CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
Big thanks to smn for finding the case for me... I had all but given up. Apparently FindLaw has reduced their database to only show cases from 2000 on. (Or they just changed the search functions and I'm too stupid to figure it out... which is the more likely situation.)
I decided to make this a new thread so the case is at the top of the thread, rather than buried 3 pages deep on the US v Ubiles thread. (PDF attached)
For those with a short attention span, I'll summarize the case here:
The Dudleys broke down at a truck stop in Indiana while travelling through the state. With permission from the management, they set up camp in their truck while trying to repair it. To raise funds, they were selling off some of their belongings. Someone called police to report they saw guns in the couple's truck.
Three officers responded, but the first officer approached alone. Officer Martin questioned the couple. Mr. Dudley produced two pellet rifles from the back of the truck. Dissatisfied, Martin proceeded to further question Dudley and proceeded to walk to the open driver's door to the truck.
About this time, Officer Lamb arrived. He found Mrs. Dudley holding a pellet rifle at the rear of the truck while Martin & Dudley were at the front. He proceeded to reach for his gun and order her to drop the weapon. She complied, and was ordered to sit on the ground.
Meanwhile, at the front of the truck, Martin continued to question Dudley. At some point, he simultaneously reached through the open truck door, held Dudley away with one arm, pulled the driver seat forward, and contemporously asked for permission to search. (Of course, Martin contends he was granted permission first, but the court found his testimony to be unreliable for several reasons, including: inconsistancies between his testimony and the dispatch log about the original call, his testimony that he had called for backup, and the fact that Lamb "curiously" didn't testify to corroborate the story.) Behind the seat, Martin found a sawwed-off 12-guage shotgun. Reaching through the rear window (into the camper shell), he retrieved a ammo belt containing 20-guage shells, among other ammo. (Martin claimed the shotgun was partially visible, but the defense proved that would have been impossible considering the layout of the seat and speaker box behind the seat. The court decided that the gun must then have been concealed from plain view.)
About this time, Officer Carmichael arrived. Lamb placed Dudley under arrest for possession of a short-barrelled shotgun. The officers then pressed Mrs Dudley to tell them where the other shotgun was (correctly deducing the existance of one by the ammo possessed). After some interrogation, she admitted there was another gun. (The officers testified that they allowed Mrs Dudley to enter the camper shell in order to retrieve the loaded shotgun. Mrs Dudley claims Carmichael entered the camper and retrieved the shotgun. The court didn't beleive officers would allow a suspect to retrieve the gun, so Mrs Dudley's version was believed. This is significant in that it is another warrantless search.) The second sawwed-off shotgun was confiscated, and Mrs Dudley was then arrested.
The officers went on to perform an impound vehicle inventory. The court noted that the officers all admit to not noting any of the items, let alone having pen & paper handy to inventory the items. So, they were just doing some curious rummaging. (They did make a video record of the possessions the next day at the impound lot.) During this rummaging, they came across 3 pipe bombs.
Oh, and did I mention the Dudleys are both convicted felons? So they shouldn't have even had any gun in the first place...
The court held that the initial contact was not consentual, and was not legal, as there was no reason to suspect the subjects were involved in criminal activity simply by having firearms in their vehicle. The court further held that since the initial contact did not meet the standards set forth in Terry & Michigan v Long, all the evidence had to be supressed.
The court makes a point of noting that even if the Dudleys had consented to a search, the mere show of force/authority by the officers would have invalidated the search. Essentially, if the initial contact is illegal, even otherwise lawfully gathered evidence may be supressed.
Big thanks to smn for finding the case for me... I had all but given up. Apparently FindLaw has reduced their database to only show cases from 2000 on. (Or they just changed the search functions and I'm too stupid to figure it out... which is the more likely situation.)
I decided to make this a new thread so the case is at the top of the thread, rather than buried 3 pages deep on the US v Ubiles thread. (PDF attached)
For those with a short attention span, I'll summarize the case here:
The Dudleys broke down at a truck stop in Indiana while travelling through the state. With permission from the management, they set up camp in their truck while trying to repair it. To raise funds, they were selling off some of their belongings. Someone called police to report they saw guns in the couple's truck.
Three officers responded, but the first officer approached alone. Officer Martin questioned the couple. Mr. Dudley produced two pellet rifles from the back of the truck. Dissatisfied, Martin proceeded to further question Dudley and proceeded to walk to the open driver's door to the truck.
About this time, Officer Lamb arrived. He found Mrs. Dudley holding a pellet rifle at the rear of the truck while Martin & Dudley were at the front. He proceeded to reach for his gun and order her to drop the weapon. She complied, and was ordered to sit on the ground.
Meanwhile, at the front of the truck, Martin continued to question Dudley. At some point, he simultaneously reached through the open truck door, held Dudley away with one arm, pulled the driver seat forward, and contemporously asked for permission to search. (Of course, Martin contends he was granted permission first, but the court found his testimony to be unreliable for several reasons, including: inconsistancies between his testimony and the dispatch log about the original call, his testimony that he had called for backup, and the fact that Lamb "curiously" didn't testify to corroborate the story.) Behind the seat, Martin found a sawwed-off 12-guage shotgun. Reaching through the rear window (into the camper shell), he retrieved a ammo belt containing 20-guage shells, among other ammo. (Martin claimed the shotgun was partially visible, but the defense proved that would have been impossible considering the layout of the seat and speaker box behind the seat. The court decided that the gun must then have been concealed from plain view.)
About this time, Officer Carmichael arrived. Lamb placed Dudley under arrest for possession of a short-barrelled shotgun. The officers then pressed Mrs Dudley to tell them where the other shotgun was (correctly deducing the existance of one by the ammo possessed). After some interrogation, she admitted there was another gun. (The officers testified that they allowed Mrs Dudley to enter the camper shell in order to retrieve the loaded shotgun. Mrs Dudley claims Carmichael entered the camper and retrieved the shotgun. The court didn't beleive officers would allow a suspect to retrieve the gun, so Mrs Dudley's version was believed. This is significant in that it is another warrantless search.) The second sawwed-off shotgun was confiscated, and Mrs Dudley was then arrested.
The officers went on to perform an impound vehicle inventory. The court noted that the officers all admit to not noting any of the items, let alone having pen & paper handy to inventory the items. So, they were just doing some curious rummaging. (They did make a video record of the possessions the next day at the impound lot.) During this rummaging, they came across 3 pipe bombs.
Oh, and did I mention the Dudleys are both convicted felons? So they shouldn't have even had any gun in the first place...
The court held that the initial contact was not consentual, and was not legal, as there was no reason to suspect the subjects were involved in criminal activity simply by having firearms in their vehicle. The court further held that since the initial contact did not meet the standards set forth in Terry & Michigan v Long, all the evidence had to be supressed.
The court makes a point of noting that even if the Dudleys had consented to a search, the mere show of force/authority by the officers would have invalidated the search. Essentially, if the initial contact is illegal, even otherwise lawfully gathered evidence may be supressed.
