LESGTINCT
Regular Member
Just an FYI, Hwang from the New Haven movie theatre carry arrest due in court today.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Hwang due in court today
- Thread starter LESGTINCT
- Start date
meezy84
New member
Thanks for the reply. I almost forgot... Cant wait to see what happens
davidmcbeth
Banned
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
Ctclassic
Regular Member
Ummmm......What gun charge? Do you know something we don't know? I thought he was charged with BOP and interfering?
Last edited:
Lenny Benedetto
Regular Member
You are correct....NO GUN CHARGE was filed.
Next court date 9/26
I guess this will drag on...
http://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/Ca...ding&Key=aa277a93-f5d6-4542-b13c-991ecf30d9a2
I guess this will drag on...
http://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/Ca...ding&Key=aa277a93-f5d6-4542-b13c-991ecf30d9a2
LESGTINCT
Regular Member
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.
Rich B
Regular Member
That is likely the only reason the BoP charge still exists.
Good Citizen
Regular Member
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
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
Rich B
Regular Member
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
meezy84
New member
This case is really going to drag on.... next court date is 11/27/2012 10:00 AM
Rich B
Regular Member
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
meezy84
New member
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..
davidmcbeth
Banned
I would expect the case to last about 3-5 years....maybe the plaintiff can thank the system he helps support this delay !
Rich B
Regular Member
What plaintiff? Hwang is a defendant in a criminal case.
davidmcbeth
Banned
You're right ! I confused it with a civil case. Sorry.
GoldCoaster
Regular Member
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.
Good Citizen
Regular Member
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.
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?
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.
Florida v. J.L.
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.
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?