cop steals repeal safe act sign

[mr.romak]

just a little news from ny , http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/23/fed-up-ny-man-sets-up-hidden-camera-to-find-out-who-was-repeatedly-stealing-his-pro-gun-sign-what-he-discovered-blew-him-away/

 

and how it all started (its from another forum i am on) http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politics/60634-so-remember-my-repeal-safe-act-sign-issue.html

[rugerla1]

I saw this yesterday. Imagine if it had been an "Obama for President" sign and a uniformed officer had taken it.

[RobertNashville]

If he is actually violating city code then I suspect he would have a difficult time getting anywhere in court (which is really his only legal option here).  It would be interesting if he was able to actually take it that far though.

 

If he isn't violating any city code then this cop (or whoever told him to remove the sign) needs to pay a price for his actions...maybe at least charged with trespass and theft.

[JayC]

The police department has admitted to the media they took the sign all 4 times without leaving any paperwork, or documentation for the owner.  At the end of the day it seems the department violated the law and the constitution.

 

This is a very serious issue, while the sign might have been about the 2nd amendment, the violation is going to be a clear 1st amendment one.  People should end up in jail over this.

[JayC]

It won't matter if it's violating city code or not, political speech is even more protected than regular speech under current SCOTUS rulings.

 

Ladue v. Gilleo 1994 I believe would be on point, where signs on residential property were banned under City ordinance.  The court struck down the ordinance when it was used against war protest signs.  Unless they can show the sign somehow was a danger to the public (cause a blind spot between oncoming traffic or something).

 

More importantly, while the officer might have been able to order the sign be taken down, the officer for sure can't take anothers persons property under a city ordinance without due process of law, which would have required a hearing that the signs owner would have to been notified about ahead of time.

 

So the stealing for 4 signs is clearly a violation of the law, even if the signs were somehow in violation of a city ordinance.

 

I'm also willing to bet department policy is they are to provide written receipts for any confiscated property, so it's likely the officer also violated department policy as well. 

 

If he is actually violating city code then I suspect he would have a difficult time getting anywhere in court (which is really his only legal option here).  It would be interesting if he was able to actually take it that far though.

 

If he isn't violating any city code then this cop (or whoever told him to remove the sign) needs to pay a price for his actions...maybe at least charged with trespass and theft.

 

[RobertNashville]

It won't matter if it's violating city code or not...

Yes...it matters or at least it matters if the homeowner wants to do something about it in court...if all he wants to do is complain then I guess it doesn't matter then; complaining if free (and usually pretty pointless).

 

When you chose to live in a community you chose to abide by the laws of that community. If you don't like the laws then you either seek to get them changed or you find somewhere else to live.

[JayC]

Robert,

 

We've had this argument before...  This is settled case law...  signs with political speech are protected with a strict scrutiny standard, if he was in violation of a city ordinance, it was a clearly unconstitutional city ordinance per the case I bothered to lookup and cite.

 

Even if he was in violation of a valid city ordinance, there would have to be a HEARING before a judge or magistrate to order him to take the sign down.  Normally in most cities such actions happen as the result of a citation that is provided to the homeowner, but there would have to be some notification.  Clearly that didn't happen here - from statements from the police department in question.

 

Even if the sign was in violation of a valid city ordinance, and they had a legal order to take the sign down, they still don't have the right to steal his signs with no documentation provided to the owner as to where he can collect said sign.

 

And finally, the first thing his attorney is going to do is find out how many other signs this officer has taken under this city ordinance over the last couple of months, what do you think the chances are it's only these 4 signs?  I'd be willing to bet a six pack of beer we'll find out it's 4 signs :)

 

Communities have to follow the rule of law, a community can't take your property without due process of law...  which means they must notify you that you're in violation in writing, offer you a chance to argue your case before a neutral third party on how you're not in violation, and receive a documented order or judgement with which to comply.  

 

There is no way to paint this case as anything other than a criminal and unconstitutional act.

 

Yes...it matters or at least it matters if the homeowner wants to do something about it in court...if all he wants to do is complain then I guess it doesn't matter then; complaining if free (and usually pretty pointless).

 

When you chose to live in a community you chose to abide by the laws of that community. If you don't like the laws then you either seek to get them changed or you find somewhere else to live.

 

[Spiffy]

I dont see what the sign hurt if it wasn't in the way of work being performed by the city/county. The butthurt neighbor needs to a talking to about MYOB.

[JayC]

Who cares about the upset neighbor...  neighbors can whine and moan all they want...  it's when a government official shows up, tears down your property and steals it that we should be worried :)

 

It's even more concerning because the property in question was a sign with political speech on it.

 

I dont see what the sign hurt if it wasn't in the way of work being performed by the city/county. The butthurt neighbor needs to a talking to about MYOB.

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

 

We've had this argument before...  This is settled case law...  signs with political speech are protected with a strict scrutiny standard, if he was in violation of a city ordinance, it was a clearly unconstitutional city ordinance per the case I bothered to lookup and cite.

 

Even if he was in violation of a valid city ordinance, there would have to be a HEARING before a judge or magistrate to order him to take the sign down.  Normally in most cities such actions happen as the result of a citation that is provided to the homeowner, but there would have to be some notification.  Clearly that didn't happen here - from statements from the police department in question.

 

Even if the sign was in violation of a valid city ordinance, and they had a legal order to take the sign down, they still don't have the right to steal his signs with no documentation provided to the owner as to where he can collect said sign.

 

And finally, the first thing his attorney is going to do is find out how many other signs this officer has taken under this city ordinance over the last couple of months, what do you think the chances are it's only these 4 signs?  I'd be willing to bet a six pack of beer we'll find out it's 4 signs :)

 

Communities have to follow the rule of law, a community can't take your property without due process of law...  which means they must notify you that you're in violation in writing, offer you a chance to argue your case before a neutral third party on how you're not in violation, and receive a documented order or judgement with which to comply.  

 

There is no way to paint this case as anything other than a criminal and unconstitutional act.

Oh yes... :doh: I forgot you have perfect knowledge of situations like this; even able to tell the guy's attorney the first thing he needs to do!  

[JayC]

Well I cheated on the attorney thing...  The attorney gave an interview where he said they were in the process of researching how often this law was enforced, and if there are other violations which aren't political speech that weren't being enforced :)

 

So not perfect knowledge, just reading a statement from the attorney in a news report :)

 

I'm making the assumption that will include deposing the officer in question and his official reports to see when else he had enforced this city code.

 

BTW, something that has come to light over on the NY firearm forum...  it seems this town code is under the authority of the building inspectors office, not the police department.  

 

So even if this was a valid violation of the city ordinance, it's not the responsibility of the police department to enforce the ordinance :)

 

So how exactly does this look like a 'legal' action to you?

 

Oh yes... :doh: I forgot you have perfect knowledge of situations like this; even able to tell the guy's attorney the first thing he needs to do!  

Edited September 25, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

BTW, the attorney in this case seems to be a sharp civil rights attorney.  He's one of the attorney's on the Tresmond v NY State lawsuit which is fighting the constitutionality of the SAFE Act.

 

And it seems he may have been involved in this before the signs were "removed" when the homeowner received a letter from the building inspector which it seems the building inspector agreed the signs were not in violation of the law.

[RobertNashville]

Okay - I surrender - I don't have time to debate you; especially when what is being debated is likely a non-issue anyway and Is pointless in any case.

[East_TN_Patriot]

First mistake is to use The Blaze as a source of legitimate news.  Second, the First Amendment is not an absolute right, just like the other rights specified in the Constitution.  When I was a LEO in Florida, we regularly confiscated political signs from city rights of way without "leaving a note."  We also confiscated real estate signs and yard sale signs.  If the sign was in someone's yard, we tried to notify the homeowner.  Cities, like it or not, generally have a certain right of way on property extending in from the roadway.  If I recall correctly, in Panama City, FL it was 3 feet.  The logic is to prevent multiple signs from blocking the view of motorists and causing a general nuisance.  If the city has such an ordinance, signage is not permitted within that distance from the roadway.  It's obvious the guy had been contacted about the issue and continued to put his sign where it was allegedly not permitted.  

