Pistols and Ammunition Seized Without Warrant.

[Jstudz220]

I don’t want to cop bash here, but I learned long ago that cops are under zero expectation to tell the truth, unless under oath. I’ve also learned that they will exploit that fact to the extreme if it suits their whims or agenda.
I’ve also seen countless incidents, stories, videos, etc where people would have been better served by simply not involving law enforcement in their every little personal squabble.
That being said, long ago, I decided that I will not open my door to police unless it’s clear that they have a warrant in hand. I will not call police or invite police to my home unless I am faced with a problem that I feel can or should only be handled by law enforcement and at such time, I will be fully prepared to accept the outcome and consequences of opening that door. Except where bound by law, I will not talk to police without an attorney present and unless my attorney advises me to do so. I will not willingly give up any of my constitutional or civil or God given rights at any time to any individual for any reason.

As to the OP’s question, I believe the officers were being officers.

first let me say I support the boys in blue so I’m not the one who is going to bash the guys I stand behind however I full heartedly agree with everything you said and handle things the same way myself.

hell I don’t wanna open the door for my friends who are cops when they knock on it damn sure don’t wanna open it for one I don’t know lol.

 

[DAVE_M]

first let me say I support the boys in blue so I’m not the one who is going to bash the guys I stand behind however I full heartedly agree with everything you said and handle things the same way myself.

hell I don’t wanna open the door for my friends who are cops when they knock on it damn sure don’t wanna open it for one I don’t know lol.

You don’t open the door for your friends?

 

[Jstudz220]

Man how did I know this thread was going to turn into cops getting upset because civilians call out the shady practices the vast majority do while on duty lol. Is it legal for a cop to lie to your face ? Maybe so but that surly doesn’t make it right and should imo be something that should be looked at to be overturned. I mean seriously how crazy is that? I don’t see a law for civilians to be able to lie to cops to avoid snot arrest lol

 

[Jstudz220]

You don’t open the door for your friends?

It was a poor attempt at humor and inside joke with a member here who happens to be a cop.

 

[DAVE_M]

It was a poor attempt at humor and inside joke with a member here who happens to be a cop.

Oh, ok.

I'm assuming it's another member, since Magdump, who you quoted, isn't a cop.

 

[thperez1972]

Sooooo, the man was on the way to be mentally evaluated so he was not a threat to anyone except the ambulance driver . The wife was at home and safe unless the man is dangerous and escapes or the hospital decides he is crazy but turns him loose anyway . If one of those things happen she can always use one of the guns to protect herself . Oh , that is right she can't defend herself because the cops took her means of protection .


Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

That's an issue you should take up with the officers who were there and their supervisor who approved the confiscation.

 

[thperez1972]

Man how did I know this thread was going to turn into cops getting upset because civilians call out the shady practices the vast majority do while on duty lol. Is it legal for a cop to lie to your face ? Maybe so but that surly doesn’t make it right and should imo be something that should be looked at to be overturned. I mean seriously how crazy is that? I don’t see a law for civilians to be able to lie to cops to avoid snot arrest lol

I don't believe I could disagree with you more. Two situations immediately come to mind and they both involve the safety of the officers and the public.

1. Undercover cop is about to buy a stolen gun from someone. The guy turns to the cop and asks "are you a cop?"
2. As the cops are about to put a potentially uncooperative guy in handcuffs, he asks "am I going to jail?"

 

[Jstudz220]

Oh, ok.

I'm assuming it's another member, since Magdump, who you quoted, isn't a cop.

Your correct

 

[Jstudz220]

I don't believe I could disagree with you more. Two situations immediately come to mind and they both involve the safety of the officers and the public.

1. Undercover cop is about to buy a stolen gun from someone. The guy turns to the cop and asks "are you a cop?"
2. As the cops are about to put a potentially uncooperative guy in handcuffs, he asks "am I going to jail?"

