• 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.

FOIA request denied by Fairfax PD

sjhipple

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

Recently, my wife and I were stopped by an officer of the FFX PD (I was issued a warrning for an improper turn, but that's neither here nor there). After being stopped, I and my wife put our hands on our heads and informed him that we had a loaded gun on the dashboard. He ran the serial #'s, issued me a warning and that was it.

I filed a FOIA requesting three things: the incident report (I was told there isn't one), any audio/video recording of the incident, any radio chatter relating to the incident.I received this reponse today.


"The case involved an investigation of a traffic violation, i.e. Improper Turn. Pursuant to Virginia Code Ann. Section 2.2-3706(F)(1), Law (sic) enforcement agencies may exclude the relase of complaints, memoranda, correspondence, case files or reports, witness statements and evidence relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution."

It is signed by Ryan W. Morgan, Sergeant, inspections division of the internal affairs bureau.


There are multiple reasons I don't think this section applies, but I'd like some input from anyone who's done this before, while I look over the law. I'll need to file a writ of mandamus to get the records.
 

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Is there a criminal investigation or prosecution pending?

Sounds like the typical"form letter"blowoff to me. They think you will give up now.
 

SicSemperTyrannis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
537
Location
Henrico County ,
imported post

There is very unlikely to be any written incident report - especially for the investigation of a minor traffic infraction, where a summons wasn't even issued. I was surprised that there was no incident report or any other form of written notes during my unlawful detention, search, etc a couple years back. But officers can't be bothered to write reports for every citizen encounter, or that is all they would do all day long.

That's not to say that you shouldn't be able to receive other materials. There should be a dispatch log of some sort for the stop, for example.... I was able to receive the dispatch log relating to my stop, among other materials. It was all provided very quickly, and for free. Not sure why Fairfax is being less helpful than usual in this case.... there may be a story there.
 

LEO 229

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

Interesting code section. I had no idea it existed.

What did you hope to gain from the information you requested anyway?

You were actually lucky that you received a warning ticket for your traffic violation.

This is the only documentation that would have been done anyway. Running the serial number on your gun has no documentation and I doubt there would have been any radio traffic you would find interesting.

How do you know he ran it anyway?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

It was my understanding that in VA a minor traffic violation is not a criminal matter, but a civil matter.

Whether it is or isn't, I'm not sure what you would do with the exact information you requested. I'm not saying I think you are wrong for requesting it; I'm saying that upon quick inspection, I can't see how one would use it,nor itsvalue.

Its important to understand that exempting criminal investigation information is a two-edged sword. While it can be annoying when you want info on yourself, it also protects you from other people getting information pertaining to yourself. And it protects all of us from criminals evading prosecution by getting information on current investigations into themselves. Heck, if it were otherwise, a drug dealer could just whistle up any info to see if the police are even investigating him at all. I am not saying this is a properly exercised exemption in your case. I'm just giving perspective.

Research the VAFOIA. Also you can check with the VA Coalition for Open Government and the VA FOI Commission. Both have websites.
 

caltain

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
122
Location
Northern Virginia, , USA
imported post

The cop was just fishing with the serial number thing. Did he have a reason to think that the gun was stolen? I agree that there's probably not any more documentation. The serial was run on his MDT if at all, and the citation/warning IS the incident report. Unless he decided to charge you with something not a part of the motor vehicle codes, that's all there is.

Welcome to Terry stop land. Once you committed the improper turn, he had grounds to detain you and check the serial if he wanted.

Like the rest, I'm curious what you're after and why. It doesn't sound like you were mistreated or had your rights violated. Did he keep the gun or something stupid like that?

Dan
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

caltain wrote:
SNIP 1. Welcome to Terry stop land. Once you committed the improper turn, he had grounds to detain you and check the serial if he wanted.

2. It doesn't sound like you were mistreated or had your rights violated. Did he keep the gun or something stupid like that?

Dan
1. Cite, please, for the clause thatan officer has grounds to check the serial number if he wantsincircumstances similar to the OP.

2. Itcould be counter-productive for the OP to reveal his thinking if he had his rights violated andis planning a complaint or lawsuit. Fairfax County PD monitors this website regularly.

I recommend that if the OP wants detailed advice, he send PMs to members he trusts or consult an attorney. Rather than reveal more details of the incident here.
 

LEO 229

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

Citizen wrote:
caltain wrote:
SNIP 1. Welcome to Terry stop land. Once you committed the improper turn, he had grounds to detain you and check the serial if he wanted.

2. It doesn't sound like you were mistreated or had your rights violated. Did he keep the gun or something stupid like that?

Dan
1. Cite, please, for the clause thatan officer has grounds to check the serial number if he wantsincircumstances similar to the OP.

2. Itcould be counter-productive for the OP to reveal his thinking if he had his rights violated andis planning a complaint or lawsuit. Fairfax County PD monitors this website regularly.

I recommend that if the OP wants detailed advice, he send PMs to members he trusts or consult an attorney. Rather than reveal more details of the incident here.
He never mentioned ANYTHING about his rights being violated and it does not appear to be the case as this was a valid stop and the temporary removal of his firearm is permitted.

He clearly posted "FOIA Denied" and not "Rights Violated"in the thread header. So I do not believe this is a rights matter.

His request has already been declined and I do not foresee the officer tearing up his notes from getting a tip that someone is requesting information. I doubt the officer documented that he violated the driver's rights.If the officer was looking to "jack" him.... he would have received a real ticket.

It seems that he was on as much of a fishing expedition as the officer. :uhoh:
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
He never mentioned ANYTHING about his rights being violated and it does not appear to be the case as this was a valid stop and the temporary removal of his firearm is permitted.
Only if the officer has a reasonable beliefe that he/they were not just armed, but also "presently dangerous."
 

LEO 229

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

Mike wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
He never mentioned ANYTHING about his rights being violated and it does not appear to be the case as this was a valid stop and the temporary removal of his firearm is permitted.
Only if the officer has a reasonable beliefe that he/they were not just armed, but also "presently dangerous."

Check out Terry v. Ohio ;)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 392 U. S. 24.


In Terry.... it identifies that the police need to have something to believe the person is armed and then they can remove his weapon.

But inthis case...the person is obviously armed. I don't know of any case law that the person needs to be "presently dangerous" first before you disarm them.If you are presently a danger.... your are probablypointing a gun and would be shot on the spot.

The guy in the below video had a gun too. He was not an "immediate" danger or even a danger as the officer approached. He did not even shoot immediately as is commonplace.

He waited a little bit and then decidedto pull his gunand use it. He was a mad man armed with a gun butthe officer had no idea he was a huge threat!!!

What if the officer saw the gun on the dash and allowed the driverto keep it during the stop? After the guy gets all pissed that he is getting a ticket he readies his gun and shoots the cop in the face on his return.

Or even better.... while the officer is in his car writing the ticket and about to find out the car is stolen.... the motorist runs back and shoots the cop with that same gun.

[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/FJRnCVbyUpU&hl=en[/flash]
 

ufcfanvt

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
431
Location
NoVA, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Mike wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
He never mentioned ANYTHING about his rights being violated and it does not appear to be the case as this was a valid stop and the temporary removal of his firearm is permitted.
Only if the officer has a reasonable beliefe that he/they were not just armed, but also "presently dangerous."

Check out Terry v. Ohio ;)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/1/

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 392 U. S. 24.


In Terry.... it identifies that the police need to have something to believe the person is armed and then they can remove his weapon.

But inthis case...the person is obviously armed. I don't know of any case law that the person needs to be "presently dangerous" first before you disarm them.If you are presently a danger.... your are probablypointing a gun and would be shot on the spot.

The guy in the below video had a gun too. He was not an "immediate" danger or even a danger as the officer approached. He did not even shoot immediately as is commonplace.

He waited a little bit and then decidedto pull his gunand use it. He was a mad man armed with a gun butthe officer had no idea he was a huge threat!!!

What if the officer saw the gun on the dash and allowed the driverto keep it during the stop? After the guy gets all pissed that he is getting a ticket he readies his gun and shoots the cop in the face on his return.

Or even better.... while the officer is in his car writing the ticket and about to find out the car is stolen.... the motorist runs back and shoots the cop with that same gun.
What if the officer rightly disarmed the couple and had a human conversation with them and issued the ticket/warning, then return the gun without resorting to sticking his nose where it doesn't belong by checking the serial #?
I'm conceeding that he might have justification to disarm, esp since the OP acted strangely with his weapon, IMO.
I can't see, in this case, why the officer NEEDS to run a check on the number. This isn't very American. Can you offer some clarification?
 

LEO 229

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

ufcfanvt wrote:
What if the officer rightly disarmed the couple and had a human conversation with them and issued the ticket/warning, then return the gun without resorting to sticking his nose where it doesn't belong by checking the serial #?
I'm conceeding that he might have justification to disarm, esp since the OP acted strangely with his weapon, IMO.
I can't see, in this case, why the officer NEEDS to run a check on the number. This isn't very American. Can you offer some clarification?
I am still waiting to here how the OP actually knows the SN was checked. I have taken guns to my car and NOT checked the SN.

I do not think it is necessary to run itunless the guy is a known thief...
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
I don't know of any case law that the person needs to be "presently dangerous" first before you disarm them.If you are presently a danger.... your are probablypointing a gun and would be shot on the spot.
Well, how about Terry itself?
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
 

LEO 229

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

apjonas wrote:
Well, how about Terry itself?
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
What exactly is your question? This is a traffic stop that deals with disarming a motorist during the stop.

Let's shift over to a lesser known ruling... Michigan v Long where the officer can search the passenger area of the vehicle to check for weapons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_1032_ZS.html

"Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them."


[line]

If you want proof that motorists shoot cops with guns they have in their car... watch the following video.


[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/MEpUtoUzE4U&hl=en[/flash]
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

You were doing OK until now 229. I think the officer had the right to secure the weapon during the stop although it's a little anal considering they freely admitted to having a legally carried gun. Most crazed killers don't do that.

I don't think he had the right to run the serial number assuming he did.

But what does the video have to do with anything. Sure cops get shot, so do shopkeepers, housewives, cab drivers, etc.

Playing the "It's a jungle out there" card gets a little annoying after a while.
 

LEO 229

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

peter nap wrote:
You were doing OK until now 229. I think the officer had the right to secure the weapon during the stop although it's a little anal considering they freely admitted to having a legally carried gun. Most crazed killers don't do that.

I don't think he had the right to run the serial number assuming he did.

But what does the video have to do with anything. Sure cops get shot, so do shopkeepers, housewives, cab drivers, etc.

Playing the "It's a jungle out there" card gets a little annoying after a while.
Sorry you feel that way. I am just accustomed to having to back up anything I say here so don't hate me... hate those that demand I prove and cite everything said. :lol:
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
peter nap wrote: don't hate me... hate those that demand I prove and cite everything said. :lol:
Hate is like diesel fuel. I don't use it unless the trip's worth it:lol:
 

LEO 229

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

peter nap wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
peter nap wrote: don't hate me... hate those that demand I prove and cite everything said. :lol:
Hate is like diesel fuel. I don't use it unless the trip's worth it:lol:
I hear ya.... ;)
 
Top