Utah Concealed Firearms & Training

CONTROVERSIAL OPEN CARRY ARREST

A gun owner in Flint Township, Mich., has filed a lawsuit claiming he was stopped and arrested while legally openly carrying his pistol back in December. He ended up spending Christmas in jail.

Flint Township police say the man’s gun was covered by his coat, making the arrest legal. The police dashcam video of the incident doesn’t prove either side’s story conclusively, but it does provide some additional insight.

In the video, John David McMorris, 21, can be seen stopping and putting his hands over his head when an officer turned on his police car lights. The gun appears to be visible on his right hip in the video — and Michigan is an open carry state.

Google-ChromeScreenSnapz0352

The cop disarms McMorris and orders him to place his hands on his police cruiser.

Explaining why the officer stopped McMorris, the attorney representing police in the case, G. Gus Morris, says the officer passed the man earlier and didn’t see the firearm. The officer is also heard on video telling McMorris that he didn’t see his gun when he passed him previously, therefore it must have been covered by his coat.

“I didn’t know the front of my coat was covering it, sir. I’m very sorry,” McMorris replies.

“Sorry’s gonna get you jail,” the cop shoots back. “That’s what sorry’s gonna get you.”

Because he believed the gun was covered by his coat when he saw McMorris earlier, the officer placed the man under arrest because he didn’t have a license to carry a concealed weapon, according to the attorney.

The dashcam video does not include the moment when the officer allegedly passed by McMorris for the first time.

Watch the raw footage below:

McMorris was arrested, searched then booked into the Genesee County Jail for allegedly carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, according to the lawsuit. He remained in jail until Dec. 26, causing him to miss the Christmas holiday.

The attorney representing McMorris in the lawsuit, Craig L. McAra, told MLive.com that making his client spend Christmas in jail only added “insult to injury.”

Police reportedly ended up releasing him from jail without filing any formal charges.

John Pierce, a lawyer with OpenCarry.org, said Flint Township is going to have a hard time explaining why McMorris was arrested after the officer may have failed to notice the man openly carrying a firearm when he drove past him. Plus, he explained, the firearm was clearly visible when the cop made the arrest.

“I think the township is in real trouble with this one,” Pierce added.

“The lawsuit is seeking more than $25,000 in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, false arrest and malicious prosecution,” MLive.com reports. “The case is pending in federal court. A trial is not expected until late 2014.”

SHE WAS FIRED FOR CCW AT WORK — NOW SHE’S SUING

A former Wells Fargo employee has filed a lawsuit in circuit court against the bank, contending the financial institution violated her constitutional rights when they fired her for carrying a concealed firearm at work.

Florida resident Ivette Ros, a former bank manager at Wells Fargo, claims she feels “naked” without her gun and says because she had a concealed carry permit it was unlawful for her employer to terminate her for carrying, the Tampa Tribune reported.

“I am within my constitutional right,” Ros reportedly said. “The bank is one of the places that I am able to carry a weapon to. My weapon was concealed. I have a certified license.”

wellsfargo

A former Wells Fargo manager was fired after company officials learned she was carrying a concealed firearm to work. (Image source: Shutterstock)

Last year someone noticed Ros was carrying a firearm and reported her to bank officials, according to the Tribune. She was later fired.

“I’m a manager of a bank,” she added. “We have a lot of robberies that happen in our banks. I feel safer having that weapon if I ever needed to protect my employees.”

“I feel safer having that weapon if I ever needed to protect my employees.”

Share:

However, while Wells Fargo wouldn’t comment on a specific ongoing case, the bank told the Tribune that they have a strict policy forbidding firearms.

“Team members are strictly prohibited from possession of firearms and weapons on company premises,” spokeswoman Kathy Harrison reportedly said.

Ros’ lawyer disagrees.

“Employers can’t discriminate against their employees nor can they discriminate against their customers if they are … law-abiding, licensed concealed weapons permit owners,” Noel Flasterstein told the Tribune.

“Just because it’s in their handbook doesn’t mean it is correct or it will withstand a legal scrutiny or a legal investigation, which is what we’re doing in this case,” he reportedly added.

Another legal expert, however, said Ros was outside her legal rights, noting that Wells Fargo is a private institution.

