• 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.

20 yo friend pulled over... gun taken.

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

leprechaun117 wrote:
A asks for the gun to run the serial number (!!!)
"sargent" says friend can't be detained, but the gun has to be seized for further investigation.
friend is told most likely the gun will be melted down and he will be charged with illegal posession of a firearm.
Unbelievable!!! He was stopped for an expired tag. Where is the probable cause to suspect the gun is part of a crime? What is the justification for even running the serial number, let alone the confiscation? After getting the number, they could quickly determine it wasn't stolen, so what is the justification for "further investigation"?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I agree with others that he needs to contact the chief immediately and demand some answers and an aoplogy. Failing that, contacting VCDL might be in order.
 

roscoe13

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Catlett, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
kurtmax_0 wrote:
How can illegally seizing a firearm, even by a police officer, not be theft?

I mean, does that mean if an officer kills somebody because he didn't like his face it's not murder... since he was a police officer?
Not exactly... There is no true intent to permanently deprive you of the item.

Not wanting to go off topic... I will try to create a situation when this can happen...

It is 1AM and I find you walking down the road with6 car stereos in your hands that appear to have been torn from the dashboards of cars. They are not new in the box and you do not live in the area. You cannot tell me where you got them and have no sales slip.

I cannot possibly check the hundreds of cars on the streets as this will take hours. I do not have any known victims yet because everyone is sleeping. Isuspect you have stolen property in your possession. Do I let you leave with evidence?

I know.. many people will argue.. no crime.. not reason to stop.

I can seize the property based on the circumstances. I am going to hold them till the peoplecan check their cars in the morning and discover a missing stereo.

It is not a theft to seize the items from you. I suspect you have committed a crime and willbecollecting what I believe will turn out to be stolen property.

If nobody calls the next morning... you can have your stuff back.

Circumstances will obviously be different during the day since the theft of car stereos normally do not happen in daylight.

So I believe the cops need more time to check and see if the possession of the handgun violates any laws.

If they allow you to leave with the gun and find it was a felony.... you now have the evidence in YOUR control and they cannot charge you since... they no longer have the evidence they would need in court.

I hope this helps in understanding.
You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been commited. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
kurtmax_0 wrote:
How can illegally seizing a firearm, even by a police officer, not be theft?

I mean, does that mean if an officer kills somebody because he didn't like his face it's not murder... since he was a police officer?
Not exactly... There is no true intent to permanently deprive you of the item.

Not wanting to go off topic... I will try to create a situation when this can happen...

It is 1AM and I find you walking down the road with6 car stereos in your hands that appear to have been torn from the dashboards of cars. They are not new in the box and you do not live in the area. You cannot tell me where you got them and have no sales slip.

I cannot possibly check the hundreds of cars on the streets as this will take hours. I do not have any known victims yet because everyone is sleeping. Isuspect you have stolen property in your possession. Do I let you leave with evidence?

I know.. many people will argue.. no crime.. not reason to stop.

I can seize the property based on the circumstances. I am going to hold them till the peoplecan check their cars in the morning and discover a missing stereo.

It is not a theft to seize the items from you. I suspect you have committed a crime and willbecollecting what I believe will turn out to be stolen property.

If nobody calls the next morning... you can have your stuff back.

Circumstances will obviously be different during the day since the theft of car stereos normally do not happen in daylight.

So I believe the cops need more time to check and see if the possession of the handgun violates any laws.

If they allow you to leave with the gun and find it was a felony.... you now have the evidence in YOUR control and they cannot charge you since... they no longer have the evidence they would need in court.

I hope this helps in understanding.

Ok...

For example...this is the VERY reason I get a "sales" reciept when I buy a Gun on the Private Market so that I can PROVE when I got the Gun in case there is an investigation of a serial # that matches the Gun I bought so that I will NOT be charged for anything due to that I can now PROVE when I did or did not have the gun.

At this very time it cannot be Proven when the Officer took the Gun. It could now be use during an (cough) "undercover OP" and kill somebody and guess who would be wearing a new set of Beautiful Bracelet, courtesy of the PD. NOT the Cop but the Legal Citizen who was taken away his Leagally owned Firearm due to a Lazy A$$ cop that had to run for a Donut run and cuold not resolve the issue right then and there.

I consider the Cop/ANY Copa thief due to any Civilian would be considered a thief without a reciept.
 

smccomas

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
235
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.

I see your point and understand the logic. Dont agree but I understand.

This is my perspective.I am responsible for my firearm, I am responsible for every round that leaves its barrel I am responsible for how it is used. The way I would look at it ismy firearm would then be in the possesion of indivdualsI do not know andI may or may not have anyway to prove that they took it.

Am I supposed to just assume that these clowns are notgoing to do something illegal with it. Its my firearm the rounds in it have my prints.If I am assumed guilty until proven innocent then I assume they are guilty until proven innocent.
 

smccomas

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
235
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.
Here let me put it another way.... LEO 229can I hold you service weapon just for a few hoursI promise I will give it back trust me ;)
 

roscoe13

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Catlett, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.
How can they believe a crime was being committed and not know what it was? As I stated above, by your (faulty) logic, a cop could sieze anything, from any one, at any time...
 

BIG SHAFE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
91
Location
Hilliard, OH, , USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Not exactly... There is no true intent to permanently deprive you of the item.

Not wanting to go off topic... I will try to create a situation when this can happen...

It is 1AM and I find you walking down the road with6 car stereos in your hands that appear to have been torn from the dashboards of cars. They are not new in the box and you do not live in the area. You cannot tell me where you got them and have no sales slip.

I cannot possibly check the hundreds of cars on the streets as this will take hours. I do not have any known victims yet because everyone is sleeping. Isuspect you have stolen property in your possession. Do I let you leave with evidence?


So time of day is cause for supsicion?

Why would you automatically assume he stole them and not assume that he owns a junk yard or multiple cars?

If you can legally do this, who is to say that you couldn't do/say the same for someones clothes/shoes/glasses/etc. that is on their person?

Why are car stereos more reason for suspicion than clothes/etc.?

Do I need a reciept for everything on me/that I carry?

Why wouldn't you confiscate everything from anyone in case it is possible evidence?
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

I like the way this Post is going Boys. Now we are getting down to the letter of the Law and not the PERSONAL opinoins of Cops that they should have left as soon as they "clock" in.

LEO give us some codes to dig into. PLEASE
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

smccomas wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.
Here let me put it another way.... LEO 229can I hold you service weapon just for a few hoursI promise I will give it back trust me ;)
ROTFLMAO:lol::celebrate
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.

Then the person should also be taken into custody!

I would have said, "Darn, I'm only a couple of blocks from home I'll have to go get another one for the time being until you return the one you took".
 

leprechaun117

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
283
Location
Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
imported post

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply... Access to a capable computer isn't easy to come by in a Mercedes shop.

My friend has zero criminal/traffic history, not one ticket, warning, court date... nothing.

Turns out it is not the Albemarle county police, it is actually the University of Virginia police. I'll be going down the the station when I get off work to retrieve his property.

I don't know how he thought he had justification to run the SN... I would not have allowed him to do so had I been in that situation. I just spoke to my buddy and he tells me he was held at gunpoint for 10 minutes while they secured the gun. :cuss:
 

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,559
Location
Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:
leprechaun117 wrote:
A asks for the gun to run the serial number (!!!)
"sargent" says friend can't be detained, but the gun has to be seized for further investigation.
friend is told most likely the gun will be melted down and he will be charged with illegal posession of a firearm.
Unbelievable!!! He was stopped for an expired tag. Where is the probable cause to suspect the gun is part of a crime? What is the justification for even running the serial number, let alone the confiscation? After getting the number, they could quickly determine it wasn't stolen, so what is the justification for "further investigation"?
You stole my thunder! ;)

These repeated stories of police running serial numbers, without any reasonable suspicion that the gun my be stolen, sicken me.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

smccomas wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.

I see your point and understand the logic. Dont agree but I understand.

This is my perspective.I am responsible for my firearm, I am responsible for every round that leaves its barrel I am responsible for how it is used. The way I would look at it ismy firearm would then be in the possesion of indivdualsI do not know andI may or may not have anyway to prove that they took it.

Am I supposed to just assume that these clowns are notgoing to do something illegal with it. Its my firearm the rounds in it have my prints.If I am assumed guilty until proven innocent then I assume they are guilty until proven innocent.
I do not recall any cases where this has happened. And if it did.... you have a cop to refer to if your gun was used in a crime after being taken. They can interview him and put him on the box.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

smccomas wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
roscoe13 wrote:

You're comparing apples to oranges again. In the car stereos the only thing in question is whether or not the suspect did something that's clearly illegal. In the case of the seized gun, they siezed it just in case there might be something about what the driver did that might be illegal, when they have NO articuable reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. By your logic, the police could sieze anything, from anyone, at any time just to see if there's some crime they can think up associated with that item.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse for cops...
You have missed the point.....

They believe a crime was being committed but could not find the proper charge. They will need some time to actually locate it.. (They are not aware that it does not exist)

You are not leaving with the possible evidence!!!

I hope the short version is easier for you to understand.
Here let me put it another way.... LEO 229can I hold you service weapon just for a few hoursI promise I will give it back trust me ;)
If I hand it to you and you do not give it back..... it is a civil matter. I would have to take you to court to get it back. I voluntarily gave it to you... no theft there. :lol:
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Contrary to popular belief.. I do NOT always side with the men in blue.. :lol:

woohoo.gif
clap2.gif
highfive.gif


Nice to see :)



It seems to me that the victim's first mistake was consenting to them running his SN...although in the big scheme, it probably wouldn't have changed much.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

roscoe13 wrote:
How can they believe a crime was being committed and not know what it was? As I stated above, by your (faulty) logic, a cop could sieze anything, from any one, at any time...

In my opinion..... they may have believed it was a crime to have a gun under the age of 21. They did the right thing in NOT arresting him till they could locate the charge first.

They did not want to hold him any longer than necessary and chose to look up the code section later when they had more time. Sometimes it is not easy to find it out on the street. The Internet makes searches so much faster.

So..... until they can prove it one way or the other... They MUST take the evidence with them to support their case they are trying to build against him.

True... the police could seize ANYTHING. But this does not happen that often.

Here is one for ya'......

Your stoppedfor a broken tail light and the police observe $40,000 in $10 and $20 bills in a laundry bag in your back seat.

Can they seize it?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Contrary to popular belief.. I do NOT always side with the men in blue.. :lol:
woohoo.gif
clap2.gif
highfive.gif


Nice to see :)

It seems to me that the victim's first mistake was consenting to them running his SN...although in the big scheme, it probably wouldn't have changed much.
They would have taken it anyway and ran it. It was just a nice way of saying. "Give me that gun!!"
 
Top