BrandonW
Regular Member
EDIT:Sensitive information removed
Last edited:
I would not have posted on open forum any particulars w/o the approval of an attorney.
You would seem to have an excellent case for civil action.
Initial consultation with an attorney is generally w/o charge. Look for an attorney that will accept on a contingency basis - if confirmed, your case is very strong.I definitely don't have the money for an attorney or anything like that unfortunately. I know what they did was wrong.
I definitely don't have the money for an attorney or anything like that unfortunately. I know what they did was wrong.
I definitely don't have the money for an attorney or anything like that unfortunately. I know what they did was wrong.
Initial consultation with an attorney is generally w/o charge. Look for an attorney that will accept on a contingency basis - if confirmed, your case is very strong.
Also with such confirmation i.e. redacted arrest papers, media report etc. there are those here that would help you file pro se.
In Portland, without a permit, it is against the code to have cartridges in a magazine or speed loader.
If you carry there, you should should know that.
Guess you do,,, now!
Oregon is not a Duty to notify state.
You should have kept quiet.
Too late for that now!
Never consent to a search without a warrant.
Too bad you did!
Now the search is legal.
The mag found.
The rest is history!
I really am sorry this happened, but I dont think the cop did anything wrong.
I dont think you have any case to pursue.
BTW,,, I have been a "wreckless driver":lol: since about 1980, keeps my insurance cheep.
You are lucky they dropped all the charges against you,
And dont drive in a reckless manner,,, anymore!
I'm leaning towards a possible "test case" challenging the "loaded magazine" restriction in the local ordinance that exceeds their statutory authority. It would be nice to knock that one down especially since Multnomah Co. now has the same or similar verbiage. A win on that might even put a civil rights case on track. Anyone have a knowledgeable answer on that possibility?
I don't have the advantage of reading what has happened since the OP has been deleted. However, it seems that you were arrested for having a loaded magazine and probably an otherwise unloaded firearm to go with it.
First of all, the ORS definition of a loaded firearm is simply that there are no rounds attached to the firearm, it doesn't prohibit having loaded magazines on your person. If this is the issue I'd claim that the Portland ordinance exceeds the powers allowed it by the ORS.
If you had a gun that was properly stored for transport in a vehicle (eg. unloaded and locked in the trunk) and a loaded magazine elsewhere I'd fight it by saying that the gun was not in my possession.
Is there any way that you can claim to have been on your way to or from an established gun range or were hunting or fishing? These activities will exempt you, but you have to prove that you were so engaged.
You won't get anywhere arguing that the car on a road isn't a public place, Multnomah County case law says that it is.
Since they dropped the charges I'd only pursue them if you were in fact in compliance with the ordinance.
I don't have the advantage of reading what has happened since the OP has been deleted. However, it seems that you were arrested for having a loaded magazine and probably an otherwise unloaded firearm to go with it.
First of all, the ORS definition of a loaded firearm is simply that there are no rounds attached to the firearm, it doesn't prohibit having loaded magazines on your person. If this is the issue I'd claim that the Portland ordinance exceeds the powers allowed it by the ORS.
If you had a gun that was properly stored for transport in a vehicle (eg. unloaded and locked in the trunk) and a loaded magazine elsewhere I'd fight it by saying that the gun was not in my possession.
Is there any way that you can claim to have been on your way to or from an established gun range or were hunting or fishing? These activities will exempt you, but you have to prove that you were so engaged.
You won't get anywhere arguing that the car on a road isn't a public place, Multnomah County case law says that it is.
Since they dropped the charges I'd only pursue them if you were in fact in compliance with the ordinance.
Where is this definition of "Loaded" in the ORS? I'm only finding the definitions in 166.360 which don't apply for 166.170 and 166.173 since 166.360 specifically states that its definitions are "As used in ORS 166.360 to 166.380, unless the context requires otherwise". While the 166.360 definition of loaded might be persuasive, it is not directly applicable. I think that leaves us with the "common definition", which would probably be determined to be at least very close to the 166.360 definition. However, "loaded" for the purposes of a city ordinance under 166.173 isn't defined that I can find.
I PM'd you the details Steve.
Ok, based on what I read you did violate city ordinance because case law says that the Portland ordinance applies inside of your car when on public roads. If it were me I'd thank my lucky stars and not do it again.
However, I do feel that the ordinance and all like it violate our civil rights. In fact, I am leaving now to go ask the Beaverton City Council to repeal our open carry ban.
So I was right, the charge was dropped? Figures...I agree with this, and have wondered the same thing. I will bet the charge will be dropped before a judge rules on it. That way they can keep their illegal law and no one will be the wiser. (Similar to WA state patrol, and their illegal, unmarked, traffic enforcement vehicles)
Never give consent to a search.