Civil Rights - Gun Seizure - Property Return - Mass Murder Threat

[W.E.G.]

Civil Rights - Gun Seizure - Property Return - Mass Murder Threat

20-page opinion at:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/062158.P.pdf

brief summary:
4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Civil Rights - Gun Seizure - Property Return - Mass Murder Threat
Police did not violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when they promptly made a warrantless seizure of his extensive cache of firearms, ammunition, firearms accessories and survivalist literature from plaintiff's garden apartment after handcuffing him upon a hotline operator's report to police, minutes earlier, that showed a man on the edge, armed, suicidal and inclined to kill his co-workers on the way out. However, whether defendant City of Gaithersburg is entitled to retain the seized items and not return them to plaintiff, a registered firearms collector, involves questions of state law not considered by the 4th Circuit.
Mora v. City of Gaithersburg

 

[IllHunter]

Just shows ta' go 'ya

Ask for help and the gov't takes advantage, the courts concurr and the poor slob gets robbed and liable for court costs.:banghead:

 

[-C4-]

Montgomery County will take ANY and EVERY chance they get to seize weapons and then not return them. In fact they actually say as a "policy" they don't return weapons.

 

[Art Eatman]

Absent an appeal of the decision of the Fourth Circuit, then, the only issue at hand for discussion in this forum would concern a separate suit in state court about the return of the property.

Art

 

[ants]

Maybe I'm different, but first I'm worried about the man. I truly hope he gets help with his mental problems. Most people who are mentally unstable are not at fault for their condition. Chemical imbalance, injury, congenital defect, med interactions, and any number of causes may be attributable. Firstly, I hope he gets stable and healthy.

Once he is stable and his future is sound, he should be in charge of his own property. There is no need to dispose of private property indiscriminately. I agree with Art's assessment, and I wish the best regards for the man and his counsel.

 

[skidmark]

Absent an appeal of the decision of the Fourth Circuit, then, the only issue at hand for discussion in this forum would concern a separate suit in state court about the return of the property.

Art

As both a moderator and as one who understands logical argument, your position is correct, as far as it goes.

I am rather disappointed to see the 4th Circuit so easily accept the position that the "threat" of a mass-killing event may serve to justify the great extensions granted in search and seizure as took place in this case. That being the situation, I would see as permissable a discussion among ourselves of possible avenues of appeal of the 4th's ruling, as well as discusing among ourselves the structuring of suit(s) in state court.

Moving away from the mental exercises suggested above, I was greatly puzzled by the fact that the 4th Circuit took this case at all when Mora had not exhausted his state court avenues. Historically, IIRC, the 4th will not approah deciding even bright-line violations of constitutional right until the plaintif has first sought those reliefs that were available at the state court level.

With the other discussions about the charge of "terroristic threats" coupled to this case, will we be seeing more exigient circumstances being claimed for any situation involving "man with a gun" calls? Will this precedent support "routine" travel from detention/arrest on the street to the home of the detainee/arrestee, without pause at the Magistrate for a warrant, to conduct a protective sweep? Will the presence of 5,000 rounds of ammunition (barely a month's worth for many of us) coupled with the presence of more weapons that were seized at the scene, and the presence of NRA Rifleman or an unsolicited DVD from Front Line be additional support for the "terrorist" charges?

Finally, does anyone know Maryland law/procedure regarding TDO's? Where I live (Virginia) one can avoid a TDO by agreeing to voluntarily admit one's self for evaluation. My experiences, based on being the one seeking TDO's in child and adult protective services cases, has been that the courts are happy to avoid incurring taxpayer expense if the person is willing to go through the process voluntarily, which means they/their health insurance will cover the bills. This is especially so when the court is reminded that state law allows the patient to be kept for up to 48 hours after requesting to be discharged AMA, which gives in essence the same 72-hour time as the TDO for evaluation and reporting.

stay safe.

skidmark