Sayers Motion to Reconsider and Clarify Denied

Written by Daniel White

Saturday, 14 October 2006 15:13

In the latest news in the Dan Sayers case, the Motion to Reconsider and Clarify has been denied by the Oregon Municipal Court.

Sayers' attorney, Daniel Ellis, had filed a motion with the court to dismiss the charges, which was denied. Ellis then filed a Motion to Reconsider and Clarify alleging that the court did not address three issues:

1)Sayers was the subject of a felony stop and that the requirement to inform police he was carrying a firearm would have been self-incrimination and a violation of his Fifth Amendment Rights
2)The Oregon ordinance prohibiting carrying of all firearms is unconstitutional
3)The distinction of carrying open vs. concealed

The Court's response to these three allegations was less than stellar.

In response to allegation (1), the Court answered that due to the Quarles decision of 1984, Miranda rights do not apply when the police are asking questions to ensure their safety or the safety of the public.

I'm not sure exactly what threat to public safety Sayers posed while lying spread eagle on the ground with an AR-15 pointed at him. The Court also cited that Sayers' statement that he had a right to carry a concealed weapon is not self-incrimination, despite the fact that the issue at hand is an allegation of failure to inform.

The Court does acknowledge that the police claim that Sayers did not inform, while Sayers claims he did. It is also important to note that the police report states that the arresting officers heard Sayers saying something, but could not make it out (possibly due to auditory sensory distortion resulting from an adrenaline overload to the officers' systems during the confrontation).

On allegation (2), the Court referred to its original ruling that the Oregon ordinance must be constitutional because City Council passed it. So much for checks and balances.

On allegation (3), the Court again referred to the original denial where it found that Sayers was carrying openly. Of course, carrying openly requires no duty to inform, which would render whether the officers heard him or not a moot point and would therefore strengthen the argument that telling the police he was carrying a loaded firearm in violation of the Oregon ordinance would, in fact, be self-incrimination.

So, a complete and total ban on the carrying of firearms in Oregon is not a violation of either the State or US Constitutions because it was passed into law, Sayers was openly carrying a firearm, and he had no right to remain silent while being held on the ground at gunpoint because he was a hazard to public safety.

It is going to be a long fight.

To read the entire decision of the court, click:

Sayers Motion to Reconsider and Clarify Denied