“There is nothing in the state statute that says the employer has to let her bring it into the building,” reportedly said Jason Bent, an assistant professor of law at Stetson University College of Law.

The bank does offer some exceptions in certain areas, though, that would allow team members to store their firearm in their vehicle while they work at the bank, the Tribune reported.

 

2014 UTAH LEGISLATIVE BILLS TO WATCH — WRAP UP

The session has wrapped up for the 2014 year and here is where we stand. Some great bills were passed that will affect how you may carry.  Please read through all these to determine what may apply to your carry style.

H.B. 75S1 Restoration of Civil Rights for Nonviolent Felons.

BILL STATUS: BILL HAS PASSED and is awaiting signature of the Governor.

Summary: This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

Detail:

51          (c) As used in this section, a conviction of a felony or adjudication of delinquency for
52      an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult does not include:
53          (i) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency for an offense pertaining to antitrust
54      violations, unfair trade practices, restraint of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the
55      regulation of business practices not involving theft or fraud; or
56          (ii) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency which, according to the law of the
57      jurisdiction in which it occurred, has been expunged, set aside, reduced to a misdemeanor by
58      court order, pardoned or regarding which the person’s civil rights have been restored unless the
59      pardon, reduction, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person
60      may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
61          (d) It is the burden of the defendant in a criminal case to provide evidence that a
62      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is subject to an exception provided in Subsection
63      (1)(c), after which it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
64      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is not subject to that exception.

–

H.B. 276 Disorderly Conduct Amendments

BILL STATUS: BILL HAS PASSED and is awaiting signature of the Governor.

Summary: This bill includes displaying a dangerous weapon under certain circumstances in the definition of disorderly conduct.

28          (1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
29          (a) The person refuses to comply with the lawful order of a law
30      enforcement officer to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or
31      physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
32          (b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly
33      creating a risk thereof, the person:
34          (i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
35          (ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;
36          (iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place;
37      or
38          (iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
39          (2) “Public place,” for the purpose of this section, means any place to which the public
40      or a substantial group of the public has access and includes but is not limited to streets,
41      highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings,
42      transport facilities, and shops.
43          (3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible
44      or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable
45      person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed
45a      with
46      criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section.  Nothing in this Subsection
48      (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in
49      a voluntary conversation.
50          [(3)] (4) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor if the offense continues after a
51      request by a person to desist. Otherwise it is an infraction.

—
H.B. 70 Forcible Entry Amendments

BILL STATUS: BILL HAS PASSED and is awaiting signature of the Governor.

Summary: This bill modifies the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers when conducting a search or making an arrest.

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:

  • Amends existing law regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers to include searches;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to identify themselves before forcing entry into a building;
  • Amends existing law to allow law enforcement officers to force entry into a building without first issuing a demand or explanation if there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be easily or quickly destroyed;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to use the least amount of force necessary when executing forcible entry, as authorized;
  • Requires that any application for a warrant to forcibly enter a place of residence shall:
    • explain why law enforcement officials cannot use less invasive or confrontational methods to effectuate the necessary search or arrest;
    • explain why the search or arrest cannot be executed during the day, if it is to be executed at night, as defined; and
    • describe investigative activities that have been or will be undertaken prior to executing the search or arrest to ensure that the correct building has been
    •  identified or explain why no investigative activities are needed; and
    • clarifies that any information or property obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible in court.

–

H.B. 301 Concealed Weapon Permit for Servicemembers

BILL STATUS: BILL HAS PASSED and is awaiting signature of the Governor.

Summary:  This bill provides an exemption for an active duty service member when renewing a concealed firearm permit.

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:
26      An active duty service member of the United States Armed Forces who possesses a Utah
27      concealed firearm permit is exempt from the requirement in Subsection 53-5-704 (4)(a) when
28      renewing a Utah concealed firearm permit.

–

H.B. 322 Protection of Activities in Private Vehicles

BILL STATUS: BILL HAS PASSED and is awaiting signature of the Governor.

Summary: This bill amends Title 34, Chapter 45, Protection of Activities in Private Vehicles.

