• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Concealed weapon charge - Leesburg

user

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Town of Leesburg PD seized a firearm "for officer safety", subsequently charging client with violation of 18.2-308; client advised the cop of the Cuccinelli opinion on the subject of "secured within a closed container", but the cop ignored what he'd said and proceeded to toss the vehicle, finding nothing. There was no arrest, so there was no "search incidental to an arrest"; client was charged by summons.

I'd like to find people who have personal knowledge of the Town PD's policy regarding seizure of firearms and their tendency to search vehicles for no good reason. And, in particular, the fact that the Town PD won't return unlawfully seized firearms unless you hire an attorney and fight with them in court about it.

Moreover, it appears to me that the town has a policy of suppression of firearm possession. That issue has arisen in different contexts, but I see this as an expression of that policy. I would very much like to speak with anyone with personal knowledge of facts supporting this hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Wow that is frustrating! The legislators write it in the law in plain English, the Attorney General writes it in an opinion in plain English, and the stupid cop ignores it all and makes up his own law.

This is the kind of LEO that needs to have their pension converted into a new home and 3 new cars for the victim here.

TFred
 
A

ArmedBarrister

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
27
Secured Compartment Case Law

Dan,

On the off chance that you have not yet seen this case, Doulgerakis v. Com was recently released by the Court of Appeals. As a matter of fact, I was able to use it just this past week. (Fresh out of the wrapper!)

I realize that this is not directly responsive to your inquiry, but I wanted to post it here so that others may benefit from it.
 
user

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
ArmedBarrister said:
Dan,

On the off chance that you have not yet seen this case, Doulgerakis v. Com was recently released by the Court of Appeals. As a matter of fact, I was able to use it just this past week. (Fresh out of the wrapper!)

I realize that this is not directly responsive to your inquiry, but I wanted to post it here so that others may benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that cite, I had seen that opinion. I've already litigated this issue in the Leesburg GDC, which is where I first did that memorandum on the subject (incorporating that same legislative history the Ct. Apps. referred to, which I found out about from one of the legislators). So I know they already know about it. The point is that they're still charging people this way, having actual notice that they shouldn't be.
 
HearseGuy

HearseGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
172
Location
VA
Ric in Richmond said:
Wow that is great case law!

Now to just get the Leesburg to read and comprehend english.....

Any idea how it might apply to a motorcycle and a saddlebag or tank bag?
Click to expand...

That is a great read!

Ric, i just asked the same about the motorcycle just yesterday as well.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?47460-Motorcycle-OC/page2

From what i can gather, and since a MC is a vehicle, and looking up the definition of secure, i think a tank bag, saddle bag, fork bag, etc are acceptable to store your firearm with out a CHP so long as they can be fastened somehow, which most all can.

Where i start thinking a little differently, specifically with the case ArmedBarrister just posted, is where it says, "Officer Jones asked if there was anything in the glove box that would cause him concern".

I would almost be inclined to say no. I mean why would a lawfully owned, properly secured fire arm cause concern? Out of sight out of mind. Give me my ticket and send me on my way. End of story. That's just my way of looking at it. Im sure others feel differently. Of course once you say, "no", i guess he goes to, "ok you mind if i take a look"? Then your screwed either way.
 
Last edited:
TFred

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
HearseGuy said:
That is a great read!

Ric, i just asked the same about the motorcycle just yesterday as well.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?47460-Motorcycle-OC/page2

From what i can gather, and since a MC is a vehicle, and looking up the definition of secure, i think a tank bag, saddle bag, fork bag, etc are acceptable to store your firearm with out a CHP so long as they can be fastened somehow, which most all can.

Where i start thinking a little differently, specifically with the case ArmedBarrister just posted, is where it says, "Officer Jones asked if there was anything in the glove box that would cause him concern".

I would almost be inclined to say no. I mean why would a lawfully owned, properly secured fire arm cause concern? Out of sight out of mind. Give me my ticket and send me on my way. End of story. Thats just my way of looking at it. Im sure others feel differently.
Click to expand...
I would, and I have already stated so in earlier posts, with no hesitation whatsoever answer "no." I know that the odds are prohibitively low that a properly holstered handgun, secured in a glove box, will ever randomly fire a round at a police officer. And I seriously doubt he would have any concern over whether my firearm has been properly cleaned and oiled, so the honest, legal, truthful and appropriate answer is absolutely "no!"

Now if you are a deranged, criminally insane cop-killer with a death wish, you may have a different answer. Each of us has to choose what is appropriate for him or herself.

TFred

ETA: I'll go one step farther. According to the well-documented double standard, we mere citizens are not allowed to lie to a LEO. If you answer anything OTHER than "no", that means that you are saying the LEO SHOULD be CONCERNED about your firearm in the glove box. Think about that. What are you in fact saying to the officer: That you are a threat to his or her safety. I would submit that unless you are that aforementioned crazy person, you just lied.
 
Last edited:
peter nap

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
HearseGuy said:
That is a great read!

Ric, i just asked the same about the motorcycle just yesterday as well.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?47460-Motorcycle-OC/page2

From what i can gather, and since a MC is a vehicle, and looking up the definition of secure, i think a tank bag, saddle bag, fork bag, etc are acceptable to store your firearm with out a CHP so long as they can be fastened somehow, which most all can.

Where i start thinking a little differently, specifically with the case ArmedBarrister just posted, is where it says, "Officer Jones asked if there was anything in the glove box that would cause him concern".

I would almost be inclined to say no. I mean why would a lawfully owned, properly secured fire arm cause concern? Out of sight out of mind. Give me my ticket and send me on my way. End of story. Thats just my way of looking at it. Im sure others feel differently.
Click to expand...

Don't want to hijack Users thread. I think this will be an important step in LEO Education.
Quick answer to your question, it's illegal to lie to a cop but there's no law that says you have to volunteer information.
 
HearseGuy

HearseGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
172
Location
VA
TFred said:
I would, and I have already stated so in earlier posts, with no hesitation whatsoever answer "no." I know that the odds are prohibitively low that a properly holstered handgun, secured in a glove box, will ever randomly fire a round at a police officer. And I seriously doubt he would have any concern over whether my firearm has been properly cleaned and oiled, so the honest, legal, truthful and appropriate answer is absolutely "no!"

Now if you are a deranged, criminally insane cop-killer with a death wish, you may have a different answer. Each of us has to choose what is appropriate for him or herself.

TFred

ETA: I'll go one step farther. According to the well-documented double standard, we mere citizens are not allowed to lie to a LEO. If you answer anything OTHER than "no", that means that you are saying the LEO SHOULD be CONCERNED about your firearm in the glove box. Think about that. What are you in fact saying to the officer: That you are a threat to his or her safety. I would submit that unless you are that aforementioned crazy person, you just lied.
Click to expand...

What a fantastic answer. Just a great way to look at it. Im glad im not the only one who finds that the logical answer!
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
HearseGuy said:
That is a great read!

Ric, i just asked the same about the motorcycle just yesterday as well.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?47460-Motorcycle-OC/page2

From what i can gather, and since a MC is a vehicle, and looking up the definition of secure, i think a tank bag, saddle bag, fork bag, etc are acceptable to store your firearm with out a CHP so long as they can be fastened somehow, which most all can.

Where i start thinking a little differently, specifically with the case ArmedBarrister just posted, is where it says, "Officer Jones asked if there was anything in the glove box that would cause him concern".

I would almost be inclined to say no. I mean why would a lawfully owned, properly secured fire arm cause concern? Out of sight out of mind. Give me my ticket and send me on my way. End of story. That's just my way of looking at it. Im sure others feel differently. Of course once you say, "no", i guess he goes to, "ok you mind if i take a look"? Then your screwed either way.
Click to expand...

I got five dollars that says its a deliberately vague question that leaves the cop lotsa lattitude.

For example, since when I am supposed to spend time figuring out what would cause my government concern? And, how am I to be liable for whether I figure it out according to their wishes? Violation of the 1A right to freedom of thought, right there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top