Theirs am exception to every rule my friend. I agree in the first situation you present however to recommend someone go get a physic check and they say they don’t need to as well as the spouse and then lie to the individual and say we won’t take your guns then do just that as soon as the guy leaves is wrong. That’s definitely an instance where they should be required to give proper information or be held accountable imo. The second situation I don’t think they should be allowed to lie to the individual just to make their job easier. If you are going to arrest someone who you just asked to cuff and they then say am I under arrest I feel that should constitute a truthful answer. Some would argue even the first situation could be considered entrapment. I could care less about entrapment personally. Don’t be tempted to do illegal things and you won’t have to worry about being tricked into doing them.


I will say and I’m sure most also picked up on this, as soon as I read the part of the article where the gentleman asked if his guns would be seized the first thing I thought was absolutely they will be.

 

[aborne108]

Are they really allowed to lie to someone unless under oath?

yes.

 

[ozarkpugs]

That's an issue you should take up with the officers who were there and their supervisor who approved the confiscation.

In that light I guess anything anyone who has made a comment on this subject should take it up with the "officers who were there and their supervisor" . My point is if the man was the problem and he was removed why did the guns need to be removed ? Unless of course the wife asked them to. If he was evaluated mentally unstable then he should not be able to keep them but other wise he should be able to keep them .


Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

 

[thperez1972]

In that light I guess anything anyone who has made a comment on this subject should take it up with the "officers who were there and their supervisor" . My point is if the man was the problem and he was removed why did the guns need to be removed ? Unless of course the wife asked them to. If he was evaluated mentally unstable then he should not be able to keep them but other wise he should be able to keep them .


Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

Depending on the laws of the state, the length of time the hospital could force the man to stay would vary. Some states have different rules for voluntary admission vs court ordered admission. At some point, the guy would likely be able to legally leave the hospital, even before he was "better." If he chose to and unless the wife kept the weapons on her 24/7, he would have access to the weapons. Perhaps the police felt it would be a liability for them to leave the weapons accessible to someone who was not mentally stable. But that's just a guess. I wasn't part of the decision process.

 

[JimmyJames]

Depending on the laws of the state, the length of time the hospital could force the man to stay would vary. Some states have different rules for voluntary admission vs court ordered admission. At some point, the guy would likely be able to legally leave the hospital, even before he was "better." If he chose to and unless the wife kept the weapons on her 24/7, he would have access to the weapons. Perhaps the police felt it would be a liability for them to leave the weapons accessible to someone who was not mentally stable. But that's just a guess. I wasn't part of the decision process.

I've read through all these posts, and I think you're all getting lost in the weeds here. Does anything being discussed here really matter? At the end of the day, rights exist and should not be violated for a reason. There is no case-by-case compromise on this, whether or not it could be argued as morally justified or intended to ensure the safety of involved parties. That William Blackstone quote comes to mind about letting 10 guilty go unpunished if it means 1 innocent goes free. Liberty even at the expense of safety and security. If some people die, so be it. A Nanny State is far more horrific.

Whether or not they lied doesn't matter. Whether or not they were well-intentioned doesn't matter. Whether or not their actions could be proven to have prevented loss of life Does Not Matter. They had no authority to do what they did, and violated Caniglia’s rights in the process. Whether or not you consider the "community caretaker" role a valid one (and it's not - the entire precedent set in US vs. Ross was based on B.S. The "practical mobility" argument requiring "immediate intrusion" had no bearing since they didn't even SEARCH the damned car until it was already impounded and thus "secure" from public access, allowing ample time for a warrant) that still provides no argument for this current case. The ruling specifically states it does not apply in the case of a person's home:

"the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Id., at 153, 45 S.Ct., at 285.

They specifically stated their ruling does not apply to a domicile both because there is no mobility argument and because a man's castle is considered to have a far higher expectation of privacy and protection under the 4th.

Bottom Line: It WAS a rights violation and LE was in the wrong.

 

[ozarkpugs]

I've read through all these posts, and I think you're all getting lost in the weeds here. Does anything being discussed here really matter? At the end of the day, rights exist and should not be violated for a reason. There is no case-by-case compromise on this, whether or not it could be argued as morally justified or intended to ensure the safety of involved parties. That William Blackstone quote comes to mind about letting 10 guilty go unpunished if it means 1 innocent goes free. Liberty even at the expense of safety and security. If some people die, so be it. A Nanny State is far more horrific.

