The OP's friend didn't provide the firearm to the felon who is his stepson that was living with him. The felon stolen the weapon from this stepdad. I hope the owner filed charges against the thief after he found out it was stolen.
Pistol confiscated and police will not return it?
- Thread starter Ralph III
- Start date
- Status
While I'm not a lawyer, don't the police have to get a warrant to obtain the needed information from the both the ISP and the Forum? Please note I'm hope no one is doing actually doing illegal. However some local and State police departments have done and still engaged in Entrapment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
RickD427
Member
Sir,
Please read the Wikipedia article that you posted. There's absolutely nothing in this thread that even remotely suggests the involved law enforcement agency engaged in "Entrapment", nor is legal defense of "Entrapment" significantly related to the issue of whether a warrant is needed to access ISP or Forum records.
If the ISP or Forum is unwilling to release the records, then law enforcement generally needs either a warrant or subpoena (depending on the legal process being used) in order to access the records.
Last edited:
I have read the article before, but not recently.
RickD427
Member
You have no way of knowing that (and for the record, neither do I). The issue of whether the OP's friend "provided" the firearm to the stepson, is going to depend on the manner in which it was stored, and the how the OP managed his property with regard to the stepson. With regard to the issue of whether the stepson "stole" the firearm, the same issues are going to be involved, and there is also a need to consider the elements of the crime of "theft." Here is how Alabama defines that crime:
A person commits the crime of theft of property if he or she:
(1) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
(2) Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
(3) Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen; or
(4) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over any donated item left on the property of a charitable organization or in a drop box or trailer, or within 30 feet of a drop box or trailer, belonging to a charitable organization.
(1) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
(2) Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
(3) Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen; or
(4) Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over any donated item left on the property of a charitable organization or in a drop box or trailer, or within 30 feet of a drop box or trailer, belonging to a charitable organization.
Only (1) and (2) are potentially involved here. Both require a showing of "intent to deprive the owner of his or her property." If the intent of the stepson was only to shoot the firearm, and then return it to it's place of storage, then there is no theft.
I clearly lack enough information to make a clear assessment of this case. Do you have any greater knowledge of the facts, beyond what has been posted?
RickD427
Member
Groovy, So how is it related to this discussion?
That may or may not be provable. Based on what little we know so far, what probably is provable is that he had a known felon living in the home and his firearms were not secured against the felon accessing them.
And if a warrant is needed under the circumstances (which it might be), I doubt that law enforcement will have much difficulty getting one. And I am a lawyer/
I will quit posting such things since an actual expert on such legal issues is speaking.
Ed Ames
Member
While I agree on general principles, I’m not sure this would be relevant to anyone.
Let’s say law enforcement identifies poster, and from there identifies the coworker. Where does that lead them? To a case about which they already know more than the poster. Or is the theory that the poster might be forced to be a witness against the coworker? To say what? “Yeah my coworker said that you have his firearm in evidence and he wants it back.” They know.
In other words you have no clue how law or investigation works.
Social media posts can be very useful in a number of ways, including --
- Identifying possible witnesses.
Law enforcement might have no idea that the OP exists or that the coworker discussed the gun matter with him. They know now, if they find this thread (or the thread the OP started on TFL).
And LE might be very interested in what the coworker said to the OP. The coworker might have told a different story to LE. But in any case, any possible witness who could either corroborate or impeach statements made by a person of interest can be useful.
- And if anything in the OP's post is inconsistent with the story the coworker told the cops, the cops will want to know.
- And while it doesn't look like an issue here, social media posts can help provide evidence of motive, intent, or state of mind -- any of which can be important in a criminal prosecution.
So it doesn't appear that you have anything to contribute to this discussion.
I'm be concerned about some criminal reading this thread thinking a possible target that has something stealing... I'm not saying that the Users on this Forum would do such a thing, but we do have lurkers here.
Ed Ames
Member
You can safely bet that every message posted to THR is being captured by multiple parties, none of which are your friends.
Doxing is real, and far easier than most people think. I don’t know about THR specifically, but people have definitely been targeted due to social media posts.
RickD427
Member
A Search Warrant is not a big deal. They're quite easy to get, so long as there is the required "Probable Cause." Judges really appreciate it when cops go to the effort to get a warrant rather then rely on some exception to the warrant requirement. Everywhere that I've worked, I've always had judges offer to be available 24/7 to review warrant applications. They value the Fourth Amendment and tend to live by it. I fondly remember on judge who lived in Manhattan Beach. On a couple of occasions, I had to seek him out at 0200 in the morning to review an emergency warrant. He'd always meet me at the door and hand me a big cup of coffee while he went over my application and affidavit. People like that are awesome because they breathe life into the Constitution.
A search Warrant can be the LEO's "Best Friend." In simple terms, a search done with a warrant is presumed lawful. A search done without a warrant is presumed unlawful (but there are a ton of exceptions, and the burden is on the officer to prove the exception). Think of searches as being graded on a continuum of being "Really Good - Probably Good - Ho Hum (the legal "grey area")- Probably Bad - Really Bad."
If I do a search with a warrant, the defense attorney has to show that my search is Probably Bad, or Really Bad in order to get the evidence tossed out of court.
If I do the same search without a warrant, the prosecutor has to show that my search was Probably Good, or Really Good, in order for the evidence to be admitted into court.
In sum, by taking the time to get a warrant, I get ownership of the legal "Grey Area." I save the prosecutor a headache, and I create a headache for the defense attorney.
The grounds been covered. The thread is starting to drift off topic. And the OP hasn’t logged on since he started this thread.
Say “Good night,” Gracie.
Say “Good night,” Gracie.
- Status
