No one will ever mistake the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a gun-friendly bunch of jurists. 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 asked 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 entitled to 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 stop and the search because it 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, appeal again, asking for an en banc review by 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, detain, or search an individual. That may now begin to change with this ruling in place.
In Cartman’s voice…
Respect my Authoriti
This type of behavior by police has been tried in multiple jurisdictions. In states where open-carry is allowed, police cannot detain someone for open-carrying without some other form of probable cause. Courts have routinely found that exercising one right does not (temporarily) invalidate any other rights.
Of course, “probable cause” is pretty broad as well. In this case, glad to see that the excuses of “it was dark and he might have been a prostitute or drug dealer” didn’t fly. If only he had a taillight out….
He was in a bad area. Why would he carry a gun?
Wouldn’t you?
I think his comment was intended sarcasm.
Yeah! Hard to imagine why anyone would even consider carrying in a known bad neighborhood.
Waterbury has some depressed areas but it’s not even a high-crime city. The officer was ridiculous and he knows it.
And after Officer Friendly exhausts all possible appeals, our U.S. Department of Justice should prosecute Officer Friendly for the felony offense of Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.
Of course I don’t recommend that anyone hold their breath waiting for that to happen, unless they can hold their breath for 70 years.
I turned off the interstate at the wrong exit and wife and I found ourselves in a “bad neighborhood’ with a dozen or so of the young men hanging out on the street turned to face us and started moving toward us. I got my revolver out of the glove box and very visibly placed it on the dash. the group reversed direction and left the street clear and we went back to I-l0.
Sounds like things that never happened.
In the 80’s I watched my father brandish his firearm multiple times to back off some road rager.
Actually, I did that very same thing myself many moons ago when I was younger and on an evening delivery run. There were only four men advancing on my cornered vehicle rather than a dozen stated by Malcolm above, but same outcome…I turned on my car’s interior dome light, pulled out my gun, racked the slide (no, I didn’t have one in the chamber like I do nowadays) for them to see, and placed it on the dash while locking eyes with the one I perceived to be the Alpha. They turned around and walked away, and I drove away. No shots fired.
I wonder how close that was to the legal definition of “brandishing”? I haven’t taken a concealed carry course.
Was this just the officer deciding he could violate civil rights or was it department encouraged? There may be more to the story. Where is Paul Harvey when you need him?
“There is no shortage of cops who think the mere presence of a legally carried firearm is a sufficient excuse to harass, detain, or search an individual.” Please cite your statistical analysis other than your blanket prejudice against all police officers.