Federal Judge Rules Lawfully Exercising Right = Nullification of 4th Amendment

falsearrest1

While taking a walk one day,  legally open carrying a firearm, Christopher Proescher was stopped by police, questioned and arrested.  The local prosecutor, seeing the Mr. Proeshcer committed no crime dropped all charges.  In response to the false arrest Proescher reasonably filed a lawsuit against the officers.

Fast forward to Federal judge William S. Duffey Jr. who made the inane decision that while the arresting officers were wrong in arresting Proescher (you know, because he didn’t break any laws) that carrying a pistol openly constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime, which authorizes officers to detain the person who is carrying and as such the officers acted properly.

Allow me to rephrase: By exercising your legal right, you have forfeited your 4th Amendment Rights and as such will be subject to detention and false arrest with no recourse.

That is what Judge Duffey has ruled.

I  think of other Rights that this could impact, such as having a conversation with someone and the police assuming that you are talking about committing a crime and demanding you tell them what you are talking about or just recording you without a warrant.

But then, what is the NSA been doing these past years?

Or the Fifth Amendment where invoking your right to silence will somehow be taken as a confession of guilt.  Judge Duffey all but came out and said so in his ruling:

“Carrying a gun out in the open,” near a playground, combined with a refusal to answer questions and produce identification, “provided more than a sufficient basis constitutionally to detain plaintiff.”

In Georgia, the only way he could come up with that ruling is by bastardizing Georgia code 16-11-36 dealing with loitering and prowling which states:

   (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

While the judge might focus on the “concern for the safety of persons” he applies it falsely since Mr. Proescher was not in a place or at a time unusual for law-abiding individuals to be.  It’s a park, in the daytime where Mr. Proescher was taking a walk.  If we must fear over zealous jack-booted thugs arresting us for legally taking a walk this country has more shades of 1938 Germany than I feared.

Once again a Judge fails liberty.  How much longer before “show me your papers” is an everyday occurrence just to leave the house?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

  • MrApple

    This is a truly scary precedent being set for the erosion of our Constitutional Rights..

    • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

      We don’t have “Constitutional Rights” we have UNALIENABLE natural rights. ALL of our rights precede any “constitution”.

      • Gardentoolnumber5

        And the Amendments are the guide to keeping those rights. Very well stated.

  • bee

    this scumbag lowlife judge should be arrested for crimes against the people. thats the problem with these judges the think they are god.

    • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

      Arrested, tried, and put in a cage with a horny ape.

      • Ambassador David

        When is the last time any of us have interupted a federal type judge in open court to Declare Treason against The People and Irreparable Damages In Action?
        It has been a long time for me but I sure had alot of fun the weeks before and after that little adventure in Liberty At Law.
        Maybe it is about your turn?
        I did it after my 1st ‘jury trial’ when I yet had little or no idea what I was doing and yet had a very interesting time.

  • Pingback: Federal judge rules: 'carrying a pistol openly constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime' - Liberty Crier()

  • acerbus80

    Is there a source for this article?

  • J. Nev

    I hope there is an appeal.

  • Houston Retrievers

    Im sure it will be appealed. The supreme has already held that the exercise of a right cannot be converted into a crime. They are doing this because the idea of a felon (sic) having guns scare the crap out of them, unless they work for TSA or DHS of course….

  • FreeOregon

    This confirms there’s reasonable suspicion the police themselves are criminals. They are armed. We do see them killing people. Uniforms and badges do not transform thugs into reasonable human beings. Nor, indicentally, do black robes.

    • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

      It does transform many of them into functional psychopaths.

  • Robert Egner

    This judge was put into place by the very people that had better well take him back out. This is a huge injustice to not just this individual but to all of us. A direct attack to our constitution. Best wake up !!

  • Joe Black

    it is the job of the judge to protect the city from all lawsuits by ruling that no matter what the bully low life roided up cop does is ok . take out the judges and then the cops will have to start paying for abusing people . time to take back our country people

  • peck2

    From the crooked costumed revenue thieves, up thru the “persecutors” to the judges, pretty much everyone involved in the “legal system” is guilty of criminal activity and all of them should be ignored and/or terminated.

  • Pingback: Federal Judge Rules Lawfully Exercising Right = Nullification of 4th Amendment()

  • Pingback: Federal Judge Rules Lawfully Exercising Right = Nullification of 4th Amendment | Give Me Liberty()

  • Pingback: Newsworthy 11-08-2013 | Opine Time()