Contacted by BATFE today!! *Update*

[TexasRifleman]

If we all fear that everyone is out to get you, why even go out the door in the morning? Every cop just wants to pull you over, every driver behind the wheel wants to mow you over.

That's a little bit different than when they come to your house and specifically tell you that you are under investigation for a crime.

Cooperate with that if you want, but there is no upside.

 

[Norinco982lover]

nice window sticker

 

[maksim]

Well, what he did in question was the fact that he bought multiple handguns from the same dealer in a week. that is why he is being investigated.

If he bought one a week, and they came... i would take the very same stance.

If he trully commited a major crime, getting a lawyer or not would not make a difference. If he was suspected of something bigger, they would of already arrested him.

Pick your battles. but obviously that is my jersey opinion. =)

Besides, what happened in the past doesnt matter, what he is doing about it now is what does.

 

[Deanimator]

Besides, what happened in the past doesnt matter, what he is doing about it now is what does.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

 

[scndactive]

Thank you everyone for the advice. I have no doubt that everyone's advise is sincere, and trying to be helpful, but the only advice I will be taking is that of an attorney.

attempting to convince others that your opinion is the correct one is futile and will only assist in getting this thread closed. We have seen this happen closed thread after closed thread

I think this is a good topic and we could all learn something from the discussion but we can only do that if the thread stays open.

 

[Deanimator]

Yes, you have a right to lawyer up, yet, you just made it 20 times worse for yourself, and lets not even consider the money it will cost you to lawyer up.

There isn't 1/1,000,000,000 the potential for harm from seeking legal counsel that there is from using "insh allah" as a legal strategy in a criminal investigation of which you are a subject.

 

[5whiskey]

It's more of a legal astigmatism than a "perspective".
You don't KNOW what those agents were "up to". And you're almost certainly unequipped to tell.

As well as you don't "KNOW" what they're up to any more than I do. Spend your 600 bucks on an attorney if that makes you feel better.

The very fact that the agents showed up on his front stoop questioning the OP about the guns shows that they (at least on some level) suspected him of having committed a crime.

No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else.

Unless of course you can't tell your knee from your elbow and a splinter from the wing spar of a Nieuport 17.

If you're not a lawyer or ATF agent, you're no more qualified to tell me I don't know what's going on than I'm qualified to tell you my perspective bubba.

I used to know an F-14 driver who was an adviser to the Imperial Iranian Air Force. He said that "insh allah" was a really lousy pre-flight procedure for a supersonic fighter. It doesn't work ANY better as a legal strategy when your finances and freedom are at stake.

Calling an F-14 PILOT a "driver" is fail out of the gate. There is a great deal of difference between flying a super-sonic jet and answering an honest question on the basis of "all is as God wills it".

That's a little bit different than when they come to your house and specifically tell you that you are under investigation for a crime.

They went to his house not because they inherently to investigate him for a crime. They went to his house because of a departmental policy. It's a huge fishing net. Do I agree with the policy? No, but I don't disagree with it enough to lawyer up.

 

[CoRoMo]

Why in the world would you help someone investigate you?

Because I have nothing to hide?

Quite an assumption there. Mistakes happen, and many times you have no knowledge of the little mistakes that they are searching for. Their MO is to make mountains out of mole hills.

Assuming that compliance will simply get to the end of it is naive.

The very fact that the agents showed up on his front stoop questioning the OP about the guns shows that they (at least on some level) suspected him of having committed a crime.

No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else.

More assumptions. It's almost like you know these agents personally and have the information that we know only they have. Face it, you have no idea what these agents have in mind.

 

[Rockwell1]

No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else

.

And why are they checking up on multiple firearms purchasers? Let's he how far you can go with this before saying ,in effect, they're investegating a crime.

 

[Deanimator]

As well as you don't "KNOW" what they're up to any more than I do. Spend your 600 bucks on an attorney if that makes you feel better.

Hmmm, let's see:

I don't know what they're up to and SAY I don't know what they're up to.

You don't know what they're up to and say you DO.

I recommend, "Seek legal counsel".

You recommend "insh allah".

I STATE I'm not a lawyer.

You're attempting to play one on the internet.

As I said, a long enough pattern of misinformation is indistinguishable from disinformation.

 

[CoRoMo]

You don't know what they're up to and say you DO.

To be correct, the first two lines/responses that 5whiskey types in post #82 does both.

In the first one, he acknowledges that he doesn't know what they're up to, then the next line he types states that he does.

It's magic!

 

[9x23]

FYI - 5whiskey

5whiskey you wrote:

Calling an F-14 PILOT a "driver" is fail out of the gate.

Among several other aircraft I was also a C-130 "driver" in Southeast Asia for two years. "Driver'" is not a derrogatory term as it is applied to pilots, but it's more of an insider slang for pilot.

If you are not or have not been a military pilot then I assume (There's that word again! ) that you were defending their status and I appreciate that.....9x23

 

[rbernie]

No it doesn't. It meant they had a policy of checking up on multiple firearm purchasers. Nothing else.

No, it doesn't. You likely didn't read the whole thread, because if you had you would have seen that others have been getting the same visits recently and it's all tied back to the 'Mexico gun running' issue. We know what this is about, and we know how this will go - because we've seen it before. The end result will almost certainly be pressure from the F Troop to get the gun buyer to sign a very incriminating document.

And, having read all of the thread over again - is there anything more that we can add to this?

Some folk suggest finding counsel (myself among them). There are no-to-low cost ways to do that, and many state RKBA organizations can direct y'all to a list of helpful pro-RKBA attorneys.

Some folks suggest that directing the F Troop to an attorney is a bad idea, either from a cost or a self-incrimination perspective.

I have concluded that each side will not convince the other.

What I can offer is the experience that was relayed to me by another. In this other (very recent and also in Texas) case, the F Troop folk tried to exert pressure on the gun buyer to sign an incriminating form that attested to the gun buyer having engaged in past shady deals but promising to be better in the future. The gun buyer contacted a local RKBA organizations, they hooked him up with an attorney who agreed, sans retainer, to act as representation when actually called upon to do work. When the attorney's contact info was passed to the F Troop boyz, they evidently moved along in search of more compliant targets.

That's it.

We (with good confidence) know how this plays out because it's scripted.

 

[Phatty]

Not only does Miranda apply in custodial interrogation, but it also attaches as soon as the investigation is FOCUSED on you.

The standard I quoted was taken directly from Miranda v. Arizona, hence the quote marks in my earlier posts. What case are you relying on for this focused investigation standard?

So GRIZZ22 posts that and you carry it as the banner of truth?

I don't think GRIZZ22 has posted anything here regarding Miranda rights. Are you referring to Spreadfire Arms?

I am not trying to be combative here - just looking for the truth, so AGAIN please direct me to the case law you and GRIZZ22 are referring to about telephone conversations not being subject to the 5th Ammendment.

Whether you are trying to or not, your tone is definitely coming off as combative, particularly with the bold "Sorry - You are Wrong!" to start your post and considering that you demand cited authority when you yourself have provided none to support your argument. Here's the cases you want so bad:

General Rules:

First, we reject defendant's argument that he was entitled to Miranda warnings. In order for Miranda rights to be invoked, there must be (1) custody and (2) interrogation. United States v. Vega-Figueroa, 1st Circuit, 2000.

The procedural safeguards prescribed by Miranda only apply "where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him 'in custody.'" Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714, 97 S. Ct. 711 (1977) (per curiam )). A person is "in custody" for purposes of Miranda if the person has been arrested or if his freedom of action has been curtailed to a degree associated with arrest. See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 322. The proper perspective for determining whether a suspect is "in custody" at the time of questioning is whether "a reasonable [person] in the suspect's position would have understood his situation . . . as the functional equivalent of formal arrest." Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317, 104 S. Ct. 3138 (1984). Burket v Angelone, 4th Circuit, 1999

The Fifth Amendment right to counsel safeguarded by Miranda cannot be invoked when a suspect is not in custody, see United States v. LaGrone, 43 F.3d 332, 337 (7th Cir. 1994), even if in anticipation of future custodial interrogation, see McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 182 n.3, 115 L. Ed. 2d 158, 111 S. Ct. 2204 (1991) ("We have in fact never held that a person can invoke his Miranda rights anticipatorily, in a context other than 'custodial interrogation.'") United States v Wyatt, 7th Circuit, 1999

Specifically applied to phone calls:

The district court also correctly concluded that, even if it could be said that the informant was acting ostensibly as a police agent when she spoke with Foster, the record shows that Foster was not in custody when he received the phone calls and therefore, not entitled to Miranda warnings.Foster v. Jones, 9th Circuit, 2000

Miranda warnings are only required to be given to suspects who are in custody and being interrogated by authorities. United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2002). "[A]n 'in custody' determination requires two discrete inquiries: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Id. at 499. As of the time of the call, there is no indication on the record that police had ever approached petitioner about his relations with R.C. Further, petitioner was in his residence when he conversed with R.C. and there is no indication that petitioner was not completely free to hang up the phone at any time. Because petitioner was not in custody at the time of the phone call, he was not entitled to Miranda warnings at that time. Georgeoff v. Moore, E.D. Mo., 2008

Deleon challenges the use of his statement to the DEA agent arguing that he should have been given Miranda warnings and that his statement was coerced. Miranda warnings must be provided "'only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him 'in custody."" Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 320, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 128 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1994) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S. Ct. 711, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1977) (per curiam)). No restriction on Deleon's freedom occurred during his phone conversation with the DEA agent. Because Deleon was therefore not in custody, he was not entitled to Miranda warnings. United States v. Deleon, 9th Circuit, 2006

I've backed up my statements. Where are your supporting cases?

 

[runrabbitrun]

So, if one wishes to talk to an attorney in a situation like this.
You/we are automatically guilty of something?

If this is the normal presumption of LE investigators these days,
we are in for some dark days ahead I fear.

Someone also stated it's 'policy' for this department to conduct follow ups
about multiple gun purchases.
Can someone point us to this policy?

Thanks

 

[dirt_j00]

It really is a shame that law-abiding citizens of the US are being harassed/questioned/annoyed/bothered (take your pick) by the .gov for performing a perfectly legal transaction.

If it was illegal to buy >3 handguns in a 5 business-day period, then OK. But its not. So leave us alone.

Any ideas on what we can do to help with this situation? I suppose we could contact our elected officials and make them aware of these situations...

 

[coloradokevin]

:
If you don't have a lawyer, then you have lied to them.

And the absolute worst thing you could ever do is lie to a federal agent. You'd probably get a stiffer sentence for that than you would from the alleged crime they were investigating.

While I do think it is fair to have some concerns about this incident, I wouldn't be too worried about the "I'm going to talk to my lawyer" lie.

If I arrested everyone I had contacted who claimed they had a lawyer, I'd have probably jailed 10,000 people in the last five years. Every cop, agent, sheriff, etc has probably heard this talk until they are blue in the face. I think you'd be hard pressed to see them place charges on you for "lying" about having a lawyer on retainer when you didn't.

By way of example, here is the text of our local "false information" statute:

"It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly and willfully to give false information to an officer or employee of the city when such officer or employee is acting in their official capacity, concerning the identity of any person participating in, connected with, or responsible for, or concerning the manner of the commission of, any act, when, as part of their official duties or employment, such officer or employee is investigating:
(1) The legality of such act; or
(2) The identity of the person participating in, connected with, or responsible for the commission of such act."



Anyway, like I said, I can see why to OP was concerned... I just wouldn't sweat that aspect of it!

 

[Rockwell1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&feature=related

 

[Phatty]

So, if one wishes to talk to an attorney in a situation like this.
You/we are automatically guilty of something?

If this is the normal presumption of LE investigators these days,
we are in for some dark days ahead I fear.

I wouldn't worry too much about whether or not your request for a lawyer results in the investigator's presuming you are guilty. A judge won't look too fondly on an affidavit in support of a search warrant request that is based on "the suspect asked to speak to an attorney when I asked to see his guns."

Requesting a lawyer wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't for the huge number of people that willingly waive their right to an attorney. The feds get so used to dealing with suckers that it becomes frustrating to them when a person actually invokes their rights.

 

[GRIZ22]

GRIZZ22 are referring to about telephone conversations not being subject to the 5th Ammendment.


I made no statement regarding this but as I have been accused of making one I might as well. I do agree that telephone conversations can be used as against a suspect.

There have been a lot of misquotes in this thread.

There have been a lot of things said here and a lot of things that haven't been.

All the great legal minds advise when you are a suspect to make no statement to law enforcement without an attorney. I generally agree with that. Many have overlooked the key word here is suspect. There are times when making a statement to the police can remove you from that suspect list and only you can decide if you are smart enough to do that. I know of many cases where citizens, with and without lawyers, cooperated with LE and got themselves removed from that suspect list. If you can't tell the difference when to make a statement is to your benefit then you need a lawyer. LE and prosecutors do not want to waste anyone's time fabricating a case against someone that will lose in court. Arrests without convictions are not a career enhancer for a LEO.

LEOs talk to thousands of people daily while performing their jobs. Everyone they talk to is not a suspect.

 

[Rockwell1]

Everyone they talk to is not a suspect.

At least not in your mind

 

[Dr. Fresh]

I can't believe some of what I'm reading here.

First off, I have several family members in law enforcement, so I have no beef with them. I am not a cop hater by any stretch of the imagination.

However, you should NEVER waive any right, no matter what. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Come on people, there's a reason we have rights.

Purchasing more than one pistol within a week's time is a legal activity. As such, an investigation is completely uncalled for.

 

[model 649]

Never, EVER talk to the police(or those under that banner) without an attorney. Period. Here's an excellent couple of lectures on the subject by an attorney and then a police detective in VA. PRICELESS advice, indeed.

The atty's portion: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

The Detective's portion: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en

Watch, listen, and learn.



Josh

 

[t165]

Phatty...I'm not trying to be adversarial but if the BATFE Agent(s) try to contact scndactive by telephone (or any form of communication) at this point they will be violating the law. Once scndactive expressed his desire to seek legal counsel before answering the agents questions they have to back off. I have seen investigators served with court issued restraining orders when they do not respect miranda.

Investigators like 9x23 who work serious felony cases know what is expected from them in their jurisdictions. Judges and prosecutors want things done a certain way. The SCOTUS cannot make a prosecutor prosecute a case. The SCOTUS cannot stop a lower judge from throwing a case out of his court. All the SCOTUS can do is reverse rulings from lower courts on certain issues. And as to how 99.99999% of all cases in America will never come before the SCOTUS 9x23 and fellow investigators have to do what they have to do to make their cases airtight. It is always best to mirandize when in question that to not mirandize. Conducting a homicide investigation via phone would be terrible police work unless it was absolutely necessary. If it was an attempt to skirt miranda it could very likely cost you your case in the real world of law enforcement. I was taught that the mere prescence of a law enforcement officer constituted "custody" insofar as miranda was concerned. Ask two highly educated lawyers about miranda and you will likely receive two different answers...maybe only slightly, but different. Nothing in law is cast in stone and it is better to be safe than sorry.

 

[model 649]

Miranda? HAH! Just a WARNING. It's not a "right". Yes, they must WARN you, but that in no way "backs them off". They can continue to ask questions(and do). Watch the second lecture I posted above. About 6:54 the best explanation I've seen begins.

Josh