After two years of waiting after oral arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on qualified immunity for a Waterbury, Connecticut police officer, deciding he wasn’t entitled to qualified immunity for violating the constitutionally protected rights of a gun owner.
The lawsuit stems from a November 12, 2018, encounter between Basel Soukaneh and Waterbury Police Officer Nicholas Andrzejewski. At approximately 8:43 p.m., Soukaneh pulled over his car to fix his mobile phone, which froze up. The phone was attached to the dash of his vehicle. Soukaneh turned on this dome light to see what he was doing.
The area is known for drugs and prostitution, so the stopped car drew the attention of Officer Andrzejewski. The law enforcement officer approached the vehicle and demanded Soukaneh’s license. He would hand over his driver’s license and his gun permit. Mr. Soukaneh legally owned and carried a firearm in his car. He did not commit any crime and had a clean criminal record, but that didn’t matter to Andrzejewski.
Upon seeing the permit, Andrzejewski dragged Soukaneh out of the car and slammed him to the ground. The officer handcuffed the man and threw him into the back of his police cruiser. Andrzejewski searched Soukaneh’s car from bumper to bumper, including its trunk. When Andrzejewski didn’t turn up anything, Andrzejewski and seven other officers held Soukaneh in the back of the police cruiser for an additional 30 minutes. During this time, Andrzejewski consulted with another officer about what to write Soukaneh up for, showing they didn’t have a valid reason.
After being freed, Soukaneh would file a complaint and file a federal lawsuit over the illegal search and detainment. He claimed that Andrzejewski violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The case was filed under Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski. Officer Andrzejewski’s defense was simple. Since he was a law enforcement officer, he was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields an officer from being personally sued for something that happens in the line of duty. The exception to the rule is for a willful gross violation of someone’s rights.
Andrzejewski asked the Court for summary judgment because of qualified immunity. The District Court judge granted summary judgment for Andrzejewski for the traffic stop but denied summary judgment for the search and the detainment. The Court said Andrzejewski could not use qualified immunity to excuse the de facto arrest and the search because the officer violated Soukaneh’s constitutional rights. Because of the loss in the District Court, Andrzejewski would appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the Court to reverse the District Court’s decision.
“On appeal, Andrzejewski argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment as to his handcuffed detention of Soukaneh in Andrzejewski’s police car, search of the interior of Soukaneh’s car, and search of the trunk of Soukaneh’s car, because he acted reasonably within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment,” the order reads. “To determine whether Andrzejewski is entitled to qualified immunity for those actions, we must consider whether Andrzejewski violated Soukaneh’s constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure, and if so, whether the violated rights were clearly established at that time.”
The oral argument took place in October of 2022. During the arguments, lawyers for Andrzejewski agreed that the search had gone far past a “Terry stop.” A “Terry stop” allows an officer to pat down a suspect and ensure nothing is within reach. The lawyers argued that Andrzejewski was entitled to qualified immunity because the gun permit presented to Andrzejewski gave him probable cause to handcuff Soukaneh and search his car, including his trunk. They pushed against the narrative that the detainment was a de facto arrest.
The judges rejected Andrzejewski’s Lawyer’s arguments. They stated that the handcuffing Soukaneh and throwing him back in the police car was clearly a de facto arrest. They used the extra time that Soukaneh was detained after the search revealed nothing illegal, and the firearms permit was proven valid as evidence. The judges noted that almost every box for a de facto arrest was checked, violating the plaintiff’s rights. Officers are not permitted to extend a traffic stop longer than needed.
“The present case satisfies nearly all of the de facto arrest factors,” the judges wrote. “First, Andrzejewski left Soukaneh detained in the police cruiser for approximately 30 minutes after the search of the car had concluded. The record is unclear about the sequence of Andrzejewski’s actions and exactly how long Soukaneh was detained. But it is a reasonable inference based on the record that Soukaneh remained detained for longer than the time it took Andrzejewski to ‘address [any] traffic violation that warranted the stop,’ ‘attend to related safety concerns,’ or even confirm the validity of the firearms permit if he had reason to question its validity.”
From Oral Arguments
The judges also ruled that just because someone has a firearm or a gun permit does not give law enforcement probable cause to conduct a search of someone’s vehicle or arrest someone. Andrzejewski admitted in testimony that the firearms license was the only “probable cause” he had. The judges highlighted that if a firearm could be considered probable cause, then anyone carrying a gun would have to give up their Fourth Amendment protections. The liberal judges are no friend to gun owners, but even they believed this situation went too far.
“The desire to confirm the legitimacy of the facially valid firearms permit that Soukaneh presented did not—with nothing more—provide Andrzejewski with probable cause for the half-hour or longer handcuffed detention that occurred,” the judges wrote. “It is uncontested that Soukaneh presented Andrzejewski with a gun license, the legitimacy of which Andrzejewski himself admits he had no reason to question. Moreover, Andrzejewski concedes that he was informed of the facially valid license before Soukaneh told him that he had a gun and specified its location. Andrzejewski does not allege that the permit appeared abnormal in any fashion or that Soukaneh engaged in any suspicious or threatening behavior. On the facts before us, Andrzejewski does not provide an articulable reason why he, or any other reasonable officer, could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Soukaneh possessed his firearm unlawfully in violation of Section 29-38(a). To find otherwise would consign those validly carrying firearms pursuant to a license to automatic detention because it would effectively presume that gun permits are invalid until proven valid, or that lawfully owned guns are per se contraband until proven otherwise. Such a finding would effectively render armed individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights meaningless when they are lawfully carrying firearms.”
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The case was remanded back to the District Court for further action. There is no date yet for the District Court proceedings.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. Mr. Crump has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment