Stevenson v. (Roanoke City police officers) Kwiecinski

[peter nap]

This thing is so full of holes it's pathetic.

At one point in the dashcam video, a group of officers are standing arround while the OP is handcuffed in the car.

One Officer says "I wonder how long we can hold him" another says as long as he's under investigation.

 

[user]

Whether I prosecute the appeal or not, I can help out in some ways.

This all assumes that the notice of appeal was properly sent and that the time for filing the petition hasn't run out.

I need to know whether a transcript of the trial was ordered (they're expensive) and if not, get one ordered toute de suite. Secondly, I can receive money on behalf of the appellant and hold it in my trust account (or to use the new phrase the banks prefer, "attorney escrow account") for payment of costs and fees. If anyone sends me money for that purpose, be sure to identify it as a gift for Stevenson; I'll treat it as his property - any excess to be paid out to him at the end of the case (I don't want to have to figure out who gets what percentage returned to him after deducting costs and fees from the aggregate). Make the check out to "Virginia Legal Defense Attorney Escrow Account" (or "VLD" instead of Virginia Legal Defense if that's easier).

I'll check into it (can't do it today, though) and report on the status of the case.

 

[nemo]

> So ignorance of the law IS an excuse, if your job is to enforce the law???

This is the kind of thing that busts my chops (well, the whole situation, too). An honest cop, who is in ANY doubt about the jot and title of the law, has access to a secret weapon that we non-LEO's do not: he can call the magistrate, whose job it is to KNOW THE LAW.

This blog, as well as others, gets accused of cop-bashing. I would sympathize more, with that accusation, if it were not for the thugs with badges I keep hearing about. I guess that all those good cops are too busy palling around with those moderate muslims.

 

[Grapeshot]

IMHO -good LEOs are like good OCers - they are in the vast majority.

We do a disservice to them and ourselves when we paint with too broad a brush.

 

[Neplusultra]

Here is the court opinion cited in St. John vs Alamagordo, where that fed court ruled right. Terry vs Ohio quoted the exact same case. I'm not sure if it was in the briefs in St. John, but it is in summary judgement rendered by that court. That court felt this was an important point:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

No right. More sacred. Free from all restraint. Free from all interference. Unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

It is thus reasonable to expect the police to know the law.

Great Find Citizen!!!

 

[user]

IMHO -good LEOs are like good OCers - they are in the vast majority.

We do a disservice to them and ourselves when we paint with too broad a brush.

Sure, like lawyers, plumbers, dentists, and every other bunch of humans - some of 'em are really good, some are really bad, and most are average.

Question is, why is the City of Roanoke PD collecting so many really bad ones? Bad management? Something is out of control there, no question in my mind.

 

[Grapeshot]

IMHO -good LEOs are like good OCers - they are in the vast majority.

We do a disservice to them and ourselves when we paint with too broad a brush.

Sure, like lawyers, plumbers, dentists, and every other bunch of humans - some of 'em are really good, some are really bad, and most are average.

Question is, why is the City of Roanoke PD collecting so many really bad ones? Bad management? Something is out of control there, no question in my mind.

When there is a pervasive problem, look to the top - to the leadership or lack thereof.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'd much rather destroy the cop's career, sell his personal belongings at auction and keep his kids from going to college.

no matter the circumstances, do you really think that is possible in todays court system?

 

[peter nap]

no matter the circumstances, do you really think that is possible in todays court system?

It is possible but takes some planning and preparation.

Get good recordings and do some investigation into the past behavior. All Cops make mistakes and you need to create a profile that shows an ongoing disregard for the law.
In this case without doing any looking at all, the officer had been sued before in Pennsylvania where he worked before coming to Va (which shouldn't be allowed).
He had injured a prisoner while cuffed in the Paddy Wagon and the case took 6 years for the Department to settle.


Use a very good lawyer if you take it to court. It's actually a lot easier to drag him over the coals through his own department though.

 

[JoeSparky]

no matter the circumstances, do you really think that is possible in todays court system?

IF WE DON'T FILE CLAIMS, either complaints or suits when our rights are violated by those in supposed "Power" exceeding that which is lawful, NOT A CHANCE.

Now, if we do file complaints or lawsuits if abuses occur, we stand a better chance THAN IF WE DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tosta Dojen]

Whether I prosecute the appeal or not, I can help out in some ways.

This all assumes that the notice of appeal was properly sent and that the time for filing the petition hasn't run out.

I need to know whether a transcript of the trial was ordered (they're expensive) and if not, get one ordered toute de suite. Secondly, I can receive money on behalf of the appellant and hold it in my trust account (or to use the new phrase the banks prefer, "attorney escrow account") for payment of costs and fees. If anyone sends me money for that purpose, be sure to identify it as a gift for Stevenson; I'll treat it as his property - any excess to be paid out to him at the end of the case (I don't want to have to figure out who gets what percentage returned to him after deducting costs and fees from the aggregate). Make the check out to "Virginia Legal Defense Attorney Escrow Account" (or "VLD" instead of Virginia Legal Defense if that's easier).

I'll check into it (can't do it today, though) and report on the status of the case.

The transcript of the hearing on the motions just came through a little while back; I'll try to get that posted sometime soon. Notice of appeal was timely filed, as were all the briefs, which means there isn't really anything left to be done, except possibly oral argument. I did specifically request oral arguments, so they'll have to take place unless the panel unanimously agrees that they're unnecessary.

After hearing some of the audio those pricks are a disgrace to all LEOS that do the right thing and respect the rights of "common folk" PM me contact info and some money will be sent your way for the appeal. I really hope you ruin those pieces of craps life. They should be tarred, feathered, and flogged.

I've already got a thing set up for contributions at the page in the OP: http://stevenson-v-kwiecinski.donortools.com/ You can send through there using PayPal. If you're like me and prefer not to use PayPal, you can send your contribution to my home address, which is listed in the original complaint.

Although I've paid all the fees necessary for the appeal to move forward, some of the related expenses are still outstanding. I've also had to miss payments on some of my personal expenses because that money went to the appeal instead.

IF WE DON'T FILE CLAIMS, either complaints or suits when our rights are violated by those in supposed "Power" exceeding that which is lawful, NOT A CHANCE.

Now, if we do file complaints or lawsuits if abuses occur, we stand a better chance THAN IF WE DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, which is why I filed this lawsuit, and why I intend to pursue this as far as I can. I sure could use some help, though. I've been learning very real firsthand lessons about how difficult it is to hold a government official accountable for breaking the law.

 

[The Donkey]

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will not hear oral argument by a pro se litigant.

If the Court deems the issues significant enough, and you have filed for in forma pauperis status, the Court may appoint counsel to represent you on the appeal. But in practice, this rarely happens.

If the case remains classified as "pro se," and no attorney is appointed, the result will be an unpublished decision drafted by the Court's Office of Staff Counsel which has no precedential value.

If you have a lawyer now, it is imperitive that he IMMEDIATELY enter his appearance and move to formally brief and argue this case!

 

[DKSuddeth]

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals will not hear oral argument by a pro se litigant.

why is that? it seems to me that this would be unconstitutional on its face because it denies people access to the courts for redress of grievance.

 

[The Donkey]

why is that? it seems to me that this would be unconstitutional on its face because it denies people access to the courts for redress of grievance.

I do not know the history of this Fourth Circuit policy, but I do know that this is a fact.

As to constitutionality, Courts have considerable discretion in determining whether to grant the parties an oral argument, or to simply decide a matter on the documents submitted.

I understand why you consider this to be unfair: I agree that in practice pro se litigants are relegated to a second class track as compared to cases in which the parties are represented by attorneys.

The best that can be said about the existing system is that it at least gives pro se litigants some opportunity to get their case before appellate judges in some form.

In a few particularly notable cases (such as Gideon v. Wainwright) this has made a considerable difference.

 

[GULCer]

Citation

"If the panel reviewing an informal brief submitted by an indigent pro se litigant determines that
further briefing and possible oral argument would be of assistance, counsel will be appointed and
directed to file additional formal briefs. In any appeal that has been informally briefed, the Court
may direct that additional briefs be filed prior to oral argument."

4th Cir. Loc. R. 34(b)

Just for anyone that wanted the exact language of the 4th Circuit Rule. OP is just reading Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). In practice courts hate pro se litigants and the circuit courts have the right to bar them from appearing for oral argument.

The informal reply brief by OP was filed on October 14, 2010 and therefore briefing is closed. The transcript is due to the 4th Circuit by 11/12/2010. An opinion summarily affirming the district court will likely be forthcoming with a couple months.

 

[804emt]

I'm probably gonna get slaughtered for asking this, but...why didn't you just say you had your pistol on you?

its Roanoke, its good ole country boy sheriffs eatin donuts. Its not like its some d*** in henrico....just sayin....

 

[jmelvin]

Clearly it's not the goofs in Henrico, it's the goofs in Roanoke. An OC or CCer is under no obligation to reveal the details of what personal items they have on their person unless asked. You may only be compelled to produced a CHP if an officer demands it, while carrying concealed, but Mr. Stephenson was not carrying concealed. I don't know what has occurred in Henrico Co., but this is abuse of authority clear as day. If this is what the good ol' boy system gets you, I'd like to understand the re-defined concept of "good".

 

[Grapeshot]

Clearly it's not the goofs in Henrico, it's the goofs in Roanoke. An OC or CCer is under no obligation to reveal the details of what personal items they have on their person unless asked. You may only be compelled to produced a CHP if an officer demands it, while carrying concealed, but Mr. Stephenson was not carrying concealed. I don't know what has occurred in Henrico Co., but this is abuse of authority clear as day. If this is what the good ol' boy system gets you, I'd like to understand the re-defined concept of "good".

Why compelled to show CHP when CCing? There is no RAS.

I do understand that one may deem it easier and prudent.

 

[jmelvin]

Take a look at what I wrote again, a person carrying concealed may only be compelled to produce the CHP when a LEO demands it.

See: 18.2-308 (H): The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall specify only the following information: name, address, date of birth, gender, height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes, and signature of the permittee; the signature of the judge issuing the permit, of the clerk of court who has been authorized to sign such permits by the issuing judge, or of the clerk of court who has been authorized to issue such permits pursuant to subsection D; the date of issuance; and the expiration date. The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall be no larger than two inches wide by three and one-fourth inches long and shall be of a uniform style prescribed by the Department of State Police. The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo-identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the United States Department of Defense or United States State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer.


http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

* Note that this statute does not address when a law enforcement officer may make the demand, when it is determined that someone is carrying concealed.

 

[wylde007]

I do understand that one may deem it easier and prudent.

Because

H. The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall specify only the following information: name, address, date of birth, gender, height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes, and signature of the permittee; the signature of the judge issuing the permit, of the clerk of court who has been authorized to sign such permits by the issuing judge, or of the clerk of court who has been authorized to issue such permits pursuant to subsection D; the date of issuance; and the expiration date. The permit to carry a concealed handgun shall be no larger than two inches wide by three and one-fourth inches long and shall be of a uniform style prescribed by the Department of State Police. The person issued the permit shall have such permit on his person at all times during which he is carrying a concealed handgun and shall display the permit and a photo-identification issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth or by the United States Department of Defense or United States State Department (passport) upon demand by a law-enforcement officer.

I know this is a sour position to take, but when I was detained and ID'ed once while leaving a club at which I was engineering sound (and concealing at the time) the officers ran my ID, discovered I was a CHP holder and told me I had to tell them I was CC, which we all know is a lie.

However, when I presented the complaint to the City of Virginia Beach (the officers were otherwise not unpleasant) the Sgt explained that if I was carrying concealed that they had a right to request proof of legality.

It's a very circular argument to me. They only know I'm a CHP holder from the Terry Stop. They don't know if I am CC unless I tell them. If I tell them (and you're not supposed to "lie" to a cop, right?) then I have to produce my permit and assuage their unnatural fear of a common citizen lawfully exercising his rights.

Ugh. :lol: