Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Hwang due in court today

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    127

    Hwang due in court today

    Just an FYI, Hwang from the New Haven movie theatre carry arrest due in court today.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Naugatuck, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for the reply. I almost forgot... Cant wait to see what happens

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by meezy84 View Post
    Thanks for the reply. I almost forgot... Cant wait to see what happens
    He carries, he's a lawyer...he carries, he's a lawyer torn up all over this one

    Hope he gets off for the gun charge

  4. #4
    Regular Member Ctclassic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Plainfield, CT, ,
    Posts
    172
    Ummmm......What gun charge? Do you know something we don't know? I thought he was charged with BOP and interfering?
    Last edited by Ctclassic; 09-06-2012 at 06:12 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Lenny Benedetto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    VP of CCDL, Inc., ,
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Ctclassic View Post
    Ummmm......What gun charge? Do you know something we don't know? I thought he was charged with BOP and interfering?
    You are correct....NO GUN CHARGE was filed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    15

    Next court date 9/26


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by danr71 View Post
    The wheels of justice turn slow. Looks like he is charged with BOP and Interference. We know what's probably going to happen with the BOP charge and no BOP means no Interference.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by LESGTINCT View Post
    The wheels of justice turn slow. Looks like he is charged with BOP and Interference. We know what's probably going to happen with the BOP charge and no BOP means no Interference.
    That is likely the only reason the BoP charge still exists.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    9-26-12 Court Date

    Data as of the Previous Business DayDocket Information
    Docket No:N23N-CR12-0131084-SProgram:Court:Arresting Agency:Arrest Date:Bond Amount:Bond Type:
    Activity: Awaiting Plea Next Court Date: 9/26/2012 10:00 AM
    Miscellaneous:New Haven GA 23LOCAL POLICE NEW HAVEN 8/7/2012$0 (This case only)Promise to Appear (Released From Custody)Companion:
    Defendant Information
    Last, First:Birth Year:Times on the Docket:Represented By:HWANG SUNGHO 19663030908 H.F. KEEFE
    Current Charges
    Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
    53a-167a INTERFERE WITH OFFCR/RESISTING A Misdemeanor 1 8/7/2012
    53a-181 BREACH OF PEACE 2ND DEG B Misdemeanor 1 8/7/2012

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Hamden
    Posts
    14
    Any more information on this? I tried searching but couldn't find anything. Just curious.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by H8Rain View Post
    Any more information on this? I tried searching but couldn't find anything. Just curious.
    Pending Case Detail
    Data as of the Previous Business DayDocket Information
    Docket No:N23N-CR12-0131084-SProgram:Court:Arresting Agency:Arrest Date:Bond Amount:Bond Type:
    Activity: Awaiting Plea Next Court Date: 10/17/2012 10:00 AM
    Miscellaneous:New Haven GA 23LOCAL POLICE NEW HAVEN 8/7/2012$0 (This case only)Promise to Appear (Released From Custody)Companion:
    Defendant Information
    Last, First:Birth Year:Times on the Docket:Represented By:HWANG SUNGHO 19664030908 H.F. KEEFE
    Current Charges
    Statute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
    53a-167a INTERFERE WITH OFFCR/RESISTING A Misdemeanor 1 8/7/2012
    53a-181 BREACH OF PEACE 2ND DEG B Misdemeanor 1 8/7/2012
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Naugatuck, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    6
    This case is really going to drag on.... next court date is 11/27/2012 10:00 AM

  13. #13
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by meezy84 View Post
    This case is really going to drag on.... next court date is 11/27/2012 10:00 AM
    This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

    Mr. Doutel's case that had nothing at all to prosecute lasted for 1 year and 5 months.

    http://ctcarry.com/DoutelvNorwalk/DoutelvNorwalk
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Naugatuck, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    This shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

    Mr. Doutel's case that had nothing at all to prosecute lasted for 1 year and 5 months.

    http://ctcarry.com/DoutelvNorwalk/DoutelvNorwalk
    I must admit i have never really kept up with the previous cases and have started to with Hwangs case. I had no idea it has taken long with previous cases..

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I would expect the case to last about 3-5 years....maybe the plaintiff can thank the system he helps support this delay !

  16. #16
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I would expect the case to last about 3-5 years....maybe the plaintiff can thank the system he helps support this delay !
    What plaintiff? Hwang is a defendant in a criminal case.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    What plaintiff? Hwang is a defendant in a criminal case.
    You're right ! I confused it with a civil case. Sorry.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646
    Hopefully he will be a plaintiff in his civil rights suit against NHPD NH and John DiStefano too and take them all to the damn cleaners.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    104

    Florida v. J.L.

    That whole swat & search incodent appears to be unlawful according to the supreame court. Anything that came from that search embodies fruit from the poisious tree doctorine.

    [U]Florida v. J.L.[U]

    The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the search was unreasonable. That the tip accurately identified the defendant and that the allegation of the firearm ultimately proved to be accurate was insufficient to justify the seizure. For a completely anonymous tip to justify even a "stop and frisk" of a suspect pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), it must be "suitably corroborated" with both the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject[1] and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity. The tip given in the J.L. case was only sufficient to identify the subject and nothing more, making the police reliance upon it unjustified.

    The Court further declined to create a standard "firearms exception" to the Terry doctrine, as was recognized in some Federal circuits, stating, among other things, that "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun . . ."[2]


    Facts and procedural history

    In 1995 the Miami-Dade Police received an anonymous tip that a young black male was at a bus stop wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a firearm. The police went to the bus stop and saw three young black men, one wearing a plaid shirt. Acting solely on the tip (the officers did not observe any criminal or suspicious behavior), they searched all three, and found a pistol in the pocket of the man wearing the plaid shirt.

    The trial court granted the juvenile defendant's motion to suppress evidence as fruit of an unreasonable search and seizure. However, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. J.L. appealed the decision to the Florida Supreme Court, which quashed the decision of the District Court, holding that the tip did not give sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a stop and frisk of the subject. The appellee sought certiorari review from the United States Supreme Court.

    Hwang's case seems to be a more extreame paralelle, a brief description, and the everyone in the movie theater gets searched, on an anonmous tip?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •