NC - Man Surrenders Gun to Police After Accident, Can't Get it Back!

[lt522]

The man seems to have a good case for civil rights violations. Not sure about the search and seizure though as he handed it over which was smart because all hospitals have the no weapons signs that would violate his cc. As for the remark about officer safety that has no bearing on this , but officers want to go home to their families just as you do so until you walk in their shoes let it be.

 

[Deanimator]

but officers want to go home to their families just as you do so until you walk in their shoes let it be

Some people view "officer safety" as a rootkit for the Bill of Rights. It's NOT.

 

[highorder]

officers want to go home to their families

Then they should be doing data entry in a cube somewhere.

"Officer safety" as it is usually articulated is NOT a legitimate reason to deprive anyone of their Rights.

Aside from that, this looks like a good 4th amendment case, if it gets that far.

 

[fguffey]

A bullet without the case could prove the barrel was linked to a crime, the case could prove the firing pin was linked to a crime, the complete slide including the barrel, firing pin and ejector could be traced to a crime with a bullet and or case even both but part kits are available from destroyed receivers, the receivers were destroyed because of involvement in some type of a crime or the person in possession to the weapon was involved in a crime, I am sure ballistics test were run first but what are the chances someone would run another ballistic test and conclude there are two barrels that produce the same identical markings on a bullet, or the weapon was not destroyed or there are two pistols that produce the same ballistic markings.

Then there is this auction on Gun Broker.

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=138557045

What are the chances the test results would be handled as though the test and conclusion would be the same as if CSI Las Vegas was involved.

 

[Old Fuff]

but officers want to go home to their families just as you do so until you walk in their shoes let it be.

Here we have a case where an individual with no criminal record and a license to carry concealed weapons, voluntarily turns his handgun over to a police office because he knows that having it at a hospital is prohibited.

Just where is any threat to the police presented? I believe that we all want our law enforcement officers to be safe, and to go home in one piece after a shift is over, but when there is no threat to the officer’s safety you can’t reasonably hold that up as an issue. :banghead:

 

[sohcgt2]

George Boggs thought he was doing police a favor last week when he handed over the firearm he kept in his car after he was in a wreck.

Boggs has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and he wanted his handgun secured while he went to the hospital, he said. The permit requires him to notify police of his weapon.

His mistake was voluntarily giving the gun to police or taking an ambulance ride to the hospital. If he gave the gun to police for security reasons knowing it was not allowed in the hospital perhaps he should have waited for transportation to the hospital via friend or family. Regardless of the method by which the gun came to the police they are clearly violating his rights by testing the firearm and creating a ballistic record. Unfortunately for him I doubt if he has recourse as they claim to return clean guns and confiscate those used in crimes. It does seem stupid on the part of the PD and DA however, since it is an illegal search, the result of ballistic testing would be inadmissible in court.

 

[KyJim]

It does seem stupid on the part of the PD and DA however, since it is an illegal search, the result of ballistic testing would be inadmissible in court.

In this case, you're right. But I bet the rest of the guns tested were all seized legally after arrest, etc. in which case there's not problem with testing them.

 

[atomd]

I have an idea....if we arrest EVERYONE, I'd bet we could put a whole bunch of criminals behind bars! Why haven't they thought of that? It's brilliant!

 

[zxcvbob]

It's a Taurus, it has no resale value. Seriously, he should fight it as a 4th Amendment case, not that "never been fired" thing.

 

[akodo]

Nice try, you're on to something, but it was probably closer to a "community caretaker function". It wasn't seized (initially), but it is being "searched" in a manner when they take a ballistic sample.

while it is true that when police take control of something in a 'caretaker function' they gain certain rights to inspect and search it (if a car is towed because it was parked in front of a fire hydrant the main vehicle compartment can be searched, but I am unsure if a locked trunk could be) that does not apply here, because once the person arrives to relieve the police of their 'caretaker function' keeping the item after that becomes a seizure.

So, using the car analogy, if it was a suspected drug dealer's car that was towed to the impound lot, and the police were meaning to search it but hadn't gotten around to it yet, and the car owner shows up with the money to pay the fine and towing fee etc etc, the police/impound lot could not say "Sorry, while you have done everything legally required to get your car back, we haven't had a chance to search it yet, so you can't get it back"

That just doesn't fly.

Same here. Custodial Care stops as soon as the owner is ready and legally able to retake control.

 

[Cosmoline]

"We have to be consistent with our policy,"

The officer needs to remember what he swore an OATH to uphold! It sure as heck wasn't "our policy"

officers want to go home to their families just as you do so until you walk in their shoes let it be.

Let what be? A violation of fundamental rights? The Constitution matters more than our lives--something a great many in this Country have forgotten.

 

[beatcop]

-This thread has nothing to do with officer safety at all...not even close to relevant.
-Old Fuff, thanks for the re-read!

 

[scotthsi]

This thread has nothing to do with officer safety at all...not even close to relevant.

Yes, it is. It's a blanket statement people throw out ALL the time (officer safety/as long as he goes home safe, blah blah) to justify any and EVERY thing a cop or police force does no matter how blatantly it may violate the peons' (us) rights. As in taking the OP's firearm and refusing to give it back illegally AFTER it was LEGALLY surrendered. What do you not understand?

 

[rhinoh]

The problems getting the gun back reminds me-
There was a case a year or so back in NC where a guy had his rifle confiscated during a stop.*
He was told he could get it back when he provided proof of ownership.
WTH?
I can't provide proof of ownership on many of my guns or for that matter 99% of my stuff period.
Everything I have was acquired legally of course, I'm just not a big record keeper...I'm always losing receipts etc particularly when I never saw the need to retain if after say a warranty period.
Seems to me the burden of proof it isn't your legally acquired property should be on law enforcement shoulders, not mine to prove it isn't stolen.

IIRC the case involved a dispute (I'm thinking he wasn't in the dispute but was nearby) that got violent and the subject fired his AK (IIRC) into the ground to stop the dispute. Later he was tracked down and the weapon seized in a traffic stop. IIRC he wasn't charged for firing into the ground but he was told to provide proof of ownership to get his weapon back. If anyone has more details on this story and how it turned out I'd love to hear more. It was somewhere in western NC, an area I frequent and own property in.
We don't need to get into whether what he did was justified, point being, again IIRC, he wasn't charged but his weapon was seized pending the proof of ownership thing.

Gee I hate to quote myself but am surprised no one has commented on this other NC abuse

 

[beatcop]

Yes, it is. It's a blanket statement people throw out ALL the time (officer safety/as long as he goes home safe, blah blah) to justify any and EVERY thing a cop or police force does no matter how blatantly it may violate the peons' (us) rights. As in taking the OP's firearm and refusing to give it back illegally AFTER it was LEGALLY surrendered. What do you not understand?

I'm not sure what context you've been hearing this applied to, but in my experience this phrase most often refers to the actions an officer takes during a "Terry" type encounter.

I really can't see how a pistol in the evidence room could be stretched into "officer safety". The real issues with the seizure seem to have been brought out in previous posts. It isn't one of the recognized exceptions to warrantless search requirements...that's why I don't feel it's relevant.

 

[Erik]

The issue is three part, being reasonableness related:

(1) The reasonableness of the the policy.
(2) The reasonableness of how it was applied in this instance.
(3) The reasonableness of the decision to receive results prior to the release of the firearm.

If pressed, I'd wager the weakness, should any be found, will be found in the second or third parts; and the third part in particular.