MARTA police harassment of MARTA rider upheld as constitutional (AP Photo/Anna Shevelyova, File)
Related Articles
Federal judge holds that carrying a firearm concealed justifies detention and disarmament, as does carrying a firearm on MARTA.
Attorney for gun carrier opines that opinion may reach into Georgia's restaurants and state parks as well.
Northern District of Georgia federal judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. ruled today that carrying a firearm on MARTA justifies forcible detention by the police, in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed over the half hour long detention and disarmament of GeorgiaCarry.Org member Christopher Raissi.
Christopher Raissi holds a Georgia firearms license and frequently carries a handgun concealed. On October 14, 2008, he was carrying concealed on MARTA. He did not know that a MARTA police officer observing the parking lot had seen him holstering and concealing his firearm while still at his car. Therefore, he was surprised when he was surrounded by police officers who yelled "Police!" and ordered him to stop. The officers then seized his firearm from his holster and began questioning him, asking, according to the court's written opinion,
[W]hat are you doing with a gun?
After seeing Raissi's firearms license and driver's license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour. The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.
In the ruling today, Judge Thrash held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies such detention and disarmament. He wrote in his opinion that "possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon."
After Raissi concealed his handgun and started walking to toward the MARTA station, he had committed all of the acts required for the crime of boarding with a concealed weapon and the crime of carrying a concealed weapon.
As a result, Judge Thrash concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion that Raissi was committing two crimes. As a result, the officers were justified in using force to detain him, and the "officers were entitled to take Raissi's handgun because they knew Raissi had concealed it on his person and would have easy access to it while they questioned him." The officers were also entitled to ask him for his social security number and transport him to a locked area out of the public view.
Judge Thrash was reluctant to rule on the issue of carrying firearms openly, rather than concealed, on MARTA, because Raissi was carrying his handgun concealed. Instead, he held that such relief is inappropriate until a GeorgiaCarry.Org member sues for constitutional violations while carrying openly at some future date. Judge Thrash recognized that Georgia opinions in cases involving "the separate and distinct crime of carrying a pistol without a license" observe that "the statutory language requires absence of the firearms license as an element of the crime." This makes carrying a handgun openly different from carrying concealed, as the officers seeing an open handgun bear the burden of having a reasonable suspicion that the person carrying openly does not have a firearms license. Carrying openly on MARTA under this court's ruling, however, would still subject one to detention and disarmament, since boarding the MARTA system requires a license as an "affirmative defense," and not as an "element of the crime."
Judge Thrash held for trial Raissi's Privacy Act claim, based on the demand for Raissi's social security number. He refused to rule on the request that MARTA be enjoined from requesting social security numbers because MARTA stated that it no longer demands social security numbers of those who provide firearms licenses. "It seems very unlikely that members of GeorgiaCarry.Org would carry a Georgia firearms license but then refuse to provide it to MARTA police officers."
John Monroe, Christopher Raissi's attorney, expressed disappointment with the opinion and declared that if the opinion stands its effects will be felt far beyond MARTA:
The decision means everyone seen carrying a firearm in any place that is prohibited without a license is subject to being stopped, arrested, and prosecuted, even if they have a license. Anyone carrying a firearm in a restaurant that serves alcohol or a state park is fair game. The same goes for police officers. A police officer carrying a firearm in a restaurant, bar, or school is subject to arrest, including a citizen’s arrest, because being a law enforcement officer is an affirmative defense and not an element of the crime.
Mr. Monroe has not yet decided whether to appeal, but observed that such a decision would probably not be made until the entire case is over, including the trial on the Privacy Act claim.
Comments
I like the part about the police being subject to a citizen's arrest. It occurred to me, too. Maybe some of those cops need to be booked on this same offense and see how the court likes their force being detained under rule of law as the people send a message.
What about police officer judgment?
you guys are stupid dis is right!
This is a blatant disregard for basic constitutional rights and goes against the direction of all previous case law!
Please appeal and overturn this decision.
This is utterly absurd! Are we becoming Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia?
Wow, this is utterly ridiculous! I wonder if the judge burnt the constitution, and the flag after the hearing.
wow un real this is a farce
Clinton appointed him. Elections matter people. Stop voting liberal (progressive communist) into office before it is too late.