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:
12          .    provides that alternative parking for an individual who desires to transport, possess,
13      receive, transfer, or store a firearm in the individual’s motor vehicle may not be
14      located on a public right-of-way; and
15          .    makes technical and conforming changes.

(a) the person provides, or there is otherwise available, one of the following, in a
43      location reasonably proximate to the property the person has designated for motor vehicle
44      parking:
45          (i) alternative parking for [individuals who desire] an individual who desires to
46      transport, possess, receive, transfer, or store a firearm in the individual’s motor vehicle [at] that:
47          (A) imposes no additional cost [to] on the individual; [or] and
48          (B) is
50          (ii) a secured and monitored storage location where the individual may securely store a
51      firearm before proceeding with the vehicle into the secured parking area; or
52          (b) the person complies with Subsection 34-45-107 (5).

TWO MORE THUGS LEARN WHY THIS CRIME REALLY ISN’T ONE YOU WANT TO ATTEMPT IN TEXAS

Two intruders found themselves outgunned when they broke into a Houston man’s apartment on Friday. When they reportedly forced their way into the residence, the man armed himself and fired at the suspects several times.

shutterstock_70808509-300x218

One of the suspects was hit and pronounced dead at the scene, while the other fled. The Harris County Sheriff’s Office said there were at least two suspects, but they are working to determine if there could have been more.

Officers responded to the shooting at around 12:45 p.m. Friday in North Harris County.

The resident told investigators that he was still sleeping when he heard noise coming from the front door and decided to see what it was. When he did, the two suspects busted into his apartment. He then opened fire.

“According to investigators, a man has shown up a nearby hospital with a gunshot wound and they are now trying to determine if he was involved in this home invasion,” KPRC-TV reports.

Neighbor Tasha Hopkins told KVUE-TV that “no one deserves to get killed,” but “if you do wrong, there’s a price to pay for it.”

 

HE NEVER CARRIED A GUN UNTIL ABOUT A YEAR AGO

When a knife-wielding burglary suspect broke into an elderly woman’s home in Seymour, Tenn., on Wednesday night, he had no idea her son was only two minutes away — and armed. If he had, he surely wouldn’t have still been there when he arrived.

Home+Invasion+Pic2-300x168

When Lynch first arrived at the home, 83-year-old Christine Guffey was on the phone. The voice on the other end of the line was her son, Kenny Guffey.

“We were talking probably ten minutes and then all of the sudden her voice panicked and she said, ‘What are you doing in my house, oh no, he’s got a knife. What are you doing with the knife?’” Guffey told WVLT-TV.

He was only about two minutes away from the home when his phone call with his mother took the horrifying turn. Guffey entered the house with his gun drawn, ready to defend his mother.

When he went through the door, he witnessed the suspect standing over his mother with a shovel. What happened next sounds like something out of a Hollywood thriller.

Lynch, the suspect, used the shovel to knock the gun out of Guffey’s hand. But the man fought back, tackling the suspect and managing to get his gun back.

Guffey says he then sat on top of Lynch and held his gun to the back of his head while his mom called 911. He looked down and saw the man’s knife.

As it turned out, the suspect didn’t feel like losing his life, so he didn’t fight it. Bount County deputies arrived a short time later and arrested the would-be robber.

“God just worked this out and put me that close to her house. Because that’s the only way we’re both alive – we could have both been hurt bad,” Guffey said.

Guffey never carried a gun on him until about a year ago when his whole family got their permits. The man’s son, Nathan, told WVLT-TV that his dad said they would probably never have to use the guns, but it would be good to have them just in case.

2014 UTAH LEGISLATIVE BILLS TO WATCH — UPDATE 3

The Utah Legislature commenced its’ 2014 Legislative session on Monday. Below is a list of bills that may have an affect on you and your 2nd amendment rights. These will be updated and others added as the session progresses. Click on a title to taken to the related page on the Legislatures website.

—
H.B. 75S1 Restoration of Civil Rights for Nonviolent Felons.

BILL STATUS: Bill has passed both the House and Senate and is awaiting signature of the Governor.

