CONTROL AND CRIMINAL ACTS
CHAPTER 721 - OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
SECTION 721.2 - Nonfelonious misconduct in office.

Universal Citation: IA Code § 721.2 (2014)

721.2 Nonfelonious misconduct in office.

Any public officer or employee, or any person acting under color of such office or employment, who knowingly does any of the following, commits a serious misdemeanor:

1. Makes any contract which contemplates an expenditure known by the person to be in excess of that authorized by law.

2. Fails to report to the proper officer the receipt or expenditure of public moneys, together with the proper vouchers therefor, when such is required of the person by law.

3. Requests, demands, or receives from another for performing any service or duty which is required of the person by law, or which is performed as an incident of the person’s office or employment, any compensation other than the fee, if any, which the person is authorized by law to receive for such performance.

4. By color of the person’s office and in excess of the authority conferred on the person by that office, requires any person to do anything or to refrain from doing any lawful thing. 5. Uses or permits any other person to use the property owned by the state or any subdivision or agency of the state for any private purpose and for personal gain, to the detriment of the state or any subdivision thereof.

6. Fails to perform any duty required of the person by law.

7. Demands that any public employee contribute or pay anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person, organization or fund, or in any way coerces or attempts to coerce any public employee to make any such contributions or payments, except where such contributions or payments are expressly required by law.

8. Permits persons to use the property owned by the state or a subdivision or agency of the state to operate a political phone bank for any of the following purposes:

a. To poll voters on their preferences for candidates or ballot measures at an election; however, this paragraph does not apply to authorized research at an educational institution.

b. To solicit funds for a political candidate or organization.

c. To urge support for a candidate or ballot measure to voters.

1. [R60, §216, 2184; C73, §3976; C97, §4913; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13313; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.11; C79, 81, §721.2] 2. [R60, §216, 2184, 4308 – 4310; C73, §3970 – 3972, 3976; C97, §4909 – 4911, 4913; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13309 – 13311, 13313; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.7 – 740.9, 740.11; C79, 81, §721.2] 3. [C51, §2560, 2658; R60, §4167, 4285; C73, §3840, 3950; C97, §1297, 4888; S13, §5028-n; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13304, 13312, 13317, 13318; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.1, 740.10, 741.1, 741.2; C79, 81, §721.2] 4. [C51, §2672; R60, §4299, 4305, 4306; C73, §3963, 3969; C97, §4902, 4908; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13305, 13306; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.3, 740.4; C79, 81, §721.2] 5. [C35, §13316-e1; C39, §13316.1; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §740.20; C79, 81, §721.2] 6. [C51, §2657, 2674, 2703, 2800; R60, §4284, 4301, 4345, 4496; C73, §3949, 3965, 4005, 4152; C97, §4887, 4904, 4929, 5150; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13280, 13316, 13338, 13345; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §738.18, 740.19, 742.8, 743.7; C79, 81, §721.2] 7. [C79, 81, §721.2]

87 Acts, ch 221, §35

Referred to in §15.106, 15A.2, 16.3A

By the way: a continued pattern of more than one *serious misdemeanor* [two or more instances involving the same or separate victims] is a racketeering offense under the Iowa Code. And that IS a felony.

In the meantime, however, Sgt. Rick Singer is indeed a criminal, and did violate Iowa state law, though he is not- yet- a felon.

Under the state law. Federal law could be an entirely different matter. And I bet that absolutely none of his superiors/supervisors will admit to advising him to commit such actions:

Title 18 United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code §ection 241
- Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Three days later, the permit was returned to the permit holder. No apology was given, and no charges were filed.

Punishment by process. Cops screw with you like this because they know that can get away with it.

[marktwain]

You are correct.

Thanks.

[Pappy Smear]

Whether the law is right or not, the deputy is correct about the paper copy thing. And the citizen is wrong about the other copy. In Iowa, conceal carry permits come from the county, not the state. A county sheriff has to sign off on the permit. And you are given a paper copy, that you are required to carry with you while carrying concealed.

I think the deputy showed good judgment in this situation. He could have arrested him, but he did not. The deputy determined the citizen was not going to harm anyone, and let him go, minus the card that really is not a permit.

[FreedomPoster]

“You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

I carry a notebook containing a printed copy of all the California laws pertaining to motor homes and handicap parking permits. The ignorance is strong with code enforcement. It pays to be prepared.

My daughter (who is finished with Law School, but has yet to take the BAR) got a ticket near my house in the northern part of the county. CA law allows for assignment to the county seat court if you live or work closer to it. Since she works for the Public Defender in South County, (and lives in the city), she requested the county seat. The deputy was COMPLETELY unaware of her obligation to comply with the request…EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A BLOCK FOR IT ON THE TICKET.

My daughter recorded the entire incident. It only took a few minutes for the deputy to threaten to take her to jail. The Deputy's position was that she had been through the police academy, so she OBVIOUSLY new more about the law. :(

[GoneSalt]

White Obama with a badge.

[envisio]

Well actually I was using that as a metaphor.
In reality my mother would not say anything. She’d just reach behind the seat and start swinging. If she hit all of us then she knows that she got the right one. My dad would not have to say anything. He’d just give us a cold stare and we would cease and quiet down immediately.

[Excellence]

There is no low point in the brain of some officers.

[marktwain]

“Whether the law is right or not, the deputy is correct about the paper copy thing. And the citizen is wrong about the other copy. In Iowa, conceal carry permits come from the county, not the state. A county sheriff has to sign off on the permit. And you are given a paper copy, that you are required to carry with you while carrying concealed.”

That may have been correct before 2011. From my reading of the statutes, it is not the case any more. Yes, Sheriff’s issue the permits, but they are limited by State law. The card is a State approved form, in the State Statutes.

If the law was as you state, I do not believe the Sheriff’s department would have backed off and returned the permit.

[B4Ranch]

Where does one find a prosecutor and a judge who will administer these laws?

[marktwain]

They are out there. I see some 18 U.S.C. lawsuits that succeed.

Pretty rare though.