Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Local incident news article question

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Local incident news article question

    LINK

    Short version: Guy violates stalking order (is that different than a restraining order?) by going to ex-girlfriends house, yelling at her, and driving through her yard, gets arrested back at his home (second-degree criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, stalking order violation, violation of a release agreement and two counts of harassment).

    I don't have any problem with the arrest, but what got my attention is the lead off to the article is:
    "Clatsop County Sheriff’s deputies removed 17 weapons from the home of a man who violated a stalking order Friday night."
    Why lead with this when the firearms (apparently) were not used or a part of the incident that got the guy arrested?

    Also, why weren't they seized at the time the "stalking order" was given as part of the court order?

    But what really confuses me is towards the end of the article:
    "Another woman, who lives with Killion, requested his 17 weapons be removed from the home for safe keeping,"
    Not court ordered, not for evidence, not as part of the bail agreement, but removed due to the request a person living with the guy.
    How can a room-mate / live-in GF / or even a wife just give a guy's personal property over to law enforcement? (ok, maybe the wife if community property).
    If asked, I'm sure law enforcement would say it's a safety issue, but if the guy is behind bars... what safety issue? Taking them as part of the bail agreement when he's released I can see, then he's voluntarily giving them over.

    Can she legally give the firearms to the LEOs? And can the LEOs legally take them into "safe keeping" when they are not part of the crime or a court order (bail or RO agreement)?

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 09-16-2013 at 03:14 PM.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Sega View Post
    LINK

    Short version: Guy violates stalking order (is that different than a restraining order?) by going to ex-girlfriends house, yelling at her, and driving through her yard, gets arrested back at his home (second-degree criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, stalking order violation, violation of a release agreement and two counts of harassment).

    I don't have any problem with the arrest, but what got my attention is the lead off to the article is:

    Why lead with this when the firearms (apparently) were not used or a part of the incident that got the guy arrested?

    Also, why weren't they seized at the time the "stalking order" was given as part of the court order?

    But what really confuses me is towards the end of the article:

    Not court ordered, not for evidence, not as part of the bail agreement, but removed due to the request a person living with the guy.
    How can a room-mate / live-in GF / or even a wife just give a guy's personal property over to law enforcement? (ok, maybe the wife if community property).
    If asked, I'm sure law enforcement would say it's a safety issue, but if the guy is behind bars... what safety issue? Taking them as part of the bail agreement when he's released I can see, then he's voluntarily giving them over.

    Can she legally give the firearms to the LEOs? And can the LEOs legally take them into "safe keeping" when they are not part of the crime or a court order (bail or RO agreement)?

    Thoughts?
    You gotta read the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). Generally speaking, many DV related orders (not sure if this "stalking order") prohibit a person from carrying or possessing a firearm while the order is in effect. THe problem with articles like this is the they don't get into the details and the details are everything. It might have been pursuant to the order (they may not have known of those firearms at the time the order was served). It might not be. In my state, restraining orders are only pursuant to divorce/seperation proceedings. Protection Orders are generally DV related. No contact orders are issued upon arrest for DV crime. EX parte anti-harassment orders cover most non DV situations.

    There is no way , based upon this article to know under which justification the guns were seized. Based on the crimes the guy was arrested for, the cops could take the guns for safekeeping and then he would have to apply to get them back. Especially when it comes to DV related offenses like this and where an order is in effect, guns can often be taken. But again, the devil is in the details. Depending on the guy exhibiting mental issues and the crime he committed, orders in effect - there are a # of ways they can be taken for "safekeeping". The cops can do it proactively, and the judge can - based on new evidence in the crime just arrested for - modify the order to justify their being kept further or released back to him
    Last edited by PALO; 09-16-2013 at 10:21 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    You gotta read the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act). Generally speaking, many DV related orders (not sure if this "stalking order") prohibit a person from carrying or possessing a firearm while the order is in effect. THe problem with articles like this is the they don't get into the details and the details are everything. It might have been pursuant to the order (they may not have known of those firearms at the time the order was served). It might not be. In my state, restraining orders are only pursuant to divorce/seperation proceedings. Protection Orders are generally DV related. No contact orders are issued upon arrest for DV crime. EX parte anti-harassment orders cover most non DV situations.

    There is no way , based upon this article to know under which justification the guns were seized. Based on the crimes the guy was arrested for, the cops could take the guns for safekeeping and then he would have to apply to get them back. Especially when it comes to DV related offenses like this and where an order is in effect, guns can often be taken. But again, the devil is in the details. Depending on the guy exhibiting mental issues and the crime he committed, orders in effect - there are a # of ways they can be taken for "safekeeping". The cops can do it proactively, and the judge can - based on new evidence in the crime just arrested for - modify the order to justify their being kept further or released back to him
    I don't see how the crime the arrested him for has any relevance to them seizing the weapons. He either had a court order prohibiting from having them (as part of the stalking order) or they would need a search warrant to seize any weapons in the home. Haven't researched it specifically, haven't heard of the story before, but constitutional guidelines are fairly generic. You have to have a court order (stalking or search) in order to seize weapons from the home.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

Posting Permissions

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