Whether or not they lied doesn't matter. Whether or not they were well-intentioned doesn't matter. Whether or not their actions could be proven to have prevented loss of life Does Not Matter. They had no authority to do what they did, and violated Caniglia’s rights in the process. Whether or not you consider the "community caretaker" role a valid one (and it's not - the entire precedent set in US vs. Ross was based on B.S. The "practical mobility" argument requiring "immediate intrusion" had no bearing since they didn't even SEARCH the damned car until it was already impounded and thus "secure" from public access, allowing ample time for a warrant) that still provides no argument for this current case. The ruling specifically states it does not apply in the case of a person's home:

"the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Id., at 153, 45 S.Ct., at 285.

They specifically stated their ruling does not apply to a domicile both because there is no mobility argument and because a man's castle is considered to have a far higher expectation of privacy and protection under the 4th.

Bottom Line: It WAS a rights violation and LE was in the wrong.

Blackstone , did someone say Blackstone ? Now I'm hungry and will have to lite up the Blackstone griddle . Just kidding . I agree with you or should I say Mr. Blackstone .

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

 

[thperez1972]

I've read through all these posts, and I think you're all getting lost in the weeds here. Does anything being discussed here really matter? At the end of the day, rights exist and should not be violated for a reason. There is no case-by-case compromise on this, whether or not it could be argued as morally justified or intended to ensure the safety of involved parties. That William Blackstone quote comes to mind about letting 10 guilty go unpunished if it means 1 innocent goes free. Liberty even at the expense of safety and security. If some people die, so be it. A Nanny State is far more horrific.

Whether or not they lied doesn't matter. Whether or not they were well-intentioned doesn't matter. Whether or not their actions could be proven to have prevented loss of life Does Not Matter. They had no authority to do what they did, and violated Caniglia’s rights in the process. Whether or not you consider the "community caretaker" role a valid one (and it's not - the entire precedent set in US vs. Ross was based on B.S. The "practical mobility" argument requiring "immediate intrusion" had no bearing since they didn't even SEARCH the damned car until it was already impounded and thus "secure" from public access, allowing ample time for a warrant) that still provides no argument for this current case. The ruling specifically states it does not apply in the case of a person's home:

"the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.", at 153, 45 S.Ct., at 285.

They specifically stated their ruling does not apply to a domicile both because there is no mobility argument and because a man's castle is considered to have a far higher expectation of privacy and protection under the 4th.

Bottom Line: It WAS a rights violation and LE was in the wrong.

Are you aware that Article III of the constitution established a judicial branch?

 

[MOTOR51]

I’m not going to quote anyone specific but some of you might want to get some mental help. Some of the thought processes on here are troubling and I’m trying to chalk it up to “internet commando” syndrome but I’m beginning to wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[JimmyJames]

Are you aware that Article III of the constitution established a judicial branch?

I don't follow whatever it is you're implying here, so maybe spell it out for me? What I quoted WAS from the SCOTUS ruling. My pointing out the "community caretaker" ruling was B.S. is contrary to that ruling, but nonetheless a valid point, as the entire argument was based on the car being unsecured, which it wasn't by the time it was searched at the impound yard.

 

[thperez1972]

I don't follow whatever it is you're implying here, so maybe spell it out for me? What I quoted WAS from the SCOTUS ruling. My pointing out the "community caretaker" ruling was B.S. is contrary to that ruling, but nonetheless a valid point, as the entire argument was based on the car being unsecured, which it wasn't by the time it was searched at the impound yard.

You're talking about the bill of rights so I assumed you might be familiar with the constitution. You said the actions of the police were a rights violation and the police were in the wrong. The judicial branch, established in Article III of the constitution, disagrees with your conclusion. So far, they have indicated the police were within their rights to do what they did. I've included a link to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's ruling.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1764P-01A.pdf

 

[Core]

It cant be “bashing” because its true.

 

[Magdump]

It cant be *bashing* because its true.

If you’re referring to my first post, let me explain that it was only to point out that cops are under no legal obligation to tell the truth to the public unless under oath. It’s a common misconception and many people assume that they cannot lie to you for any reason but it’s simply not true. No bashing intended, just making folks aware that you can’t assume a cop has to be truthful with you.