Yet another example of our judicial system and/or those who sit behind the bench ignoring our state's duly passed gun laws as well as the Constitution of the United States while choosing to advance their own personal or social agendas. This ruling by Judge Thrash defies both and is an insult to the court over which he presides as well as our law makers and every citizen of the state of Georgia. I'm convinced this nation's forefathers are rolling over in their graves at this total disregard of the rule of law and jurisprudence. SHAME on you, Judge Thrash!!!
One wonders, at what point the American people will cease to accept judicial activism. How blatant can you get?
I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I must be wrong WE need to rethink about ALL government people and to replace all of them..............
From Terry v. Ohio, it was held that "5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed."
I see no analysis by the judge that Raissi was dangerous our exhibited any behavior, either by furtive movements, nervousness, or fleeing. His whole analysis fails the "armed AND dangerous" conjunctive test which will easily (I'm very optimistic in this case) be struck down by the 11th Circuit, or the Supreme Court.
Still think your FREE ? Welcome to the, United Police states of America. Wake up, Sheep !!
Well at least you can get a LTC here. I am stuck 60 miles from Thomson Il, you know we get the GITMO terrorists. Illinois one of only two states without a carry law. Obama did nothing here to help the state and again as president only hurts the state. It's wrong and just part of the push by the current administration with Holder as AG and his Chicago mob tactics we are in for a rough ride. Hopefully 2010 will prove once more that Americans are waking up.
It has started. It will be a police state if this ruling stands! May God help us!
The Question: What next...?
Head for the SC! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
r start flooding MARTA with so many "violators" that 'We, the PEOPLE" MUST win x PROXY.
Here, clearly, the STATE is the Offender, "aiding & abetting" MARTA.
It is interesting that something is legal, but you can be forcibly detained (and socially embarrassed) simply because of a "hunch" by a passing officer.
In no way is this logical.
CMC, it works the same way with tinted car windows. Some jurisdictions ban darkly tinted car windows, on the grounds that, since the police can't see into the car, its occupants MUST BE up to no good.
Disappointing decision, but not fatal. This just proves we need to continue to fight for our 2nd Amendment rights.
This is so unreal. People better wake up and smell the Communism.
Scary, scary stuff.
It's a sad day when a federal judge says that exercising a constitutional right is grounds for detainment. Someone above equated this with window tinting. How totally sad.
The logic expressed by the court makes no sense from any read.
This is new law and bad law, if it stands on appeal................well the downstream implications are predictable and along the lines ....."these rights are indeed infringed".
Someone should inform Judge Thrash that the Founding Fathers did not establish the U.S. as a police state. Instead, they left it to the individual to defend himself or herself against crimes of violence. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not responsible for defending innocent people against crime; that is the job of the individual. Pistol-license holders are awawe of that, and they carry c oncealed arms lawfully for self-protection if it is needed.
Unreal. What a sad story, especially around the holidays. A major defeat for those law-abiding among us who follow the law, to know we are not indeed free, but only as free as those who look down their noses at us allow us to be. This decision is a major blow to Constitutional freedoms; a sign perhaps, of the further erosion of our rights as Americans. These losses are, after all, evolutionary, not revolutionary. This ruling is a terrible, terrible commentary on society as a whole. Judge Thrash admits that we, Georgia citizens, are not trust-worthy and require police actions to be subdued. Seriously, crying may not help the situation, but it sure feels right when you read about people like this judge who hold so much power over us, treating us this way. It's just sad. Very, very sad.
Talk, talk... we CANT [can NOT] expect GA.CARRY.ORG to do EVERYTHING! So - get off ur ... and get organized. No one likes it. Its a gross miscarriage of justice, for sure. But talking about it is like having a debate on the Titanic...
Oh, sorry... gotta go... someone else wants to "talk" now...
sad sacks of sorry sh&^%$...
What if I can't remember my SSN? Will they beat/shoot me in that "locked area" out of public view and then try to frame me like was done to poor Kathryn Johnston?
The honarable Thomas W. Thrash Jr is not acting like a judge and not ruling with the law of the land in his mind. He has made this ruling in direct disagreement with the Supreme Court of the United States. I guess the Constitution of These United States and its gaurantees mean little to you Judge. I would suggest reading it again, maybe twice, with an open mind, its clear its closed right now.
