[CavalierKnight]

On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Michael Donio declined to dismiss a case for unlawful possession of a firearm against Philadelphia resident Shaneen Allen. Allen was arrested during a traffic stop last October after she volunteered to the officer that she had a firearm in her car. She mistakenly believed her Pennsylvania license to carry firearms was valid in New Jersey. This was hardly an unreasonable assumption, considering that Pennsylvania concealed carry licensees can lawfully carry in over 30 other states.

Nevertheless, Judge Donio sided with prosecutors in deciding that Allen was not covered by a 180-day gun amnesty period for the surrender of firearms in New Jersey that happened to be occurring at the time of her arrest. The judge also refused to overrule the Atlantic County Prosecutor's decision to deny Allen a pre-trial intervention program that could have helped her avoid a criminal conviction.

New Jersey offers first-time offenders the opportunity to avoid criminal adjudications through the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI). The stated purpose of PTI is to "render early rehabilitative services, when such services can reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior." Allen is a 27-year-old mother of two with no criminal record who was employed as a healthcare worker at the time of her arrest. She obtained her concealed carry permit after she herself was twice the victim of robbery. The Atlantic County prosecutor has not alleged Allen possessed the firearm for criminal purposes or with evil intent. Indeed, the Atlantic County PTI Director agreed to accept Allen into the PTI program.

​

NRA-ILA | Reciprocity Mix Up Leads to Felony Charges for Philadelphia Mom

 

[Darthgamer138]

"after she volunteered to the officer that she had a firearm in her car."

Will people ever learn?

On top of that, the fact that cops can look at a legal license to carry a pistol and STILL arrest someone makes my blood boil. Just imagine if drivers licenses worked that way. What, exactly, did you accomplish by arresting this woman, officer? In what way did you protect and or serve?

 

[Airborneguy]

I know this isn't going to appease anyone, but as far as I know, all cops in NJ have recorders on their person and dash cams that record every car stop. This is of course a result of laws created to "reign in" the police. If she made a statement which indicated she was in FELONY violation of NJ's gun laws and it was recorded, then the officer had no choice other than to make the arrest or face serious disciplinary action. I'm not recorded. I've had incidents in the past where people have blurted out incriminating statements which I was able to ignore or otherwise us discretion on because of this. But once we're forced to wear cameras and mics, that will no longer be an option and I certainly won't blame myself for regulations put in place to supposedly keep me in line. It has been said on this forum many times that officers should not have the power of discretion. Anyone who holds that belief should be perfectly ok with arrests such as this one. You can't have it both ways.

 

[ChrisWNY]

I agree examples like this are infuriating. Total abuse of power by a corrupt NJ penal system. As much as I would like to see a 1983 thrown at the arresting officer, if what Airborneguy says is true, it may not make sense if the officer is forced to use a recording device at all times. Unfortunately, the judge is immune from lawsuits resulting from his own frivolous actions. Plain and simple, this woman's civil rights were violated here. I hope she hires a competent attorney. NJ taxpayers might/should be footing this woman's retirement.

 

[Airborneguy]

I agree examples like this are infuriating. Total abuse of power. I hope she slaps a 1983 at the arresting officer after all is said and done. If it takes civil lawsuits to bankrupt the officers making these arrests, so be it.

What would the officer be liable for? Enforcing the laws of his state? There's not a snowballs chance in hell that he/she faces any sanctions.

 

[ChrisWNY]

What would the officer be liable for? Enforcing the laws of his state? There's not a snowballs chance in hell that he/she faces any sanctions.

I changed my post, btw. Yes, the officer can be held civilly liable for depriving someone of their civil rights. It's a federal action that can be brought against an arresting officer or authority. Sh**ty overzealous (oh yeah, Unconstitutional) laws passed by a State/local legislature can open the door for lawsuits against their officers.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Section+1983
By the way, for any LEO's who aren't familiar with Section 1983, please read up on it. Here's the kicker (and I hope it sparks some rage amongst the LEO crowd) - legislators and lawmakers are completely immune to any civil tort brought forth by someone who is deprived of their [federal] civil rights in a 1983 due to a crap/unconstitutional law. However, the arresting officer is not immune. This really puts law enforcement in a tough position. The legislators who drafted and/or VOTED for the sh**ty law should be held liable IMO, not just law enforcement.

