Barb Sturgeon Case

[E4 No More]

In court, not on the side of the road.

 
Dave's right on this one. A call from a citizen informant establishes PC as long as the facts being provided by the informant are within their direct knowledge (not hearsay, etc.) and no reasonable suspicion about the informant's reliability on that particular report is.

Of course in court. I never said differently. I'll leave it for the lawyer to do that and then follow up with a lawsuit.

The context in which I was speaking was an anonymous informant. A citizen making a complaint and saying that they were out of the process from that point onward is unacceptable. What prevents a officer from lying in your case? A police officer has to establish PC that a crime is/has being/been committed, and he must articulate it in court. Stop and frisk for officer safety in this context is out because of the context of the meeting taking place unless there are certain threats in play.

Oh course, this country has certainly gone downhill since I was a LEO. I never would have thought what NYPD was doing would ever fly and not result in copious lawsuits, but I guess they profile their victims well.

[DaveTN]

Of course in court. I never said differently. I'll leave it for the lawyer to do that and then follow up with a lawsuit.

You would need to find an attorney that would take a civil suit in a case where a cop took a gun from someone in the commission of a felony; good luck with that, no reputable one will take it because they know they can’t win it.
 

The context in which I was speaking was an anonymous informant. A citizen making a complaint and saying that they were out of the process from that point onward is unacceptable. What prevents a officer from lying in your case? A police officer has to establish PC that a crime is/has being/been committed, and he must articulate it in court. Stop and frisk for officer safety in this context is out because of the context of the meeting taking place unless there are certain threats in play.

Explain why you think a pat down for Officer Safety and the safety of those around him does not apply on a call where a person has been identified and an anonymous caller is reporting a felony in progress of carrying a gun in a school?

[E4 No More]

You would need to find an attorney that would take a civil suit in a case where a cop took a gun from someone in the commission of a felony; good luck with that, no reputable one will take it because they know they can’t win it.
 
Explain why you think a pat down for Officer Safety and the safety of those around him does not apply on a call where a person has been identified and an anonymous caller is reporting a felony in progress of carrying a gun in a school?

Ever heard of "The Fruit of The Poisonous Tree? If it's found that there was no PC then everything afterwards is thrown out, no? Or do think that our courts do not release criminals regularly for stuff like this?

 

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, Tenn. (WKRN) – A Williamson County commissioner investigated after carrying a gun onto school property was handed down an indictment by a grand jury.

 

Barb Sturgeon was charged with carrying or possessing a gun on school grounds.

Sharon Puckett, the Public Information Officer for the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office, told News 2 that Sturgeon turned herself in Friday and posted a $5,000 bond soon after.

The charges stem from a mid-November incident when Sturgeon reportedly carried a gun into an ongoing work session for the Williamson County School Board.

“The commissioner had a purse which resembled a purse that she had previously displayed on Facebook, which had a holster and a pistol inside,” Sheriff Jeff Long said in a statement released to News 2 at the time of the incident. “A weapon was found in her purse.”

The sheriff’s office prepared a report that was turned over to District Attorney Kim Helper.

Sturgeon is due in court Dec. 15 at 9 a.m.

 

Just where do you see a call here? You are now going from speculation to fabrication. How many times do you think you'd go into a government meeting and search everyone "for your safety" and retain your position?? What stops a LEO from lying about a tip? Don't try to tell me that cops don't lie because I knew too many who lied regularly because they felt justified to do so because the criminals lie.

[DaveTN]

Just where do you see a call here? You are now going from speculation to fabrication. How many times do you think you'd go into a government meeting and search everyone "for your safety" and retain your position?? What stops a LEO from lying about a tip? Don't try to tell me that cops don't lie because I knew too many who lied regularly because they felt justified to do so because the criminals lie.

I’m not fabricating anything; speculation is what we do here. I’m not arguing they were right or that the case won’t be thrown out. I’m simply discussing RAS, PC and the validity of the arrest. The woman was committing a felony and she was caught. Whether or not we believe she should have been arrested or if carrying a gun into a school should be a crime is immaterial.

I wouldn’t walk into a government meeting and search everyone; it doesn’t sound like that is what they did. It sounded to me as though they had very specific information on who she was and where the gun was, information that apparently was correct. But I don’t know that. So fill us in; how did the Officers on the scene get the call? Were they dispatched there? Did an Officer get a tip? Do they know who called? Did that person see the gun at the meeting or simply on face book?

How do we get from a person being caught committing a felony to cops lying? Has someone accused the cops of lying? If so, about what?

I don’t doubt that this is political and one of her rivals or someone she pissed off called this in. But they didn’t make her carry a gun into a school; she did that on her own. Unless of course you are claiming they planted the gun on her?

If a cop saw the Facebook post and went there; it probably wouldn’t hold up in court. But if a citizen called in information of a felony in progress, and their information was as accurate as it appears to be; it was a good arrest. How the DA and the courts handle it is anybody’s guess. I would guess this won’t go to court unless her attorney thinks he can get the gun thrown out. Good for him if he can, but unless the cops were involved in this “plot” they are okay with the way they recovered the weapon….IMO.

Plenty of unknowns and opportunity for high drama here huh?

[DaveTN]

Will any good come from this? Possibly.

The intent of the law and the letter of the law are not always the same. The intent of the ban on guns in schools is keeping kids away from deadly weapons. I don’t think the intent of that law was to protect the building and it should not be in force when school is not in session and the building is being used for other purposes. This could get a ruling on that. (Provided of course there isn’t already case law on it)

[JayC]

In this case, never any children taught at this building...  it is an administrative office building which only houses staff employees for the school district.  Also probably clouding the water is the fact she showed up for a 'working session' of the school board as an elected commissioner having oversight over the school board and the schools.

 

And while this case is bad, the law is so poorly written that if you're sitting in a restaurant carry your pistol... and a group teachers walk in use the backroom for a meeting, you've just become a felon too.  If a cross country team stops at McDonald's on their way home, automatic felon for anybody carrying in the restaurant.

 

We should all use this case as an example of how bad laws can be applied against otherwise law abiding people, and work to change the poorly worded law.

 

Clearly not the sharpest knife in the draw, otherwise she would have gone to the Sheriff and gotten a 'special deputy' badge for helping him out (wink wink) on some budget concern...  then she would have been a law enforcement officer carrying on school ground ;)

 

Will any good come from this? Possibly.

The intent of the law and the letter of the law are not always the same. The intent of the ban on guns in schools is keeping kids away from deadly weapons. I don’t think the intent of that law was to protect the building and it should not be in force when school is not in session and the building is being used for other purposes. This could get a ruling on that. (Provided of course there isn’t already case law on it)

Edited December 11, 2014 by JayC

[E4 No More]

I’m not fabricating anything; speculation is what we do here. I’m not arguing they were right or that the case won’t be thrown out. I’m simply discussing RAS, PC and the validity of the arrest. The woman was committing a felony and she was caught. Whether or not we believe she should have been arrested or if carrying a gun into a school should be a crime is immaterial.

I wouldn’t walk into a government meeting and search everyone; it doesn’t sound like that is what they did. It sounded to me as though they had very specific information on who she was and where the gun was, information that apparently was correct. But I don’t know that. So fill us in; how did the Officers on the scene get the call? Were they dispatched there? Did an Officer get a tip? Do they know who called? Did that person see the gun at the meeting or simply on face book?

How do we get from a person being caught committing a felony to cops lying? Has someone accused the cops of lying? If so, about what?

I don’t doubt that this is political and one of her rivals or someone she pissed off called this in. But they didn’t make her carry a gun into a school; she did that on her own. Unless of course you are claiming they planted the gun on her?

If a cop saw the Facebook post and went there; it probably wouldn’t hold up in court. But if a citizen called in information of a felony in progress, and their information was as accurate as it appears to be; it was a good arrest. How the DA and the courts handle it is anybody’s guess. I would guess this won’t go to court unless her attorney thinks he can get the gun thrown out. Good for him if he can, but unless the cops were involved in this “plot” they are okay with the way they recovered the weapon….IMO.

Plenty of unknowns and opportunity for high drama here huh?

I read the article as a deputy, (since the Sheriff's department was commenting and this was a county school board), was at the meeting; not called. I also read it that the deputy had previously seen a picture of a concealed carry purse containing a gun on this woman's Face Book page that resembled the purse that she was carrying, (a fact that I find dubious, but that could be because I have nothing to do with FB nor do I follow others people's accoutrements with that kind of interest). Even if this were all 100% accurate, what made the deputy suspect that the purse actually contained a gun at that particular time? How many people disarm before going into a prohibited area but leave the holster or purse on their person? How many purses look similar? Absent any other information here I do not see PC. What I did see from the comments below the article made me suspect the real story: This woman was not liked and therefore targeted, and they either got lucky that she forgot to disarm this time, or she was stupid full of herself thinking that the law didn't apply to her. Either way, they did not arrest her because she turned herself in later after it was turned in to the prosecutor. Why not arrest her? She was caught in a felony, right? Could it be that the deputy questioned the methods and doubted the case, and needed the prosecutor to make the decision? Let's just say that this report has my BS detector going off.

 

Terry Stop: You still must have reasonable suspicion and frisking someone is not a search. I would also opine that a woman has a reasonable expectancy of privacy concerning her purse. If the purse were physically on the woman at the time then I agree that the officer can look in the purse for an easily accessible weapon. If the purse was not on her person I see it as no different than a locked glovebox or trunk because it wasn't easily accessible to her during her "stop" as it were. Either way, the article doesn't say.

 

We both know that the outcome of many cases are heavily determined upon how much money the suspect has to spend on a vigorus defense, and the quality of the BS detectors of the judge and jury members. Most people do not have that kind of money: therefore, they cut a deal, so whatever truth there is in a case never comes out. This little fact appears to me to feed the beast of police deception. I know this because I've privately asked many veteran LEOs if they've lied to win a case, and the many of those said yes followed by their own justification for doing so which usually amounted to, "Hey! If they can lie then so can I!" I have also witnessed LEOs lying or embellishing the truth on the witness stand first hand. I'm not saying that all LEOs lie, (it was something that I wouldn't compromise my integrity over, and neither would some that I knew), but it happens far more frequently than people outside of the process realize. In some ways I think it's the nature of the beast because LEO's tend to be type "A" personalities who are competitive by nature. Personally, I hate to lose, but I feel that I lose even more if I cheat to win.

[tnguy]

Could be a way to advance her career (if she wishes to do so) by running on changing the law. I'm not sure she's in the right area for it to be a benefit though.

[300winmag]

Yeah the funny thing is if she had a special deputy commission (which seemed to be common at one time as a permit), she would have been exempt from that law.  We need to find a legislator that is very well spoken and respected and can promote a bill to make the fixes to provide exemptions for handgun carry permits in these situations. 

 

As much as I like Constitutional carry, I would much rather use the effort right now to fix the permit system so the people who have a permit can walk around and not have to worry about these sort of problems.

[jtmaze]

There is some grey area that is not being discussed. If you want to change the law, I am behind you 100%. In MI, a open carry state, a concealed carry permit gets you past anything that is not federally protected, concealed is the key. We don't want Leonard up there walking around with a mac11 in a holster.


JTM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk