The comments continue to lead me to believe that most of the posters do not have any law enforcement experience.
“BSA1, you open your department to a civil suit for keeping somebody's property from them without charging them for something involving said property. “
So what’s your point? Anybody can be sued by anybody for most anything. And if you want to play legal games what is to say the weapon(s) were not confiscated pending results of a criminal investigation. And the investigation may well take time…say several days at least. There is nothing that states an arrest can’t be made later after a warrant has been issued.
“if youve been reprimanded in anyway for this by your department in the past you now open yourself up civily and no longer have qualified immunity.”
Huh???
“if you stop a car because you think a guy is drunk driving, find out he is not, write him a ticket for failure to maintain lane, then tow his car because he might get drunk and drive later is the same thing as you mediating a dispute, giving advise or a warning as the only "enforcement action" and keeping the firearms against the wishes of the parties involved until you want them to have them.”
Well first of all it is called “Driving While Impaired” or “Driving Under The Influence.” This includes drugs other than alcohol. The fact that someone blows under the legal limit for alcohol still doesn’t mean the person isn’t too impaired to safely operate a motor vehicle. A arrest can still be made based on the officer’s observations of the persons driving and inability to pass a field sobriety test.
People do things they often later regret when emotions are running high. Perhaps you have never experienced this personally or seen it happen. Experienced officers learn there are often more ways than one to resolve disputes and keep things from blowing up later.
“Read all of his posts. He referred to a domestic or some type of argument.
Its an apples to apples taking somebody's property just because you think they might do something later. Thats a 4th amndt violation.”
Some things are just common sense. Domestic arguments, disputes where alcohol is involved can and all too often lead to physical violence. Let me be sure I understand your point:
If I disarm and withhold immediately returning the parties weapons to them I am violating their 4th Amendment rights. Actually this is closer to being a violation of the 5th Amendment which states;
“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
So to avoid your concern that their 4th Amendment rights maybe be violated I should return their weapons before leaving even though in my experience I know that strong emotions still exist. Under your concept moving a can of gasoline that is too close to a fire is illegal because it isn’t my property. After all although it has proven that gasoline will catch fire if it is too close to a open flame or spark it doesn’t happen every time so why take preventative action?
And as I previously pointed out the weapon(s) were confiscated pending results of a criminal investigation. And the investigation may well take time…say several days at least. There is nothing that states an arrest can’t be made later after a warrant has been issued.
“does this help you?”
Absolutely and not just me but the parties involved by avoiding death or injury or more serious criminal charges. It avoids staying out of service writing reports. It benefits the community by allowing resources to be free to handle other calls rather than having officers tied up on conducting a investigation. The law does not replace common sense and judgment.
