Soukaneh v Andrzejewski - Legal firearm possession is not evidence of illegal possession

[Euler]

In the Federal District Court of Connecticut:

 

Ruling

Quote

...
Plaintiff had stopped his vehicle with the engine running in an attempt to unfreeze his iPhone GPS, which was located in a holder mounted to the dashboard. ... The dark and high-crime area where Plaintiff stopped his vehicle was well-known for prostitution, drug transactions, and other criminal activity. ... As Plaintiff was attempting to fix his phone, Defendant approached his vehicle, knocked on the driver's side window, and requested Plaintiff's license. ... Plaintiff handed Defendant his license and gun permit, which he removed from the back of his sun visor. ... At the time Plaintiff handed over his license and gun permit, he told Defendant that he was in possession of a pistol, which was located in the driver's side compartment door. ... Defendant handcuffed and searched Plaintiff, and Defendant forcibly moved Plaintiff to the back of his police car.
...
Defendant contends that that the initial stop of Plaintiff's car was justified by his reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity and that the subsequent searches and seizures of Plaintiff's person, the cabin of his car, and the trunk of his car were all supported by probable cause given that Plaintiff disclosed he had a weapon in the vehicle.
...
Defendant conceded at oral argument that his conduct following the initial stop and check of Plaintiff's driver's license exceeded the bounds of a Terry stop, but that the conduct was still justified because he had probable cause to believe Plaintiff was possessing a firearm without a permit as he had not yet been able to verify the validity of the permit.
...
Indeed, it is undisputed that Plaintiff told Defendant that he had a pistol in the driver's side door compartment at the time he handed his driver's license and pistol permit to Defendant. ... And in his deposition, Plaintiff stated that when he handed his license and permit to Defendant, he said, "That's my license and including [sic] my pistol permit, I have a pistol on me." ... In the absence of any articulable reason for Defendant to believe the permit was counterfeit or otherwise invalid, there is no indication that Plaintiff was even arguably unlawfully possessing a firearm. In light of the uncontested fact that Plaintiff presented his pistol permit to Defendant before or at the time he disclosed that he was in possession of a pistol and the absence of any other indicia that Plaintiff was otherwise violating the statute, no reasonable officer could believe probable cause was present. Any contrary holding "would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals" by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid.
...
Because, on the record read in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable police officer could have believed he or she had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, the Court denies summary judgment on the lawfulness of the de facto arrest and declines to immunize the officer on this record.
...

 

TL;DR:

A guy driving in Connecticut pulled over in a shady part of town, because the GPS on his iPhone froze. When a cop driving by demanded his license, he included his concealed carry license and informed the cop that he had a pistol in the car with him. The cop arrested him for illegal firearm possession, citing probable cause that the carry license was invalid. While the judge ruled that the cop could ask the guy his business, the cop had no cause to presume that the carry license was invalid and that a disclosed firearm was illegal, because if legally possessing a firearm was considered evidence of a crime, it would nullify both the second and fourth amendments.

 

CT has no obligation to disclose.

 

It will be interesting to see how far this one goes. The underlying issue is that the guy (Soukaneh) is suing the cop (Andrzejewski) for violating his civil rights, and the judge ruled that the cop doesn't have civil immunity. This ruling basically says that the suit can move forward.

[mab22]

So there was an assumption made by the officer that the permit was invalid, despite there not being any evidence that it was invalid? 
Is that what happened? 
 

[Euler]

4 hours ago, mab22 said:

So there was an assumption made by the officer that the permit was invalid, despite there not being any evidence that it was invalid? 
Is that what happened?

 

Yes.

[Bitter Clinger]

That's insane.

 

Hopefully the cop will get what he deserves and Soukaneh will take him to the cleaners.

 

We as gun owners don't need cops like this on the streets.

 

[mab22]

So his lawyer had to teach him this line. 
 

“Defendant conceded at oral argument that his conduct following the initial stop and check of Plaintiff's driver's license exceeded the bounds of a Terry stop, but that the conduct was still justified because he had probable cause to believe Plaintiff was possessing a firearm without a permit as he had not yet been able to verify the validity of the permit.

”

So why not arrest him for driving on a revoked license as he hadn’t had time to see if his DL was valid, better give him a dui without verifying cause he hadn’t had the time to check that yet either.

 

That officer needs to find a new line of work, the community deserves better! 

 

 

[Euler]

4 hours ago, mab22 said:

...

