Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Man arrested in Lodi - 9 guns seized

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    While these would seem to be particular heinous crimes for which he is "suspected" of commiting, under what Ca. law may the LE "seize" his guns before any determination?

    http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/ne...133001/290658/

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    While these would seem to be particular heinous crimes for which he is "suspected" of commiting, under what Ca. law may the LE "seize" his guns before any determination?

    http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/ne...133001/290658/

    Yata hey
    The law that the government can do whatever it wants and the citizens have to just bend over and take it. Remember, this is CA; the Constitution does not apply.

    If the guy is held on or without bail, what's the point? Either way, his wife should get to keep however many she wants, sell those she doesn't, and someone needs to take her to BLM for some training on how to use them if he gets out and tries to kill her.



  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    Guess that I have been living in Va. so long that I forget that others have a greater struggle than we have here.

    I need to get out more and read more of what is happening (or not) in your state. :?

    Yata hey


    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    California is definately on the forefront of the fight for gun rights, more so than most states.

    I'm guessing that a temporary restraining order issued at the time of the incident, which (I could be mistaken) could be issued by the police making a call to a judge for one at the time of the incident. Maybe I'm talking out of my ass on that, I couldn't find an exact cite for it, but I seem to recall there is a way to get one issued on the spot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...fender_Gun_Ban



  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    While these would seem to be particular heinous crimes for which he is "suspected" of commiting, under what Ca. law may the LE "seize" his guns before any determination?

    http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/ne...133001/290658/

    Yata hey
    Here's the law that "allows" this:

    California Penal Code 12028.5(b)
    Code:
    A sheriff, undersheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy 
    marshal, or police officer of a city, as defined in subdivision (a) 
    of Section 830.1, a peace officer of the Department of the California 
    Highway Patrol, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 830.2, a 
    member of the University of California Police Department, as defined 
    in subdivision (b) of Section 830.2, an officer listed in Section 
    830.6 while acting in the course and scope of his or her employment 
    as a peace officer, a member of a California State University Police 
    Department, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 830.2, a peace 
    officer of the Department of Parks and Recreation, as defined in 
    subdivision (f) of Section 830.2, a peace officer, as defined in 
    subdivision (d) of Section 830.31, a peace officer, as defined in 
    subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 830.32, and a peace officer, as 
    defined in Section 830.5, who is at the scene of a domestic violence 
    incident involving a threat to human life or a physical assault, 
    shall take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in 
    plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful 
    search as necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other 
    persons present. Upon taking custody of a firearm or other deadly 
    weapon, the officer shall give the owner or person who possessed the 
    firearm a receipt. The receipt shall describe the firearm or other 
    deadly weapon and list any identification or serial number on the 
    firearm. The receipt shall indicate where the firearm or other deadly 
    weapon can be recovered, the time limit for recovery as required by 
    this section, and the date after which the owner or possessor can 
    recover the firearm or other deadly weapon. No firearm or other 
    deadly weapon shall be held less than 48 hours. Except as provided in 
    subdivision (f), if a firearm or other deadly weapon is not retained 
    for use as evidence related to criminal charges brought as a result 
    of the domestic violence incident or is not retained because it was 
    illegally possessed, the firearm or other deadly weapon shall be made 
    available to the owner or person who was in lawful possession 48 
    hours after the seizure or as soon thereafter as possible, but no 
    later than five business days after the owner or person who was in 
    lawful possession demonstrates compliance with Section 12021.3. In 
    any civil action or proceeding for the return of firearms or 
    ammunition or other deadly weapon seized by any state or local law 
    enforcement agency and not returned within five business days 
    following the initial seizure, except as provided in subdivision (d), 
    the court shall allow reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing 
    party[/quote]
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Forum wouldn't let me format my above post, so I'll comment here...

    The gist of 12028.5(b) is: When investigating domestic violence, any LEO acting in his official capacity may confiscate firearms or other deadly weapons found during legal searches if necessary for the safety of the alleged victim and/or officers.

    OK, so an intelligent person would ask, "was it necessary for their safety?" Well, that's up to the court/jury to decide... if the accused bothers wasting time/money challenging the seizure. And if (s)he did try, I'd bet "the accused could post bail the same night and go home and murder the victim with that gun" would be enough to convince the jury.

    Also, once a firearm is seized, even wrongfully, one has to usually get a letter from the DA or judge declaring it is not needed for evidence. One also has to pass DOJ screening before the weapon can be returned. The LEGR (Law Enforcement Gun Release) fee is $20+ (depending on the types and number of firearms).

    ETA: It looks like AB 532 passed with flying colors, so as soon as the new law goes into effect, merely being detained/investigated for domestic violence is grounds for issuance of a warrant to search/seize all firearms believed to be possessed or under the person's control.

    FYI, this only makes things slightly worse than they already are, since currently they can "request" surrender of all firearms owned by the suspect if a EPRO (Emergency Protective Restraining Order) is issued. To the best of my knowledge (direct experience and research) an EPRO can be issued via phone by a judge, and the suspect can be verbally 'served' if the paperwork is not immediately available.

    So, in reality AB 532 only would allow them to search for unregistered weapons, plus get a free look inside your house for anything else illegal.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Forum wouldn't let me format my above post, so I'll comment here...

    The gist of 12028.5(b) is: When investigating domestic violence, any LEO acting in his official capacity may confiscate firearms or other deadly weapons found during legal searches if necessary for the safety of the alleged victim and/or officers.

    OK, so an intelligent person would ask, "was it necessary for their safety?" Well, that's up to the court/jury to decide... if the accused bothers wasting time/money challenging the seizure. And if (s)he did try, I'd bet "the accused could post bail the same night and go home and murder the victim with that gun" would be enough to convince the jury.

    Also, once a firearm is seized, even wrongfully, one has to usually get a letter from the DA or judge declaring it is not needed for evidence. One also has to pass DOJ screening before the weapon can be returned. The LEGR (Law Enforcement Gun Release) fee is $20+ (depending on the types and number of firearms).

    ETA: It looks like AB 532 passed with flying colors, so as soon as the new law goes into effect, merely being detained/investigated for domestic violence is grounds for issuance of a warrant to search/seize all firearms believed to be possessed or under the person's control.

    FYI, this only makes things slightly worse than they already are, since currently they can "request" surrender of all firearms owned by the suspect if a EPRO (Emergency Protective Restraining Order) is issued. To the best of my knowledge (direct experience and research) an EPRO can be issued via phone by a judge, and the suspect can be verbally 'served' if the paperwork is not immediately available.

    So, in reality AB 532 only would allow them to search for unregistered weapons, plus get a free look inside your house for anything else illegal.
    Thank you - that is what I was seeking.

    While I don't think that a domestic violence suspect would make a good test case, there would seem to be some constitutional issues here.

    Also I seriously doubt that they seized all knives, household chemicals, rope, screw drivers, pillows & other deadly weapons.

    A person can make an unsubstantiated charge, the responding LEO can verbally (not in person) request a warrant, verbally be granted one by a magistrate, verbally serve it on a suspect, and seize all deadly weapons at the LEO's discretion - all without due process (IMO).

    When a woman accuses a man of domestic violence, he is pretty much screwed anyway - guilty until proven innocent.

    Please note that nothing above is intended as a defense for domestic violence of this accused if the events occurred as reported. This lady is very lucky to have escaped.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    A person can make an unsubstantiated charge, the responding LEO can verbally (not in person) request a warrant, verbally be granted one by a magistrate, verbally serve it on a suspect, and seize all deadly weapons at the LEO's discretion - all without due process (IMO).

    When a woman accuses a man of domestic violence, he is pretty much screwed anyway - guilty until proven innocent.

    This doesn't sound like an "unsubstantiated charge."

    I wonder what the incidence of is of MTF domestic violence, actual events vs. reported?



    Calif. man allegedly held wife captive for almost 2 years

    ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: September 4, 2009

    LODI, Calif. -- A California corrections worker is under arrest for allegedly abusing his wife while holding her captive in their home for nearly two years.

    The ordeal ended yesterday when police arrived at the home in Lodi in response to a 911 call. The 44-year-old woman ran toward one of the police cars and tried to jump through an open passenger window.

    She told authorities that her husband, Michael O'Riley, had sexually abused her, threatened her and denied her food and money for nearly 22 months.

    O'Riley, a counselor at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center, has been arrested on suspicion of kidnapping, false imprisonment, sex crimes and terrorist threats, among other charges. Police say they also seized nine firearms from him.


    ETA:

    Lodi inmate counselor charged with five felonies relating to alleged abuse of wife
    By Layla Bohm
    News-Sentinel Staff Writer

    Saturday, September 5, 2009


    A Lodi correctional counselor and firearms instructor was charged Friday with five felonies relating to the alleged abuse of the woman he married in China four years ago.

    Michael Patrick O'Riley, 60, is being held on $950,000 bail. Police who arrested him also seized more than $20,000 in cash and 12 firearms.

    His 44-year-old wife allegedly told police that O'Riley had threatened to kill her and had abused her for the past 22 months, since she moved from China to the United States.

    The case brought television cameras to town, with initial stories about the woman being held captive for two years at her home in the 300 block of West Lodi Avenue. Police, however, said they found nothing in the home that showed she was physically held against her will, and that she had no visible injuries. Prosecutors did not file false imprisonment charges.