I also enjoy all the ignorant posts suggesting this incident is a sign of the impending apocalypse.   :panic:

[East_TN_Patriot]

BTW, the attorney in this case seems to be a sharp civil rights attorney.  He's one of the attorney's on the Tresmond v NY State lawsuit which is fighting the constitutionality of the SAFE Act.

 

And it seems he may have been involved in this before the signs were "removed" when the homeowner received a letter from the building inspector which it seems the building inspector agreed the signs were not in violation of the law.

It doesn't matter what the building inspector says.  If the ordinance says signs are not allowed within a certain distance of the roadway, then that's the law.  There is a reason non-attorneys (building inspectors included) are not allowed to give binding legal advice.

 

Also, the "strict scrutiny standard" you mentioned above does not mean that there is no restriction to a right.  Instead, it simply means the government has a much higher level of justification to restrict that right.  in the court rulings I am familiar with, the strict scrutiny standard has been applied to ordinances prohibiting political signs in totality, restricting the content of the signs, or placing limits on when and how long signs can be posted.  In looking for some different case law, I found this good article discussing the case law related to this topic:

 

http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/PrinterFriendlyProductWeb?OpenForm&ParentUNID=2B0DB231D83EADE98525723F005F6773

 

I also found this information on an attorney's website discussing what is required for a jurisdiction to pass a constitutional sign ordinance:

 

http://www.ga-lawyers.pro/Articles/Sign-Ordinances-and-Right-of-way-Encroachments.shtml

Edited September 26, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Q-tip]

Assuming the sign isn't on city right of way, I'd be tempted to chain a few batteries together and wire up that sign. What little hair was left on that cops head would be pointed straight up. 

[TrickyNicky]

Assuming the sign isn't on city right of way, I'd be tempted to chain a few batteries together and wire up that sign. What little hair was left on that cops head would be pointed straight up.

I can only assume this is in jest, if so it IS pretty funny thought, if its actually crossed your mind as a legitimate course of action, well, dang. Just dang.

[TrickyNicky]

I also enjoy all the ignorant posts suggesting this incident is a sign of the impending apocalypse.   :panic:

You do realize what group your talking to, right? An elected official can't take a dump at 03:00AM with out at least a half dozen members here seeing it as a call to arms. :panic:

[Erik88]

I suspect this had more to do with the message on the sign than enforcing some city ordinance but I could be wrong. 

[Q-tip]

[quote name="TrickyNicky" post="1040194" timestamp="1380319734"] I can only assume this is in jest, if so it IS pretty funny thought, if its actually crossed your mind as a legitimate course of action, well, dang. Just dang.[/quote] My actual course of action would be to put up a sign that only a bulldozer could pull up. Edited September 28, 2013 by Q-tip

[DaveTN]

My actual course of action would be to put up a sign that only a bulldozer could pull up.

The city probably has bulldozers.    Just kidding.

 

There is no need to keep pulling up the guys signs. He’s been notified by mail. Cite him under whatever code they say he is violating and either let him pay the fine or take the case to court and make his free speech arguments. I don’t know why the Police Department is even involved in this. All seems pretty simple to me.

[DaveTN]

Uh-oh... 

 

[jcoosi]

The mentioned sign had an ar15 on it. The officer was just trying to protect someone from getting shot/killed. Its obvious that it would have eventually shot some passer by.

[Pain103]

http://somers.dailyvoice.com/news/supervisor-somers-police-justified-pro-gun-sign-removal

According to this story it was on city property not the man's front yard.

[DaveTN]

the Somers Police Department received hundreds of calls and emails from around the country “threatening to kill officers.”

Wow....that’s bizarre. I wonder if that happened or if they are just trying to make the pro-gun people look bad? If that happened those people need to be arrested.

I still don’t know why the cops are involved. I would think they would have a street department that handles this kind of thing?