So why not arrest him for driving on a revoked license as he hadn’t had time to see if his DL was valid ...

 

The judge made that point in the ruling, too (well, driving without a license), but I already quoted a huge part of it.

[JTHunter]

It sounds as if this judge is very astute.  It's a shame there aren't more like her.

[Flynn]

2 minutes ago, JTHunter said:

It sounds as if this judge is very astute.  It's a shame there aren't more like her.

 

I believe most judges are quite astute, it comes with the job, but the problem is many allow their personal opinions and agendas to take priority over that astuteness.

[Euler]

Andrzejewski (the cop) filed an appeal with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on 24 August. He's being represented by the corporate counsel of the City of Waterbury. Whichever side loses, the next step is the US Supreme Court. I think I'd love to see Andrzejewski and the City of Waterbury try, but I can easily imagine every police union in the country trying to talk them off the ledge if they do.

 

CA2 Case Docket

Unfortunately, case documents are not free to download.

[Kaeghl]

Now if only all the LEO agencies would let their own unruly children know what could happen to LEOs that still have the "We're the ONLY ones...." syndrome.

There is a good chance this traffic cop is going to cost his department and city a lot of money for his attitude.

 

[hceuterpe]

On 9/16/2021 at 6:11 AM, Kaeghl said:

Now if only all the LEO agencies would let their own unruly children know what could happen to LEOs that still have the "We're the ONLY ones...." syndrome.

There is a good chance this traffic cop is going to cost his department and city a lot of money for his attitude.

 

 

Not only that, but instead of the cop obtaining legal counsel on his own or through the union, the city themselves is representing him.  Hard to argue there's only a few rotten apples when the city itself is throwing in their legal resources to assist.

 

I've been watching lots of audit videos and getting more familiar with the legalities of cop stops.  In particular even for stop and identify states, a cop can't demand/compel you to provide identity on a whim.  Only if arrested or detained for reasonable suspicion of a crime.  It's not the driver's fault that sizable chunks of your dumpy city is full of crime and prostitutes, let alone being aware of this, as he was out of town.  Certainly not justified in violating several of his civil rights.  Not to mention the cop losing all impartiality in conducting this stop as a fishing exercise primarily because the driver got lost in a dumpy part of your city--i.e. even if not immediately obvious, let's keep looking unconstitutionally until I find something illegal, or if necessary assumed to be illegal, expired.  Not sure anyone can argue that, assumed to be illegal/expired without validating first could ever possibly be construed as reasonable...

Edited October 26, 2021 at 04:18 PM by hceuterpe

[Euler]

On 16 March 2022, the NRA was added as a movant. (i.e., NRA joined the case as a party on Soukaneh's side)

 

Docket extract from PACER:

General Docket Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 21-2047 Docketed: 08/24/2021 Nature of Suit: 3440 CIVIL RIGHTS-Other Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski Appeal From: CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN) Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information: 1) Civil 2) Private 3) -

Originating Court Information: District: 0205-3 : 19-cv-1147 Trial Judge: Janet Bond Arterton, U.S. District Judge Date Filed: 07/25/2019 Date Order/Judgment: Date Order/Judgment EOD: Date NOA Filed: Date Rec'd COA: 08/06/2021 08/26/2021 08/23/2021 08/23/2021

