ATF offended by slogans, hunts down woman and searches her van

[KBCraig]

Wow. An ATF agent was offended by anti-ATF slogans on a van, so they called in local police to help track down the van, stop the driver, and search her without cause or consent. Be sure to listen to the 911 recordings.

I'll just copy and paste the rest of the story from here:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?p=218299#p218299

ATF and police get report of a blue van driving around Pensacola on April 19 with anti-ATF slogans ("Boo ATF," "Remember the children of Waco) painted on the sides. Police eventually find the van, pull it over, and an ATF agent questions/detains the woman driver for over an hour -- during which the local press showed up. At one point, the ATF agent searched both the van and the woman apparently based on the fact that the woman had a concealed weapon permit. The woman was eventually let go without charges, but the ATF agent may or may not have told her or suggested to her to wipe the slogans off of the van. The agent/police say she was never "under arrest," the woman says she did not know that.

Woman has now sued the ATF and the police/City of Pensacola as well as the individual ATF agent and police officers in Federal court, with the help of the ACLU, alleging her First (free speech) and Fourth (free from unreasonable search and siezure) Amendment rights were violated. The government filed for a summary judgment throwing out the suit, stating among other things that the ATF agent has qualifed immunity and that the woman consented to the search, which she denies.

The judge largely ruled against the government, including rejecting (for now) the qualifed immunity argument, thus allowing the suit to proceed. His ruling indicated that he could not see any legal justification for the search. Keep in mind that in deciding whether to allow the suit to proceed, he must interpret facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the woman driver. However, even given the government's arguments, he concluded this went well beyond a "Terry stop" and was not a legal police action.

Of note related to the concealed weapons permit being justification for a search, the judge wrote:
Quote:

More importantly, Defendant [ATF Agent] contends only that it was necessary to search Plaintiff [woman driver] and her vehicle, essentially because she had a weapons permit. While Plaintiff was indeed found to have a weapon, and evidently the permit to go with it, this alone could hardly have constituted the suspicion of criminal activity upon which the Terry stop was based.

I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. This might be an interesting case to watch.

Here is the ACLU-Florida press release on it:
http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3672

Here is a recording of various related 911/dispatch calls about the van:
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/atfscallstopensacolapolice.wma
[I find an interesting contrast between the ATF agent's statement to the woman driver (that her slogans made the ATF people "nervous" and upset because they had friends that died at Waco) and his tone and wording when talking with the police dispatcher about trying to find some blue van...("it's no big deal"). Also, listen for his comment about how it was the FBI that first noticed the van...]

Here is a .pdf of the judge's ruling:
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Kilpatrick-SJ.pdf

[Pat McCotter]

Really strange portion here!

ATF: The FBI saw this van...

Dispatcher: The FBI saw it?

ATF: Yeah.

Dispatcher: And they didn't do anything about it?

ATF: Are we being recorded?

[KBCraig]

ATF: Are we being recorded?

Rather telling, isn't it?

Also notice how puppy-dog eager the 911 operator was to help out the ATF.

[J’raxis 270145]

I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

What's wrong with the ACLU? There's only one position listed here that I'd consider un-libertarian: support for affirmative action. Some may consider their pro-choice position to be a second. And I know their stance on the Second Amendment upsets a lot of libertarians, but their stance is officially neutrality, not opposition to it. I'm not going to criticize a group for things that they don't take a position on.

Most of the people involved in politics here advocate that one should support an organization or candidate if they're good on 80% of the pertinent issues. The ACLU scores about 91% (10/11) by my calculations—that's better than a lot of the mainstream conservative organizations and politicians that freestaters tend to support!

[Giggan]

I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

What's wrong with the ACLU? There's only one position listed here that I'd consider un-libertarian: support for affirmative action. Some may consider their pro-choice position to be a second. And I know their stance on the Second Amendment upsets a lot of libertarians, but their stance is officially neutrality, not opposition to it. I'm not going to criticize a group for things that they don't take a position on.

Most of the people involved in politics here advocate that one should support an organization or candidate if they're good on 80% of the pertinent issues. The ACLU scores about 91% (10/11) by my calculations—that's better than a lot of the mainstream conservative organizations and politicians that freestaters tend to support!

I could be wrong, but I heard they only changed their statist anti-gun attitude to a 'neutral' only after the Heller case. That's a big issue, and I feel if they can't be trusted there, they can't much be trusted. If they're on our side for most things, great, but I wouldn't consider them our allies. Maybe if they start defending individuals' gun rights, I'll begin to change my opinion.

[J’raxis 270145]

I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

What's wrong with the ACLU? There's only one position listed here that I'd consider un-libertarian: support for affirmative action. Some may consider their pro-choice position to be a second. And I know their stance on the Second Amendment upsets a lot of libertarians, but their stance is officially neutrality, not opposition to it. I'm not going to criticize a group for things that they don't take a position on.

Most of the people involved in politics here advocate that one should support an organization or candidate if they're good on 80% of the pertinent issues. The ACLU scores about 91% (10/11) by my calculations—that's better than a lot of the mainstream conservative organizations and politicians that freestaters tend to support!

I could be wrong, but I heard they only changed their statist anti-gun attitude to a 'neutral' only after the Heller case. That's a big issue, and I feel if they can't be trusted there, they can't much be trusted. If they're on our side for most things, great, but I wouldn't consider them our allies. Maybe if they start defending individuals' gun rights, I'll begin to change my opinion.

Nope, I remember arguing about this point about the ACLU over a year ago. They agree with the Miller case in principle, but since their actual actions are neither for nor against an individual right to bear arms, it doesn't really matter. Here is their position in their own words.

After Heller, I heard that a couple State chapters have broken with the national ACLU over this.

In my opinion, denigrating the ACLU over a single issue that they don't even actually act upon, is another example of "making the perfect the enemy of the good." By that standard, I don't think I could support any organization.

[KBCraig]

I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

What's wrong with the ACLU?

I didn't write that; I copied it from the first URL.

[J’raxis 270145]

I am not a big fan of the ACLU, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

What's wrong with the ACLU?

I didn't write that; I copied it from the first URL.

Ah, oops.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

If they're fighting for freedom for at least some things than I'll back you up.