 

[Airborneguy]

I've never heard of a case where an officer was held personally liable for enforcing a duly passed and, like in this case, long standing state law. Absent clear violations, it is extremely rare for an officer to face civil rights charges.

 

[Unclewilley]

I've never heard of a case where an officer was held personally liable for enforcing a duly passed and, like in this case, long standing state law. Absent clear violations, it is extremely rare for an officer to face civil rights charges.

The real crime here is that NJ gets away with infringing on Second Amendment Rights and that lawmakers have made themselves immune from prosecution for violating our civil rights!!!!!

 

[ChrisWNY]

I've never heard of a case where an officer was held personally liable for enforcing a duly passed and, like in this case, long standing state law. Absent clear violations, it is extremely rare for an officer to face civil rights charges.

A DA would likley drop or reduce a charge in order to avoid a potential 1983 case against one of their officers, probably the primary reason why civil rights charges against an arresting officer are so rare. Things don't often go that far. A 1983 can be filed against a city or town as well, in addition to the arresting officer. I'll have to dig up some examples but 1983 filings are not terribly uncommon. 2A Rights are arguably being grossly violated by NJ in this scenario, so I'm somewhat miffed as to how these charges could possibly stick. The woman had no evil/ill intentions, she possessed and owned the firearm legally in her State and was licensed to carry in her State. The woman's defense attorney and other pro-liberty speakers in the video clip were dead-on - Constitutional rights extend beyond State lines, reciprocity should be uniform. If you're licensed to carry in one State, you're good to go in all of them. NJ should be slapped hard at the federal level.

 

[Darthgamer138]

If you face disciplinary action for upholding the constitution, and yet continue to keep your job on your own free will, yep, shame on you.

 

[truebeliever2013]

A DA would likley drop or reduce a charge in order to avoid a potential 1983 case against one of their officers, probably the primary reason why civil rights charges against an arresting officer are so rare. Things don't often go that far. A 1983 can be filed against a city or town as well, in addition to the arresting officer. I'll have to dig up some examples but 1983 filings are not terribly uncommon. 2A Rights are arguably being grossly violated by NJ in this scenario, so I'm somewhat miffed as to how these charges could possibly stick. The woman had no evil/ill intentions, she possessed and owned the firearm legally in her State and was licensed to carry in her State. The woman's defense attorney and other pro-liberty speakers in the video clip were dead-on - Constitutional rights extend beyond State lines, reciprocity should be uniform. If you're licensed to carry in one State, you're good to go in all of them. NJ should be slapped hard at the federal level.

clearly you don't understand what most cops learn. Some the hard way. The DA does not care about the cops and they are not our friend. They will sell out a cop for politics in a second.

As far as suing the cop, until the court recognizes the 2nd beyond state lines with recopicity for CCW, it will not work. How many pre-Heller/ McDonald convictions for gun possession were overturned in IL. How many lawsuits worked there. How much money did they win? I don't know but I haven't heard of any. I am sure some have gotten them overturned but money damages?

 

[Dr. Evil]

May Superior Court Judge Michael Donio rot in hell.

 

[2ndSupporter]

1983 does Not put LEOs in a bad position, IF THEY HONOR THEIR OATH.

the First LEO to get Severely Dissaplined as Airborne guy states Will In Fact become a Millionaire and a Nationally recognized figure, maybe even a senator.

Imagine the Headlines, LEO Fired due to Honoring an Oath He Swore to Uphold The Constitution.

Just another example of the cover your own butt concept in this country and Ignore the Constitution and my Oath to defend it. I hope NJ and this cop are held to pay her off bigtime, both need to be made an example of. Will it happen, doubt it!

 

[PJZWTL]

What, exactly, did you accomplish by arresting this woman, officer? In what way did you protect and or serve?

He got his gold star and prime parking spot for a gun bust

 

[Paxal]

Everytime I hear about this, it makes me more angry. Unbelieveable! CC should stop this now!

 

[depick]

It's absolutely terrible that those children could possibly lose their mother over a simple mistake. This is just an opportunity that the NJ prosecutors have jumped all over to stick it to gun owners and if they destroy an innocent woman's life in the process so be it. It disgusts me that this can take place their needs to be some level of reciprocity between states to prevent situations like this from even occurring. I agree with Dr. Evil judge Donio needs to rot in hell.