This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

             51          (c) As used in this section, a conviction of a felony or adjudication of delinquency for
52      an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult does not include:
53          (i) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency for an offense pertaining to antitrust
54      violations, unfair trade practices, restraint of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the
55      regulation of business practices not involving theft or fraud; or
56          (ii) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency which, according to the law of the
             57      jurisdiction in which it occurred, has been expunged, set aside, reduced to a misdemeanor by
             58      court order, pardoned or regarding which the person’s civil rights have been restored unless the
             59      pardon, reduction, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person
             60      may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
             61          (d) It is the burden of the defendant in a criminal case to provide evidence that a
             62      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is subject to an exception provided in Subsection
             63      (1)(c), after which it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
             64      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is not subject to that exception.

—
H.B. 276 Disorderly Conduct Amendments

BILL STATUS: This bill has passed both the House and Senate but was modified on the Senate floor which requires it to pass in the house as modified.

This bill includes displaying a dangerous weapon under certain circumstances in the definition of disorderly conduct.

Suggested change to the code: (directly from the bill at the time of posting)

(3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible
44      or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable
45      person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed S. [ unlawfully or ] .S
45a      with
46      criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. S. [ For purposes of this section, the
47      belief of a reasonable person may not be based on a mistake of law. ] .S Nothing in this Subsection
48      (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in
49      a voluntary conversation.

—
H.B. 70 Forcible Entry Amendments

BILL STATUS: This bill has passed the House and in the third reading calendar for the Senate, just waiting final vote.  It has not been modified since its introduction.

This bill modifies the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers when conducting a search or making an arrest.

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:

  • Amends existing law regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers to include searches;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to identify themselves before forcing entry into a building;
  • Amends existing law to allow law enforcement officers to force entry into a building without first issuing a demand or explanation if there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be easily or quickly destroyed;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to use the least amount of force necessary when executing forcible entry, as authorized;
  • Requires that any application for a warrant to forcibly enter a place of residence shall:
    • explain why law enforcement officials cannot use less invasive or confrontational methods to effectuate the necessary search or arrest;
    • explain why the search or arrest cannot be executed during the day, if it is to be executed at night, as defined; and
    • describe investigative activities that have been or will be undertaken prior to executing the search or arrest to ensure that the correct building has been
    •  identified or explain why no investigative activities are needed; and
    • clarifies that any information or property obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible in court.

2014 UTAH LEGISLATIVE BILLS TO WATCH — UPDATE 2

The Utah Legislature commenced its’ 2014 Legislative session on Monday. Below is a list of bills that may have an affect on you and your 2nd amendment rights. These will be updated and others added as the session progresses. Click on a title to taken to the related page on the Legislatures website.

—
H.B. 75S1 Restoration of Civil Rights for Nonviolent Felons.

BILL STATUS: Bill has passed the House and is awaiting to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

Suggested change to the code: (directly from the bill at the time of posting)

51        (c) As used in this section, a conviction of a felony or adjudication of delinquency for
52       an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult does not include:
53       (i) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency for an offense pertaining to antitrust
54      violations, unfair trade practices, restraint of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the
55      regulation of business practices not involving theft or fraud; or
56      (ii) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency which, according to the law of the
57      jurisdiction in which it occurred, has been expunged, set aside, reduced to a misdemeanor by
58      court order, pardoned or regarding which the person’s civil rights have been restored unless the
59      pardon, reduction, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person
 60      may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
61          (d) It is the burden of the defendant in a criminal case to provide evidence that a
62      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is subject to an exception provided in Subsection
63      (1)(c), after which it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
64      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is not subject to that exception.—

—
H.B. 276 Disorderly Conduct Amendments

BILL STATUS: Waiting to be heard at the House Rules Committee — This bill is not moving very fast which can can indicate that it does not have the backing to pass both the House and Senate.

This bill includes displaying a dangerous weapon under certain circumstances in the definition of disorderly conduct.

Suggested change to the code: (directly from the bill at the time of posting)

43          (3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible
44      or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable
45      person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed unlawfully or with
46      criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. For purposes of this section, the
47      belief of a reasonable person may not be based on a mistake of law. Nothing in this Subsection
48      (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in
49      a voluntary conversation.

—
H.B. 70 Forcible Entry Amendments

BILL STATUS: Waiting to be heard at the House Judiciary Committee — This bill has been held in committee.  This is an indication it will go no further in the process.

