• 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.

Can someone help answer my questions????

sloesgirl

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
2
Location
Stafford, ,
imported post

I am hoping that someone can help me. First, I am a female so please don't bash me too much:D

My husband openly carries in VA everyday. He was working on Sunday and had to travel into Mayland to estimate a few jobs. He put his handgun under his seat. He took off his seatbelt to get his money for the toll. When he took it off he got pulled over for not wearing his seatbelt.

The Balitmore Transportation Authority asked him why he was shaking so bad. My husband informed the officer that he has a medical condition causing trimmers, and has medical doctumention of this. The officer said it made him nervous, so he placed him under arrest.

Once handcuffed and standing at the police car,another officer started searchingthe truck after my husband informed them they can't. While officer "A" was searching the truck, officer "B" asked if there was anything in there. At that point my husband stated he had a gun. So, I guess my question is, Are they allowed to search the vechial after they place him under arrest? If not what do I do from here??

He has to go back on the 28th of this month for the firarm charge. My husband is very knowlegeable when it come to this stuff, (Although, he is an idiot for taking it into MD, when he knows better) but I want a little more insite.

BTW...He does have a voice recorder. The recording came out pretty crappy though. We also have a lawyer, so i am looking for additional view points to disscus with him.

Thank you for your help.:)
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
imported post

Get a pro-2nd attorney. Heck, any attorney worth his salt should be able to get all but the seatbelt charge thrown out.

Violation of 4th amendment rights for starters.

However, after he denied them permission to search the vehicle he should have kept his mouth shut. Nothing good ever comes from talking to a police officer once you have been arrested.
 

VCDL President

Centurion
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
600
Location
Midlothian, Virginia, USA
imported post

Admitting that he had that gun was a bad move. Lying would not be good, either. It would have been smarter to simply not reply.

If you are not within reach of your vehicle, they can't search it - a 4th amendment violation. However, when he said he had a gun, that gave them probable cause to do that search look for the contraband based on a statement by the suspect and I'll bet that is going to be a problem for your husband.

Get a good lawyer.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

sloesgirl wrote:
I am hoping that someone can help me. First, I am a female so please don't bash me too much:D

My husband openly carries in VA everyday. He was working on Sunday and had to travel into Mayland to estimate a few jobs. He put his handgun under his seat. He took off his seatbelt to get his money for the toll. When he took it off he got pulled over for not wearing his seatbelt.

The Balitmore Transportation Authority asked him why he was shaking so bad. My husband informed the officer that he has a medical condition causing trimmers, and has medical doctumention of this. The officer said it made him nervous, so he placed him under arrest.

Once handcuffed and standing at the police car,another officer started searchingthe truck after my husband informed them they can't. While officer "A" was searching the truck, officer "B" asked if there was anything in there. At that point my husband stated he had a gun. So, I guess my question is, Are they allowed to search the vechial after they place him under arrest? If not what do I do from here??

He has to go back on the 28th of this month for the firarm charge. My husband is very knowlegeable when it come to this stuff, (Although, he is an idiot for taking it into MD, when he knows better) but I want a little more insite.

BTW...He does have a voice recorder. The recording came out pretty crappy though. We also have a lawyer, so i am looking for additional view points to disscus with him.

Thank you for your help.:)

There's some details missing, so I'm going to make a few guesses.

If he was shaking badly, more than likely the officer handcuffed him not because he was under arrest, but because he was under investigatory detention. There is a difference. If they believed that he may have been on something, that may have caused the search.

If he was in fact under arrest (for what I'm not sure at this point) then they can do a search of the vehicle for inventory purposes.

Either way, there's alot of details missing. Can't call it just yet....
 

Jonesy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
416
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
imported post

It seems to me that if his being put in handcuffs is an investigatory detention, and they started searching the vehicle before he mentioned the gun, then the search should be illegal, and fruits of the search should be inadmissable. The state may try to argue that his admission came before the gun was found, assuming that is what happened. Not sure how that would turn out.

If his being put in handcuffs was an arrest, then you can argue the arrest is illegal, and thus the subsequent search is illegal. Further if he was arrested and not read Miranda rights, then can argue his statement re the gun is inadmissable.
 

ufcfanvt

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

Good luck to him and you.
Isn't recording unbeknownst to the 2nd party in Maryland illegal?
Maryland is a two-party-consent state. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.Code Ann. Sec. 10-402 (1980)
 

peter nap

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

ufcfanvt wrote:
Good luck to him and you.
Isn't recording unbeknownst to the 2nd party in Maryland illegal?
Maryland is a two-party-consent state. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.Code Ann. Sec. 10-402 (1980)
Best of luck to your husband!

I agree with ufcanvt. Mary Land is a lot different than Virginia and I don't know anything about their law.

I think we have a MD forum and they may be the best ones to talk to. Please keep us updated.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

didn't the supreme court make a new determination about searches incident to arrest? seems to me if this guy was in cuffs standing by the police car, there was no officer safety issue to allow the vehicle search. Of course, answering the question with stating that there was a gun in the car may sink him.
 

GWRedDragon

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
252
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:
Of course, answering the question with stating that there was a gun in the car may sink him.
That was my thought. Though, in reality, he only did it because he knew they were already conducting an illegal search...
 

ufcfanvt

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

Yep. Two-Party State. Actually read it:
(3) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.

http://law.justia.com/maryland/codes/gcj/10-402.html
 

NinjaRider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
22
Location
Louisa, Virginia, USA
imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:
didn't the supreme court make a new determination about searches incident to arrest? seems to me if this guy was in cuffs standing by the police car, there was no officer safety issue to allow the vehicle search. Of course, answering the question with stating that there was a gun in the car may sink him.


Yes, you are correct. http://www.flexyourrights.org/gant_ruling

The Supreme Court ruled[...] in Arizona v. Gant that vehicle searches following an arrest are legal only if the suspect has access to the vehicle or if officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence related to that arrest. In other words, police are now required to have an actual reason to justify the vehicle search, instead of being allowed to do it automatically.


However, answering the cop's question was not the brightest thing to do. You never, NEVER talk to the Police. You can only lose. Better to keep your mouth firmly shut and wait until the court date.

If you ever think that talking to the Police may be a good idea, watch the video on the following link until you get that silly idea out of your head:

http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/

Oh, did I mention to NEVER talk to the Police?
 

peter nap

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

NinjaRider wrote:
DKSuddeth wrote:
didn't the supreme court make a new determination about searches incident to arrest? seems to me if this guy was in cuffs standing by the police car, there was no officer safety issue to allow the vehicle search. Of course, answering the question with stating that there was a gun in the car may sink him.


Yes, you are correct. http://www.flexyourrights.org/gant_ruling

The Supreme Court ruled[...] in Arizona v. Gant that vehicle searches following an arrest are legal only if the suspect has access to the vehicle or if officers reasonably believe the vehicle contains evidence related to that arrest. In other words, police are now required to have an actual reason to justify the vehicle search, instead of being allowed to do it automatically.


However, answering the cop's question was not the brightest thing to do. You never, NEVER talk to the Police. You can only lose. Better to keep your mouth firmly shut and wait until the court date.

If you ever think that talking to the Police may be a good idea, watch the video on the following link until you get that silly idea out of your head:

http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/

Oh, did I mention to NEVER talk to the Police?

But BUT....the police are your friends. They only want to help!:shock:
 

taurusfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
307
Location
Richmond, ,
imported post

Traveling to Maryland a few weeks ago I took off my GLOCK and had it in a bag in the car figuring the bitches can't search my bag? I haven't been pulled over by a cop since 1983 anyway. Good to know about the seat belt law.

Maryland sucks.
 

sloesgirl

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
2
Location
Stafford, ,
imported post

Thank you everyone for the wonderful advise and helping me better understand the laws and how things work.

Looks like we can't use the voice recorder oh, well. Nothing I can do about that.

I will update everyone after court on the 28th.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

sloesgirl wrote:
Thank you everyone for the wonderful advise and helping me better understand the laws and how things work.

Looks like we can't use the voice recorder oh, well. Nothing I can do about that.

I will update everyone after court on the 28th.
I would definitely tell your lawyer that you have a recording, and try to transcribe it the best you can.

I don't know all the details or the penalties for everything involved in this case, but if an illegal recording can save you from a bogus felony firearms charge, it may be well worth it. Ha, well if they admit it... maybe they won't allow it in court if it was illegally made...

Your lawyer should know all these answers.

TFred
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

TFred wrote:
sloesgirl wrote:
Thank you everyone for the wonderful advise and helping me better understand the laws and how things work.

Looks like we can't use the voice recorder oh, well. Nothing I can do about that.

I will update everyone after court on the 28th.
I would definitely tell your lawyer that you have a recording, and try to transcribe it the best you can.

I don't know all the details or the penalties for everything involved in this case, but if an illegal recording can save you from a bogus felony firearms charge, it may be well worth it. Ha, well if they admit it... maybe they won't allow it in court if it was illegally made...

Your lawyer should know all these answers.

TFred


The flip side is that they drop another charge in his pocket for recording them.
 
Top