Posted on 05/31/2011 6:29:14 AM PDT by marktwain
New Mexico Supreme CourtPolice officers in New Mexico can take guns away from drivers who pose no threat. The state supreme court ruled on May 20 that "officer safety" is more important than any constitutional rights a gun-owning motorist might have. The ruling was handed down in deciding the fate of Gregory Ketelson who was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over on November 13, 2008.
During the stop, Hobbs Police Officer Miroslava Bleau saw a 9mm handgun on the back seat floorboard. Ketelson and the driver of the car were ordered out and away from the car while Officer Shane Blevins grabbed the gun. The officers later learned that Ketelson, as a convicted felon, could not legally possess a firearm. The court, however, only considered whether the officers acted properly in taking the gun before they had any reason to suspect Ketelson, who was entirely cooperative during the encounter, of committing a crime.
Ketelson and the National Rifle Association argued that even a brief seizure of a firearm without cause violates fundamental, constitutionally protected rights. Ketelson also argued the gun could not have been taken without a search warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. A district court and the court of appeals agreed with this reasoning. State prosecutors countered that anyone with a gun ought to be considered "armed and dangerous" and thus the gun could be seized at any time. The high court agreed with this line of reasoning.
"Neither the defendant nor the driver was restrained, and thus the risk that one of them would access the firearm was especially potent," Justice Petra Jimenez Maes wrote for the court. "Under such circumstances, Officer Blevins could constitutionally remove the firearm from the vehicle because he possessed a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which warranted him in believing that defendant was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to his safety."
Because a gun would only taken for the duration of the traffic stop, the court decided such seizures were reasonable.
"The retrieval of the gun from the vehicle during the limited context of the traffic stop was at most a minimal interference with the suspect's possessory interest," Maes wrote. "Our decision in this case, which addresses a temporary separation of a firearm from the occupants of a car during the duration of a traffic stop, does not depend on any requirement of particularized suspicion that an occupant is inclined to use the firearm improperly."
The decision overturned statements made in a previous ruling, New Mexico v. Garcia.
"It would be anomalous to treat the mere presence of a firearm in an automobile as supporting a reasonable suspicion that the occupants are inclined to harm an officer in the course of a routine traffic stop," the court held in 2005.
A copy of the decision is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: PDF File New Mexico v. Ketelson (Supreme Court of New Mexico, 5/20/2011)
Douglas.
AH! I heard that they’re pretty friendly about that down there.
I’m in Adams.
Adams, Boulder, and Denver counties are not my favorites. It’s hit and miss for who might be friendly but at least the Douglas guys are a little more predictable than those others. They’re still a bit too gung-ho but Douglas was issuing permits long before the State became shall-issue. I got mine in 1999.
>I agree with you. If I’m a cop and I see a gun on the floor, which I believe it is not supposed to be, I’m going to be a little antsy.
Would you consider the same thing if you were to see a firearm laying on the floor of someone’s home?
New Mexico law considers the vehicle as an “extended domicile,” that is to say that legally it *IS* the same as your home.
>I say, not yet we’re not.
And yet rulings like this; and the Indiana Supreme Court one recently (wherein that court found that the right to resist an unlawful police entry was “no longer recognized”) are precisely what will cause a police-state.
Do you believe in profiling?
And what does THAT have to do with this thread?
Yes or no?
I believe it exists; I believe that statistics may be used to find trends...
the term ‘profiling’ could be construed to be the practical application of such trends, it can also be a catch-all for prejudice.
Which is it that you are referring to?
the term ‘profiling’ could be construed to be the practical application of such trends...
That’s what I’m referring to.
Its got to happen. Whether they say so or not, profiling, as in the above, is a fact of life no matter who you are. Hell, liberals are better at it than most conservatives. For the most part they are the race baiters.
>Its got to happen.
Then my questions to you:
1 — How does ‘profiling’ give the police the right to selectively enforce the law, if it in fact does?
2 — How can the State Supreme Court make this ruling considering that the State Constitution says, in Art 2, Sec 6:
“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
(Note that this is a list and that the qualifier ‘lawful’ applies only to “hunting purposes” and “other activities” NOT to the purpose of security & defense; further, the Constitution recognizes security and defense as inherent rights in Art 2, Sec 4.)
3 — Considering that the Supreme Court is not able to legally (legitimately) alter the Constitution, as per the Constitution’s own Amendment process [Art 19], is not any such attempt an violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution? (Specifically, the second sentence of Section 1 prohibits a State from violating Due Process.)
4 — Considering the previous, is not such an attempt a Conspiracy Against Rights? ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html )
Stands up as straight as she can, gnarled hands on hips, one eyebrow up....looking at Mr. Flagg...wondering....Did he dye his hair blue TOO??
I agree with all of this. I never tried to make the point that a police officer has the right to take, AND KEEP, the weapon.
I know what you are saying, and I agree with you. It is a very sticky situation, that is, the basic traffic stop. The cops I know are good people. They don’t pull people over just to make a quota or harass. They are well trained, outside the training of the police department (vets all). Each situation stands on its own in their eyes.
NM list PING! Click on the flag to go to the Free Republic New Mexico message page.
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list. For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after watching a short video commercial.)
(p.s. to be offline for next four days, use my ping list to post NM news)
Stayin in Texas...driving the speed limit....wearing my seat belt an avoiding the POlice as much as possible....
That aside had a dps trooper take an off duty deputies sidearm from him on a traffic stop about a year ago. All legal etc... Cept the dps weenie slammed the deputies pistol on the top of the car an did such so hard he broke the windshield. Dented the trim around the windshield an the top of the car an a pillar.....
Body work for the almost new car came out of the troopers pocket.
Dang anger management thang...
bfl
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.