This is an incredibly wrongheaded decision. It is completely ridiculous that a legal action can be grounds for detainment, search and seizure of personal property. It is a shockingly clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment. If allowed to stand, this will allow the harassment of law abiding citizens designed to have a chilling effect on their lawful exercise of the right to armed self defense. Regardless of his personal ideologies, Judge Thrash should be ashamed of violating his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.
The time for talk is over. Heat up the tar, gather the feathers...
III
The police did mishandle this, but we're all in a learning curve. If this were to happen again on Marta, I suspect the police would handle this differently. It is appropriate for the police to question someone under these specific circumstances, but once the proper license and identification are produced, the license holder should be allowed on his way unimpeded. I think we'll see it handled this way in the future. Most law enforcement officers have no issues with us, our guns, or our concealed license. It would be contrary to our integrity and our goals to think otherwise.
There is one thing common in ALL of our American gun massacres: They were committed in advertised gun-free areas, where the crazies could count on killing as many helpless people as possible before someone showed up with a gun to end it. It appears to me that survivors of such a massacre can sue the people who instituted the "gun-free area" on the basis of creating an unsafe condition.
The founding fathers thoughtfully chose simple words that would be clear to us all in perpetuity "shall not be infringed". This is clear to me a unconstitutional act of infringement…
In a way that is profiling. They saw a gun and detained him simply for the fact he had a gun. So instantly they assume he is a criminal. What's the difference between that and seeing someone with baggy clothes and detaing them because they instanty assumed he was a part of a gang?
Would the judge say "Having baggy clothes is grounds for detaining due to
many gang members wear baggy clothes so assuming this is perfectly legal"
I think not.
Both clothing and a pistol (if licensed) are personal property that is perfectly legal.
Why is it that everyone is eager to take guns away from law abiding citizens, but could care less about taking them away from criminals. I think judges and politicians need to stop protecting criminals and start protecting the citizens. Take the problems at GA tech, students cant have a gun, but every criminal that is robbing beating and shooting them is alowed to have a gun, and the city and state arent doing anything to stop it except to tell the students that they are in the wrong for trying to protect themselves. This all falls on the politicians.
Bad judgement of Judge Thrash. The Georgia concealed carry permit allows people to conceal weapons except in prohibited places such us public gathering. Martha is a transportation not public gathering. Law abiding citizens who chooses and been given license by the state to carry weapons should not be prosecuted. The police upon seeing a Georgia Firearm License should have stopped further questioning Raissi.
Absolutely absurd! Judges swear to uphold the Constitution but yet this judge fails to see this as a failure of the officers violating our 4th Amendment as well as the second Amendment. It has been ruled in several previous cases that the presence of a firearm is not reasonable articular suspicion that someone "Is", "Has" or "Is About" to commit a crime.
This is an outrage.
So I guess that just lawfully driving down the road will now be reason enough to stop someone to see whether or not they actually have a drivers license; they could be comitting a crime. Guilty until proven innocent! This entire thing is sad.
On the right side of this column, there is a suggestion to contact our representatives. Well, in my district, Hank Johnson is it. Hank is so liberal that it's a miracle he doesn't have lower back problems from leaning way left all of the time, and his contempt for"anti government tea bagging extremests" (as quoted by PRESBO), opposition was made obvious at a town hall meeting ,in body language,verbal and facial expression. Personally ,I think it's a waste of time to ask for consideration to uphold and protect laws designed for free thinking people by anyone who consistantly exibits arrogance and contmept for personal liberty.
"when a long train of these abuses occur,it is our right,it is our duty to throw off such govenment ......."
Like so many other things in our government today, this defies logic. Lest we forget, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
So following the judges logic, if you are stopped by an officer in your car and the officer sees a six pack of beer in a grocery bag, he can detain you on suspicion of DUI??? The judge's ruling is clearly defined by his "feelings" instead of Law. We need to support HB 615 more than ever in the Georgia Legislature. And this ruling needs to be appealed.
As both a retired police officer and a CCW permit holder I find the decision of this court to be so against state law and common sense that it would be laughable if not for the possible fall out that could strip our carry laws to even a more restriced stance. Georgia has always been so far behind other states in many areas, so it is not surprising that our gun laws are so archaic. During my carrier on the street, I had contact with many persons with a CCW and never had cause to be fearful of the incident or hold the person longer than necessary. Remember these persons who are atacking our rights and make your voice heard in any future election. Also, JOIN GEORGIACARRY.ORG, do it today.
Hundreds of citizens carry firearms om Marta. It's their Constitutional right. What next? Will Marta decide they have the right to strip search everybody to first see if they have a pistol, and then to see if they have a Georgia Firearms License (GFL) The holder of a GFL has been cleared by the NICS and approved by the Probate in his or her respective county. That's more then can be said for some many police officers who can not qualify for a GFL (because of past misdemeanors and such). Judge Thrash needs to retake his course on Constitutional Law. He must have been out sick when they taught the 4th Amendment. He owes law abiding citizens a serious apology!
Rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution don't automatically apply to the several states. Whether they do or not is known as "Incorporation", and whether or not the 2nd amendment in particular applies to states will soon be decided by the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS).
Read the ruling carefully; the judge applied the law, as it currently stands, correctly. We need to be working on changing Georgia law not sitting around crying hysterically (and ignorantly) about this ruling. Don't bother contacting your U.S. representative. Contact your GA General Assembly rep.
I will not ride Marta or go into the Killing Zones of Atlanta until they allow me the right to protect myself and my family. It's just not worth the lives of my family to go into a crime ridden area as Atlanta without being armed. I will not give a restaurant or any other business "Like Goowill" any money or service if they deny me my right as provided in the Constitution. I call on other CCW AND Pro 2ND Admendment people do the same. Why would yoy give business to someone as ignorant and UnAmerican as that?
It is the mentality like this that keeps me out of Atlanta. I absolutely refuse to go to that city without being armed with my legally carried concealed weapon. I will never travel on Marta until I learn that they stop harassing citizens who are exercising their legal rights. I am appalled that a judge, who is supposed to have good common sense, would rule such as this.
Georgia firearm laws are preempted by the Legislature. Then why is MARTA able to make laws on concealed carry and detainment? Concealed carry licensees are subjected to FBI and state law enforcement background checks and have an excellent record, far better on firearms than the general public. This ruling is somewhat illogical. It is okay to carry openly, but if you carry concealed, as your license also allows, you are subject to detainment and disarming? If this is more "common sense" gun law, then I want no part of it. This ruling should be appealed and reversed. I personally prefer a lawfully armed person on MARTA than to travel without the benefit and potential protection by this person. Guns can and do save lives every day, that is, when the good guys and gals have them, and not just the criminals cruising the MARTA system.
Who paid this judge off from the corrupt city of Atlanta? To many liberals from the top to the bottom, just distroying our country and our rights as Americans. When does it stop? What is the point of having a GFL in this judge's mind? Obviously nothing! He probably does not even know what checks one goes through to get it. GCO must appeal this case!!!!
Good call by the judge, good job by the cops.
Everybody is just doing their job. The person packing a concealed weapon should always be questioned and detained. This is why we have police, to protect the public. The guy could have easily been a nut job or a criminal.
Many of my co-members of GeorgiaCarry.org will not be happy with my comments, but I think they are valid. First, This whole issue could have been averted if the Marta police officer were not shown a display of removing a gun from the backseat of the car, putting it into a holster, attaching the holster to the waistband, and pulling the shirt down over it. If Raissi had been carrying his properly concealed weapon on his person all the way from home and simply gotten out of his car and gotten on Marta, there would not have been probable cause for s stop. I doubt that a bulge at his waist would have triggered a security stop. But, it could have. Concealed Carry means concealed and Raissi did not accomplish this by dressing in the parking lot.
Personally, I feel that a police officer observing the same action in the parking would be derelict if he responded any other way.
The next question is "Was their response to his offering his Concealed Carry License appropriate?" See nex
Im sure the criminals who frequent the MARTA system are throwing a party right now due to the fact that the judge's ruling. One more win for the Criminal Protect Act that has been increasingly growing bigger in this country.
Mr Left:
Questioned? In this situation I would agree with you.
Detained? After he produced his GFL they should have sent him on his way, not kept him in a locked room for half an hour.
"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little security, deserve neither security not liberty"
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!