Arrested in Aurora, CO and need help!!

Fallschirmjäger said:

The problem y'see is that there isn't a statute in the Colorado code for "Not Respectin' an Officer's Authoritah."
The charges will be nolle prosequi'd (at least if the county solicitor is any good.)

To prove the case the state will have to prove that the numbers are unreadable. Not unreadable in a dark room with a blindfold, but unreadable and non-recoverable.

I've heard that close to 40% of arrests by the police are not prosecuted, if it's true I think the police would be aware of it, don't you? So they're either doing extremely shoddy police work, or they're making arrests they know aren't good enough but just don't care.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Or the system is full of liberals. "Oh it's ok he crushed her face in, my client promises not to do it again" Dismissed... Or the victim doesn't show up, or the witness you need doesn't show up... I try not to take offense to people's opinions, but I've gotta push back on blatant BS such as above bolded.

Click to expand...

Or that the prosecutor knows he won't win on the original charges and uses the threat of coercive violence of the state to get people to plea. So they are then guilty of a crime they didn't commit.

And that this encourages a system where the costumed street agents throw out a wide net and take everybody in hoping they have a few keepers.

davidmcbeth said:

And who makes those scanners .... have a manufacture name and model #? Interested to know.

Click to expand...

I figured someone would ask me for specifics, which I can’t provide. My source for this info came from the controversial talk radio host Steve Quayle, who for many years has talked about them. He claims that the Feds have devices that can see through 4 feet of concrete.

But I can give you some info and you can make your own conclusions.

The NYPD and many other Police Departments have openly bragged about their scanners that can look through CLOTHING:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-readies-scan-and-frisk-article-1.1245663

http://nypost.com/2013/01/28/blogger-sues-nypd-over-gun-detecting-terahertz-scanners/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7287135.stm

http://www.i4u.com/19200/thruvision-t5000-t-ray-camera-sees-through-clothes

Here is an article by Forbes.com that describes backscatter x-ray scanners that can view inside of VEHICLES. The manufacture of this particular violation of the Fourth Amendment is American Science & Engineering, in Billerica, Massachusetts:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygre...an-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/

This article discusses technology that can scan through WALLS:

http://www.whale.to/b/rifat.html

It reads, in part,

“New technology, involving low frequency microwaves and RF, has enabled devices to be built which can scan through walls and look inside peoples' bodies like X-rays. This enables security personnel to see a target in his own home and to track him throughout the house. Further to this, being able to see inside the victim's head, would allow computer controlled targeting of specific brain centres in the victim's brain, even when he was walking around the house.”

And this discusses cameras that can see through WALLS:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/camera-sees-people-in-new-light-130314.htm

This Popular Science article discusses a scanner called the TiaLinx Eagle, which the military is using to see through up to 8 inches of CONCRETE. Claiming that “these hand-held scanners can look through concrete as if it were glass“:

The article reads,

“The models deploying with the troops to Afghanistan can see up to 20 feet behind an eight-inch-thick concrete wall, and identify whether or not there are any people on the other side.”

http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...ating-sensors-afghanistan#jLx7uRmTMpEv5Q6u.99

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-02/us-troops-get-wall-penetrating-sensors-afghanistan

This article talks about scanning a person behind a one-foot-thick brick wall:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57496724-83/surveillance-device-uses-wi-fi-to-see-through-walls/

Business Insider also has reported on military scanners:

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-scanner-lets-military-see-through-concrete-walls-2011-10

And they even have DRONES that can see through walls;

http://americablog.com/2013/02/stal...indows-read-your-lips-see-through-walls.html#

And this article claims that some cops have “Robo-cop headsets” that can look through walls:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-corners-theyve-beaten-Google-release-it.html

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that DARPA has developed scanners that can see through concrete that fits inside of contact lenses.

Augustin said:

Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1) reads
"Stopping of suspect. (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions.
... The stopping shall not constitute an arrest."

Click to expand...

Taking those in reverse order, it doesn't matter what the statute says.
Court decisions have said that if the person does not feel free to leave they are under arrest.
And while they do have an ID statute, it's just like most others in that it only applies to people whom the officer has RAS of committing a crime.

Once under arrest (for refusing to produce a physical ID card) the cops had the right to search your vehicle. Any contraband found is therefore admissible against you.

Click to expand...

But since open carry (or indeed, any carry outside of circumstances where a license is required) is not RAS of a crime they had no lawful reason / authority to stop & detain him, let alone demand ID or steal & search his property.

Augustin said:

some cops have hi-tech scanners that can detect firearms inside of a dwelling or a vehicle.... there is always the chance that the cops will try to bust him again by catching him with a prohibited weapon.

Click to expand...

Again, they'd have to have RAS that he was temporarily prohibited from possessing a firearm & RAS that he was possessing a firearm, in order to get the search warrant to use their fancy scanner on his home.
For the car they can just make up another bogus charge, stop him, and do another illegal search of him & the car.

"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. U.S.

"Stopping a car for no other reason than to check the license and registration was unreasonable under the 4th amendment."
Delaware v. Prouse (1979)

"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
St. John v. McColley (2009)

The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. Ubiles (3rd Cir. 2000)

The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
United States v. King (10th Cir. 1993)

MKEgal said:

Taking those in reverse order, it doesn't matter what the statute says.
Court decisions have said that if the person does not feel free to leave they are under arrest.
And while they do have an ID statute, it's just like most others in that it only applies to people whom the officer has RAS of committing a crime.

But since open carry (or indeed, any carry outside of circumstances where a license is required) is not RAS of a crime they had no lawful reason / authority to stop & detain him, let alone demand ID or steal & search his property.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you wrote, with one small exception.

The poster who started this thread wasn't stopped by the cops for open carry. He was found sitting in his vehicle for a prolonged period which the cop interpeted as suspicious activity. The poster wrote that the cop said it looked like he was "casing" a store. Thus the cop has the required RAS to both detain the man and to demand ID.

This case arose when the cop observed the man engaging in conduct which appeared to him to be the casing of a store for a likely armed robbery, or perhaps stalking an ex-girlfriend, or whatever. Upon approaching the man, and stating his RAS, and demanding ID, the officer was refused the identification. The officer then arrested the man for refusing ID, and searched his vehicle, and found a firearm with an altered serial number, and charged him with (9.32.030) possessing a defaced firearm and (9.32.040) defacing a firearm.

I'm guessing the RAS will be determined as legal. While it is not illegal to simply sit in your parked vehicle, the cop will claim the "totality of the circumstances" (parked in a suspicious location, being there for a prolonged period of time, acting cagey when questioned, refusing to produce ID, etc.) justified the detention/arrest. Keep in mind that when the cop approached the vehicle and ask the man what he was doing, this was only a mere CONTACT. The man wasn't detained/arrested until he refused ID and was handcuffed.

Hopefully a good attorney will be able to get the evidence thrown out, claiming the search was illegal, but I doubt it.

IMO, the man's best bet will be to cop a plea to one of the two charges with a deferred sentence. In order for a a defendant to get a deffered sentence he/she must plead guilty to at least one of the crimes they are accused of. In other words, the promise of a deferred sentence is often traded in exchange for a guilty plea in plea bargains. Deferred sentences are usually only given to first time offenders, or to those who have committed relatively minor crimes, or for those cases with weak evidence. If the defendant fulfills the stipulations surrounding the deferred sentence, the case is dismissed and the incident is cleared from their record. If the defendant violates probation, he or she must serve the full sentence immediately.