I was detained at school today (Aug 29 2007)


PDA






AJAX22
September 5, 2007, 01:40 PM
I appologize if this is in the wrong section, but since it concerns the viewing of online RKBA pro 2A sites I though I'd post this here.

This occured a week ago... and one of the other members of calguns.net sugested that I cross post this over here to keep you guys informed on what was/is going on. THR is another site that I regularly view from school.

the full thread is viewable here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=67652

I was detained at school today on suspicion of carying a concealed weapon.

Today has been an odd day for me, I was sitting in my physics class at Santa Monica College trying to remember calculus from five years ago when a very polite officer came into the class and asked me if my name was (insert my name here) and if I could please come outside with him.

I hurried after him immediately worrying that something had happened to my wife or my grand parents, or father or close friends who may have me as an emergency contact.

Outside there were about five uniformed officers arranged in a semi circle with their hands close to their weapons, which I thought was odd for an emergency notification.

The officer who had come in for me introduced himself and explained to me that someone had observed me on an internet chat board (here at calguns) while I was sitting in a school computer lab, and apparently I was posting messages on how to bypass laws and illegally obtain firearms and hide them and I was making some kind of threat against the student body, and apparently somehow this translated to me being a threat to the school and under suspicion of carrying a gun.

I explained that I hadn’t posted any such thing, and while I might have explained to someone what they need to legally purchase a pistol in CA I have never advocated breaking the law in any way shape or form. (I actually posted about the utility bill requirement a while ago, but under a little bit of stress I couldn’t recall if it was the day before or a few days prior, it just seemed like the only post that could even remotely be misconstrued)

They then searched my person with my consent (I didn’t want the officers to feel ill at ease while I was standing there, and as I understand it an officer safety search is completely constitutional and I don’t have a problem with them feeling more comfortable around me)

They explained that after the VT and columbine things people were at a higher state of paranoia and they were obligated to follow up on any credible report, and explained to me that they needed to search my backpack to make sure that I didn’t have any weapons in it.

I replied that I did not consent to a search and did so on the grounds of privacy and a strong belief in the fourth amendment, I offered to show them all the internet posts that I had made so that they could judge for themselves whether or not this was a credible report.

They explained to me that based on my statements and the report they had from the female individual they had plenty of probable cause for searching my bag, but my consent would considerably speed up the process.

I declined further and they had the sergeant and chief of police (I believe) who were nice individuals and very courteous and professional come and talk with me while they called in for a telephonic warrant. It took them a considerable amount of time (20-30 min) and I began to inquire how long I had to stand out there and at what point it became unlawful detainment. They stated that since I was a suspect under investigation being detained that I could not go back into the classroom, nor could I take my things and leave campus.

I then called my wife and asked her to call T.M. and have them give me a call (I didn’t have the phone number on me for some reason… It might have been in my wallet but my wallet was being held onto by one of the officers.

Speaking of my wallet, the officers took a special interest in it, I have an old police wallet that has space for a badge, I don’t carry a badge, I’ve never carried a badge, I’m not a policeman wannabe or mall ninja, I just appreciate high quality leatherwork and when my old JC penny wallet wore out, I purchased a badge wallet that was on sale at the local shooting range/police supply outlet. It is a nice lattago leather that is well stitched and has held up so well for the last seven years that I don’t think I’ll ever need another one.

I don’t really understand why it was of such interest to them, but it was, and I guess they have to deal with a lot of wannabe cops impersonating an officer.

They obtained a warrant, searched my bag, determined that unless I was planning on throwing my physics notes at someone (which reminds me I left a notebook on the desk in class…. I’ll have to get it tomorrow) I had nothing that was illegal in my bag.

They apologized to me for the inconvenience, chatted about competitive shooting and ca law a bit and sent me on my way.

I was a bit shaken and class was almost over so I left to go get a cold soda and go home (I only have one class on Thursdays)

My wife was really distraught over this, and has all but forbidden me from discussing guns in public or chatting on calguns while at school. I don’t blame her, it’s a hard phone call to get, “hey babe, I’m being detained on suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon please contact T.M. for me”

Chuck called me on my cell phone shortly afterwards and I explained to him what had happened, and why I took the pre-emptive step of contacting him. (I didn’t feel that some unsubstantiated report constituted probable cause for violating my privacy or treating me like a criminal, and what if a single round of ammo was lodged in my backpack somewhere from a range trip three years ago? Its happened before (I only found out when I had to get on an airplane and they x-rayed my bag), or if I had an exacto knife from one of the art classes that I had forgotten about and had wound up in with my pens…

I just feel uncomfortable allowing people to search through my possessions, and I didn’t want to allow for an accidental empty brass casing or something to cause me to get expelled from a school that I’ve worked very hard at (3.87 GPA, I’ll be graduating with two AA’s this quarter and transferring to a new school next year)

I also felt a little embarrassed that my bookmark for my recreational reading is one a friend made me that features the land-o-lakes girl and has a little flap that you lift to make her show her breasts… I don’t mind you guys knowing about it, (hey its just guy bawdy talk) but pulling it out at school and discussing it would be inappropriate, also in our PC world I didn’t want to get kicked out of school for having something like that. (I hadn’t thought about it being inappropriate until they asked to search, It wont be accompanying me to school in the future)

I didn’t want to make the officers jobs harder by not granting consent for the search, I just value my rights and I don’t want doodles of guns or notes from my polysci class to ruin the education that I’m working so *&^%# hard to get. Part of me also distrusted the fact that they actually had P.C. for a search, it just seemed that if they had it, they would have gone ahead and gotten a warrant for it prior to pulling me out of class. I guess schools are a different sort of environment, the warrant was obviously granted via the telephone.

C.M. is going to be sending me a few cards and a magnet, he was very understanding and having access to him incase of something like this was a huge relief. Apparently (according to my wife) mentioning calguns brought immediate recognition and action. It actually brings a tear to my eye thinking that you guys are out there and organized and I’m not just one man that has to stand alone (ok it’s a bit melodramatic). Seriously, just the though of it meant more than you can know.

I’m not sure who reported me as a dangerous guy, (maybe it was the local news? I sent a commentary letter to them yesterday from a school computer discussing the RKBA) I don’t really care who did it, though its saddening that this is what our society has come to, reporting ‘suspicious activity’ instead of just talking to the ‘suspicious’ guy about what’s going on first.

I just wanted to let you guys know about it, It feels good to get it out so I’m not just thinking about it. (I was a little shaken up buy the whole thing, I’m a big advocate of following the rules to the exact letter of the law, and to be accused of being a criminal actually hurt)

To T.M. thanks for being there,

To the officers (who I’m sure are reading this, I encouraged them to come and find out what the site was all about) Thanks for being professional and courteous about the incident, I’m sorry for making your jobs harder.

To the rest of you guys, be careful where you look at Calguns, people are snoopers and even if you are a clean cut professional looking upstanding individual with no prior history of anything, you too can be a suspect based on the word of someone who disagrees with you politically, or misreads an email you write to the newspaper.

If you enjoyed reading about "I was detained at school today (Aug 29 2007)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AJAX22
September 5, 2007, 01:41 PM
And a followup post

Initially I didn't understand how far the officers were going to pursue this, I've only had one adverse interaction with law enforcement and it was just an attitude thing from one particular officer years ago in my home town.

I just thought that it would go away once I explained myself and my position clearly, I had no idea that they believed they had enough for probable cause for a search, and I did not object to a search of my person because I didn't want the officers to be jumpy (I would prefer not to get shot over pulling out a cell phone or other similar action)

I'm not as up on my tort law as I should be, (and I have limited resources to pursue any kind of legal action that couldn't be funded by the recovery)

and while the whole incident was a bit emotionally distressing, I'm not certain that the ill will which might be incurred on campus would be worth pursuing a civil matter.

I have a number of very VERY liberal teachers this semester and I desperately need good grades to get into the colleges that I am trying to attend

In a class with a subjective grading system, I fear that I if I did make a civil issue out of this and it became public knowledge I could then be singled out and have my grade lowered as a result.

I have had my grade subjectivly lowered once before, I earned a 92.5% in a class and the teacher gave me a B because he didnt like my attitude or what I had to say in my final essay. I can only imagine what my cinema 9 teacher would say if she found out I was pro 2A. She has us do yoga in class instead of drinking coffee.....

The police who were involved were all campus officers so I have no reason to believe that they had a larger anti calgun agenda. One did mention in passing that he was familiar with the site, but it was not in any kind of hostile manner.

A few things struck me as odd during the incident, they mentioned that the report had come in yesterday and that they had shown up to my class only to find out that I was not attending it (I only have one class which I attended thursday... I never skip class)

They had mentioned that I was talking about burying guns and obtaining guns illegally... and while I have in the past discussed burying firearms, (legally owned ones on private property in a secure manner) there is nothing illegal about doing it, and I've NEVER advocated any sort of illegal activity.

I feel that my RKBA is just to important.

When speaking to the officers I did incorrectly cite the posts that I had made yesterday, I informed the officer that I had discussed a remington targetmaster, which I later discovered was not correct, that was substantially prior, as well as the post I made with regard to the utility bill requirements for handgun purchase.

If they had actually visited the site and seen my postings, its possible that my misquoting myself (while under pressure) was what they were refering to as probable cause... I just am not familiar enough with that area of law.

I did not knowingly make an incorrect statement to the officers, but that particular information, I later found out to be in error as to the date of posting.

I can't imagine what other investigation they could be running on me, I lead a clean life and I really do play by the rules.

While the story that the officers gave me was slightly convoluted with regard to specifics, I really don't think there is any more to it than a simple suspicion of concealed carry investigation.

If for some reason they are investigating me they will be extremely disappointed, I Really just don't do anything illegal.

AJAX22
September 5, 2007, 01:42 PM
and after some more replies another followup post

I was never given a copy of the facesheet, they simply were on the phone for a while, then went into the classroom and exited with my backpack.

I assume they had a warrant because they went from being extremely cautious about going near my backpack without permission to sitting it on the ground and removing its contents in front of me. I never gave consent, they came back and searched and they told me they had a warrant, everything seemed on the up and up and since it was telephonic and issued while standing in a hallway outside of LS153 I didn't think anything of the lack of paperwork.

To their credit they only looked for weapons, they didn't read through my notes or give close scrutiny to any of my papers or documents, it was a straightforward search. (which is good, if they had delved deeper they might have been bored to tears with my economics notes and last semesters french grammar lessons)

They also didn't ask me about the magnesium firestarter block that I keep in my pack as an emergency item.

eta34, there's nothing for you to be sorry about, departmental policy is what it is and I don't fault officers for doing their job, they don't know who I am and I don't know what crazy story they were told by some vapid anti-gun woman, perhaps next time they will do a bit more research to validate the report prior to detaining a suspect... especially if detainment occurs 24 hours after the report was filed.

I've always advocated standing up for your 4A rights, I have great respect for our founding fathers and the constitution.

I know I was doing nothing illegal, but to me consenting to a search of my belongingsis not something I believe is ever the appropriate course of action. (my person Is different, I don't want to create undue tension and the officers were clearly on edge at first)

The law is so complex, there is really no way to be certain that you are not breaking it unknowingly. what if my doodles of guns that I want to build are considered to be a terrorist threat or inappropriate material to have at school? I fear being arrested someday for not following a law that I didn't know about . Its a serious issue.

Paranoia? Maybe, but if you told me that I'd get detained and searched today because of reading up on the current developments in firearms law I probably would have laughed and asked you how in the heck that was PC for anything.

there are just too many laws for anyone to stay current (and forget about staying up to date with stare decisis)

AJAX22
September 5, 2007, 01:43 PM
and another followup post

Thank you all for the comments, reading them has helped me relax considerably.

I left my backpack in the classroom when escorted outside specifically to avoid its contents being subject to terry, it was never within the 'lunge' area until the officers returned it to me.

Thinking back on yesterdays browsing/posting it is possible that what was seen was a comment I sent to Fox news after reading this thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=67519

it was basically the standard RKBA argument, only the law abiding will be disarmed.... police can not possibly have a response time which will be fast enough to prevent violence.... 2A right... etc. and while it was strongly worded, It was not threatening in any way.

Electronic monitoring is a possibility, It seems that they would have better things to do than monitor me but hey its a brave new world out there.

will they just give me a copy of the police report and warrant along with any other documents associated with my investigation? It's my first time as a suspect, My other two run ins with the law were when my car was stolen, and when I was hospitalized for a motorcycle accident. Is it the same procedure for requesting the documents? Is there a way to do it through the mail so I don't have to waste time while I'm at school?

I would like to minimize my contact with beurocratcy if possible.

AJAX22
September 5, 2007, 01:44 PM
and another followup post

An interesting update..

I went in to the campus police station today to begin the process of requesting a copy of the police report and warrant along with any accompanying documentation. The staff were polite and courteous, and the nice officer who came into the classroom was actually there working on something and came out to say Hi.

Apparently it takes seven to ten days for a police report to be submitted and filed so that I can request a copy. They said that they will have a copy for me when it is completed.

The interesting part of the trip was the response to my request for a copy of the warrant, at first they just stated that telephonic warrants do not have face sheets, and after talking amongst themselves for a minuite or so in back, they informed me that when they called in for the warrant "that service was not available to us at the time" but they assured me that it would all be explained in the narrative of the police report.

I did not ask any follow up questions (the obvious one being "Did you actually get a warrant or did you do a search without consent and without a judge giving you the ok" The reason being that I didn't want to cause anyone to review and 'revise' the report before I was able to get a copy of it in my hand.

They did not actually state to me that they had asked for and received a warrant at the time of the search, they just went off on the telephone and came back and performed the search after telling me that they were going to go get a telephonic warrant.

I'm curious to see the report and find out what the actual story is. I'm beginning to suspect that they performed the search based on nothing but the presumption of probable cause which I do not feel was substantiated.

If they did search me without a warrant, its completely unacceptable, and given that I was waiting for a callback from legal representation (which I stated plainly in front of them), to proceed with the search before I was able to obtain legal council just seems kind of shady to me.

I don't want to get too far offtrack with wild speculation (its possible that they did indeed obtain a warrant and simply were referring to the fact that a manner of printing or transmitting a written copy was temporarily unavailable)

but........

It still remains to be seen just how far the rabbit hole goes... now we just have to wait 10 days... but hey in CA us gunnies are used to it...

buzz_knox
September 5, 2007, 01:47 PM
It won't be long until you can be held on suspicion of committing a thought crime.

Actually, I think you just were. It'd be nice to find out who filed the false police report (I think a report that is wrong on all material terms fits the definition nicely).

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 01:50 PM
Definitely sounds like no fun, but at least they didn't press the subject after they clearly determined it was a misunderstanding.

It won't be long until you can be held on suspicion of committing a thought crime.
I'm sure there's some provision under a "hate crime" law somewhere that allows that.

SoCalShooter
September 5, 2007, 01:50 PM
Is it possible to request that they wait until you have the facesheet in your hands?

brerrabbit
September 5, 2007, 01:55 PM
Me, I would be more concerned about the lack of a warrant.

fletcher
September 5, 2007, 01:59 PM
In the USA don't you have a specifically written right to demand to know exactly WHO it was who set you up?
I believe that's only if you're actually charged with something. Even then, the "accuser" could be the state, and he wouldn't get to see the now-anonymous tipster.

buzz_knox
September 5, 2007, 02:00 PM
I'm sure there's some provision under a "hate crime" law somewhere that allows that.

Hate crime charges usually require predicate offenses. They punish the state of mind you have while committing another crime. The idea is that if we deter murders, assaults, etc by tacking on an extra 5 years for having a bad attitude while committing the crime.

[Deleted quote deleted]

The right to face one's accusers tends to be restricted to court proceedings. "Anonymous" tips and complaints are all too common. The desire to promote LEO involvement versus self-help (or just letting things go) is perceived to outweigh the concern about false charges.

Im283
September 5, 2007, 02:02 PM
Sounds to me that someone saw you on the gun board and decided that you were the next Cho in waiting. People ought to mind their own business.

You also stated an apology to the cops????? Why would you do this? You did nothing wrong, they owe you an apology.

And as an aside why does anything a person says on an internet forum mean anything in the real world? why should authorities be able to use this against you?

Loucks
September 5, 2007, 02:04 PM
It sounds like you were astoundingly coolheaded about the whole thing. Kudos for that. I don't think I would've consented to the search of my person had i been in your situation, but I also don't mean to second-guess you. All things considered, things coul have been much, much worse.

I look forward to hearing how all this plays out. Maybe you'll be able to afford to buy a few new defensive weapons after the dust settles. :D

sam59
September 5, 2007, 02:05 PM
It is refreshing to hear they were polite and couteous to you during the entire incident. I am willing to bet (I offer this from first hand experience) they were thinking what a bunch of BS the entire call was, but if the call was not handled sufficiently and soemthing happened they would be getting BS'd (butt screwed) at a later date.

ozwyn
September 5, 2007, 02:06 PM
I thought I might have seen it, but to be ont he sae side I would definitely reinterate having at least one lawyer handy for this mess.

Blackfork
September 5, 2007, 02:10 PM
Sounds like you did everything right. What a crazy world.

