Traffic harrassment - all because he had a pistol! ATF involved!

[DMF]

Mr. Gwinn,

I wasn't trolling. Coronach (another mod) hit the nail on the head with this post:

No, the thread starter is making fun of the thread-titling method used by some other members of this board.

Mike

PS 'ATF involved.' Haw!

I find it interesting that outrageous thread titles are tolerated when critical of the police, in other circumstances, but you feel it's trolling in this circumstance. Especially odd, since I've been quite vocal in my defense of LEOs in my posts here on the THR. Any regular would know that I am being sarcastic with the thread title.

Had this person in this news story been a member of a militia group, many here would be calling this harrassment. I also find it ironic that even though many THR members have stated that felons, once released, should be able to have firearms. However, here they are saying it's a good bust, and that he deserves to go back to jail. They should all realize that this guy is going to go down for a violation of 19USC922(g), as prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and it is the ATF along with the AUSA of the district that will run this case.

So it's not trolling, it's just shining the light on the conflicting views of some, not all, members of the board.

Besides I was following the stated mission of the L&P forum:

. . . debate with allies and opponents. . .

 

[WYO]

I don’t think that there is enough information given to judge the validity of the search. Probable cause to arrest is not the same as probable cause to search. The stop may have been valid as a result of the observed traffic violation. Another charge may have been properly made because of the false ID. However, that doesn’t necessarily justify the search. In order to search the vehicle, there has to be a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement. Some exceptions that may be applicable here are a search of the passenger compartment incident to a lawful custodial arrest of an occupant of a vehicle (as opposed to the mere issuance of a citation) or a search justified on an independent finding of probable cause to believe that there was evidence of a crime or contraband within the vehicle. Was the person under actual custodial arrest at the time of the search, or just under investigative detention? If not under custodial arrest, a separate justification based upon probable cause (which also may be supported by other exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as things in plain view that gave rise to probable cause) or another exception to the warrant requirement must be present. Some of the factors, such as nervousness or lack of identification could play into a drug PC type analysis, but that’s pretty thin by itself. This article is missing A LOT of information that surely came out in the hearing, and the chronology of events (such as when the police learned of the intent to kill the officer), which is critical, is not clear. You can’t judge a search by whether the result was good or bad.

 

[DMF]

You can’t judge a search by whether the result was good or bad.

I hope everyone remembers that the next time they bash the cops who serve a valid warrant signed by a judge, based on probable cause that doesn't turn up anything.

 

[WYO]

That was my point, actually.

 

[tcdrennen]

Whether all felons should be banned from possessing firearms for life is certainly a subject worthy of discussion, especially since (particularly here in Kalifornistan) so many "crimes" which are NEITHER malum per se NOR injurious to anyone are now felonies (or my favorite, "wobblers" that can be EITHER misdemeanors OR felonies and no-one knows which until the sentence is confirmed )

HOWEVER: since the law now, both state and federal, is explicit in barring ALL convicted felons from possessing firearms (unless relieved of the prohibition by a court), AND the case law is well established that merely being in the accessible and knowing presence of contraband constitutes constructive possession, any arrest and prosecution on that charge is absolutely justifed and correct.

Kudos to an alert and thorough Iowa state trooper.

 

[FMarlon]

I'd say it's a good stop.

Here is an example of a bad stop here in Iowa.

3 am. Taking my then associate pastor home from the hospital where his wife has just given birth to their second daughter. Going the speed limit. Kinda tired, but staying awake from sheer caffiene.

Then lights and a woo woo sound! He came flying at me like a bat out of hell! Seriously guys I had just checked my rear view mirror and looked forward and then he was there!

So I stopped. Naturally. I have nothing to hide. Got license, registration, and insurance card out of the visor.

Officer friendly comes to my windo and asks why my passenger dosent have his seatbelt on. I look at him. He has had it on since we left the hospital. the officer asks this after he tells my passenger to give him some ID. You know, to get to the wallet in the back pocket.

I ask him why I was stopped, figuring there might have been reports of something going on and I like to be on the lookout and try to help our officers as much as possible.(even tho they never, I mean never say thank you)

I am informed that my license plate lights are out. Hmm ok it is possible. I am aslked to step out of the car and come around the back of the car. the usual Terry frisk (sad when we get used to such things). Asked if I have any weapons on me. I have a swiss army knife in my right front pocket, and tell him so.

Then he tells me to stay there. Goes and gets the ID from my passenger. Calls them in and while waiting for an answer starts asking me questions. No problem, he is wanting to know if I have been drinking (some police in my family, so I know some of their tricks).

Then the report comes back that we are both clean and clear. Not good enough for this officer. I am asked if I have anything to hide in the car. Of course I dont. I consent to a search (not knowing what I know now).

I sometimes use a cane as I have a bad leg that acts up in inclement weather. It is along the floor on the driver side. he sees it and asks why I have a "Club" in my car. I tell him it is a cane. I can tell he dosent beleieve me.

Then he goes and dumps out my garbage can that I use in my car to help keep it tidy(yes I am obsessive). All over my drivers seat. Proceeds to root through and finds crumpled up tin foil. Calls to me at the rear of the car and asks what was in the tin foil. Hmmm, I think, oh yeah my mom made brownies! I tell him it was brownies. He looks at it and says "Yup looks like chocolate" and throws it back on my seat.

Then I am told to go home. Officer friendly gets in his car and waits for me to go.

Come to find out when we get back to the hospital that the officer who pulled me over dated my Associate Pastors' wife for a short time before they were married and he has been a jerk to her husband ever since, finding any reason to harass him and those with him.

See, not all cops are bad, some are terrible.

Seriously, though I have never been treated quite so much like a criminal in my life except when getting grilled about some vandalism that happened in my neighborhood as a kid.

I have nothing against cops, just against jerks.

I will end with this. I know 7 cops personally. I can honestly say that there are no finer people than these officers. I would trust my life with them any day of the week.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Powderman]

Is this PC?

Not to that point yet. However, the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion at that point.

When the guy lied about his name, that's even more reasonable suspicion.

NVOL (No Valid Operator's License) is, in most jurisdictions, a mandatory court appearance. This means arrest time.

The search incident to arrest covers the area the respondent was allowed to look in to "find" his license. Lawful search--see Chimel v. California , 395 US 752. (Zone of immediate control)

Oops! We have a winner! Felon in possession of a firearm!

Sounds like a good bust. You GO, Iowa State Troopers!

And then, what was said in the back seat......

Does anyone STILL think being a cop is easy?

 

[WYO]

FMarlon, if you had a broken tail light, and if that is a violation, then the stop was good. The pat down frisk was bad unless he had articulable facts to think that you had a weapon or you consented. The search of the interior of the vehicle was good because you consented. The manners and motivation may not have been good, but that is not a legal point. Bad community relations, yes, but illegal, no.

Powderman, the search incident to arrest covers the entire passenger compartment of a vehicle under prevailing 4th Amendment interpretations, and you are not limited to a Chimel search, which did not involve a vehicle. However, the person must be under custodial arrest. The fact that a crime may or may not have been "arrestable" is not the point. I would say this search is definitely good if the person actually had been placed under custodial arrest prior to the search (unless applicable state law provides more freedoms). If you are not dealing with an arrest, then the Chimel "wingspan" type analysis may be persuasive under a Terry "pat down" analysis if the person is believed to be going for a weapon. Reasonable suspicion does not justify a search beyond the limited Terry pat down, and then only if the officer can articulate why he believed a weapon may have been present under the circumstances. The fact that an officer allows someone to search for a driver's license is not a justification for a nonconsenual search without additional articulable facts as to why a weapon may have been present. In fact, under the chronology of the article, it appears that the officer allowed the guy to search for a license without doing a prior "pat down" of the rear seat, and that the firearm was discovered as a result of the later search. I still think we need more info.

 

[PBIR]

I also find it ironic that even though many THR members have stated that felons, once released, should be able to have firearms. However, here they are saying it's a good bust, and that he deserves to go back to jail. They should all realize that this guy is going to go down for a violation of 19USC922(g), as prohibited person in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and it is the ATF along with the AUSA of the district that will run this case.

Can't speak for anyone else, but my views don't conflict one iota. I think felons should be allowed to own firearms IF they have had their civil rights restored. If they have not, they are breaking the law and I for one have never advocated that in this situation.

 

[DMF]

PBIR, that's why I said "many", not all, or even most, but "many."

Reference these threads:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92099&highlight=18USC922

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83191&highlight=18USC922

. . . and in this link: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77426&highlight=felon
We see from that poll it's about 1/3 of THR members that think felons should be allowed to have firearms - as the question says "Should a person convicted of a violent felony be allowed to own firearms after they have served their prison term/ payed the fines?" No mention of having rights restored in accordance with the existing procedures of the federal statutes, or many state laws, just up or down on whether felons should get guns.

 

[PBIR]

rgr that

 

[Standing Wolf]

Police dogs were allowed to step on Muslim writings and books, she said.

Why, how very sad. Did I say that with sufficient sincerity?

 

[cordex]

DMF,
Not to drag this thread further off topic, but ...
Generally those on this board who suggest that "felons" (some or all) should be allowed to own guns qualify that statement with one of the following:
1. There are too many silly felonies. You can get charged with a felony for driving through a flock of birds or having a single bit of useless metal if it's considered by our betters to be a "machine gun" (ignore the fact that without a rifle to put it in, it's absolutely useless), or any number of other non-harmful things.
2. If someone is seriously a threat, why are they let out of prison in the first place? If you can't trust someone to choose whether or not to own a gun, how can you trust them with the multitude of other deadly weapons and chemicals we live with every day? Kind of short sighted, ain't it?

 

[DMF]

Heard all that before and those arguments have all been hashed out thoroughly on the links I provided. Both sides of the debate are presented there. I see no reason to have the same debate all over again, it would just be a waste of bandwidth.

 

[sturmruger]

I used to live in IA and know some of the laws on transporting firearms. This guy broke more laws then I can even count. Loaded gun in the car, conspiracy to commit murder, and a bunch of other crimes. This sounds like a good stop to me. He sounds like a wack job to me.