A Georgia man is suing the Atlanta transit system, MARTA, after he was detained for carrying a concealed firearm in a train station. Christopher Raissi was apparently detained by MARTA police on October 14, 2008 when he carried a concealed firearm onto MARTA property. Georgia law allows licensed citizens to carry concealed or exposed firearms on mass transit.
Backed by GeorgiaCarry.org, Raissi’s lawsuit states he was escorted to another building and detained for about 30 minutes before being released. According to the US Supreme Court, under most circumstances, when a subject is detained by police, and then transported to a different location, the detention is considered an arrest. Lacking probable cause, the arrest would be invalid.
Atlanta Journal Constitution article on the lawsuit
Copy of the Lawsuit Filed by Georgia Carry
Other articles that will amaze you:
- GeorgiaCarry.org Succeeds in Restoring Freedoms in Georgia’s Parks: Lawsuits Force Roswell, Sandy Springs, and Others to Abandon Illegal Anti-Gun Ordinances Regarding Concealed Carry
- 81 Year Old Georgia Man Uses Firearm to Defend Against Home Invader
- $400 Million Lawsuit Against Bloomberg Stays in Georgia
- Atlanta Airport’s Anti-Gun Policy Violates State Law: Airport Threatens to Arrest Rep. Tim Bearden For Exercising His Second Amendment Rights
- Democrats Afraid of People Carrying Firearms at the Presidential Inauguration
Wasn’t MARTA just doing its job to stop a potential shooting on the train? He wasn’t arrested and charged, just held until they could determine if he was legitimate. He should have thanked them for being observant and gone on about his business
The police need reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime before they can stop him. What crime are they able to articulate he was going to commit? Mere suspicion that a man might commit a crime doesn’t cut it.
For example, a man with a pry bar walking down the street might look odd, but does not rise to the level required for the police to stop the man and question him. On the other hand, a man with a crowbar, behind a business, late at night, in an area plagued with commercial burglaries would probably be enough for the police to stop and question the man.
In this case, a man who merely had a gun on his person is not doing anything to cause a reasonable person to believe is is/has/is about to commit a crime. The absolute most that can be articulated is that they might believe he is carrying a concealed weapon without a license, which in the state of Georgia, is a misdemeanor. If they can articulate that, then he dispelled all reasons for the stop by producing his firearms license. All reasons for the detention are eliminated at that point.
However, rather than allowing him to continue about his business, they continued the detention AND transported him to a different location. At that point, the detention escalated into an arrest. The police need not apply handcuffs to affect an arrest…the Georgia Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court are both very clear on the subject. If the police stop someone and then move them to another location, that is a de facto arrest.
The MARTA officers did not have probable cause (which is required for a lawful arrest), nor did they appear to even have reasonable suspicion when they transported him to another building. Therefore, the officers violated his civil rights. Frankly, this was poor police work and MARTA needs to take a financial hit on this one.
At no point should a citizen thank the government for illegally arresting them. Rather, the citizens should jealously guard the freedoms given to them by the Creator and protected by the US Constitution.
Well said “Admin” !!!!!
As a memeber of GCO,we thank you for posting this. As for Beverly Scott,Dir. of MARTA , MARTA Police Chief ,and Mayor Frankly, they will never learn,even after being successfully sued before by GCO.
They are to the core anti-gun,and are not above voilating the Constitution of Georgia or the United States for their progress of their aganda.
Question? If this guy was carrying a concealed weapon, how did the MARTA police know? This guy somehow made his weapon visible to them. I will tell you, you need to be stopped entering a public space in this day and time “flashing” a weapon.Thank you police fo doing your job.
Believer –
The problem isn’t totally with the initial stop. The problem is once the man showed he was lawfully carrying a firearm, the detention continued and turned into an arrest. The officers did not have probable cause for any crime (as he was not charged with anything). And yes, the man was arrested. Being detained and transported to a different location is clearly an arrest under both Georgia law and Federal law.
I can articulate how the officers violated this person’s RIGHT against unreasonable search and seizure. Can you articulate any law they were enforcing when they did so?
I lived in Atlanta for two years while working a Temporary Duty assignment at Lockheed aircraft. I got my Georgia CCW/CWL while there and never had a problem with police there and this was well before it was common place for a law abiding gun owner to be able to get a CCW/CWL. I had to get the Fulton County sheriff and two upstanding citizens to sponsor me to obtain the permit.
I also taught Hunter Safety classes for the Georgia Hunter’s license and one thing I always told my class when they inevitablely asked asked about Concealed Carry is keep it to yourself! Some people have a tendency to brag about having a CCW and this is just not smart for any number of reasons.
From the little that I know of this case (just what was published in the Atlanta Constitution and here) police apparently saw his weapon when he bent over to pick up his ticket. I can certainly understand why he was questioned but once he produced the CWL that should have been the end of it. I hope he prevails against MARTA’s police force because they have been trained and should have been smarter than they were in this arrest. Even having said that, if I were him I would take more stringent measures to be certain my protection did not show no matter what I did. In my opinion, the smartest thing any of us can do is to keep our firearms completely concealed.
It should be required police procedure to ask a concealed carry citizen for their permit. If it cannot be produced, then police should detain the citizen, and a fine imposed if indeed they have a CC permit but not on their person.
Everyone has some good thoughts on this issue; however the use and abridgement of the “Color of Authority” is the main issue. One need not be forced into positions of denial of public access rights, and in effect he was either arrested or denied his freedom, or he was denied his freedom of movement and was a subject of kidnapping under the color of authority. What one thinks is correct has no place in the law, he was violated, he was placed under arrest even if he was not handcuffed and booked, his rights were violated, and only those soft in the head could come to any other conclusion. Our main problem with upholding our rights guaranteed under the constitution is to demand that the rights be upheld and hold any authority to account, that’s what those that have gone before us have bled and died for. Personal freedom, under the constitution, does not have any place for empathy, or feelings, justice is truly blind, but the constitution gives us all this and more.
Cpetite1944 I agree totally. I wore the uniform 6 years to guarantee that the people chose our laws. The people have chosen. No law inforcement group has the authority to impinge on their decision. This includes “internal policies” directing officers to push the limit in making sure that the citizen is absolutely following the law etc. That is harassment with the clear intent to thwart the law by discouraging people from exercising their constitutional rights.
All laws are essentially bad because they give others authority over our actions and property. As a society we must have some strict contorls so that we can live together. We must be vigilant of what our legislators want to do before they do it. Once they have the bureaucrats often subvert them to reflect their own beliefs or for their own agenda.