Fed Court Upholds Invest Stop for Handgun (Atlanta)

[Kirk Freeman]

Federal court in Atlanta in a §1983 suit has ruled that a police investigatory stop to investigate an individual carrying a pistol on the MARTA (Atlanta public transport system) is a reasonable search and seizure.

The judge reasoned that as Georgia made its permit/license an affirmative defense to the crime of carrying a concealed weapon (and not an element of the offence) no Fourth Amendment violation transpired.

More here including motions and the court's order:

Georgia Carry : An information clearinghouse for Georgia Firearms License issues and news Blog Archive Judge Issues Order in MARTA Case

 

[bartonmd]

Wonderful...

 

[Dashman010]

Not to rain on anybody's party, but I've read the courts order and it appears to be legally correct. The officers actions, in these circumstances, were justified, and the seizure of the person in that case was legal, given the terms of the Georgia statute.

 

[Ramen]

Federal court in Atlanta in a §1983 suit has ruled that a police investigatory stop to investigate an individual carrying a pistol on the MARTA (Atlanta public transport system) is a reasonable search and seizure.

The judge reasoned that as Georgia made its permit/license an affirmative defense to the crime of carrying a concealed weapon (and not an element of the offence) no Fourth Amendment violation transpired.

More here including motions and the court's order:

Georgia Carry : An information clearinghouse for Georgia Firearms License issues and news Blog Archive Judge Issues Order in MARTA Case

So as I understand the ruling, in Georgia I could be stopped for driving a car because having a license is an affirmative defense to the crime of driving a vehicle without being licensed to do so? Is that correct?

 

[Indy317]

So as I understand the ruling, in Georgia I could be stopped for driving a car because having a license is an affirmative defense to the crime of driving a vehicle without being licensed to do so? Is that correct?

The Supreme Court ruled on this many years ago. Kirk has posted the name of that case not too long ago.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (stopping driver solely to ascertain if driver has registration and driver's license is unconstitutional).

The court's ruling does provide a fix. Georgia simply amends their carry statute to include lack of a license as an element of the offence.

 

[cce1302]

crap.

 

[Dashman010]

So as I understand the ruling, in Georgia I could be stopped for driving a car because having a license is an affirmative defense to the crime of driving a vehicle without being licensed to do so? Is that correct?

No. The difference is that to stop you for "driving without a license," one of the elements of the crime is "not having a license." Before they can stop you, they have to have probable cause that you "don't have a license" -- say, for instance, if the officer recognized a person in a car that he knew their license had been suspended. The carry statute in Georgia, however, simply says that it is a crime to carry a firearm into a public transportation place. There is no "without a license" element, so once an officer sees you, with a gun, attempting to enter a public transportation place, he has probable cause to stop you. You then have an "affirmative defense" to say, oh, here is my license, and once everything checks out, he has to let you go. It's a matter of legal interpretation of laws and how they are set up. Like I said before, the ruling is correct, it's just technical.

 

[aikidoka]

It's a good thing no crimes ever occur in public transportation locations.

 

[GlockRock]

No. The difference is that to stop you for "driving without a license," one of the elements of the crime is "not having a license." Before they can stop you, they have to have probable cause that you "don't have a license" -- say, for instance, if the officer recognized a person in a car that he knew their license had been suspended. The carry statute in Georgia, however, simply says that it is a crime to carry a firearm into a public transportation place. There is no "without a license" element, so once an officer sees you, with a gun, attempting to enter a public transportation place, he has probable cause to stop you. You then have an "affirmative defense" to say, oh, here is my license, and once everything checks out, he has to let you go. It's a matter of legal interpretation of laws and how they are set up. Like I said before, the ruling is correct, it's just technical.

I think you mean resonable suspicion.

 

[j706]

I think you mean resonable suspicion.

Exactly!! It appears that many people get the two confused.