From GeorgiaCarry.Org:
Please use caution on MARTA!
Those of you who live in the Atlanta area know that MARTA is the local mass transit agency. It operates both buses and trains. GeorgiaCarry.Org previously informed you in a GCO Update that it was working in conjunction with MARTA (at MARTA’s invitation) to develop an agreed policy that would not violate the Fourth Amendment.
While it is entirely possible that MARTA intends to unveil a constitutional policy on Monday, GCO is beginning to have its doubts. GCO has not been invited for any further discussions after it clearly stated what the Fourth Amendment requires. MARTA has not, as of Friday evening, vountarily shared its new official policy. As it stands now, it appears that not only is MARTA going to use force to detain you in the absence of any reasonable suspicion of a crime, but MARTA is actively encouraging its employees and passengers to contact one of MARTA’s 300 police officers if they see a weapon, so that the police can respond and demand a firearms license.
Ignoring the “request” is apparently going to have severe consequences.
Here is the paycheck insert that MARTA gave to all its employees recently.
Note that the flyer states, quite clearly, the consequences of failure to produce a license upon request. “Failure to produce a license will result in confiscation of the firearm and the issuance of a citation. MARTA police will strictly enforce all provisions of this law. It is still against the law to carry any other weapons on MARTA.” This statement is repeated on the last page in even larger print.
Is that clear enough? A comparison of MARTA’s policy to the case law GCO cited in its Glynn County letter should illustrate the constitutional difficulties with taking any forceful action based on nothing more than the presence of a firearm.
Later, the flyer asks MARTA employees who observe a firearm to “call MARTA Police and report that an individual with a firearm has been observed.” From its discussions, GCO believes that MARTA is of the firm opinion that a “man with a gun” call justifies a forcible stop under the standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. For the contrary view, see how federal courts have treated similar claims by reviewing the cases in the Glynn County letter, above. In order to stop and harass as many people lawfully carrying firearms as possible, MARTA is ordering its employees to report firearms to the police and encouraging its passengers to do the same.
Please exercise the utmost caution on MARTA. It appears that MARTA’s police force is being ordered to use force to detain people who are not suspected of having committed any crime.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio stated if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then the officer can temporarily put away the Fourth Amendment and engage in searches and seizures. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations”. The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
This case was decided in 1968 and everyone in law enforcement know well their permissions and limitations. If there is no reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then the officer cannot perform any search or seizure as the citizen is still under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The mere fact that a person is openly or concealed carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion of a crime and is not enough to allow a search or seizure.
MARTA, on the other hand, being a government entity and therefore more wise than us mere mortals, is going to take the approach that if they see a gun they’re going to assume a crime, at least long enough to demand search and seizure. What they cannot seem to grasp is that the only people that will be openly carrying a gun are those that are legally entitled to. Criminals rarely carry their guns in $100 hip holsters.
In United States v. Ubiles it was stated: First, it is not a crime to possess a firearm in the Virgin Islands–even when standing in a crowd. Second, the anonymous tipster who approached the authorities had said nothing that would indicate that Ubiles possessed the gun unlawfully (e.g., without registration); that he was committing or about to commit a crime; or that he posed a threat to the officers or anyone in the crowd. Therefore, the stop and subsequent search [of Ubiles] were unjustified because the precondition for a Terry stop [defined in Terry v. Ohio] was not present in this case.
In United States v. Dudley it was stated that a report of persons with guns did not justify an investigative stop.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000), declared that there is no “gun exception” to the Fourth Amendment.
Even though both logic and previous case law are against MARTA’s actions it appears that MARTA is going to take a heavy-handed initial approach, causing turmoil where there is none other than their own hysteria.
MARTA, Atlanta, GeorgiaCarry.Org, firearm, gun, Terry v. Ohio
