View Full Version : CS Police illegally arrest open carrier ... now have to pay up.
Zundfolge
12-11-2013, 15:25
Good guy wins!
Man receives settlement after gay pride parade arrest
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO- The city of Colorado Springs is settled with a man wrongly arrested at this summer's gay pride festival.
"These cops are arresting me for no reason at all this is an outrage you sergeants should be prosecuted," James Sorenson said, on tape, during the arrest this summer.
Police arrested Sorenson, a veteran, and jailed him for openly carrying a handgun at Acacia Park.
At the time, officers said it was illegal to carry a gun at the park, but that law was repealed a decade ago.
Now, all charges have been dropped, and the city has settled with Sorensen for a little more than $23,000.
source (http://www.koaa.com/news/man-receives-settlement-after-gay-pride-parade-arrest/)
Was going to make a joke about packing at a gay pride event but figured that would be in poor taste. [LOL]
So this happened after the redefinition of deadly weapon? Good for him they didn't press it but I almost wish they had for a court ruling on what that law means for open carry.
I'm glad he got a settlement. This should catch on like wildfire. What's sad is many police officers are not up to speed on current firearms laws. That's why I always carried a Colorado C.R.S. book in my patrol car (which is what a good officer should have in his war bag). It just amazes me that police are pulling laws out of their ass and arresting people on it. Well, guess that will continue until the city gets tired of paying out settlements.
I'm glad he got a settlement. This should catch on like wildfire. What's sad is many police officers are not up to speed on current firearms laws. That's why I always carried a Colorado C.R.S. book in my patrol car (which is what a good officer should have in his war bag). It just amazes me that police are pulling laws out of their ass and arresting people on it. Well, guess that will continue until the city gets tired of paying out settlements.
THIS! Since day one of the academy, well actually it was around day 14, we were told "it is incumbent upon you to stay sharp and up-to-date on changes in the laws, ordinances, and statutes. Your agency has enough going on that they probably won't be able to put out a notice every time a law is changed." So to add to your quote Squeeze (because I'll keep it intact as is): Always carry an up to date CRS book. I have my 2013/2014 edition, and plan to always have it in my war bag, no matter what. [Beer]
So this happened after the redefinition of deadly weapon? Good for him they didn't press it but I almost wish they had for a court ruling on what that law means for open carry.
I am SO glad to hear somebody else talking to HB-1043. The BCG and Mag laws suck but this is the one that scares me the most. I agree. I wish they had pushed it.
Zundfolge
12-11-2013, 15:43
Why doesn't US Code Title 18 USC § 242 apply in these cases?
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, 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, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Clearly these officers deprived him of his rights under color of law. Shouldn't they be held accountable under the law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse (which apparently the officers flatly told this guy as they were violating his rights).
Why doesn't US Code Title 18 USC § 242 apply in these cases?
Clearly these officers deprived him of his rights under color of law. Shouldn't they be held accountable under the law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse (which apparently the officers flatly told this guy as they were violating his rights).
I think many would try to see this as a "good faith" exception... Unlikely that they'll really be hammered too hard. More like "We'll settle, educate our officers, and call it fair is fair."
NFATrustGuy
12-11-2013, 16:11
I was stopped for speeding a couple of years ago... I deserved it.
During the interaction, I disclosed that I had a CCW permit and that my gun was under my driver's seat. I volunteered my CCW permit. The officer instructed me to leave the gun where it was and went back to his car to process my information. When he returned, he informed me that I was lucky he was a nice guy because he could be arresting me for a "weapons violation" because my CCW permit was no good. He said that because it was signed by the previous Sheriff, it was no longer valid. I told him that was ridiculous and that's not the way things worked. He was persistent. I then told him that it's a good thing Colorado law specifically allows me to carry in my car. He told me there was no such law.
He didn't arrest me, but he was confident enough in his assertion that I called a buddy who teaches CCW classes. I also called the Larimer County Sheriff's office to confirm the validity of my permit. In hindsight, I almost wish he would have arrested me! That would have made a helluva story!
I'm far from being a LEO basher, but, as with any profession, there are a few bad apples.
RWW
Colorado_Outback
12-11-2013, 16:24
I would have passed on the cash and insisted that the officers involved be shit canned.
RblDiver
12-11-2013, 16:30
Was going to make a joke about packing at a gay pride event but figured that would leave a poor taste. [LOL]
FIFY ;)
flan7211
12-11-2013, 16:44
Glad to hear, frustrating video to watch. Facepalm worthy for those in law enforcement.
centrarchidae
12-11-2013, 17:34
I was stopped for speeding a couple of years ago... I deserved it.
(snip)
RWW
How long ago was that? If it was before shall-issue in 2002 or so, I can sort of see it. Once upon a time, a few counties would issue permits that were only valid for the term of the issuing sheriff. And at least one jurisdiction that insisted that the "..protection of persons or property while traveling" only applied under certain circumstances involving a tortured definition of travel.
I think many would try to see this as a "good faith" exception... Unlikely that they'll really be hammered too hard. More like "We'll settle, educate our officers, and call it fair is fair."
I disagree. Its a double standard. Ignorance of the law is no excuse....unless you are a police officer I guess. I am not cop bashing so don't take it that way, but it seems like more and more frequently the people that are supposed to enforce the law are breaking it with no consequence.
spqrzilla
12-11-2013, 19:30
It has always surprised me how often a police officer will wander around just making up statutes out of thin air.
I was stopped for speeding a couple of years ago... I deserved it.
During the interaction, I disclosed that I had a CCW permit and that my gun was under my driver's seat. I volunteered my CCW permit. The officer instructed me to leave the gun where it was and went back to his car to process my information. When he returned, he informed me that I was lucky he was a nice guy because he could be arresting me for a "weapons violation" because my CCW permit was no good. He said that because it was signed by the previous Sheriff, it was no longer valid. I told him that was ridiculous and that's not the way things worked. He was persistent. I then told him that it's a good thing Colorado law specifically allows me to carry in my car. He told me there was no such law.
He didn't arrest me, but he was confident enough in his assertion that I called a buddy who teaches CCW classes. I also called the Larimer County Sheriff's office to confirm the validity of my permit. In hindsight, I almost wish he would have arrested me! That would have made a helluva story!
I'm far from being a LEO basher, but, as with any profession, there are a few bad apples.
RWW
Just a good example of how often a gun itself is viewed as a violation, without regard for the law.
It has always surprised me how often a police officer will wander around just making up statutes out of thin air.
After all this time, it still surprises you? The one I hear all the time in my profession is, "Well the police officer told me this is a no fault state, so he didn't write a ticket."
The words, "No fault state" should never come out of a police officer's mouth. I'm not sure when police started saying that (probably around 2003 when Colorado changed from PIP to MED PAY), but I really wish they'd stop saying that. Ronin, can you mention that in class sometime?
NFATrustGuy
12-11-2013, 21:26
How long ago was that? If it was before shall-issue in 2002 or so, I can sort of see it. Once upon a time, a few counties would issue permits that were only valid for the term of the issuing sheriff. And at least one jurisdiction that insisted that the "..protection of persons or property while traveling" only applied under certain circumstances involving a tortured definition of travel.
Probably right at 2 years ago. Justin Smith was in office because the issue in the police officer's mind was that Sheriff Alderden (sp?) was the one who signed my permit. It was definitely AFTER shall-issue.
The Loveland Police Officer was definitely wrong and I should have made a bigger deal out of it if for no other reason than saving someone else from being hassled by the same guy. The Loveland Police Dept. got their collective pee pee slapped a few years prior to my incident when they mishandled and arrested a guy who was open-carrying. They paid a settlement and I would have thought that they would have made it a point to be better informed. Obviously not.
The Loveland Police Dept. got their collective pee pee slapped a few years prior to my incident when they mishandled and arrested a guy who was open-carrying. They paid a settlement and I would have thought that they would have made it a point to be better informed. Obviously not.
Well, it's a No-fault state, so you know...
Good guy wins!
And the taxpayers lose.[Rant1] (Not saying he shouldn't have gotten the settlement, but that 23 Gs isn't coming out of the cop's salary.)
spqrzilla
12-12-2013, 00:30
After all this time, it still surprises you? The one I hear all the time in my profession is, "Well the police officer told me this is a no fault state, so he didn't write a ticket."
[facepalm]
Its been awhile ... but I did do insurance defense work once upon a time - defending against personal injury suits, auto accidents ... etc.
rockhound
12-12-2013, 08:40
So is the guy that was open carrying gay? why was he at the parade? I could see a charge for menacing, harassment? if he was open carrying at the parade just to be an asshat and he hates gays?
I wonder why everyone has to push their politics and their political beliefs in a situation that could clearly lead to an interaction with the law. While i am all for his rights and understand that he was probably not intending any harm, I also believe that he was there to make a statement and get himself involved in an altercation that did not have to happen.
If i wish to open carry, attending a gay pride parade would not ne my venue of choice. I will bet money that he does not open carry in that park on a regular basis. he was there for the photo op.
So is the guy that was open carrying gay? why was he at the parade? I could see a charge for menacing, harassment? if he was open carrying at the parade just to be an asshat and he hates gays?
If this was true the new laws from last spring would have applied and he would be disturbing the peace.
Disturbing the Peace is displaying a deadly weapon with intent to cause alarm and a firearm is a deadly weapon. (by statute) If he was there to cause trouble there is a law he could have been charged under.
The story is light on details but given he was not charged I'll go with no harm intended.
rockhound
12-12-2013, 09:12
i agree, but just that fact that he chose that venue leads me to believe he wanted the confrontation, just sayin
i agree, but just that fact that he chose that venue leads me to believe he wanted the confrontation, just sayin
Info I got from one of the arresting officers:
Yes, the guy was there for a confrontation/photo op. He was a known activist type.
The officers called back to the sub-station to determine if Acacia Park was still a no-carry area. The station radioed back that Acacia Park was a no-carry area (incorrect). Later, it was discovered that the paperwork at the station was out of date.
The officers went with what their department told them and arrested the guy.
However, one of the officers threatened to "kick the shit" out of the guy and his statement was caught on video. Therefore, the city settled to make it all go away as quietly as possible.
I disagree. Its a double standard. Ignorance of the law is no excuse....unless you are a police officer I guess. I am not cop bashing so don't take it that way, but it seems like more and more frequently the people that are supposed to enforce the law are breaking it with no consequence.
That's not entirely accurate- thanks to organizations like Cop Watch and the like, less and less LEOs are getting away with errors on the law. It's incumbent upon every LEO to make sure they know the law- not necessarily every single word, but to know if they see something to be able to distinguish if it's a violation or not, then go from there. We're always free to look up the statute to match it to the elements we made the arrest for. There are plenty of instances where LEOs get into trouble because they wrongfully arrest based on their misunderstanding or ignorance of the law. Most of the time it leads to civil liability- not exactly the punishment many see as being adequate, but believe me, when a cop has a big black mark from being sued due to wrongful arrest, it's pretty hard for them to progress in their career.
It has always surprised me how often a police officer will wander around just making up statutes out of thin air.
I must not hang around where you do, I rarely see peace officers making up statutes- usually I see a misinterpretation or mis-statement of statute, but I've yet to see one make one up completely. Not being argumentative with you, just pointing out your statement is a bit of a stretch.
Zundfolge
12-12-2013, 10:50
So is the guy that was open carrying gay? why was he at the parade? I could see a charge for menacing, harassment? if he was open carrying at the parade just to be an asshat and he hates gays?
He's gay. News story interviewed him and his "partner" ... in the video of his arrest he gets in one cops face and says something like "I'm a gay man with a gun, do you find that threatening?"
TheBelly
12-12-2013, 11:27
but believe me, when a cop has a big black mark from being sued due to wrongful arrest, it's pretty hard for them to progress in their career.
Is this statement based on your many years of being a supervisor of LEOs? I think it's fair to say that you are not drawing form personal experience with this statement.
It all depends on whether or not the agency/DA has released the arresting officer from that liability.
Is this statement based on your many years of being a supervisor of LEOs? I think it's fair to say that you are not drawing form personal experience with this statement.
It all depends on whether or not the agency/DA has released the arresting officer from that liability.
True- I was speaking in general terms. I've met an officer who works on an agency that has a pair of officers that were successfully sued, he stated that promotions for these guys are really difficult, and they are very reluctant to even try putting in lateral hires with other agencies.
23k would barely pay his legal bills - or time lost..
TheBelly
12-12-2013, 22:56
True- I was speaking in general terms. I've met an officer who works on an agency that has a pair of officers that were successfully sued, he stated that promotions for these guys are really difficult, and they are very reluctant to even try putting in lateral hires with other agencies.
The lateral hire info is what REALLY catches folks: no one wants to hire a guy that's been sued a few times.
I ran into this with a 1LT (Army) that had been fired a couple of times. I just made him my HQ PL just so I could keep a close eye on him/make sure he got the proper amount of mentoring. different situation, I know, but the same principle applies.
Oh, and he sucked at the HQ PL job.
After all this time, it still surprises you? The one I hear all the time in my profession is, "Well the police officer told me this is a no fault state, so he didn't write a ticket."
The words, "No fault state" should never come out of a police officer's mouth. I'm not sure when police started saying that (probably around 2003 when Colorado changed from PIP to MED PAY), but I really wish they'd stop saying that. Ronin, can you mention that in class sometime?
I did a ride along with Lakewood PD last week and we drove up on an accident. Icy conditions and one vehicle hit the other in a double turn lane. Both drivers were cordial and legal. The agent/officer told me he felt bad for the driver at fault but had to write him a ticket precisely because we are a no fault state. He said the insurance cos would fight it out and end up 50/50 so he issued a ticket to protect the guy who got hit.
I did a ride along with Lakewood PD last week and we drove up on an accident. Icy conditions and one vehicle hit the other in a double turn lane. Both drivers were cordial and legal. The agent/officer told me he felt bad for the driver at fault but had to write him a ticket precisely because we are a no fault state. He said the insurance cos would fight it out and end up 50/50 so he issued a ticket to protect the guy who got hit.
Oh man, that hurts my head. Liability decisions can weigh on if someone was issued a ticket or not, but are mostly independent. Whether or not an officer "has" to write a ticket is completely independent of how the insurance industry operates as far as I know. Heck, in Missouri, most times there isn't a ticket issued no matter what happened.
In this case, the officer had the right idea, but his understanding of why he did what he did was off. An example of this is when one of my insureds fell off his motorcycle, and was then run over by a truck. He was issued a careless driving ticket even though he was killed in the accident. I was initially upset by this, but another member pointed out that this likely makes it much easier on the guy driving the truck, who didn't do anything wrong, to not have any liability pinned on him.
Here is a definition of what "No fault" means. http://www.answerfinancial.com/insurance-center/what-does-it-mean-to-live-in-a-no-fault-auto-insurance-state
EDIT: Here is an example of a definition that is incorrect as far as Colorado or any of the other states (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa) I've ever handled claims in goes: http://www.ask.com/question/what-is-a-no-fault-state
Sorry for all the insurance talk, keep calm and open carry on with the current discussion.
My post was poorly worded. I didn't mean that he had to as policy, write the ticket. I believe he felt he was helping the driver that was hit.
KevDen2005
12-13-2013, 01:41
I did a ride along with Lakewood PD last week and we drove up on an accident. Icy conditions and one vehicle hit the other in a double turn lane. Both drivers were cordial and legal. The agent/officer told me he felt bad for the driver at fault but had to write him a ticket precisely because we are a no fault state. He said the insurance cos would fight it out and end up 50/50 so he issued a ticket to protect the guy who got hit.
That is so odd. I have never used that at all. I also have never heard another office say it. It has never occurred to me to use that as a reason when issuing a summons for an accident. Where are they getting this info? What PD's?
What PD's?
Every single PD I've ever encountered In all of those states I mentioned. It is very common.
Driver: The officer from your ride along DID do the correct thing.
OneGuy67
12-13-2013, 14:10
Irv, that is pretty general. Most LEO's I know tend to explain no-fault to the driver's as they need to contact their insurance company to handle their issue and the other driver will do the same. Tickets are given out for violations of traffic law, not because of some idea that insurance people will care about them. Too many civil lawyers have called me when I was working traffic and wanted me to side with their persons version of events and want me to say the other guy was 51% at fault.
Snowman78
12-13-2013, 15:30
Every single PD I've ever encountered In all of those states I mentioned. It is very common.
Yep, I see this all the time too.
Keep in mind that I handle nearly 1,000 claims a year, so when I say I see it in every area I deal in, I don't mean in every claim specifically. I just have enough volume that I can safely say that I see it happening every where. I hear some variation of an officer telling that to an involved party probably once a week. To reinforce your first point Oneguy, officers just as often tell people that the insurance companies will hash out the liability, which is true. I'm not harping on the police as it may appear as providing incorrect info doesn't generally have an effect on what I do. People do tend to believe whatever an officer says though.
Every pilot, from a casual recreational flier to a commercial pro, is required by law to have a CURRENT copy of federal airline regs in the cockpit at all times. Why should cops not have to have a current copy of the laws they are enforcing?
NFATrustGuy
12-13-2013, 21:22
Every pilot, from a casual recreational flier to a commercial pro, is required by law to have a CURRENT copy of federal airline regs in the cockpit at all times.
I don't know where you got your information, but this is simply not correct.
Rod
Pilot since 1990
Lawyer since 1995
Flight Instructor since 1998
Airline pilot since 1999
[Also adult onset ADHD survivor...] :-)
I don't know where you got your information, but this is simply not correct.
Rod
Pilot since 1990
Lawyer since 1995
Flight Instructor since 1998
Airline pilot since 1999
[Also adult onset ADHD survivor...] :-)
For Who?
Found out that Michigan has weird insurance laws where you have to pay extra to have the at fault party pay for your damages. If you have a basic policy and get into a wreck, everyone just goes through their own carrier.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.