The pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a brief Wednesday with the Maryland Supreme Court, clarifying a complaint filed but stuck in lower courts since August 2023. I asked. In Willey v. Brown, the state's lawsuit alleges: “Red Flag Laws” (RFLs, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or ERPOs) are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and upon good cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and in particular stating: No warrant shall be issued except for. The place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. (Emphasis added.)
Maryland's red flag law, passed in 2018, lowers the standard from just cause to “just cause,” and will be challenged in court until corrupt city officials use it to punish local residents. I was never disappointed.
Susan Webb, director of planning and zoning for Dorchester County, Maryland, has been harassing resident Donald Willey for nearly 20 years. In 2021, she used the state's red flag law to get revenge on Willie for his “arrogance” over repeated complaints.
2023 complaint
The complaint was reviewed by The New American a year ago. Below is an excerpt from the lawsuit.
This cautionary tale about the dangers of unconstitutionality exercised by abusive and dishonest public officials proves the old adage that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
In May 2021, Webb received a new letter from one of the inspectors advising Willey that he was in violation of county code due to debris, junk and untagged vehicles in his yard. The campaign has started.
Mr. Webb subsequently issued Willey with three “Uniform Civil Citations” (“Citations”) requiring him to pay fines. One related to the condition of the garden, one related to an alleged illegal business operation on the property, and the other related to “unauthorized nuisance.” to a 100-foot seawall. ”…
Webb soon realized that the condition of Willie's yard had not been properly addressed in this way and dismissed the yard violation citation.
When Webb met with Willie without a lawyer to discuss the remaining two citations, an enraged Webb aggressively shoved copies of the citations onto Willie's table and fined him $5,000 a day and $5,000 each for “business” violations. attempted to intimidate him by threatening to pay a fine. The day of the violation of the seawall.
Willie has never operated a business on his property.
After this initial meeting, Willie's attorney confronted Webb with the reality that Willie was not conducting any “business” on his property and the “levee” violation did not apply to Willie.
Webb reluctantly withdrew these remaining citations.
Unwillingly, Mr. Webb began enforcement proceedings regarding the yard condition allegations against Mr. Willey in July 2022 in Dorchester County Circuit Court. The parties (a) resolve this proceeding by consent order dated November 3, 2022, in which Willey agrees to cure the alleged Yard Violations by May 31, 2023 and Officials agreed that they could enter the premises to assess compliance, but only with notice. To his lawyer…
On May 30, 2023, Webb and one of her inspectors, Tyler Bennett (“Bennett”), conducted a compliance inspection of Willie's property. Although Willie had indeed gone to considerable and costly efforts to ensure compliance with the consent order, and had in fact achieved substantial compliance, Webb was not satisfied. Ta.
According to a violation notice issued to Willey on June 1, 2023, inspection revealed more than 12 “tall grasses/weeds/vegetation in violation of the Dorchester County Nuisance Ordinance” and June 7, 2023. Corrections are required by date. , about the pain of fines….
On June 2, 2023, Webb and Bennett drove to Willie's property in Fishing Creek to file one or more of the aforementioned violation notices without notifying their attorneys as required by the consent order. I headed.
When Webb and Bennett arrived at Willey's property in a marked county vehicle, Willey was outside in the yard. Willie politely refused to serve the notice and instead politely asked Webb to contact his attorney. Instead, an enraged Webb refuses to leave, blaming Willie and yelling that the fence must be removed. In response, Willie tells Webb, “You're an idiot.”
Webb apparently wasn't happy and continued to criticize Willie even after he said “goodbye” several times…
At no time on June 2, nor in any of her previous interactions with Webb and her inspectors, Willey (a) brandished or displayed a firearm or other weapon; b) did not carry or immediately possess a firearm or other weapon; be difficult to access or (c) even verbally threaten or raise their voices….
Under Maryland's Red Flag Law, Mr. Webb could ask a local judge to issue an ERPO that would allow local law enforcement to forcibly remove his firearms and ammunition if necessary. They decided to punish Mr. Willy. She also caused further harm by using other parts of the law to order Willie to undergo various mental and physical humiliations, including having his blood drawn and providing urine samples. It also included an assessment of his mental health, after which doctors declared Willie to be “stressed out”.
Webb lied repeatedly.
To get the judge's order, Webb had to lie repeatedly on the demand letter. As he reported last August:
Lie No. 1: She declared in the requested paperwork that Willie posed an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to herself, herself, or others simply by possessing a firearm.
Lie #2: She declared that Willie had “made numerous threats of firearm violence against me and other department employees.” However, she did not provide any of the details the RFL application sought.
Lie No. 3: She claimed Willie owned an unknown number of firearms, but did not provide further details or elaboration: “These claims are mere speculation. Webb said Willie owned an unknown number of firearms. They never talked about it and had no other legal way to determine which firearms Willie possessed. ”
Lie #4: Another section of the form asks Webb to explain “how respondent unlawfully, recklessly, or negligently used, displayed, stored, possessed, or brandished a firearm.” . Webb said he only inserted three dates and nothing more.
Lie #5: Elsewhere on the form, Mr. Webb says, “On three recent occasions, my staff and I have been warned about threats of violence from Mr. Willie.” Willie never threatened violence of any kind against Webb or his subordinates on any occasion.
When Mr. Willey finally had a legal opportunity to confront Mr. Webb with his lies, he dropped the charges. She got enough meat. Or so she thought.
Wiley and the Second Amendment Foundation filed the lawsuit last summer, declaring:
Maryland's RFL is unconstitutional as applied to Willie and is unconstitutional on its face.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs (Willey and SAF) are seeking to vindicate their rights under the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and to make the RFL constitutional. We bring this challenge to immediately and permanently enjoin enforcement of the State RFL. Articles of the constitution based on our country's history and traditions…
Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury.
Appellant's prepared document
So the matter rested until Wednesday. In his brief, he asks the state high court to resolve only two issues:
What legal standard does the term “reasonable cause” refer to in state red flag laws? State red flag laws allow ERPOs to be issued based on criteria other than “probable cause” Are you doing it?
Once the high court answers these questions, the lower court (the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Maryland) can move forward and grant the relief sought by Mr. Willey and SAF. This relief includes a declaration by the court that the law is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. It will also provide financial compensation and compensation for Willie's humiliation, as well as legal fees for SAF and the attorneys it hired to pursue the lawsuit against Webb and the state of Maryland.
According to the SAF news release:
“This case is about how so-called 'red flag laws' can be used as a weapon against civilians, and we are asking the Maryland High Court to make this a reality in a federal case. , states' ERPO laws require the definition of the meaning of 'reasonable cause,''' explained SAF Founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
“The answers to our questions will help substantiate our case against Maryland law,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Red flag laws are based on the essentially Orwellian belief that you can bring a case against someone for a crime that did not occur.
Such laws allow the seizure and punishment of crimes that no one has committed but that may occur at some future place and time. That concept is ridiculous. ”
If justice is served and Maryland's red flag law is ruled unconstitutional, the ruling will have national repercussions. Connecticut enacted the nation's first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana in 2005. Nineteen other states (and the District of Columbia) have since enacted nearly similar laws. And the Biden administration's Justice Department is actively encouraging other states to enact similar legislation. An appropriate ruling in Maryland would set a much-needed precedent to nullify these laws.
Related articles:
Maryland's red flag law finally challenged in federal court