    In the past two weeks, police have been called 10 times to the home. Four of those calls were for disturbances, with the woman saying they were only "arguing," Cpl. Dale Eubanks said. In the six other calls, the woman was home alone and did not report any abuse, Eubanks said.

    O'Riley's arrest stunned long-time neighbors, who said they never suspected anything was wrong, and that his nicely-dressed wife never appeared to be under duress.

    When police arrived at the home Thursday afternoon, though, officers said the woman was sobbing, feared for her life and tried to jump into a police car window to escape.

    Lodi police ultimately arrested O'Riley at gunpoint, initially seized nine firearms and also seized more than $20,000 in cash, which police said they found on him, said Sgt. Fernando Martinez. On Friday, investigators seized three more guns and a computer from the home.

    O'Riley has been employed for more than 18 years as an inmate counselor at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove. He was placed on paid administrative leave after his arrest, said Sacramento County Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran.

    O'Riley had previously worked as an Alameda police officer, Lodi Police Cpl. Dale Eubanks said.

    Police were sent Thursday afternoon to the couple's home, after receiving a 9-1-1 call. The line was open but nobody was talking, so dispatchers sent two patrol cars to check the home.

    The home is located in a business section of town, next to a beauty shop. O'Riley's firearms instructor business card is taped to the front of the business, and white paper covers the inside of the windows. City zoning in that area allows both homes and businesses.

    O'Riley has lived in the rear portion of the building for more than 10 years, according to employees next door. City records show his business license has been valid since January 1997.

    Officer Heather Metcalf arrived first on Thursday and drove into an alley behind the house, where she saw a woman outside.

    "She was standing in the alley and was just streaming tears. When she saw me, she just charged at me," Metcalf said.

    "I've seen a lot of scared people, but I've never seen anyone that terrified," the officer said.

    Metcalf's windows were down in her patrol car — her usual practice so she can hear more things — and the woman tried to open the locked passenger door, then tried climbing through the window.

    "I said, 'Slow down, what's going on?' She said, 'My husband's going to kill me. He has guns. He's putting them in his truck,'" Metcalf said.

    Then Metcalf heard something, looked up and saw a man exiting the home, carrying several long gun cases.

    "He had way more guns than I have," Metcalf said.

    The officer, still in her car, drew her gun and unlocked the passenger door so the frantic woman could get inside. Metcalf drove in reverse down the alley to get some distance from the man with guns, then stepped partially out of the car and drew her gun on the man.

    A backup officer had arrived by then, also drew his gun, and ordered the man to stop and put his hands up. The man, later identified by police as O'Riley, initially kept walking toward his truck but ultimately stopped and was detained without incident.

    O'Riley apparently met the woman online, and he traveled to China four times to meet her, police said. The two married in China four years ago, O'Riley returned to the U.S., and the woman moved here 22 months ago, according to Lodi police. They do not have children together.

    The woman told police that O'Riley had left Tuesday night and said he wasn't returning. Then he returned Thursday and made comments that made the woman fear for her life, police said.

    Employees at Image Hair and Facial Studio, next to O'Riley's door, were stunned by the allegations.

    "They look like a happy couple," said Mary Coker, who said she never saw any signs of abuse. "We don't know what happened inside, but outside he was just as cordial as could be."

    She said O'Riley would head to work and his wife would walk toward Downtown, sometimes with friends. When his wife first moved to Lodi, he introduced her to the women at the salon.

    "They seemed really happy all the time," said beautician Judi Ito. "I would think, since we're Asian, she would have come to us and asked for help."

    O'Riley's wife was taken to an undisclosed location for her own safety, police said, and she was listed only as "Jane Doe" in court files. Judge Bob McNatt signed a criminal protective order Friday barring O'Riley from having any contact with the woman.

    O'Riley retained Stockton attorney Roger Moore, who was unavailable for comment Friday, and had another attorney fill in for him during the brief arraignment.

    O'Riley, who in court expressed concern Friday about medication for his high blood pressure, is being held in the San Joaquin County Jail in French Camp. He is charged with one count of making criminal threats, two counts of sexual penetration by force and two counts of forced oral copulation, all felonies.

    Though O'Riley apparently publicizes himself as a firearms instructor, no such license could be found on the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services' Web site. Calls to the agency were not returned Friday, which was an unpaid furlough day for state employees.

    Curran said O'Riley does not carry a gun at work, and that his job duties do not include firearm training.

    A phone number listed for O'Riley's business, called Monterey Peninsula Institute For Defense, had been disconnected.

    http://www.lodinews.com/articles/200...e_090905.txtXC`



  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    ...Also I seriously doubt that they seized all knives, household chemicals, rope, screw drivers, pillows & other deadly weapons...
    Your point is dead right (pardon the pun). Houses are full of items that can be used as lethal weapons. Besides that, it's actually easier to buy a gun on the street than legally in CA. So, if the suspect is really determined, they'll just do it.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    The gist of 12028.5(b) is: When investigating domestic violence, any LEO acting in his official capacity may confiscate firearms or other deadly weapons found during legal searches if necessary for the safety of the alleged victim and/or officers.
    This would appear to violate the Second Amendment (if incorporated against state power) because laws depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm." United States v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590, 602 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Same result in United States v. Kennedy, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1231 (W.D. Wash. 2008).

  11. #11
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Besides that, it's actually easier to buy a gun on the street than legally in CA.

    This assertion seems questionable to me. Can you support it? How do you know it would be "easier?"

    For example, I'm looking for a GLOCK 20SF and/or a GLOCK 29SF. Are you saying that if I went to California that I would be "easier"to buy one of these "on the street" than in some gun store or pawn shop?

    Would it be cheaper for me buy a handgun "in the street" than in a store?Or would it cost more than a store?









  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Besides that, it's actually easier to buy a gun on the street than legally in CA.

    This assertion seems questionable to me. Can you support it? How do you know it would be "easier?"

    For example, I'm looking for a GLOCK 20SF and/or a GLOCK 29SF. Are you saying that if I went to California that I would be "easier"to buy one of these "on the street" than in some gun store or pawn shop?

    Would it be cheaper for me buy a handgun "in the street" than in a store?Or would it cost more than a store?







    It doesn't take 10 days between finding a gun "on the street" and taking possession of it, and praying that those who want to kill you will wait that long.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    ETA:

    Lodi inmate counselor charged with five felonies relating to alleged abuse of wife
    By Layla Bohm
    News-Sentinel Staff Writer

    Saturday, September 5, 2009


    A Lodi correctional counselor and firearms instructor was charged Friday with five felonies relating to the alleged abuse of the woman he married in China four years ago.

    Michael Patrick O'Riley, 60, is being held on $950,000 bail. Police who arrested him also seized more than $20,000 in cash and 12 firearms.

    <SNIP>
    Lodi police ultimately arrested O'Riley at gunpoint, initially seized nine firearms and also seized more than $20,000 in cash, which police said they found on him, said Sgt. Fernando Martinez. On Friday, investigators seized three more guns and a computer from the home.

    OK. I think I follow the reasoning (not that I agree with it) for LEO discretion for seizing his guns, but where is the justification for seizing $20,000 cash?
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    ETA:

    Lodi inmate counselor charged with five felonies relating to alleged abuse of wife
    By Layla Bohm
    News-Sentinel Staff Writer

    Saturday, September 5, 2009


    A Lodi correctional counselor and firearms instructor was charged Friday with five felonies relating to the alleged abuse of the woman he married in China four years ago.

    Michael Patrick O'Riley, 60, is being held on $950,000 bail. Police who arrested him also seized more than $20,000 in cash and 12 firearms.

    <SNIP>
    Lodi police ultimately arrested O'Riley at gunpoint, initially seized nine firearms and also seized more than $20,000 in cash, which police said they found on him, said Sgt. Fernando Martinez. On Friday, investigators seized three more guns and a computer from the home.

    OK. I think I follow the reasoning (not that I agree with it) for LEO discretion for seizing his guns, but where is the justification for seizing $20,000 cash?
    So nobody can use it to pay for his bail bondsman?

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Besides that, it's actually easier to buy a gun on the street than legally in CA.
    This assertion seems questionable to me. Can you support it? How do you know it would be "easier?"

    For example, I'm looking for a GLOCK 20SF and/or a GLOCK 29SF. Are you saying that if I went to California that I would be "easier"to buy one of these "on the street" than in some gun store or pawn shop?

    Would it be cheaper for me buy a handgun "in the street" than in a store?Or would it cost more than a store?

    I guess I should qualify that with, "easier for anybody with some basic street connections."

    From my direct experience, I know a 14-yr-old who was able to replace his handgun within 24 hours of it being confiscated. (We arrested him about 10 times before we gave up, since the cops said it wasn't worth their time to do the paperwork.) Last I heard (about 8 years ago) handguns go for $250-500 on the street, depending mostly on how "clean" (used in crime yet or not) the gun is. This 14-yr-old probably made that in a day selling drugs.

    These guns are almost always stolen, so the person selling it doesn't care if the gun is a $1,000 piece, he just wants to get paid.

    As N6ATF points out, they also ignore the 10-day waiting period, background checks, and handgun registration requirements.

    Further, a wider variety of firearms are availabe, such as 'assault weapons'. LE frequently confiscate fully auto rifles from gang members, and not just the major cities. Since these weapons have to illegally imported (not just stolen in burglaries) they're a bit more expensive than they would be if they were legal in CA.

    (Of course I realize this is all anecdotal evidence. So, take it or leave it. It could be all news media hype and gang members talking a bigger game then they can bring.)
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •