Posted on 08/13/2024 10:18:22 AM PDT by absalom01
No one will ever mistake the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a gun-friendly bunch of jurists. So that should be a good indicator of just how over the line the violation of one man’s rights was that they have slapped down a cop for conducting a warrantless search of his car simply because he had a concealed carry permit and a gun.
A three-judge panel also ruled that the cop in question isn’t entitled to qualified immunity because he so egregiously chose to violate the civil rights of someone without any discernible probable cause.
Waterbury, Connecticut Officer Nicholas Andrzejewski conducted a traffic stop on Basel Soukaneh. Andrzejewski then . . .
…unlawfully and violently handcuffed and detained Soukaneh in the back of a police vehicle for over half an hour and conducted a warrantless search of Soukaneh’s vehicle after Soukaneh presented a facially valid firearms permit and disclosed that he possessed a firearm pursuant to the permit.
Soukaneh subsequently sued Andrzejewski in district court. The cop moved that the case be dismissed on summary judgement because of his qualified immunity. But the district court denied summary judgement and ruled that Andrzejewski wasn’t entitled to qualified immunity based on his conduct during the detainment and illegal search.
Andrzejewski then appealed to the Second Circuit. Not only did he claim he should be given qualified immunity, but that Soukaneh, in effect, forfeited his Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable search and seizure because he chose to exercise his right to carry a firearm. He said that, “the presence of the lawfully owned firearm in the vehicle gave him the requisite probable cause to detain Soukaneh, search the interior of his car, and search his trunk.”
Andrzejewski also tried to justify the search because the stop happened in a “dark and [known as] a high crime area well known for prostitution, drug transactions and other criminal activity.” But the Court wasn’t buying any of that and ruled that Andrzejewski had no evidence that would have reasonably caused him to conduct the search.
Absent something indicating to the officer that the permit might not have been facially valid, or some other evidence of criminality or danger to the officer, we agree with Soukaneh. Accordingly, we conclude that Andrzejewski did not have the requisite probable cause to justify Soukaneh’s detention simply because he was notified of the presence of a gun and presented with the accompanying permit.
In other words, the search was entirely unwarranted and illegal. In the end the court concluded that . . .
Drawing all permissible factual inferences in Soukaneh’s favor, as we must on summary judgment, we agree with the district court. The evidence supports the conclusion that Andrzejewski violated Soukaneh’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when he detained Soukaneh in the manner, and for the length of time, that he did, and when he conducted the warrantless searches of Soukaneh’s car and trunk. Andrzejewski is not entitled to qualified immunity for this alleged conduct and, accordingly, the district court properly denied his motion for summary judgment.
The Second Circuit panel then remanded the case back to the district court. Andrzejewski will, in all likelihood, then appeal again, asking for an en banc ruling from the Second Circuit. In the mean time, this is a very encouraging ruling. There is no shortage of cops who think the mere presence of a legally carried firearm is a sufficient excuse to harass or search an individual. That may begin to change with this ruling now in place.
Gee, now that’s cosmic. I’m sure gun ownership will still be used as a reason by liberal govt. officials to harass citizens that aren’t California-style liberals.
I imagine even the 2nd circuit could not justify the latter part of that statement. Holy cow....
That is easily the most absurd "legal" argument evern. By his arrogance, this public servant in livery transformed himself from an officer of the law to a common criminal. He should be facing felony charges for kidnapping, assault and battery, malicious destruction of property, and violation of civil rights under color of the law. For a start.
Police officers who tolerate this sort of criminal misconduct among their comrades are as bad as the perpetrators themselves.
The denial of qualified immunity is the real breakthrough in this case & may have larger implications in the future.
“the presence of the lawfully owned firearm in the vehicle gave him the requisite probable cause to detain Soukaneh, search the interior of his car, and search his trunk”
This is not a “novel theory”, which attorneys are allowed to present. IMHO (as a licensed attorney for 39 years), this represents such an abysmal lack of understanding of the concept of probable cause that it may be grounds for revocation of the license of his attorney.
It didn’t even provide reasonable suspicion.
Just amazing that this could come from the 2nd circuit.
Yeah, that’s twisted an evil reasoning to say that exercising a right nullifies another right in that fashion.
Whoa. I didn't see that coming.
Have them rule that any requirement for a permit or registration is a clear infringement upon the right recognized by the second amendment and they'll get my attention.
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.