CountGlockula
September 5, 2007, 02:11 PM
I can't wait to see how this unfolds.

kd7nqb
September 5, 2007, 02:11 PM
as a fellow college student, I feel your pain. I have as of late been very careful how my laptop screen is facing when checking out THR at school. But then again its well known on campus that I am the president of the 2nd Amendment Society so that has gotten me enough interesting looks and comments.

tinygnat219
September 5, 2007, 02:12 PM
Looks like you might have the makings of a civil suit with the PD if they can't get you a copy of the warrant. Go to the court that issued it and ask for a copy.

As for the accuser, you are legally entitled to know who is accusing you of such a crime (it's called facing your accuser). Find out who it is and then you might have a case for defamation of character. The police report should note who the accuser is.

Good luck!

romma
September 5, 2007, 02:14 PM
Hello Judge whatchamacallit... This is officer sosandso over at the University... We have a non-disruptive individual we are detaining that won't cooperate and give us consent to search his bag, therefor he is obviously hiding "something" so that should constitute probable cause for a search.

Oh, one more thing your honor, we are basing our investigation on the word of another student that thought they saw something relating to firearms on a computer screen and was fearful over it, even though firearms are perfectly legal..

Thanks in advance for the Tele-Warrant Your Honor!!


Let the good times roll, Warrants for everybody!!

Without Police bashing, anyone know the ratio of warrants issued vs warrants denied?

MrTuffPaws
September 5, 2007, 02:16 PM
I'm sure there's some provision under a "hate crime" law somewhere that allows that.

Ha. Try anti-terror laws.

Davo
September 5, 2007, 02:17 PM
In a decade or 2, this is how it will be in many other places.

Bazooka Joe71
September 5, 2007, 02:17 PM
Wow, what a crazy situation...Thank you for being polite and courteous about the whole thing, it makes us look better.

I'm glad to hear the cops were polite as well. As stated earlier, I'm sure they were thinking this was a crock as well, but they had to it to cover their own butts in case you were the "next cho."

Loucks
September 5, 2007, 02:18 PM
I'm sure there's some provision under a "hate crime" law somewhere that allows that.

Not in Indiana. We don't have hate crimes here, as I understand it.

MrTuffPaws
September 5, 2007, 02:18 PM
Is it possible to request that they wait until you have the facesheet in your hands?

No idea, but I would assume so. Taking an LEO's word for it is never a wise thing. Anyone know the details on telephonic warrants?

crebralfix
September 5, 2007, 02:19 PM
How EXACTLY does what you read and post on a forum show probable cause that you're committing a crime at a later time?

If you wrote something that stated you were doing something now, that's an admission at that time. Were the two events sequential?

JohnBT
September 5, 2007, 02:26 PM
Let me summarize. Somebody called in a false alarm and nothing much happened. Is that right?

Sounds like a practical joke, nothing to get worked up over.

John

musher
September 5, 2007, 02:31 PM
John, If your summary was a book report, you'd fail.

Somebody called in a false alarm and a person was detained and his bag searched w/o consent (and possibly w/o a warrant). Sounds like a lot more than 'nothing much'. The fact that whole secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects thing got put into the constitution seems to indicate it's a non-trivial matter.

buzz_knox
September 5, 2007, 02:31 PM
Let me summarize. Somebody called in a false alarm and nothing much happened. Is that right?

Sounds like a practical joke, nothing to get worked up over.


Maybe for you. But recalling my college days (back in the '90s), an event like this would have 1) potentially tainted my professors' image of me and cost grade points and recommendations and 2) likely resulted in further discussions with faculty over whether I should remain in class. I went to a "conservative" (not really, but the media and college guides reported it as such, despite the university's best efforts to carry out as much liberal "reform" as possible) and there would have been adverse consequences to an event like this.

Practical jokes involving police are usually kicked off by false reports, correct? Filing a false report or complaint is usually a criminal matter, correct?

Lucky
September 5, 2007, 02:32 PM
* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.


You HAVE to sue. Find a pro-bono lawyer, you HAVE to challenge this. Any sane gun-rights group should support you through it, or lead it. Not only would sueing get you $$, it would prevent this **** from becoming common happening! If you don't challenge it who the **** will?

saltydog452
September 5, 2007, 02:35 PM
This isn't going to make a lot of friends, but, with all the litagation going on, the Campus Police would have been neglectful if they had NOT thoroughly followed through with the complaint.

Its a different world these days.

Sanity and reason may still prevail, but it's a toss-up in front of a jury and a well orchestrated after the fact media circus.

salty.

Prince Yamato
September 5, 2007, 02:39 PM
You know, if someone can't handle a picture of a gun, tough nuts. I browse THR at school all the time. I try not to be obnoxious about me viewing habits, but still, I think it's ridiculous that looking at guns on the internet can be construed as planning to commit a crime. I bet if you were looking at marijuana buds for sale, nobody would have reported a thing... :rolleyes:

W.E.G.
September 5, 2007, 02:46 PM
Next step:
Kali "school" police block your on-campus access to web sites they disapprove

buzz_knox
September 5, 2007, 02:50 PM
Lucky, the key word there is "prosecution." There was no prosecution, just a detention and a search (apparently) supported by a warrant.

romma
September 5, 2007, 03:05 PM
Kali "school" police block your on-campus access to web sites they disapprove

Particular sects of society love nothing more than trying to throw enthusiast like us into the gun closet...

I suppose if they don't see those horrific images, they don't think they exist.

poor_richard
September 5, 2007, 03:42 PM
I have a question that I would appreciate any LEO or lawyers chiming in on.

I’ve heard of telephone warrants, but who’s to say they didn’t lie about the telephone warrant. If they had told me that someone had reported me advocating illegal behavior on an online forum, I could have believed it. But when they said that such a report constituted PC when they didn’t even check to verify such a claim (OP stated that he did no such thing), then I would have probably pegged them as liars and not believed the “phone warrant” line. The OP even offered to show them the posts that initially spurred this incident.

My question is: do they have to show me the warrant?

Also, doesn’t PC for a search pertain to a crime in progress or about to be committed? I thought they didn’t need a warrant with PC and could just conduct a search.

Obviously he can’t stop them from searching his bag (with or without the warrant), but it seems like they should at least be able to show him a warrant.

Another thing. I understand them being vigilant after the VT shooting and all, but searching the OP and his bag without first verifying the complaint by checking out the website sounds more like intimidation/harassment than being vigilant. If someone (the person who reported the suspicious activity) was looking close enough to see what he was writing, then they should have easily been able to point the officers to the calguns forum to verify the complaint. It also brings the question of how someone could know he was putting such statements on his computer without hovering over his shoulder (would have been fairly obvious unless they were sitting right next to him, and then he would have probably noticed them starring). I know that my local library has the ability to (and does) monitor what people are doing on the computers in the library. Is this possible in this situation?

This whole thing just doesn’t pass the sniff test to me, but I’d like to hear from someone in LE or a lawyer.

At the very least, someone provided a false report (believing the OP). That should be looked into since he did not post messages on: "how to bypass laws and illegally obtain firearms and hide them", and "making some kind of threat against the student body".

Standing Wolf
September 5, 2007, 03:46 PM
The officer who had come in for me introduced himself and explained to me that someone had observed me on an internet chat board (here at calguns) while I was sitting in a school computer lab, and apparently I was posting messages on how to bypass laws and illegally obtain firearms and hide them and I was making some kind of threat against the student body, and apparently somehow this translated to me being a threat to the school and under suspicion of carrying a gun.

Freedom of speech? What freedom of speech? Terrible things could happen if we allow commoners freedom of speech.

Lucky
September 5, 2007, 03:54 PM
Buzz what about the defamation of character though, and the mental anguish? How can he sue if the tipster is anonymous? He has statements from the police which are clearly false accusations against him. The fact that he wasn't charged is proof that he was victimized by the nosy woman.

If he can't sue then it's BS, 'sorry you can't have justice, you weren't breaking the law'.

bigun15
September 5, 2007, 04:15 PM
Next step:
Kali "school" police block your on-campus access to web sites they disapprove
Already done at my high school.

Hazel
September 5, 2007, 04:44 PM
the Campus Police would have been neglectful if they had NOT thoroughly followed through with the complaint.

Given what it seems the accuser was saying, I do actually agree with that. The problem is that some idiot automatically assumed that just because someone has an interest in guns it makes them a psychopath; thereby, said idiot blew the whole thing out of proportion and ended up telling a complete lie to the cops, taking up a good amount of their time and making the accused person miss class.

And Geez, if they had found an empty casing, I know that it would cause trouble, but why in the world should it? What are you going to do, throw it at someone? That wouldn't even bruise.

Blackbeard
September 5, 2007, 04:58 PM
I'd call the police and tell them you have reason to believe that all of your professors are carrying marijuana.

strat81
September 5, 2007, 05:05 PM
Already done at my high school.
Minors have about as many rights as a block of cheese, especially on school grounds.

That being said, many colleges block access to file sharing servers. When I was a freshman in college, Napster was all the rage on campus. IT blocked the ports or whatever to prohibit access since mp3 downloads were sucking up too much bandwidth. It's hard to make a strong case for the educational value of Napster and, more importantly, it was a private university. They could restrict anything they wanted.

CZ.22
September 5, 2007, 05:06 PM
I was planning on throwing my physics notes at someone
Really? They're that heavy? Geez, I guess they do overwork you in college.
On a more serious note, I don't think there was really any harm done, but hearsay (I think that's the right word) shouldn't warrant (no pun intended) six cops interrupting your school.

JohnBT
September 5, 2007, 05:09 PM
"Buzz what about the defamation of character though, and the mental anguish?"

What defamation of character? What mental anguish?

All this gnashing of teeth has taken a lot more time and energy than the entire incident.

No, I wouldn't have been happy to have it happen to me, but life's too short and there's too much that needs doing (in my life anyway) for me to dwell on it for more than about three or four minutes.

Maybe I see too many people everyday with real problems - traumatic brain injuries, amputations, degenerative diseases, psychoses, spinal cord injuries, etc. - to get worked up over minor inconveniences.

John

yesit'sloaded
September 5, 2007, 05:13 PM
I kinda know the feeling. I went to an inner city public school, talked about hunting with on of my friends, guns are involved in hunting. Next day cop was there, searched my pack, and the school called my parents, and for the next month I had to check in and leave my backpack in the school office until it was time to leave school.

CWL
September 5, 2007, 05:15 PM
I think both you and the police handled everything correctly and (by the LEOs) legally. I'm sure that there was a telephonic warrant issued to search your backpack. If there wasn't and they did find a gun or other contraband in your backpack they wouldn't be able to charge you because of illegal search and seizure. That would open them up to lawsuits as well. There is nothing in your description that you can sue about and win.

Unfortunately, you have just found out what happens nowadays because of Vir. Tech.

brentn
September 5, 2007, 05:20 PM
I think everyone here can appreciate that it didn't get real bad and the officers were understanding to the situation. They had an open mind to the report and didn't go in there and just bust your ass like i've heard about so many other times.

I'm glad that you didn't want to give them consent to search, its really all about the principal of your rights. If I were in your shoes, I would have done the same thing.

Point being, I think you should care who called you in, I would find out and charge them with harassment, because thats exactly what it was. She gave officials false information to have you detained, she told them that you were talking about breaking the law. That was a very poor assumption on her part when she doesn't have all the facts, an assumption that should cost her.

Nice post though

obxned
September 5, 2007, 05:40 PM
Just another reason to take courses on-line!!!!

Nolo
September 5, 2007, 05:52 PM
Next step:
Kali "school" police block your on-campus access to web sites they disapprove
My High School already does this.
Guess what one of them is?
Google Images. :barf:
Ha!
"I'm very sorry, but color pictures weren't around when the Constitution was written, so you can't look at them..."
I just thank God they haven't blocked Wikipedia yet.
Which is funny, because Wikipedia has several articles on sex and pornography that I'm sure my school wouldn't approve of.
Technically, my school's definition of a "weapon" is any object that can cause harm to another human being.
Which is basically anything hard and heavy.
Better start padding those walls...
For your safety, ja?

W.E.G.
September 5, 2007, 05:57 PM
For any of you who are beefing this guy for being P.O.'d about being snatched by the cops, ask yourself this.
What did the cops do to verify the credibility of the accusation?
What did the cops do to weigh the seriousness of the accusation?
Why did there have to be multiple cops surrounding the guy?
Why did they have to search his backpack when he was being completely calm and cooperative otherwise?

I think he has ever right to be very much annoyed by this incident. At a minimum, the cops should be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny as this law-abiding young man was subjected to.

This was not even a "man with a gun" call. It was a "man looking at electronic pictures of guns" call. Am I gonna get rousted now everytime I browse a copy of Guns & Ammo at the grocery store? Somebody needs to put their foot down!

Question the police at all times. Otherwise, rest assured that there will be no retreat on police ideas that an individual's rights take second status to the cops' desire to do everything in whatever way the cop feels like doing it.

I carried a badge for 10 years. I assure you, most cops need a LOT of reminders on the correct manner to do things.

For instance http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=299222&highlight=Norfolk

10 Ring Tao
September 5, 2007, 07:48 PM
I'm putting my money on their warrant being bogus. How convenient, a verbal warrant, with no paper trail. I'm sure they figured some dumb punk college kid wouldn't be able to tell the difference, or do anything about it.

Make sure you get some proof that the warrant was given and was legit. If they can't cough it up, raise hell.

DRZinn
September 5, 2007, 08:27 PM
This was not even a "man with a gun" call. It was a "man looking at electronic pictures of guns" call. This is key. If someone said he had a gun, that would have warranted more or less exactly what happened. But this is just asinine.

CWL
September 5, 2007, 09:08 PM
I'm putting my money on their warrant being bogus.


Can't agree. You will not be able to make any arrest & prosecution stick if the evidence was obtained illegally. Illegal search & seizure will get any case thrown out. That'd really suck if you are trying to stop a real Cho copycat.

ceetee
September 5, 2007, 09:54 PM
"Verbal Warrant".

Harumph.

My understanding of the warrant process is this: An officer has PC to suspect that a search of a particular place will unearth solid evidence of a crime. THAT OFFICER is required to swear out an affidavit and appear in fron tof a judge to justify his PC. If the judge agrees, he signs the warrant prepared by the officer, and the world is all bunnies, rainbows, and cotton candy.

If that officer lacks the time to physically go to the judge, warrant application in hand, he can relay the facts of his PC to another SWORN officer, and that officer can go to the judge.

Either way, the judge must put his John Halfcrocked on the dotted line. That second officer can call the first officer back and say, "We have the warrant, go ahead and search", but the paper must exist. If I were the OP, I'd find the best attorney I could that will do the work for nothing up front, and take it to them, if for no other reason than to teach them about doing things the right way versus doing them the wrong way. We've already read that this one innocent incident may damage the student's reputation irreparably, causing vengeful liberal teachers to lower his grades and possibly hurt his future earning potential. Take it to them, just to teach them a lesson.

Lucky
September 5, 2007, 09:59 PM
Why not call the NRA legal fund? Membership has its privileges and all that?

Soybomb
September 5, 2007, 10:19 PM
Did you attempt to speak to any attorneys, including the free lawyers your campus probably offers, or 2nd amendment groups prior to posting all of this on the internet? The only way to turn this into anything more than stuff people talk about about on the internet is to hit 'em where it hurts with a wallet draining law suit.

Cosmoline
September 5, 2007, 10:34 PM
Welcome to Amerika, comrades. Good lord.

Well you did good refusing consent.

I’m not sure who reported me as a dangerous guy

You should care about this. I'd suggest doing a FOIA. The reason is simple--to obtain evidence in support of a cause of action. California sucks in most areas, but it's the plaintiff's paradise. Go see a lawyer and get things in gear. The tort isn't so much false reporting, I suspect, but defamation. Heck there are about a dozen causes of action in CA that might fit. Find out who did this, expose them in public and grind them into a pulp. Otherwise it's just going to keep happening more and more. Maybe to you, certainly to others.

cassandrasdaddy
September 5, 2007, 10:46 PM
as far as using the frree lawyers at school you may find that they won't handle any action against the school thats been my experience with georgetown law school

Autolycus
September 5, 2007, 10:48 PM
I agree with Cosmoline. Get a copy of your warrant and all the paperwork regarding this incident. Its time that people started stepping up when it comes to things like this.

novaDAK
September 5, 2007, 11:38 PM
I've been more careful with my laptop at school now. I've been visiting THR and TFL a little more than GT now mainly because the forum setup. Here and at TFL it's just a plain green/white (or blue) forum layout. At GT, they have the big glock at the top of every page, with many gun pics as people's (and my own) avatars.
Now, so far I've only used my laptop in my dorm, and my roommate isn't anti, but I don't want to give him the wrong impression (that I'm a nutjob or something) or take any risks like that at all. I still do visit GT frequently, but only when he's gone from the room.

I also am at many dodge sites so that also adds many car enthusiast forums into the mix for confusion (if someone sees THR they'll just think I'm on another car forum :) )

ravencon
September 5, 2007, 11:43 PM
In such "conversations" with LE it is best to say as little as possible and use lots of qualifiers (such as "to the best of my recollection...") when you do say anything.

The feds now prosecute people for lying to their agents (remember Martha Stewart). Of course, the feds can lie to you and that is legally permissible. Some have rights that are more equal than others.

It is always best to let your lawyer do your talking. If your lawyer isn't present, say very little and don't consent to anything.

luzyfuerza
September 5, 2007, 11:53 PM
This story illustrates why I cried for joy when I finally crossed the Nevada border on my move out of the PRK.

Beautiful state. Too many paranoid, nosey people who feel that they have the right to run your life for you.

littlegator
September 6, 2007, 12:17 AM
Luzyfuerza:
This story illustrates why I cried for joy when I finally crossed the Nevada border on my move out of the PRK.


Into or out of Nevada? I'm from Vegas - I'm sorry if your gone...:(

In a nutshell (obviously not intended as legal advice - so don't take it as such :rolleyes: ):
The "informant's tip" that the police received may or may not have provided sufficient probable cause for the police to obtain the warrant. It depends. Usually, the Court will look to whether the informant is one that was used before (has a history ratting out people) or has other corrorative indicia of reliability. I think it is safe to assume that your "informant" was only of transient nature (another student with no history giving evidence to police), and therefore, not historically reliable. The police would then have to corroborate the informant with evidence from your posts. Obviously, they didn't have time to look up the posts before they searched the bag.

The pragmatic problem herein, is that the police will most likely get the warrant (or not), search the bag, then find out later that their seizure was unconstitutional under the 4th Amend. Even there, I doubt very seriously that the lower courts, i.e. - the municiple, justice, or district courts in the local and county seats, would overturn the search and seizure. We're talking about elected judges who in some cases are barely out of law school or who have never practiced criminal or constitutional law before. These types of things don't get their fair constitutional consideration until they are looked at by the State Supremes at least. In other words, the police get what they want unless you are willing to take the case all the way baby.

The fact that you didn't give them consent to search the bag was a nice touch. Consent means waiver of your rights. I would not have consented to the search of my body though, either. Police could have done so anyway, but why make their harassment any easier. For the body search, otherwise known as a "stop and frisk", police only need "reasonable suspicion". In other words, not much. An uncorroborated informants tip would have been enough.

There may be claims against the department, school, and informant. I'm not sure what your nationality or ethnic origin is, but depending on your race, etc., your claims might be further legitimized. If you're interested in pursuing it, seek some local legal help from someone who practices in discrimination cases, police brutality, 1983 claims, etc.

Pilgrim
September 6, 2007, 01:13 AM
I’ve heard of telephone warrants, but who’s to say they didn’t lie about the telephone warrant. If they had told me that someone had reported me advocating illegal behavior on an online forum, I could have believed it. But when they said that such a report constituted PC when they didn’t even check to verify such a claim (OP stated that he did no such thing), then I would have probably pegged them as liars and not believed the “phone warrant” line. The OP even offered to show them the posts that initially spurred this incident.

My question is: do they have to show me the warrant?


It's been awhile since I've done these things, but my recollection of telephone warrants is they have to be transferred to paper, filed with the court, and a report made to the court of what was found in the course of the search.

If you want to have fun, check with the court and see if a paper copy of the affidavit and warrant was filed.

Pilgrim

AJAX22
September 6, 2007, 01:34 AM
I'm working on getting copies of all the information, I should have it by friday or monday at the latest.

I dont want to make any waves untill I have a copy of the report, I don't want it to be revised or adjusted prior to filing.

Once I have it, we'll see if there was a warrent issued and procede from there.

I will post copies of the report when I get it.

kurtmax
September 6, 2007, 08:00 AM
When I first came to my university, I hid my firearms enthusiasm. I had originally planned to start carrying when I got my permit (it's not illegal, just against school policy).

Since then I've become much more vocal about RKBA and such things. I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying now, since some yahoo cop might decide to do a terry stop because of 'crazy gun talk' (You must be crazy if you talk about guns, eh?) It wouldn't be illegal to carry, but I'm sure the cops would report it to the University in their infinite wisdom (can they even tell other people about stuff like that??!)

Anyhow, I do frequent firearms sites at school. Mostly thr, tfr, and oc.org. I also talk about firearms quite a bit when I hang out in the student union, although, not as much as computer games and programming :P I've started taking people to the range, but most of the people I know aren't anti-gun anyways. If anything they don't really care about the subject... We also talk about firearm politics as well, and generally most people agree with me, except for a Canadian guy (he doesn't count though.. right ;)).

But anyways, I don't think my character is all that questionable. I've already had people tell me, "It's a good thing someone like you owns all those guns rather than some crazy murderous nut!"

davinci
September 6, 2007, 08:42 AM
I'm going to add this to my list of reasons to avoid California.
I'm sorry that you got hassled, I'm sure the incident must have been very tramatic.

As a side note, even if they did find a weapon....you would only be violating concealed carry in a gun free zone. This is at most a misdemeanor in my state (when on state property) and I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for carrying into a gun-free store or non-state property.

It takes 5 policeman at least an hour out of their day to make sure that you don't have a gun. Interesting. I guess they're all on edge after VT. If posting on an internet gun forum is considered "suspicious activity" then I guess I should probably go ahead and get a lawyer now.

CDignition
September 6, 2007, 10:31 AM
IF the LEO lied about the warrant, and you refused to consent to search, then anything they find is not admissible in court. You rights will EVENTUALLY be honored, but im sure you would have been arrested, and had some court dates, etc first.(ASSUMING they found a gun and lied about a warrant being issued)

AJAX22
September 7, 2007, 01:16 PM
I'm not having a nice day

I went in to pick up the report today.

I had been almost exactly 9 24 hour periods since the report was filed, so I had figured that it should be available. (they had told me to come back in 7-10 days and 9 days seems to be plenty.

Well guess what.... I show up today and they don't want to give me the report. In the words of the people in the back room "He's not getting it today" I don't know if they think I'm deaf or stupid, but a sickly sweet smile doesn't cover up the feeling of being jerked around. And it doesn't mean that I can't hear the conversations you're having a few yards away from me (the glass is bulletproof, not soundproof)

Apparently it should be ready on the 12th (mind you this was originally filed last wednesday the 29th. Apparently I have to wait 10 SCHOOL days (the receptionists words not mine) for a copy of the report....

If I show up on wednesday (TWO WEEKS after the report was initiated) and find out that I have to wait an extra day because a federal holiday occurred during my "10 school day" wait I believe I will be mildly upset.

I made a special trip to school today to get the report (I don't have class on friday) so I'm not happy about this turn of events.

I remained polite and didn't make waves, but its getting ridiculous.

Does anyone know if it is actually 7-10 business days you have to wait for a report or 7-10 24 hour periods? I'd like to know if I am just being paranoid or if I'm getting jerked around. (you think that they'd have mentioned it to me when they explained it the first time if I had to wait a full 10 business days)

sacp81170a
September 7, 2007, 01:40 PM
I don't know about their (campus police) procedures, but I can't go home after my shift until I file all my incident and contact reports, let alone search warrants and arrest reports. Something smells here. Verbal notification of a warrant is okay if you receive it from another sworn officer, but the warrant has to exist and be signed by a judge in the first place. 20 minutes to get a warrant to search a student's bag? I get reamed if I take more than 15 minutes on a traffic stop unless I have good PC. The fact that someone told them you 'might' have a gun without a positive report that they had seen one just isn't enough. It rises to reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause. Lawyer up.

poor_richard
September 7, 2007, 02:06 PM
I don't know about their (campus police) procedures, but I can't go home after my shift until I file all my incident and contact reports, let alone search warrants and arrest reports. Something smells here. Verbal notification of a warrant is okay if you receive it from another sworn officer, but the warrant has to exist and be signed by a judge in the first place. 20 minutes to get a warrant to search a student's bag? I get reamed if I take more than 15 minutes on a traffic stop unless I have good PC. The fact that someone told them you 'might' have a gun without a positive report that they had seen one just isn't enough. It rises to reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause. Lawyer up.I never did buy the line that they had a warrant based on their described behavior. However, I also understand that my knowledge is quite limited on this type of situation. It's just they're word that there is actually an issued warrant to search the bag, just as it was they're word that someone reported him for making statements that he supposedly didn't' make.

Does a phone warrant mean they can just search his bag without/or before showing him the the warrant or, some proof of an actual warrant existing?



He obviously can't stop 5-6 armed men from taking possession of his bag and searching it (with or without the warrant). But are they required to show the warrant, upon request of the suspect before the search?

sacp81170a
September 7, 2007, 02:30 PM
duplicate post

sacp81170a
September 7, 2007, 02:31 PM
Does a phone warrant mean they can just search his bag without/or before showing him the the warrant or, some proof of an actual warrant existing?

Warrants are pretty much all alike in the procedures for notification. If, for instance, I'm notified by a dispatcher that there is a warrant for your arrest, that constitutes good faith in me taking you into custody. I'm trusting the dispatcher to give me good information. Same thing from another sworn officer for a search warrant. I don't need to have it in hand, I just have to be notified by another law enforcement agency that it exists and that I know the particulars(i.e., the time, place, object of the search, etc.).

If there was a warrant, it's okay to make the notification by phone (there really is no such thing as a 'phone' warrant) or by radio. That's part of what makes it sound fishy to me. Every piece of official documentation such as incident reports, complaints, warrants, etc., is a matter of public record as long as they aren't part of an ongoing investigation or an undercover operation. Sounds like a little CYA going on here.

princewally
September 7, 2007, 02:46 PM
If it ever happens again, remember, if you're not 'free to go', you ARE under arrest.

ceetee
September 7, 2007, 03:08 PM
As I'm not sure about the policies of the campus police, yo might want to take this as worth just what you paid for it...

That 7-10 days nonsense is just so the officer has time to handwrite the report, turn it in to a transcriptionist who types it up and gives it back to the officer for his signature, who gives it to a supervisor for his scrutiny, who gives it to a supervisor for his approval, etc, etc. Eventually, if there are no more supervisors who need to scrawl their initials on the report, it gets filed in a cabinet somewhere. Once it's been approved for filing, you can request a copy (and usually have to pay a per-page fee for the copies made). If any of the supervisors up the line reject the report for any reason (improper language, or grammar, or spelling, or maybe they just think the first officer need to "do it over", they route it back down the chain until it eventually reaches the officer and starts up the chain again. Usually, that only happens if the officer wrote something so pigheaded that it amounts to a confession of violating someone's rights...

That's been my experence, anyway.

Scorpiusdeus
September 7, 2007, 03:33 PM
Those of you who are giving legal advice based on your vast number of hours watching Law & Order really should knock it off.

Unless you are an attorney accepted into the CA bar, you are not qualified to give this guy legal advice beyond, GET AN ATTORNEY.

In this thread alone there is so much crap it stinks. Many assumptions!

This situation is unfortunate. It seems that the officers involved were very polite and conducted themselves in a professional manner. The only real issue here is did the obtain a legal warrant to search your backpack? Was a warrant required?

I'll be interested to read the follow up.

Scorpiusdeus
September 7, 2007, 03:40 PM
I'm going to add this to my list of reasons to avoid California.

This happens in every state of the union. Probably weekly if not daily. Sad, but true, CA does not have a lock on alleged illegal searches.

Neocode
September 7, 2007, 03:48 PM
Those of you who are giving legal advice based on your vast number of hours watching Law & Order really should knock it off.

Unless you are an attorney accepted into the CA bar, you are not qualified to give this guy legal advice beyond, GET AN ATTORNEY.

In this thread alone there is so much crap it stinks. Many assumptions!

This situation is unfortunate. It seems that the officers involved were very polite and conducted themselves in a professional manner. The only real issue here is did the obtain a legal warrant to search your backpack? Was a warrant required?

I'll be interested to read the follow up.

but I am a Law and Order expert... both detective and Attorney... I watch ALL the episodes! :neener:

Dr. Peter Venkman
September 7, 2007, 03:50 PM
Just wait and get the report in 10 days like you said on Calguns.

IIRC, an officer does not need a search warrant for something in your immediate control, like a backup or the area near where you were stopped.

poor_richard
September 7, 2007, 03:52 PM
sacp81170a,

Thanks for answering my question.

Blackfork
September 7, 2007, 04:04 PM
Nike is a "brand". The NFL is a "brand". It's a common ad adgency term. When Micheal Vick was arrested, and confessed to animal abuse both of them dropped him rather than ruin their "brand" reputation. If they kept him, sales and reputation would suffer beyond redemption. Nike doesn't want someone to see the swoosh and think dead dogs.

As these stories roll by I feel like that is what we are seeing in the US. If it isn't these officers its the mess over open carry in Virginia, confrontations with skateboarders, bystanders, folks with video cameras, ad al infinitum.

We are watching Law Enforcement ruin their "brand."

SSN Vet
September 7, 2007, 04:14 PM
land-o-lakes girl

Oh what fine knees she has!

this brought a smile to my face....as I remembered 3rd grade.

what grade did you say you were in again?

AJAX22
September 12, 2007, 02:50 PM
I picked up the report 45 minuets ago.

No Warrant, No probable cause, and they miss-represented a number of facts on the report.

See for yourself.


http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff250/ratduster777/PoliceReportPrivacyEdit.jpg
http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff250/ratduster777/PoliceReportSecurityEdit.jpg



I'm a bit upset about some of the language used... (as well as the order in which they stated events... by wording the report the way they did, they make it seem like the backpack was covered under terry) "Told him to leave it behind" my ***

mstirton
September 12, 2007, 03:01 PM
contact the ACLU and the NRA might put you in touch with a good lawyer willing to work for a nice chunk of the settlement

kermit315
September 12, 2007, 03:05 PM
definately lawyer up.......i know it costs money, but find someone. that is complete bs. they even stated that you did not consent and that they got no warrant, and that the bag was not in your immediate control, since they "asked you to leave it behind"...then went and retrieved it to bring it to your location.

GigaBuist
September 12, 2007, 03:11 PM
Four, or was it five, officers present and they all saw fit to lie to you about having a warrant.

Crikey.

kermit315
September 12, 2007, 03:17 PM
welcome to ********** Politics: you dont have rights unless they work in the police's favor (not all police are like this, but smaller forces seem to be in my opinion, and also some LAPD and LASD)

not cop bashing, just calling it how i see it.

legaleagle_45
September 12, 2007, 03:26 PM
My only questions... why were you on cowguns.net and do you believe that heffers have a constitutional right to keep and bear guns?:D

RoadkingLarry
September 12, 2007, 03:50 PM
http://www.cowswithguns.com/homepage.html

DRZinn
September 12, 2007, 03:52 PM
why were you on cowguns.net

http://www.cowswithguns.com/cowmovie.html

Noxx
September 12, 2007, 03:52 PM
http://www.cowswithguns.com/homepage.html

Don't you people have jobs? :neener:

DRZinn
September 12, 2007, 03:53 PM
Dang it, ya beat me.

KelVarnson
September 12, 2007, 04:01 PM
Those of you who are giving legal advice based on your vast number of hours watching Law & Order really should knock it off.

Unless you are an attorney accepted into the CA bar, you are not qualified to give this guy legal advice beyond, GET AN ATTORNEY.

In this thread alone there is so much crap it stinks. Many assumptions!

This situation is unfortunate. It seems that the officers involved were very polite and conducted themselves in a professional manner. The only real issue here is did the obtain a legal warrant to search your backpack? Was a warrant required?

I love it... You admonish people for offering their legal opinions, and then you proceed to offer yours. Who put you in charge?

Let people offer their opinions, however informed they may be. It is up to the OP to decide/find out whether the information is valid and/or useful. Discussing different aspects of the case with others might point out things he missed, or help him form a strategy. No harm in just talking about it, as long as the OP filters what he reads.

cpttango30
September 12, 2007, 04:11 PM
CYA: Consult Your Attorney. I would also contact the NRA and GOA and any other groups fighting to protect our RKBA.

I would nail it to them good.

Big Calhoun
September 12, 2007, 04:27 PM
Wow, this blew me away. But then again, not really; it's the reactionary type of society we live in. It's no different from when the Internet gained more users vis a vis schools and libraries and a porn pop-up caused you to be labelled and outcast and banned from the facilities. Now, everyone knows what pop-ups are and what tools can block them and it's seen more as a casual mistake than some sort of maliced intention. But the sad thing is, society-at-large will never be comfortable enough to discuss guns and gun owners in their legal context. It'll always be taboo and you'll always be subject to scrutiny. Very sad.

ihopewewin
September 12, 2007, 04:39 PM
This is why I don't visit THR at school. I know for a fact if I did I would be getting a visit in one of my classes from a police officer and prob. getting suspended because of the "no tolerance firearm policy".

Scorpiusdeus
September 12, 2007, 05:02 PM
I love it... You admonish people for offering their legal opinions, and then you proceed to offer yours. Who put you in charge?

I didn't give a "legal" opinion. And my mother put me in charge, didn't you get the memo?

I'm curious to know from those of you who say this poster should lawyer up or get an attorney, what you feel the outcome will be? Why does he need an attorney?

Noxx
September 12, 2007, 05:04 PM
Why does he need an attorney?

Same reason you need a gun.


Because you never know.

Scorpiusdeus
September 12, 2007, 05:04 PM
I love it... You admonish people for offering their legal opinions, and then you proceed to offer yours. Who put you in charge?

