That regards "reasonableness" of a traffic stop and suppression of evidence discovered. I don't think the officer in the original post disarmed OP incident to arrest or questioning, he just grabbed the guy's weapon.Jago668 wrote:Yes it is, thanks to our wonderful SCOTUS. Heien vs North Carolina, 8-1 vote with Sotomayor was the one and only dissent.ScottDLS wrote:Is "as he understood the law" the standard in all cases? Seems kind of lax for physically assaulting someone.JP171 wrote:I kinda agree with you but, as the officer understood the law(no matter how wrong) it is illegal to bring a firearm into a liquor store under the 51%provision he was acting within the color of his authority(again no matter how wrong he was) he it seems possibly chose a different route than arresting and charging the OP by removing the weapon from the OP and the store. Yes his training is apparently substandard or he ignored it and is willfully ignorant and negligent but if he had chosen to call the local PD it would have been more of a pain as well if the local pd agreed with him.C-dub wrote:Okay legal eagles and LEOs. A LEO has the right to disarm us, but is this manner within their rights? If not, how does this not fall into the category of assault? Is it just because it was a LEO? If so, that doesn't seem right.
He might have been on stronger grounds if he attempted to arrest him for what he believed was a felony, but that's not apparently what happened. I'd like to see the Texas courts weigh in on a similar situation before we declare this as the standard justification for assault.