Loveland, CO - Gun owner sues city

[Gunreference1]

Publish Date: 7/28/2010

Gun owner sues city

Lovelander says his rights were violated during 2008 incident at Lake Loveland

By Pamela Dickman
Loveland Reporter-Herald

Loveland resident Bill Miller wants $100,000 and a policy change from the Loveland Police Department.

The 72-year-old man sued the city in U.S. District Court in Denver this week, claiming officers violated his constitutional rights in 2008 when they stopped him at Lake Loveland for carrying a gun.

“It’s not primarily about money,” said Miller’s attorney, Nelson Boyle. “It’s about his rights being violated.”

Miller was sitting on a bench overlooking Lake Loveland on Oct. 7, 2008, with a holstered handgun.

He carries a gun to advertise his custom holster business and to open a dialogue about every American’s Second Amendment rights, according to his lawsuit.

However, others enjoying Lake Loveland saw the gun, worried and called police.

Officers approached Miller to check out the complaint.

They took his gun — over his objections — unloaded it, ran it through the police database and talked to Miller to make sure he was not doing anything illegal.

After everything checked out, police returned Miller’s gun to him and let him go.

They never filed charges.

The contact lasted only 30 minutes, but its ripples have continued, resulting in a protest and an American Civil Liberties Union investigation in 2009 and now the lawsuit.

Both Police Capt. Ray Miller, acting police chief while Luke Hecker is on vacation, and City Attorney John Duval declined to comment about the suit Tuesday because they had not yet seen a copy.

However, police officials have defended the officers.

Chief Luke Hecker, who is out of the office this week, said in 2009 that his officers absolutely had to check out Miller and, not knowing him, were right to empty the gun to ensure public safety.

Miller, in his lawsuit, argues otherwise and asks a judge to require that police declare they were wrong, change policy to avoid a repeat and pay $100,000 plus his attorney’s fees.

The civil suit and Boyle claim that officers walked on three intersecting rights — Miller’s right to bear arms, his right to free speech and his right against illegal search and seizure.

Police may have a duty to check out all reports and potential dangers, but they need a reason and evidence of a crime before they detain someone and take their gun — even for only 30 minutes, argued Boyle.

“He feels like he has been harassed, and they’ve told him, if he does it again, they’ll do it again,” Boyle said. “All he is doing is exercising his constitutional right.”

The city will have the opportunity to defend itself in court in the coming months.

http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=28907

Steve Mace

[justinsaneok]

Funny how this guy is aware of his rights. proves the MTV generation was dumbed down.

[AKTexas]

I'm not familiar with open carry laws.

I don't see what he did wrong,I don't see what the officers did wrong either.

[Gunreference1]

Laws pertaining to Colorado open carry can be found at the link below. I don't know if the city of Loveland or Larimer county have passed their own laws on this sublect.

http://www.opencarry.org/co.html

I too don't see any actual violation on anyones part.

Steve

[Krupski]

Publish Date: 7/28/2010

Gun owner sues city

They [the police] took his gun — over his objections — unloaded it, ran it through the police database and talked to Miller to make sure he was not doing anything illegal.

Why did they unload it? Did they give him back his ammo? WTF good is an unloaded sidearm? Did the cop unload HIS weapon "to protect the public"?

I hope this guy wins his suit big time!

[Krupski]

I'm not familiar with open carry laws.

I don't see what he did wrong,I don't see what the officers did wrong either.

The officer(s) did indeed do something wrong. They unloaded his pistol. Why? Did the cops unload THEIRS too?

[AKTexas]

The officer(s) did indeed do something wrong. They unloaded his pistol. Why? Did the cops unload THEIRS too?

How is unloading a firearm wrong?Do you inspect your guns loaded?

[Sidartha]

How is unloading a firearm wrong?Do you inspect your guns loaded?

The point is that the Officers took the gun and inspected it in the first place.
Open Carry in legal in CO, something the officers should have known.
With no indication of any laws being broken they decided to detain and search Mr Miller. This was done without Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause.
Mr Miller's property was taken and altered. Again, without cause or a warrant.

If you still don't see the problem then consider this.

If I see you about to drive your truck and I call the cops because I think you might be an unsafe driver, does that call give them(the cops) the right to search your car and check the fluid levels?

Police have gotten into the habit of treating gun owners as criminals and so they treat us as though they already have Probable Cause and walk all over our rights. Confiscating property and warrant-less searches are the most common forms of this abuse.

I hope this guy wins and the cops learn to change their behavior.

[AKTexas]

The point is that the Officers took the gun and inspected it in the first place.
Open Carry in legal in CO, something the officers should have known.
With no indication of any laws being broken they decided to detain and search Mr Miller. This was done without Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause.
Mr Miller's property was taken and altered. Again, without cause or a warrant.

If you still don't see the problem then consider this.

If I see you about to drive your truck and I call the cops because I think you might be an unsafe driver, does that call give them(the cops) the right to search your car and check the fluid levels?

Police have gotten into the habit of treating gun owners as criminals and so they treat us as though they already have Probable Cause and walk all over our rights. Confiscating property and warrant-less searches are the most common forms of this abuse.

I hope this guy wins and the cops learn to change their behavior.

The citizens that called in the complaint prompted the police to get involved.That could be argued as probable cause to detain the man and inspect his firearm and him.The problem is with the public not the law enforcement.

Cops were called they investigated,which is part of their job,no crime committed, no one rubber hosed and nothing more to see.

How was his property altered?All the cops did was remove the ammo.His property was returned once they concluded their investigation.We can assume so was the ammo but the report did not indicate that.

I don't see what the old guy did was wrong and I still don't see what the cops did was wrong either.There is not enough information for me to determine either way.

Open carry is a double edged sword and exercising your rights is hard when gun owners have been demonized.

[Sidartha]

The citizens that called in the complaint prompted the police to get involved.That could be argued as probable cause to detain the man and inspect his firearm and him.The problem is with the public not the law enforcement.

A complaint does not constitute Probable Cause.
The police need to have Probable Cause to believe a crime is being committed. A citizen's (uninformed)opinion does not count. That's why knowing that Open Carry is legal is important.
If the Police knew that the act of carrying a gun openly in public was not illegal then there was no reason to detain and search Mr Miller.

[AKTexas]

But something had to have been said for the cops come out.A frightened mother with her little kids in tow could have said the old man was drooling and menacing her with his gun.Yes the cops needed a reason to talk to the guy I want to know what the caller(s) said to get them going.

Please note the sarcasm.

[Sidartha]

If a mother called and made some shit up then I can understand the cops responding to the call. But that still doesn't excuse the search and detention.
However, if all the caller said was there is a guy with a gun then the operator should have said 'that's not illegal' and hung up.
Also. The hysterical mother is guilty of filling false report.