BGPD Unlawful Detention

imported post

Ok me and a buddy headed out this morning to run a few errands which included going to the local firearms dealer to pick up my new lower for my AR project.:celebrate The dealer who is a friend of mine asked me to bring the upper with me so he could see how the project was going. So we headed that way with a few stops in between one of them being the Taco Bell on Scottsville Road for a bite to eat. The upper was sitting in the seat by itself. the person at the window jokingly said "Y'allgoing to kill somebody" :banghead::banghead::banghead: (I hate when people make stupid irrational comments like that). We replied that no its harmless, considering it was just the upper assembly. We didn't think anything of it. and went on our way. We get down Scottsville Road about a mile and a BGPD Cruiser pulls in behind us. We were doing 5 under the speed limit. we figured we were about to be pulled over because, he passed the car behind us to get in behind us. So we flip the turn signal on to turn in and pull over which at that point he turned on the lights. So we pulled into a parking lot (later turned out to be a banks parking lot, not the best choice lol.) So at that point the officer gets out and yells to my friend the driver to put his hands out the window and another officer comes up to my side of the vehicle and ask for my ID (which I didn't feel like arguing today had stuff that needed to get done.) SoI said I did and he then asked if there were any weapons in the vehicle whichI stated there was my sidearm in the glove box, and it was loaded. He then told me to get out of the vehicle. which I did. At that point he said for "HIS SAFETY" he was going to detain me and I was then placed in handcuffs, searched without my consent, and read my Miranda rights. :cuss:at which point my first question was "what amI being charged with?" the reply wasthat I was not under arrest but being restrained for "MY and THEIR SAFETY" (Another interesting thing was the driver my friend was not placed in handcuffs but was still searched without consent). They then proceeded to search the vehicle without consent. We were placed in the back of squad cars there were 2 officers and one supervisor there three (3) total. They then took all of our information and released us. I was informed that we were stopped for pointing a rifle out the window of the vehicle and yelling which we never did anybody in this area knows that it was a rainy, chilly day.We had the windows up and were never yelling at any point. We are both planning on filing a complaint with the BGPD ASST Chief Professional Standards Division and Deputy Chief Field Operations Bureau. Want to know what everybody else thinks of this.

Helms, Thomas S
PFC
1/149th BSTB
U.S. Army

imported post

In Amerika's rapid descent into a totalitarian police state, your story is all too common. Yes, what happened is a violation of your constitutionally guaranteed rights, but the courts are, more and more, making excuses/exceptions for such police behavior.
Hope you can actually find an "honest" attorney who shares our principles/beliefs.
Keep us posted.

imported post

The cops may not be at fault, they were probably just following through on a complaint by another motorist. Peoplelie and make false accusations against others because there is no penalty. It happened to you, it happened to me last month, it happens everyday.

imported post

What an utter horse squeeze situation. I would file an FOIA for the 911 call and other matters to find out if that was really what was called in.

imported post

I would just go right up to the police station, drop my drawers, shit in my hand, and whip it at the first officer who came outside. God, I love being an asshole!

imported post

File FOIA, complain to supervisors, make life difficult enough so they will think twice about doing it again. . . They restrained your freedom, they abridged your rights they took your time. I'd work hard at doing the same for them.

Isn't deterrance a good enough reason to educate someone?





I took my neighbor to court once and lost the case. He grinned and said smugly "I won, ha!"

I grinned back and said......
"I got the state to prosecute with your tax dollars - you had to hire a lawyer.
I'm self-employed and set my own hours, - you had to take a day off from work.
I had dinner at home last night, - you had to take off your belt and spend a couple hours in the local jail and post bail.
I could keep 'losing' like this for years and years before I got discouraged."


I haven't had nearly the same trouble from them since,...and I "lost".

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

The cops may not be at fault, they were probably just following through on a complaint by another motorist. Peoplelie and make false accusations against others because there is no penalty. It happened to you, it happened to me last month, it happens everyday.

Click to expand...

United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994) (holding that radio call alerting police to presence of two people in vehicle with guns did not provide reasonable suspicion because possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime).





Quote:

Agreed, the sight of the Dudleys' truck, overloaded with goods and converted into a camper, together with a report of guns is somewhat odd; but some mere “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’, id., without more, is simply not enough to justify an investigatory stop.” In short, the Government failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, based on articulable facts, justified this seizure. And, if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v. Long authorize the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the officers reasonably fear for their safety.
(emphasis added).





Quote:

. . . investigatory Terry-stop. To justify this conduct the officers must have had a “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts” that the Dudleys were engaged in criminal activity. Martin's impetus to investigate the Dudleys was a radio call alerting him to the presence of two people at the truckstop in possession of some guns. Of course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these criteria. In fact he testified he had absolutely no knowledge, or suspicion, that the Dudleys were engaged in any criminal activity until he discovered the first sawed-off shotgun. A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in “suspicious” activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of crime.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

What an utter horse squeeze situation. I would file an FOIA for the 911 call and other matters to find out if that was really what was called in.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This sounds like the case in Dickson City, PA.

imported post

I would like to know the outcome of this is PFC Helm did file a complaint