In that case have at it. :)

Scorpiusdeus
September 12, 2007, 05:06 PM
OK, here is my prediction (guess) for this story/case.

Nothing will happen. "IF the poster gets an attorney nothing will come of this.

I the poster doesn't get an attorney nothing will come of this.

Scorpiusdeus
September 12, 2007, 05:07 PM
One thing does strike me as odd and I would love to hear more about it. Do you know this Mia? She sure seems to know a lot about you.

AJAX22
September 12, 2007, 05:13 PM
I don't know who Mia is, I've never met her before or talked to her (she must be a girl from class.)

I'm working on getting representation to pursue this.

There was no P.C. for a search, and there was no warrent.

The police report filed was done so based on false information.

and I was deliberatly led to believe that officers had a warrent that they did not obtain. Thats just wrong.

I play by the rules, and the rules apply equally to all.

Scorpiusdeus
September 12, 2007, 05:23 PM
I'm not saying the rules don't apply to all equally, but it seems to me this will be your word against at least four police officers, one of them the chief.

Do you have any witnesses? I am just curious, you need to do whatever makes you happy.

I'm still amazed that this young lady observed you for that length of time and even has your e-mail address and you don't know who she is.

I'll be very interested to see how this all turns out.

disneyd
September 12, 2007, 05:48 PM
Ajax, I would be very interested in how the person who reported you got the information she had. She would have had to be right over your shoulder the whole time or she has A) a keylogger on the computer you were using or B) some other kind of monitoring software installed that she has access to. She could have also dug around in the browser cache afterwards... but its interesting that she knew what you were chatting about, which most likely wouldn't be in the cache. It really sounds to me like she was sitting at another terminal watching something akin to a VNC session on your machine.

Depends completely on the situation (what you have agreed to in order to use the equipment) and who this Mia person was, but you may have a complaint against "Mia" also.

silverlance
September 12, 2007, 05:51 PM
This is a donation worthy cause if it comes to it.

You can put my name down for that.

legaleagle_45
September 12, 2007, 07:11 PM
There was no P.C. for a search, and there was no warrent.

They will, of course, assert Terry, yet it appears that Terry is inapplicable on its face, since the Police report indicates the interrogation had ended.

Thus you have a case... 42 USC 1983 is one route. What are your damages? My guess is minimal... $1,000.00 for 1/2 hour of your time, maybe... Then you have the pragmatic problem of 5 cops as witnesses versus you and the perceptions of the jury.

Cost to get from here to verdict? Minimum $10,000.00 with no guarantee of success.

But it is the principle of the thing that matters, and I would litigate your case right down to your last nickel!!!

AJAX22
September 12, 2007, 07:23 PM
Thank you silverlance (and others who've pm'd me) but I would like to try to do this without asking for help from anyone (the offers are appreciated but I don’t think its right that others should pay because of the actions of these individuals)

I'm trying to find a good attorney who is willing to work on this. I'm new to litigation and I'm not really interested in the money so they could take a huge chunk of any recovery or punitive damages.

If I did wind up with anything I'd just use it to buy a gun and have it engraved "To Ajax, with love from the SMPD"

But endgame for this is a long way off.

JohnBT
September 12, 2007, 08:15 PM
"Why does he need an attorney?"

He has money to burn?

He likes beating his head against the wall?

I don't know, why?

Life's not fair. I do know that.

John

revjen45
September 12, 2007, 08:24 PM
"This story illustrates why I cried for joy when I finally crossed the Nevada border on my move out of the PRK."
Yup. When we left the DPRK I wanted to stop at the border and whiz (that word was allowed on TV on the Simpsons, so I conclude if the FCC didn't object it should be OK) on the place, but was so glad to to be gone I didn't want to look back. It was like leaving a Communist country. Getting to Free America was wonderful.

buzz_knox
September 12, 2007, 10:04 PM
"Why does he need an attorney?"

Because that's the only way things can change.

Another option is to file formal complaints against the officers involved.

Junkyard Dog
September 12, 2007, 10:35 PM
This is why I don't visit THR at school. I know for a fact if I did I would be getting a visit in one of my classes from a police officer and prob. getting suspended because of the "no tolerance firearm policy".


After reading this statement I am afraid of what the USA has become. Don't
get me wrong I am not trying to rip ihope but it just seems that you can't do
anything anymore for fear of scrutiny from someone. What the hell has happened to the good ole US of A
Sorry for the rant I will shut up now.

glockman19
September 12, 2007, 11:04 PM
I first read this on Calguns.net. AJAX22, I am a supporter if you need/want assistance PM me I'm happy to help.

It's clear that if we allow our rights to continually be violated without recourse it will continue to happen more regularly.

I also think a sit-in or other statement should be made either on or directly ajacent to the campus. I'd contact John stossel the reporter and every other news outlet and tell them your story.

poor_richard
September 13, 2007, 12:46 AM
I'm a bit upset about some of the language used... (As well as the order in which they stated events... by wording the report the way they did, they make it seem like the backpack was covered under terry) "Told him to leave it behind" my ***
I knew they didn’t have a warrant. The way the officers are reported to have acted just didn’t sound right. Either the story as presented by AJAX22 is inaccurate, or the officers conspired to lie and falsify the report. Personally, I believe it to be the later due to the way AJAX presented the story, and the way the official report is worded (telling him to leave his backpack, and then trying to pass off they’re confiscation of it as a Terry frisk by saying it was “in his immediate control”. Then saying they had to search the backpack for “public safety”.)

AJAX22,
Time to start following the young lad Darrow’s lead and invest in some very good personal monitoring devices and equipment. It’s quite possible that the local police could have some ill will against you for the alleged comment of “and the police do a piss poor job”. This could easily be just a case of police vendetta. Not saying it is, but open to the possibility.

garymc
September 13, 2007, 02:39 AM
I only came upon the thread today, but reading the initial description of the "telephonic" warrant (note the correct spelling of the word warrant), I recognized the problem here. You totally misunderstood when they told you they were getting a TELEPATHIC warrant. These are quite different from normal written warrants and can only be read by psychics. Someone wasted their time with a bogus complaint, they wasted their time and yours and risked making you out to be a crook in front of your class. You've wasted your time pursuing this, I've wasted my time reading all this as have the rest of us here. I hope you can waste some more of their time by hassling them about the warrant scam. If you had money to waste and could hire a lawyer to sit them down in a deposition and question them about the matter and ask them if they have any equity in their homes so you know where to get the money in a suit for whatever damages you could dream up, that would be really funny. I don't see it, even using my psychic powers.

wheelgunslinger
September 13, 2007, 09:01 AM
If I did wind up with anything I'd just use it to buy a gun and have it engraved "To Ajax, with love from the SMPD"

Bwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa :evil: That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on THR.

"Officer Champagne" sounds more like a stripper I once knew...

Ajax, it sounds like you're taking the proper course of action. Sacp has given you some very good advice as have the others. I'm very glad that you posted the report and are giving followups. There are a lot of people who will read this thread and be encouraged by your actions.

ranger335v
September 13, 2007, 09:25 AM
"If they did search me without a warrant, its completely unacceptable,"

Yeah, that would be wrong and, if it was me and they really messed with me I'd be ready to burn them as much as possible.

But, on the other hand, I suspect they school police soon realized it was bogus and just wanted to put you loose as quickly as possible and to cover their butts at the same time.

IF they really wanted to hassel you they could/would have taken you to some quite office and let you cool your heels for a few hours while they slowly moved through the "proper channels." I think I'd just eat my objections to this one and thank the LEO types for allowing me to get on with my life that quickly.

Deanimator
September 13, 2007, 09:50 AM
I think I'd just eat my objections to this one and thank the LEO types for allowing me to get on with my life that quickly.
That's an exceptionally BAD idea. For an example of what happens when you just let those things go, look at the example of the Chicago PD. People just kept letting things go until it became a third world nightmare. If the cops on my local force got into trouble at the rate they do, we wouldn't HAVE a police department.

Bad behavior is NEVER fixed by ignoring it.

Scorpiusdeus
September 13, 2007, 12:06 PM
If the facts, as laid, out are true, I would agree that his rights may have been violated, but I'm not an attorney so I couldn't say with absolute certainty.

STILL the fact remains that this will be his word against some officers and the chief. As I understand it you are a student with a wife and child to support. Do you really have the time and money for this?

Don't let me stop you, but I hope you are realistic about the outcome.

If your motivation is truly to correct the actions of the police I think the first step would be to file a complaint with the D.A. or City attorney, depending on who's jurisdiction they are under. I would not waste my time with IA in this department.

PacketStorm
September 13, 2007, 12:36 PM
This was one of the best threads I have read on THR so far. Ajax - good work in keeping calm in a bad situation. I admire your steadfastness and holding your ground politely.

It sounds to me like the search was illegal and your rights were violated. Trying to prove this in court is another story. The LEOs involved have committed some pretty offenses by not obtaining a warrant when you denied consent to search your pack. The problem is now trying to prove this. This dept. is going to stick together and will all deny any wrong doing in this case. I think you will really have trouble getting any of the officers involved to testify against the others because the unlawful search was carried out under direction from the chief. This would put a serious stain on the record of any officer who sided with you (violation of the brotherhood).

I don't mean to say that all LE organizations are corrupt. Many hardworking men and women put their lives on the line to serve others on a daily basis and I commend them for that. But there are those who won't play by the rules and need to make an account for their actions. When you have 6+ officers siding against you, I don't think things will go well if it were to get all the way to trial.

That said, it doesn't hurt to talk to an atty. I would encourage you to do so and pursue this matter further. Might doesn't make right. Everyone should follow the law.

PacketStorm
September 13, 2007, 01:06 PM
I just remembered a funny (sort of) incident that happened to me while I was living in South Florida. If you want the actions of the officers known and would like to see something come of this case without going through an atty you could do something like this.

Crazy Driver
When driving to the office one afternoon, I was heading down the I95 freeway and traffic was really bad. We had 4 or 5 lanes of traffic going south bound into Miami and it was sluggish - bumper to bumper at 30mph. I was in the second left lane (far left lane was the car pool). I saw a police car in the car pool lane (one lane to my left) that was right on the bumper of another car. That car was moving along at the same speed the rest of traffic was flowing. The officer started flashing his headlights and honking the horn to get this guy out of the way.

Since they were in the car pool lane, they caught up along side of me pretty quickly and I was watching this tom-foolery kind of chuckling to myself. This car was from a suburb of Miami that was about 5 miles south of the city (we were about 8 miles north of the city). So it was going to take this officer a good 30-45 minutes to get to his city. I then jotted down the car number and license plate number along with the dept. this car was registered too when he started swerving back and forth almost bumping my car.

The officer then proceeded to slam on the accelerator and passed the slow moving vehicle in front of him using the shoulder of the highway. He pulled back into traffic and proceeded to do the same shinanagins to the other cars in front of him. I was flabbergasted. What in the world was he thinking. Pulling up onto the shoulder and passing cars erratically (while going over blind hills and corners).

Phone Call Report
When I got to work, I looked up the PD phone number and called in and reported the problem to the general number (a Sgt. answered I think). I was told the matter would be looked into and I would get a call to confirm the officer had been spoken too. At the same time, I typed up the situation (along with date, time, directions of travel, car number,etc...). I didn't hear from anyone after two weeks, so I called back and was told that there was no reference to this report and that it was too late to do anything about it now.

Email Report
That really erked me and I took out my document and wrote an email (now we are getting to the good stuff). I couldn't find the email address of the higher ups in this dept. online, but I did find their email domain name and their names . I used this information to guessed the chief's emails address. I tried about 15 combinations of Last Name, First Name, and Initials using periods, underscores, hyphens, forwards, backwards.... I also added the chief of police for all of Dade County and then copied a few reporters for the Miami Herald.

Wow - did that get a response. I got a call within 3 hours from three different precincts asking how we could resolve this matter to my satisfaction. I told them I would like the matter investigated and the officer disciplined in some matter. ( I would have gotten a 300 reckless driving ticket along with endangering passengers lives, etc... if I had done that move and been caught.)

Personal Visit
When I arrived home that evening there were two officers from the driver's precinct waiting at my house. They were polite, but not very happy. They asked if they could come in and discuss the problem. I politely obliged (if I had to do it over again, I would have just spoken with them from outside my home). They were really looking around the rooms as I brought them into my dining room and offered them some coffee. They explained that the officer was probably responding to a dangerous situation and had to get on scene fast. I did ask why he didn't use his overhead lights and siren to properly move traffic from his path. They had no idea. They said he was being reprimanded and the situation would be dealt with.

Now they were really interested in how I got the email address of the various officials from within the dept. It seems they don't like to have those given out to the general public. (No idea why??) When I told them I guessed, they looked really confused.

After a few minutes they left. On their way out, one of the officers gave me his card and said "You don't have to go the president for little issues like this" and something about I could call him directly in the future. I could really tell at that point they were peaved with the whole situation. (Also they had a good hour and a half ride back to their precinct in evening traffic.)

Funny how a quick an email to the right people really rattled things up and got responses quickly when I was being stonewalled at the local level. (I did include in the original email the information about who answered my original complaint and who responded to my followup calls. Any time you speak with someone in a situation like this, get names, badge numbers and dates/time.)

Deanimator
September 13, 2007, 01:44 PM
Reporting to the Proper Authorities
That kind of reminds me of the time I sicced the BKA (Bundes Kriminal Amt, the German FBI) on some neo-Nazis in usenet.

Years ago (being the cowards they are) some neo-Nazis were using an anonymous remailer in Germany. Germany has some fairly serious laws about "hate speech", Holocaust denial, etc.

The Nazis were being their usual imbecilic selves, but were being careful not to use the word "Jew". Instead, they used one of their euphemisms, "Khazar".

I just KNEW they couldn't go forever without some kind of overt anti-Semitic statement, so I just sat and waited. Sure enough, one of them slipped up and posted some hate tract, specifying "Jews".

I was on a long-range rifle mailing list that had a lot of European members, several of them Germans. I emailed one of them asking if he knew the email address for the BKA and or the Federal Prosecutor's Office. He came right back with both. I emailed the BKA a copy of the neo-Nazi screed with the comment, <Helmut_Dantine_Accent>"I believe that this usenet message violates the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany."</Helmut_Dantine_Accent>

I didn't hear anything back from the German authorities, but ALL posts by the Nazis from that remailer mysteriously stopped within a day or so... :D

ranger335v
September 13, 2007, 09:14 PM
"...let it go." "That's an exceptionally BAD idea. For an example of what happens when you just let those things go, look at the example of the Chicago PD. People just kept letting things go until it became a third world nightmare."

I would agree IF the cops had been over zealous or discourteous. That kind of behaviour, allowed to continue, does have a future potential for harm. But, it sounds like those guys had their heads on straight and probably still do. Of course, if they didn't check the book bag and something slipped by it might have been deadly. It appears they just wanted to be sure, didn't hassle the guy and let him move on.

On the other hand, they could easily have just held him for several hours or so to do everything by the book. If it had been me, I'd rather thank them for not subjecting me to that just to prove a pointless point, that they COULD get a proper warrant if they wished. I think the cops dealt with this potential problem in a well considered exercise of good judgement. Your milage may vary.

buzz_knox
September 13, 2007, 09:49 PM
I don't think an unconstitutional search can ever be described as an "exercise of good judgment." In fact, it would seem to be a prime example of bad judgment. Many of the restrictions on police authority has come from similar acts of initiative.

silverlance
September 14, 2007, 03:26 AM
since you won't accept donations, and the one or two lawyers here don't think you have much of a case (bear in mind though that these are not CA lawyers.. in CA you can sue for lots of funny things like mental anguish)...

at the very least, i ask you send a copy of the police report to MT, just so they can keep it on file. include a description of your event. that way if later on down the road a fight brews, then MT will have more ammo.

Dr. Peter Venkman
September 14, 2007, 04:13 AM
As I posted on Calguns, I don't believe the searching of you or your backpack were unconstitutional. AFAIK and IIRC from the classes I have taken that were taught by a LE Sgt, an officer can search a suspect as well as things under his immediate possesion or surroundings without a warrant, if they have reasonable suspicion/cause of a crime being committed. The girl who fed them the false information (unknown as such at the time) is who you have to thank for this. I don't understand why they lied to you about having a warrant, but I'd assume it's because they did not want to take the time to explain to you why they can search your backpack. Not my cup of tea, but that's what they did.

Deanimator
September 14, 2007, 08:50 AM
On the other hand, they could easily have just held him for several hours or so to do everything by the book. If it had been me, I'd rather thank them for not subjecting me to that just to prove a pointless point, that they COULD get a proper warrant if they wished. I think the cops dealt with this potential problem in a well considered exercise of good judgement. Your milage may vary.
If you say it's ok for the police to break the law in this case, on what basis do you tell them that they CAN'T break the law the next time? You're headed down a slippery slope with Jon Burge and Tony Abbate waiting at the bottom for you.

10 Ring Tao
September 14, 2007, 11:19 AM
AFAIK and IIRC from the classes I have taken that were taught by a LE Sgt, an officer can search a suspect as well as things under his immediate possesion or surroundings without a warrant, if they have reasonable suspicion/cause of a crime being committed

You're talking about terry, and his bag was in another room, and not subject to terry.