 

[2ndSupporter]

The term Reciprocity should never be associated with a Right! By virtue of Our Birth Certificates we have Rights.

Dont they now issue drivers licenses to Illegal Aliens who are guilty of a Felony by virtue of just being here? Yet this woman has more of a right to drive from coast to coast than to be given the ability to defend her and her childrens life.

Sad state of affairs here.

 

[ChrisWNY]

clearly you don't understand what most cops learn. Some the hard way. The DA does not care about the cops and they are not our friend. They will sell out a cop for politics in a second.

As far as suing the cop, until the court recognizes the 2nd beyond state lines with recopicity for CCW, it will not work. How many pre-Heller/ McDonald convictions for gun possession were overturned in IL. How many lawsuits worked there. How much money did they win? I don't know but I haven't heard of any. I am sure some have gotten them overturned but money damages?

In 1983 cases where plaintiffs received monetary awards in judgments, the State most often underwrites the constitutional tort, essentially becoming a "silent insurer" for the unlawful conduct of its troopers. Only rarely has a defendant had to pay out-of-pocket when tagged with a civil violation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. I did some research earlier this morning concerning judgments and jury awards resulting from 1983's, and there are thousands of them (many against law enforcement officials). There aren't many 1983's however for issues concerning 2A violations, and as you implied that is because (thank you Scalia) the door was left open for States to restrict 2A rights, to an extent, after the Heller/McDonald rulings. As for monetary damages resulting from successful 1983 actions, they range from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of $$$$ on average. Let's not forget however that the woman detained in NJ can bring forth action pursuant to several Constitutional amendments, her potential claims go beyond just 2A.

 

[truebeliever2013]

In 1983 cases where plaintiffs received monetary awards in judgments, the State most often underwrites the constitutional tort, essentially becoming a "silent insurer" for the unlawful conduct of its troopers. Only rarely has a defendant had to pay out-of-pocket when tagged with a civil violation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. I did some research earlier this morning concerning judgments and jury awards resulting from 1983's, and there are thousands of them (many against law enforcement officials). There aren't many 1983's however for issues concerning 2A violations, and as you implied that is because (thank you Scalia) the door was left open for States to restrict 2A rights, to an extent, after the Heller/McDonald rulings. As for monetary damages resulting from successful 1983 actions, they range from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of $$$$ on average. Let's not forget however that the woman detained in NJ can bring forth action pursuant to several Constitutional amendments, her potential claims go beyond just 2A.

Maybe. If the case is thrown out first due to a technical issue on the stop. I do not know NJ law but I do not believe they have the same restrictions imposed on car stops as the NYS court of appeals. By the federal standard, I do not know what the "issue" in the car stop will be to get thrown out at a suppression hearing

As far as 1983, almost every cop I know who has been sued is now sued under this statue. The DA doesn't care. They decline to prosecute cases all the time and leave the officer open to lawsuits despite the merits of the case or law. They do not care.

And maybe she can win money. But it won't because of 2A or a matter of reciprocity. It would be a search and seizure .

We get sued for it all the time for right or wrong. Again I cite this example:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/hit-new-york-600g-article-1.578249

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/nyregion/22shoot.html?_r=0

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gunman-shoots-wild-bias-rap-nypd-suit-article-1.240834
[/URL]

 

[Dion]

A DA would likley drop or reduce a charge in order to avoid a potential 1983 case against one of their officers, probably the primary reason why civil rights charges against an arresting officer are so rare. Things don't often go that far. A 1983 can be filed against a city or town as well, in addition to the arresting officer. I'll have to dig up some examples but 1983 filings are not terribly uncommon. 2A Rights are arguably being grossly violated by NJ in this scenario, so I'm somewhat miffed as to how these charges could possibly stick. The woman had no evil/ill intentions, she possessed and owned the firearm legally in her State and was licensed to carry in her State. The woman's defense attorney and other pro-liberty speakers in the video clip were dead-on - Constitutional rights extend beyond State lines, reciprocity should be uniform. If you're licensed to carry in one State, you're good to go in all of them. NJ should be slapped hard at the federal level.

How about against the judge and da for perusing the case?