12/14/2021 38 LR 31.2 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellee Basel M. Soukaneh, informing Court of proposed due date 03/14/2022, RECEIVED. Service date 12/14/2021 by CM/ECF.[3228160] [21-2047] [Entered: 12/14/2021 02:47 PM] 12/17/2021 41 SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee Basel M. Soukaneh Brief due date as 03/14/2022, FILED.[3229897] [21-2047] [Entered: 12/17/2021 11:11 AM] 03/08/2022 48 BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Basel M. Soukaneh, FILED. Service date 03/08/2022 by CM/ECF. [3274121] [21-2047] [Entered: 03/08/2022 04:37 PM] 03/15/2022 49 MOTION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF, on behalf of Movant National Rifle Association of America, FILED. Service date03/15/2022 by CM/ECF.[3278389] [21-2047]--[Edited 03/16/2022 by BM] [Entered: 03/15/2022 03:49 PM] 03/15/2022 50 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS AMICUS COUNSEL, on behalf of Movant National Rifle Association of America, FILED. Service date 03/15/2022 by CM/ECF. [3278390] [21-2047]--[Edited 03/16/2022 by BM] [Entered: 03/15/2022 03:50 PM] 03/16/2022 51 NEW PARTY, Movant National Rifle Association of America, ADDED.[3278731] [21-2047] [Entered: 03/16/2022 11:10 AM] 03/16/2022 53 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Joseph A. Mengacci, Esq. for Appellant Nicholas Andrzejewski, FILED. Service date 03/16/2022 by CM/ECF. [3278965] [21-2047] [Entered: 03/16/2022 02:16 PM] 03/17/2022 56 MOTION ORDER, referring motion to file amicus curiae brief on behalf of Movant National Rifle Association of America,[49],, FILED. [3279600][56] [21-2047] [Entered: 03/17/2022 11:33 AM] 03/28/2022 58 REPLY BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Nicholas Andrzejewski, FILED. Service date 03/28/2022 by CM/ECF, US mail. [3286379] [21-2047] [Entered: 03/28/2022 04:02 PM] 07/26/2022 63 CASE CALENDARING, for the week of 10/24/2022, PANEL B, PROPOSED.[3354464] [21-2047] [Entered: 07/26/2022 12:56 PM]

[Euler]

Oral arguments have been set for October 28.

 

07/26/2022 63 CASE CALENDARING, for the week of 10/24/2022, PANEL B, PROPOSED.[3354464] [21-2047] [Entered: 07/26/2022 12:56 PM] 08/03/2022 66 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Mr. John R. Williams, Esq. for Appellee Basel M. Soukaneh, FILED. Service date 08/03/2022 by CM/ECF. [3359466] [21-2047] [Entered: 08/03/2022 04:11 PM] 08/10/2022 68 LETTER, dated 08/10/2022 on behalf of Appellant Nicholas Andrzejewski, regarding dates for oral argument, RECEIVED. Service date 08/10/2022 by CM/ECF.[3363012] [21-2047]--[Edited 08/11/2022 by BM] [Entered: 08/10/2022 11:57 AM] 08/31/2022 71 CASE CALENDARING, for argument on 10/28/2022, B Panel, SET.[3374701] [21-2047] [Entered: 08/31/2022 12:29 PM] 09/01/2022 73 ARGUMENT NOTICE, to attorneys/parties, TRANSMITTED.[3375295] [21-2047] [Entered: 09/01/2022 12:00 PM] 09/09/2022 74 MOTION ORDER, granting motion to file amicus curiae brief [49], FILED. [3379349][74] [21-2047] [Entered: 09/09/2022 11:23 AM]

[Euler]

The case was heard on October 28. (audio)

 

10/17/2022 75 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ARGUMENT NOTICE, to attorneys/parties, TRANSMITTED.[3401959] [21-2047] [Entered: 10/17/2022 04:07 PM] 10/18/2022 77 AMICUS BRIEF, on behalf of Amicus Curiae National Rifle Association of America, FILED. Service date 10/18/2022 by CM/ECF. [3402478] [21-2047] [Entered: 10/18/2022 11:22 AM] 10/21/2022 79 NOTICE OF HEARING DATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, on behalf of Appellant Nicholas Andrzejewski, FILED. Service date 10/21/2022 by CM/ECF. [3405160] [21-2047] [Entered: 10/21/2022 11:14 AM] 10/28/2022 81 CASE, before GEL, ECL, BR, HEARD.[3409739] [21-2047] [Entered: 10/28/2022 11:29 AM]

Edited November 15, 2022 at 11:23 PM by Euler

[Euler]

On 11/15/2022 at 6:16 PM, Euler said:

The case was heard on October 28. (audio)

...

 

I just listened to the audio. Wow.

 

It's audio of only Andrzejewski's (the officer's) lawyer. (Maybe Soukaneh's lawyer wasn't there.) Depending upon your general disposition, you'll find it either highly entertaining or highly infuriating.

 

It's three NY judges grilling the lawyer who is attempting to assert that it didn't matter if the firearm license was valid or not. The issue wasn't whether the officer had probable cause for a search, because he had authority to search the trunk independent of probable cause.

 

Sadly, remember that this hearing is about qualified immunity of the officer, so even if the court thinks the officer was all the way wrong, it still may not go Soukaneh's way.

[Euler]

On November 15, 2022 at 05:16 PM CST, Euler said:→

The case was heard on October 28. (audio)
...

It's been a year since the oral arguments, yet still no ruling.