This bill modifies the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers when conducting a search or making an arrest.

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:

  • Amends existing law regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers to include searches;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to identify themselves before forcing entry into a building;
  • Amends existing law to allow law enforcement officers to force entry into a building without first issuing a demand or explanation if there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be easily or quickly destroyed;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to use the least amount of force necessary when executing forcible entry, as authorized;
  • Requires that any application for a warrant to forcibly enter a place of residence shall:
    • explain why law enforcement officials cannot use less invasive or confrontational methods to effectuate the necessary search or arrest;
    • explain why the search or arrest cannot be executed during the day, if it is to be executed at night, as defined; and
    • describe investigative activities that have been or will be undertaken prior to executing the search or arrest to ensure that the correct building has been
    •  identified or explain why no investigative activities are needed; and
    • clarifies that any information or property obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible in court.

COURT STRIKES CALIFORNIA LAW RESTRICTING CONCEALED WEAPONS

628x471
In this file photo, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer points to a shooting target in his office that was used during his firearm training for a concealed weapon permit he obtained because of death threats he received following his 2005 same-sex marriage ruling in San Francisco.

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone who claims a need for self-protection.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” said Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain in the majority opinion.

He disagreed with federal appeals courts that have upheld similar laws in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, while endorsing an appellate court that struck down Illinois’ absolute ban on concealed weapons in public. The split among appellate circuits increases the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue.

The high court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense, but has not addressed its application to carrying weapons in public.

California has long had some of the nation’s strongest restrictions on gun ownership, and, according to the court, is one of only eight states that allow local governments to deny concealed-weapons permits. The state formerly allowed residents to carry unloaded firearms in public, with ammunition in a separate container, but repealed that law at the start of 2013.

The ban on openly carrying guns made it impossible for most law-abiding citizens in counties like SanDiego to “bear arms” for self-defense, O’Scannlain said in Thursday’s ruling. He said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to “bear arms” must include the right to carry weapons outside the home.

The risk of armed confrontation “is not limited to the home,” O’Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of “a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site.”

C.D. Michel, lawyer for the National Rifle and Pistol Foundation and individuals who challenged the San Diego County system, said sheriffs in many rural California counties already comply with the court’s standard by issuing gun permits to anyone who wants one for self-defense. But urban counties require evidence of a special need for a weapon, the requirement that the court invalidated, he said.

“The right to self-defense doesn’t end at your threshold,” Michel said.

James Chapin, the San Diego deputy county counsel who defended the permit system, said the county will ask the full appeals court for a rehearing before an 11-judge panel. The ruling will be on hold while that request is pending.

O’Scannlain, one of the court’s most conservative members, was joined by fellow conservative Connie Callahan in the majority, while liberal Judge Sidney Thomas dissented.

“Courts and state legislatures have long recognized the danger to public safety of allowing unregulated, concealed weapons to be carried in public,” Thomas said. By allowing permits only to those who show a special need for self-protection, he said, San Diego and other counties strike “a reasonable balance between individuals interest in self-defense and the public’s interest in limiting the proliferation of handguns in public spaces.”

WAITING FOR THE DOGS DURING POLICE TRAFFIC STOPS

Imagine a police officer pulls over a car for a routine traffic violation, such as speeding or driving with a broken taillight. During the stop, the officer develops a hunch that there may be drugs in the car. He contacts a local K-9 unit and requests a trained drug-sniffing dog; when the unit arrives, another officer will walk the dog around the car to see if it alerts to drugs inside. Although the Supreme Court has held that the use of the dog is not a search, the length of a warrantless stop must be reasonable. The officer can’t delay the driver forever.

This raises a question of Fourth Amendment law that has led to a lot of lower court litigation: If dogsniffthe officer has no reasonable suspicion that drugs are in the car — that is, he only has a hunch — how long can the traffic stop be delayed before the dog arrives and checks out the car?

This might seem like a really technical question. But it’s actually pretty important. If courts say that the police can’t extend the stop even one second to bring over the dogs, then the dogs will only be used when they happen to be right there or some reasonable suspicion exists specifically justifying their use. On the other hand, if the courts say that the police can extend the stop for a long time, then the police will be free to bring out the dogs at routine traffic stops whenever they like.

Lower courts have generally answered the question by adopting a de minimis doctrine. Officers can extend the stop and wait for the dogs for a de minimis amount of time. But exactly how long is that?

Just yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in United States v. Rodriguez that seven to eight minutes is de minimis. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Nevada held a few months ago in State v. Beckman that nine minutes is too long.

These are just lower-court decisions, of course, and there is room to argue that duration alone isn’t the only criteria for whether a stop was too long.
Plus, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to announce arbitrary-sounding time limits on Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Off the top of my head, the only time it has suggested such limits is County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, and even then it did so only because an earlier decision that did not suggest a specific time limit had caused significant chaos in the lower courts in that specific context.

But as of yesterday, the simple (if simplistic) answer to the question might have unusual mathematical precision, at least if you accept the lower court cases as correct. The Constitution allows the police to extend the stop without suspicion for eight minutes, but not a minute longer.

2014 UTAH LEGISLATIVE BILLS TO WATCH

The Utah Legislature commenced its’ 2014 Legislative session on Monday. Below is a list of bills that may have an affect on you and your 2nd amendment rights. These will be updated and others added as the session progresses. Click on a title to taken to the related page on the Legislatures website.

—
H.B. 75S1 Restoration of Civil Rights for Nonviolent Felons.

BILL STATUS: Bill has passed the House and is awaiting to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This bill exempts nonviolent felons from the categories of restricted persons who are prohibited from possessing a dangerous weapon.

Suggested change to the code: (directly from the bill at the time of posting)

51        (c) As used in this section, a conviction of a felony or adjudication of delinquency for
52       an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult does not include:
53       (i) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency for an offense pertaining to antitrust
54      violations, unfair trade practices, restraint of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the
55      regulation of business practices not involving theft or fraud; or
56      (ii) a conviction or adjudication of delinquency which, according to the law of the
57      jurisdiction in which it occurred, has been expunged, set aside, reduced to a misdemeanor by
58      court order, pardoned or regarding which the person’s civil rights have been restored unless the
59      pardon, reduction, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person
 60      may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
61          (d) It is the burden of the defendant in a criminal case to provide evidence that a
62      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is subject to an exception provided in Subsection
63      (1)(c), after which it is the burden of the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
64      conviction or adjudication of delinquency is not subject to that exception.—

—
H.B. 276 Disorderly Conduct Amendments

BILL STATUS: Waiting to be heard at the House Rules Committee — This bill is not moving very fast which can can indicate that it does not have the backing to pass both the House and Senate.

This bill includes displaying a dangerous weapon under certain circumstances in the definition of disorderly conduct.

Suggested change to the code: (directly from the bill at the time of posting)

43          (3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible
44      or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable
45      person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed unlawfully or with
46      criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. For purposes of this section, the
47      belief of a reasonable person may not be based on a mistake of law. Nothing in this Subsection
48      (3) may limit or prohibit a law enforcement officer from approaching or engaging any person in
49      a voluntary conversation.

—
H.B. 70 Forcible Entry Amendments

BILL STATUS: Waiting to be heard at the House Judiciary Committee — This bill has been held in committee.  This is an indication it will go no further in the process.

This bill modifies the Utah Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers when conducting a search or making an arrest.

Highlighted Provisions:
This bill:

  • Amends existing law regarding the use of forcible entry by law enforcement officers to include searches;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to identify themselves before forcing entry into a building;
  • Amends existing law to allow law enforcement officers to force entry into a building without first issuing a demand or explanation if there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be easily or quickly destroyed;
  • Requires law enforcement officers to use the least amount of force necessary when executing forcible entry, as authorized;
  • Requires that any application for a warrant to forcibly enter a place of residence shall:
    • explain why law enforcement officials cannot use less invasive or confrontational methods to effectuate the necessary search or arrest;
    • explain why the search or arrest cannot be executed during the day, if it is to be executed at night, as defined; and
    • describe investigative activities that have been or will be undertaken prior to executing the search or arrest to ensure that the correct building has been
    •  identified or explain why no investigative activities are needed; and
    • clarifies that any information or property obtained in violation of these provisions is inadmissible in court.