On February 21, 2018, Putnam County Sheriff’s Office Deputy B.E. Donahoe responded to a complaint relayed from the emergency dispatch center that someone had reported that there was an individual walking down the side of a public road while in possession of a firearm. The individual was the plaintiff, Michael Walker, who being a victim of epileptic seizures, does not have a driver’s license. He was headed coyote hunting, and had a rifle strapped over his back, along with a backpack. Deputy Donahoe brutally insulted Mr. Walker, who was being polite, but insisting that he had committed no crime, and therefore should not be stopped and forced to hand over his ID. Donahoe repeatedly called him a “c_cksucker” while forcibly detaining him and running a criminal background check on him and questioning him as to why he would need an AR-15. The incident was fully captured on video by Mr. Walker.
At the time Deputy Donahoe responded to the scene, he possessed no prior knowledge of Mr. Walker. All he knew about Mr. Walker is what he observed when he arrived at the scene, which was observing him walking down the side of the road. He didn’t recall who had called 911, or specifically what the complainant had stated, other than that there was a guy walking down the side of the road with a firearm. Upon arriving at the scene, he observed Mr. Walker walking down the side of the road with a rifle “strapped across his back,” with the muzzle of the gun pointed towards the sky.
Upon arriving at the scene, Mr. Donahoe did not observe Walker committing any criminal activity. Nor was he informed by any other source that any crime had been committed by any individual. Walker was just walking. Donahoe had no indication that Mr. Walker was a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. Donahoe testified that he did not observe Mr. Walker doing anything unsafe with the rifle strapped on his back; nor did he observe the rifle in Mr. Walker’s hands; nor did he observe Mr. Walker acting threatening in any way. His only reason for stopping Mr. Walker was to find out if he was a prohibited person.
As portrayed by video footage taken by Mr. Walker with his phone, the interaction was not consensual. Donahoe gave Mr. Walker “no choice” in the matter. He told him during the stop that he was not free to leave until he was done with his investigation. Donahoe explained that the only investigation he was undertaking at the time, to which Mr. Walker was forced to submit, was to run Mr. Walker’s criminal history report, in order to determine whether he “was a person that could possess a firearm.” Admittedly, he had no information indicating that Mr. Walker may have been a prohibited person.
The case is over. We lost. Compare the video footage of the encounter with the legal aftermath, from the trial court level, through appeal to the Fourth Circuit, oral arguments, and ending with a deeply flawed published Fourth Circuit opinion. This case demonstrates what I refer to as a Bermuda Triangle of civil rights law….
Here we are following the hearing at the U.S. District Court in Huntington, West Virginia.
The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment for the officer, dismissing the lawsuit filed by Michael Walker. The order essentially created a carve-out for AR-15 style rifles from the usual reasonable suspicion analysis:
Here, Walker’s possession of an AR-15-style rifle under these circumstances was unusual and alarming. Whereas possessing an AR-15 at a shooting range or on one’s own property would not raise an eyebrow, there was no obvious reason for the rifle’s possession here.
Unlike a holstered handgun, like that at issue in U.S. v. Black, AR-15s are not commonly carried for self-defense. 707 F.3d at 535. Nor are they traditionally used for hunting. Seeing Walker at 6:00 p.m. in February in an urban area would further diminish an inference that Walker possessed the rifle for hunting because the sun would soon set and hunting after dark is generally prohibited.
The rifle being uncased, ready to fire at a moment’s notice, and Walker’s camouflage pants also contributed to an unusual presentation of the firearm. See Embody, 695 F.3d at 581 (finding an openly carrying man’s military-style camouflage clothing contributed to reasonable suspicion); Deffert, 111 F. Supp. 3d at 809, 810 (holding the same).
The sight was unusual and startling enough to prompt a concerned citizen to dial 9-1-1 and for Donahoe, based on his practical experience, to investigate Walker’s destination. See Deffert, 111 F. Supp. 3d at 809 (holding an officer responding to a 9-1- 1 call about a man carrying a firearm, as opposed to randomly stopping the man, supports finding reasonable suspicion); Smiscik, 49 F. Supp. 3d at 499 (holding the same).
Together, these facts would form a particularized and objective basis for an investigatory stop.
Here is the full District Court Order that was appealed to the Fourth Circuit:
This was our opening brief to the Fourth Circuit:
Listen to oral arguments from this case at the Fourth Circuit:
Here’s me actually arguing to the Fourth Circuit panel, via my computer, in the bizarro world that was 2021 America:
Here’s the Fourth Circuit Opinion that ensued:
Here is our petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied:
Bad timing on this case…week after Parkland. Court twisted the law to try to do something to stop school shootings. This is a case that’s kind of the opposite of what lawyers are told to do….”if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts.” Except this time the appellate court kind of did it this way.
Parkland was bad. There was a school near where the client was walking. This was not a handgun or a shotgun. The encounter with the oaf/tyrant/jerk was 9 minutes and he didn’t accost the client.
I feel bad because this should have been a winning case under the law, but this is also one I understand why the Court twisted things to get the result it wanted.
Well, golly! The poor private security officer called “cop” was told by his fellows that by now they’d be “correcting” we pesky citizens openly all over the communist country called the United States of (private) Banking by now and he’s getting a wee bit cranky waiting. Can you imagine the orgasmic joy those traitors will show once they hire/train/arm those tens of thousands of “agents” for the Central Bank’s PRIVATE collection agency, the IRS? I wonder how much they’ll demand we pay them? I guess we all were too distracted by forcing all those other nations to accept their own version of private banking to keep an eye on what “they” were doing here, eh? Or were we simply too goddamn politically correct?
Thom would be so disappointed;
**
Thomas Jefferson on private banking;
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” Jefferson wrote. ” If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around(these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
“The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
Don’t know about you folks, but I’m beginning to understand why Germany/Italy/Spain, (hell Europe in general), wanted the Wall Street communists OUT along with their versions of the FED RES.
Sigh, enough peeing into the wind, I’m going back to sleep!
This is troubling indeed. I’m not sure which court this was litigated in so, I ask, is there any other appeal process this can be furthered to?
I do not know what to say.
Just goes to show you (us) how little our civil rights count. Our forefathers have just turned over in their graves. Not to mention all of the lives lost of the real heroes that fought for our rights. During the affidavit or questioning part of the cop….his demeanor had a completely different side. It revealed how cowardice they really are. Red flower.