CHEYENNE, Wyo. A Wyoming sheriffs deputy who detained a combat veteran in handcuffs for openly carrying a pistol offered to let him go if he agreed to let another deputy draw his weapon and shoot if the veteran made any sudden moves while driving away, court records show.
Capt. Robert Pierson, a Marine Corps helicopter pilot who has served two combat tours in Afghanistan, has filed a civil rights lawsuit over the August 2011 incident.
Pierson, 31, of Pensacola, Fla., was carrying the pistol, which is legal in Wyoming, when he was pulled over by Deputy Corry Bassett of the Lincoln County Sheriffs Office.
In a sworn statement this month, Bassett acknowledged he offered to release Pierson if he allowed Deputy Rob Andazola to draw his weapon and cover Pierson.
Pierson declined the offer and was released without a citation when a supervisor arrived.
---
Bassett said in the sworn statement that he had been trained to put his personal safety above the rights of a citizen openly carrying a handgun.
---
Pierson said he is seeking damages, an apology and a statement by the jurisdictions involved that the open carry of handguns is lawful and that the purpose of government is not officer safety but the protection of peoples lives, liberty and property.
---
Pierson said he finds the irony of the situation heartbreaking. Both sets of officers, the sheriffs department and myself, weve both sworn to uphold the Constitution, he said.
Good for him - he seems to be doing the right thing here, and doing it for teh right reasons. He doesn't want payback so much as he wants this matter settled in black and white. Either it is okay to abide by our Constitution or it's only okay when someone in a position of power thinks it's okay. This is the same basic premise we are facing with this islam stuff and people being so afraid of upsetting them.
There's probably more to this story than meets the eye.
Bassett would have known that carrying a gun was legal in his state. Why was Pierson pulled over in the first place? How did he respond to that? Did he give Bassett a reason to believe his own safety or that of the other deputy might be endangered?
Lives in Florida so he is a non-resident of Wyoming...
Combat vet sues over Wyoming traffic stop
September 24, 2012 22:16 GMT By BEN NEARY Associated Press CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) -- A Lincoln County sheriff's deputy who detained a motorcyclist for openly carrying a pistol offered to let him go if he agreed to let another deputy cover him at gunpoint as he drove away. Capt. Robert Pierson, a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter pilot, has filed a civil rights lawsuit over the August 2011 incident. Pierson, of Pensacola, Fla., was openly carrying a pistol, which is legal in Wyoming, when he was pulled over by Deputy Corry Bassett. Bassett says he handcuffed Pierson because he was concerned about his own safety. He said he offered to release Pierson on condition that another deputy would shoot Pierson if he made any sudden movement. Pierson declined the offer. He was released when a supervisor arrived.
Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder
My guess, and it is only that, is that the Sheriff's stopped the guy because he had out-of-state tags and once he was seen to be armed they decided to take no chances. Was that legal or even right? No but you don't argue with (armed) law enforcement unless you've got big brass ones.
I live in an open carry state but just because you have a right to do something it doesn't make it a good idea. I wouldn't walk into my local bank branch with a sidearm (loaded or unloaded) even though it is perfectly legal. That said I'd have no trouble carrying one on a hiking trail (bears/mountain lions). One has to use common sense.
As Name Game said above, all that is fine and good, even disarming the CCW carrier until you can establish the facts and circumstances. As the officer, you do that for your own safety, as well as theirs.
But the officer crossed the line when he told the Marine Captain, after it was established no wrong-doing occurred, he could ride away--but as long as he agreed to be fired upon if he made "sudden movements." At that point, the incident is over, the citizen's back is to the deputy, they are departing the traffic stop, and pose no threat to the LEOs.
As Name Game said above, all that is fine and good, even disarming the CCW carrier until you can establish the facts and circumstances.
To clarify this was open-carry not CCW. That said if it'd been me I'd have offered to allow the LEO to remove the weapon (or have me do it). Is that legally required? No but it defuses a possible volatile situation.
My thoughts: Everyone drove away and are still alive..that makes it a good day.
I think the lawsuit is justified..lessons will be learned... I wish the Capt would have stated he was carrying a weapon when asked..the LEO already knew he was because of the call they got from the guy pulling the trailer..But still letting the LEO know, when first approached ,I think would have turned the whole incident into a better conversation.
I notice the words on the back of the Capt's helmet..but they could have been put there long after all this happen.
My thoughts: Everyone drove away and are still alive..that makes it a good day.
I think the lawsuit is justified..lessons will be learned... I wish the Capt would have stated he was carrying a weapon when asked..the LEO already knew he was because of the call they got from the guy pulling the trailer..But still letting the LEO know, when first approached ,I think would have turned the whole incident into a better conversation.
I try not to get into these topics, but this one is very captivating. And, to clarify further, I have been a sworn LEO for the past 23 years. I also am a strong supporter of CCW as well as open carry and unfortunately live in the only state in the Union yet to allow it...
There were clearly some minor mistakes on both sides, but I have to say that the deputy pushed things far harder than they needed to be pushed. Yes, the Capt could have defused things a bit if he had readily answered the question asking if he was armed. That is a legitimate question for a LEO to pose, and should be expected and answered by the armed person being stopped. This is *not* the same as being asked the same question by a LEO in general passing, this situation is a lawful traffic stop, which by its nature carries more risks, and the courts recognize that. Brief questions such as this have been held to be reasonable by the Supreme Court, and are not an infringement on personal privacy nor are they subject to the limitations on searches when the officer has a "clearly articuable belief" that a weapon may be present.
That being said, it was obvious that the Capt was eager to verbalize his rights, (while only being partially correct), and point out the errors that the deputy was making, (he did make errors) which again escalates the whole thing. A "seasoned" LEO at this point could have easily taken all the air out of this expanding balloon by simply stepping back and saying, "Hey, I agree, can we just start this whole thing over from the beginning?".
Ya, I've done that, and the results are clearly favorable to the deputy's ever-increasing level of bravado and "I'm in charge here" attitude. (Dang youngsters never get that right....) But here egos were in the way, and the one-upsmanship that goes along with it, and now you have created a perpetual motion machine with no "off" button. Yes, I have been in this exact situation, since in our no-carry state, LEOs and some qualified retired officers can indeed carry. Personally, I consider *everyone* to be armed anyway, legal or not, so the whole concept that this officer was being "threatened" by having the weapon in plain view doesn't really sit well with me. My feeling is I'd rather see it and know where it is than have to wonder about it. But maybe I'm old-school. I've been called that... There is a significant difference between someone "being a potential threat" and "acting in a threatening manner". Deputy Bassett needs a refresher on that.
So then the deputy cuffs the legally-carrying individual, detains him for about an hour, who has not been suspected of a felony or other violent crime, but is simply stating his position and doing so within his rights. Now, the combination of an "I'm in charge" attitude, and the citizen being handcuffed has turned this simple interaction into a custodial situation wherein a normal person would believe that he no longer is "free to go". It just didn't have to happen...and I suspect the agency that employs this deputy will likely take it on the chin. And rightly so.
People respond so much better when treated as a fellow human being...
"Pierson said he was on a cross-country trip on his Harley-Davidson when Bassett pulled him over outside Alpine in western Wyoming. A person had reported that someone matching Piersons description had passed a number of slow-moving motorhomes, authorities said."
Sounds like a bit of money is ready to be paid out here...
- Certainly, it's your prerogative to do so. However, as you can plainly hear (if you listened to the audio of the stop) some LEOs are not terribly comfortable with U.S. citizens exercising the rights that the LEOs have sworn to uphold...leading some to violate one's civil rights as well.
After reading the story and listening to the audio, do you really think that this encounter would have gone down in any positive fashion if the guy mentioned the gun immediately??
Pierson filed a civil rights lawsuit against Lincoln County. He wants Bassett and Andazola off the force. He is also seeking damages, an apology and a statement from the LCSO that the open carry of handguns is lawful and that the purpose of government is not officer safety but the protection of peoples lives, liberty and property.
Reader Comments You can listen to this whole "Rambo", as you put it, incident on YouTube, as Pierson got a recorded audio of it. It's quite interesting, if for nothing else, how long it went on. Neither side was backing down. Bassett wanted the weapon out of Pierson's reach during the stop, Pierson was adamant, "NO WAY!". Bassett tried a quasi-lesson in civics and the law. The marine captain said it didn't apply to him and Bassett was wrong. I'd like to hear local SO or PD weigh in on this, but it's my understanding that Bassett had the right to at least confiscate the weapon, unload it, and give it back to Pierson, then return the ammo when the stop was concluded. Certainly, Pierson was completely legal, but Bassett was justified in his caution and attempting to remove the weapon, not knowing who or what kind of person he had pulled over. It's just procedure. Survivalist "Freemen" types in the area are just bonkers over this "violation" of Pierson's rights.
- After reading the story and listening to the audio, do you really think that this encounter would have gone down in any positive fashion if the guy mentioned the gun immediately??
I think that if the captain had answered the question when asked, the officer would not have been as likely to cuff him. As soon as he failed to acknowledge the sidearm, the officer (not unreasonably, to my mind) was alerted that the captain might not have completely innocent motivations. And, as it turned out, he was right -- not that the captain was any kind of threat, but the captain was recording the incident (surreptitiously it seems) and is now using that recording to bolster his position that the officer over stepped his authority. To my mind, the captain brought the incident upon himself by going all "I do not consent to a search" when he could have just said, "Yes, I'm carrying a hand gun."
What would have been the problem in Pierson instead stating: "Yes, I'm carrying a legally-permitted hand gun, but I don't consent to a search. I will, however, show you my copy of the permit"? Things may well have proceeded down a different avenue from there. While the carry of a permitted concealed handgun was lawful, two of the people the officers are obligated to protect are each other. In a roadside stop, until information has been obtained and verified, the officers have no idea what the situation might really be or whether a gun is concealed or whether it's also legally carried. I find it puzzling from what I've read thus far as to why Pierson responded with such an apparent uncooperative attitude from the outset.
That said, the officers involved (perhaps acting a bit out of frustration) would have been better served by simply cuffing Pierson, locating his weapon, unloading it, then uncuffing him once the legal permitting had been established. Gun and bullets could have then been handed back to him as he was finally cleared and released... and then told him "have a nice day and a safe ride!"
But you see, in a state where there is no law regarding openly carrying a firearm, there is then no duty to answer any questions put forth by an officer who has no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed.
A LEO may ask any question, but the person has no legal obligation to answer unless otherwise directed by law. Refusal to answer or to submit to an unreasonable search is NOT reasonable cause to violate one's constitutional rights.
The constitution is not a guideline, it's a hardline to our rights. Give up those rights, and what have you? Not much, IMO.
Isn't he required to have a license to have even purchased that gun?
Maybe? What's your point? Did the cop ask to see that?
The cop wanted this guy to jump through his hoops - stating that he has a gun - even though he can clearly see it. It's all part of what cops everywhere are being trained to do - turn us all into more effective sheep.
If the cop was sure of his position he should have arrested Pierson, then let the chips fall where they may. But, the cop knew he had no legal leg to stand on, but still wanted this citizen to jump through HIS hoops. The fear in the cops voice is telling - this guy was scared shitless...