Still in effect

A federal three-judge panel has now ruled that a policeman who illegally arrested an innocent citizen simply because that person had a concealed carry permit cannot claim qualified immunity from suit or prosecution.

The actions of the policemen, Nicholas Andrzejewski, were incredibly inappropriate and abusive.

On November 12, 2018, Basel Soukaneh’s life was significantly disrupted. Soukaneh was looking for a house he was considering purchasing, but the GPS on his phone, held in a holder on the dash of his car, had frozen. He was unfamiliar with the area. Soukaneh pulled over to correct the problem, left the engine running, and had the interior lights on. A Waterbury police officer quickly knocked on his window and demanded to see his driver’s license. Soukaneh handed him the license and his legal concealed carry permit, then told the officer where his firearm was located in the vehicle.

The officer, Nicholas Andrzejewski, grabbed Soukaneh, dragged him from the car, and violently handcuffed him, causing significant pain. Andrzejewski then stuffed Soukaneh in the back of his police car and searched Soukaneh’s car, including the trunk. Several other officers came to the scene. One of them put Soukaneh in an upright, seated position instead of where Andrzejewski had stuffed him, with his head near the floor. After another half hour, he was released. It is not clear if he was charged with a traffic violation.

Andrzejewski claimed in court that he should get immunity because of the presence of a gun and concealed carry permit. The lower courts disagreed, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals has now also disagreed with this absurd claim, and sent the case back for discovery and a trial.

Based on this ruling the cop now faces personal liability for his bad behavior. Soukaneh had done nothing wrong and had not been behaving suspiciously. More importantly, as an armed concealed carry holder he did exactly what a good citizen should do when questioned by a policemen, quickly telling the officer about his permit and firearms. There was no cause for Andrzejewski to then violently arrest him.

The court’s decision also means Andrzejewski will likely get no legal support from his police department, because it is now essentially free of liability. The fault lies entirely with the cop. Not only will he have to pay if he loses in court, the taxpayer will not be saddled with the bill, which has been the pattern in recent years in such cases.

Most important of all, the decision means bad cops can no longer claim that the mere presence of a firearm nullifies the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizures. It never did, and in fact, the amendment’s whole point was to allow citizens the right to armed protection from abusive and armed government officials like Andrzejewski.

This ruling also demonstrates a growing and laudable pattern. Increasingly the courts are nullifying the very concept of qualified immunity, which had been manufactured out of thin air by the courts and really has no basis in law. The whole point of the Bill of Rights and our entire legal system was to make bad individuals pay for their own bad behavior, not to pass the penalty to the taxpayer or make government officials immune from punishment.