Dr. Peter Venkman
September 14, 2007, 04:44 PM
You're talking about terry, and his bag was in another room, and not subject to terry.

His bag is still under his immediate control and/or possesion. Further, these officers were dispatched to a call of a crime being committed and/or possibly occuring in the near future, not patrolling the beat and noticing suspicous behavior. That changes the game.

cane
September 14, 2007, 04:54 PM
I'm confused, I have read all the posts and don't understand what "crime" had been or was about to be committed.:confused:

Deanimator
September 14, 2007, 05:01 PM
His bag is still under his immediate control and/or possesion
Not if it's in another room... unless he has the power of telekinesis...

Dr. Peter Venkman
September 14, 2007, 10:33 PM
And there you have another example of them screwing up their investigation. Ajax's backpack should have been brought alongside of him while they were investigating. This might have got messey if indeed Ajax was hiding a handgun illegaly, but even then it's the same means, different ends.

nvcdl
September 14, 2007, 10:51 PM
The situation seems to be that the cops called in and were told they didn't need a warrent as long as they only searched backpack for weapons (as they thought they had probable cause).

Sounds like Ajax did everything right. I wouldn't sweat the warrent issue but he should look into filing a complaint against the complaining student and school for violating his privacy and 1st amendment rights.

insidious_calm
September 15, 2007, 12:20 AM
Well, in reading the report they clearly admit to the illegal search. They admit in writing that you refused to consent to a search multiple times. They further admit that they told you they were going to search anyway and you neither denied nor gave consent. One thing that is clear legally in my state, and I'd bet in Kali too, is that one consent is denied explicitly you can not search without obtaining either probable cause or explicit consent. Your refusal to speak cannot be legally construed to be consent. You have to give it explicitly. They broke the law. Sue if there's any way you can.

As for strategy, you should consult an attorney. Personnally I'd be happy to see all the officers fired. After all, their actions could very likely have lasting negative effects on your life. Think about that. I'd also get a restraining order against the tipster. A temporary one should be a gimme, it is here, and you can always dismiss your case before the actual trial. Some may say it's playing dirty, but it's extremely effective and turnabout IS fairplay. After she loses a semester to her stupidity she may rethink her malicious ways.

Lastly, ignore comments from the usual pro-thug gallery..."after all, your rights weren't violated because they only stomped your cat - raped your wife and character - and terrorized you without justification, safety is a compromise, and besides life isn't fair."...:barf::barf::barf::barf: It's always the same apologists spouting the same bs. Wouldn't surprise me if it was their job, can't have the subjects getting any uppity ideas now can we? At any rate good luck and godspeed. I hope you resolve the situation to YOUR satisfaction, whatever that may be. Accept my sincere gratitude and thanks for having the courage to say 'no' when the JBT's came calling.


I.C.

Dr. Peter Venkman
September 15, 2007, 02:26 AM
One thing that is clear legally in my state, and I'd bet in Kali too, is that one consent is denied explicitly you can not search without obtaining either probable cause or explicit consent. Your refusal to speak cannot be legally construed to be consent. You have to give it explicitly. They broke the law. Sue if there's any way you can.


Ajax does not have to give consent when they already have probable cause to search both him and his belongings. The probable cause is present giventhe fact that they got a call of guy discussing dead bodies and concealing firearms while at school and the person who really did the lying here (the RP) is to blame for that. They didn't break the law in any way or form. What it appears they did do is do an investigation that was not as tight as it could have been.

As for strategy, you should consult an attorney. Personnally I'd be happy to see all the officers fired. After all, their actions could very likely have lasting negative effects on your life. Think about that. I'd also get a restraining order against the tipster. A temporary one should be a gimme, it is here, and you can always dismiss your case before the actual trial. Some may say it's playing dirty, but it's extremely effective and turnabout IS fairplay. After she loses a semester to her stupidity she may rethink her malicious ways.

Hah. This is simply not how the real world operates. The officers were doing their jobs needlessly because they were given wrong information. It happens all the time. Go after the girl who brought the cops in the first place, not the officers doing their jobs. You'll save a lot of grief and money in the process.

Restraining order a gainst the tipster?

Some of the responses on this board never cease to amaze me. :rolleyes:

Lastly, ignore comments from the usual pro-thug gallery..."after all, your rights weren't violated because they only stomped your cat - raped your wife and character - and terrorized you without justification, safety is a compromise, and besides life isn't fair."... It's always the same apologists spouting the same bs. Wouldn't surprise me if it was their job, can't have the subjects getting any uppity ideas now can we? At any rate good luck and godspeed.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/WiseBobo/highhorse.jpg

I didn't know that such trite crap was tolerated on this board. Yeah, people with a difference of opinion are all really pro-big brother/secret police. :rolleyes:

JohnBT
September 15, 2007, 07:48 AM
"Lastly, ignore comments from the usual pro-thug gallery"

Now that's funny. In an insulting sort of way, but funny anyway. I also like the way you give legal advice and then tell him to see a lawyer. That's funny too.

John

cassandrasdaddy
September 15, 2007, 08:17 AM
its a sign that lawyers aren't lined up to take case
its was a bad scene i'd see about action against mia for harassment make her sweat it some through school administration

Aguila Blanca
September 15, 2007, 05:47 PM
I assume they had a warrant because they went from being extremely cautious about going near my backpack without permission to sitting it on the ground and removing its contents in front of me. I never gave consent, they came back and searched and they told me they had a warrant, everything seemed on the up and up and since it was telephonic and issued while standing in a hallway outside of LS153 I didn't think anything of the lack of paperwork.
I am not a lawyer, but I would think a LOT about a "lack of paperwork." A search warrant is a document signed by a judge, granting permission to search certain, specified premises for certain, specified things. They may apply for a warrant verbally, but unless CA is different from the civilized world in more ways than I knew, I believe they have to bring the paper document to the site and hand it to you or it isn't valid. And you have a right to read it, and if it says "search a blue backpack" and yours is red ... sorry, Officer, but I'm taking my RED backpack and leaving while you go find the BLUE backpack for which you have a warrant to search.

Aguila Blanca
September 15, 2007, 06:20 PM
Ajax does not have to give consent when they already have probable cause to search both him and his belongings. The probable cause is present giventhe fact that they got a call of guy discussing dead bodies and concealing firearms while at school and the person who really did the lying here (the RP) is to blame for that. They didn't break the law in any way or form. What it appears they did do is do an investigation that was not as tight as it could have been.
If they had probable cause, why would they go through the elaborate charade of making the phone call, waiting around, and then lying to him that they had obtained a "verbal" warrant? And you seem to have overlooked the fact that the report of suspicious activity was hardly "real time" or immediate. The report of suspicious web chatting was from the day previous. I do not see anything here that suggests that this interview meets the requisites to be considered a Terry stop.

bogie
September 16, 2007, 11:36 AM
Guys.

Let's not get hung up on warrants and frisks and such.

This _is_ an opportunity... Are there ANY other "gun people" at this school? It's time for them to come out of the gun safe.

Some of Oleg's images need to start going up on billboards.

I have to admit that I skipped 130 messages, but it seems like someone shoulder surfed him, and saw him typing something about guns, and since she knows that all guns are illegal, she assumed he was either buying or selling illegal guns... Time to call the guys with guns...

Get the issue ABOVE water. Get people thinking and talking about it. Get people learning.

insidious_calm
September 16, 2007, 12:39 PM
Bogey,

I believe you are totally missing the point, as are a great many others on this forum, imo. Warrants and searches are where we need to be focusing right now. The police in this situation and many others, are acting in the role of 'hired gun' to these anti-gun idiots. So long as the police continue to enable this type of behavior it will continue and spread. So long as there are no consequences for those involved there is nothing to act as a deterrent.

I have been a quasi pro-gun activist(nra instructor, chl instructor, lobbyist) for about 15 years now. What I have discovered is that the type of people you can sway to our side don't act like the tipster did in this case. The OP was in effect dealing with an activist from the other side. You are not going to reason with or sway someone like that. It's best to fight fire with fire.

The reason why the issue of warrants and probable cause is so critical in this case is because it is our primary defense against these idiots. If we cannot rely on the police to follow the rules, either through a sense of duty and oath to the constitution or through just plain integrity, then there must be consequences to their actions. The police in this case served as the 'weapon' of an anti. The first and foremost step toward disarming the antis is protecting your ability to disseminate facts and information. That means forcing the police (through civil and criminal prosecution, if necessary) to follow the law so they can not be use as a weapon to terrorize and intimidate otherwise lawful citizens.

Many on here are whining about focusing our efforts on the antis instead of the police, but when the police act willingly and unlawfully on their behalf they leave us no other choice. In this case there was no probable cause to search the backpack and it was not subject to terry. Had probable cause existed then the OP could have simply been arrested and the backpack serached incident to arrest. That did not occur because there was no probable cause.


I.C.


P.S. - Had the OP been posting Oleg's images on billboards, or handing them out to students the net result would have been the same. The anti-gun activist would have still called the police and their response would have been the same. That's the point. In order to even be able to act as you suggest we have to be able to do so without fear of being molested by the police.

bogie
September 16, 2007, 02:07 PM
I have to disagree... On one front, the guy can make a federal case out of it, but _the public_ will lean toward "Well, he was doing something with those illegal guns, so he must be guilty."

The "law" doesn't matter if public opinion is such that it can be thrown out, or changed. The population at hand needs to be force-fed some knowledge, and encouraged to think.

This is an educational opportunity. Or you can throw that opportunity away, and then the poor guy gets painted as a solitary whackjob.

When we start splitting legal hairs as arguments, we've lost.

Stretchman
September 16, 2007, 02:44 PM
Sounds to me from his description that he was a case of mistaken identity. Could be someone else posted what they were saying was posted. Could b e that the guy they were looking for wasn't in class. May have been another person that was doing those things. He may or may not have a weapon. Looks like maybe finding out who he is from a website is more difficult than everyone thinks.

insidious_calm
September 16, 2007, 02:50 PM
Bogie,

That's the whole point, "Well, he was doing something with those illegal guns, so he must be guilty.", is EXACTLY the sentiment the antis get to project when the police show up and drag a LAW ABIDING citizen out of class, detain and harass him. Even though he wasn't charged the damage to gun rights has been done. The perception that people get IS that the guy is some solitary whack job. Otherwise why did the police show up and drag him out of class to begin with? You and I may know that the fact he wasn't charged most likely means he was doing nothing wrong, but that will not be the perception that the vast majority of people will leave with who saw it.

In this case, had the police arrived, observed no crime, chastised the anti and left, then the net result would have been much different. Instead they show up and treat him like a criminal in front of everyone. To make matters worse they act as if the tipsters 'fears' were justified to begin with. "Thanks for calling us ma'am, can't never be to sure 'bout them thar gun nuts!" :rolleyes: So yes at this point it's antis 1, liberty 0.

In all honesty I question whether the responding officers even had Terry justification given what they wrote about the initial complaint in their report. Florida v. J.L. once again enters the arena. THERE IS NO GUN EXCEPTION TO TERRY! A tip must be both reliable and specific in it's illegality before officers can effect a terry stop on it alone. So says the supreme court. IANAL, and you say that I'm just 'splitting legal hairs' here, but I disagree.

If the police are not willing to say "you know, we don't see anything unlawful here, thanks for wasting our time" of their own accord then they obviously need a little encouragement. They will continue to be used as the antis weapon of choice against us so long as we allow it. Like it or not, your position and attitude in this matter allows the antis to paint the OP as the 'nutjob', the 'extremist'. The police are given tremendous credibility by the general population on all manner of political issues, guns especially. The circus they put on hurt our cause dramatically. They only way to mitigate/reverse that is to hold them accountable for violating the OP's rights.


I.C.

NAK
September 16, 2007, 03:23 PM
I think the action of the responding offices were appropreate...its called the real world. There is no way they could NOT search the OP and his backpack. If they did anything wrong, it is not pursuing this further by actually checking out his posts on the forums, getting warrants for his vehicle and place of residence.

I see the problem as starting AFTER the cops failed to find a weapon or supporting material on the forum. The school and the cops should be pursuing the Reporting Party with the same determination the would pursue someone calling in a fake bomb threat.

Before hiring a lawyer, I would suggest the OP contact the school and he District Attorneys office to "politely" inquire if they are following up for potential prosecution of the RP.

snewbie
September 16, 2007, 04:20 PM
There was nothing professional, courteous or approprriate about those officers actions.
They were enforcing unconstitutional laws despite having taken an oath to support and defend it.
They are enemies of the republic and the rule of law.
No excuses.

poor_richard
September 16, 2007, 05:00 PM
I think the action of the responding offices were appropreate...its called the real world. There is no way they could NOT search the OP and his backpack. If they did anything wrong, it is not pursuing this further by actually checking out his posts on the forums, getting warrants for his vehicle and place of residence.

That's the kind of fear that has been a result of Columbine, VT, MSM, and countless others. We see tradgedy and atrocity as excuses to strip people of thier rights.


If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Samuel Adams



Personaly, I think the tip was specific enough to warrant detainment however, since it wasn't real time that negates the reasonable suspicision.

There was no PC to do the search. That's why the reporting officer lied in the report (Told OP to leave the backpack behind, yet said another officer picked it up to bring with as the OP was exiting the room. This contradicts the OP's recolection of events, not to mention that saying that the backpack is in the OP's immediate control after he "left it behind" sounds so dishonest it's insulting to expect anyone to actually believe it.) It's also probably why they didn't get a warrant, and conned the OP into believing they had. No judge worth his robe would grant a warrant on an unsubstantiated tip.

bogie
September 16, 2007, 05:24 PM
Why do I suddenly suspect that this thread is populated by folks who can't stand the restrictions placed upon the new political forum?

Guys, there's a place for theory, and there's a place for real world political strategy. In this case, if the guy had done ANYTHING but what he'd done with the officers, he likely would have had a bunch of trouble.

THEORY.

What the school needs is not courses on con-law. The students won't pay attention to that. What they _will_ pay attention to are Oleg's mildly (and not so mildly) controversial images. Bet that if enough go up, that they'll get noticed in the school newspaper.

But then again, I suspect that some folks would see that as being a Bad Thing...

insidious_calm
September 16, 2007, 06:27 PM
Bogie,


Nothing could be further from the truth. I live in and deal with the real world daily. I teach concealed carry. My class motto for the legal portion of the class is "Don't be the test case". Just because officers do something doesn't make it just or legal. What is clear in this case is that the officers, one of them the chief, made a judgement call to proceed with an unlawful search. You and others stand ready to give them a pass on that judgement call. I don't think a pass is warranted. There is a significant amount of caselaw that supports my position, not to mention a fair amount of common sense.

I suspect, nay, I'll wager, that once the OP refused them permission to search it became inevitable. Even had they contacted a judge who said "no", and indeed they may have, it would have occurred. There are a fair amount of people in the world today, including many on here and nearly everyone in law enforcement, who have been conditioned to think "if you don't have anything hide why would you refuse consent to search?". You appear to be arguing that even though the officers violated his rights it was done with good intention and therefore deserves no punishment. You are certainly entitled to take those positions as unpropitious to liberty as they are.

As for real world political strategy, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Holding the police accountable when they violate our constitutional protections is not only sound strategy, but effective and just, as well. Antis are very effective at manipulating the media circus. NOTHING plays better to the masses than a huge police reaction to something, unwarranted though it may be. The image left with fence sitters in instances like this is a negative one. If one or even two officers had shown up and observed that they had no reasonable suspicion to think a crime was being committed, let alone probable cause, and stated so to the RP then the fence sitters would have come away thinking the RP was the nut job for over reacting. So yes, I am in the real world here.

As I stated earlier, Oleg's images are only effective if allowed to be viewed objectively. When the police are allowed to publicly interrogate and humiliate someone for looking at images of guns or in your example putting up Oleg's images, then we lose. The fence sitters will see you as the unreasonable nutjob because that is the image the police portrayed. Even though they may see and possibly agree with the poster the message will be lost because of the image of the person posting the image or making the argument.

Lastly, no I don't think using Oleg's images would be a bad thing. You underestimate how effective the antis are at manipulating public opinion though. The gains we have made in public opinion in the last decade didn't come from just putting up posters. They came also, if not mainly, from a fair amount of lawsuits against governments and officers for violations of constitutional rights. You simply can't argue that the strategy hasn't worked in the 'real world'. The gains we've made speak for themselves, even though it seems those of us who support that type of action had to drag a goodly portion of you all along kicking and screaming. The DC court case is a perfect example of this.


I.C.

Dr. Peter Venkman
September 17, 2007, 01:47 AM
I think the action of the responding offices were appropreate...its called the real world. There is no way they could NOT search the OP and his backpack. If they did anything wrong, it is not pursuing this further by actually checking out his posts on the forums, getting warrants for his vehicle and place of residence.

I see the problem as starting AFTER the cops failed to find a weapon or supporting material on the forum. The school and the cops should be pursuing the Reporting Party with the same determination the would pursue someone calling in a fake bomb threat.

Before hiring a lawyer, I would suggest the OP contact the school and he District Attorneys office to "politely" inquire if they are following up for potential prosecution of the RP

Exactly. It's funny how people believe the backpack is somehow "off limits" when it was under Ajax's entire control save for when LE inititally contacted him. They were not out patrolling, they were sent on a call of him talking online about how "easy it is to get away with such and such" and the "police will only be able to outline the bodies" and possibly illegally carrying a firearm to the campus. This was all brought about thanks to a bad RP who should have action taken against, not the LE in this case.

If they had probable cause, why would they go through the elaborate charade of making the phone call, waiting around, and then lying to him that they had obtained a "verbal" warrant? And you seem to have overlooked the fact that the report of suspicious activity was hardly "real time" or immediate. The report of suspicious web chatting was from the day previous. I do not see anything here that suggests that this interview meets the requisites to be considered a Terry stop.

I do not know why they would lie in this case nor am I going to pretend to know exactly why they did. Perhaps they decided to say they had a warrant instead of going through the motions explaining why they have the right to search and get into argument over AJAX on the Constitutionality of it while he might have a firearm. It's he said/she said at this point and I am not about to armchair quarterback what happened as others have.

If you do not believe that discussing of the police outlining bodies and talking about concealing firearms illegally warrants an interview, you and I must disagree. LE in no way can conduct a thorough investigation between the time they were given the details and the time they actually contacted AJAX. What do you expect them to do? Wait for a few weeks while they devote a few detectives to get to the bottom of something while the threat may be real? That's not realistic. Maybe LE made it even easier on AJAX than we know, not contacting him at his home (which could have been a possibility) in the middle of the night because they sensed it was bull****. LE cannot have a policy of ignoring people who cry wolf while there might be a legitimate threat.

They contacted him at school, went over things, searched him and his backpack, and found nothing suspicous and left. I don't see what the big deal is here over their actions. It's the person who filed the initial complaint that should be taken care of, not the officers.

Soybomb
September 17, 2007, 04:35 AM
Maybe LE made it even easier on AJAX than we know, not contacting him at his home (which could have been a possibility)
I guess we have very different ideas of what easier is. I don't think making a spectacle in front of him in front of his peers and instructors made anything easier. Would you feel like the police did you a favor if they interrupted a meeting with your coworkers to question you and rifle through your belongings?

They contacted him at school, went over things, searched him and his backpack, and found nothing suspicous and left. I don't see what the big deal is here over their actions.
Was there any credible evidence to support the idea of Ajax posing a threat or is it another case of trampling on rights because "if it saves just 1 baby..?" Do you have any problem with officers lying to people? I'd personally want to try to take action against everyone involved.

Scorpiusdeus
September 17, 2007, 02:25 PM
Lastly, ignore comments from the usual pro-thug gallery..."after all, your rights weren't violated because they only stomped your cat - raped your wife and character - and terrorized you without justification, safety is a compromise, and besides life isn't fair.

Yes by all means, if your cat was stomped, they raped your wife and CHARACTER and terrorized you, you should ream them. I guess I missed that you'd been so violated.

JohnBT
September 17, 2007, 03:08 PM
"Told OP to leave the backpack behind, yet said another officer picked it up to bring with as the OP was exiting the room."

Well heck yes, they told him to leave it behind, they didn't want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it. Well heck yes, another officer took control of the backpack for the same reason.

Lots of case law on this as another poster mentioned. Only he's ignoring a lot of it.

John

JohnBT
September 17, 2007, 03:13 PM
Part 2.

"Would you feel like the police did you a favor if they interrupted a meeting with your coworkers to question you and rifle through your belongings?"

Compared to what, taking me downtown and making me walk back to work after a few hours? Heck yes, do me a favor and ask them in front of the meeting - it cuts down on gossip.

Some people here, and you know who you are, come across as if talking to a police officer is the worst thing that could ever happen to you. It's sad.

John

bogie
September 17, 2007, 03:14 PM
Guys, if someone told the cops that the fellow had a gun in the backpack, what were they supposed to do? Bronze it?

The problem here isn't a terry frisk or a phone warrant for a backpack.

The problem is that the school kneejerks to "ohmigawd! izza gun!"

You have an opportunity for a bit of media controversy. It isn't going to last very long.

Then again, you could concentrate on con-law, but that won't get noticed by anyone other than a coupla lawyers...

langenc
September 17, 2007, 06:47 PM
If you ever get asked "did you do xxxxxx?" Just discuss and calmy reply, most likey after the above question is posed again "You really dont know do you?"

Then the asker will be po'd to no end. If he knew why would he(she) ask in the first place?

poor_richard
September 17, 2007, 09:08 PM
"Told OP to leave the backpack behind, yet said another officer picked it up to bring with as the OP was exiting the room."

Well heck yes, they told him to leave it behind, they didn't want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it. Well heck yes, another officer took control of the backpack for the same reason.

Lots of case law on this as another poster mentioned. Only he's ignoring a lot of it.
If they have probable cause to believe there is a gun in the backpack, then no warrant is needed and they can do a search. They didn’t have PC, and I suspect that they knew that there was no PC. Anonymous tips are not PC, therefore the search was invalid and a violation of his rights. Suggesting that they took it because they “took control of the backpack for the same reason (that is “they didn’t want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it”)” is a straw argument because they clearly stated in the report that they took it because it was “under his immediate control”, not because they “didn’t want him carrying it around if he had a gun or two in it.”

With all due respect, you are quoting me out of context.

Here it is in context:
There was no PC to do the search. That's why the reporting officer lied in the report (Told OP to leave the backpack behind, yet said another officer picked it up to bring with as the OP was exiting the room. This contradicts the OP's recollection of events, not to mention that saying that the backpack is in the OP's immediate control after he "left it behind" sounds so dishonest it's insulting to expect anyone to actually believe it.) It's also probably why they didn't get a warrant, and conned the OP into believing they had. No judge worth his robe would grant a warrant on an unsubstantiated tip.

The quote you mention (out of context) demonstrates that the police report contradicts the OP’s recollection of events, and it demonstrates that the backpack was not under the OP's immediate control. The reason they used the term immediate control in the report is that (I suspect) they are trying to establish the backpack met the requirements of a Terry Search (a Terry Search does not require PC because it is done for “officer safety”), and it also is limited to the suspects immediate control. Therefore, they would have no justification to search the backpack if it wasn’t under the OP’s immediate control because anything in it would no longer represent a threat to the officer’s safety during an interview. Interestingly, I would even submit that since one of the officer’s had possession of the backpack (with four or five other officers to back him up), suggesting that the backpack was under the OP’s immediate control is akin to suggesting that the officers gun belt was also under the OP’s immediate control.

I do see your point for taking the backpack under their possession if they had reason to believe there was a gun in it (although the sequence of events and timing dispels any of that belief since they searched him the day after the anonymous tip), but that doesn’t give them legal ground for the search. Nor do I know if they had the legal justification to do so.

Also, I’ve followed this thread from the beginning, and don’t know what case law you are referring to that allows the detaining officer/s to search items not under the suspect’s immediate control during a detainment or interview. While they can take an “inventory” of his personal items obtained during an arrest, I see no mention of arrest in the police report. Not trying to be a smart alec, but it is possible I missed something. If you could show the post you are referring to it would be helpful. Thanks in advance.

Aguila Blanca
September 18, 2007, 12:05 AM
I do not know why they would lie in this case nor am I going to pretend to know exactly why they did. Perhaps they decided to say they had a warrant instead of going through the motions explaining why they have the right to search and get into argument over AJAX on the Constitutionality of it while he might have a firearm. It's he said/she said at this point and I am not about to armchair quarterback what happened as others have.
Dr., you and I disagree right here, because IMHO the police did NOT have a right to search the backpack.

This incident does not meet the test for being a Terry stop. In order to qualify, the initiating officer must have a "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. These officers had no such reasonable suspicion. They had a complaint, and I will agree that they had a duty to investigate it. But the complaint was not in real time, and it was hardly specific enough to give rise to a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime was afoot.

Further, at the time of the search the backpack was clearly NOT under his control. HE left it in the classroom. A police officer subsequently retrieved it, at which time it was under the immediate control of the officer holding it. Thus, even if the incident DID rise to the level of a terry search (a point I am not conceding), that search would have had to be limited to Ajax's person.

If you do not believe that discussing of the police outlining bodies and talking about concealing firearms illegally warrants an interview, you and I must disagree.
On this we agree.

LE in no way can conduct a thorough investigation between the time they were given the details and the time they actually contacted AJAX. What do you expect them to do? Wait for a few weeks while they devote a few detectives to get to the bottom of something while the threat may be real? That's not realistic. Maybe LE made it even easier on AJAX than we know, not contacting him at his home (which could have been a possibility) in the middle of the night because they sensed it was bull****. LE cannot have a policy of ignoring people who cry wolf while there might be a legitimate threat.
For starters, they could have looked at the posts he made, which formed the basis of the complaint. I'll bet they didn't even try. Devote a few detectives to the case? Well, why not? They seem to have had no problem devoting five officers (plus two supervisors who arrived later, if I remember the story correctly) to conduct a simple interview of ONE student. I wonder how big the force is on this campus. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a LARGE percentage of the entire shift on duty at the time. All over a ditzy female who said she saw someone writing something about guns?

Nope, I'm sorry. I am firmly in the camp of those who feel that the campus cops in this instance grossly overreacted, violated Ajax's rights to be free from unreasonable searches, and generally screwed the pooch (in military parlance). They should be held accountable for violating his rights, and for not knowing/understanding the rules under which they are allowed to operate.

AJAX22
October 3, 2007, 04:20 PM
I've contacted the ACLU,

Joined the NRA and GOA (just received my member #) and am composing a letter to them to try to get them involved.

Progress is slow (I'm a student with a job and doing transfer aplications) but it is being made.

javacodeman
October 3, 2007, 04:27 PM
Thanks for the update! Good luck. Let us know what we can do to help.

java

tarzandc
July 7, 2008, 08:09 PM
A, I got done fighting a 10 year civil battle against Montgomery Co. MD and DC for unlawful arrest and search. Most states have a Tort Claim law that requires you to put them on notice by sending them a letter (usually 6 month). Send one now for unlawful arrest, search and seizure. It is not necessarily required for a civil case your civil action will be under 42 USC 1983 in Federal Court for violation of your civil rights. There is no notice requirements under this cause of action and you have a 3yr statute of limitations. When your detention became an arrest depends upon the probable cause the cops had. Whether or not they had probable cause to further detain you in your case will mostly depend upon the "reliability" of who gave them the information and any further information that they had. For example, an anonymous email that reported you is not reliable...but a professor who may have witness it over your shoulder probably would be. If they had no reliable informant or information, your subsequent detention after your consent to search constituted a arrest. You were clearly not free to go...in fact you asked...and no reasonable person would believe that they could go with that many cops (I.e. show of force). As for the alleged warrant. Highly likely the telephone warrant was the cops BSing you. All these questions of fact will only come out during discovery in a civil case.
A civil case is all up hill. Mine took me 10 years to close from the time of the incident in 1997 and only got a settlement of less than a years salary. If you win, then you still have to get a jury to award you damages. It only takes one member on the jury to adopt a position that in light of "VT" and "homeland security" the cops were justified and award you $1. Cops know this and laugh at the constitution. It is not too often they cross someone like yourself that is astute and knows when his rights are being trashed. If people don't stand up for themselves and exercise their constitutional rights then it is not too long that it will have been eroded away to nothing. Good luck and let me know if I can help. Good luck and persevere.
BTW I read your post about joining the NRA and getting help from them. They are useless. NRA is only concerned with making money on issues surrounding gun debates. I sought them out with my case and on another to allow concealed weapons permit holder in VA to be allowed to carry in federal buildings in VA. The law is clear and broadly states that guns can be carried in Fed buildings "...or for lawful purposes". To me my right to self defense was clearly a lawful purpose...NRA was not interested. Funny isn't it when they don't wan to help a gun owner protect or expand your right to bear arms? I tried, associations, civil rights groups, senators, law school, ACLU and etc. BTW lawyers also know that there is no money in 1983 claims. Your damages are so hard to prove. No one is interested unless there is fame or fortune. I am assuming your Caucasian. If a you can assert "race based" then 42 USC 1981 also applies. Bottom line...(hope you find someone, but) your probably going to be by yourself in taking this to Court (unless you have $$ hanging around to pay a lawyer). Cops generally know this and that the risk finding themselves in a deposition or before a judge is small. This is why they don't worry about your Constitutional rights.
I read your report. There is nothing unlawful about the cops coming up to you and talking to you (even requesting to search) following up a complaint. But, where he states that "he needed to verify that ...was not carrying any guns before he was allowed to leave" is where this turn to a detention. There is no connection between shopping for firearms and posting opinions on the internet to lead one to reasonably believe that you would have a gun on your person. If there was such a legal precedence...I guess I might as well "assume the position" and spread'em right after I post this!
The student that reported you is not one that I feel would pass the reliability test. All the report says that they knew about her "reliability" and the information she passed was that she was "another student". Heck this could be an ex-girlfriend.
Search of things in your "immediate control" is only after a incident to a lawful arrest. I don't believe Dr. Venkman to be correct. Merely because something is on or about your person does not permit a warrantless search. Google Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). When the cop grabbed your bag...this was a seizure without any probable cause and certainly not incident to and arrest. Hunches and suspicion are not PC. The last 2 paragraph the cops just about admit that they were knowingly going to violate your rights to privacy, where in someway these violations would be OK if they minimized the "degree" by "the search would be conducted in his presence" and "limited to the areas..that could conceal a gun"
There are some great comments on this tread. Dr. Venkman is the only one who has been wrong with every bit of advice.
You will get a lot of opinions. But remember if people don't stand up for the Constitution, it will soon no longer be around. It took me 7 yrs in civil Court (probably will be shorter for you since your not trying to sue the District of Columbia in a District of Columbia Federal Court) but I am so glad I did it. People will tell you that the cops acted in good faith. Don't believe that position. They violated the law and your rights. Others will argue that they were justified because you could have had a gun and they could have stopped another VT. That is true, but the alternative is that cops be allowed to search you anytime, any place for any reason. The Constitution is the only thing that prevents this from happening in this Country. It is worth standing up for it. If you want any copies of my Complaint, motions or oppositions I will gladly give you copies to use for examples in your case.

Picard
July 7, 2008, 10:17 PM
Thanks for bumping this thread up. It's a very interesting read. I hope that everything works out for you Ajax. Reading rights infringements like this really infuriates me. This kind of crap cannot go unchallenged.

tarzandc
July 8, 2008, 02:50 PM
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-02447-RJL

PIERCE v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al
Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon
Demand: $1,000,000
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 10/12/2000
Date Terminated: 10/12/2006
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
WILLIAM M. PIERCE represented by Jimmy A. Bell
9610 Marlboro Pike
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
(301) 599-7620
Fax: (301) 599-7623
Email: jimbellesq@aol.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Third Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
(240) 777-6700
Fax: 240-777-6705
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Rockville, MD 20850-2540
(240) 777-6706
Fax: (240) 777-6706
Email: joann.robertson@montgomerycountymd.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
MONTGOMERY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
101 Monroe Street
Thrird Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
(240) 777-6700
Email: sharon.burrell@montgomerycountymd.gov
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN
in his individual and official capacity as County Executive for Montgomery County represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
CHARLES A. MOOSE
COL, in his individual and official capacity as Chief, Montgomery County Police Department represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
WILLIAM C. HILL
Officer, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Montgomery County Police Department represented by Brian Gook-hyun Kim
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 05/15/2002
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
JOHN DOE JACOBS
Officer, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Montgomery County Police Department represented by Joann Robertson
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
HENRRI JAMIOY QUISTIAL
in his individual and possible official capacity as an officer assisting both Hill and Jacobs c/o Montgomery County Police Department
Defendant
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 686-7600
Fax: (202) 293-3130
Email: ahoenig@cov.com
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Burkett
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
DC GOVERNMENT
441 4th Street, NW
Suite 6S043
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 724-6647
Fax: (202) 727-3625
Email: kimberly.matthews@dc.gov
TERMINATED: 11/30/2004
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Jackson
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Civil Litigation Division
441 4th Street, NW
6th Floor South
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 724-6618
Fax: (202) 724-3526
Email: davida.jackson@dc.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
Mayor, in his individual and official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon V. Burrell
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
efendant
CHARLES H. RAMSEY
in his individual and official capacity as Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
ROBERT A. ANDERSON
Officer 339/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
J. NELLES
Sgt, S535/2D,in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department
Defendant
S. ODELL
Sgt, S189/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department
Defendant
J. A. MITCHELL
Officer, S256/2D, in his individual and official capacity as an officer of the Metropolitan Police Department represented by Andrew Stewart Hoenig
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 09/24/2001
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text
10/12/2000 1 COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE; jury demand; attachments (10) (bm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
10/12/2000 SUMMONS (24) issued for defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL, DOE JACOBS, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, DC, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MPD, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. NELLES, S. ODELL, and J. A. MITCHELL (bm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
11/14/2000 2 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY . Date waiver signed: 10/30/00 (tb) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
12/18/2000 3 MOTION filed by defendant DC, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. A. MITCHELL to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint ; affidavits (1) (cdw) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
12/26/2000 4 MOTION filed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant WILLIAM C. HILL, defendant MPD to extend time to 1/27/01 to answer complaint [1-1] (cdw) (Entered: 12/28/2000)
12/28/2000 5 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to extend time to 1/27/01 to answer complaint [1-1] [4-1] by defendantssss ; Answer extended to 1/27/01 for MONTGOMERY COUNTY, for CHARLES A. MOOSE, for DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, for MONTGOMERY COUNTY (N) (dam) (Entered: 12/29/2000)
01/02/2001 6 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1] by defendants. (pob) (Entered: 01/03/2001)
01/02/2001 7 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for appointment of counsel (tb) (Entered: 01/08/2001)
01/02/2001 8 WAIVER of service of summons by defendants; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. A. MITCHELL (tb) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
01/29/2001 9 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler status hearing set for 10:00 2/22/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
01/29/2001 10 MOTION filed by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL to dismiss complaint [1-1] (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
01/29/2001 11 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [1-1] by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, CHARLES A. MOOSE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HILL (cdw) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
02/02/2001 12 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : denying motion for appointment of counsel [7-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (N) (pob) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
02/12/2001 13 ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM in defendants answer [11-1] by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE (cdw) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
02/12/2001 14 RESPONSE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE in opposition to motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] [10-1] by WILLIAM C. HILL, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, and motion to dismiss complaint [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1] by defendants (cdw) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
02/14/2001 15 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants DC, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MPD, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, J. A. MITCHELL to reschedule initial scheduling conference (cdw) Modified on 02/21/2001 (Entered: 02/15/2001)
02/16/2001 16 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to continue initial scheduling conference [15-1] by defendants (N) (pob) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
02/16/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 9:30 2/23/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler . (pob) (Entered: 02/16/2001)
02/21/2001 17 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT/REPORT PURSUANT TO L.R. 16 filed by plaintiff, defendants (cdw) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
02/23/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: status hearing set for 9:30 3/22/01 Reporter: Susan Tyner (pob) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
03/08/2001 18 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : status hearing set for 9:30 3/22/01 (N) (jwd) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
03/22/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: discovery closes 10/1/01; status hearing set for 9:45 8/3/01; plaintiff's rule 26(a)1 7/1/01; defendant's rule 26(a)1 due 8/1/01; Witness list to be exchanged by 5/1/01; Case assigned to the Complex track (track three). Reporter: Susan Tyner (pob) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
03/22/2001 19 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler confirming status hearing of 03/22/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 03/22/2001)

(to be continued)

tarzandc
July 8, 2008, 02:51 PM
03/27/2001 20 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: status hearing set for 9:45 8/3/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
04/30/2001 21 WITNESS LIST by defendants (cdw) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
07/23/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 9:45 8/15/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler . (pob) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
07/23/2001 22 RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, defendant CHARLES A. MOOSE, defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY, defendant WILLIAM C. HILL, defendant JOHN DOE JACOBS RE: disclousre of expert witnesses (bjsp) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
07/26/2001 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing reset for 10:30 8/15/01 before Judge Gladys Kessler Courtroom 19, 6th Floor. (pob) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
09/04/2001 23 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for order compelling discovery and interrogatories under Rule 37 , to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) , to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey , and/or for enlargement of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) ; exhibits (5) (cdw) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
09/24/2001 24 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL, substituting William Burkett for attorney Andrew Stewart Hoenig for J. A. MITCHELL, ROBERT A. ANDERSON, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, MPD, ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, DC (cdw) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
09/27/2001 25 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Gladys Kessler (N) (adc) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
09/27/2001 26 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : granting in part, denying in part motion to dismiss of the Montgomery County defendants [1-1] [10-1],all claims against Montgomery County defedants are dismissed except for the 1983 claim against Montgomery County and the 1983 claim against Police Chief Moose; granting in part, denying in part motion of the District of Columbia defendants to dismiss [1-1] in lieu of an answer to the complaint [3-1]; all claims against the District of Columbia defendants are dismissed except for the 1983 claim against the District of Columbia status hearing set for 9:30 10/22/01 (N) (adc) (Entered: 09/27/2001)
10/01/2001 27 MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendant DC to extend time for filing discovery to 11/2/01 (cdw) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
10/01/2001 28 MOTION filed by defendant DC to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery (cdw) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
10/03/2001 29 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: granting motion to extend time for filing discovery to 11/2/01 [27-1] by DC; Discovery now closes 11/2/01 (N) (pob) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
10/10/2001 30 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to request an amended judgment to the opinion filed 9/27/01 pursuant to Rule 52(b) (cdw) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
11/02/2001 STATUS HEARING before Judge Gladys Kessler: denying motion to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery by DC [28-1] moot, denying motion to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-2] moot, denying motion to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-3] moot; defendants to file response to plaintiff's motion for recosideration by 11/23/01; reply due 11/26/01; plaintiff to file motion of what discovery is requested by 11/23/01; defendant's response due 12/5/01; reply due 12/10/01; oral motion by defendant MONTGOMERY COUNTY to extend discovery heard and granted. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/02/2001 31 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: denying motion to compel required disclosures under Rule 26(a) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-2] moot, denying motion to compel deposition of Charles Ramsey by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-3] moot, denying motion for enlargement of time pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE [23-4] moot (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/02/2001 32 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler : denying motion to stay disposition of plaintiff's motion to compel answers to discovery by DC [28-1] moot (N) (pob) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
11/08/2001 33 RESPONSE by defendant DC, defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. NELLES, defendant S. ODELL, defendant J. A. MITCHELL in opposition to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; c/m 11/8/01 (cdw) (Entered: 11/12/2001)
11/26/2001 34 REPLY by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to response in opposition to motion for reconsideration to the opinion filed 9/27/01 and/or request granting permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 52(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [30-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (bm) (Entered: 11/27/2001)
11/30/2001 35 ORDER by Judge Gladys Kessler: that plaintiff file a praecipe with the Court by 12/12/01, indicating the status of his discovery requests. (N) (dam) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
12/13/2001 36 RESPONSE by defendant ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, defendant MPD, defendant CHARLES H. RAMSEY, defendant ROBERT A. ANDERSON, defendant J. NELLES, defendant S. ODELL, defendant J. A. MITCHELL to order [35-1] (cdw) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
03/04/2002 37 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE to compel interrogatories and production of documents from defendants DC and Montgomery County (cdw) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
04/04/2002 CASE REASSIGNED from Judge Gladys Kessler to Judge Richard J. Leon (cdw) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
04/25/2002 SCHEDULING NOTICE: status hearing set for 11:00 5/15/02 before Judge Richard J. Leon . (bm) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
05/15/2002 STATUS HEARING before Judge Richard J. Leon : taken under advisement by WILLIAM M. PIERCE motion to request an amended judgment to the opinion filed 9/27/01 pursuant to Rule 52(b) [30-1]; Montgomery County defendants have 10 days in which to supplement there response to the motion to amend judgment; status hearing set for 2:30 7/16/02 Reporter: Gordon Slodysko (bm) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
07/16/2002 STATUS HEARING before Judge Richard J. Leon, Plintiff's PIERCE motion to reconsider-denied. no new date set. : Reporter: Jon Hundley (Miller) (whb) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
07/16/2002 38 ORDER, that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration be and hereby is Denied by Judge Richard J. Leon : (N) (whb) (Entered: 07/19/2002)
07/19/2002 39 ORDER referring the above-captioned case to a Magistrate Judge for the resolution of all discovery disputes, by Judge Richard J. Leon : (N) (whb) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
07/19/2002 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola for pending discovery disputes (cp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
08/01/2002 40 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia ; Attachments (2) (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/01/2002 41 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County ; Exhibits (3) (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/01/2002 42 MOTION filed by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (nmr) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
08/12/2002 43 RESPONSE by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL in opposition to motion for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County [41-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; Exhibits (5) (nmr) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
08/12/2002 44 RESPONSE by defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL in opposition to motion for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the of Columbia [42-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE; Exhibit (1). (nmr) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
08/12/2002 46 RESPONSE by defendant DC in opposition to motion for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia [40-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (nmr) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
08/14/2002 45 ORDER by Judge Richard J. Leon : denying motion for leave to appeal Court's Order of 7/16/02 pursuant to Rule 5(a)(3) of the Circuit Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [42-1] by WILLIAM M. PIERCE (N) (whb) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
10/24/2002 47 REQUEST by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE for a telephonic conference with the Court (nmr) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
12/23/2002 48 NOTICE by plaintiff WILLIAM M. PIERCE of telephone conference with the court on 1/29 (bcs) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
03/07/2003 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola (N) (ldc) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
03/07/2003 50 ORDER by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola : granting in part, denying in part motion for cooperation with discovery for Montgomery County [41-1], granting in part, denying in part motion for cooperation with discovery for District of Columbia [40-1], granting in part, denying in part motion to compel interrogatories and production of documents from defendants DC and Montgomery County [37-1] (N) (ldc) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
02/01/2004 51 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for status hearing held on dates May 15, 2002. Court Reporter: Gordon A. Slodysko (jf, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
02/12/2004 53 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED of Status Conference held on 11/2/01 before Judge Kessler. Court Reporter: Santa Theresa Zizzo (rje, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
02/18/2004 52 NOTICE OF TRANSCRIPT FILED for status hearing dates 7/16/02. (bcs, ) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
05/26/2004 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Burkett, William) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
06/09/2004 55 MOTION for Sanctions against the defendants for failure to disclose in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2) and rule 37(c)(1) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Exhibits 1 thru 23). Modified on 6/14/2004 (jf, ). (Entered: 06/10/2004)
06/09/2004 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Bulky Exhibits 1 thru 23 which were inadvertently omitted from Document No. 55 have been attached to the filing and are being held in the Clerk's Office (Room 1225), public viewing is from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
06/15/2004 56 Memorandum in opposition to motion re 55 sanctions filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Burkett, William) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
06/21/2004 57 MOTION for Extension of Time in Which to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions by WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE. (nmw, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
06/23/2004 Paperless ORDER granting 57 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge John M. Facciola on 6/22/04. (SP, ) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
06/25/2004 MINUTE ORDER denying 55 Motion for Sanctions . Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 06/25/04. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 06/25/2004)
07/16/2004 58 RESPONSE to 55 Motion for Sanctions filed by DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHARLES A. MOOSE. (nmw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
07/23/2004 59 REPLY to opposition by defendants of Montgomery County to plaintiff's motion for sanctions 55 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
11/30/2004 60 NOTICE of Appearance by David A. Jackson on behalf of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Jackson, David) (Entered: 11/30/2004)
02/01/2005 61 Order advising plaintiff to respond or Court may deem matter as conceded re 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Responses due by 2/25/2005. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 1/31/05. (whb) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
02/24/2005 62 Memorandum in opposition to Defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA's motion for summary judgment 54 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 63 RESPONSE to Court's Order dated January 27, 2005 61 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 64 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION for Sanctions against the defendants of the District of Columbia and Montgomery County for failure to disclose in accordance with Rule 37(b)(2) and Rule 37(c)(1) by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 thru 22)(jf, ) Modified on 3/1/2005 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/01/2005)
02/24/2005 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY. Document No. 64 was entered in error as a duplicate filing of pleading No. 55 as per chambers. (jf, ) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
03/22/2005 65 REPLY to opposition to motion for sanctions 55 filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(jf, ) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
03/29/2005 66 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting District of Columbia's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/28/05. (whb) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
04/28/2005 Notice of Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/13/2005 03:00 PM in Courtroom 7 before Judge Richard J. Leon. (whb) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
04/29/2005 67 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 66 Memorandum & Opinion filed on 03/29/05 by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 134302. (jf, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/03/2005 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 67 Notice of Appeal (jf, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/13/2005 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard J. Leon : Status Conference held on 5/13/2005. (Court Reporter Cathy Crump-Miller Reporter.) (whb) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
06/03/2005 USCA Case Number 05-7073 for 67 Notice of Appeal filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE,. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
01/17/2006 68 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy)It is hereby ordered that the order to show cause be discharged; It is further ordered on the courts own motion that the appeal be dismissed;USCA#05-7073 (jsc) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
04/18/2006 69 ORDERED that the parties are to submit within 10 days a proposed scheduling order or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/14/06. (whb, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
04/19/2006 70 NOTICE of Appearance by Jimmy A. Bell on behalf of WILLIAM M. PIERCE (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
04/20/2006 71 Consent MOTION for Order Referring This Case for Mediation before a United States Magistrate Judge by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/20/2006 72 MOTION for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 -- Plaintiff's Rule 26(a)(2) Disclosures)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/20/2006 73 MOTION for Order Setting Pretrial Conference and Trial Dates by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
04/24/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 71 Motion for Order referring this Case for Mediation before a Magistrate Judge, granting 72 Motion for Leave to Late-File Plaintiff's 26(a)(2) Expert Disclosures, and granting 73 Motion for a Status Hearing. It is further Ordered that a status hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2006, at 11:30am in Courtroom #14 before Judge Richard J. Leon and that the case is referred to a Magistrate Judge for mediation purposes only. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/24/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
04/24/2006 74 RULE 26a2 STATEMENT by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (jf, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
05/01/2006 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosures by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
05/01/2006 76 Memorandum in opposition to re 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule filed by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
05/05/2006 CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robinson for Mediation only. (jsc) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/08/2006 Set Hearing: Settlement Conference set for Wednesday, 5/31/2006 @ 09:30 AM in Room 2315-2nd Floor, E. Barrett Prettyman Bldg., before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (EW) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
05/09/2006 77 REPLY to opposition to motion re 75 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,, /Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Late Plaintiff's Rule (Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration filed by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
05/16/2006 Notice of Rescheduled Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/2/06 is Rescheduled to 7/7/2006 10:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon. (whb) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
05/23/2006 MINUTE ORDER denying 75 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 5/23/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
05/26/2006 78 Consent MOTION to Continue Settlement Conference by MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CHARLES A. MOOSE, WILLIAM C. HILL, JOHN DOE JACOBS. (Robertson, Joann) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 5/26/06 granting 78 Motion to Continue Settlement Conference to June 14, 2006. (EW) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
05/26/2006 Set/Reset Hearing: Settlement Conference reset for Wednesday, 6/14/2006 @ 02:00 PM in Room 2315-2nd Floor, E. Barrett Prettyman Building before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (EW) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
06/14/2006 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson : Settlement Conference held on 6/14/2006;further settlement conference to be scheduled after status hearing on 7/7/06. (EW) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
07/06/2006 79 Joint MOTION to Vacate Joint Consent Motion to Vacate Status Conference and Settlement Conference by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
07/07/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 79 Motion to Vacate Status Conference and Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/7/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
07/30/2006 80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss Consent Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint as to All Defendants, Except Defendant Montgomery County, Maryland by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 07/30/2006)
08/07/2006 Notice of Hearing: Status Conference set for 9/22/06 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
08/07/2006 Notice of Re-Scheduled Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/2/06 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
08/07/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 80 Consent MOTION to Dismiss with Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint as to All Defendants, Except Defendant Montgomery County, Maryland. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 8/7/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
10/02/2006 Notice of Hearing: Status Conference set for 10/16/2006 04:00 PM in Courtroom 18 before Judge Richard J. Leon.(lcrjl1) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
10/11/2006 81 Consent MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice by WILLIAM M. PIERCE. (Bell, Jimmy) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
10/12/2006 MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Consent MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 10/12/06. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 10/12/2006)

CountGlockula
July 8, 2008, 03:21 PM
My head hurts.

ByAnyMeans
July 8, 2008, 03:27 PM
mine to

MakAttak
July 8, 2008, 03:57 PM
Anyone have any update on the REAL thread?

Rugerlvr
July 8, 2008, 04:06 PM
AJAX22 has been posting lately. Most recently on the 4th.

What's the story AJAX? Did you let them get away with violating your civil rights?

Davo
July 9, 2008, 02:12 AM
Yeah what happened?

AJAX22
July 21, 2008, 03:15 PM
I'm sorry for taking so long to reply to this, but I've had a bunch of things going on.

None of the agencies or organizations that I contacted were interested in pursuing this matter. There were no substantial monetary damages so there was no interest from other attorney’s in pursuing the matter (The consensus was that it could be pursued, it could be won, but the end result would be a huge legal bill for me, and a light slap on the wrists for those involved.)

I decided not to make any formal complaints against the responding officers.

Now before I get flamed on this, let me explain my thoughts.

1. I was still attending the school and did not want to create an even more hostile environment which would hurt my chances at transfer. (It's already hard being a libertarian taking classes from communist/socialist/ultra left wing teachers.) If it had become widely known that I was involved in the Pro 2A movement It could have (and probably would have) caused some of my grades to be arbitrarily lowered.

I already have exactly two B's on my transcripts, both of which were earned in classes where I had spoken my mind about unpopular issues (14th/16th amendment in a history class, the socio-political commentary in a particular film work we studied in an 'intro to cinema' class). I have documentation which prove that I earned 92.5% + in both classes and the grade structure was 90+% for an A.

2. The officers who were on the scene were directly ordered to act as they did, they respected my rights up until the chief ordered them to violate them. Since the chief doesn’t appear in the police report, and no official mention is made of the roll he played in the deception there is a very good chance that any complaint would wind up being shunted onto the responding officers who actually are very nice guys who (I believe) were sincere in their desire to respect my 4th amendment rights.

They could have violated my rights at any time during the encounter, but did not do so until forced by the chief. They did not harass me in any way after the incident and I don’t feel that putting a note in their permanent record is the best way to make gun ownership accepted as a hobby/right that is socially acceptable at the school.

I hope I'm making sense with this... I didn't want to create an US v Them situation on campus which would create hardships for the gunnies who I was leaving behind when I graduated.

If there was a way to go after the chief directly, I wouldn't be opposed to it. but I don't want it to be scapegoated onto underlings.

3. I didn't want any official record to find its way into my scholastic file, I was (at the time) in the process of applying to Columbia... which is a VERY liberal school and I didn't want to be denied because I was a troublemaker, threat to the student body, antisocial etc etc etc. I know those are all B.S. reasons, but they don't have to give you a reason that you are not being accepted, 90%+ of applicants get rejection notices anyway. The battle for the 2a is a fight for hearts and minds that we can only win from within, and a degree from Columbia will get me right inside where I can make a real difference.


4. I don't know what the best possible outcome would be from filing a complaint, unless someone is willing to bring them to trial for violating my civil rights all that (as I understand it) can happen is a light slap on the wrist... and chances are it would be delivered to an undeserving party.
As far as suing them in small claims court, that really is not a feasible option. While I would love to have a gun that is bought from money attained in that tort, I really don’t' think it would go down that way. LEO unions have very good representation if I was to go after them directly in a civil matter.

Unless you can get a 900lbs gorilla in your corner it is almost impossible to take a LEO or state agency to court and win.


Some members have suggested that I pursue charges/civil torts against the lady who filed the false police report,

I know who she is, her name, home address, and personal information are on the un-edited copy of the police report that I have.

I won’t be doing that simply because I don't want to have ANY further interaction with her,

If I file a harassment suit against her, then she files one against me (it would be groundless but apparently she makes up a lot of stuff and hears/sees things that aren't there so why not a second false report?) And since she does nothing but commune with nature and live with cats (when she's not taking classes on B.S. at community college)... Its not like it will disrupt her life at all...


If I get tied up fighting false criminal accusations and miss work/pay fines/pay legal fees etc I loose out on opportunities which are critical at this time in my life. Since she isn't doing anything with her life, it just provides her with focus and an interesting diversion whereby she can go and save the world by preventing bad people like me from writing posts on the internet to ‘right wing wacko gun nuts’.

The same goes for restraining orders, If I get one what’s the point? She can file for one and get it (easy) in retaliation and then they come and take away my guns... there is no way to fight a restraining order in this state, if one is issued against you, they come and take your guns.. that’s just how it is.

And so what if I get a restraining order against her? she doesn't have any 'dangerous items' that they will take away from her. And Its not like I shop in the discount tofu bodega and communist peasant garb haberdasher that she frequents, so I will not likely see her again….. All I would do in bringing a tort against her is to continue to give her a reason to pursue spurious accusations against my character.



I’ve come to the realization that the best thing that I can do at this time, is to continue my education (I was accepted to Columbia University to study economics and will be moving to NYC to attend in two weeks) and become financially secure enough that I can pursue charges/damages independently if/when they occur again.

It does hurt my pride quite a bit to let what happened go unanswered, but I’ve put a lot of thought into this and I think the best course of action is for me to take this one on the chin.


So... that’s where its at

Rugerlvr
July 21, 2008, 03:31 PM
Pastor Niemoller's quote comes to mind...

ceetee
July 21, 2008, 03:37 PM
It does hurt my pride quite a bit to let what happened go unanswered, but I’ve put a lot of thought into this and I think the best course of action is for me to take this one on the chin.

Very mature, well reasoned response. Not only have you earned my respect, but I'm sure that attitude will take you far in life.

Personally, I wish you could stick it right up their gullets, but hey - whatcha gonna do?

TargetTerror
July 21, 2008, 05:56 PM
Ajax, I'm currently in law school now, and living in MA I know exactly about all of the "extra" considerations that went into your decision. The more I deal with law and the legal system, the more I realize that it is less about "justice" and more about validating what the people in power want to do and believe. For all of the reasons that you mentioned, I agree that it is ultimately in your best interest to just let the whole episode blow over.

Congratulations and good luck at Columbia!

bogie
July 21, 2008, 06:50 PM
Ajax, as you grow still older, you will discover that patience can be a virtue, and that karma will turn around and bite some folks really, really hard.

And if you're lucky, you'll have an opportunity to assist...

jaholder1971
July 21, 2008, 07:48 PM
And Get The Heck Outta ********** Before They Educate Your Common Sense Outta You!!!!

hoji
July 21, 2008, 07:52 PM
WOW. That really sucks, but you know what they say" Pick your battles".

DKSuddeth
July 21, 2008, 08:30 PM
2. The officers who were on the scene were directly ordered to act as they did, they respected my rights up until the chief ordered them to violate them. Since the chief doesn’t appear in the police report, and no official mention is made of the roll he played in the deception there is a very good chance that any complaint would wind up being shunted onto the responding officers who actually are very nice guys who (I believe) were sincere in their desire to respect my 4th amendment rights.

They could have violated my rights at any time during the encounter, but did not do so until forced by the chief. They did not harass me in any way after the incident and I don’t feel that putting a note in their permanent record is the best way to make gun ownership accepted as a hobby/right that is socially acceptable at the school.

I hope I'm making sense with this... I didn't want to create an US v Them situation on campus which would create hardships for the gunnies who I was leaving behind when I graduated.

If there was a way to go after the chief directly, I wouldn't be opposed to it. but I don't want it to be scapegoated onto underlings.


Ajax, while i can certainly appreciate your position on the issue, I believe that had you seriously pursued a civil rights violation lawsuit, these honorable officers would have sacrificed the chief who gave them an unlawful order, opening him up for action. must my opinion though.

FCFC
July 21, 2008, 09:45 PM
So... that’s where its at


So....nothing changes. Nothing gets fixed. No accountability... no institutional learning.

OK, that's a wrap!

SomeKid
July 22, 2008, 01:03 AM
I can understand why you didn't sue. Would have cost you what you didn't have. Fine.

I just don't see why you were unwilling to at least file a formal written complaint against the cops who actively violated your rights. "Nice guys"? They violated your rights. I don't care if you smile when you do it, if you do it, you did it. Might not have done much, might have only hurt their career a little bit, but the next time they consider violating someones rights, it might cause them to pause.

fatelk
July 22, 2008, 02:33 AM
Unless you can get a 900lbs gorilla in your corner it is almost impossible to take a LEO or state agency to court and win.

This is absolutely true. They have more time and money than you ever will. I would never recommend it unless you have serious help.

We really do have a pretty good justice system in this country, but any system is only as good as the people who run it. Money carries more weight than truth when it comes to getting justice.

doc2rn
July 22, 2008, 07:53 AM
I would lawyer up and upon receiving confirmation that an illegal search without a warrant took place get a free diploma with the award. You have a chance here to end the anti's crap at your college. When are the anti's gonna learn that only the criminals dont follow the laws.:( Until they have to face us in court this type of abuse will not change.

redraidermgr
July 22, 2008, 08:05 AM
I think you made the right decision. A lot of hassle for almost no gain. I wish it was plausible to take it to them and let them know that rights are protected for a reason but I think that you are focused on the right priorities at the moment. Good luck in school and good luck on getting into Columbia.

Guns and more
July 22, 2008, 08:59 AM
As for the accuser, you are legally entitled to know who is accusing you of such a crime (it's called facing your accuser).
That's if you are tried for a crime.

Derek Zeanah
July 22, 2008, 09:12 AM
Lay off the kid. This is a decision that's his alone to make, and choosing to litigate in this situation means he'll be costing himself a few tens of thousands of dollars (that a student likely can't afford), will create a decade's worth of stress, won't result in any compensation, might torpedo his academic career, and likely won't even affect the person who made the call to violate his rights.

He, and he alone, can say whether it's worth the price. It's surprisingly easy to say what someone else should do and stand high on your own values when you don't need to pay the price.

Me? I was willing to go to the mat when the Army decided it needed a full DNA sample from me. I knew a denial would result in an immediate dishonorable discharge, but I had assurance from my folks that they'd help pay for the legal action later. Turns out I didn't need to make that choice as I found another way around it, but could I have done the same if I knew I'd be bankrolling it myself on a job I could land with a dishonorable discharge on my record?

Can't say.

I respect the guy's decision. I think I might have chosen differently, but then again I wasn't there, and I left LA back in the early 1990's and can't really tell what it's like there now.

jaholder1971
July 28, 2008, 02:19 AM
So....nothing changes. Nothing gets fixed. No accountability... no institutional learning.


I would lawyer up and upon receiving confirmation that an illegal search without a warrant took place get a free diploma with the award. You have a chance here to end the anti's crap at your college. When are the anti's gonna learn that only the criminals dont follow the laws. Until they have to face us in court this type of abuse will not change.

C'Mon, people!

He's a college kid trying to get through 4 years of P.C. University Bovine Scatology without ruining his reputation, which would be incredibly easy at this point.

Legal action takes Purina Lawyer Chow (money) and when I was in college most students barely had enough to eat on themselves. He cut his losses and filed the whole incident under "Lessons Learned".

zxcvbob
July 28, 2008, 03:13 AM
Is there any way to persue this as a *criminal* matter instead of civil? The state has unlimited resources to defend against a civil case, but in a criminal complaint the state is working for you instead of against you.

Probably just wishful thinking...

psyopspec
July 28, 2008, 03:58 AM
Ajax, thank you for the update. You had a tough call, and in the end your decision was well thought. I won't say how I'd have gone, mostly because I honestly don't know. However, it should be easy for anyone to see that you did what you had to do, and you had sufficient reason. Better luck in NY.

gunNoob
July 28, 2008, 08:00 AM
Did the officer ask "Are you AJAX22 from the calguns forum?"

lol. sucks that the movie "Minority Report" might come true.

doc2rn
July 28, 2008, 08:01 AM
I believe you have a valid case against Mia also for defamation of character, aside from the one against the officers for search with out a warrant.

jaholder1971
July 28, 2008, 11:51 AM
Do you want to bankroll these legal actions, Doc? I doubt he has the cash to do so if he's in college.

The Tourist
July 28, 2008, 12:07 PM
The forum is definitely correct. This matter is your life, and your money. Only you can make the cost/risk decision on the follow-up procedure.

Personally, I would have jointly and severely sued everyone who was within spitting distance of the matter--including the girl who contacted authorities.

Remember, you don't pay court costs if you win, and you can make fees from your attorney part of the settlement.

I don't think they had probably cause.

Failing that, there is no case.

The computer was involved (to some extent, even if the girl filed an incorrect report). Would Melvin Purvis and the Keystone Kops come to see you if this same girl saw a copy of "Guns n' Ammo" in your pack-back?

Well, in this day and age of political correctness, she might. But would any officer come to detain you for a magazine? I mean any cop who wants a career and sees his actions on the front of tomorrow's newspaper.

Now granted, I don't mind being arrested. An "arrest" means nothing but a ride in a Crown Victoria. (It's a nice ride, the seats are wide and comfortable, lots of legroom.) It's the final ruling of the court that has meaning. And I cannot imagine an DA who wants a career to take this to the mat.

The real meaning of this event is that now these cops think they have a stronger hand in a questionable procedure. And the next time it could be me.

XDKingslayer
July 28, 2008, 12:13 PM
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.

The Tourist
July 28, 2008, 12:18 PM
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.

Agreed, but sloppy police work should never be feared.

There is something called "The White Coat Syndrome." College studies have found that people will administer dangerous amounts of electric shock to test subjects simply because they were ordered to do so by "a guy in a lab coat."

(BTW, there was no electricity. The guy caving in to authority was really the test subject.)

If you feel you have done no wrong, stick out your hands for the bracelets. It's no big deal.

mgkdrgn
July 28, 2008, 10:17 PM
"The interesting part of the trip was the response to my request for a copy of the warrant, at first they just stated that telephonic warrants do not have face sheets, and after talking amongst themselves for a minuite or so in back, they informed me that when they called in for the warrant "that service was not available to us at the time" but they assured me that it would all be explained in the narrative of the police report."

Which is "cop-o-babble" for "We conducted a search, that you objected to, with out a proper warrant. In the interest of expediency, we screwed up, and now we are going to cover up our screw up."

The Tourist
July 28, 2008, 10:51 PM
Before anyone in this country should be awarded a high school diploma, they should be required to take a course on The Constitutiuon and The Bill of Rights, and then promptly arrested.

I believe "rights" will suddenly become important.

kludge
July 29, 2008, 09:38 AM
2. The officers who were on the scene were directly ordered to act as they did, they respected my rights up until the chief ordered them to violate them. Since the chief doesn’t appear in the police report, and no official mention is made of the roll he played in the deception there is a very good chance that any complaint would wind up being shunted onto the responding officers who actually are very nice guys who (I believe) were sincere in their desire to respect my 4th amendment rights.

They could have violated my rights at any time during the encounter, but did not do so until forced by the chief. They did not harass me in any way after the incident and I don’t feel that putting a note in their permanent record is the best way to make gun ownership accepted as a hobby/right that is socially acceptable at the school.

I hope I'm making sense with this... I didn't want to create an US v Them situation on campus which would create hardships for the gunnies who I was leaving behind when I graduated.

If there was a way to go after the chief directly, I wouldn't be opposed to it. but I don't want it to be scapegoated onto underlings.

Ajax, while i can certainly appreciate your position on the issue, I believe that had you seriously pursued a civil rights violation lawsuit, these honorable officers would have sacrificed the chief who gave them an unlawful order, opening him up for action. must my opinion though.


Yup, and Marines who obey illegal orders are convicted of murder. We've all got to live by priciples.

This is why there are laws against doing thing under the color of law.

The cop who thinks he will be punished for violating you constitutional right won't violate them. If the Chief gives him an order, and he knows he won't be punished, and he then violates your rights is no better than the Chief.

IMHO.

The Tourist
July 29, 2008, 11:57 AM
The issue here is that the OP is innocent and the cops over reacted, possibly in a criminal fashion no matter who was the top-kick who authorized the action.

This is why we have judges and court hearings. You do not lose your rights simply because your opponent in court is a LEO.

Now, I've gotten some static about opposing ninjas and my constant questioning of authority--which translate only to making that authority adhere to the law. That doesn't change here simply because that individual is a real cop. He still has to play by the same rules.

Worst case. He hooks you up. He escorts you from the school building. You get booked. You await your attorney or your wife with bail money. You might have to wait a longer period and get dinner. It's usually something like a bad hotdog, old potato salad and piece of white bread, no butter. Heck, you could stand to lose a few pounds, anyway.

You get arraigned, you "stand mute," and wait for some behind the scenes shenanigans. At some point this authority realized this was all a tragic misunderatanding.

Your response is, "Wonderful, we'll discuss that at the civil hearing."

Is that really so bad?

ServiceSoon
July 29, 2008, 12:31 PM
Thank you for sharing your story.

fiVe
July 29, 2008, 01:55 PM
This is a very interesting thread. Much can be learned here.

doc2rn
July 29, 2008, 02:50 PM
I would gladly contribute to any monitary fund that is needed to correct an injustice.
I have fought and blead for our rights, people who sit idly by are equal to sheeple in my opinion.

dalepres
July 29, 2008, 10:14 PM
What exactly is a phone warrant? How is that legal? I've never heard of such a thing.

zxcvbob
July 30, 2008, 12:25 AM
What exactly is a phone warrant? How is that legal? I've never heard of such a thing.

The cops just made it up so they could get on with their search.

billdeserthills
July 30, 2008, 12:38 AM
I am interested in this topic, but if I read any more than page one I am going to be pissed off for weeks!

woo18
July 30, 2008, 11:21 AM
Incidents like this make me WANT to look at gun discussion boards at school and other public locations. The more we hide, the more they win.

woo18
July 30, 2008, 11:22 AM
A phone warrant is when you telephone in the request for a search warrant. This is common practice in LE, and it legal.

The Tourist
July 30, 2008, 11:56 AM
and it legal.

And so are the public's enumerated rights.

I use the word "public's" deliberately. It could have been you, it could have been me.

Let me make this clear once again. Just because a guy with a badge shows up, it means nothing in the application of your rights. Don't just surrender, use the freedoms you have to the max.

They had no probable cause. Who cares what they thought or how they came to think it.

As Americans are we so afraid of bracelets and a trial that we cave over the very rights we claim to cherish?

gregormeister
July 30, 2008, 03:01 PM
Good job on the keeping collect and calm, sorry can't say the same about the person who was worried that you were a gun toting loony!!
But in the world today you just never know and everyone is paranoid and everyone is scared that this all too often trend will occur at their school.
Who can say...

dalepres
July 30, 2008, 08:36 PM
A phone warrant is when you telephone in the request for a search warrant. This is common practice in LE, and it legal.

It may be legal but it's not constitutional. I don't care what some court says.

If you enjoyed reading about "I was detained at school today (Aug 29 2007)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!