Scribd
Upload
914 views16 pages

People v. Michael Zeleny, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. SM382036

Michael Zeleny writes to the District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney asking them to drop criminal charges against him for carrying a concealed firearm. He argues that the holster he used falls under an exception to the law as an expert has attested, and that the handgun was locked in the holster so it should be considered a locked gun case. He also points out that openly carrying an unloaded handgun in a locked container is allowed by law. Zeleny cites relevant case law and argues the charges violate clearly established law, asking the attorneys to attest to their integrity and competence by dismissing the charges.

Uploaded by

Zeleny
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
914 views16 pages

People v. Michael Zeleny, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. SM382036

Michael Zeleny writes to the District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney asking them to drop criminal charges against him for carrying a concealed firearm. He argues that the holster he used falls under an exception to the law as an expert has attested, and that the handgun was locked in the holster so it should be considered a locked gun case. He also points out that openly carrying an unloaded handgun in a locked container is allowed by law. Zeleny cites relevant case law and argues the charges violate clearly established law, asking the attorneys to attest to their integrity and competence by dismissing the charges.

Uploaded by

Zeleny
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Michael Zeleny Mass Means, Inc.

7576 Willow Glen Road Los Angeles, CA 90046 323-363-1860 (voice) 323-410-2373 (fax) 23 July 2013 Stephen M. Wagstaffe District Attorney Deshawn Madha Deputy District Attorney 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 650-363-4677 Gentlemen, In People v. Michael Zeleny, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. SM382036, you accuse me of having violated California Penal Code 25400 (a) (2): A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when the person does any of the following: [...] Carries concealed upon the person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. I am writing to ask that you drop these charges forthwith, for reasons laid out below. I understand that you have filed your criminal complaint on two theories. The first one is that the holster that I used was not a belt holster within the meaning of an allowable exception to the limitations on public carry as defined in P.C. 25400 (a) (2). If you intend to argue that it was a shoulder holster as described in the police reports, and therefore not covered by the exception, please review the attached expert declaration by Sgt Barhin K. Bhatt, attesting to the contrary. Your other theory appears to be that my handgun was concealed because it was completely covered by the holster. But then you would also have to concede that my handgun was locked within the holster, as per the police report upon which your complaint relies. This concession would put you in the untenable position of defining my holster as a locked gun case, and thus not in violation of any law. I hasten to preempt your further erroneous charges for openly carrying an unloaded handgun under the recently enacted P.C. 26350, by pointing out that according to P.C. 26389, it does not apply to, or affect, the carrying of an unloaded handgun if the handgun is carried either in the locked trunk of a motor vehicle or in a locked container. Whereas P.C. 16850 defines the term locked container, as used inter alia in P.C. 26350, as a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock; combination lock, or similar locking device. Please note further that as public officials, you enjoy qualified immunity from damages suits if you violate my rights, but only as long as you refrain from violating clearly established law. If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457

U.S. 800, 818-819 (1982). Of additional interest to you is the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lefemine v. Wideman, 568 U. S. __ (2012), which held that a plaintiff who secured a permanent injunction but no monetary damages was a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 and could receive attorney fees, where the injunction ordered the defendant officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefited the plaintiff, who could thereafter engage in demonstrations without fear of sanctions with which police had previously threatened him. Please consider this clearly established law in reference to the matter at hand. I am hoping that you will attest your personal integrity and professional competence by dismissing your charges against me forthwith.

Cordially,

_______________________________! Michael Zeleny

You might also like