Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: ok legal researchers

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    ok legal researchers

    I have a real life situation I'm working on, and a question.

    Land owner has a shooting range.
    Land owner has told hunt club to keep out.
    Hunt club tells members they are going to run landowner out of town.

    Hunt club calls LEO also a hunt club member land owner shot their dog. No reason to think the land owner did it except they heard shots (it was Saturday during hunting season and there was shooting everywhere).

    Pet LEO goes to land owners house and asks if he was shooting. Land owner says yes he was shooting at his range. No mention of a dog.

    LEO says he wants a written statement saying he was shooting which landowner wrote, but wouldn't sign until LEO tells him why he wants it.

    At what point does LEO need to advise landowner he has the right to remain silent....and no, it wasn't me. And...no, the land owner didn't shoot the dog if indeed a dog was shot.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    27
    Generally speaking, law enforcement is only required to notify an individual of the right to remain silent in the context of traditional Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are only required if the individual is subject to a "custodial interrogation." Different cases use different words. The short version is that the individual must be 1) arrested and 2) subject to some form of questioning or conversation that will illicit a response. (Questions about basic identifying information are exempted (e.g., name, date of birth, social security, etc.).)

    As for whether someone is actually under arrest for Miranda purposes, believe it or not, it is not always clear. What is clear, from your fact pattern, is that this individual is most certainly not under arrest or in custody. Miranda warnings are not applicable here.

    It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway: He should stop talking to the police.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmedBarrister View Post
    Generally speaking, law enforcement is only required to notify an individual of the right to remain silent in the context of traditional Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are only required if the individual is subject to a "custodial interrogation." Different cases use different words. The short version is that the individual must be 1) arrested and 2) subject to some form of questioning or conversation that will illicit a response. (Questions about basic identifying information are exempted (e.g., name, date of birth, social security, etc.).)

    As for whether someone is actually under arrest for Miranda purposes, believe it or not, it is not always clear. What is clear, from your fact pattern, is that this individual is most certainly not under arrest or in custody. Miranda warnings are not applicable here.

    It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway: He should stop talking to the police.
    What about demanding a written statement and yes, I told them never talk to the cops and gave them Users letter

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmedBarrister View Post
    Generally speaking, law enforcement is only required to notify an individual of the right to remain silent in the context of traditional Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are only required if the individual is subject to a "custodial interrogation." Different cases use different words. The short version is that the individual must be 1) arrested and 2) subject to some form of questioning or conversation that will illicit a response. (Questions about basic identifying information are exempted (e.g., name, date of birth, social security, etc.).)

    As for whether someone is actually under arrest for Miranda purposes, believe it or not, it is not always clear. What is clear, from your fact pattern, is that this individual is most certainly not under arrest or in custody. Miranda warnings are not applicable here.

    It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway: He should stop talking to the police.
    +1
    and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

    Regards

    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 04-10-2015 at 04:41 PM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    What about demanding a written statement and yes, I told them never talk to the cops and gave them Users letter
    They can demand all they want. Written, verbal, sign language, doesn't matter. The analysis stays the same. Without a custodial interrogation, Miranda doesn't apply.

    (Although, if you were to parse the officer's exact wording, I would bet $20 that the actual wording was in the form of a question or a request.)
    An attorney. Not your attorney.

    www.robertherronlaw.com

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    +1
    and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

    Regards

    CCJ
    In this specific situation, the signature—or lack thereof—is almost meaningless. The content of his statements, verbal and written, will be used against him, regardless of whether he signs anything.

    Edit: I agree with your statement. Sorry if my reply implied otherwise.
    Last edited by ArmedBarrister; 04-10-2015 at 04:50 PM.
    An attorney. Not your attorney.

    www.robertherronlaw.com

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    +1
    and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

    Regards

    CCJ
    I expect you know the case joe and he was charged with animal cruelty which was dismissed because of no evidence and also charged with reckless handling because they thought the house 150 yards to the right of the range was too close. That was continued for a year to be dismissed on good behavior.

    Another simular case in the same area.
    Last edited by peter nap; 04-10-2015 at 04:56 PM.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    I expect you know the case joe and he was charged with animal cruelty which was dismissed because of no evidence and also charged with reckless handling because they thought the house 150 yards to the right of the range was too close. That was continued for a year to be dismissed on good behavior.

    Another simular case in the same area.
    But what does the law actually say? http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...+cod+15.2-1209 Would not the county need to designate such areas by either proclamation or recorded vote?

    In the alternative http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...+cod+18.2-56.1

    § 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting.

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

    A1. Any person who handles any firearm in a manner so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life and causes the serious bodily injury of another person resulting in permanent and significant physical impairment is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
    ....
    They can claim to have had thoughts, but quite apparently those were feelings.

    Is it worth fighting? Without proof that the shooting was in a direction that went outside the berm/backstop it shopuld be difficult to establish endangerment.

    Even though now they have a sword hanging over his head they can cut loose for any reason. Even though the charge will NOT be dismissed with prejudice?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member FBrinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Henrico, VA
    Posts
    284
    I would look into the connection of the LEO and the hunt club, which I am sure is already being done. FOIA already requested for the call made to LEA? or is it already known how this was originally called in?

    I have not looked at all the local firearms ordinances for this particular county but just from the DGIF website one ordinance stood out:

    42. It shall be unlawful to use a rifle of a
    caliber larger than .22 rimfire except
    that groundhogs may be hunted with a
    rifle of a caliber largerthan .22 rimfire
    between March 1 and August 31.

    I'm not sure if the person who was charged used a rifle or pistol and I can't remember if he even mentioned it.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by FBrinson View Post
    I would look into the connection of the LEO and the hunt club, which I am sure is already being done. FOIA already requested for the call made to LEA? or is it already known how this was originally called in?

    I have not looked at all the local firearms ordinances for this particular county but just from the DGIF website one ordinance stood out:

    42. It shall be unlawful to use a rifle of a
    caliber larger than .22 rimfire except
    that groundhogs may be hunted with a
    rifle of a caliber largerthan .22 rimfire
    between March 1 and August 31.

    I'm not sure if the person who was charged used a rifle or pistol and I can't remember if he even mentioned it.
    Those are hunting Regs FB. He was target shooting. What he was using was perfectly legal.
    And yes, I'm looking into the initial call.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    +1
    and let me add that one should never sign any document that may implicate one in a future criminal or civil litigation.

    Regards

    CCJ
    Moreover, when it comes to police asking questions about yourself, why sign any document at all? There can be no benefit to you, only risk. Cop wants me to sign a document, the answer is no.

    Just today, I was told by an acquaintance how years ago his bank account was breached, so he closed the account. A large check he did not remember when the bank employee showed him his ledger while "helping" him determine whether the bank could close the account bounced. The police stuck a business card in his door saying there was a problem in his neighborhood, and would he please call them. Civic-minded, and totally unaware of the bounced check, he called. They asked if he would come to the station, just a couple blocks away. Sure, why not? So, he went. You already guessed it. They arrested him. And, then because the store to which he had written the check was in another jurisdiction, he was extradited, ultimately going through weeks of headaches to get back his property used to secure bond, and longer to get his record expunged. Cops can be sneaky. There is no possible benefit to you to signing something the police want signed, only risk (unless you are a witness to another situation. I am talking about situations where the cops seem to be asking questions about you, or its unclear who their target is.)

    Just tell the demanding cop that you'll run it by your attorney, and if he approves, you'll sign it make sure it gets back to the cop by Tuesday.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Moreover, when it comes to police asking questions about yourself, why sign any document at all? There can be no benefit to you, only risk. Cop wants me to sign a document, the answer is no.

    Just today, I was told by an acquaintance how years ago his bank account was breached, so he closed the account. A large check he did not remember when the bank employee showed him his ledger while "helping" him determine whether the bank could close the account bounced. The police stuck a business card in his door saying there was a problem in his neighborhood, and would he please call them. Civic-minded, and totally unaware of the bounced check, he called. They asked if he would come to the station, just a couple blocks away. Sure, why not? So, he went. You already guessed it. They arrested him. And, then because the store to which he had written the check was in another jurisdiction, he was extradited, ultimately going through weeks of headaches to get back his property used to secure bond, and longer to get his record expunged. Cops can be sneaky. There is no possible benefit to you to signing something the police want signed, only risk (unless you are a witness to another situation. I am talking about situations where the cops seem to be asking questions about you, or its unclear who their target is.)

    Just tell the demanding cop that you'll run it by your attorney, and if he approves, you'll sign it make sure it gets back to the cop by Tuesday.
    Indeed, by stating to not sign the document, I was being nice, The real answer is hand the document back to the leo and tell him/her to go wipe their ass with it...
    Regards.
    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    I/we/you dont need no fjcking Miranda warning to know how to just Keep your big mouth shut!

    Ill be damd if I would write any document, much less sign one!

    Call Your Lawyer!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Indeed, by stating to not sign the document, I was being nice, The real answer is hand the document back to the leo and tell him/her to go wipe their ass with it...
    Regards.
    CCJ
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Suggest filing for an injunction to make hunt club & their dogs stay off the property.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Suggest filing for an injunction to make hunt club & their dogs stay off the property.
    Its been tried in a few areas Dan, and as far as I know always ends up with a consent decree because of the expense and the fact that there are few lawyers capable of or willing to go the extra mile in research.

    Unfortunately for the world there is only one User.

    This is a short piece of a 4 and a half hour interview. I'm keeping the identities of all the people on both sides out of it til I finish all my interviews.


Posting Permissions

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